Off-Road Vehicle Lobby Influences Forest Service and BLM

Question:

There’s no need to attack the person if you’ve got the facts and reasoning on your side. True. How about practicing that mantra? The fact is you despise ORVs and attack the riders thereof.

As long as they keep their vehicles on established roads, ORV trails (they exist) and Jeep trails, no problem. Tearing across the countryside is not good. Let me remind you about erosion, plant damage (esp. bad in the desert Southwest), and disturbing wildlife. — Pat O’Connell Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints, Kill nothing but vandals…

Response:

There’s no need to attack the person if you’ve got the facts and reasoning on your side.

True. How about practicing that mantra? The fact is you despise ORVs and attack the riders thereof.

Response:

But I think that 99% of the public are not interested in hiking 10, 20, or 100 miles to a point in the backcountry, yet still wish to see that place.

Then why should they be interested in riding to that place? It sounds like you’re saying, "The public’s too lazy to try out hiking, so let them ride to see these places." And there are few places that are more than 20 miles from a trailhead. To a person who hasn’t really hiked before, even a place 3 miles down the trail can seem like a wilderness experience. It would likely seem more special and remote to them than riding 20 miles to a similar place. — Yellowstone TRs: http://www.cis.ksu.edu/~dha5446/hiking/yellowstone/

Response:

This seems to be one of those loaded strings. I’ll add my .02 for what it’s worth. Though I don’t know of the situation in the west, here in the SE the use of ORV’s on Forest Service land is limited to two designated trail areas in the Pisgah/Nantahala National Forests and, I think, usage of some gravel surface roads. ORV trails are NOT permitted for other usages nor are trails permitted for hiking, horses etc permitted for ORV’s. A few yeas ago, I was part of a group that worked out some proposed regulations for one of the ORV trail areas. Participant were ORV clubs, fish and wildlife people, trout fishermen worried about water quality and others. Also part were staff members of the US Forest Service. Considering that the group started out at knife points, it came up with some constructive suggestions. At no point did any member of the group advocate turning ORV’s loose on multi user trails. The group DID advocate the destruction of the grade on some adjoining abandoned logging roads so that some wilder spirits wouldn’t get ideas. Changing the banking on some curvs of the existing trail system was advocated to discourage speed as was the requirement for tires with a non agressive tread …. no knobies. I should point out that the handicapped issue was a non issue. The group had a contact from a person that headed an organization supposidly working for handicapped recreational use. Try as we might, we could never get participation from him and finally concluded that he was the only one in his organization. I point this out in the midst of the flameful rhetoric here simply because it was a nice example that something constructive can happen with people of opposing views when they forget their personal adgendas and act in good faith. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

Lester points out: I`m sorry, but we have a nice park in our area, with what once were nice hiking trails, and then came bicycles, and guess what? The trails were all rutted in no time. Now bikes are nor allowed, bu the damage is done Proof!!

Hi Lester, If you were to allow no use of any kind for 6 months to a year on that trail, you would not be able to find that trail again because it grew over and recovered. I can show you areas that did just that, if you’d like. Ron

Response:

Jon says: What’s elitism to one person is preservation of a disappearing and irreplaceable resource to another.

Not applicable here. A disappearance of an irreplaceable resource means you paved it over and built another Wal-Mart. Simply riding my ORV through the forest leaves it just the way it was found, which I would be happy to prove. Just let me know when. And just because one believes that there are good arguments for regulating ORV use on public lands does not make one necessarily an elitist.

Understood. Easy to pursue a personal agenda there, however, as I have seen many attempts to ban ORV use under lies and deception, so I’d ask you to understand my cynicism at times. After all, why should public lands be off-limits to the "average motorist"? Perhaps a "big yellow taxi" is an appropriate vehicle from which to enjoy all the public lands… %^)

A little humor is always appreciated, Jon. But I think that 99% of the public are not interested in hiking 10, 20, or 100 miles to a point in the backcountry, yet still wish to see that place. Therefore, an ORV may be the only way to see it in their lifetimes-otherwise they’ll only see it in pictures, which is not an acceptable substitute, really. I do feel I could support your "No Yellow Taxi’s In The Backcountry" movement. Ron

Response:

Greg says: I tend to lean towards "more wilderness good"

I don’t, I tend to lean towards "more backcountry preserved for public use and wildlife protection and protected from development and pollution good". More of a tongue-twister, tho. but can allow that ORV’s have their place

Hey, thanks Greg buddy! the challenge is in getting some (note bene: rider, I didn’t say all) ORV

users to know their place. And educating all trail users about proper trail use, conservation, and respect for wildlife. And work for the availability of quieter, cleaner ORVs. Ron

Response:

