Re: Trails

["Duncan Fletcher" <dfletche@gte.net>]

This is the battle that needs to be fought. There are reasonable
restrictions based on facts and then there are the use of environmental
arguments (with no factual base) as a cover to ban horses. We need to
understand the difference as well, to better fight the second half of the
preceding sentence.

Duncan Fletcher
dfletche@gte.net


-----Original Message-----
From: CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com <CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com>


>In a message dated 3/17/99 8:19:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>reshan@deyr.ultranet.com writes:
>
><< >.. I can
> >understand banning ATVs, because they can go flying about, tearing up
trails
> >and being potentially dangerous to pedestrians, but horses don't tear up
> >trails a whole lot...
>
> That depends entirely on the particular trail and on the number of horses.
> I can take you to a number of places where the trails have been badly
> damaged by horse traffic.
> --CMNewell >>
>
>Regulation of sensitive spots is one thing, but banning is something
>altogether different.  Doesn't matter if it is horses or ATV's--it is the
>public's land, and should be administered with public access in mind.
>
>Heidi Smith, DVM
>
>




=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=