• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Save our trails- proposals to limit or ban riding on North Tract Patuxent, Laurel, MD

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Save our trails- proposals to limit or ban riding on North Tract Patuxent, Laurel, MD

    Heads up all- pls weigh in to preserve our ability to enjoy open spaces!!!

    Proposals to restrict or eliminate horseback riding at Fish and Wild Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:30 pm (PDT) . Posted by: "Ronald MacNab" ronaldmacnab The Fish and Wildlife Surface is seeking public comments on three
    alternative proposals that will affect riding at North Track for the
    next fifteen years. One alternative would eliminate horseback riding at
    North Track in Laurel (near Fort Meade). The other would require use
    of a horse diaper or dismounting and removing manure from the trail. It
    also prohibits trotting and cantering.

    Fish and Wildlife is seeking public input. Two public meetings are
    scheduled for this Monday and Tuesday.

    >
    > Monday, October 22, 2012
    >
    > Time: 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
    > Location: National Wildlife Visitor Center
    > 10901 Scarlet Tanger Loop
    > Laurel, MD 20708
    >
    > Tuesday, October 23, 2012
    >
    >
    >
    > Time: 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    > Location: Chesapeake Bay Field Office
    > 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
    > Annapolis, MD 21401
    >
    It is important that trail riders attend in numbers to present a unified
    point of view. I do not believe that Fish and Wildlife is anti-horse.
    I do believe they do not understand the burden of these requirements nor
    the miniscule benefits to be obtained.
    *
    **Comments can be sent* to Bill Perry, Natural Resource Planner, U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035;
    413-253-8688; fax 413-253-8468; northeastplanning@fws.gov
    <mailto:northeastplanning@fws.gov> (write "Patuxent CCP" in the subject
    line).

    For details on the alternative plans, visit the following links:
    http://www.baltimoresun.com/explore/...,2060327.story

    http://www.fws.gov/northeast/plannin...t/ccphome.html
    <http://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/patuxent/ccphome.html>

    http://www.fws.gov/northeast/plannin.../draftccp.html
    Chapter 3 page 97
    Appendix C pages 48-56

    I look forward to seeing you at these meetings.
    Appy Trails,
    Kathy, Cadet & CCS Silinde
    member VADANoVA www.vadanova.org

  • #2
    I sent this in via email. Be persistent, don't take no for an answer, fight the good fight, and good luck!

    * * *

    Bill Perry, Natural Resource Planner
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    300 Westgate Center Drive
    Hadley, MA 01035
    northeastplanning@fws.gov

    Re: Patuxent CCP

    Dear Mr. Perry,

    Thank you for allowing me to comment on the proposed changes to recreational use at North Track.

    In reviewing Alternative B, the preferred alternative, it is clear that equestrians were overlooked as stakeholders when seeking public input on the formation of the alternatives, otherwise the suggestion found in Objective 5.4 to “Allow horseback riding with cleanup or horse-diaper [emphasis added] at the North Tract” would have generated more realistic and feasible solutions to any issues with manure on the trail. “Horse diapers” (as found on carriage horses) are not a viable solution for containing manure on a trail ride because there does not exist, to my knowledge, a device designed for trail horses to contain manure. If it does exist, in my 50 years of trail riding I have never seen one being used. Instantaneous clean up is problematic as well given the fact that many, if not most, equestrians are elderly and may not be able to dismount and remount their horses while on the trail. Then the problem of where to put the manure while riding arises. Would the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service place receptacles for manure at intervals along trails? Were equestrian groups consulted for their opinions on how best to effect the clean up of manure or maintenance of trails?

    Next, at 3-11, wildlife observation and photography are listed as priority public uses of the Refuge System. As a lifelong hiker and equestrian, I have seen more wild animals, including birds, while on horseback than while hiking. The reason for this is because wild animals differentiate between two-legged and four-legged footfalls and will avoid humans on foot but not recognize equestrians as human until the the wild animal and the equestrian are very close together. I have had the opportunity to see, up close, and photograph, wild animals while on horseback that I would've never been able to see while hiking. Furthermore, being atop a horse provides a higher vantage point, perfect for wildlife observation. It is my opinion that equestrians are less intrusive to wild animals than humans on foot.

    Finally, the mandate of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to “Promote accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people. . . .Provide reliable and reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife” and to “Promote a stewardship ethic and instill a sense of wonder and appreciation of natural resources wildlife, and research in visitors by providing engaging interpretive programs and activities for visitors of all abilities, ages [emphasis added], and community groups. ” (at Objective 5.2) and for the older and/or disabled population, the only way to access the Refuge is on horseback. To eliminate equestrian use, or effectively eliminate it through onerous requirements, would bar the rightful enjoyment of this Refuge by a growing segment of the population of the United States. On behalf of older citizens, I implore you to reconsider accepting Alternative B with its unworkable and discriminatory constraints on equestrians.

    In sum, because of the negative, detrimental and possibly irreversible impact on equestrian use, which is an historic use, and by extension the negative impact on access to the Refuge for older and/or disabled citizens, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must include equestrians as stakeholders in this process before arriving at any decision on Alternatives B and C.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Sincerely,

    M. W.

    Comment


    • #3
      do they say anywhere why they are opposed to horses in the first place? it sounds like someone complained about seeing manure and that lead to the whole problem, or is more a real concern about trail erosion from horses?