Hello, I’m the President of a Florida Off Road 4×4 Club and would like to say something. Our club has been actively involved with the USFS for many years and participate in the Adopt a Trail programme and other voluntary activities. We enjoy a fairly good rapport with the USFS. We feel that the infrastructure already in place is sufficient. We do not ask for more access to the woods as there seems to be plenty of trails already. We do not ride on hiking trails, we do not enter Wilderness Areas. We keep to ourselves. The hikers already have their own network of extensive trails, exclusive to them. I know because I use them also. I fail to understand the position of both sides when there is already allocated areas available to both sides. I have no problem with hikers, bird spotters, hunters etc. but I do take exception to the 4×4 bashing that goes on here—kinda like Vandeman!!!! heck, one of the most vehement hikers even related about driving his car in the woods. Incidentally, my jeep weighs less than 2000 lb, so it would appear that the car is doing more damage, being heavier and putting all that weight onto little skinny tyres. I thimk the woods are plentiful enough so that everyone can enjoy them, whether it be on foot, horseback or ORV, without resorting to draconian laws to prevent access to a large segment of the population. Don’t you? Thanks 46

Response:

Below is a story from yesterday’s Christian Science Monitor about the problems which the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management is having with the off-road vehicle manufacturer and distributor lobby. The CSM put an "out West" slant on it, as becomes a bunch of out East Bostonians, but it is really a national (and Canadian) problem. And they rolled-in industrial uses (ranching) along with recreational uses of dirt bikes, snowmobiles, 4WDs, and jet skis. Still, it is worthwhile reading. The usual suspects are mentioned, particularly Clark Collins, the Ribbon guy (who likes to call himself the Blue Ribbon Coalition), and a few of his "coalition" bankrollers, the heavyweight industry players Yamaha and Kawasaki. Keep a barf bag handy for quotes like, "Off-road enthusiasts defend ORVs as a way for the elderly, physically challenged, and families with kids to enjoy public lands off-limits to the average motorist." Jeez, who would want to be ageist, anti-handicapped, and against families playing together? The bottom line? "All 155 national forests are drafting ‘travel plans’ that spell out where machines are allowed to travel on and off roads. The BLM has yet to formulate a national strategy." I think the Forest Service and the BLM need some input for their "travel plans," don’t you? How ’bout the Canadian land management agencies? We could start with: - defunding "the $270 million Recreation Trails Program. Under the program, some hiking and horseback-riding trails will be converted to accommodate wide-bodied ORVs." - reinstating the 40-inch rule (see below), and - getting local regs for quiet mufflers and smooth tires. After local regs in the National Forests near me and those near you, we could go for national regs. If not you and me, who? Full text of Christian Science Monitor’s 10/5/99 article follows (from http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/10/05/fp1s2-csm.shtml, then click on "page 3" link) Crush of off-road vehicles plies West’s public lands The use of recreational vehicles, from snowmobiles to four-wheelers, is booming, forcing towns and federal agencies to rethink land-use policies. Todd Wilkinson Special to The Christian Science Monitor JAMESTOWN, COLO. In the tradition of John Wayne, cattle drives to Abilene, Texas, and rugged individualism comes an invention fast becoming a symbol of the changing New West: off-road vehicles. Packing more horsepower than a trusty steed, cheaper and more versatile than a pickup, off-road vehicles (ORVs) like four-wheelers and dirt bikes are being saddled by middle-class consumers in record numbers. They’re considered essential tools for hunting – even mainstays for modern cowboys. Yet for Mark Williams and his neighbors in quaint Jamestown, Colo. (pop. 290), ORVs are noisy, smelly annoyances rumbling through town on the way to the Roosevelt National Forest. More than that, they’re sullying the town’s water supply by muddying James Creek, according to one independent study. "I hate to beat on the Forest Service," says Mr. Williams, water-quality coordinator for the Boulder County Health Department. "But my goodness, they have a handbook on good watershed practices yet their own standards are being blatantly violated by ORVs and their approach to management seems to be no management at all." In fact, this bedroom community of Boulder, Colo., is among dozens of communities in the public-land-rich West trying to cope with skyrocketing numbers of ORV riders, which land managers confess have caught them completely off guard. The problem is epidemic, critics say, and the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are dragging their feet, in part because they often receive millions of dollars from gasoline taxes earmarked for ORV trails – a charge the agencies deny. Off-road enthusiasts defend ORVs as a way for the elderly, physically challenged, and families with kids to enjoy public lands off-limits to the average motorist. Now, with ORV visitor days estimated to reach 118 million a year by 2020 – up from 5.3 million in 1979 – the Forest Service is being forced to rethink how its holdings will be managed in years ahead. "The Forest Service and BLM have never stepped back and looked carefully at the increasing range and capabilities of off-road vehicles," says John Adams with the Montana Wilderness Association. "Without review, planning, or even acknowledgment, ORVs are transforming recreation in our Western public lands." The loss of quiet trails Mr. Adams points to a litany of concerns: the effect of ORVs on sensitive plants, animals, and landscapes – including places where ORVs have hastened the listings of endangered species. Hikers and horseback riders rue the loss of quiet trails. And activists worry about the quality of the water their families drink. Forest Service officials acknowledge they’re playing catch-up, but so is everyone else. "I wouldn’t say the Forest Service or any other federal agency is behind the curve on this issue as much as society as a whole is behind the curve in being able to deal with the collective emergence of three- and four-wheelers, snowmobiles, and jet skis," says Chris Wood, a senior Forest Service policy adviser in Washington. All 155 national forests are drafting "travel plans" that spell out where machines are allowed to travel on and off roads. The BLM has yet to formulate a national strategy. Even now, say some officials, ORVs cause less damage than dune buggies and jeeps caused 20 years ago, when there were few limits. "It all depends on how you look at it," says Tom Thompson, assistant forester for the Rocky Mountain region. Wary of too much regulation For their part, ORV riders say they just want to have fun. Clark Collins, executive director of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a powerful lobbying group for ORV interests, decries any government effort to tightly restrict access for motorized recreationists on public lands. He says some riders have been abusive, but he contends that it is no reason to ban everyone else. With 500,000 members and a handful of American and Japanese ORV manufacturers contributing to the cause, the coalition earlier this year was instrumental in persuading Congress to fund the $270 million Recreation Trails Program. Under the program, some hiking and horseback-riding trails will be converted to accommodate wide-bodied ORVs. Considering that the US government intends to dismantle some of the Forest Service’s estimated 370,000 miles of roads in coming decades, the measure was seen as crucial for ORV owners. But former Montana Congressman Pat Williams asks: "Do we want Yamaha and Kawasaki to be setting the policy of how we manage recreation on our public lands?" Critics say ORV riders represent a small fraction of outdoor recreationists, yet they get access to a disproportionately high percentage of public lands. For example, in Utah, 94 percent of the 23.5 million acres of BLM land is open to ORV use, says the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. "Most public agencies disregard the ecological impacts of roads, and attempt to justify timber roads as benefiting recreation and wildlife management," notes prominent conservation biologist Reed Noss in a recent ecological analysis. "Even when a land manager recognizes the desirability of closing roads, he or she usually contends that such closures would be unacceptable to the public." Indeed, the idea of closing roads has occasionally met with deep opposition. ORV riders continued to defiantly drive on old logging roads in Idaho’s Targhee National Forest after a judge had ordered managers to close the roads to protect grizzly bears. The Forest Service dug "tank traps" to thwart further incursions. Later, an explosive device was left on the doorstep at a Forest Service building, apparently to protest the road closures. Jim Gerber, a retired Forest Service timber sale planner who spent a quarter century with the agency, does not condone violence, but he understands the frustration. "What has the world come to when we have to build tank traps to keep Americans out of public lands they own?" he asks. Forest Service’s key decision Others have a different view. When the Forest Service in 1990 eliminated the so-called 40-inch rule – which gave a green light to increased use of ORVs that are more than 40 inches wide – Montanan Frank Culver cried foul. Despite claims by the Forest Service that it widely advertised its intention to cancel the rule, just five comments nationwide were submitted to the federal record. "Nobody knew about it, and if the conservation community had, you know there would have been a major uproar," Mr. Culver says. "Abolishing the 40-inch rule was arguably one of the most significant natural-resource decisions the Forest Service has made…. [It] opened the door for much of the mess the agency finds itself in." For residents of Jamestown, government promises to address the "four-wheeled menace" provide little solace. Forest Service district ranger Christine Walsh says she is sympathetic to their concerns but she is confronting the same local resistance experienced across the West. "We’re tying to seriously determine what the capacity for ORVs is that the land can handle and then prescribe appropriate limits," she says. "Nobody likes to have limits placed on themselves." [end of quoted story] — Jeff ORBS Classifieds – Free outdoor classified ads http://home.pacbell.net/orbs ORBS Escrow – Affordable safety for online buyers and sellers http://home.pacbell.net/orbs/oe-homepage.html

