|
Popularity of off-road vehicles has revved up dramatically in recent years. Most riders show common sense and respect the resource. But as in every activity, there are a handful of renegades who tear up meadows and hillsides with no regard for other users or damage to wildlife and fish habitat.
Individual rights imply collective responsibilities. There is room on national forest and BLM lands for a myriad of uses, as long as people respect the rights of others. Not all of us like quiet, introspective afternoons gazing at blooming wildflowers or a burbling mountain stream. Some of us like our recreation at higher decibels.
Use conflicts are inevitable. And they will continue forever. The point is, there is room on our public lands for all sorts of uses. As environmental groups and off-road vehicle advocates square off in front of the U.S. Senate on efforts to restrict ORV patterns, it’s important to remember that. Each group needs adequate areas to recreate. The rules should not be so penal as to bleed all the fun out of recreation, even the loud kind.
We think it’s proper that the Forest Service restricts uses to particular areas, as long as those areas are generous. That way, everyone can enjoy the public lands set aside for all of us, not just one particular group. Special interests should not be able to control the forest.
The populist paranoia is that all the roads will be taken away. And of course some favorite roads will be off limits to protect wildlife breeding and willy-nilly damage to the resource once the road plan is finalized. Off-road vehicle riders, or any other of the dozens of types of users of national forest lands, may not be able to go anywhere they want, whenever they want. Any restrictions on use, though, need to be thoughtful so multiple use of the resource is maximized.
We are wary of regulation. The rules need to be clear cut and not full of bureaucratic blather. Policing lawbreakers, of course, is a monumental task given the size of the national forest. Riders who make their own trails and cause erosion, spread weeds and contribute to other problems need to be brought to justice. Riders who aggressively mud it up in snowmelt-softened meadows can cost taxpayers thousands for restoration and should be made to pay for their transgressions.
With all the land out there, and considering most people are good sports with common sense, it seems possible to set aside areas where off-road vehicle riders could see what their machines can do, challenging mud and steep hillsides, areas that would do minimal damage to wildlife and streams. And to set aside other areas where people could still hear the wind in the pines.
The government attends to collective needs in a civilized society, and that’s why the Forest Service should be trying to make a plan acceptable to multiple users, not just fish and wildlife or environmentalists. Anti-government rhetoric and rage are not helpful. No forest-use plan will make anyone delighted. That’s the glory of multiple use. Sure, there will still be plenty of bellyaching and the occasional conflict. That’s inevitable. But the hard truth is this: multiple use management does not mean multiple uses everywhere.
|
Opinion 
