OHV Hearing last Monday

[Dave]

Spike, did you go?

[SpikeRoberts]

No, but I did read several of the reports on the hearings. Sure sounds like things are going to continue to be tense over the next couple of years.

[SpikeRoberts]

Senator Tony Kinkel (Cass County) introduced an amendment that would reclassify our unmanaged state forests (go anywhere) as "limited" (designated trails only and no off trail travel) after 2,000 miles of ATV trails are designated. The MN Senate adopted the measure Friday in an attempt to balance ecological concerns and recreational demands. The measure, which passed 41 to 21, also requires environmental reviews of ATV trails and allows emergency closure of those with environmental damage. A similar proposal should be introduced into the House of Representatives this week.

I think that this is a fair compromise; riders get acess to more designated trails and non-riders get set aside forest for other recreational activities. Every other state in our region has "limited" classification for their forests and its about time MN did as well.

[Benny]

With out reading the whole amendment in detial, I would be very sceptikal of it.But if it is as you state I would not be willing to agree with it.Does it allow for hunters to go off trail to retreive down game?I think most of the "sportsmen/women" would not like this amendment if it bans there only way to get to and from a deer stand or to haul out a downed animal.
Benny

[SpikeRoberts]

Benny,
Read your regulations -- page 18 of the 2001-2002 Recreational Motor Vehicle Regulation Summary defines "limited" -- it does allow for the use of ATV for persons lawfully engaged in hunting off forest trails in a manner consistent with general operating regulations.

[Dave]

I'm sure you would think it's fair Spike. Let's see, cut down the size of trails open now by 4000 miles. Hmmmmm, no wonder why you like it. Plus, EAWs, no logging road travel. Naw, I'll pass as it being fair.

[SpikeRoberts]

If ATVs are so harmless, then why you anyone worry about an EAW provision?

[Benny]

Three people can do an EAW and there will be three differant veiws, but no facts.It is not an exact science to do these EAW as there is no federal or state owned agancies that do the study.Any private instatute is suseptable to leaning the way the money flows.Give them a donation and they will state the common ground squrial is an endangered animal.
If these EAW's are so awsome, why doesn't the federal government use them or mandate them?
As for the regulations, yep it's there NOW, but what happens after a ban takes place? Are there provisions in place to protect the right to use an ATV to retrieve deer or for the people less able to walk to the stand to use an ATV to get there.I don't mean they can use them out side current laws, just to the point they are allowed now.
The way I read the amendment is that it will ban all cross country travel bar none, period!!
There was no provision for hunting or trapping, even none for the farmers going to a field they are working.All unmanaged state forest covers every single wood plot out side private owned plots, I.E the whole state, not just a specific forest.
Only 2000 miles,how many miles do the sleders have?And we get only 2000 miles, yea I bet you think it is fair.
I have said it before and I will say it again, we don't need to ban every area, just the few that are in sencitive areas and those that need to recover.We need to educate more people and get it into the elementery level school system as well, a young person on a large displacement wheeler can tear up an area and not even think about how it would effect any thing else, as can an adult who doesn't care about anything except having fun doing it.If more people understand that the ecosystem can't sustain human distruction for years on endthan maybe we will have some control over the degredation.But a ban will do nothing but put more people out there that no longer care about areas to ride in as they will just ride where ever they want to go.Who is going to enforce the law?We can't even get any money for CO'S now, what makes anyone think they will get the money to enforce a ban? Sure the CO,s will grab a few right away, but say two years from now when the presure is off them to control it, they wont have the motivation(money) to persue any enforcement.So the 185,000 ATV's will still have free range and now you will have people out there that will porpously destroy things to get back at the ban.
A ban is not the answer, and no I don't have one right now either.That is why we ALL need to sit down at a table and try to find a meadien to agree on.But no, the green people just have to keep pushing for thier ban.
Benny

[This message has been edited by Benny (edited 03-23-2002).]

[SpikeRoberts]

"There was no provision for hunting or trapping, even none for the farmers going to a field they are working."

Benny read your regulations -- "limited" status does allow provisions for hunting big game and trapping. This regulation of state forest land is not a ban, does not change the definition of "limited," and does not affect farmers working on their private land in any way.

"Only 2000 miles,how many miles do the sleders have?"

The comparison between sleds and OHVs cannot really be made. Many of the 18,000 miles of snowmobile trails are located over lakes, on easments attained from farmers over private land, in ditches, and on paved trails. Because sleds operate in the winter, they do not interfere with farm activities, wildlife reproduction in the ditches, or use of paved roads by bikers and rollerbladers. Thus, there is no way to match ATV miles with sled miles.

"It is not an exact science to do these EAW as there is no federal or state owned agencies that do the study."

Nothing in forestry or wildlife management is an exact science, but that doesn't mean we don't allow foresters and wildlife biologists to do their jobs. There are very specific procedures for EAWs in order to ensure that findings are consistent across cases. Frankly, I find the oppostion to EAWs troubling -- it seems to demonstrate that all OHV users care about is access to the resource, not the resource itself.

[Benny]

I did read the Regulations, and I did agree with you that it states what you said, BUT it doesn't have any bearing on the proposed ban as the ban would make the current regulation absolete and against the law!
Why would you think that a regulation book printed now would be the same after a ban is in place? The regulation will change with the ban, it has to or else the DNR has made an illegal statement and could be held liable for a law suit from it.
As for the sleders, have you ever went by a grass land or a feild after the snow goes and looked at the damage the late season sledes have caused?The grass is ripped up and stays flattend for many months after the snow is gone.
Easments were bought with money that the ATV regestration helped fill the coffers also, not just the sled clubs or sled registration.
I would also like to point out the noise level of the sleds vs the ATV's, a stock sled is 25 decables loader than a stock ATV, my folks put up with load sleds roaring down the trail that was moved to go through a swamp and through the woods my familly has hunted for over 50 years, as the long time owners failed to pay thier taxes.My great uncle lets the sleders through a part of his land but he closed it off one year because the sleders were stoping in his woods to build a bon fire , they started sawing down trees and building there benches right on his private land.This trail get used an awful lot so it only took one year to get the sled clubs out and patrol his section, but even they said it would only help while they were out there.Now he may close it again because the newer sleds and thier high hores power and spiked tracks are also causing a depresion or rut where the trail goes through at.
Ask anyone who has a paved drive way how the studded tracks rip up thier expensive asfault, they don't get any easments for this damage.

I am not against an EAW at all, but I am against it being used as a means for the green people to get thier way.If the foresters are to do thier jobs then we must stop the green people from dictating when and where they do the job.Even the forestry people will tell you that they can't do a good job when the job is dictated by a judge who did what the green people wanted and not what was recamended by thier superiors.
Who knowes more about the EAW's any way, the judge and green's or the DNR and thier forestry people.
Let the forestry people decide when an EAW is needed not a court order only justified by one groups veiw.

"it seems to demonstrate that all OHV users care about is to access to the resource, not the resource itself"

You are totally mistaken there,do you not remember who was paying for and doing the work to repair the trail by Millacs? I is the same people you seem to think don't care about the recource.
Was it not the sportsmen and women who started the limitation and seasons for hunting game or the regulation of fishing?
These are the same people who in some part were responsible for the demiess of the game they loved to hunt.
We ATV'ers are not that differant from them, we just have to get the knowlage out there to the public that it isnt ok to rip accross a swamp just to see if you can make it.It take time to do this and it won't stop tomorrow, hopefuly it will stop soon though.
Benny

[Surface Tension]

Your not going gain any support from sledders by attacking them. Most of the trails for sledders out there were created from local clubs.
Money was raised by these clubs to build and mantain these trails. Yes there are grants from the goverment also. Snowmobiler's pay $48 for a 3 year lic. Out of state riders pay for a permit to ride. Studded tracks also need a permit and are banned on paved trails.

[Guest]

I belong to a local snowmobile club in central mn. I can tell you we sure did not come up with all our trails overnight by asking for them. I wonder if you have any idea how much work we put in every year to have and keep these trails. First off our club runs a pull-tab booth--charitable gambling--that contributes $48,000 a year to the county trail assosiation. We recently bought a new groomer for $120,000
In the winter we run two groomers as often as possible. In the off-season we are very busy talking with land owners to access new trails or deal with ones that will no longer be available due to new housing construction etc. We go out to the trails to clean up all the trash, to clear any hazards that are found and fix any damaged areas that we find. We replace a lot of signs, you would not believe all the signs we get stolen off the trees each year,especially if they warn you of a potentially dangerous area ahead.
All of this work is done by volunteers that care about the sport and its future. If you are truely concerned about the A.T.V access and its future I would suggest you stop complaining about it and get up and do something about it. As far as all this damage you have seen from the sleds in the winter, I invite you to come along with us the next time we clean up the trails to find and point out all this damage...talk is cheap ,seeing is believing. Pete

[Dave]

Pete,
I don't think Benny was talking about damage as in garbage out on the trail. (You mentioned going out to clean up after season) I think Benny meant (correct me if I'm wrong Benny) that the 'damage" is what MRR says about ATV damage. Compacted grasses that are visible for a long time. Vegatation off dirt hills, that kind of thing. You know trails that are dug up by studs and open to spring rains is going to cause "erosion' of one type or another. ANY erosion to MRR is a no no.

All you guys also know, ATV trails are different than snow trails since snow trails can cover private ag land that's frozen, lakes, etc., etc... The sledders did a great job in building the system. How long did it take? The ATV sport is quite new. Isn't some time warrantied to build a system? Don't say ATVers had 10 years. The sport has just taken off the last, maybe, 5 years. ALL ATV trail work is being done by who? Volunteers/clubs as well.

Problem with EAWs. When you have groups like MRR bashing everything the DNR does, and files lawsuit after lawsuit, then it is a problem. There isn't one EAW that could be written that the MRR group would say 'ok' too. You know it and I know it.

Comments about POSSIBLE excess dust settling on 'POSSIBLE' rare vegatation. POSSIBLE erosion from trail positioning. POSSIBLE noise levels, IF non-atvers are in the trail area. It goes on and on and on.
Now, what would happen to the trail 'plans' if a EAW had to be 'passed' on each one before the trail could be placed? The trail would never be on the map cause groups like MRR would object to some findings and probably just file a lawsuit if they didn't like the EAW results for any reason. Even all the 'possibles', 'may', or 'coulds' they can come up with. Reason against EAWs is quite simple to understand because, well, we know what the opposing side is about. And, that's to stop motor recreation so the 'peace and quiet' that's on their agenda can be met.

[This message has been edited by Dave (edited 03-24-2002).]

[SpikeRoberts]

Dave,
The flaw in your assesment of the EAWs is this:
To date the DNR's position of no EAWs has already resulted in one lawsuit which the DNR lost. Continued resistance to conducting EAWs will likely produce more lawsuits (which the DNR will probably lose). Basically, you can accept lawsuits as a sure thing if EAWs aren't conducted.

On the other hand, there is no way to know for sure about the future of litigation if EAWs are conducted. To use your own reasoning against you I'd like to point out that you complain about the pitfalls of the EAWs and public commententary based on the "coulds," "mights," and maybes." Yet you have no problem making the argument yourself -- they could, might, maybe will file lawsuits based on EAW results. We can't say that for sure -- MRR says that they'll live with EAWs. If you want them to take you on your word, you have to take them on theirs.

[Benny]

First off, Dave, you are exactly right on what I meant.I just didn't know how to put it into words that would not sound "angree".

Secondly, Pete S , I would be happy to meet you and point out the damage I was referring to.All you have to do is drive up highway 65 south and north of Mc Gregor and look at the damaged grass in the wet lands.I often see the one quart oil jugs left behind from sledder who couldn't put it back under his hood and toss it in the trash back at the hotel.
I am not tring to anger any sledders, just point out that they have as many bad apples in their ranks as we do in the ATV group.This is why we ALL need to get on the same page and find a means to the end, not file law suite that cost tax payer money.
I am sure the sled clubs are out there picking up after their bad apples, but why do you think this is? Was it not the same for them back in the early years of snowmobiles? Didn't the green people try to outlaw snowmobiles as the were veiwed as a threat to the envirnment back then also?Didn't the green people get the insurance companies to raise costs so the manufacturers quit making the big bore sleds of yesteryear?I have an old 650 brute sled that was a monster in it's time, but the company was driven out of buisness because the insurance was so high to own one .
Maybe the sled clubs can lend some ideas to help us based on their own past experiance?
I don't see any thing from them yet, are they next on the MRR 'S agenda, will they ask us for help when the snowmobiles are being baned because they scare the wild animals?It has already begun, just look at Yellowstone.

Spike, I don't veiw anything here as complaining,this is called debating the subject.I posted my views after you did the same, then we progressed into a debate to sway the other to at least step back and see what the other one has said.You have valid points about there being an erossion problem, we all agreed on that.Dave and my self have tried to get it across that it is only a few of the ATVers causing a whole lot of damage.It was also stated that this is a relatively new sport and it grew so fast the system could not keep up.Now we are in the catch up mode and it is slowed by the MRR tring to dictate their views , when they should be tring to work with the one's who want to help .But they don't see past their law suites as it brings publicity for their cause, but does little to help the problem.

One last note , the mudding I do with familly is on private land with a few spots we travel to that are in the abandoned mine areas I have preached about turning into a OHV site.We do not travel across public swamps or wet lands to have fun in the mud. No one in the group has ever went off trail just to see how much mud they can go through.

Benny

Pete, here is my Email address. [email protected]

[This message has been edited by Benny (edited 03-24-2002).]

[Dave]

Is the EAW on the Moosewalk/Mooserun ATV trail 'ok' with MRR; since that's all they've asked for? I have before me, the comments and the "Record of Decision" - In the Matter of the Determination of a Need for an Environmental Impact Statement" (EIS) for this project. The DNR answered every comment and their assessment. EAW's is the first delay tactic, then an EIS (more lengthy and costly) will be asked for because of the, shall we say, 'concerns'.

And actually, the DNR is appealing the EAW judgement. So, they haven't lost yet.
And what about the 'cross country' travel demand. ATVAM and other OHV groups amend a bill to support NO CROSS COUNTRY TRAVEL, and now it's not good enough for MRR? Take them for their word? I don't.

[This message has been edited by Dave (edited 03-24-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Dave (edited 03-24-2002).]

[SpikeRoberts]

"No cross country travel" has never been the minimum acceptable regulation to MRR --accusing them of changing their postion is disingenuous in this case. They have consistently advocated three key points:
1) Basic environmental review of all off-highway vehicle scramble areas and trails, 2) "Designated Routes Only Policy" to require these machines to stay in selected areas and on selected trails, and 3) Funding for adequate monitoring, enforcement, and reparations.

Calls for an EIS on the Moosewalk trail emerge from the DNR's EAW itself. See section 31, Page 20: "Wetland delineation and the regulation of corduroy placement will require further investigation before the project is begun. Both federal and county regulatory authorities have been contacted and will be involved in the final decisions regarding how much wetland encroachment and fill will be permitted." When there is federal involvement in wetlands assesments, EIS are required under the Wetlands Protection Act.

As a nation we have adopted the practice of Environmental Assessments for a reason -- to protect our resources. I'll be the first to admit that they have been abused in the past, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. I restate my postion -- resistance to EAs demonstrates that all ATV users care about is access to the resource, not protection of the resource.

[This message has been edited by SpikeRoberts (edited 03-25-2002).]

[Dave]

I don't recall stating that 'cross country' travel was the only regulation sought by MRR. It is one that was 'demanded' but that specific one is being now challenged as a "close all state forest except when posted open" type of classification.

So now, the "designated trail only" MRR regulation sought doesn't want to have the trails already established open as a compromise to "cross country" travel?

Funding for adequate monitoring? What recreation is totally funded by their own fund. ATVAM/OHV funds are kicking in over $1 million towards enforcement for ATV only. Not good enough?

Spike, I have the "Record of Decision" for an EIS, not the EAW itself.

As long as you mentioned it thou, here's the DNR's decision about such a point in this Decision.

"As reported in the EAW, one section of the Moosewalk Trail will have ATV traffic routed onto an old forest road to avoid a wetland area that is crossed by the existing snowmobile trail. Another, shorter, section of wetland crossed by the snowmobile trail will be modified for ATV use by the installation of a boardwalk, not corduroy as described in the EAW. The final determination of whether wetland crossings can be constructed or trail re-routes are neccessary will be based on the advice of county and federal wetland regulatory authorities. All wetland crossings must incorporate aviodance and minimization strategies by specified county and federal regulatory authorities"

Another DNR response.
"The EAW also describes a proposal to install a corduroy water crossing (small logs laid parrellel and perpidicular to the direction of travel) through a wetland on the existing snowmobile trail. The project sponsors dropped this proposal because corduroy constitutes wetland "fill", requiring replacement wetlands. Instead, a boardwalk wetland crossing will be constructed at this location"

Here's the Order from the DNR on the Moosewalk trail.

"The Department of Natural Resources determines that an Environmetal Impact Statement is not required for the Moosewalk/Mooserun ATV Trail Designation Project, Lake County, Minnesota.

Sounds to me, this IS the advice from the Federal authorities. When you do your everyday job, does your superiors make you do a "study" as to the reason you selected to do a job a certain way, or correct your "plan" and give you other ways to complete the project; without doing an indepth, costly, lengthy "study"?

[SpikeRoberts]

DNR Commissioner Garber spoke out in support of the senate's ATV plan as it makes it way to the house of representatives (finally some commonsense from the DNR on this issue):

"Users ought to have a place to ride. And once they get a place to ride, we ought not let them ride in other places," he said.
"I really want to assure the ATV users, as well as those who use the forest in other ways, that we really believe this is good for both sides."

I would think with Garber's support the senate's measure would be passed in the house as well.

Who do you think will file a lawsuit if this measure is passed into law?

[Dave]

Are you saying that you agree with everything Garber stated, Spike?

[SpikeRoberts]

I haven't seen the full text of his letter to the legislature, so I can't say that agree with everything he stated, but I do concur with the sentiments of the quote I posted above.

[Dave]

Insinuate the ATVers will form a lawsuit.....Hell, I'm going riding.

[This message has been edited by Dave (edited 03-27-2002).]

[Benny]

My money is still on the MRR or a simular green organization will start a suite soon after the riding areas are started .They will sue for the EAW, and will complain that the ATV's are wrecking the new areas that were established to quil there mindless suite that they started in the first place.
People like them are never satisfied, they need the publicity to have any means to their lives.
I am writing my congress people right now to support a ban on Elk and Deer farms.They all should be baned!They cause nothing but desease to spread to the native populations.

SEE BELOW POST IF YOU THINK I AM WRONG.
Benny

[This message has been edited by Benny (edited 03-28-2002).]

[Guest]

Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation (MRR) Mission

To restore, protect, and preserve peace and quiet, fresh air, personal safety and healthy environments on Minnesota's trails and waterways.

Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation, MRR, was founded in 1996 to unite the voice of Minnesotans concerned about the noise, fumes, danger to others, and environmental damage caused by off-highway vehicles, snowmobiles, and high-powered watercraft.

Good luck to both ATVers and sledders.

[Benny]

Thanks basshunter, I appretiate your concern.Thank you also for pointing out that the MRR is not after JUST the ATV's but ALL OHV,Snowmobiles,and High Powered Water craft.
It is as I said before that the MRR is out to get any thing they feel is a threat to their veiw banned.After the ATV ban they will go after the watercraft, or maybe the snowmobiles.
We need to stick together and get our own views heard by the rest of Minnesota.
Lets take the fight to them, and find a way to beat them at their own game!
Benny