Send
this page to a
friend or colleague
Readers respond
Sharing can't be so one-sided
Sharing isn't possible. Thanks
for that, Jason.
Thanks especially for sharing your remarks about being "unable
to share the quiet with a whining dirt bike." That tells
me that you could walk for a whole day, and if you hear just
one motor, you'll whine about it for a month, if not forever.
I've been sledding up in the mountains around Lake City and
it just amazes me how little trouble cross country skiers
have "sharing" the trails groomed
by the snowmobile club. I suppose they griped among themselves
about our "whining" sleds.
And all those roads built for timber management? Well, recreationists
sure didn't have any problem sharing those roads during hunting
season or to go
fishing, or sharing in the revenues, some of which built a
lot of nice
campgrounds that used to be free.
But I bet there was whining about whining chainsaws and the
like, replaced now by a whopping lot of whining about user
fees.
As for wildlife, here we are, jinglebelling along so a grizzly
won't eat us. That's a good way to make animals disappear.
Don't forget that those 16 percent of RVD's that hike mostly
drove to get where they wanted to walk, even Wildlands CPR
supporters. The 3 percent and 2 percent numbers makes sense,
if all you want to do is ride a dirt bike,
few people do that.
I take "multiple use" rides, either with a fish
pole, a camera, or a rifle. Go for a spin, catch a fish, cook
and eat it and head home via another route. Watch some nature,
too. Pretty multiple-use, multiple class.
Don't forget that most visitors go in the woods in summertime.
Turns out that when you do the skier thing and the sledder
thing together, sleds are a tenth of all winter use, and given
that downhill skiing is probably the vast majority of skier
visits (and hardly muscle-powered, at least for the uphill
part), actual woods use beyond the ski hill boundary is probably
dominated by sleds.
Cook the numbers all you want, Jason, that's what you and
Jon are
paid for. Can't say the same for myself, at least not on this
topic.
And boys, while I'm a motorhead, even I don't believe that
"people should be able to ride ATVs on public land without
restrictions." That's like saying there shouldn't be
hunting seasons.
But I think that lands where impacts are minimal, such as
most of eastern Montana's BLM holdings, should be open to
cross country. Areas near metro
areas where there is a lot of demand, or where there truly
is unacceptable damage, by whatever method, be it foot, hoof,
or wheel, then either the
infrastructure should be upgraded or use regulated -- not
eliminated.
Stream crossings can be armored with cobblestones and/or bridges.
Got a soils problem? New route, no problem.
The fact remains that every inch of trail, every inch of road,
can be maintained and managed so that it has a minimal environmental
impact. So can every use.
Bear mating season, needing a
closure? Fine...as long as it is truly needed for security.
You know, people would buy in to restrictions if they felt
there was a genuine effort to make things work for everyone,
and not these hidden agendas and funding
mechanisms and whatnot.
Finally, I want to say that Wildlands CPR's proposal for "good
jobs" ripping out roads is shameful. Those roads were
put in to allow resource management
using public timber as the funding base. Those roads provide
long-term benefits in terms of access for not only profitable
businesses that pay the taxes that support the agency when
revenues don't, but needed management of vegetation for other
needs such as habitat improvement.
For WCPR to shamelessly ask the taxpayer to actually pay again
to destroy expensive and
valuable infrastructure in order to subsidize one-time jobs
that don't have a future, or a future benefit, is simply beyond
the pale.
Dave Skinner
Whitefish, MT
Author's blog:
Sharing isn't possible
The original article of this series,
"Access or Excess," framed the debate over off-road
vehicle management on public lands by discussing three sets
of values: ecological, social, and economic.
The author, and presumably the Forest Service, believe some
combination of these values will drive public opinion and
agency policy on how we balance use and abuse of public resources.
These values are often debated by off-roaders, other recreationists,
forest neighbors, and agency personnel, all of whom have a
stake in seeing that the Forest Service gets a grip on off-road
vehicle management.
