Hot Button Headlines

Last Minute Action to Amend HB 4684 Before Vote

March 20th, 2012

You may recall from last year our efforts to fight HB 4684 right in the middle of the fall hunting seasons. MUCC, its members, and conservation partners successfully delayed a vote on the bill at that time due to the concerns with the language as introduced, which would have put roughly $25 million dollars in Pittman-Robertson (PR) and Dingell-Johnson (DJ) funds in jeopardy (federal funding derived from taxes on hunting and sport fishing equipment and matched with hunting and fishing license fees).

This bill was again brought back for a vote this morning (Tuesday 3/20) by the House Natural Resources, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation Committee. MUCC and its partners again worked after hours with bill sponsor Rep. Greg MacMaster (R-Kewadin) and Committee Chairman Rep. Frank Foster (R-Petoskey), and committee members Rep. Wayne Schmidt (R-Traverse City), Rep. Peter Pettalia (R–Alpena), and Rep. Harold Haugh (D–Roseville) to develop amendments that will hopefully protect sportsmens’ dollars (a link to the amended bill is forthcoming).

The origination of this bill, and all the bills before it, is the desire of some horseback riders to see more access to the Pigeon River Country State Forest and a few State Game Areas, though this bill would apply to all state lands. The concern from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been whether state lands purchased or managed by federal PR-DJ or state Game and Fish dollars will continue to be used for their primary purpose, which is hunting, fishing, and habitat, and whether the DNR will continue to have authority to address any use conflicts.

The amendments have changed the bill to remove a reference to the USFWS Services Manual stating that use of trails and trail ways was an acceptable use for PR-DJ purchased land. The USFWS has continually stated that this section, which has been a part of previous drafts of the bill, was inappropriate and inaccurate.

Another amendment ensured that only “designated” trails and trail ways could be used for equestrian riders. This change hopes to clear up the issue that any trail out there on public land is open for use by anyone. The department maintains the authority to designate or not designate trails to manage for user conflicts and protect the natural resources.

The most significant amendment in terms of protecting PR-DJ funds struck out a requirement that the department base any trail closures on public land on a “biological assessment” that met the standards of USFWS. MUCC believes this language was misapplied from federal law and rules for allowing secondary uses (i.e. – trails) on PR-DJ land that required the DNR to conduct a biological assessment to ensure that the proposed secondary use would not impede on the primary purpose – hunting and fishing. According to USFWS, requiring the DNR to go through a process to regulate a secondary use was problematic because it would restrict the department’s ability to manage for the primary purpose. In other words, the goal of PR-DJ lands must be to provide for hunting and fishing with the ability to allow other limited recreational uses; not to allow all other uses along with hunting and fishing.

Outside of the legislative process, considerable progress has been made in the past six months to expand horseback use in the Pigeon River Country State Forest in areas where a use-conflict does not occur. These proposals have been well received by most equestrian groups and are only found to be inadequate for a few who are willing to put these federal funds at risk.

MUCC is now neutral on this amended bill as it moves to the House Floor for consideration, but will continue to follow this legislation very closely. We do think that continued action will be needed to ensure these amendments remain in the bill once it moves over to the Senate.

MUCC has and will continue to seek verification from the USFWS on any and all language associated with this and any legislation affecting land and activities governed by Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson, and Game and Fish funds.

  • OneMoreMile

    As a member of the Michigan Mountain Biking Associaiton, I am opposed to this bill.

    I would really appreciate MUCC’s member support in opposing it.

    I admit that the loss of federal funds is much less likely, but, there are still significant problems with the bill, and therefore the MMBA remains in opposition.

    Specifically, the bill is a problem in its current form for two reasons. 1) It contains a definition that elevates equestrians above all other user groups. This definition is as follows: “Pack and saddle trailways” means TRAILS and equine access locations that CURRENTLY ARE OR AT ANY TIME PREVIOUSLY WERE used by pack and saddle animals. 2) The bill would prevent the DNR Director from being the final decision-maker on trail usage. Instead, it shifts this responsibility to the Michigan Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council – a body that is not designed for such a task.

    MMBA is working on an amendment that would clarify that the DNR Director would continue to have the authority to restrict and segregate trail access by user group, provided that it was done in a manner which was fair and equitable for all user groups. Should this amendment be adopted, the MMBA would drop its opposition to the legislation.

    I will contact my rep and tell her that I am a MUCC member and MMBA member, and am opposed to this bill.

  • Dqhall1

    Appreciate your work and vigilance on this issue.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/VZL2DCT5HBPZBMET2KUZBKIBJQ Greg

    While I appreciate the mountain bikers perspective – please note that this is a work in progress which means that there will be many more revisions before it ever sees the governor’s desk. There never will be a perfect bill out of committee as you can’t please everyone. With the misconceptions that were communciated from various sources, it’s no wonder that there’s opposition. The DNR was opposed from the very start and many have come to their defense to show opposition as well. The mountain bikers can relax that their trails will not be shared by equestrians UNLESS they both agree – and judging how the mountain bikers feel about the equestrians….that won’t happen. I will say this: There is no one single recreational sport that carries more weight than any other in terms of crediting Michigan’s return to prosperity. It takes all forms of recreation to entice visitors to enjoy Michigan.

  • Tom Springer

    Here’s three realities that lay at the foundation of this bill and those like it in the future:

    1. The number of people who buy hunting licenses continues to drop dramatically (about 3 percent per year, as I recall). As soon as a decade from now, it may be hard to defend the use of some public lands as “Game” areas, when so many of the users aren’t interested in hunting. To save these places from a revenue-hungry state government that can longer afford to maintain them, we must build as large a constituency as possible — to include non-hunters — who will help keep them intact for future generations.