Response:

Jeez, what is your problem with reading comprehension, Ron?!

I was wondering the same thing… I’ve abandoned further reply to Ron until he thinks before each keystroke. greg

Response:

Jeff WRITES: I really like those "spews" and "continues to spew" touches. Lotta class, plus they indicate a factual and reasoned discussion to follow.

Sorry Jeff, but is this where I say "Pot, Kettle, Black"? You yourself have been vehemently name-calling, yet I’m supposed to be meek about replies to your deceptions. But, I’ll tone down my posts a bit if you will. The sarcasm was clearly directed at those who exploit handicapped people in order to make a buck (the off-road recreational vehicle industry, represented by the Ribbon guy)

No, I can see the real truth. You are mad about those have no desire or are unable to make the commitment required to hike 50 to 100 miles to see a scene in nature, and wish to get there on or in an ORV. How exactly would anyone be exploited by this? One could turn around and say that YOU are trying to run the ORV industry out of business! I am embarrassed for you over your reference to "a family who merely is enjoying the backcountry" at the expense (noise, trail damage, noise, unsafe speed, and noise) of other users.

Noise – baloney. The ATVs pictured in the article use clean and quiet four-strokes. If you want no noise at all, go to a Wilderness area, there are plenty of them. ORV users, bikers, tolerant horse riders and hikers in ORV-legal backcountry, hiking solitude in Wilderness. Simple, and available. Is this what parents should be teaching their kids by example?

Yes, togetherness and family participation in a fun activity that promotes use and appreciation of the outdoors. The world needs more of this. Look, I’m going to……point out again that "their desired means of travel"

is not a means of travel, but the whole point of them being in the backcountry. It is a means of travel, which is a part of the enjoyment of ORVs, and it is a means of getting to and seeing/enjoying this beutiful country. It is NOT the "whole point", as you would like us to believe. I envy you the psychic power to know who I "HATE," but I’d suggest you apply your energies first to reading comprehension, then to presenting facts and reasoning.

