Dirt bikers: Jeff Brown (r.), a high school teacher, and Richard Vander Meeden, a retired sales executive, finish a ride in an ORV-approved section of Eldorado National Forest. (Mark Clayton)
Off-road-vehicle bans seem to please no one
Environmentalists say latest national-forest restrictions are too lax; ORV fans say they’re too strict.
By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor/ July 9, 2008 edition
Mark Clayton
A US Forest Service sign aims to restrict motorized vehicles from a trail.
Reporter Mark Clayton discusses a new effort to limit user-created trails for off road vehicles in national forests.
Reporter Mark Clayton
Eldorado National Forest, Placerville, Calif.
After a body-and-machine-pounding ride beneath the high-pine canopy of the Eldorado National Forest in east-central California, Kevin Wigham sits with his buddies by their knobby-tired motorcycles, mulling a collective dread: Fewer trails to ride.
Here in the Eldorado, which some regard as “ground zero” for the growing national debate over off-road vehicles on public lands, the template for future action across millions of federal acres could be set, observers say. A new official Eldorado map finalized last week eliminates about 500 miles of “user created” routes (trails and roads) that were never permitted by the Forest Service.
That “motorized vehicle use map” is the culmination of years of debate and legal action. It leaves in place more than 1,000 miles of dirt roads and 210 miles of trails for off-road vehicles (ORVs) in Eldorado. Environmentalists say it’s still too much and the budget for enforcing it too small. Enthusiasts chafe under the new restrictions and some ignore them, though at least one major off-road group concedes it’s time for some “management.”
“Even with the [trail] closings … there’s still a lot out there,” says Mr. Wigham. “But I personally hate to see them closing any type of trail. I don’t know why they do it. We’re not hurting anything.”
Still, some 11.5 million visitors rode ORVs in national forests last year. Some rode designated trails; others churned up forest floors, damaged root systems, and accelerated erosion, environmentalists say. The vehicles can leave lasting scars on landscape and drive away wildlife and nonmotorized human visitors.
Clashes over off-road vehicles on public lands aren’t new. President Nixon in 1972 issued an executive order requiring federal land managers to minimize environmental damage and social conflict by designating trails acceptable for off-road use. But after decades with little change in the restriction of off-road use in national forests, coupled with fast-rising interest in off-road riding, environmentalists filed suit in the Eldorado in 2003.
Congress last month concluded its first hearings on ORV impacts on national forests and millions of acres of public lands overseen by the Bureau of Land Management. While the BLM is taking some action, it is the Forest Service that is charging ahead to regulate ORV use.
Nationwide, 34 of 155 national forests have completed new vehicle-use maps with the rest on schedule to finish by 2009. Still, environmentalists worry the Forest Service mapping and restrictions won’t sufficiently protect the 193 million acres of national forest – which are open to commercial logging and mining as well as camping, hiking, and ORV riding.
Between 1999 and 2007, off-road enthusiasts over age 16 rose from 38 million to more than 44 million, surveys show. With many states and counties outlawing ORVs in recreational areas, off-roaders have increasingly looked to federal lands for a good ride.
That pressure led the Forest Service in 2003 to declare that “unmanaged recreation” – referring to off-road vehicles – was among the top four threats to national forests. Two years later, the agency announced a new nationwide “travel management rule,” mandating that each forest develop trail designations and a map showing vehicle restrictions. That same year, environmentalists won a key federal court victory in California forcing an environmental appraisal of Eldorado’s motorized trail network.
Yet as of January, some 64 million acres – about one third – of national Forest Service land was still “completely open” to cross-country motor vehicle use, stated Joel Holtrop, deputy chief of the National Forest System, in remarks prepared for a congressional hearing last month. That may be about to change.
Today, the Forest Service still has 47,000 miles of trail – about one-third of all trails officially available – open to motorized vehicles, Mr. Holtrop said. But that does not include many more “user created” trails, which are on the target list to be eliminated on many new forest maps, observers say.