Muscle-powered recreationists – including hikers, horsemen,
backpackers, nature-viewers, cross-country and backcountry
skiers, mountain climbers, floaters, berry-pickers, mushroom
hunters, mountain bikers, hunters and anglers – stand
to lose more foot trails and habitat to unlimited off-road
vehicle use; they stand to gain some peace and quiet from
stricter rules.
Homeowners living on the forest edge, ranchers with allotments
or adjoining parcels, and timber companies whose holdings
are interspersed with public lands on the ownership "checkerboard"
are also affected. They regularly deal with trespass and vandalism
when off-road vehicles are allowed to go wherever they want.
Those commenting on this series all seem to value protection
of the land and conservation of our tax dollars, based on
the fact that this series drew little debate over these values.
Off-roaders who have participated in the debate have focused
on the social issues kicked-up by motorized recreation, its
management and its impact on other visitors to the forest.
At the crux of their arguments is the concept that we should
all be able to share the trails.
Muscle-powered recreationists traveling on "multiple
use trails," however, are unable to share the quiet with
a whining dirt bike.
They cannot share the narrow footpath with an ATV that's almost
5 feet wide and possibly traveling extremely fast –
just as we don't expect pedestrians to share wide paved roads
with cars.
They cannot share a glimpse of wildlife once an off-road vehicle
drives animals into hiding.
They cannot share habitat and clean water once it's ripped-up
by spinning knobby tires.
Sharing is simply impossible because the machines are loud,
over-powering, and smelly, not because muscle-powered recreationists
need an attitude adjustment.
Asking hikers and others to share the trail is like asking
a non-smoker to share the elevator with someone who is smoking
– it is an unreasonable request. That's why we have
designated smoking areas and some places where smoking is
simply not permitted.
No doubt, forest visitors will continue to debate the social
ramifications of managing off-road vehicle use. In the meantime,
and with the help of those interested in conserving habitat,
wildlife, and taxpayer dollars, the Forest Service is left
to act on our ecological and economic values.
Ultimately, Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth is on the hot
seat. He has inherited 30 years of agency inaction, machines
that can go anywhere, and the authority to insist that they
don't go everywhere.
Author's Note: For those of you watching and reading ringside,
the following are some facts in response to series participant
Dave Skinner's statements:
• According to the Forest Service's National Visitor
Use Monitoring in 2002, 89 percent of folks who visited national
forests primarily did so for non-motorized activities; 18
percent visited to ski, 16 percent to hike/walk/backpack,
10 percent to view nature, 9 percent to hunt, 9 percent to
fish, but only 3 percent to off-road and 2 percent to snowmobile.
The fact is that quiet, muscle-powered recreation is the most
popular use of national forests.
• Wildlands CPR revives and protects wild places by
promoting road removal, preventing new road construction,
and limiting motorized recreation. Wildlands CPR co-chairs
the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition. As the Forest Service
has recognized that its road mileage is at least 100,000 miles
more than it can handle, we work to help reduce the creation
of new forest roads and to promote the removal of unnecessary
roads.
It just so happens that road removal also provides high-paying
jobs to local, skilled workers.
• The Idaho poll demonstrating a clear majority of support
for limiting ATVs to designated routes was conducted this
spring by Portland, Ore., pollster Bob Moore for the Idaho
Forest Products Association.
Moore is often hired by leading political figures, including
Montana Sen. Conrad Burns and Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne.
Participants were asked, "Which statement most closely
matches your point of view? People should be able to ride
ATVs on public land without restrictions? Limited to designated
trails? Or should ATVs not be allowed?"
–
Jason Kiely
Sharing is not the issue
Mr. Skinner seems to be enjoying
this debate, so much so that he is creating positions that
others aren't taking.
I never said that road construction, timber harvest, horses
and mining are "inherently evil," as Mr. Skinner
put it, or anything even close.
Those activities -- and I'll add muscle-powered recreation
to that list, too -- all have a place on public lands when
guided by the best science and public input.
Mr. Skinner's form of straw-man argument is just as constructive
to this debate as me calling Mr. Skinner a beer-swilling,
fumes-affected backwoods polygamist.
