Protesters persuade the department to reconsider a horse ban

by Lindsey Pizzica Rotolo

“There are some great opportunities for horseback riding on DEP property,” heralds the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Web site, yet the department has stumbled into a recent controversy by  pursuing a ban on horses from the majority of Connecticut’s state trails, citing safety and sensitivity of the environment as their major concerns. The reaction of horse owners was immediate. They strongly oppose the decision and have urged the DEP to reconsider the language of the new regulation.

The DEP’s concern for equestrian safety stems from an accident, which took place at a state park in East Lyme 15 years ago. A horse rider wandered unto an unmarked trail and fell through a bridge. The rider was not seriously injured but the horse had to be destroyed.  Following this incident, the DEP banned horses from all foot trails, but the department never established a fine for offenses and did not place adequate signage that would distinguish a hiking trail from a trail suitable for horses.  The DEP’s proposed legislation will designate a small number of trails in the state’s several thousand-mile systems for equestrian use and will also impose a $75 fine for each infraction. Riders will also be required to pick up any manure dropped on the state trails.

The state Department of Agriculture lists Connecticut as number one in the country for horses owned per capita.  Sixteen thousand people in the state own between 50,000 and 60,000 horses.  More than 250 of these owners appeared at a public hearing held on February 5 in Hartford to voice their disapproval of the DEP proposal.   One of the main arguments presented at the hearing centered on the issue of why the state’s treatment of horseback riders is different from that of hikers and bikers.  Viktoria Sleeper, owner of Terra Cello farm in North Norfolk, says she is confused by the action of the DEP.  “People who ride horses are generally very concerned with safety issues,” says Sleeper. “You never see a horseback rider on a trail ride without a helmet.  I can’t say the same for hikers and bikers.”  As for the department’s other concern, the effect on the environment, Sleeper finds it hard to believe that the impact of a horse on state trails is any worse than that of a hiker or biker.  “Or deer, for that matter,” she adds.

Diane Ciano, chairwoman of the Connecticut Horse Council (CHC), pointed to what she considered unfair treatment at the hearing. “We do not agree with horses being separated out as an individual user group,” she said. Ciano also added that “very few members of the DEP field staff are familiar with what is necessary to make trails safe for equestrian use.”  The CHC currently has numerous volunteers maintaining safe state trails for the horse community and hopes that this commitment will encourage the department to consider revising the language of the new legislation.

DEP spokesman Dennis Schain reported a willingness to do just that. He acknowledged that the wording of the proposed legislation “was not as carefully crafted as it might have been” and said the department will “work on amending the language so that equestrians feel less singled out.”  When asked if liability issues were more of a concern with horseback riders than with hikers and mountain bikers, Schain stated quite simply, “no.”  Schain explained that while not impossible, it is very difficult for someone to sue the state as the result of an accident on state land.  So far, the DEP is not considering any ban on either hikers or bikers from significant portions of the trail system, as the department believes they have less direct impact on the environment. It has also yet to be determined if Norfolk’s three state parks, Dennis Hill, Haystack Mountain and Campbell Falls Reserve will be included in any restrictions.