Minnesota Newspapers continue ATV bashing campaign attempting to influence legislation.
#1
03-28-2002, 10:57 PM
Chris Niskanen has joined forces with Tom Meersman of the Minneapols Star Tribune and The Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation and put his own grouse hunting preferences above the needs of the average Minnesotan outdoorsman. He is once again listening to the drums of the Ruffed Grouse Hunting Society and forwarding his own agenda against the needs of other Minnesota outdoor citizens. Don't be fooled by his veiled words on caring for the enviroment, he hates ATvs pure and simple.
Posted on Wed, Mar. 27, 2002
ATV legislation must not bog down
CHRIS NISKANEN
Outdoors Editor St. Paul Pioneer Press
Minnesota is trying to put the ATV genie back in the bottle, but no one can agree on the size of the cork.
Under current state law, all-terrain vehicles are allowed to roam freely anywhere on 46 of 58 state forests, which means you can bomb around off trails and through the woods without any regulations.
Approved by the Legislature in 1999, the law was a wholesale concession to a theory that because ATVs are popular, they should be allowed to roam everywhere until a network of trails was constructed for their use. According to the legislators' theory, ATVs could be "managed'' only after the trails were built.
Well, the genie was uncorked and the predictable mayhem occurred: Forests have been trashed, and many unhappy Minnesotans have come to their senses and have told the Legislature that unfettered ATV use must stop — with or without a trail system.
Caught in the middle is the Department of Natural Resources, which gets its ATV marching orders from the Legislature but has been suspiciously quiet about the damage occurring on its own lands.
I've written several times about the problems of ATVs roaming without regulation through state forests and always get a flood of mail on the issue. The most vitriolic letters are on the ends of the spectrum: those who want a total ban on ATVs and those who believe Minnesota should become a giant, four-wheel-drive mud rally.
The thoughtful majority wants something in the middle.
The Legislature has finally grasped that concept, and two bills are moving independently toward that end. But there's so little trust and so much politicking going on that the session could end soon without a solution. Here's the lay of the land and the problematic fissure:
• Some lawmakers, along with the All-Terrain Vehicle Association of Minnesota and a handful of environment groups, agreed to a bill that would ban cross-country travel in most state forests. The bill was viewed as a significant agreement between ATVAM and the environmental groups and major step forward to halting the damage in the forests. The bill was viewed as a tacit "deal" between the House and Senate as a short-term solution to forest damage.
• But Senate lawmakers wanted to go further. Last week they passed an amendment to the DNR's game and fish bill that would force ATVs to use only designated trails after the DNR designates 2,000 miles of ATV-specific trails. The state now has 600 miles. The bill doesn't set a timetable, nor does it set a cap on the number of trails the DNR could ultimately build. But it does spell out that after 2,000 miles of trails are constructed, ATVs would be limited to posted trails and banned from all other trails and off-trail travel.
In the interim, cross-country travel wouldn't be banned under the amendment.
On Tuesday, DNR Commissioner Allen Garber endorsed the Senate amendment with some minor tweaking. Garber said he wants the Legislature to ban cross-country travel and approve the Senate bill so the DNR would have a framework for building trails and further limiting ATV use after the trails are built.
House members don't like the Senate bill, saying it goes too far and violates the deal to ban only cross-country travel. Now there's talk among House members that the Senate amendment will scuttle any ATV legislation this session.
That would be the worst possible outcome to the current ATV debate. Law-abiding ATV riders are losing the public relations battle for a trail system, and Minnesotans who want meaningful ATV restrictions are losing their patience.
Lawmakers need to ban cross-country travel to honor the consensus reached by ATVers and environmental groups. Both sides should view the Senate amendment as a first step toward a long-term solution to the ATV problem.
The genie needs to be put back in the bottle, and the sooner the better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Niskanen can be reached at cniskanen@pioneerpress.com or (651) 228-5524.
Posted on Wed, Mar. 27, 2002
ATV legislation must not bog down
CHRIS NISKANEN
Outdoors Editor St. Paul Pioneer Press
Minnesota is trying to put the ATV genie back in the bottle, but no one can agree on the size of the cork.
Under current state law, all-terrain vehicles are allowed to roam freely anywhere on 46 of 58 state forests, which means you can bomb around off trails and through the woods without any regulations.