It ain't true, and it clouds balanced analysis of the real
issue at hand -- the extent of ORV damage to public lands,
and the right of ORVers to infringe on others' enjoyment of
our public lands.
Should there be places for folks to go ORVing on public lands?
You bet. But not so wildlife and muscle-powered recreationists
have few alternatives besides enduring the continuous whine
of motorized-use while outdoors.
It is extremely selfish to knowingly disturb the benefit of
a commonly held property, so that its value is diminished
to others, regardless of the issue.
Mr. Skinner's claim that muscle-powered users "just don't
know how to share" reveals a stark misunderstanding of
the other side's concerns.
Jon Schwedler
Bozeman, Mont.
Real agenda is no roads
I sure wish Kiely would cough up
the facts on the poll he cites....like who did it, what the
questions were, who paid for it?
Polls are almost never "straight," and everyone
knows it. Not when you have outfits like the Mehlman bunch
telling potential clients that polls can influence getting
people to "vote as we would like." No kidding.
And in this little discussion, it should be common knowledge
that the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition is run out of
Wildlands CPR using grant moneys passed through fiscal sponsor
The Wilderness Society.
Why isn't TWS in the front? Why does WCPR have to do this
campaign as NTWC and not WCPR?
We wouldn't want the public to get the perception of who is
really running the show, now, would we?
As for the trail miles ... yeah, I screwed up: 47 miles are
what are expected to be closed to motorized use in the wake
of the fire salvage operations post West Side/Doris.
They'll be turned over for the exclusive use of an even smaller
minority of forest users -- those nuts enough to go hiking
in a
dead forest jam-packed with head-crushing widowmaker trees.
Hiking RVD's are 2 percent of the total nationwide. That is
a fact.
On the Siskiyou NF, home of the toasted Kalmiopsis, even before
the Biscuit Fire, total wilderness RVDs were 1 percent of
total visitation to an area that was a fifth of that forest.
It's even less now.
And with 250 miles of trail left on the Flathead NF, in an
even smaller network for an expanding use base, doesn't sound
like very much.
Never mind that roads are not trails. Never mind all the closed
roads that make up the majority of the forest system at this
time.
They're roads -- which of course Jason and his buddies are
seeking not only to "prevent," but obliterate using
Other People's Money.
Dave Skinner
Whitefish, Mont.
Author's blog:
Most people want limits on ORVs
Despite the cries raised by a vocal
minority of off-road vehicle riders, the vast majority of
Americans support placing reasonable limitations on motorized
recreation in our public lands.
A 2004 poll taken in Idaho revealed that 82 percent of folks
believe that ATVs should stay on designated trails while riding
on public lands; 8 percent think the machines should be allowed
on public land without restrictions, while another 8 percent
think that ATVs should not be allowed on public land, period.
The 82 percent majority demonstrates that the public supports
a common-sense strategy that could protect land, water, wildlife,
habitat and the rights of other taxpayers to enjoy their public
lands.
Nonetheless, the Forest Service has proposed half-hearted
measures to address the damage and conflicts that off-road
vehicles cause.
If the Forest Service wants broad support for new off-road
vehicle rules that will ensure long-term recreational opportunities
of all types, the agency must improve on the proposed rule
in at least five ways.
First, the agency conservatively estimates that users have
carved 60,000 miles of unauthorized, un-engineered routes,
which often charge-up steep, erodible slopes, plunge through
running water, and intrude into non-motorized areas.
The final rule must put a stop to the use of these routes,
and to the motorized use of trails traditionally used by folks
on foot or horse.
Second, research on the impacts of off-road vehicles provides
clear guidelines of where and when motorized recreation causes
unacceptable damage.
The final rule must require route designations to depend on
scientific analysis and evaluation.
Third, Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth served as regional
forester in Montana and saw that the Tri-States OHV Amendment
(which provided the model for the proposed national rule)
did not commit land managers to action.
The final rule must determine a manageable deadline for route
designations to avoid repeating past mistakes.
