Quiet Recreation is Making Noise

After submitting formal comments on the Mount Hood National Forest’s DEIS for Travel Management, I am reminded of the growing howl coming from anti-access groups like BARK demanding that more multiple-use roads, trails, and areas be closed to OHV use.

See My Sept 9 Blog on BARK/Quiet Recreation and the Mt. Hood
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009/09/howling-at-moon-in-or-to-stop-ohv-use.html

Photo: Amador on Single Track Trail on Mt. Hood

Some of you have seen recent articles espousing the economic virtues of non-motorized “quiet” recreation such as hiking while downplaying the economic benefit of motorized recreation such as ATV or dirt-bike use.

Article in Fiscal Impacts of “Quiet Recreation”
http://www.naturaloregon.org/2009/06/11/making-noise-about-quiet-recreation-in-national-forests/

It appears that a new study called the “Recreation Economic Impact Tool” produced by
Kreg Lindberg at Central Oregon Recreation Services is being used or misused as a bullhorn by the quiet recreation crowd to loudly shout (or BARK in some cases) for blanket closures to OHVs including non-street legal OHVs on Forests going through the TMR process.

Link to CORS and the Tool
http://www.corsbend.com/




I did contact Professor Lindberg regarding my concerns about the fact that I could not find in any of his research where the nexus is appreciated between the use (and hence the economic benefit) of motorized vehicles by forest visitors to access non-motorized activities.

The General served on the California OHV State Park Commission in the 1990s and I remember an old public land planning tool/concept that was used by both state and federal land agencies. That historic foundation block in land use planning was that a vast majority of all types of recreation (motorized and non-motorized) is vehicle-based and takes place with ¼ mile of the vehicle.

See How the Quiet Recreation Crowd wants OHV (Mt. Hood is a good case study) restricted to just a few "small islands" in the NF.
http://nativeecosystems.org/critterthink/shifting-the-recreational-paradigm-by-aaron-clark/comment-page-1



One source of user conflicts between quiet recreationists and the OHV community is often times roads and motorized trails are used by folks who want quiet recreation and then they are frustrated when OHVs use the same area. Since, most quiet recreation occurs (or should occur) in Wilderness or other non-motorized land-use classifications…the quiet user is only ¼ mile or less from the road. Hence, the quiet recreation sought after is sometimes disturbed.






Many quiet recreationists don't have time to hike into the core of Wilderness areas because of a lack of time or resources. Rather they use a vehicle for rapid access to the outer boundaries of the Wilderness (or go to an OHV area!) and then complain about legal motorized uses.

OHV advocates must be aware of Quiet Recreation Groups who are now loudly screaming for you – the OHV user – to not only be silent… but be gone as well.






Thanks for your service!

Buffers, Filters, Camels, and Travel Management

As more National Forest’s enter into the DEIS or FEIS phase of the Travel Management Rule, there is a disturbing trend that has appeared. Some Units appear to have developed
a “decision filter” through which the designation of OHV roads and trails must pass.

*Photo: Don Amador at 2004 Black Dog DS Ride on Mt. Hood National Forest

Yesterday, the public comment period ended for the Mount Hood National Forest’s DEIS. On behalf of the BlueRibbon Coalition, I filed a comment letter on the proposal.

BRC Oct. 28, 2009 Comment Letter on the Mount Hood DEIS
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Mount_Hood_DEIS_BRC_Comment_Letter_10.28.090001.pdf

One of the DEIS’s procedural flaws was that it “created” new OHV policies based on public input and developed a “new” purpose and need/proposed action that was starkly different than the original purposed and need/proposed action. Also, the need to buffer out OHV recreation that was near Wilderness areas or other non-motorized land-use classifications was now an implicit or explicit part of the agency’s decision matrix.

The General wants riders to watch for the “buffer” issue to be used on other Forests.
As some of you know, in most Wilderness Bills (including the recent 130,000 acre Lewis and Clark Wilderness Bill for the Mount Hood) there is very strong language that prohibits the agency from creating buffer zones (including buffers for “quiet recreation”) around Wilderness areas.

See Sec. 105, page 73, for Buffer Language in the 2007 Lewis and Clark Wilderness Act
http://www.oregonwild.org/wilderness/new-wilderness/mount_hood_wilderness_campaign/Lewis%20and%20Clark%20Mount%20Hood%20Wilderness%20Bill%202-14-07.pdf

It is important for OHV advocates to know about this very specific buffer language because you will often find local “quiet recreation” advocates cheering for more OHV routes to be closed next to Wilderness or other non-motorized land classifications

Oct. 25 “Quiet Recreation” Guest Column
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/10/off-road_vehicles_wilderness_d.html

The General urges OHV advocates and local recreationists to be on the lookout for Forest Service units that have created a highly restrictive “closure filter” through which TMR must pass. From what I have seen on some Forests – it may be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for an OHV route to be designated.

Thank in advance for your continued efforts on TMR. It has, and continues to be, an extremely difficult process. Hang in there!

Howling at the Moon in OR to Stop OHV Use

As many of my readers know, TMR is a national blessing or curse depending on what your own local Forest is proposing to close or keep open for OHV use.

*

*Photo at right taken by The General while on a 2004 dual sport ride on the Mt. Hood NF

*

Just last week, The General received in his mail a copy of the CD version of the Mount Hood National Forest Travel DEIS. Several years ago on behalf of BRC, I submitted public comments on the Hood’s TMR NOI. My initial review of the DEIS shows the Forest actually incorporated a number of our suggestions by converting some roads to trails, designating some areas, and proposing some new trails.

However, the scale of those good ideas is so small as to be almost irrelevant when compared with the fact that over 90 percent of the logging roads (over 2100 miles) will be closed to non-street legal OHVs (ATVs, dirt-bikes, and side-by-sides)

See Sandy Post Article (with quotes from BRC and BARK)
http://www.sandypost.com/news/story.php?story_id=125245623636788600

It looks like the local anti-OHV group in the area (BARK) has been very effective by going to public meetings and howling or barking at public officials in order to get the Forest Service to adopt much if not most of their anti-OHV proposals.

BARK
http://bark-out.org/topic.php?id=mthoodohv

I have already been in touch with representatives from the
OR Motorcycle Riders Assn (see this thread for meeting times)
http://www.omraoffroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7003

and Columbia Gorge Off Road Assn
http://cgora.com/

BRC will be working with these and other groups during the DEIS public comment period.

Being a native of Humboldt County in Northern California (don’t hold that against me!) I am used to seeing bizarre eco-groups. However, BARK appears to have developed an effective strategy in the Mount Hood Area by howling at the moon (and at public officials) to get their way.

I wonder how that technique would work for off-roaders if they tried it at the next OHV meeting or included photo shopped pictures of wolves riding ATVs in their comment letters?

TMR is not just a CA thing.