 |
[RC] Playing Hardball Trail Politics - Was Future AERC Directions - Ridecamp GuestPlease Reply to: Linda B. Merims dkfritz@xxxxxxx or ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ========================================== Angie said: Randy says that we need higher numbers so we can be a large enough group to be noticed when dealing with the government...that there are a LOT more trail riders than endurance riders so we need to pull in these people who might handle a "fun ride" to add their numbers to ours to make a more effective lobby. I have a different theory. As I see it not all trail riders are endurance riders ...*but* ALL endurance riders are trail riders. Perhaps we should be doing *our* lobbying through trail riding organizations which already have the big numbers. No group organized around equestrian trail riding has numbers large enough to be significant to the government, or to any individual federal congressman or senator. This is especially true when one compares the ultimate size of a national trail riding association against the size of, say, the Sierra Club. I've been giving this a lot of thought lately and I've decided that attaching a "political" purpose to a group whose central organizing principle is recreational is ultimately doomed. The AERC Trails Committee has probably done better than anyone could reasonably expect to produce a significant political force out of a recreational group. This is largely thanks to Jerry Fruth's efforts to get multiple horse groups together on the committee that advises and partially finances the American Horse Council. But the focus is still too divided. One eventually discovers when trying to be a trails activist in a recreational group that most of one's efforts are sucked up into just trying to convince the group that action is important. In short, all of the effort goes into trying to overcoming the shortcomings of the group. Thus, the group is actually a *hindrance* to real progress, not a thing that *facilitates* it. The Tennessee Horse Council is only my most recent encounter with this kind of can't-get-out-of-its-own-way organizational blockade to action. My conclusion on all this is that trail horse people need a group that is explicitly created as a trails political action committee/lobbying organization. When you want to trail ride, you join AERC or ECTRA or NACTRA or whatever. But when you're mad about what's happening to your trails, you send money to this other group and it hires professional lobbyists to represent your interests with politicians, makes political donations to candidates who support equestrian causes, hires attorneys to sue land management agencies on behalf of equestrian interests, and supplies trained professionals who understand the intricacies of federal public land law and regulations to represent equestrian interests on land management plan stakeholder committees. In short, do what Sierra Club and the International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA), and the Blue Ribbon Coalition and the National Rifle Association, or even MoveOn.org do. Here's an example of how this shortcut approach can be successful: early this year IMBA hired an important Washington lobbying firm usually associated with environmental groups to represent mountain bike interests. Three months later IMBA and the National Park Service signed a memorandum of agreement that will greatly expand mountain bike access in National Parks. This lobbying firm is also encouraging IMBA to team up with the organized hiking lobbying groups such as the Appalachian Trail Conservancy and the American Hiking Club to promote "human-powered" recreation. This is a change from IMBA's long-standing policy to advocate for "muscle-powered" recreation. (Question: What is muscle-powered, but not human-powered? Yup: horses!) The deal in the air is that IMBA would support ATC/AHC's efforts to get horses and OHVs off public land if ATC/AHC would support their efforts for increased mountain bike access to traditionally hiking-only areas. Among other things, the American Hiking Club wants IMBA to join a coalition of these "human-powered" recreation groups to fight the Right-To-Ride bill. The American Horse Council has taken some important steps in the direction of representing recreational horse interests, including trail riding, but it is still overwhelmingly concerned with issues of importance to the people who created it: the racing industry. Most of the American Horse Council's staff time and resources are spent worrying about better tax deductions for broodmare depreciation, interstate animal transport regulations, paramutual wagering legislation, liberal quotas for cheap Mexican labor, etc. I can't help wondering whether the effort and money that is going into convincing AHC to help the recreational trail rider wouldn't be better spent going independent. Backcountry Horsemen of America and its individual chapters have a lot of the right ideas, but I think their efforts to be viewed as "good guys" by land management agencies and their 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status prevents them from ever engaging in the kind of hardball tactics that are required to win some of these fights. Here's another way to look at the issue: 1. How many people in your state are *paid a salary* to represent the interests of equestrian trail riders within your state? 2, How many people in the US are *paid a salary* to represent the national interests of equestrian trail riders at the federal level? Now compare that to how many people, say, the Sierra Club employs in your state and nationally. Is it any wonder we're losing? Linda B. Merims dkfritz@xxxxxxx Norris, TN =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|