Even ORV enthusiasts say some regulation needed now
Off-road enthusiast Brian Hawthorne, public lands policy director for the BlueRibbon Coalition, a group representing off-road enthusiasts and vehicle retailers, says trail reductions so far have been excessive – especially in Eldorado. But he also acknowledges a need for motorized vehicles to be brought under control in national forests.
“It’s the right thing to do,” he says. “The population of off-highway vehicles is at a level where it needs to managed.”
Environmentalists and former national Forest Service officials agree the US Forest Service deserves credit for taking action, but worry that ongoing damage to forest lands won’t be fixed by steps taken so far.
“What we’re seeing is the Forest Service more or less putting into place the status quo – this is what we’re going to live with,” says Jim Furnish, former US Forest Service deputy chief. “I don’t see this move wrestling the problem to the ground.”
Without more “boots on the ground” and stiffer penalties (including impounding vehicles), rampant violation of trail signs will continue under the new regime as under the old, Mr. Furnish says.
Others worry that the maps are being drawn with little serious evaluation. Despite years spent evaluating Eldorado’s motorized trail system, many miles were designated for ORV use without scientifically evaluating their impact on the environment, says Karen Schambach, California coordinator for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a national group that has been critical of ORV impacts on public lands.
“Our concern now is that they still don’t get it,” she says. “Here in Eldorado, they need to do site-specific analysis of each trail they designate to ensure that the environment isn’t damaged. But even where they do have information, like sediment going into a creek, they sometimes ignore that and designate the trail anyway.”
That’s not how Ramiro Villalvazo, forest supervisor at Eldorado, sees it. It was his April decision that led to the new map with fewer user-created trails, a map upheld this month by the regional review team.
“We have followed a very careful, very methodical approach that takes into account the interests and viewpoints of the many stakeholders,” Mr. Villalvazo says in an interview at Eldorado Forest headquarters in Placerville, Calif. “It’s a balancing act and we’re trying to do what’s right for all involved.” The new map, he says “is in no way the end of this process.”
But Furnish and others say it shows the Forest Service’s national push on ORVs is just a “paper exercise” that protects damaging activities while doing little to fund new off-road restrictions.
“We’re concerned about that, too,” says James Bedwell, director of recreation for the US Forest Service in an interview. “We don’t want to do just a paper exercise, we know there’s a lot of management and education that has to take place. We do believe we are taking the right first steps.”
Budgets already too small to maintain all routes
Standing by an Eldorado trail whose “no vehicles” sign has obviously been driven over recently, Ms. Schambach says the Forest Service has approved more trails for off-road use than it has manpower or budget to manage.
Indeed, federal data for other national forests strongly suggests that the number of miles of off-road vehicle trails being approved will come on top of already strained Forest Service transportation-management budgets – if there is any extra funding at all to oversee the new trails that are designated.
In the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona, for instance, the budget for maintaining routes can support just one-third of the existing routes, according to that forest’s most recent transportation analysis. In the Lincoln National Forest in New Mexico, annual road maintenance funding is $5.7 million, though it has deferred maintenance needs of
$30 million and can afford only 9 percent of its road system, another report found.
“We don’t expect a national forest [official] to say: ‘We can only afford this percent, so we’re shutting down,’ ” says Cyndi Tuell, Southwest conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, a Tucson-based environmental group. “But we don’t expect them to add a bunch more trails, either.”
Off-road enthusiasts see a mixed bag, too. Richard Yeargan is former president of the Motherlode Rockcrawlers, a four-wheel-drive group that has helped Eldorado Forest managers maintain a number of trails.
“We haven’t had any of our adopted trails cut off, but there are a lot of places we just can’t go anymore,” he says. “It really upsets me, the loss of all the little spur roads where we used to go camping.”
That means the 35 families in his Motherlode group must now park and lug their gear to a remote site – or camp near the motorized trail to which their vehicles are now restricted.