    2. If MUCC wants to survive after its largely over-60, white male membership passes on, then it needs to start buidling a diverse membership of younger people who practice the quiet sports of birding, kayaking, biking, hiking, etc. Despite some anti-hunters on the fringes, quiet sports-types do have much in common with hunters — there’s overlap among the groups. For MUCC to batten down the hatches and think it’s only allies are NRA-types is short sighted and demographically suicidal.

    3. It’s time to talk seriously about user fees, so that people who don’t buy hunting licenses pull their fair share. I don’t hunt, but am happy to buy a yearly sticker or whatever to use state land. Anyone who can buy a $500 kayak can do the same, even if they gripe about it. As hunting declines, we’ll need another source of beyond declining PR funds anyway.

    MUCC and its members have done an enormous amount of good for the cause of conservation. But a new day is coming, and to stay as relevant in 2025 as it was in 1975, we must build a larger tent that includes all people who care about preservation of Michigan’s wild places.

    • Darlene Alexander

      Tom, I totally agree…There are many users of the state lands that do not pay a user fee…Also users are being restricted more and more every day…Right now it’s equestrians but soon it will be others, because there are those who believe that NO ONE should be allowed into the forest because it should be kept as the Great Wild…The DNR continues to buy more and more lands and more and more restricts users, and they don’t have the funds to maintain and pay CO’S to patrol it…There is trash and garbage everywhere and no one to patrol that. We equestrians are trying to teach the Leave No Trace…We all need to start working together for each other so we can leave all this beautiful state land to our kids and grand kids…

  • Lwg1933

    When the equestrians start buying permits for their horses as I do for my ATV’s in order to ride on state-federal land, then ok, until then,no.

    • Tom Springer

      I agree fully — if you can afford a horse, truck, trailer and vet bills, then surely kicking in $25 or so for a user permit to help maintain trails sounds reasonable. On occasions, someone may have to pick up all that free fertiizer they leave behind.

    • cowboy357

      Be glad to buy a tag for my hosre….already buy “passport” tags for all my trucks and I also buy hunting, trapping and fishing licenses.
      Happy to share the campgrounds and no problem with designated trails….

    • Darlene Alexander

      The problem is , is that even if we pay the permits we will still be restricted…will not pay a fee for something I will not be able to use…If we could be assured that we will not be restricted I would be willing to pay a fee…What you people fail to see is that NO state has ever been ni diversion of the US fish and wildlife monies. all they have to do is be willing to include us in the plan and be willing to work with us on that plan. We also buy orv permits and licences to hunt and fish…I also buy the recreation passport..Equestrians are willing to work with the DNR but they have not been willing to work with us in the PRC…You guys do NOT know the whole story….It is STATE land bought and paid with ALL our monies…And Equestrians are part of that.Come to some of the meetings and see what is going on…

      • Sportsguy

        That is the common fallacy that it was paid for with ALL public money. Most of the PRC was paid for with hunter monies, both fees and taxes we have placed on ourselves, to be used for wildlife and wildlife related activities. I think most hunters are happy to share what they helped to conserve as long as our ability to be the primary use on that land is respected. The “whole story” does not begin when the trails were closed. The whole story begins in 1937 when sportsmen agreed to a landmark idea to tax themselves and use their game fees to protect their ability to hunt and fish.

        • Darlene Alexander

          but not all that land was purchased with Pitman Robertson…In fact most of it wasn’t…The Blue Lakes was bought with Trust Fund monies and we still are NOT allowed to even have 1 simple trail around the Blue Lakes…They just added another 500 acres along the Black River and another 2000 acres i believe to the west, which was bought with Trust Fund monies…So I am thinking there is about 200,000 acres there…With Pitman Robertson all the have to do is include equestrians in the plan…Many other state do and have no problem…Look at Ky, TN, Ill, Missouri, and many other states work well with their DNR and the forest service…It all boils down to the fact that they do not want to…I have been told right to my face “that horses should never be in the Pigeon”….It boils down to shear selfishness…It is a “pristine Big Wild” and they don’t want people there…much less horses…..

          • Darlene Alexander

            making a correction that’s a 100,000 acres not 200,000…sorry

  • Larry

    Thanks ….keep working for us.

  • Trail_Fanatic

    Sounds like the real problem is overly restrictive language in the PR and DJ legislation.

    • Sportsguy

      No, the real problem is that people do not know the history and reasons for PR and DJ, how it came to be, and where that money comes from. It is not public money or money from public taxes. It is from hunters and anglers, they are shouldering the burden for their own activities. We are happy to do it, too, as long as that money goes towards our causes and our activities. It is an investment in the future of hunting and angling. If you purchased some land and someone carved a trail through it and claimed a right to it, you’d be pretty upset too, and with good reason. Again, I’m sure most of us are happy to share, but, please, do it the right way.

  • Crossbow300

    Doesnt seem to address the problem of limited mobility

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tom-Stitt/1125559093 Tom Stitt

    As a year round resident of the Pigeon River State Forest, I have been following this issue for years. The Pigeon River Country Association started all this by closing horse campsites and restricting horseback riders to 1 trail and county rds. This group is out of control!!! They, quite frankly, oppose all use of the PR forest except for hunting, fishing and walk-in hiking.
    Horseback riding was a way of life up here since the British landed at Mackinaw City 300 years ago, without problems until the PRCA banned it. This is another restriction of State land that never made any sense, just to appease the few on the PRCA board who want no use of the PR forest.
    For example, I can take my 5th wheel camper down a 2 track and camp but I can’t take a horse. ????????

    Other user groups who use the PR forest should stick together with the horseback riders, because the PRCA board will come after your sport.

    Currently, the PRCA board is now in the process of banning hunting and fishing guides within the PR forest. MUCC members take note!!!!!

Click here to get the Hot Button Headlines Feed delivered to your RSS.