Re: Wilderness Read first

[jlong@mti.net (Joe Long)]

On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:10:31 -0500, "Angela C. McGhee"
<rides2far@juno.com> wrote:

>You'd better read this twice before you vote.  Am I correct in thinking
>that more "WILDERNESS" areas means fewer trails for our competitions?  At
>our Tennessee WMA I was informed that a horse is a "motorized vehicle" 
>when I ventured past a sign that said "no motorized vehicles beyond this
>point".  Being "For" Wilderness sounds good, but check the definition of
>wilderness first.  I prefer more "forest".

>I've found the ORV'ers and mountain bikers to be far more sympathetic to
>horses than the Sierra Club hiker types.  Doesn't mean I want 4-wheelers
>on our trails, but I certainly am not going to hold my breath for the
>hikers to embrace us.

Yes, indeed.  I've been in planning meetings where hikers complained
bitterly about horses and wanted them banned wherever possible.

Having been burned on the Sipsey Wilderness closure, we were more
cautious when approached about trail plans for the Natchez Trace
Parkway.  We horsemen told the officials that we would be happy to
help build and maintain the trails.  Then we asked the key question:
if we did so, would we be able to hold endurance rides over it?  The
answer:  no assurance would be given, and if the trail became popular
we would *not* be allowed to use it for organized rides.  We didn't
even have real assurance it would stay open to horses at all!  This
despite the historic significance of horse use of the Natchez Trace
(the logo for the parkway is a horse and rider).

-- 

Joe Long
jlong@mti.net
http://www.mti.net     Business
http://www.rnbw.com    Personal