“If you want to camp now, you have to do it right next to the trail with motorcycles, jeeps, and stuff driving right by your tent,” Mr. Yeargan says.
( More stories )
Comments
2. Veronica Egan | 07.10.08
Mr. Yeargin’s final quote says it all. Motorized users are a small minority of public lands visitors, yet many seem to “want it all”, which means everyone else gets to “camp right next to the trail with motorcycles, jeeps and stuff driving right by your tent.” Everyone has the right to use our public lands, but no one has the right to abuse them. It simply is not a right to drive a machine anywhere one wants to simply because it is capable of going there. Mr. Yeargin, et.al. probably wouldn’t care much for hordes of ATVs and dirt bikes tearing across their lawns or their favorite golf courses or soccer fields.
3. bruce whitcher | 07.10.08
The vast majority of motorized users do get it, and will voluntarily stay on the designated routes. They are concerned about the environment and do not what to jeapordize their routes and risk even more closures. They voluntarily support Route Designation, realizing that use must be managed if it is to be sustained as an opporunity for future generations. There are always few “bad actors” that tarnish the image of the others. Every group has them, and hikers, horsemen, and hunters can cause plenty of resource damage of not careful.
In California, almost 50% of the National Forest is wilderness that is reserved for non-motorized use and reserved for quiet recreation. There are National Monuments and National Parks without motorized use. The motorized users are limited to areas that permit commercial logging, mining, and other forms of “mixed use”, the unesthetic, unappealing, undersirable land that no one else wanted, at least until now.
I’d argue that it is the non-motorized users that want it all. They want thousands more acres designted as wilderness. But even that is not enough, the want even the non-wilderness areas reserved for quite recreation as well. They insist that they not even hear a motor miles away.
We’ll accept Route Designation as a necessary copmpromise, but I don’t hear the non-motorized interests doing this. There is plenty of land for everyone if people would just shun extremist views and adopt a policy of mutual understanding. That works well for most areas of human activity, why not do it here?
4. Jeremy | 07.10.08
Bruce Whitcher’s comments are right on. As a dirt bike rider, I respect the beauty of the land and want to protect the fragile habitats of the plants and animals which have no where else to go. It is the extremists that must be put in check. This means both the environmental extremists and the those off-road enthusiasts who are extremely abusive to the land. Designation of trails is a good compromise.
A key point that is not talked about in this article is the ridiculous red sticker/ green sticker law that California currently has. The point of the law (i think) is to ban bikes which are higher polluters and more of a fire threat from riding during the summer months. This is a very good idea in theory. However, the execution of this regulation actually creates more pollution and more of a fire hazard. All bikes newer than 2003 (those bikes that are the lowest polluters and the lowest fire hazards) are restricted during the summer months. All of the bikes older than 2003 are given green stickers and allowed to ride anytime they want. I think that anyone using logic as a tool will come to the conclusion that this law is not effective.
Unfortunately, logic is sometimes missing from both sides of the debate. Instead, war is raged and any law that makes the riders angry is a good law for the environmentalists regardless of whether it is a law that is good for the environment.
Dirt bike riding is more addictive than cigarettes in my opinion. No matter how many laws are passed, riders will not stop riding. We are strong in number and most of us consider our riding time to be among the most satisfying and happy times in our lives. Instead of passing stupid laws that do not address the problem, both groups need to collaborate more to protect the environment that we all love.
5. Greg Weirick | 07.10.08
Great comments Bruce. Mrs. Egan should check her facts. National Public Radio published a survey showing that hiking and backpacking visits to our Forests are on the decline, while motorized use is on the rise. Instead of hiring more enforcement to control closures, let’s have them enforce wise use of existing routes and educate new users in appropriate use of our Forests. Closed or open, those roads will be there forever, so the adjacent land will never be quality wilderness.
6. Miguel | 07.10.08
So, the motorized riders say they love the land, they are the future, and everybody else better get out of their way. They say, anyone who requires quiet, who wishes to hear the sound of birds , the voice of a brook, better just get out of the way.