I feel I read, comprehend, and reason as well as, and better than, yourself Jeff. How about we quit the name-calling and insults and stick to issues. That should save a ton of wasted space. If you want a constructive dialog, reply with some facts and reasoning about this proposed agenda: – defunding "the $270 million Recreation Trails Program. Under the program, some hiking and horseback-riding trails will be converted to accommodate wide-bodied ORVs."

I fully support the Recreational Trails Program, which is a Congress-approved program that recognizes that there is a large segment of the PUBLIC who wishes to recreate on PUBLIC lands in a way they are free to choose to enjoy (such as ORV use). – reinstating the 40-inch rule

Great, more of the public would be able to use a wider range of fun ORVs. Therefore, more of the public enjoying and supporting conservation of public lands. – getting local regs which the rangers could easily enforce

Pretty vague, please be more specific. I can say that I feel the education and cooperation of all backcountry users are the key, not turning Forest Rangers into policemen. – quiet mufflers (silent at 50? paces)

Here is an area that could be improved (in my opinion), where technological advances in noise suppression could help. I personally like a quiet ORV, but the limits you would place on them currently would likely be impossible to meet (which might also be your motivation). – smooth tires

Nope, education again is the issue here. The tires today are made to obtain traction, allowing the ORV to move in varying terrain. If there is a trail which needs time to recover from use, educate the trail user to take it easy there, or choose an adjacent trail, or ride in another direction. In my many outings on my ORV, I have noticed that a trail I took last year is so overgrown by the next year, you can’t tell it is a trail-shooting down the notion that "trails are destroyed forever". Care to accompany me (on an ORV) for proof? – licensed drivers only.

Required for on-highway use only. There are a lot of youngsters that would be pretty unhappy with you for trying to take away their enjoyment in this fashion, and frankly I think you are being pretty silly with that request. How did you learn how to drive before you got a license? I would ask that you exercise some tolerance and understanding for people who don’t feel the same as you, we CAN all get along, and there is room in this big country for all of us. Write carefully — the CSM’s next story, and the Forest Service/BLM regs, might be influenced by you.

I’ll be writing about, fighting for, and financially supporting keeping public lands open to the public for the rest of my life Jeffrey, get used to me being here. Ron

Response:

Excellent post. I’m strictly a hiker, but I agree with most of what you’re saying. One thing that disturbs me is that nearly all hikers want more wilderness and nearly all bikers/ORVers want less wilderness. I think most of it is selfishness — hikers don’t seem to care about other forms of recreation, and ORVers don’t seem to care about what their machines do to trails. I wish both sides would stop the knee-jerk responses to wilderness proposals. Hikers say "more wilderness good" and bikers say "more wilderness bad" without considering each individual case. Things could actually get done if both sides were reasonable about things, IMHO.

I am one who has participated in activities on both sides of this issue. I agree that the extreme knee-jerk responses to wilderness proposals are counter-productive. I am primarily a backpacker/mountain-climber, but I have enjoyed a few jeep-trail rides, I have owned/ridden an off-road motorcycle, and currently own a snowmobile. (I ride one of those off-road pedal bikes too, Mikey — rode it to work today.) Mountain bikes, ATV’s, snowmobiles and 4wd vehicles have their place. But don’t worry — they will NEVER be used in the rugged backcountry. The terrain is just too rugged for anything but people using their own two legs. If anyone wonders about my snowmobile, I ride it over roads you can drive on with any car during the summer — more folks ought to try one; you get to see more of the remote "front" country more of the year. BTW, snowmobiles DO NOT WORK in any kind of a trail situation. It is disturbing to see where a few personal experiences lead to people ranting against a whole recreation form. Jeff, you were in your car when you encountered that kid on the ATV. That could have been a kid on a bicycle on your own street at home–irresponsible kids to dangerous things. It doesn’t mean we should slam the gates shut in the forests to anything but hikers. Be careful what you ask for– government agencies could listen to rants like yours, and close that road — not only to the atv’s, but also to your car as well. Would you ever see that part of the wilderness again? Probably not — areas like that just aren’t spectacular enough to hike, but nice enough to enjoy by car. The issue for the ORV people is that there are lots of environmental "extremists" who want more hiking-only wilderness. In my mind it is the same issue as the National Parks and National Forests placing extremely low trail quotas on their trails — they just want to limit the public’s access to the public lands. It makes sense to them — fewer visitors means fewer hassles for them. Outdoor enthusiasts should stop slamming each other and work together to keep the public lands accessible to all of us. Steve Cosner

Response:

I really like those "spews" and "continues to spew" touches. Lotta class, plus they indicate a factual and reasoned discussion to follow. (when quoting the Christian Science Monitor’s article on off-road recreational vehicles)

(For those who might have missed the article, click <http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/10/05/fp1s2-csm.shtml, then click on "page 3" link.) Keep a barf bag handy for quotes like, "Off-road enthusiasts defend ORVs as a way for the elderly, physically challenged, and families with kids to enjoy public lands off-limits to the average motorist." Jeez, who would want to be ageist, anti-handicapped, and against families playing together? You, as you have amply demonstrated here on this newsgroup. Quote me, Ron, or zip it. You sarcastically refer to handicapped folks in the previous post, and further in this last one, because they are a valid reason for forest access, and you HATE that.

