TRAVERSE CITY -- Doug Mummert and Connie Kleinhart are die-hard fans of the Pigeon River Country State Forest, a 118,000-acre woodland with extensive trails and abundant wildlife -- including the biggest elk herd in the eastern U.S.
But they're opponents in a feud over horseback rider access that has spilled into the Legislature. Equestrian supporters -- including Kleinhart and her husband -- are pushing bills that would overrule restrictions imposed by the Department of Natural Resources for Pigeon River Country and other state forests. Mummert is among DNR allies fighting the measures.
The House version was approved this month on a 76-26 vote. A similar bill is pending in the Senate, where efforts at compromise have foundered.
The DNR and its backers say if either bill becomes law, Michigan may forfeit $25 million a year in federal grants for fish and wildlife conservation programs. Opponents insist that's an empty threat.
For activists on both sides, the debate raises fundamental questions about the purpose of state forests -- and particularly Pigeon River Country, established in 1974. Many call it the Lower Peninsula's last great undeveloped tract, encompassing parts of Otsego, Montmorency and Cheboygan counties.
"They selected that area because of its wild character," said Mummert, 72, of Gaylord, who has hunted and fished there since his teens. He was a longtime member of a council that advised the DNR on managing the forest.
Michigan's public lands are open to a variety of uses -- from snowmobiling and off-road vehicle riding to hiking and gathering mushrooms. But Mummert contends the human footprint should be light in Pigeon River Country, an ecologically sensitive area with habitat for bear, bobcat, osprey and bald eagle as well as elk.
Horses have a place there, he said. But as their numbers have grown over the years, they've caused environmental damage such as riverbank erosion and run-ins with hunters -- whose license fees paid for much of the land.
"It's gotten bigger and bigger," Mummert said. "At certain times of the year, there were just hordes of horses."
Kleinhart, 60, of Clare, also loves the beauty and seclusion of Pigeon River Country, where her family has camped for decades. Her son proposed to his wife there. She recalls sitting by the campfire, listening raptly to elks' distant bugling.
"When we go on vacation, instead of going to Disney World, we take our trailer and horses and go to the Pigeon," Kleinhart said.
Her husband, Dick Kleinhart, is president of Pigeon River and Beyond Back Country Horsemen of Michigan, which is spearheading the push to overturn rider limits the DNR set last year. The group says the department has curbed equestrian access in a number of state forests as part of an environmentalist plan to reduce the human presence.
"We believe the decisions to close tracts of land and boot horse people out were not based on sound science. They were arbitrary at best," Dick Kleinhart said.
"I can't say there's never been a conflict with other users, but when we ask the DNR for documentation they provide zilch."
The limits on horses, and other riding and pack animals, were part of an order DNR Director Rebecca Humphries signed in 2008 that updated a 30-year-old management plan for Pigeon River Country.
It designated the Shore to Shore Trail, which bisects the forest, and a number of vehicle access roads as open to horses.
But other trails that riders long had used were declared off-limits, along with 15 backcountry campsites.
Horseback riding was taking over areas that had been purchased and managed primarily for hunting, fishing and wildlife habitat, said Dan Eichinger, the DNR's legislative liaison.
The changes left equestrians with 280 miles of riding area. But they were unhappy about being rerouted onto gravel roads with other traffic. "Totally unacceptable," Dick Kleinhart said.
Bills to overturn the DNR order were introduced by Rep. Tim Moore, a Republican from Farwell, and Sen. Cameron Brown, a Republican from St. Joseph County's Fawn River Township.
The House measure would reopen to horses any trails on state-owned land where access has been closed over the past decade.
The Senate version would do likewise, unless the DNR could show a closure was based on "sound science and documentation."
Both measures would establish a council to advise the department on establishing a statewide trail network for pack and saddle animals.
Michigan United Conservation Clubs, representing 500 outdoor sports organizations, is fighting the bills with the DNR.
They say stripping the department of authority over land purchased largely with hunting and fishing license revenue could make Michigan ineligible for $25 million a year in federal grants from excise taxes on sporting equipment.
The DNR "must maintain control of these lands and manage them for the purposes for which they were purchased," James Hodgson, wildlife and sport fish restoration chief with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said in a letter to the DNR's Humphries. The legislation would disqualify Michigan for the grants, he said.
"Playing chicken with the federal government at a time when the state budget is in the toilet is a dangerous game," said Erin McDonough, executive director of MUCC.
Former Rep. Tom Casperson, who is lobbying for the bills on behalf of Kleinhart's group, said there's an easy solution: Humphries could rewrite her 2008 order to give equestrians more access.
Casperson was among several lawmakers who accepted Kleinhart's invitation to tour the forest by horseback in June 2008. He came away convinced horses weren't harming the land or wildlife.
"We're riding down a trail and guess what we saw? An elk," Casperson said. "Guess what it did? Looked at us and went back to grazing."
Troubled trails
Facts about proposed state forest legislation:
-- Would overturn DNR orders over the past decade limiting horse and pack animal access in some forests.
-- Would establish a panel to advise the department on creating a network of horse trails.
-- House bill approved Nov. 5 on 76-26 vote.
-- Senate Natural Resources Committee approved different version Thursday, but bill rerouted to Agriculture Committee and future prospects uncertain.
-- DNR says approval could jeopardize $25 million in annual federal funds for wildlife conservation. Opponents say DNR should rewrite past orders to avoid fund cutoff.
Print this story
E-mail this story