Approved by the Legislature in 1999, the law was a wholesale concession to a theory that because ATVs are popular, they should be allowed to roam everywhere until a network of trails was constructed for their use. According to the legislators' theory, ATVs could be "managed'' only after the trails were built.
Well, the genie was uncorked and the predictable mayhem occurred: Forests have been trashed, and many unhappy Minnesotans have come to their senses and have told the Legislature that unfettered ATV use must stop — with or without a trail system.
Caught in the middle is the Department of Natural Resources, which gets its ATV marching orders from the Legislature but has been suspiciously quiet about the damage occurring on its own lands.
I've written several times about the problems of ATVs roaming without regulation through state forests and always get a flood of mail on the issue. The most vitriolic letters are on the ends of the spectrum: those who want a total ban on ATVs and those who believe Minnesota should become a giant, four-wheel-drive mud rally.
The thoughtful majority wants something in the middle.
The Legislature has finally grasped that concept, and two bills are moving independently toward that end. But there's so little trust and so much politicking going on that the session could end soon without a solution. Here's the lay of the land and the problematic fissure:
• Some lawmakers, along with the All-Terrain Vehicle Association of Minnesota and a handful of environment groups, agreed to a bill that would ban cross-country travel in most state forests. The bill was viewed as a significant agreement between ATVAM and the environmental groups and major step forward to halting the damage in the forests. The bill was viewed as a tacit "deal" between the House and Senate as a short-term solution to forest damage.
• But Senate lawmakers wanted to go further. Last week they passed an amendment to the DNR's game and fish bill that would force ATVs to use only designated trails after the DNR designates 2,000 miles of ATV-specific trails. The state now has 600 miles. The bill doesn't set a timetable, nor does it set a cap on the number of trails the DNR could ultimately build. But it does spell out that after 2,000 miles of trails are constructed, ATVs would be limited to posted trails and banned from all other trails and off-trail travel.
In the interim, cross-country travel wouldn't be banned under the amendment.
On Tuesday, DNR Commissioner Allen Garber endorsed the Senate amendment with some minor tweaking. Garber said he wants the Legislature to ban cross-country travel and approve the Senate bill so the DNR would have a framework for building trails and further limiting ATV use after the trails are built.
House members don't like the Senate bill, saying it goes too far and violates the deal to ban only cross-country travel. Now there's talk among House members that the Senate amendment will scuttle any ATV legislation this session.
That would be the worst possible outcome to the current ATV debate. Law-abiding ATV riders are losing the public relations battle for a trail system, and Minnesotans who want meaningful ATV restrictions are losing their patience.
Lawmakers need to ban cross-country travel to honor the consensus reached by ATVers and environmental groups. Both sides should view the Senate amendment as a first step toward a long-term solution to the ATV problem.
The genie needs to be put back in the bottle, and the sooner the better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Niskanen can be reached at cniskanen@pioneerpress.com or (651) 228-5524.
#2
03-29-2002, 02:12 AM
#3
03-29-2002, 02:15 AM
#4
03-29-2002, 10:02 AM
It seems rather strange to me that the "free roaming" among the state forrests was pretty liberal to start with. But there are always those "few", who have to wreck it for the rest of us. There were always plenty of trails to ride on without having to barrel a$$ through the middle of the woods, running over whatever size tree out quads would allow, in the name of sport. I'd have to say most Minnesotans' cherish the outdoors enough not to deliberately cause destruction to our forrest areas.
But at the same time we must fight for our rights or they will all be taken. Once something is taken by the govt, its never returned. And slowly more restrictions are always added, and pretty soon gone.
#5
03-29-2002, 11:17 AM
The whole discussion about ATVs in the forest is ridiculous.
Why is logging still practiced? Because it's a renewable resource and the trees and underlying brush grows back. The earth recovers.
What about all the strip mining that happened in northern Minnesota or the coal mining in other States? The land grew over with new vegetation and the holes filled with water and now support fish and aquatic life. You can't hardly tell anything ever happened there.
ATVs may, given enough traffic, leave a track or ruts from the wheels. But give it a couple of years and you would never even know a trail existed.
I say if they want to single out ATVers then all snowmobiling, horseback riding, DNR creation of forestry trails, logging, and any other use of State lands must stop, too. That ain't going to happen!
Why is logging still practiced? Because it's a renewable resource and the trees and underlying brush grows back. The earth recovers.
What about all the strip mining that happened in northern Minnesota or the coal mining in other States? The land grew over with new vegetation and the holes filled with water and now support fish and aquatic life. You can't hardly tell anything ever happened there.
ATVs may, given enough traffic, leave a track or ruts from the wheels. But give it a couple of years and you would never even know a trail existed.
I say if they want to single out ATVers then all snowmobiling, horseback riding, DNR creation of forestry trails, logging, and any other use of State lands must stop, too. That ain't going to happen!
#6
03-29-2002, 12:02 PM
My email to Chris:
Chris,
I don't believe that the majority of Minnesotans support banning ATVs to State trails. We need more State trails, that is true. And more State trails would of its own accord reduce a lot of the cross country travel. But consider some of the ways ATVs are used:
1) Hauling bear bait into the woods.
2) Hauling game out of the woods.
3) Handicapped access to remote areas
4) DNR use for access to lakes and ponds for water testing, mosquito reduction, surveying, etc
5) Cabin owners hauling groceries and other supplies to remote locations.
6) Parents taking their kids out to view nature and perhaps go camping off the beaten trail.
The list goes on and on and the fact is--State trails won't get people to where they need to go. How many Minnesotans have cabins where they've found trails they can use that were left behind by hunters or perhaps from the DNR accessing the survey boundary markers in the State forests? These people want and will continue to keep using these trails regardless of what legislation may be passed because there won't be any way to enforce the laws given the amount of staffing it would require from the State.
If ATVs caused irreparable damage to the environment I would 100% support banning ATVs to State trails. I hunt and fish and I care about preserving the environment for the future of our children. But the fact that a "heavily used" trail will show no sign of ever having been used by ATVs after just a couple of short years, makes the whole discussion a mute point in my opinion.
In our society our kids grow up not knowing where meat comes from and not understanding the realities of nature. Nature is harsh. The world was made to sustain floods, volcanoes and other disasters and it has an amazing ability to recover. ATVs impact on the environment is insignificant in the scheme of things. Imagine if the early pioneers weren't allowed to travel the woods and prairies on their way to Minnesota because their wagons left ruts in the ground! Our forefathers would scoff at us.
Should we stop bombing Afghanistan because the bombs leave marks on the ground? No matter how you look at it, any argument to stop ATV use in State lands, if it's based upon environmental impact, is going to reek of hypocrisy. Man impacts the environment from the shear act of living. It's fact.
Chris,
I don't believe that the majority of Minnesotans support banning ATVs to State trails. We need more State trails, that is true. And more State trails would of its own accord reduce a lot of the cross country travel. But consider some of the ways ATVs are used:
1) Hauling bear bait into the woods.
2) Hauling game out of the woods.
3) Handicapped access to remote areas
4) DNR use for access to lakes and ponds for water testing, mosquito reduction, surveying, etc
5) Cabin owners hauling groceries and other supplies to remote locations.
6) Parents taking their kids out to view nature and perhaps go camping off the beaten trail.
The list goes on and on and the fact is--State trails won't get people to where they need to go. How many Minnesotans have cabins where they've found trails they can use that were left behind by hunters or perhaps from the DNR accessing the survey boundary markers in the State forests? These people want and will continue to keep using these trails regardless of what legislation may be passed because there won't be any way to enforce the laws given the amount of staffing it would require from the State.
If ATVs caused irreparable damage to the environment I would 100% support banning ATVs to State trails. I hunt and fish and I care about preserving the environment for the future of our children. But the fact that a "heavily used" trail will show no sign of ever having been used by ATVs after just a couple of short years, makes the whole discussion a mute point in my opinion.
In our society our kids grow up not knowing where meat comes from and not understanding the realities of nature. Nature is harsh. The world was made to sustain floods, volcanoes and other disasters and it has an amazing ability to recover. ATVs impact on the environment is insignificant in the scheme of things. Imagine if the early pioneers weren't allowed to travel the woods and prairies on their way to Minnesota because their wagons left ruts in the ground! Our forefathers would scoff at us.
Should we stop bombing Afghanistan because the bombs leave marks on the ground? No matter how you look at it, any argument to stop ATV use in State lands, if it's based upon environmental impact, is going to reek of hypocrisy. Man impacts the environment from the shear act of living. It's fact.
#7
03-30-2002, 08:48 AM
Great Post Dave,
I too wonder about the "impact" which these writers (Tom Meersman included) refer to. It seems that our local writers are employing the same tactics as the California/Desert type environmentalists do.
In the desert any sign of offroading will remain for months at a time due to vegetation and a lack of precipitation. When I worked in LA, I would drive there from out in the desert near Corona. I would see trails over the top of the small mountains caused by Jeeps or other off road vehicles that would stay there for months. One vehicle, one trail, one scar which would last a long time. It was annoying to look at every day.
It seems that this is the same logic employed by Chris Niskanen and the Minnesota Citizens for Responsible Recreation. But.... WE DO NOT LIVE IN THE DESERT. Our four seasons, precipitation and vegetation turn ruts in to flats in no time. Unused trails grow over rapidly, and if the trail is of any use it will be used by hunters, hikers, etc. and will remain a trail.
Out of curiosity, at any given time, how many of you people have acutually seen anybody out in the woods away from civilization that was not on a motorized vehicle. (Designated hiking trails on the North Shore do not count) In 5 years in Minnesota I have seen 1 dogsled, three walkers on the Soo Line, and one cross country skiier. (there was also a farm nearby, it was near Christmas, and the skiis looked new) In 5 years!
Sometimes I think that most of the Minnesota outdoor vocal enthusiasts are drinking flavored coffees, and browsing the curio shops in downtown Duluth and Lutsen dressed in their finest/latest Columbia outdoor attire. When they are done they will drive in the SUVs (without trailer hitches) to Hinckley and have a cinnamon bun before that long and arduous trek back to the Cities. LOL
I too wonder about the "impact" which these writers (Tom Meersman included) refer to. It seems that our local writers are employing the same tactics as the California/Desert type environmentalists do.
In the desert any sign of offroading will remain for months at a time due to vegetation and a lack of precipitation. When I worked in LA, I would drive there from out in the desert near Corona. I would see trails over the top of the small mountains caused by Jeeps or other off road vehicles that would stay there for months. One vehicle, one trail, one scar which would last a long time. It was annoying to look at every day.
It seems that this is the same logic employed by Chris Niskanen and the Minnesota Citizens for Responsible Recreation. But.... WE DO NOT LIVE IN THE DESERT. Our four seasons, precipitation and vegetation turn ruts in to flats in no time. Unused trails grow over rapidly, and if the trail is of any use it will be used by hunters, hikers, etc. and will remain a trail.
Out of curiosity, at any given time, how many of you people have acutually seen anybody out in the woods away from civilization that was not on a motorized vehicle. (Designated hiking trails on the North Shore do not count) In 5 years in Minnesota I have seen 1 dogsled, three walkers on the Soo Line, and one cross country skiier. (there was also a farm nearby, it was near Christmas, and the skiis looked new) In 5 years!
Sometimes I think that most of the Minnesota outdoor vocal enthusiasts are drinking flavored coffees, and browsing the curio shops in downtown Duluth and Lutsen dressed in their finest/latest Columbia outdoor attire. When they are done they will drive in the SUVs (without trailer hitches) to Hinckley and have a cinnamon bun before that long and arduous trek back to the Cities. LOL
Trending Topics
#8
03-30-2002, 10:50 AM
From: Bill450es
<< Also do not e-mail Chris N. at the Pioneer Press...do better and e- mail HIS BOSS and ask for a retraction because of misleading journalism.
Chris belongs to the ruffed grouse society and makes no bones about it. He dislikes atvs and does not want them in HIS woods.
Chris Niskanen will probably trash your e-mail without caring to read it. >>
That's right. Mr. Niskanen did everything he could to get ATVs removed from grouse hunting.
Didn't he also use the term "running ***** nilly through the woods?"
<< Also do not e-mail Chris N. at the Pioneer Press...do better and e- mail HIS BOSS and ask for a retraction because of misleading journalism.
Chris belongs to the ruffed grouse society and makes no bones about it. He dislikes atvs and does not want them in HIS woods.
Chris Niskanen will probably trash your e-mail without caring to read it. >>
That's right. Mr. Niskanen did everything he could to get ATVs removed from grouse hunting.
Didn't he also use the term "running ***** nilly through the woods?"
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Elkaholic
Land, Trail and Environmental Issues
1
09-06-2015 02:44 PM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)