The sarcasm was clearly directed at those who exploit handicapped people in order to make a buck (the off-road recreational vehicle industry, represented by the Ribbon guy) and the "off-road enthusiasts" mentioned in the CSM article, though you have too much self-respect to stoop to that, Ron. Why do you feel the need to divert this discussion (or give me this second bite at the apple) with such an intentional misunderstanding? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When the off-road recreational vehicle lobby stoops to claiming they are protecting the weak and the American family — instead of creating demand by Joe Sixpack for the sole purpose of creating profit, dividends, and managers’ bonuses — I will exercise my Constitutionally protected right to barf. If some gets on your shoes, tough. … Same goes for their line about every American "owning" the public land so they can do whatever they damn well please there, regardless of others’ "ownership" rights. There is the reference you ask for, and you add fuel to your hate rhetoric by making up more fantasies about profit, and "Joe Sixpack", when you are really trying to paint ORV users with a slanderous brush. What about a family who merely is enjoying the backcountry, on the vehicle they wish to use? Are they lumped in with "Joe Sixpack"?

The reference, once again, was to those who would exploit the weak and the handicapped, for money or for fun. I am embarrassed for you over your reference to "a family who merely is enjoying the backcountry" at the expense (noise, trail damage, noise, unsafe speed, and noise) of other users. Is this what parents should be teaching their kids by example? This argument can be reduced to absurdity by applying it to Denali. Does Yamaha or Honda or Kawasaki propose to put a tram to the top so every American, elderly and/or handicapped, can ride there in comfort? After all, it’s their mountain top, too. That phoney-baloney I-own-America stuff may rile up Joe Sixpack enough to have him go into debt for an off-road recreational vehicle, but it doesn’t fly with me. Look, more bull. "Do whatever they damn well please" is a far cry from simply enjoying the backcountry via their desired means of travel. But, as usual, enviro extremists do this "sky is falling" story for everything they don’t like.

Look, I’m going to ignore your slipping in the overblown rhetoric again, and point out again that "their desired means of travel" is not a means of travel, but the whole point of them being in the backcountry. And the sky is not falling, though the trail is being torn up, made less safe, and made noisy. OR-RVers "do whatever they damn well please," because, if they took the non-motorized users pleasure into account, they would at least silence their engines and get the same thrills at much lower speeds by using smooth tires. This argument can be reduced to absurdity by applying it to Denali. Does Yamaha or Honda or Kawasaki propose to put a tram to the top so every American, elderly and/or handicapped, can ride there in comfort? Talk about absurd! Only experienced climbers (who you also likely HATE), could reach the top of the tallest mountain-not ORVs.

… Jeez, what is your problem with reading comprehension, Ron?! A (mountain) tram is not an OR-RV road, it is an overhead cable with little, 6-person cars hanging from it. It’s used to carry people up the hill so they can ski back down. You may have seen one of these people (actually enjoying the outdoors with their families without sitting on their butts) from your snowmobile. (<—That was sarcasm.) I envy you the psychic power to know who I "HATE," but I’d suggest you apply your energies first to reading comprehension, then to presenting facts and reasoning. And you’d do yourself a favor to stifle the overheated rhetoric (spew, HATE, hate rhetoric, fantasies, slanderous brush, bull, enviro extremists, "sky is falling" story), as well as the personal attacks. There’s no need to attack the person if you’ve got the facts and reasoning on your side. If you want a constructive dialog, reply with some facts and reasoning about this proposed agenda: - defunding "the $270 million Recreation Trails Program. Under the program, some hiking and horseback-riding trails will be converted to accommodate wide-bodied ORVs." (quote from Christian Science Monitor article, URL above) - reinstating the 40-inch rule (see Christian Science Monitor article, URL above), - getting local regs which the rangers could easily enforce – quiet mufflers (silent at 50? paces) – smooth tires – licensed drivers only. Write carefully — the CSM’s next story, and the Forest Service/BLM regs, might be influenced by you. — Jeff ORBS Classifieds – Free outdoor classified ads http://home.pacbell.net/orbs ORBS Escrow – Affordable safety for online buyers and sellers http://home.pacbell.net/orbs/oe-homepage.html

Response:

I`m sorry, but we have a nice park in our area, with what once were nice hiking trails, and then came bicycles, and guess what? The trails were all rutted in no time. Now bikes are nor allowed, bu the damage is done Proof!!

Response:

Maybe you should realize that some folks want to recreate the way they want, not the way YOU want. The only problems created are those by elitists such as yourself, who feel "since I don’t do it, NO ONE should be able to".