Fourth, research and feedback from other visitors has shown
that snowmobiles are very hard on wildlife and ruin the experience
of others. The final rule must include, not exempt, snowmobiles
from the national policy to vehicles to designated routes
and areas.
Fifth, the Forest Service does not project increases in allocations
from Congress that the agency needs in order to to assign
law enforcement officers to manageable areas (currently the
average officer is responsible for an area half the size of
Delaware).
The final rule must provide sideboards demanded by the harsh
economic realities of shrinking non-military budgets –
it must insist that land managers only designate the number
of routes that they have the money and staff to enforce, monitor,
and maintain.
Instead of promising clear standards, achievable objectives,
and financial support, the proposal "empowers"
land managers to fend for themselves.
Without a stronger rule, rangers will be left on their own
to serve as arbiters of trail allocation and the stewards
of lands where social demands rather than protection of forest
health are often the controlling interests.
Perhaps the Forest Service hopes that the riders will help
out by policing themselves. That would help, but even the
leaders of the off-road vehicle community are prone to going
off-track.
The director of the Idaho-based Blue Ribbon Coalition recently
exemplified "bad apple" behavior that must be
policed. Bill Dart was cited on August 20 for outfitting without
a license when an officer from the Sawtooth National Forest
encountered Dart providing paid, backcountry motorcycle tours.
Top Forest Service officials need to lead this process and
direct land managers to base decisions on sound science, affordability
and balanced uses of the public lands.
Support and participation from the public and credible interest
groups will follow.
Author's Note: Some readers who responded to
the original article in this series claimed the facts presented
were not true; some stated perception as fact. In order to
clarify, please note that:
• The Forest Service press release announcing the proposed
rule on off-road vehicles states that 5 percent of national
forest visitors ride off-road vehicles;
• According to the "2004 OHV Survey Results"
provided by the Forest Service, the Flathead National Forest
offers much more than 47 miles of trails for off-road vehicle
use: 305 trails miles and 1,482 roads miles are open to ATVs
and dirt bikes (snowmobile route mileage not included).
Jason Kiely
Sharing is part of the deal
Geez, as a history professor, Pat
Munday should have the integrity to keep the numbers straight:
90 percent of ORV users is not the proportion that "refuses
to follow the rules." I guess that's "academic freedom"
as is now in vogue.
Regarding Jon Schwedler's "sarcasm," permit me some
in return. I presume the esteemed gentleman knows so much
about leaf blowers because he owns one – or did back
in his native Maryland. But it appears that such an implement
is unnecessary in Schwedler's case, he makes a mighty wind
naturally.
Finally, the issue. The real issue here is not necessarily
the environment, or damage, or economics. It so happens that
Mr. Keily's employer has as its mission "preventing roads"
-- and the nature of land management is such that without
roads, there is no practical management.
That's a deep philosophical divide that will never be crossed.
WCPR and all its environmentalist allies think the highest
value of land is for its own sake, just like PCA treats predators
the same way.
On the other side are just about the rest of society in these
parts, the loggers, miners, ranchers, riders, manufacturers
and plain old folks whose jobs rely on a
managed, productive landscape.
Ya can't eat the scenery, but you can certainly make it produce
stuff that you can either eat, or trade for something to eat.
I have no problem with seasonal closures of trails and roads
for legitimate management reasons, be they wildlife or work-related.
I feel that infrastructure should be designed and altered
to minimize hydrological and migratory impacts.
But, unlike Schwedler and Kiely, I see nothing inherently
evil in road construction, timber harvest, horses, mining
-- the whole range
of true multiple use. My day is not ruined when I come upon
a live logging site when I am on a spin in the woods, or see
a nice, fat Charolais herd working through the forest.
I do not have a problem sharing the forests, or the streams
... even though sometimes I wish I didn't have to.
Because, like me, others have a right to use and enjoy public
lands, and sharing is part of the deal.
Dave Skinner
Whitefish, Mont.
No rights to public land
Just because you bought a shiny
new ORV does not mean that someone has to provide you a place
to use it.
