Mat we are glad that you think it is not a good thing that the DNR has done in the Pigeon River State forest. We have been riding horses in the Pigeon for years. We think it will hurt the area businesses.

We enjoy Gaylord, Indian River area very much. Beautiful area!!

Thanks so much Matt!  You are indeed a great citizen for stepping up to help us get this very important word out to the surrounding communities.  Their lives will surely be affected.  We have feet on the ground and they are telling us that there have been over 800 new cedar posts planted with no horses allowed signs attached.  How sad this is and what a shame to litter the forest in this manner. The horror stories are starting to come in like I predicted.  A family drove 5 hours from down state and upon arrival at Elk Hills Campground found that the 10 sites were filled- half were with horse rigs the other was with People Campers!  There was no place for them to park---they had to turn around and leave!  There should be a public outcry to all the officials.  Especially to Senator Jason Allen!  This is his district and he is the head of Tourism....Why hasn't he come out and taken a stand?  Doesn't he care about his people?  If he really cared he would be knocking doors down trying  to help get the answers that have been asked!!!!  If he talks the talk shouldn't he then WALK the WALK?

One other thing...we have asked Mindy Koch, Deputy Director of the DNR, to show us documented proof of all the alligations made against the horse people.  This was submitted to her a month ago.  As of today we still have no word.  If this is all true why then is it so hard to get straight forward truthful answers? Most are smoke and mirrors....usual scare tactics of the DNR.

I'm writing you with great dismay and frustration in the closing of 15 designated out camp sites in   Pigeon River along with most of the off road trails.  Our family has grown up enjoying the serene utter beauty of our Pigeon State Forest for over 20 years.  Horseback riding is one of the most relaxing and enjoyable recreation opportunities that our family can do together.  My young children chose Elk Hill as their favorite place to camp and ride with their Grandma and Grandpa.  They love the fact that they can see Elk and enjoy the serenity of the woods like our forefathers once did.  We sit at the campfire at night and hear the Elk bugle off in the distance and listen to the wipowils call.  Where else, besides out west can you do that?

We know that there is a strong push to remove all horses completely from the area and other areas.  We wonder why such a great family recreation opportunity would be restricted so much as to run them out.  Horses and Horseback riders have been here for hundreds of years.  We are, "as a user group" very respectful of the land.  The land is paid for by the taxpayers of this state!  We have the right to use it...respectfully.  We want to be sure it is around for generations to come! 

PLEASE! I urge you to advise your Legislators and Senators to rally behind us in this effort!    We need forests like the Pigeon to remain open to all user groups.  I am afraid that this is just the beginning for the horse trails across this state for closure. 

The DNR and PRC Council have pushed us off the trails, onto the roads which would create immense dangers!  We ride with the kids on the back of our horses on buddy seats.  Cars and trucks driving too fast on a bumpy dirt road do not mix with quiet meandering horseback riders.  We can ride the roads at home...   The horses love to be in the woods on the trails.   They know them better than the rider!   

We love the area and are sickened and saddened at the movement to encroach on such a great recreation area for our state!  I am writing every law maker I can, in hopes that the DNR and NRC as well as the PRCAC will hear out the Horseman and snowmobile groups in which they are greatly affecting. 

Our state needs tourism to stay here...in MI!  We have a beautiful state!  Please don't push the horses out to other states with our tourism dollars. We need to have a place that our children and grandchildren can have to love like  we do. 

 I hope and pray that taking a closer look at the issues and listening to the horsemen and women they will make the right decision in this matter affecting tens of thousand's of public land users in this state.

We are all united in seeing this through to the end.  Please listen to our concerns! 

Thank you. Stephanie

A VERY UPSET RESIDENT

Dear Representative Gillard, 

Would you please review the recent changes to the Concept of Management for the Pigeon River Country and explain why these changes are being made by the DNR?  I am also concerned about the changes proposed to the Black Mountain Recreational area. 

I am a taxpayer and a horse back rider. I am in favor of multiuse trails. I am in favor of bridle fees. I am a member of several horse riding clubs that have built and maintained the horse camp and trails in the PRC. 

I am a live long resident of Michigan. I firmly believe that horseback riding can be a source of tourism revenue.  Please do the research.  Look at the impact it has in Illinois and Ohio, not to mention Kentucky and Tennessee.  