Then they wonder why the trails are being closed. They hear the sound of roaring motors, they are addicted to the power and the speed. They don’t care what they do to others, they don’t even realize they are doing harm, lost as they are in their haze of fossil fuels and their disdain for anyone or anything that might get in the way of their high.
Well, its time to get a clue, people. They want it all, and anyone who wishes to breathe clean air and not exhaust is labeled by them in demeaning ways.
Studies and polls are everywhere. How about the recent study citing noise pollution as a major problem for our National Parks? How about the studies that show that off road vehicles spread invasive weeds, shorten the lifespan of Elk, and dramatically reduce water quality?
Even if every person who goes to the forest is so lazy that they must be strapped to a motor for their fun, there will still be a great need for quiet places, for clean water, for wildlife, for our responsibility to the earth herself.
It is not just the extremists who wish to hunt without motocross chasing away the game. It is not the fanatics who want to take their families on a backpack without atvs roaring through their camp. It is not the minority who wants to hike without fear of being run over by speeding vehicles.
Take note, we are many, and we are speaking up.
7. James | 07.11.08
I’m sorry Miguel, you speak like an extremist. I agree with Mr. Whitcher and the others when those of us in the OHV community always seem to be cast as the “bad guys”. I know those like Karen Schambach who are true extremists, I’ve seen her in action trying to stage OHV users into doing something they wouldn’t normally do for a video shot, then to be used again them, it happen to me in year 2000!
When is the last time you heard of a “new” OHV area opening up in California? Well that doesn’t happen we only “lose” areas that were once “legal” to recreate at like the Kelso Dunes, 90% of the Oceano Dunes, almost 50,000 acres from the Imperial Sand Dunes and now the Clear Creak OHV area to name only a few.
The OHV community in the past ten years has doubled in size, the fastest growing recreational sport yet our legal areas to ride have been reduced 50%, would you consider this fare?
For over 10 years I camped in a legal location and called it our “second home”. Then in 1994 SR21 became law without my knowledge and that same area in the desert became a “wilderness area”. How would you like to arrive and find your favorite camping spot closed forever!
I’m the true Environmentalist, I enjoy the land that God gave us and only leave behind my foot prints or tire tracks. But I take back with me after a good weekend many photos of beautiful scenic places I’ve visited with my family enjoying nature together.
8. David Dills | 07.11.08
It’s unfortunate in his otherwise well written article reporter Mark Clayton did not identify the true nature of two of the organizations he quoted. These are organization with reasonable sounding names, but unreasonable and hateful goals. Both the Center for Biological Diversity and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility want nothing more than the complete shut down of access to public lands. They repeatedly pull unethical stunts like agreeing to leave certain roads open to off road use, but don’t leave enough easement on either side of the road for maintenance. Then when the road needs repair, off roaders find they can’t legally do so, and the road joins others no longer able to be used. Reporter Mark Clayton should be pointing out the extreme nature of these organizations, not elevating them to the level of the Forest Service, BLM, or Blue Ribbon commission.
9. Dan | 07.11.08
These off-road people are just going to have to be happy riding urban moto-cross parks. Build them out of dirt and concrete, throw in a few logs and rocks, chain up a few hungry mountain lions and grizzly bears at choke points. Change the course every week like golf courses change the hole positions. Then these thrill-seeking, adrenalin-addicted egomaniacs can go wild, wasting their children’s futures at $4.00/gallon plus insurance costs.
No one has a ‘right’ to spoil nature in order to have ‘fun’. Enough of that has already occurred, and we need to preserve what is left of her. Take a hike, get a bike, or better yet– buy a horse. With gas prices the way they are now, they’re relatively cheap transportation. Slow down, look around. Enjoy, don’t destroy. If you need the ‘juice’, then bungee jump, cliff-climb without ropes, hang glide, tap big dudes on the shoulder in bars, or raise pet cobras. Either that or buy your own land, and then you can tear **** out of it to your heart’s content, and absorb the costs yourself.