It doesn’t seem as simple as that to many of us. What’s elitism to one person is preservation of a disappearing and irreplaceable resource to another. And just because one believes that there are good arguments for regulating ORV use on public lands does not make one necessarily an elitist. This quote from the CSM article, on the other hand, might be taken as "ORV elitism" with respect to the average motorist: Off-road enthusiasts defend ORVs as a way for the elderly, physically challenged, and families with kids to enjoy public lands off-limits to the average motorist. After all, why should public lands be off-limits to the "average motorist"? Perhaps a "big yellow taxi" is an appropriate vehicle from which to enjoy all the public lands… %^) "Pave paradise and put up a parking lot…" — Joni Mitchell "After 35 years, we are finally going to do something about the Wilderness Act…" – WARC "…Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve go ’til it’s gone…" – Joni Mitchell Jon Meinecke

Response:

Charley notes: Before I start my rant, has anyone seen any info on *where* they are considering making changes?

Hi Chuck, Not sure what changes you mean, but www.wildlandsproject.org is a site which details the exteme lock-up of our public lands, making changes by taking away exisiting trails. I have some issues regarding the "pave the planet for accessibility" issue. While this is not *directly* related, my issue arises from the desire to open up more land to ORV (motorized or non) use.

Pave the Planet? Who’d want that? Not the issue at all, nor is opening up more land to ORV use. The issue is merely keeping open the existing ORV access we have now, NOT encroaching on current Wilderness at all-an important point that must be realized in these discussions. I find that there is *plenty* of land to bike on as it is.

I agree Chuckster, keeping what we all have open is the part I scream and holler, er, intelligently debate for. I spend most of my time watching where I’m going so I don’t nail a pedestrian or a stopped cyclist.

I mountain bike as much as possible myself, but actually I never have to watch for other trails users, if I am not enjoying the scenery, I am concentrating on a tough workout. When I ride my ATV or dirtbike, I watch out for other trails users, and treat them with respect, which includes getting out of hikers, bikers, and horseback riders way, and shutting down the vehicle so as not to scare horses and other trails users until they have past. Simple respect, costs nothing, and is a Good Thing. people who can’t gain the ability to walk to Minaret Lakes in California (a

fairly steep & windy trail) must accept that these areas are not accessible to them. Understood, but there has to be areas for ORV users too. Keeping the current access open is best in my opinion. When you have an ORV trail to a mountain that everyone can enjoy, then close it to only non-motorized use, you will have denied access to public land from the public, and the only way 99% of the public would then ever see this mountain is in pictures. You certainly have not saved it for "the children", as anti-ORV folks wish you to believe. If it’s to see the scenery, recognize that the scenery will rapidly be degraded by irresponsible ORV users and bikers.

Chuck, this is something that I, as an ORV user for 30 years, have not seen. I can pass down a trail on my ATV, and you can’t even tell I was there (which I would be happy to prove). The tales of "total destruction" are usually made up to help anti-ORV folks to justify taking public lands from the public. Of course some trail use will always be evident, but not to the extent that is told of on these newsgroups. Anyway, my fifty cents (or more). Take it or leave it.

Overall, pretty level-headed post from ya I’d say, Chuck. Nice to see some room for understanding from folks here. Ron

Response:

OR-RVs are a bad, bad idea — I know it, and you know it.

That’s your opinion, myself and many others think that sharing the trails is a good idea. Try not to impose your religion on others and you’ll make better friends.

Response:

I wish both sides would stop the knee-jerk responses to wilderness proposals. Hikers say "more wilderness good" and bikers say "more wilderness bad" without considering each individual case. Things could actually get done if both sides were reasonable about things, IMHO.

Good point and probably the best approach (with the caveat that not all technologies are benign, even with proper use). I tend to lean towards "more wilderness good" but can allow that ORV’s have their place… the challenge is in getting some (note bene: rider, I didn’t say all) ORV users to know their place. greg — http://www.stfx.ca/people/x97/x97ykq/

Response:

<snip Anyway, my fifty cents (or more). Take it or leave it. I am concerned by extreme opinions from both sides (I point no fingers. This is a general comment) being the majority of the ones heard. Charley

Response:

Before I start my rant, has anyone seen any info on *where* they are considering making changes? I would be interested in seeing what they’re talking about without rejecting it out-of-hand. That said: I have some issues regarding the "pave the planet for accessibility" issue. While this is not *directly* related, my issue arises from the desire to open up more land to ORV (motorized or non) use. I mountain bike as well as hike, but would not consider it reasonable to open more land to mountain bikers, either. I find that there is *plenty* of land to bike on as it is. The major enjoyment of the ride is the exercise. I spend most of my time watching where I’m going so I don’t nail a pedestrian or a stopped cyclist. If I want to "see nature", I walk. I’m not likely to run someone over on foot. While I recognize that this is limiting for those who can not walk to a given location, if the wilderness is made "accessible" to everyone, it ceases to be wilderness. I have to accept that no matter how much I want to, I will never be in shape to climb Everest, or any other major mountain. Similarly, people who can’t gain the ability to walk to Minaret Lakes in California (a fairly steep & windy trail) must accept that these areas are not accessible to them. Modifying the trail to Minaret would destroy much of why people go there. I believe that it is not reasonable to modify as location from its natural state to permit more people to "enjoy it." One would now be enjoying something *other* that what was there before, and those who enjoyed what used to exist would no longer be able to. When put in a situation where I must choose between modifying an environment others can enjoy it versus leaving it as is so those who currently enjoy it can continue to do so, I choose the latter unless someone is being *actively* injured by the current state. On the issue of ORV and multi-use trails, I also have a few comments. In my experience, trails swiftly lose their appeal for hikers after they open for multiple mode use. Trail conditions are torn up, in that the trails become greatly compacted, particularly by heavy vehicles, and after time develop wheel ruts either from bikers (like me) or ORVs, *particularly* when trails are ridden wet. Also, no matter how quite in comparison with a regular vehicle, unless an ORV is electric, it makes more noise than a pedestrian, a horse (without bells on the harness), or the wildlife that actually inhabits the area. I do not have objections to a *coherent* plan for ORV and nulti-use trails. However, I do object to the conversion of pedestrian and stock trails to ORV and mountain bike (non-exclusive or exclusive) use trails. ORVs and mountain bikes are lots of fun on forest service roads (which are, in general, already no fun to hike because they’re already wide & hard-packed). There is no need to add more trails. Assess the interest in ORV & mountain biking on (current) hiking/riding trails. If it’s to see the scenery, recognize that the scenery will rapidly be degraded by irresponsible ORV users and bikers. It is more difficult to degrade a trail as a pedestrian or a horse. *Not* impossible, as many irresponsible backpackers have made evident, but it takes substantially longer than it would for a family of four on 4-wheelers (or mountain bikes, for that matter) to slaughter the trail, for example, from Devil’s Postpile to Rainbow Falls. I use Mammoth Lakes area trails b/c I was just there & conditions are fresh. There are lots of trails here in southern California that I’ve ridden that are multi-use and, frankly, they look like hell. I wouldn’t want to do that to any other trails. These, however, are so far gone that *all* use would have to stop for 100 years to "repair" the damage. Anyway, my fifty cents (or more). Take it or leave it. I am concerned by extreme opinions from both sides (I point no fingers. This is a general comment) being the majority of the ones heard. Charley ** Please note ** Since I made such frequent use of my opinion, I feel like I should make sure I point out that it is *my* opinion, and not in any way related to my employer (who would probably have kittens if they knew grad students had opinions…). — Charles Hamilton, EIT Graduate Student Researcher Department of Civil and Phone: 949.824.8694 Environmental Engineering FAX: 949.824.2117

Response:

Quote me, Ron, or zip it.

You sarcastically refer to handicapped folks in the previous post, and further in this last one, because they are a valid reason for forest access, and you HATE that. When the off-road recreational vehicle lobby stoops to claiming they are protecting the weak and the American family — instead of creating demand by Joe Sixpack for the sole purpose of creating profit, dividends, and managers’ bonuses

There is the reference you ask for, and you add fuel to your hate rhetoric by making up more fantasies about profit, and "Joe Sixpack", when you are really trying to paint ORV users with a slanderous brush. What about a family who merely is enjoying the backcountry, on the vehicle they wish to use? Are they lumped in with "Joe Sixpack"? I will exercise my Constitutionally protected right to barf. If some gets on your shoes, tough.

Boy, YOU SURE TOLD ME. Same goes for their line about every American "owning" the public land so they can do whatever they damn well please there, regardless of others’ "ownership" rights.

Look, more bull. "Do whatever they damn well please" is a far cry from simply enjoying the backcountry via their desired means of travel. But, as usual, enviro extremists do this "sky is falling" story for everything they don’t like. This argument can be reduced to absurdity by applying it to Denali. Does Yamaha or Honda or Kawasaki propose to put a tram to the top so every American, elderly and/or handicapped, can ride there in comfort?

Talk about absurd! Only experienced climbers (who you also likely HATE), could reach the top of the tallest mountain-not ORVs. And YOU should realize that some folks go to the forest for their recreation because of the peace and quiet — just the sounds of the wind and the birds.

Great, but that doesn’t mean you are King Of The World and can ban all ORVs-not in any way, shape or form. Go into a true Wilderness, that’s what they are for. But what do you do about an airplane overhead? How do you justify spewing your snarling, wining motor noise for miles around, like thash blowing out of a pooly maintained garbage truck on the freeway?

Never seen an ORV like this (nor have you). Typical "sky is falling" stuff, again. My ATV and dirt motorcycle is quiet and clean-burning, and I can prove it. Further, YOU should realize that some folks go to the forest for their recreation so they can amble slowly down a path, lost in thought or their surroundings, not always on the lookout for an onrushing, 25 mile per hour machine with an 10 year old at the controls.

<snip rest of insane fiction with no basis in fact As usual, you paint a hysteric picture of total danger when encountering an ORV. I would be happy to prove to ANYONE that the opposite is true-that ORV users can respect other users, AND get along with all other types of recreationists. Have you considered that the OR-RV manufacturers and distributors, and their lobbyist, are making a sucker out of you, Ron?

No. It’s too insane to come up with, only you could dream up such a conspiracy theory. They encourage you to rape your own forests like a strip miner or clear cutter, and you pay them for the priviledge.

