Greens Demand Unreasonable Standards for ATVs
Sunday, June 9, 2002


BY BRIAN HAWTHORNE


The Wilderness Society, Save Our Canyons, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and other Wilderness Advocacy Groups have been telling the public that motorized recreation is not being managed properly. They have assured Utahns that they do not want to ban vehicle access altogether. Rather, ATVs, Jeeps and dirtbikes should be allowed only on designated trails where land managers have the ability to properly manage their use. Or so they say.
Their opposition to Utah Rep. Jim Hansen's proposal to designate the Shoshone National Recreation Trail ("Dust-Up Over ATV Trail Bill," May, 6) shows the true nature and desires of these groups. Hansen's legislation would do exactly what they say they want: designate certain roads and trails where recreational vehicles are allowed to travel, provide funding for maps, trail marking, enforcement and mitigation efforts where needed. If you believed the environmentalists' propaganda, you would think they would be falling over themselves to support Hansen's bill.
Their response in this instance could have been easily predicted by anyone who pays attention to what these groups do, rather than what they say. These groups promote a one-size-fits-all solution to any of Utah's public land management issues: Wilderness. To them, people who use vehicles for access and recreation have no place on public lands, whether properly managed or not.
Consider The Tribune's quote of Gavin Noyes from Save Our Canyons: "Until it is demonstrated that motorized users do not have an impact, they do not have a right to the land."
Would any other group of public land visitors ever be held to such a standard? I doubt it.
In a trail system such as the proposed Shoshone trail, ATVers are directed to existing roads and trails already used by the public. Environmental assessments prepared on organized trail rides in Central Utah have revealed virtually no measurable impacts from ATVs driving down an existing travel route. Lacking any substantive evidence of harm, these groups attempt to shift the burden to require motorized recreationists show that they have no impact whatsoever. But these groups never apply the same standard to themselves.
Some hikers loot archeological sites. Hiking and mountain bike trails can cause erosion. Some wildland photographers build fires underneath arches in national parks. Some campers cut live trees for firewood and their unrestrained dogs harass wildlife. Should we similarly deny access rights to hikers, campers and mountain bikers until it is demonstrated they have no impacts?
The environmental community's opposition to Hansen's proposal, or any proposal that would treat motorized recreation as a legitimate activity, is instructive. In light of Noyes and his comrades' unreasonable requirement that vehicle users be denied their rights to visit public lands &quot;<u>ntil it is demonstrated that motorized users do not have an impact,&quot; no one can doubt the real objective of these groups is to ban motorized access, period.
The Shoshone Trail concept is exactly what environmentalists have long demanded, but not really wanted. It would provide needed and long overdue management of vehicle use. It's the kind of proposal that should have the support from all who visit and love Utah's public lands.
_________

Brian Hawthorne is director of the Utah Shared Access Alliance.

© Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/06092002/opinion/743657.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you going to stand up and be heard on July 11?
http://www.crowley-offroad.com/protest_rally.htm