I am a:
Farmer/Rancher/Cowboy/Gun Owner/Hunter/Nature Lover
10. grant | 07.12.08
Dan, I would like to know if you drive a car? If so, then you use more gas and give off more pollution than a dirt biker will EVER use. why would we chain up animals??? I play golf and many courses do not change holes every week. There is so much beautiful nature left. we are not spoiling nature. there was an example where an ohv area was closed. the plants started dying and finally after 10 years they reopened it to ohv use. the plants started growing great again. this is because the dirt bikes and such pollinated plants. i love nature too, but that doesn’t mean that i should only stare at it from a long distance. In most areas, you can’t buy your own land and ride on it because it is against the law.
11. Dan | 07.13.08
I am not a rider or hiker enthusiast but a user of our lands both on a vehicle and on foot. I feel if both sides could get together and plan could be adopted, I know this is a big task because its always a big argument and not a adaptation of the minds. People listen to each other and love one another.
Thanks Dan
Hunter/Nature Lover
12. Greenie | 07.13.08
Finally, a move to take this industrial, destructive recreation to designated areas of “sacrifice”. Our dwindling open space and areas of tranquility as well as homes to our wildlife need protection, not destruction. Now I hope enforcement can follow since these folks say they are “addicted” to the activity. This is the classic “spoiling of their own nest”, except they are spoiling everyone’s and don’t seem to care. Do this hobby in a noisy, spoiled place—next to airports or industrial areas or something like it.
13. Dan | 07.14.08
I realize there are responsible people and irresponsible people. But from my point of view, as a person who rents short-grass pasture on the western Great Plains, I still see the effects of heavy damage to the land caused by the first wave of ranchers who arrived in the 1870s and 1880s, put too many cattle out, and overgrazed. The erosion is still visible everywhere, and getting worse in spite of our conscientious, modern management. Topsoil is not easy to replace. Invasive species have colonized large areas, making them worthless for grazing. Prairie dogs are out of control in many places and causing worse damage to already hard-hit grassland. We’re re-introducing bison and black-footed ferrets in many areas, helping swift fox, coyotes, hawks and golden eagles to predate on the little vermin, but we’re still losing the battle. Recently a friend took me up in his plane, and I was shocked to see how widespread the problem has become. Some places look like the moon.
The same kind of damage can be done to certain wild areas in a single afternoon of dirt sports. I’ve seen the effects while camping and hiking in the backwoods. The soil in mountainous and forested areas is often quite thin. Desert areas are even more fragile. Once you get water running down those tire tracks, it will continue forever, getting worse, until someone repairs it– and who is responsible for that? Add up all the costs and it’s just not worth it. To me, if you want that adrenalin thrill, and feel the need to spin your tires, and kick up dirt, and fly over hills and bumps at thirty mph, then don’t ruin wild areas to do it. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Those areas are remote and beautiful for a reason. Spoiling them is forever. Start clubs instead, purchase land, build parks, and fly around the tracks as much as you want. Use dues to pay for the wildest obstacles you can imagine and afford. But public lands are just that– public. They are owned by all the people, and are invaluable repositories of natural diversity. Use them, but don’t abuse them, and they’ll be around forever. Nothing is more ugly than man-spoiled land, and we’ve got more than enough of that already. It’s time we started a national movement to help them come back, not continue the destruction for the sake of a few hours of ‘fun’.
14. Tom T. | 07.17.08
There is a county park near where I live that was used by dirt bikers in the early 1980’s. You can still see the eroded hillsides caused by these destructive vehicles. Park your vehicles and get out and walk. You will enjoy the quiet and beauty of nature and get some excercise too.
15. Mitch | 07.25.08
I once overheard an official in the Wilderness Society say, their goal is to ultimateley have 50% of the United States designated as “Wilderness”! Wow. While I supported the Wilderness Act of 1964, and some of the legislation to add additional wilderness areas, I have reached the point where I now say “Enough is enough!” The issue no longer seems to be to preserve the best of our wild heritage, but to get every acre possible. The inmates seem to be runing the asylem!
