For decades, horseback riders have had almost unlimited access to the 513,000 acres of the Allegheny National Forest. But that free-reining scenario might soon change.

Work on the forest's long-term plan, due in fall 2006, has included several proposals that could change equestrian use of the forest, which stretches across Warren, Elk, McKean and Forest counties in northwestern Pennsylvania.

The most controversial idea is to eliminate open riding, which allows users to ride their horses anywhere in the forest unless specifically prohibited.

Since that possibility was voiced to Pennsylvania's equestrian community, more than 100 people have sent letters to Allegheny National Forest officials expressing their displeasure.

"There was much more reaction than we expected," said Steve Miller, public affairs officer for the Allegheny National Forest.

The reaction still is somewhat premature, though. Forest planners are very early in the process and have not even finished the draft environmental impact statements.

They will release four options for future management of the forest in January, and then there will be a 90-day public comment period, Miller said.

The plan, as it relates to horseback riding in the forest, is expected to accomplish two things: Provide a high-quality experience, while, at the same time, protecting the forest's resources. Miller specifically mentioned damage to stream crossings and threatened-species habitats.

Often, horses walking into and out of streams damage the banks, he said. Miller also mentioned rattlesnakes as an example of a threatened species in the forest.

"We're trying to be responsible and at the same time proactive," Miller said.

That is an attainable goal, said Gwen Wills, of the Pennsylvania Equine Council's trail stewardship program.

"Protection does not mean 'don't let anybody in it.' It does mean it needs to be managed properly," Wills said.

She sees some areas in the forest which are highly used and which could use better management. But, she said, if areas are not showing any impact, they should be left for open riding.

"I think that's a reasonable request on their part," she said. "There is quite an expanse of land up there."

The options being discussed by officials range from making no changes at all to building designated, marked trails and collecting user fees on them.

"And we're looking at everything between those options," Miller said.

Eliminating open riding is a viable option, but he said he would be surprised if that were to happen.

"I don't see that as a desire," he said.

Long-range plans are supposed to last 10 to 15 years, though the last one for the Allegheny National Forest was written in 1987.

Diana Keisel, who is spearheading an effort to save open riding in the forest, and others working with her, submitted four equestrian plans to the national forest this month. All of them included some form of open riding, which Keisel, of Cochranton, believes is the most important aspect of riding there.

Her favorite suggestion is for the forest to have mapped trails in high-impact areas, but open riding everywhere else.

In promoting riding at the forest, Keisel talks about how important the 215,000 horses in Pennsylvania are to the state's economy.

Valued at more than $1.1 billion, the equine industry is second only to dairy in all agricultural commodities, according to a study by Penn State University.

Among horse owners, more than 60 percent ride their horses on public lands, the study said.

Mary Lou Patton spends her summers at a four-acre camp in Marienville, Forest County. She rides one of her two quarter horses, Levi, 21, and Cowboy, 26, in the Allegheny National Forest every day. Her trips typically range from two to six hours.

Though she lives on a trail, Patton worries that if open riding is eliminated in the forest, the people who live there, who now can ride freely, will have to load their horses into trailers and drive them to a designated trail.

But Miller doesn't think that will necessarily happen.

"We're looking at how we can accommodate those folks," he said.

Wills, whose program teaches people to lessen their impact on the land, thinks a compromise is likely.

"I don't think it's an either-or," Wills said. "You can protect the resource and still enjoy it. It's just a matter of how to manage it."