Home Current News News Archive Shop/Advertise Ridecamp Classified Events Learn/AERC
Endurance.Net Home Ridecamp Archives
ridecamp@endurance.net
[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]

Re: [RC] Playing Hardball Trail Politics - Was Future AERC Directions - Dabney Finch

Your reasoning is absolutely sound and intelligent. When are you running for the board? (you've had this great idea, so we all now expect you to start implementing it!) You've certainly got my vote...

If we wanted to try to make it palatable, we could make it a donation as we do with the trails fund. Then someone (that would be you) starts getting all the other rider organizations to do the same thing...and lo and behold we can afford our own W---- (oops! Meant lobbiest! LoL)

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ridecamp Guest" <guest-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 11:16 AM
Subject: [RC] Playing Hardball Trail Politics - Was Future AERC Directions



Please 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!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=





=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


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!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


Replies
[RC] Playing Hardball Trail Politics - Was Future AERC Directions, Ridecamp Guest