16. Common Sense Guy | 07.31.08
The green meanie’s quest to throw everyone out of our public lands continues. They paint it as throwing out the evil motorcycles and ATVs, but in reality they are closing off historical access to recreational areas for the elderly and less able. In our Natl forest, the old guys that have hunted/camped/fished it for 40-50 years are now locked out because the roads have been closed.
As one person pointed out, the forests are everyones, not just one group’s. That includes the green menace. They no more should be able to lock people out of the forest that ORV users should be able to destroy the whole thing. Since like some greedy child they want it all, the green cancer groups don’t agree.
Here in WI, some of the counties are wanting their forests back. They agreed to let the feds make them part of the national forest IF they kept up historical access to logging, resource extraction, and recreation. Now that the environmentalists have locked them up, the counties want their forests back. Was that the goal?
This mindless and absolute quest by environmentalists to lock everyone out of everywhere will come to a tipping point. At some point, people will be tired of being locked out and violate, causing far more and more widespread damage. Such is the result of the green effort to lock us out of the natural world.
In the case of the spotted owl, they shut down logging, roads, and recreational access. Then they mismanaged the forest so badly that it burned all of the habitat irreversibly destroying it. The spotted owl is now worse off before being ‘protected’ Why in the world would we let these people make management decisions?
The real environmentalist isn’t the NYC yuppie sending $500 into the Sierra Club lawyers, it is the guy who actually goes to the forest and appreciates it. Frequently we do so in a 4×4, motorcycle, ATV, or snowmobile. More often,it is some old guy wanting to fish a remote area that has been his little piece of heaven for 50 years.
We have enough wilderness set aside. It is ridiculous to not let people into the national forests. The mission of the forest is for providing resources and recreation, not some sanctuary to Giea. The mission of the parks is preservation, not the national forests. If we can’t use the forests, we should sell them.
17. Josh | 09.13.08
“There is a county park near where I live that was used by dirt bikers in the early 1980’s. You can still see the eroded hillsides caused by these destructive vehicles. Park your vehicles and get out and walk. You will enjoy the quiet and beauty of nature and get some excercise too.”
What about the millions of acres of land that is completely DESTROYED by developers EVERY SINGLE YEAR? Here in California, a large water district completely flooded an entire canyon to make a reservoir, which is now the largest in California. Not to mention that you cannot use the lake for recreational purposes either, even though the water comes from the colorado river…. What about mountaintops that are completely removed to make room for housing tracts and commercial properties? Or mining operations that completely remove hills and valleys to process gravel?
This whole thing is ridiculous, everyone has a right to enjoy what is left of public land to their liking. Most OHV enthusiasts are nature lovers and do not have the intention of destroying anything. I am an avid rider and I obey every sign that is posted and stay on the existing trail systems.
As someone pointed out, we do not want to have everything, we just want a place to enjoy our sport without having an extremist or nature fanatic try and close down places that we all enjoy.
18. Josh | 09.13.08
Dan, so hunting wild animals is not spoiling nature? I must have missed something…
20. Hiltiodisse | 02.21.09
Who keeps company with the wolf, will learn to howl.
A wise man changes his mind, a fool never will.
21. Escowsoxice | 03.25.09
Hi, I suffer with heard a lot down RVs. Reading some of the posts achieve it noise interesting.
Anyway, I am a walk walk oversee and walk train driver in Belize. I provide indulge for both journey steamer passengers and overnight travelers.
If anyone would like to certain anything less my power and its people, I inclination be joyful to assist.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Backcountry Bob | 07.10.08
This article misses one important point: most people go to the national forest to seek peace and quiet, not hear a bunch of whining motors and smell blue smoke. Folks need big, quiet places where they can enjoy nature. Check out this groups of outdoorsmen http://www.backcountryhunters.org. They want to protect habitat and outdoor opportunities.