Public lands, while expressly intended for free use, assumes
that any use will be compatible with the environment in which
it occurs; it was never intended for a bunch of beer-guzzling
yahoos
tearing up the turf and flinging cans and cigarette butts
out the window.
Enjoyment of solitude is more valuable than any presumed right
to make noise. Anyone who expects to be able to go off-roading
in a motorized vehicle better own the land they do it on;
they have no "rights" to anything else.
Any ORV use on public lands, including snowmobiling, cycles
and 4x4's should be specifically restricted to designated
areas and only after careful surveys, accounting for all observed
environmental and topographical variables, document the suitability
for such use.
Economic factors, including the number of users, should not
be considered. It is a waste of effort to designate "routes"
for such uses because of the basic inability to police them.
Areas allowed for ORV use should be circumscribed by continuous
physical barriers that would prevent traversal into unauthorized
areas by any motorized vehicles.
This could be accomplished in
a manner similar to the way cattle are restricted while allowing
passage to human foot traffic. If you want to horse around,
you can do it in a corral.
Larry Martin
Board Member, 1999 - 2002
Chicago Region BMW Association
Stop the spread while there's
time
The whole problem is with the "Off
Road" part of Off Road Vehicle, and the way that description
is embraced by ORV riders.
Sadly, the 90 percent of ORV riders who refuse to follow any
rules gives the responsible 10 percent of riders a bad name.
ORV riders have caused extensive
habitat damage throughout the forest.
Torn up alpine meadows, silted-in
Westslope cutthroat trout streams, illegal trails into prime
elk security areas -- these are just a few of the problems
that any hiker routinely sees in southwest Montana.
Never mind the noise, rude behavior, and other merely "social"
issues.
Our national forests should not Disney-fied into ORV theme
parks. The use of these machines for "motorized recreation"
is expanding exponentially, and heavily promoted by the ORV
manufacturing lobby.
Let's put an end to this thing while we can. Limit ORVs to
designated roads and trails with a "closed unless designated
open policy."
Stop the madness.
Pat Munday
Walkerville, MT
Closed trails are idiocy
In viewing your article. I not only find it offensive but
untrue.
All you need to do is go out into the forest and see what
is really happening. There are many uses for our land: berry
picking, wood gathering, hunting fishing, horn hunting, complete
stress management.
I for one use all of the above. I have put the Fish and Game
on the spot, because of areas they have closed for backcountry
horsemen, as well as ranchers who seem to think they own this
country, enough to keep everyone else out.
In this area, ATV users are locked out of their trails 9 months
of the year, while horsemen and snowmobilers are given special
treatment. Where is the fairness.
I'm told a road is closed for habitat, yet they let 50 head
of longhorn steers into the area to graze and spread noxious
weed. All the while the game biologists don't have a clue
as to what kind or how many animals there are in the area.
I have no intentions of letting some environmental idiot keep
me or my ATV out of the woods.
Bill Alexander
Post Falls, Idaho
Other users have all the trails
Your suggestion that motorized recreationists account for
5 percent of forest users is ridiculous.
I contend that fully half of the forest users in the Rocky
Mountain region utilize off-road vehicles during their trips
to our forests.
I do agree with the percentage of trails available to the
motorized user adds up to roughly a quarter of the total trails
available and that statistic clearly underscores the inequities
in recreational opportunities for OHV users.
Not only do non-motorized users have access to all the trails
within our national forests, but have exclusive use of millions
of acres within wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, national
parks and monuments, and countless smaller tracts managed
by a host of federal, state and municipal management entities
around the country.
Meanwhile, the motorized users contributes more money and
time to recreational trails than any other user group.
It's time for fair and balanced trail opportunities for all
of us.
J.R. Riggins
Motorized Recreation Council of Wyoming
Casper, Wy
Horses are worse
I totally agree. It seems that the OHV users are "second-class"
citizens when it comes to availability of trails; we share
all our trails with everyone else and then get blamed when
it gets "chewed" up or something worse.
Horses are harder on any trail than an OHV. Lets get the facts
straight.
