NEWS &VIEWScontinued from page 6


new fees and rules for trail riders punitive? Rob McNab reports for T e Equiery: WSSC proposed watershed regulations for 2013 First, the good: • Horseback riding is permitted on designated trails with purchase of a permit. • Hiking, bird watching, and leashed pets are permitted with purchase of a permit. • Some trails in Triadelphia may be opened in the future. Now, the bad:


• All animal waste must be collected before leaving and deposited in trash receptacles or taken away for disposal. • Horseback riding not permitted December 1 through March 15. • Seniors over the age of 65 no longer receive a free pass. • Commercial stables with entrance onto the watershed must enter into a legal agreement with WSSC that requires: • purchase of an entrance permit for the sta- ble, cost $250; • the stable being responsible for board- ers to purchase permits before entering the watershed, cost $70 per person. • requiring adjacent landowners with horses to enter into a legal agreement with WSSC that requires: • purchase of an Adjacent Landowners Entrance Permit, cost $80; • purchase of a Use Permit, cost $70 per person. • Seasonal Watershed Use Permit fee, in- creased from $60 to $70.


areas” and “the dominant source of sediments and associated runoff contaminants originating within WSSC buff er property”. Should we believe WSSC’s good faith in add- ing a completely unprecedented rule, not sug- gested by EA and evidently not required at oth- er woods trail riding venues in the entire world, including the thousands of water utilities that allow riding? Forcing riders to collect and pack out all horse droppings would be dangerous for many and totally impossible for less agile rid- ers, and is not based on science or industry best practices, with the medical literature irrefutably showing that horse droppings are benign (con- taining basically no dangerous pathogens like Cryptosporidium and Giardia). What should we make of new rule forbid- “cutting,


ding trimming,


branches”—basically any trail maintenance? Without maintenance, the trail would be com- pletely unsafe, with fallen trees blocking pas- sage and branches endangering eyes.


Eclipse Award for Pierrot Lunaire


Councils can prevent these onerous, unwarrant- ed rules by enforcing their wording in WSSC’s current budget legislation, that “Public access that is more restrictive than policies in eff ect prior to the 2011 changes should be supported by the science and industry best practices.” To help prevent WSSC’s unreasonable new


rules, which would make riding their “excel- lent” trail unsafe, inconvenient and very expen- sive—and could be used as a prototype to deter riding at any other riding venue in the state and whole country—please send your comments to Councilwoman Mary Lehman (CouncilDis- trict1@co.pg.md.us) and ask her to distribute to all members of the two County Councils.


clearing of trees,


2012 was an UP Year 2012 numbers are starting to roll in for all


Blythe Miller Davies adds her name to the list of Mary- landers to have trained an Eclipse Award winner as Pierrot Lunaire (owned by Mrs. Calvin Houghland) was named the 2012 Steeplechase Eclipse winner on January 19. Read more about Pierrot Luniare in The Equiery’ March Steeplechase issue!


Please send your written comments to commu- nications@wsscwater.com or Watershed Com- ments, WSSC Offi ce of Communications & Community Relations, 14501 Sweitzer Lane, Laurel, MD 20707.


From Barbara Sollner-Webb: How can we trust the WSSC? Many hundreds of riders and other citizens (who signed petitions) feel Washington Sub- urban Sanitary Commission’s new equestrian use regulations are draconian attempts to deter or abolish riding. However, WSSC leaders in crafting these regulations assert they are only to preserve water quality and we should trust them to be reasonable. While equestrians would love to feel they


trust them, this agency claimed to elected of- fi cials they closed the equestrian trail because it is “the biggest factor” in delivering sediment to their reservoirs and makes “the reservoir water harder to treat”, when WSSC’s own expensive outside study (by EA Engineering) then rated this trail as “excellent” with “little or no evi- dence of erosion observed along any portion;” it is the same agency that moved riding to the Access Road, claiming it “very fl at and very ne- gotiable” when EA then rated it as “potentially dangerous for horses” due to its “extremely steep slopes with substantial gullies and washed-out 8 | THE EQUIERY | FEBRUARY 2013


Should we believe there is some purpose— other than discouraging safe entry—for forc- ing riders to use inconvenient entrances EA deemed largely “unsuitable” and/or “unsafe”, or pay large amounts of money to reopen prior barn entrances, which EA deemed basically fi ne? What about WSSC’s raising the entry fee to the most expensive anywhere in the state for a trail riding venue, while also starting to charge seniors, and instead giving free entrance to WSSC’s employees. WSSC showing no in- terest in repeated off ers of $30,000/year trail grants makes revenue seem not their priority. Since winter has the least rainfall (according


to WSSC’s own survey) and is when their for- est has the most ground cover (a dense blanket of fallen leaves, while in summer their is little ground vegetation), should we believe their web- site’s explanation for not reopening winter rid- ing, which claims the opposite of those facts? And very important is a potentially debilitat-


ing rule that the WSSC personnel who let their Access Road become such a travesty will now each day determine when riding is permitted, when riders have done that informally them- selves for decades, yielding an “excellent” trail. Even if WSSC did this in good faith, they cer- tainly could not be sensitive to diff erent portions of the trail getting diff erent amounts of rain and draining diff erently. (And wouldn’t that be dis- criminatory against users who do not have inter- net and are unable to check each day?) T e Prince George’s and Montgomery County


sorts of equine-related businesses, and so far the news across the board is good: the Maryland horse industry is starting to rebound! While the recession took a bite out of all horse busi- nesses, racing has had to cope with more than just the recession, so the news for racing is particularly encouraging, as the Maryland Jockey Club has announced average wagering fi gures which were 7.5% higher in 2012 than 2011; with the average daily handle climbing from $2.27 million in 2011 to $2.44 million in 2012. Live handle fi gures increased


s


nearly 6% from $176,300 to $186,700, while the export numbers grew almost 17% from $1.7 million to $1.975 million per day. “It is signifi cant news that the live and export numbers increased from a year ago,” stated MJC president Tom Chuckas in a press release. “We fi nished strong at Pimlico in the spring and kept the momentum going during the Laurel Park fall meeting. I attribute the boost to in- creased purses, as we are running for $250,000 per day, which is up $90,000, improved fi eld sizes and more aggressive marketing.”


Boosting Maryland’s TB Breeding In- dustry


T e Task Force on Revitalizing Maryland’s


T oroughbred Breeding Industry (assembled by the Maryland Racing Commission) suggested several policy changes designed to reverse years of decline and to invigorate the state’s fl agging breeding industry and to return it to national prominence, including: • Increasing fi nancial incentives to the owners, breeders and stallion owners of horses foaled in Maryland; • Paying bonuses through third place; • Implementing a restricted race program for Maryland-breds; • Off ering purse enhancements to Maryland- breds that win open races. Maryland Horse Breeders Association president Tom Bowman and racing commission members continued on page 70


800-244-9580 | www.equiery.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104