The latest economic study shows that there are 155,000 horses in Michigan and there is $ 8 billion in primary revenues from this industry.  This doesn't include the support services like veterinarians, tack shops, truck sales, trailer sales, etc. 

There are studies that show horses are not a major carrier of invasive weeds and do not make an impact on elk, mule and deer.

www.californiastatehorsemen.com/enviro/pnw 2004 wisdom001.pdf  prepared by US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, La Grande, Oregon 

www.californiastatehorsemen.com/enviro/07 AERC Final Prt.pdf  prepared by Department of Forest ecology and Management, University of Wisconsin 

The most recent stewardship report from the NRC states that revenues from hunting and fishing are declining.  Why doesn't the DNR look at horseback riding as an alternative source of revenue?  

What is the reason for restricting horseback riding on state lands? 

Please use some of your resources to get the facts and obtain opinions from both sides to this issue.  

I have included an email sent to Mindy Koch, a  DNR Deputy Director. 

Thank you, Cindy

Subject: Information request for the PRC Concept of Management

 THIS LETTER WAS WRITTEN TO MS. KOCH--STILL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE!

Dear Ms. Koch, 

I am very interested in the recent changes to the Pigeon River Concept of Management.  Would you please provide the data used to determine the following statements?  A reply via e-mail is the easiest. 

 These statements are from the January 3, 2008 article on the DNR website. 

"We were getting a lot of complaints about different users and different events"   How many are a lot?  Please specify the different users and events. 

"the phenomenal growth of mountain biking and the increased popularity of horseback riding"  Please provide the data on the use by mountain bikers and horseback riders since the original Concept of Management was written. 

One of the guiding principles was to write a plan that provided management direction that was consistent with the funding sources used to purchase the land.  Please provide the reason for this guiding principle.  Is it a state mandate or law? 

"the integrity of the forest and the ability to hunt and fish have been compromised by the increase in other recreational uses"  Please provide the data used to support this statement. 

"Several large private tracts have been acquired by the state and added to the forest that was not covered under the original Concept of Management"  Please provide the sources and uses of all funds and how many acres were purchased with those funds.  In addition, please provide the sources and uses of funds for the current operations of the PRC. 

Please describe and provide data to show how horse back riding does not meet the recreational use criteria on page 23 under Recreation and Law Enforcement of the PRC. 

The activity or use should have low impact, leaving minimal footprint on the PRC.

                Please provide the data  you used  to show horseback riding violates this criteria. 

The activity should not be detrimental to sustaining wildlife populations.

                  Please provide the data  you used  to show horseback riding violates this criteria. 

The activity should not create noise that interrupts the solitude of the PRC.

                Please provide the data  you used  to show horseback riding violates this criteria. 

               The activity should not concentrate larger groups of people and /or vehicles.

                Please provide the data  you used  to show horseback riding violates this criteria. 

The activity should not create the likelihood of user conflicts. 

                Please provide the data  you used  to show horseback riding violates this criteria.               

The activity should not lead to more facilities and more infrastructures.

                Please provide the data  you used  to show horseback riding violates this criteria.                

The activity should not degrade or be inconsistent with the wild character of the PRC.

                Please provide the data  you used  to show horseback riding violates this criteria. 

The activity should be associated with experiencing the wild character of the PRC.

                Please provide the data  you used  to show horseback riding violates this criteria. 

Thank you, CYNTHIA

Subject: Equine Use at Pigeon River Country

Subject: House Committee on Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources

Representative Sheltrown, Chairman, House Committee on Tourism, Outdoor Recreation & Natural Resources   Re: May 13, 2008, Committee Hearing re Pigeon River Country State Forest Concept of Management Plan     I am writing as Chairman of the Legislative, Land Use & Environmental Committee of the Michigan Horse Council (MHC) regarding the recent reduction of equestrian access to the Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) lands.  I was a member of the PRCSF Work Group representing equestrians who were concerned with provisions in the Concept of Management Plan for the PRCSF approved by the Department of Natural Resources.  That Plan significantly reduced access by equestrians in the PRCSF.    By way of background: In 2005, a review and update of the Concept of Management was requested by the NRC since there had not been a thorough review and modifications to the Concept since 1973. The NRC appointed a 10-person Steering Committee to create a process to update the Concept of Management. Seven subcommittees were created under the Steering Committee, each representing a chapter of the Concept of Management.  They were represented by diverse interest groups and were charged with providing recommendations to the Steering Committee to modify the Concept of Management.  
 
