Debate on Roadless Rule heats up again

[Jonathan Hanson]

As moderator for the Conservation and Land Use forum, I've just finished posting an editorial I wrote recently on the Roadless Rule issue. Thought I'd try to jump-start another topic in this forum by pointing your way to the main Conservation page - looking forward to discussing this one a bit more at length.

http://www.expeditionportal.com/conservation.php

Jonathan

 

[Ursidae69]

I've read your op-ed piece on the roadless rule and I cannot disagree with any of it. How do you handle the negative stereotypes from the OHV community at large for having such an opinion?

 

[Scott Brady]

My opinion is summed up as:

1. Existing roads on public land should remain open unless their use contributes to destruction of private property or the impact becomes so great that the usage is unsustainable, even with proper management.

2. No new roads should not be cut into public land for access or recreation.

 

[goodtimes]

I take exception to #2 Scott. There are certain circumstances where new roads could, and should be created. It is well known that an entire trail can be closed if even one section of it becomes unsustainable. For example if a endangered species is being threatened by vehicles driving through a specific river crossing, the whole trail gets closed. But what if that trail provided the only access to a historically significant area (mining encampment, etc). Should that area be lost to public access, or should a new trail be constructed to protect the endangered species while still providing public access?

This very thing is happening in California. River crossings are being closed off, and new sections of trail are being created to protect the river and still provide access. Heck, it is happening right here in AZ too. Look at Char. Gap. When we ran it last year, the FS or BLM or who ever manages that area had taken a blade through there to re-establish the trail. After the fires in '03, the trail was pretty much gone, and people were driving everywhere. It was unsustainable, so river crossings have been fenced off, and new sections of trail were cut. The result is a better managed trail. IMO, nothing wrong with that.

Of course, this should not be taken as me saying that we should just start blazing trails everywhere we want to go, I'm just saying that there are certain circumstances that could justify a new trail.

JMO....

 

[Scott Brady]

I'm just saying that there are certain circumstances that could justify a new trail.

JMO....

I think you make some great points here Brian. That is the problem with the position I posted. I appears to ridged.

So, in you examples of re-routing a trail, or making the trail better and more sustainable by creating a new road, that would be a good solution. I know this has been done a few times on the Rubicon to save the trail from closure, and I certainly applaud that move.

I guess the most important reason why I support this type of approach, is that it allows us to inventory and KEEP what we currently have. I am just concerned that in the current state there is too much opportunity for closure, as management is so varied throughout the country. In AZ we are blessed, as OHV is recognized and has been shown to be a multi billion dollar industry in the state, so we get lots of support here. In CA, it is the opposite.

 

[goodtimes]

Your right Scott...rules are rigid, and in most cases they are probably intended to be bent or broken. I think a big part of the problem is that people will not recognize this. On the OHV user side, we hear "no new trails", and think, "no new trails, period". So when that river crossing becomes unsustainable, we are going to lose a trail. On the other hand, the eco-nazi sees "no new trail, unless we decide to make a new trail", and they think "these guys are out there driving where ever they want". When in reality, probably 80% of the people on both sides are satisfied with the trail being re-routed to protect *whatever* it was that needed protection.

But, much like any political debate, the people at the extreme ends of each side are the ones who take advantage of any compromise, which leads both sides of the arguement not trusting the other side.

Good example: Route inventory. There are groups here in AZ who oppose holding a route inventory because they are afraid that once the greenies have that, they they will have a list of trails that they just need to find a excuse to close. We don't trust them with the information. I'm sure 90% of *them* would not use the inventory against the OHV user in a manner to close trails that have no reason for being closed...but there is that 10% who, IMO, would likely try....so, because of that 10%, they aren't trusted by everyone. Of course, there is the flip side to that coin.....the OHV users have a certain amout of idiots out there who arent' to be trusted by the eco-nuts as well.....

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Goodtimes brought up a vital point: There are self-centered jerks in all areas of human interest, and they're the ones who make trouble for the rest of us, who would otherwise get along just fine and be happy to compromise.

I know several "environmentalists" who would happily outlaw all off-highway driving. And I have talked to several "4x4 enthusiasts" who believe that all wilderness areas in the country should be opened to motorized traffic. The former believe the latter are all Bud-Lite-swilling rednecks, and the latter believe the former are all dreadlocked tofu-eaters.

