MYTH #1: OHV USERS FOLLOW THE LAWS AND STAY ON MARKED TRAILS
MYTH #2: THE TRAVEL MANAGEMENT RULE WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED
MYTH #3: ATVS ARE SAFE RECREATION
MYTH #4: OHVs DO NOT CAUSE SERIOUS OR LASTING DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT
MYTH #1: OHV USERS FOLLOW THE LAWS AND STAY ON MARKED TRAILS
Background:
OHV advocates often claim that the vast majority of off-roaders are responsible users of public lands and that they respect the laws. They blame reports of lawlessness and the damage done by off-trail riding on "a few bad apples."
Brian Hawthorne, president of the powerful Blue Ribbon Coalition said in a USA Today article:
| "We're not insensitive to our impacts," Hawthorne says. "We want to minimize them as much as possible. But the vast majority of (off-road vehicle) owners, like any recreationists, are law-abiding." |
Then, seemingly taking his cues from the BRC, Rick Alcon, owner of multiple motorcycle/ATV stores in New Mexico and vice-chair of the New Mexico Off-Highway Vehicle Safety Advisory Board, (note that he also helped draft the legislation which created the board) said this in an interview on Santa Fe radio station, KSFR:
| "Our position on it is that the OHV riding opportunity is a legitimate use in appropriate situations on
public land." Regarding OHV users following the rules, he indicated that the stereotypical characterization of off-road vehicles as careless degraders of the environment is not accurate: "I think that's probably a very over generalization of the real OHV community out there. Most OHV users are very familiar with the ramifications of not following the rules, of not respecting private property or even public property for that matter." |
Okay, so far we have it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, regarding how a leading OHV advocate and prominent "stakeholder" view the issue. Now let's take a look at some facts:
Sixty-four percent of those surveyed have used an off-road vehicle while hunting. The majority of this hunting subset admits to riding cross-country — over 58% have traveled off of legal routes to retrieve downed game. [4]
Background:
The Travel Management Rule (TMR) will result in designated routes that OHVs may use. There will also be a national database (with web interface) with maps of these routes. However, there is no assurance that the Forest Service will provide sufficient on-the-ground enforcement to keep OHVs stay on designated routes. Given the preference of OHV users for going off trail (see Myth #1 above), enforcing the designated routes will be an enormous challenge.
The TMR itself addresses enforcement, although indirectly:
| "In designating National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands for motor vehicle use, the responsible official shall consider effects on National Forest System natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands, the need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and administration." |
There is also no requirement for on-the-ground signs that would clearly mark the routes approved for motorized use, and by what class of vehicle. While this may work for roads through tall, thick woods where the environment itself imposes restrictions on off-trail riding, in other areas, like Glorieta Mesa, there are no such restrictions. It is difficult to see how the Forest Service expects to enforce the designated routes when OHV users can legitimately claim they thought they were on an approved trail.
Repeated attempts to get Forest Service officials responsible for the Santa Fe National Forest to clearly state their plans for enforcement, and the penalties for going off designated routes, has so far produced little but obfuscation and mumbling. For example, here's what Delores Maese, from the Pecos Ranger District said in an interview on KSFR radio:
| KSFR: "The folks who live in Cochiti, and even other people, tell us at KSFR that there's really no enforcement and that off-road vehicles are going there anyway. Is the map going to provide any extra protection or control on your part?" Delores: "The map itself won't, but what we're trying to do -- the Travel Management Process is going to put a system into place where we can actually designate roads on the forest, 'cause right now there is no designation of roads that people can drive on and can't drive on. So that's what the process is. It's going to actually eliminate a lot of road damage and road use throughout the National Forest." KSFR: "So instead of going over land, they'll stay on a road because they know where the road is. But will you enforce that?" Delores: "And there will be fewer roads also, under the Travel Management Plan. And we have plans to enforce it, and anybody that violates that process, that new process that clearly designates roads, trails and routes that people can travel on, they're going to be more enforceable through the courts also, 'cause right now, like I tell you, people have run of the National Forest, they can drive wherever they please because we don't have a system in place that enforces or designates certain roads, trails and routes."
|
Seriously, though, given OHV users penchant for going off-trail, and given the potential damage to the ecosystem from off-trail riding, the issue of enforcement is critical. For example, the Forest Service could designate routes which really do minimize "(1) Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources; (2) Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats; (3) Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands... (from 212.55 of Travel Management in the Federal Registry), but without enforcement such designation would mean nothing. Without enforcement, they might as well give the National Forest over to exclusive use by OHVs.
Related Links:
Background:
While some claim that ATVs are safe and that injury and deaths is due to operator error, the data is alarming. Nearly 600 deaths (estimated based on reported deaths plus 25% non-reported) in 2005 and 136,700 emergency room injuries. In West Virginia, health care costs of ATV accidents has reached $120 million per year (Cover Story: Costs of ATV Accidents). Concerned Families for ATV Safety has estimated the average medical cost of injury to be $19,706. Other estimates have been as high as $23,000 per injury and this data is several years old. At $20,000 per injury multiplied by the national emergency room figure of 136,700 in 2005, the total comes out to $2.7 billion per year. This agrees with the figure of $3 billion reported in the The Oregonian in May, 2007.
In New Mexico, in 2005, information from one trauma center in one year -- "admitted 132 ATV injury patients at a cost of $2.4 million in emergency treatment and hospitalization. Since 25 percent of the residents of New Mexico are uninsured, we estimated that 25 percent, or $600,000, of that $2.4 million was paid for directly by the taxpayers." Read article.
Related Links:
Background:
The elephant in the living room that some like to deny, or ignore, is the tremendous damage to soils, waters, plants and wildlife done by OHVs. Economic assessments, usually done by states looking to promote OHV tourism, rarely address the issue of damage. However, a 1990 survey in Michigan revealed over $1 billion in damage in the lower peninsula.
A 1999 study, Off-the-Track: America’s National Parks Under Siege surveyed 108 National Park units in an extensive investigation into the effects of off-road vehicle (ORV) use in the National Park System. Among the findings:
hosted by Thoughtfish.com