Unfortunately, one major and fast-growing user group was not represented on either the 10-person Steering Committee appointed by the MDNR or on any of the 7 subcommittees.  There were no equestrians.  None at all.  Equestrian interests were, therefore, not seriously considered in the review and modifications to the Concept of Management Plan for the Pigeon River Country State Forest.
 
The MHC did not know anything about the changes proposed to the Concept of Management Plan until November 2007, too late to have meaningful input into the Plan. When word finally got out, there was a barrage of objections filed, the majority by equestrians, and the DNR decided to establish a Work Group to provide additional comments related to cycle and equestrian uses. This Work Group consisted of representatives from the equestrian and mountain bike users groups (3 each), the PRC Advisory Council, the PRC Association, hunting, fishing and trapping user groups, Resource Stewards, and the DNR. It met twice at the Pigeon. My understanding of the problem related to horses is that for about three weeks in the fall, during the elk rutting season in mid-September/early October, there is a major influx of equestrians who ride out and about to view this spectacle. During the rest of the year, the number of equestrians riding in the Pigeon is not a problem.
 
As a result of the Work Group meetings, the Plan now includes three new loops for equestrians out of the Elk Hill Campground, and, while better than nothing, it's about the only concession that was made to equestrians. Rejected was the suggestion to keep most service roads open to equestrians, even though no real justification was given for closing them to horses. Rejected were several less restrictive measures proposed to address the issue. Rejected was the request to study the problem for a year before taking any action so as to arrive at a less radical solution for handling the glut of riders during that brief time in the fall, as well as to address any other management or environmental concerns that might be identified during that time. The DNR also rejected out-of-hand recently-published peer-reviewed scientific studies that conclude the presence of horses on the trails were not responsible for the spread of invasive non-native species.
 
The DNR's new order takes horses off all but a very select few of the Pigeon's service roads (equestrians are allowed only on those service roads needed to complete the three new loops referenced below). All off-trail riding is strictly prohibited. Horses are confined to the shore to shore trail, forest roads that are marked for equestrian use and public roads. In addition, a few select service road sections and 2-track forest roads are combined to create three new loops for horses out of the Elk Hill campground. The Johnson*s Crossing Trail Campground remains open for equestrian use. The 10 Elk Hill campsites that are in the Equestrian Campground proper have been retained, but the 6 outlying campsites at Elk Hill have been closed
  To say the revisions to the PRCSF Concept of Management were not unanimous is an understatement. The DNR's position that there is an apparent lack of understanding amongst the users of the PRCSF is debatable. As the Work Group MHC representative, I view it not as a lack of understanding, but as a disagreement regarding the validity of the basis for removing equestrians from the trails they have historically ridden. It appears to me these DNR decisions are the result of reliance on "bad science" and either an improper procedure, or no procedure at all, for making these kinds of specific determinations in modifying the Plan.
 
One issue for consideration is whether the National Environmental Procedures Act (NEPA) is applicable to the state's management of lands acquired with Pittman Robertson Act funds and, if applicable, the legality of closing trails to equestrians on lands purchased with these federal funds without compliance with NEPA's requirements, which include an environmental impact analysis.
 
Even if NEPA is held not to be applicable, I believe Michigan citizens (and ultimately Michigan's tourism economy) would benefit from a state law that requires the MDNR to have a procedure similar to that in NEPA, including conducting an environmental impact analysis, before it can close recreational trails on state lands to equestrians (or any other user group, for that matter). 
 
As I understand it, it is the DNR's position that the general rule is that lands purchased all or partially with Pittman Robertson Act funds are not open to equestrians (or any other user group except perhaps hikers) unless as a designated special exception, and that such special exception designation can be removed at any time. I find no such broad hard-and-fast restriction in the Pittman Robertson Act, nor does the Act require lands contiguous, but not purchased with Pittman Robertson Act funds, to be managed as if they had been.  My understanding of DNR policy is that it requires both Pittman Robertson and all contiguous public lands to be managed as if they were all purchased by Pittman Robertson funds, or so I was told in the Pigeon River Country Work Group meeting.
 
It is the Michigan Horse Council's position that any state administrative rules that make it the general rule to exclude equestrians on Pittman Robertson Act lands should be regarded as unnecessarily restrictive, unless such an exclusion is supported by a NEPA or other review that includes an environmental impact analysis.  For example, scientific evidence does not support the position of the DNR that horses spread invasive non-native plant species. Nor is the use of horses on Michigan trails -- even remote, back-country trails -- incompatible with the protection of fish and wildlife.  The general rule should be that horses, just as hikers, shall be permitted on all Michigan trailways unless there is some cognizable reason for their exclusion.  And there should be a procedure similar to NEPA's with which the state is required to comply in making that determination.
 
The results of the 2007 Equine Survey recently completed clearly demonstrates how very economically important this industry is to the state, both as a part of agriculture and in the tourism industry.  Pigeon River Country State Forest is a vacation destination for trail riders both from inside and outside of Michigan.  The recent restrictions placed on equestrians by the MDNR is not supportable under any reasonable impact analysis and will likely have a discernible negative impact on the PRCSF as a travel destination for equestrians.  If the DNR applies such unfounded discrimination against equestrians to other state recreational lands, whether by ignorance or by influence of competing user groups, the considerable tourism dollars equestrians spend in Michigan will increasingly go elsewhere.
 
Respectfully submitted,
 
M. Jean Ligon,
Chair, Legislative, Land Use & Environmental Committee
Michigan Horse Council

Matt,
Thank you for the Great letter to the House on tourism and recreation!  and this site to post our concerns
its sad to think that with the economy in northern michigan at almost a stand still what a great effect it will have with the new 2008 concept of management plan by the NRC/DNR
we are property owners of Northern michigan and come to Indian river every trip we make for supplys and such. Ken's village market is a great place to shop!
Our trips to northern michigan this year will be kept to a minimal due to the high gas prices and the new management plan of the NRC/DNR.
I can not imagin the inpact it will have on the small towns which surround the PRC.
I'm still passing the word along about the property near the PRC boundarys! Good Luck
Thank you
Rachelle Sloan

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/bbmich.pdf

These people have their own agenda and they will do what ever they want to do.They do not care about the public's input!!! Did you know that the president of the PRAAC is not even a Michigan resident???But he knows what is best for the forest.I feel that the comitee will not stop until they forbid all recreational users from the forest.(horses,bicycling,snowmobiling,hiking,hunting and fishing)The sign on Sturgeon Valley road will read WELCOME TO THE PIGEON RIVER NO HUMANS ALLOWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Signed Dave a resident of the Pigeon River Forest

BREAKING NEWS!

Just found out from Rep. Casperson that when he talked with Commissioner John Madigan regarding his opinion on the Federal Funding so called issue!  Had he ever seen for himself the document that stated that PRC was in jeoppardy of losing funding because of the Equestrain use?  His answer was "NO!"  He just took their words as truth without searching out the facts for himself!  How sad is this folks?  When so many are affected by their actions and without recource!  Wouldn't you think as a board that they should investigate everything allegation before doing something so radical?  He was also asked if he had ever been in the Pigeon to see for himself all the so-called damage caused by the horses....He had never been there---just driven close to there via a county road that runs by there- I-75!  Wow...........The never ending scams are still coming out...what next are we going to discover?  Still waiting from Washington for answers to all our questions...Since Rebecca Humphries refuses to give us an answer....When asked by Rep. Moolenaar to give him the proof her office sent a memo that stating," they are working on it and will hear from Washington soon!" If this was true wouldn't you think they would have something in hand to just say-Here it is and this is why we did what we did!  Plain and simple.....I think not!

Horse riders bucking DNR action > in Pigeon River State Forest > > by L. Scott Swanson > >Editor Indian River Resorter

 Horse riders from throughout Michigan are joining together and  enlisting > the help of legislators following DNR action that severely  curtailed > horseback riding in the Pigeon River Country State Forest. > Last month DNR Director Rebecca Humphries approved a land use order  that > restricts horseback riders to three campgrounds and places much  of the > Pigeon River Forest off limits to riding. > Horse riders from throughout Michigan are now joining together and > working with state legislators to get the new restrictions overturned. > Last Friday state representatives Kevin Elsenheimer and Tom Casperson > took a horseback ride in the area to view the situation first-hand.  In a > phone conversation with the Resorter on Tuesday, Casperson said  that > based on what he saw during the ride and has heard from riders  and the > DNR he doesn't feel the new restrictions are justified. > "I personally would like to see it overturned. I think they're making  a > fatal mistake here," Casperson said. > In a DNR press release last month, Humprhies was quoted as saying,  "These > regulations are necessary so that multiple recreational users  can enjoy > the Pigeon River Country State Forest with minimal  conflict. They are > also necessary to protect the wild character of  the area, and for the DNR > to remain in compliance with federal grant  fund requirements associated > with the acquisition and management of  the Pigeon River Country." > The horse riders aren't impressed by those arguments. They feel that  for > some reason people in the DNR don't want horse riders in the  Pigeon River > Country and have drummed up reasons in an effort to  justify the > restrictions. > "I believe horse people have been targeted," Richard Kleinhardt, one  of > the riders leading the opposition says. "The DNR has cited all  kinds of > ludicrous claims, which we've basically knocked the door  down on all of > them." > Among issues cited are conflicting uses between horses and hunters; > restrictions from federal funding programs on how the land can be  used; > horse feed and manure bringing seeds for non-native and noxious  weeds > into the forest; horses disturbing wildlife and damaging land. > Kleinhardt and Casperson say the conflicting uses claim is nebulous  and > based on second-hand information for which there is no  substantiation. > They want to know exactly what conflicts are  occurring, who's complaining > and could something short of kicking out  horse riders be done to resolve > the conflicts. > As to horses not being allowed due to regulations from federal  funding, > Casperson said only 12 acres of the 118,000 Pigeon River  Country were > purchased with Pittman/Robertson Federal Funding. > Kleinhardt said that riders have cited six scientific studies that > conclude that horses bringing in noxious weeds isn't a problem. > The arguments that horses are disturbing the wildlife or damaging  land > aren't ones that Casperson or Kleinhardt are buying. > Casperson said that they ran across a deer while they were riding on > Friday. It was 15 feet away from him and his horse and didn't even  move. > He said he also saw an elk. It wasn't disturbed. It just kept  walking > through the woods. > As for the horses creating or damaging trails, Casperson said, "Every > once in a while you'll see little paths. Deer and elk make trails  too. So > now the horses go on those trails and that's somehow  bothering the > habitat. I'm sorry. I just don't see that." > Prior to the restrictions there were 15 remote campsites throughout  the > Pigeon River Country where horse riders could camp. Now there are  three > campgrounds. The Elk Hill campground will only accommodate two  large > horse trailers. Another campground is a group overflow area  where you > must be part of a group of at least 15 campers. > While there are three trail loops with a total of 280 miles that are > still open, riders say those trails are mostly roads and having  horses > share roads with logging trucks and other vehicles creates a  dangerous > situation. > Casperson is among a group of Michigan legislators working on the  matter. > He said they're trying to organize a hearing in the State  Senate and are > also talking to the federal government about the  funding restriction > issue. > "I don't know if it can be changed, but I know where I stand,"  Casperson > said. "I don't think these people (the horse riders) did  anything wrong. > How about sitting down and talking with these people?  They're good people > and I don't think they deserve this, the way  they've been treated." > Casperson said he also doesn't think the new restrictions are good  for > the area economically. He said the Upper Peninsula and other  states such > as Texas are highlighting horse riding as a tourist  activity. > "If Michigan is serious about economy and tourism, we just took a big > group of people that spend an awful lot of money in this state and we > just thumbed our nose at them." > Kleinhardt said there are people who have bought property and homes  near > the Pigeon River State Forest so they could ride there, but now  they face > severe restrictions. He compared it to someone buying  lakefront property > and then being told they couldn't use their boat  on the lake. > Kleinhardt said six presidents of trail riding groups from throughout  the > state recently met to coordinate efforts to change the Pigeon  River > restrictions. Kleinhardt said they intend to fight the DNR on  the > restrictions. "We are taking them to task on it and we're trying  to find > the truth of the matter.