Legislating trail use? Why House Bill 4610 is bad public policy

Lansing, Mich. — After nearly 7 hours of testimony over two committee hearings on House Bill 4610, a bill that would allow horseback riding on all backcountry state trailways – irrespective of locally tailored state land use management plans that were implemented by local stakeholder review processes – the House Committee on Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources reported the bill out of committee with nine “yes” votes, two “passes” and zero “no” votes on Tuesday, May 5, 2009.

Since 1937, Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) has supported and has always advocated for all forms of recreation on public lands to the extent that various uses do not conflict with hunting, fishing, trapping, and other outdoor pastimes. MUCC firmly believes in the practice of sound, scientific management of our natural resources combined with active consultation of various user groups in order to ensure everybody has a chance to enjoy Michigan’s great outdoors.

In order to accommodate the diverse array of outdoor recreation available in Michigan, narrowly-tailored management plans bolstered by science and peer review are essential. The primary reason MUCC is opposed to HB 4610 is because our organization does not believe the legislature should be in the business of legislating what constitutes proper trail use with one broad sweeping bill. HB 4610 was introduced with the goal of reversing a land use order issued for the Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRC) that re-directed horse riding trails to certain areas at the recommendation of a Concept of Management adopted by state regulators, submitted by the various user groups and stakeholders that make up the Pigeon River Advisory Council. Arguments have been made that the horse riding community was perhaps left out of the discussion that made up the management plan’s recommendation for trail use in the PRC – perhaps this argument is fair. MUCC certainly believes that all user groups deserve a place at the table. Even though the majority of the Pigeon River area was purchased with state funds generated by hunters and anglers, a good portion of the land was not, and the land is and should be open for all users.

The problem, however, is not with the Pigeon River area alone. HB 4610 would affect the entire state in preemptive fashion. Instead of following a scientifically and locally driven land use management process to ensure the diverse use of state land for recreational users, HB 4610 would disregard that process with one sweeping legislative mandate on trail use, which MUCC adamantly opposes. MUCC believes that a system of designated trails and routes, such as we have for ORVs and snowmobiles, is a fundamental way to curb natural resource damage and avoid user conflicts on public lands.

Secondly, MUCC is also concerned that HB 4610 would jeopardize nearly $25 million in federal resource management funding – money that came out of the pockets of Michigan’s hunting and fishing community -- as a result of inconsistent management uses on encumbered state land, as indicated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In order to fully understand the impact HB 4610 may have on Michigan’s receipt of federal Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson resource management funding (percentage of sales taxes paid on hunting and fishing equipment), once the bill was introduced MUCC made an independent request to the USFWS to supply information about how HB 4610 would impact Michigan. In a letter addressed to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources on Friday, April 24, the USFWS warned that Michigan would stand to lose roughly $25 million per year in federal funds as a result because horseback riding on certain trails in the PRC would constitute an “inconsistent use” for which state game and fish purchased lands were intended for. Regardless of the bureaucracy or administrative law behind the threat of losing federal funding, MUCC simply cannot support a bill that would jeopardize the diversion of $25 million in tax dollars paid by Michigan sportsmen to other states.

Lastly, there are alternative compromises that both horseback riders and the sportsmen community can and should agree on without legislating land use mandates and putting Michigan at risk of losing much-needed federal resource management funding. MUCC prefers a compromise that can benefit all users – perhaps restricting backcountry riding in the months of September through November where the potential for disrupting game and ruining a hunter’s experience is much greater. Perhaps there are similar landscapes that would be more attractive to horseback riders that are not complicated by fragments purchased with game and fish dollars.

Regardless, HB 4610 is bad public policy and MUCC is opposed to the legislation without more comprehensive efforts to an agreeable solution.

###