I agree that within roaded areas, common sense should dictate when a trail needs to be maintained, improved, or re-routed. The Roadless Rule attempts (and obviously it's not perfect) to protect the remaining areas within National Forest lands that are essentially roadless and provide something close to a wilderness experience. The claim that this "locks up" vast areas of public land is wrong on several counts. First, the total percentage of all land in the U.S. designated by Congress as wilderness is 4.7 percent--and over half that is in Alaska. If the 50,000,000-odd acres of roadless areas in the National Forests are managed as defacto wilderness, that percentage increases to about seven. I don't see how anyone could claim that it is unreasonable to preserve seven percent of our country in something close to its pristine natural state.

Second, the only thing one needs to enjoy a wilderness area is a good pair of shoes. You don't need to undertake a two-week backpacking trip (although those are fun too); just walk a half-mile into the area and enjoy the silence. I'm amused when I get into arguments with militantly anti-wilderness 4x4 drivers who boast about tackling trails only passable in vehicles augmented with thousands worth of dollars of lockers and gearing, and who then acuse me of being an "elitist" because I favor wilderness protection. Since a good pair of hiking shoes can be had for less than $100, I wonder who's really the elitist?

My bottom line is that once a wilderness is gone, it's usually gone forever. So I will always err on the side of protection--especially when I know that 93 percent of the country is open to me and my Land Cruiser.

 

[datrupr]

This is a great topic Jonathan. You have all made valid points. I am all for the conservation of our wilderness areas, but I am also for making these areas accessable to those who wish to ENJOY it. I love getting out into the bush, exploring, camping, etc. But at the same time, it just earks the heck out of me when I go to enjoy these areas and places and find that they have been vandalized, defiled, littered, etc. But that is where I take it upon myself to try and clean up other peoples messes so that I can further enjoy the area in a more pristene condition and to hopefully let others enjoy it the same way. I own a 4X4 for one reason only, to get to places that other vehicles will not take me. Now I know that a majority of people that partake in the same activities as myself behave in much the same manner as I do, there is still that percentage of Bud Light swilling rednecks that choose to chuck their trash out anywhere they see fit and spray paint their signature all over ruins and artifacts that I deem precious to myself and my children. These people IMO should be shot on site. But then as you have stated the other end of the spectrum are the "greenies" that hate us for treading all over mother nature in our fossil fuel burning SUV's, pick ups, etc with oversized tires destroying a preacious nearly endagered stone by rolling over it with our earth killing monstrosities. I do agree with the roadless rule as most of us in this forum probably do, but I think Brian as a valid point in new roads for the purpose of conservation, not more damage. This response became much longer than I had initially intended it too, and all I am doing is repeating what has already been stated. Sorry.

 

[DesertRose]

There are groups here in AZ who oppose holding a route inventory because they are afraid that once the greenies have that, they they will have a list of trails that they just need to find a excuse to close. We don't trust them with the information. I'm sure 90% of *them* would not use the inventory against the OHV user in a manner to close trails that have no reason for being closed...but there is that 10% who, IMO, would likely try....so, because of that 10%, they aren't trusted by everyone. Of course, there is the flip side to that coin.....the OHV users have a certain amout of idiots out there who arent' to be trusted by the eco-nuts as well.....

Hi Goodtimes -
Regarding the quote above, I think it's interesting to note that the so-called greenies you mention ALREADY HAVE 100% inventory of all roads (legal and illegal) on all of the Coronado National Forest and about 45% of BLM lands in southern Arizona - they've had it done for about 3 years.

I know, because I was executive director of one of the groups that did the inventories, under cooperation with the Forest Service and BLM.

And - although the "greenies" have the information (all of it, excellently mapped in GIS with photopoints) - the sky did not fall in for 4x4 enthusiasts.

The reason is simple: the only roads that can be legally closed have to be closed by the land agency or by a group working under contract to the land agency. Legal roads - that is, roads that were planned, mapped, engineered, and built by the land agency - cannot be closed without a HUGE amount of review and input.

The only "roads" that have been closed down here are those that were illegally created by 1) drug runners and illegal immigrants; 2) the Border Patrol chasing #1; and 3) irresponsible ORV or 4x4 owners who drive off roads and then those tracks are followed by the next guy or gal.

