 |
RE: [RC] Serious trail alert; please read and forward - David LeBlancLari Shea said:
To my knowledge, the BLM has no hard science behind this statement, but it
isn't stopping them. Of the alternatives in this plan, only Alternative A --
"No action" -- would allow horse use. NONE of the other alternatives
consider allowing horses on any trails.
---------------------------
Does anyone know what studies have been done on the impact of horse trails?
First of all, we need to be able to give people good reasons why we're not a
problem. Emotional appeals won't tend to get us very far. Second,
understanding the problems that horses do cause can help come up with plans
that work around the problems - for example, bridges over even tiny streams
are important. I've helped build a couple of bridges up here, and have seen
first-hand the difference it has made. Changing a spreading mud pit to a
clear stream is nice. Lastly, agencies like BLM shouldn't be setting policy
that has no basis - if they can't cite studies that show they're right, and
we can cite studies that show we ought to be allowed on the trails, we have
a good chance of winning.
On a political note, we as a group probably ought to reach out to at least
some of the environmental groups - some of them have a lot of lobbying power
and experience working the system. It will go easier if we work with them
than if we work against them.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp
Ride Long and Ride Safe!!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|