      Comment


      • #4
        There is nowhere in the 600 page document a statement about why they are questioning the inclusion of horses. I was in attendence at the meeting Monday night. They loosely suggest the refuge is for "natural wildlife", but were at a loss when I asked how horses and manure at this refuge were any different than horses at Chincoteague or Assateague refuges.

        Trail erosion from horses is not a problem because the roads that horses are allowed on are gravel roads built for tanks and trucks (the area was previously a military site, and a calvary site before that).
        ********
        There is no snooze button on a cat that wants breakfast.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Bank of Dad View Post
          but were at a loss when I asked how horses and manure at this refuge were any different than horses at Chincoteague or Assateague refuges.
          might have been a poor example as on Chincoteaque....Horseback riding is allowed along the beach in the Over Sand Vehicle zone. The OSV zone may be closed due to hazardous conditions or wildlife management practices, and horses will not be permitted in this area during such closures. Horses are not permitted elsewhere on the refuge, including the trails or on Beach Road

          http://www.fws.gov/northeast/chinco/...ctivities.html

          Comment


          • #6
            Though obviously not the same in the UK as in the USA, it is always useful to have examples of multi-user paths and how other authorities deal with horses in busy places. Epping Forest is just on the east edge of London and is ancient grazed woodland that is considered to be of European significance. Being so close to London it is incredibly busy and Horses are part of the mix. It is not always an easy relationship but both sides work to maintain the access. The south end has defined routes - though very few stables left as it is very built up - but the north is open for horses to go anywhere in the summer and has marked routes in the winter.

            http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/thing...rseriding.aspx

            Bushey Park is one of the many 'Royal Parks' that have been enclosed and preserved since medieval times. Though not apparent from the webiste, there are horses using the park daily. The park managers move the horse according to the ground conditions and what is happening with the deer etc. It is also a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) a legal status that ensure particularly close protection.

            http://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/b...out-bushy-park
            "Good young horses are bred, but good advanced horses are trained" Sam Griffiths

            Comment


            • #7
              What I meant in my example was not riding, but if they felt the horses and manure were a problem, there is manure at the other locations, as well as plant destruction by the wild horses.

              Of course they could still complain the rider's horses leave manure that contaminates the local area.
              ********
              There is no snooze button on a cat that wants breakfast.

              Comment


              • #8
                The reason it makes no sense BOD, is because the Chincoteague ponies are considered wildlife, and as such enjoy different protection than the ridden horse. It would be better to address the problem of manure on the trails, as that could be an issue if the area is heavily utilized, by that it could be tons for them to have to clean up. I don't know, but perhaps there could be a usage fee that is designated for the specific purpose of cleanup, or a trail organization where there is a specific group that is able to be approached and can organize trail maintenance. You have to offer a solution and find out what the real issue is, not by being confrontational. As a result of the austerity and mentality of budget cuts, we are at each others' throats and by not coming off as a "special interest" group, you might find a different reception and find out what might be the real problem, maybe fear of litigation, or whatever it might be and they are using some minor issues as the so called sticking point. Is the area a hiking area, are dogs allowed, has there been a cross conflict between groups like motorized, hikers, bikers? Find out, ask them as someone who really wants to know. To argue this as historic horseback use is not really relevant either. The United States government is under intense pressure to cut back and they are trying to find ways without compromising more endangered areas such as human health. I don't mean the autocrats in the Obama administration, those hard nosed types are hard to communicate with, but you do have to realize how difficult the economy is right now and what might be pressing on them to cut back by not allowing as much use. Horses do make a big mess, and they do add to maintenance costs.
                "We, too, will be remembered not for victories or defeats in battle or in politics, but for our contribution to the human spirit." JFK

                Comment

                • Original Poster

                  #9
                  The historic part probably that holds the most water is that the land was ceded to to Dpet of Interior in the early 1990s complete with a military horse stable on it, which meant that it inferred the ability to continue to ride there. I bet if I dug up the transfer paperwork, it is probably stipulated therein, and if push comes to shove, that may be a course of action. The base stables have since been closed down due to choices in the department of the Army to use the resources elsewhere, however that was over a decade after the land transfer and I highly doubt it in any way nullified the original agreement.

                  On another note, I bet that FWS would consider the Chincoteague ponies to be an "invasive/non-native species."

                  The costs of allowing the horses to use this facility/venue are decimal dust in terms of their budget, and furthermore the numbers presented in the documentation are suspect (I state this as someone who has previously done oversight & analysis of over $10B+ per year portfolio).

                  Bottom line is that while the majority of the report is well constructed, these areas are poorly developed, presented and documented with no logic train therein.
                  Appy Trails,
                  Kathy, Cadet & CCS Silinde
                  member VADANoVA www.vadanova.org

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Probably Fish and Wildlife does, but I think those are the yo yos who released the fallow deer, much later than the ponies were "released". They are not the worlds most rational people with the infusion of the intense Greenie pseudo science. Out here, the city folk come to look at the white headed vultures, also known as American Eagles, which they think are so rare and unique, until they come during one of the salmon run and see about 50 of the buzzards out there picking in the inlet.
                    Last edited by Calamber; Oct. 26, 2012, 10:38 AM.
                    "We, too, will be remembered not for victories or defeats in battle or in politics, but for our contribution to the human spirit." JFK

                    Comment

                    • Original Poster

                      #11
                      lol- here ib the East Coast I have observed them on the ground in corn fields, weird!
                      Appy Trails,
                      Kathy, Cadet & CCS Silinde
                      member VADANoVA www.vadanova.org

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X