The reason many of these roads need to be closed are from a land and wildlife management standpoint. Illegal roads often erode badly, foul up good trout streams, or allow access to areas that are important breeding habitat for deer or bears, which really shy away from roads. Some fabulous quail hunting habitat in Las Cienegas was destroyed by illegal roads - once those were closed, the quail returned and it's great hunting again!

Although I'm guilty of often using epithets to label people, "greenies" or otherwise, it's probably a good idea to realize that some of the so-called "greenies" are people like me and Jonathan who are environmentally rather radical and also love to hunt, explore the backcountry by vehicle AND on foot. It was a good education for me to be head of a conservation group and learn just how damaging it is to make assumptions about people's political or environmental stance just based on what they looked like, what they drive, what they eat, or what political party they belong to.

Roseann, a greenie who also loves great trucks, eats (and shoots) meat, carries a gun, and usually votes Republican

 

[goodtimes]

You are right on the cost of a pair of shoes....well, close anyway. They are getting expensive (and I need a new pair).

Personally I love wilderness areas. The first backpacking trip I did was in the South San Juan Wilderness area.....packed along a portion of the continental divide trail....horrid trip. Absolutely miserable. Rain, not really knowing what we were getting into, my pack wasn't set up properly, my sister hadn't broken in her boots completely, and we hiked 17 miles w/3000' elevation gain on day #1. I've been hooked ever since. (yes, I'm sick). But the whole time, we saw 3 groups of people, no mechanized vehicles, and didn't even see a airplane. It was simply awesome. For those reasons, I support wilderness areas. I like roadless areas as well, for many of the reasons Jonathan stated. But I also believe that there should be resonable access to areas of significant interest. Not everyone is able to don a pack and head 30 miles into the wilderness to get there. What about the guy who lost his leg in a war? What about the person who has a birth defect preventing them from walking? Should they be automatically excluded from visiting certain sites, based on their disability?

Now, the thing about wilderness areas...as far as I know, there are no historically significant sites within them. There are no roads (established hiking trails, but no roads), there likely isn't a reason to establish a road. But state trust land, forest service land, BLM land....those all have a significant number of historical sites, and access should be allowed. What happens when someone "discovers" a previously unmapped mining camp that holds some historic value? Should a road be created? More specifically, should the road to that location be revitalized/reopened? (there obviously was a road at some point....otherwise the camp would not be there).

**disclaimer---since not everyone knows me personally.....I like to play the devils advocate in a effort to stimulate debate and critical thinking on both sides of a issue. I enjoy thought provoking conversation, even if I don't agree with what someone else is saying. So, please do not hesitate to tell me you disagree with me (even if you are wrong ).

 

[Scott Brady]

Roseann, a greenie who also loves great trucks, eats (and shoots) meat, carries a gun, and usually votes Republican

Pretty much sums me up too :ylsmoke:

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Oh, and . . .Ursidae69 asked about handling negative stereotypes from the OHV community, which reminded me of a story. I beg your indulgence.

Roseann was the Executive Director of the Sky Island Alliance for two years. SIA works to identify and preserve wildlife movement corridors between the big mountain ranges in Arizona and southwest New Mexico. Part of their activities includes surveying and closing illegal wildcat roads on public land within these recognized corridors.

Wildcat roads might be the biggest problem relating to OHV usage on public lands. They begin with one selfish jerk who cuts a new trail across virgin terrain. Another jerk follows the first--but soon there is enough usage that the trail appears to be a legitimate road, and everyone starts using it. Then when a group such as SIA comes along and closes it--usually at the request of the BLM or Forest Service--the 4x4 community understandably wails about the "greenies" locking up public lands. It's a huge PR problem for everyone.

Anyway, Roseann once decided to tackle the problem head-on, and called the president of a well-known local four-wheel-drive club to meet with him. He reacted suspiciously, but agreed--and then showed up at the restaurant with three of his friends, thus tactically outnumbering Roseann. The four sat opposite her and looked pugnaciously at the "greenie," until Roseann said, "So, when you guys go out on trail rides, do you make the Land Rover owners bring their own spare parts cars?"

Roseann described four mouths dropping open in perfect unison. Then she said, "By the way, that nice Land Cruiser you saw on the way in? That's mine."