You expect ANYONE with an ounce of common sense to believe merely riding my ATV through a public land is THE SAME AS clear-cutting and strip mining it? You really are a nut! I’d be happy to PROVE that my passing through (and enjoying) a forest leaves no trace (the trees will STILL be standing). But you’d never take the challenge, you’d be blown out of the water in front of everyone. A simple fact sure ruins your nutty arguments. ORVs, along with mountain biking, back packing, and horseback riding are a good idea, they all allow the public to appreciate nature and support its’ preservation-you know it, and I know it. Ron

Response:

(when quoting the Christian Science Monitor’s article on off-road recreational vehicles) Keep a barf bag handy for quotes like, "Off-road enthusiasts defend ORVs as a way for the elderly, physically challenged, and families with kids to enjoy public lands off-limits to the average motorist." Jeez, who would want to be ageist, anti-handicapped, and against families playing together? You, as you have amply demonstrated here on this newsgroup.

Quote me, Ron, or zip it. When the off-road recreational vehicle lobby stoops to claiming they are protecting the weak and the American family — instead of creating demand by Joe Sixpack for the sole purpose of creating profit, dividends, and managers’ bonuses — I will exercise my Constitutionally protected right to barf. If some gets on your shoes, tough. Same goes for their line about every American "owning" the public land so they can do whatever they damn well please there, regardless of others’ "ownership" rights. This argument can be reduced to absurdity by applying it to Denali. Does Yamaha or Honda or Kawasaki propose to put a tram to the top so every American, elderly and/or handicapped, can ride there in comfort? After all, it’s their mountain top, too. That phoney-baloney I-own-America stuff may rile up Joe Sixpack enough to have him go into debt for an off-road recreational vehicle, but it doesn’t fly with me. Maybe you should realize that some folks want to recreate the way they want, not the way YOU want.

Fair enough. And YOU should realize that some folks go to the forest for their recreation because of the peace and quiet — just the sounds of the wind and the birds. How do you justify spewing your snarling, wining motor noise for miles around, like thash blowing out of a pooly maintained garbage truck on the freeway? Who are you to force me to recreate the way YOU want me to? Please respond. Further, YOU should realize that some folks go to the forest for their recreation so they can amble slowly down a path, lost in thought or their surroundings, not always on the lookout for an onrushing, 25 mile per hour machine with an 10 year old at the controls. (I came within 5 feet of a head-on collision with one on Board’s Crossing Rd in Stanislaus NF a few weeks ago. I was in my 3,000 pound car. He drove into the trees.) Consider how a backcountry motorist would feel meeting an onrushing logging truck going ten-times as fast him. That is, you are roaring north at 25 miles per hour and the logging truck is going south at 250 miles per hour. Clearly, at a 10-to-1speed differential, the two can not safely coexist on the same roads/trails. Please respond. The only problems created are those by elitists such as yourself, who feel "since I don’t do it, NO ONE should be able to". Ron

You know, Ron, "elitist" is how I would describe the adversary to someone who I thought had low self-esteem which I could exploit. Instead of relying on his sense of right and wrong, I would label the adversary an "elistist" (which my sucker feels he could never hope to be). Have you considered that the OR-RV manufacturers and distributors, and their lobbyist, are making a sucker out of you, Ron? They are ripping you off when they encourage you to spend so much money on something which you know is unnatural and obnoxious. They encourage you to rape your own forests like a strip miner or clear cutter, and you pay them for the priviledge. I’ll bet the Ribbon guy is on the phone at this very moment with some product manager from Honda or Yamaha or Kawasaki, and they are laughing at you. They are laughing at you, sucker. Save that jive about different (recreational) strokes for someone who has a foolish decision to justify. OR-RVs are a bad, bad idea — I know it, and you know it. — Jeff ORBS Classifieds – Free outdoor classified ads http://home.pacbell.net/orbs ORBS Escrow – Affordable safety for online buyers and sellers http://home.pacbell.net/orbs/oe-homepage.html

Response:

Greg Lukeman says: I have never seen Jeff be anything but level headed here,

Sorry, but I disagree. He is an rabid opponent of allowing ORV users to recreate, and rants on and on about "the sky falling" because someone is having fun in a way HE doesn’t like. And I’m sick of reading it with no counterpoint offered. Did you ever think that maybe you are elitist by imposing your noisy machines

and ripped up wilderness upon everyone else? Loaded question, as you attempt to avoid the facts. The ORVs pictured in the article are quietly-muffled four-stroke powered ATVs (which I am an owner of myself). And there was no mention of anyone being in a "Wilderness" or "ripping up" anything, only recreation occuring legally. More enviro-extremist rhetoric, as usual. Ron

Response:

Jeez, who would want to be ageist, anti-handicapped, and against families playing together? You, as you have amply demonstrated here on this newsgroup.

[rant snipped] I have never seen Jeff be anything but level headed here, and certainly never even mentioned the aged, handicapped, or familied (<– that word was a bit of a stretch) let alone say something against them. Did you ever think that maybe you are elitist by imposing your noisy machines and ripped up wilderness upon everyone else? greg http://www.stfx.ca/people/x97/x97ykq/

Response:

Jeez, who would want to be ageist, anti-handicapped, and against families playing together?

You, as you have amply demonstrated here on this newsgroup. Maybe you should realize that some folks want to recreate the way they want, not the way YOU want. The only problems created are those by elitists such as yourself, who feel "since I don’t do it, NO ONE should be able to". Ron

Response:

Filed under: Lobbying

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism