|
|
| Name and MTRA# |
Comments |
| 4274) |
Chris #2252 |
Location:
Hale |
  |
|
Here's the picture Kathy Kruch is auctioning at the Annual Banquet.
|
| 4273) |
Kathy Kruch 5421 |
Location:
Alger MI |
| |
|
oops had to reduce the size.  [img][/img]
|
|
|
| 4272) |
Kathy Kruch/ 5421 |
Location:
Alger, MI |
| |
|
Hello MTRA friends, This original drawing will be up for auction at the annual meeting. The purpose is to raise money for our kids fund....so please be generous. It\'s for a good cause.
About the Artist: My name is Kathy Kruch, I am an award winning artist in the state of Michigan. I have had my drawing displayed at the Jessie Besser museum, Sleeping Bear State Park visiters center and Impressions 5 museum in Lansing.(the estimated appraised value of my original drawings is $800-$1,000) You may have seen me camping at some of our sites.... drawing and playing with my dog Sammie.
|
| 4271) |
Lucy #4740 |
Location:
Caro |
| |
|
2003 AQHA PALOMINO Gelding
SKIPADESIGN
Sire - Designers Gold
Dam - Rich As Country
HYYP RESULTS = N/N Skippy has been used for halter and western pleasure and some trail riding. He has been turned out for the last year or so and has not had much attention. I have started him again with basic ground work and is coming along very quickly. Skippy is not a kid’s horse. Skippy is sched to get his spring shots and coggins Monday Mar 15. I can email pic upon request.
Call Lucy at 810.488.1446
|
| 4270) |
Lucy #4740 |
Location:
Caro |
| |
|
If you have an iphone, check out this website....
[ itunes.apple.com]
It's a lot of fun.
|
| 4269) |
Gabrielle (Gabz) #4842 |
Location:
Lapeer |
| |
|
Thank you to Janet for sending me this:
A Special Supplement to Michigan Farm News
EQUINE News, Michigan Equine Partnership, "Michigan Equine Fund and other legislative issues outlined" by Larry Julian, February 15, 2010, Page 11,
"HB 4610 is moving through the committee process. We support this legislation and it is important to trail riders to open all trails for equine access and camping where feasible."
|
| 4268) |
Gordon Davis # 1893 |
Location:
montgomery,mi |
| |
|
Subject: MUCC approves of bills
The primary source for Michigan conservation news
December 19, 2009
Michigan Legislative Update
While MUCC continues to express concern regarding technical issues within the bills, the overall new direction this legislation has taken is something the organization supports. When the bills were introduced, MUCC opposed them in order to (1) ensure Michigan public lands were managed on a case-by-case basis and not through specific exceptions for user groups and (2) ensure Michigan would not be placed in diversion of much-needed federal conservation funding. MUCC is proud to have played a role in making sure these two concerns appear to be solved with respect to Senate Bill 578 and House Bill 4610. We would like to specifically thank all of the stakeholders and bill sponsors for working toward a compromise, particularly Senators Gleason, Whitmer, and Basham for their support, and especially Senator Patty Birkholz for her negotiating efforts.
 Gordon Davis # 1893 Yesterday at 08:39 AM
Host: 74-45-200-220.dr01.hnvr.mi.frontiernet.net
THIS IS A COPPIED POST FROM MUCC MICHIGAN LEGISLATIVE UPDATE !! DEC. 19-2009
|
|
| 4267) |
Helen Meier, 50% of MTRA #2247 |
Location:
MidMichigan |
 |
|
For any one who thinks that there is not an agenda to remove the public’s right to access, enjoy and perhaps make a living from our lands and waters, reading this article should open your eyes and maybe even change your mind. [ sports.espn.go.com] Take some of the links on the “also see” box on the right of the page. See if any of this sounds familiar to trail riders. If the activity you enjoy has not yet been targeted, wait a while.
H. Meier, 2247 again Tuesday, March 9, 2010 12:15 PM
Host: h-174-42-243-131.ip.alltel.net
Ooppsss. that link did not connect to the article I intended. Put the following into your browser instead. apologies for the goose chase -- my bad(;<
[sports.espn.go.com]
|
gabz #4842 Tuesday, March 9, 2010 08:01 PM
Host: dialup-4.229.105.144.Dial1.Detroit1.Level3.net
Thank you Helen for that link.
|
gabz #4842 Tuesday, March 9, 2010 09:27 PM
Host: dialup-4.229.105.144.Dial1.Detroit1.Level3.net
And, today, the American Horse Council released the results of their past year's survey.
They had asked public land users to report closures. I am sure some of you were able to take part in that survey.
here's the link to AHC...
[www.horsecouncil.org]
AHC RELEASES REPORT ON EQUESTRIAN ACCESS
Today, the American Horse Council released its 2009 Report on Equestrian Access on Federal Land. The 2009 report is intended to provide a brief overview of the responses the AHC received from equestrians to its ongoing access survey in 2009. The report can be viewed and downloaded here [www.horsecouncil.org]
In July of 2009 the American Horse Council launched an effort to collect information regarding equestrian access issues on federal lands. This effort was prompted by a growing concern among recreational riders around the country that they were seeing a reduction in the number of trails and trail heads open to equestrians on federal land.
....
|
|
| 4266) |
Patty # 957 |
Location:
southern mich |
| |
|
I do not understand how the DNR can take away our water at Smiths Bridge..( and you know there working on the same thing at Goose Creek) There was no incident that happened at Smiths Bridge just a excuse to take it away. Are we not taxes payers?To be able to use the land and water same as the hunters and fishermen? I agree...with the rolling over bit with the MTRA We have watered there for 40 years and have not hurt a thing! We need to stand up and yell not roll over!
|
| 4265) |
Gabrielle (gabz) #4842 |
Location:
Lapeer |
| |
|
In response to Therese Kline's reply to my #4259 post, that is now on the next page.
Therese, I hope that your family member fully recovers.
I too am quite busy but I have stuck with the legislation and other people who also have busy lives, jobs, and families, that are trying so hard and who are spending countless hours and $$ working with legislators to DO THE RIGHT THING for recreational horsemen of MI. RTR legislation is not necessarily about protecting non-motorized trails - IT'S ABOUT HORSE TRAILS.
Re your number #3: Did the MHC BOD tell you to speak for them to the NRC?
Jean Ligon, Julie Fershtman, and other attorneys are working with PRB, BCHMI; several MI horse groups & individuals have made generous donations. If those are not endorsements, I don't know what is. The Equestrian Land Conservation Resource (ELCR) and Michigan Farm Bureau support us; sporting groups support us and have spoken publicly to legislative committees. I can not mention each group here, because I may not know each and everyone and I do NOT want to leave anyone out.
THere are many people who are working SO HARD to preserve trails and who are trying to open MORE AREAS not only for equestrians, but for other public land users too. All are very aware of the multitude of issues.
RE: ENDORSEMENTS. If MHC has chosen to NOT endorse RTR bills, did it have a full membership vote as you suggest is necessary for any group TO endorse RTR?
When MEP proposed the Bridle Tag Fee legislation, who's endorsement did they seek?
When MTRA rolls over after the DNRE allowed loggers to clear cut right through blue-dot trails; or the DNRE punishes ALL HORSES and ALL RIDERS because of an MTRA ride that had questionable actions at a particular watering location, did MTRA ask for a vote of its membership, or did it ask any other group of horsemen in Michigan, how they wanted to handle the situation?
You are not the only person who can speak to the NRC. What would happen if I stepped up to the mike? What if I introduced myself as a military veteran; that I was a member of 5 different equine assocs; that I have been a 4H & Girl Scout leader, an MIHA coach, and past officer of an equine association and I think that allowing 200+ horses and riders to trail ride across the state is an abomination? Or that letting 4H children camp out at Goose Creek is not good because they spend too much time in the water, swimming and playing and churning up the bottom, and the sportsmen who buy fishing licenses do not like that. What kind of impact would I create if I did such a thing?
There are many horsemen in Michigan that wish to be able to ride the land that their money pays taxes on; land that was donated to the state for recreational purposes; land that is purchased with NRTF money that belongs to all citizens of Michigan. We are horsemen who want to tread lightly on the land; to listen to birds or elk; to see a sunrise or sunset in the quiet hours of the day. People who bought 10, 20, 100 acres of land adjoining state land in the expectation that they could ride their horses on that land, and now, cannot.
I would appreciate an answer to your 3; who authorized you, to tell the NRC that MHC did not endorse HB 4610 and SB 578?
gabz #4842 Monday, March 8, 2010 10:38 PM
Host: dialup-4.229.24.189.Dial1.Detroit1.Level3.net
Whoops, I noticed this question is still unanswered. Therese - since you spoke as a representative of MHC to the NRC, would you please respond?
Finally, if the Michigan Horse Council does not support the proposed RTR bills, have they made a position statement to that effect and made it public so all horse folks and trail riders know where the MHC stands? If such a position statement exists can you tell me (and the others reading here) where to find it? And, again, if the MHC does not, in fact, support the proposed RTR bills, what is the basis for objection and what changes or amendments would MHC suggest be made to the bills in order for the council to find the bills acceptable and worthy of its support?
|
SAK 3831 Tuesday, March 9, 2010 08:21 AM
Host: ip-64-7-191-216.mercury.net
Is this the same Therese that is running for a position on the MTRA board of directors...???!!
I also heard we are now required to put diapers on our horses, is this true...???
|
Therese Kline 2049 Tuesday, March 9, 2010 04:25 PM
IP: 162.108.22.96
Gabz - thank you for your words of concern - I hope to have a positive update on him shortly. Very kind of you. Thank you.
Gabz says: RTR legislation is not necessarily about protecting non-motorized trails - IT'S ABOUT HORSE TRAILS
TK: And that is a problem because there are no horse only trails in Michigan. The trails of MI that horses are allowed on are non-motorized trails or snowmobile trails during the non-snow months.
Soon all the trails will be under the DNRE heading Trails – and will not be separated motorized and non-motorized. What good will legislation do that says ‘saddle and pack animal trail’ when there is no such thing in the state? Will this eliminate equines completely from the non-motorized trails? This is my concern with the way the bill was worded. (Changed 3/6/2010 - still waiting to read the changes!) Equine trail riders will need to work closely with the snowmobilers, ATV and ORV folks.
Donations vs Endorsements (Google search):
A donation is a gift given by physical or legal persons, typically for charitable purposes and/or to benefit a cause.
Endorsement: written or spoken statement approving of some product, typically a contract.
Endorsements are not necessary to submit a bill, or to have the bill pass. Example: If I wanted to submit a bill on button production, knowing that legislators know nothing of button production, it would greatly help the efforts if all the button producers endorsed the bill.
There are some trail riders that have concerns with the way the Right to Ride was worded (again awaiting the changes).
MHC would have to have a vote to endorse any legislation. This vote has not occurred. There has been no request for such an endorsement. But in truth no endorsemnt is necessary. If a member individual or group wished it to be voted on they would need to say so. So therefore, the MHC has not endorsed the Right to Ride as it was written. Perhaps with the changes of 3/6/2010 – if they could be read somewhere, and with a request – that would change.
As you can see, MHC has not endorsed the legislation as of March 4, 2010. This is a truth.
MUCC has come out against the bill and a quick search brings me to:
[www.mucc.org]
This would be an endorsement against the bills.
Smith’s Bridge – please talk to a current board member about this matter.
Yes – this is the same Therese Kline running for the MTRA board.
|
gabz #4842 Tuesday, March 9, 2010 08:37 PM
Host: dialup-4.229.105.144.Dial1.Detroit1.Level3.net
Therese - I'm sorry that you are so busy with all the activities and a sick relative. It must be affecting your train of thought as you have not answered my questions.
This one remains unanswered: Finally, if the Michigan Horse Council does not support the proposed RTR bills, have they made a position statement to that effect and made it public so all horse folks and trail riders know where the MHC stands? If such a position statement exists can you tell me (and the others reading here) where to find it? And, again, if the MHC does not, in fact, support the proposed RTR bills, what is the basis for objection and what changes or amendments would MHC suggest be made to the bills in order for the council to find the bills acceptable and worthy of its support?
Therese - Your rationalization of what an endorsement is or is not, is not what is pertinent here.
I asked if the BOD of MHC asked you to tell the NRC, and the public, that they, MHC does NOT endorse RTR legislation. Did they tell you to say that or not? Or was that simply YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, and as such, should have been PRESENTED AS YOUR PERSONAL OPINION.
TK wrote: MUCC has come out against the bill and ...
G: So? If MUCC had their way, only sportsmen (and women) with PAID licenses would have access to public land. And no one in a motorized wheel chair would be allowed in the forest, because God-forbid, that would require a trail. Why would equestrians NEED MUCC endorsement?
Go to the transcripts of the many Senate and House hearings on HB 4610 and SB 578. You can hear and/or read for yourself which sports associations and outdoor recreationists support RTR legislation.
TK wrote: Soon all the trails will be under the DNRE heading Trails – and will not be separated motorized and non-motorized.
G: Wherever did you hear that or get that idea?
If it comes to that, it because of DNRE actions and Governor Granholm's executive orders back in January when she was mucking around - ILLEGALLY, I might add - with the Michigan Trailways Advisory Committee (which she did away with) and tried to do away with the Snowmobile Trails Advisory which is DULY FUNDED WITH NRTF - RESTRICTED FUNDS. Which meant she had to make a NEW committee...
TK wrote: Equine trail riders will need to work closely with the snowmobilers, ATV and ORV folks.
G: Do you perceive that to be a problem? I think working with other users is a good thing. Besides, I'd rather be able to hear an ATV coming then have a mtn bike sneak up on my horse. I think allowing horses and snowmobilers to develop and ride trails in new areas, and create access sites for parking and unloading trailers is the MOST excellent idea. What a boost to tourism it would be. 12 months a year, getting to recreate.
RE: Smiths Bridge. I HAVE spoken with CURRENT BOARD members and I have spoken with other MTRA members who have direct contact with MTRA board members. My point was that **you** think that RTR legislation should have 'endorsements' from organizations that YOU are involved with: MEP, MUCC, MHC, MTRA - yet it seems to be perfectly fine with you that those very same organizations do not seek input from other equestrians in Michigan before making decisions that affect ALL horsemen in Michigan - from BREEDERS and HORSE RACING enthusiasts to 4H horse shows to competitive arena activities, to being able to water a THIRSTY horse on a cross-state ride.
If you do not know what is in the current versions of the bills, how can you say what is wrong with them? Perhaps you are getting information from an inside source?
|
|
Become
a member or renew your membership online, Click HERE!
Total Entries:
4274 Entries Viewed Per Page: 10