The four looked at each other, then almost fell out of their chairs laughing. The ice was broken, and everyone had a great time talking about mutual interests, agreeing to disagree on some things, but agreeing that the single biggest problem facing all southern Arizonans who enjoy the outdoors is the TOTAL LOSS OF OPEN SPACE TO DEVELOPMENT.

 

[datrupr]

Pretty much sums me up too :ylsmoke:

hear hear to that. Though not a registered Republican, my more conservative party has yet to put up someone in any race worth voting for.

 

[goodtimes]

Roseann, you are right. I probably use terms like "greenies" and "eco-nazi's" too often. It is nothing more than stereotyping a group of people, and in many cases it is inappropriate. Compound that with the fact that I can't use "smilies" on this site, it is hard to determine how sarcastic I am being (or not being). In this instance, I am referring to the extremist segment of the conservation movement....those that wish to end all OHV travel at any cost.

Unfortunately, it is not difficult at all to get a road closed. I can close down pretty much any OHV route I want within about a week. All I have to do is file a lawsuit claiming that the road is a immediate threat to the enviroment. I can site studies conducted by "Goodtimes' group that wants OHV travel outlawed", I can make crap up.......and as I understand the law, the gov't is bound by law to close the road until they conduct their own studies to refute my claims. This has been happening out in Glamis for years (Pearsons milk vetch....). 50K some odd acres was close off for years. Finally it was re-opened after govt studies showed that the milk vetch's survival was not dependant on the area remaing closed. Less than a week later, it was closed again because of another lawsuit. Granted, this is a open riding area, not a specific trail (I don't like open riding areas...too many rednecks----but I understand the need for the open areas....just like I understand the need for extreme rock crawling trails----but that is a different subject alltogether...).

On the subject of trail inventory, I would be interested in seeing what all is contained in it sometime. If for no other reason than to find new areas to explore. I base my trips primarily off of USGS 7.5' topo's, which we all know are often out of date with regards to roads and trails.....many times I go out to explore a area only to find a road that *looks* like it has been closed off...but no signs are around stating that...so, did someone steal the sign..is the road actually open just not used enough to make it look open....am I actually just lost and looking at something that was never a road?????

....crap.....I gotta get moving....next class is on the other side of campus and coming up soon.....more later.

*********************
quick edit.....stop posting while I am typing! Now I have more responses to make, and am already running late!!!!!! (insert sarcastic smilie of some sort here)

 

[DesertRose]

Now, the thing about wilderness areas...as far as I know, there are no historically significant sites within them. There are no roads (established hiking trails, but no roads), there likely isn't a reason to establish a road. But state trust land, forest service land, BLM land....those all have a significant number of historical sites, and access should be allowed. What happens when someone "discovers" a previously unmapped mining camp that holds some historic value? Should a road be created? More specifically, should the road to that location be revitalized/reopened? (there obviously was a road at some point....otherwise the camp would not be there).
.

Great discussion points!

First, Jonathan is giving me grief for doing this instead of working (we both work at home, on our computers, in separate offices....) but I see HE has been posting, too! Besides, i'm printing a bunch of stuff... i can't work while I have to monitor the printer

As for historic sites in Wilderness - I think there are. In the Rincon Wilderness, there is Manning Camp, I think. It's on the National Historic Register. There was a road going up there in the early part of the last century. But I'd have to say: NO! We should not re-open it. Such a road would rip open one of the biggest Wildernesses in southern Arizona. It's accessible by horsepacking for those who can't hike there.

So that brings up the point: the open-all-wild-areas-to-roads people often cite handicapped people, even bring wheelchair-bound folks to public meetings and parade them around, as reasons to bust open wilderness or roadless areas.

But there's always horsepacking! I'll have to think about that one some more....hmm.

Someone said COMMON SENSE should be what we use to decide land management issues. Hear-hear. All the stakeholders in public lands should have a say in what happens - within the limits of common sense, including the sense to save biodiversity even if it means we self-restrict our own access to places because there is a more important purpose to its existence than driving access.

But common sense a concept that works poorly in reality: we're talking about GOVERNMENT for goodness sake!

Oh, and one point about state trust lands in Arizona: they are not public land. They belong to the TRUSTS which benefit from money from their management (leases for mining, grazing, or hunting) or their sale (for development). We the public are allowed to use them by the grace of the owners of the trusts (most of which are education institutions).

Roseann