Phyllis Becker
Motorized Recreation Council of Wyoming
Ten Sleep, WY
Leaf blowers have same rights
Following up on Mr. Skinner's comments, I agree that we need
to find a balance regarding motorized and muscle-powered recreation.
We all have the right to enjoy our public lands in a way that
befits our interests. For example, take my favorite past-time:
leaf-blowing in the backcountry.
I find when the noise and traffic of town get to me, there's
nothing more cathartic than finding a quiet place nature has
blessed with spectacular wildlife and scenery, and ripping
to life 150cc's of gasoline-powered Kawasaki forced air.
The sensation of moving debris from one side of the trail
to another is unmatched; sometimes I'll just head to the top
of a hill and just blow away, king of the world!
Occasionally other trail users complain about my leaf-blowing
(hippies and librarians, mostly). My response? Hey, I make
the same amount of noise as an ORV, create less fumes, don't
do damage to trails, OR track in non-native
weeds-- what's the problem?
Mr. Skinner, certainly you, I, Japanese ORV manufacturers,
and the Blue-Ribbon Coalition agree that no one else has the
right to keep us from engaging in our favorite motorized activities
on public lands. As long as we are happy, that's all that
matters.
Jon Schwedler
Bozeman, MT
Why must ORVs go?
Cheez, I'm not sure if I should even bother to respond to
this discussion, since nobody seems to be honest about the
facts so far.
Kiely says that 78 percent of trails nationwide are open to
motorheads.
What's wrong with that?
There's like 47 miles of trails on the Flathead open to ATVs
and/or motorcycles, and a whole bunch more (in the neighborhood
of 1,000 miles) open to hikers only ... in the wilderness.
And the reason the three state OHV rule hasn't resulted in
a bunch of closures isn't a lack of willpower, but more or
less a lack of crisis except in certain areas.
Get away from Billings and go for a putt putt on BLM, and
you won't see anyone. Rattlesnake might be a different deal,
and might need management.
But management of a use does NOT mean elimination. And in
those "crisis" areas, which Williams thinks should
be balkanized, why is it that it will be the motorheads shut
out?
Hikers, which are 2 percent of Recreation Visitor Days, as
compared to 5 percent for motorheads -- leaving 93 percent
for mom and pop in the car -- already have millions of acres
all to themselves.
Dave Skinner
Whitefish, MT
Best for the majority
Four wheeler and snowmobile use is here to stay. The question
is: how much and where?
Those who enjoy wheeling along in America's outback need room
to ride and enjoy, but they must show respect, by dictate
if necessary, for both the land and their fellow recreationists.
Rational people can agree that the sudden explosion of motorized
use of our wild places presents the West with a serious dilemma:
how to allow appropriate use of the public's land while protecting
it against degradation, and further, how to permit the many
and varied uses of the land for everyone who enjoys the wild
places – and that includes those who wish, as a clear
majority do, to enjoy the land not from the seat of a motorized
4-wheeler or snowmobile but rather on a saddle, or skies or
simply in hiking boots.
I know from my 18 years of representing Montana in the U.S.
Congress that the Forest Service really has its work cut out
for it on this one.
I earnestly encourage the F.S. staff and administrators to
give more than passing attention to Mr. Kiely's article. He
makes thoughtful points and poses very important questions.
Many of us in the Congress saw this problem coming years ago;
now it is here and we all need both thoughtfulness and neighborliness
to deal with it.
Let's not allow, here in the Northern Rockies, that which
has tragically occurred in some other states in the upper
Midwest: the sudden proliferation and damaging onslaught of
vehicles throughout the wild places.
Doing so inevitably means that all sides lose. The land is
damaged, motorized users are soon chased out, accusations
fly, anger results ... no winners.
We are the generation that will set the course for future
use of these
remaining and mostly wild lands. We just have to set aside
the myths and fears and start to consider each other as neighbors.
Let's face the fact that we simply can't have every use, everywhere
on these lands. The F.S. should, even at risk, reject the
latest poll-driven, politically correct policies dictated
from this Congress and this White House, and instead do what
is best for the land and the majority of the users.
Pat Williams
Missoula
|
