It is frustrating, but not surprising, to hear this about the off-road vehicle lobby. Between 2005 and 2010 I participated in a quarterly discussion group between New Mexico environmentalist and off-road vehicle users that was intended to find some common ground and develop some general working standards we could agree on for off-road vehicles on public lands.
I found it to be an absolutely frustrating process, and it had me ripping my hair out. Here were a group of conservationist willing to compromise, and we were basically met with the run around and a bunch of head games. At the end of the day, off-road vehicle users, were not willing to compromise. In fact, numerous times, participants flat out told me that they should have the right to go wherever they want and do whatever they want with their off-road vehicles. Any sort of restrictions at all, impinged on their freedom they claimed.
Which goes to show, these are just the type of people that need to be heavily regulated. Since they are unwilling to compromise and work for the common good, they need to be regulated.
Now, while there are certain off road vehicle users that are more reasonable, I find that by far the majority of off-road vehicle users, and the off-road vehicle culture in general is extraordinarily self-righteous, selfish and uncompromising.
Yup - from the description of the attitudes - I would agree.
Their "freedom" to do as they please with no thought of anything or anyone else? Sure does sound to me they need some regulatory discipline!!!
Per the lack of snow? Very little out here in the East, too. But here the rain & drizzle and 50 degree days in December? The ground is like mush - it absolutely guarantees the tick season continues - which means flea/tick meds on my dog year round! Since my former dog was diagnosed with Lyme disease, and a few years ago my son went through treatment for it - I tend to be a little more paranoid about preventing the ticks from getting a hold!!
"I found it to be an absolutely frustrating process, and it had me ripping my hair out. Here were a group of conservationists willing to compromise, and we were basically met with the run around and a bunch of head games." This was exactly my experience in Marble.
I too continue to be puzzled by what appears to be total intransigence on the part of the off-road promotion organizations. The current Labyrinth Canyon issue is a good example, 100 miles closed, 800+ miles open to ORV's. In a nutshell, road density is directly related to the number of species that can survive in an area. More roads, fewer species. So the demand that there be no limits whatsoever on ORV use reflects the view that the species just don't count in any significant way. The only thing that counts is a users "personal pleasure and enjoyment". This level of self interest would is expected in a 2-year old, but means catastrophe for the natural world. Maybe I'm naive, but I think its likely that the ORV promotional groups don't fairly represent the mass of ORV users who understand the need for reasonable rules, any more that the NRA represents the views of every gun owner in the nation.
I’ve been involved in issues like this going back to the formation of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 1967. Quite frankly, over the years I’ve seen a move by the environment groups and government agencies to take a hostile stance if they don’t get their way. For example, CARB went after the automotive aftermarket equipment industry in California. When hot rodders proved they could modify an engine and produce fewer emissions, CARB moved the goal posts. When I created the Telluride Rotary Club off road event fund raiser using public access roads, we were immediately attacked by environmental groups and it became more trouble than it was worth. By the way, money raised by this event not only went for scholastic scholarships, but we supported vocational scholarships.
It’s interesting that several commentators point that the off road people as being unwilling to compromise and I see just the opposite.
Dennis: I would agree that conservationists can also be intransigent and uncompromising. But in my experience, at least, the motorized off-road lobby (and yes, sometimes the mountain bike access lobby as well) is the most uncompromising of all. Take the Labyrinth Canyon plan or, a couple of decades ago, snowmobilers' unwillingness to give up just 200 acres on Molas Pass, or Utah county commissioners/sheriffs who forcibly and illegally re-open backcountry roads closed by the BLM or NPS and even threaten criminal charges against BLM bureaucrats who closed a quarter-mile road spur. You rarely see that kind of extremism from the other side. I understand your frustration at the opposition to your Rotary Club event, for sure, but I doubt the environmentalists would have gone so far as to sue you over it or to actually block the route had you gone ahead with it. It's the unwillingness of the road access groups to give up anything that I find frustrating. Thanks as always for your comments! --Jonathan
Thank you for this article. The exponential increase of OHVs funneling through our small mountain town and onto the Lead King Loop has been destroying our quality of life (not to mention the adverse impacts on the wildlife and low impact users). It has also become increasingly dangerous: https://coloradosun.com/2023/07/13/atv-driver-dies-three-injured-crash-marble/ For the past ten years, a small coalition of neighbors have tried mightily to work with our land managers attempting to get some type of mitigation plan in place. We have spent hundreds of hours in meetings with the Forest Service, County Commissioners and our town trustees. We have written letters. So many letters. We have been as gracious and patient as possible and very willing to compromise, only to be met with dismissal and the most maddening stalling tactics. Change is a slow process; I understand that, but when we finally thought we were getting close to a compromise all it took was one petition signed by OHV users (many not even residing in the same county) to completely dismantle any progress we made. None of them had to attend a single meeting or even write a letter. Just put their name on a piece of paper in the final hour.
In the mid eighties, there was plenty of give and take between the off road contingents and environmental groups. I was on the BOD of TREAD LIGHTLY! for two terms and I saw first hand the deterioration of cooperation between off roaders and environmental groups. Cyclists put a bullseye on the back of the Moab off-roaders and won. I quit taking my Jeep on the trails when side by sides became popular. From my perspective, environmental groups forced the issue with a take no prisoners attitude and everything when down hill from there.
I followed the debate in Silverton over banning OHVs in town, which narrowly passed in 2021. Is there any hope that a ballot measure could limit OHVs on public lands in sensitive areas? In other words, when these ongoing legal battles emerge regarding OHV limitations, do the conservationists consider a petition to start a ballot referendum, or would that not apply to BLM lands?
I often get passed by noisy OHVs and motorbikes when I'm running and hiking mountain passes on old mining roads. Some are polite and slow down and smile and wave; others are obnoxious and pass too fast and too close. I try to be charitable and remind myself that I discovered the San Juan Mountains in the back of my dad's truck, because my parents were not athletic but loved to explore the mountains from their vehicle. However, as you noted, they are so numerous, fast and noisy now, it's really different from the Jeeps that used to traverse the mountains in earlier generations.
It is frustrating, but not surprising, to hear this about the off-road vehicle lobby. Between 2005 and 2010 I participated in a quarterly discussion group between New Mexico environmentalist and off-road vehicle users that was intended to find some common ground and develop some general working standards we could agree on for off-road vehicles on public lands.
I found it to be an absolutely frustrating process, and it had me ripping my hair out. Here were a group of conservationist willing to compromise, and we were basically met with the run around and a bunch of head games. At the end of the day, off-road vehicle users, were not willing to compromise. In fact, numerous times, participants flat out told me that they should have the right to go wherever they want and do whatever they want with their off-road vehicles. Any sort of restrictions at all, impinged on their freedom they claimed.
Which goes to show, these are just the type of people that need to be heavily regulated. Since they are unwilling to compromise and work for the common good, they need to be regulated.
Now, while there are certain off road vehicle users that are more reasonable, I find that by far the majority of off-road vehicle users, and the off-road vehicle culture in general is extraordinarily self-righteous, selfish and uncompromising.
Yup - from the description of the attitudes - I would agree.
Their "freedom" to do as they please with no thought of anything or anyone else? Sure does sound to me they need some regulatory discipline!!!
Per the lack of snow? Very little out here in the East, too. But here the rain & drizzle and 50 degree days in December? The ground is like mush - it absolutely guarantees the tick season continues - which means flea/tick meds on my dog year round! Since my former dog was diagnosed with Lyme disease, and a few years ago my son went through treatment for it - I tend to be a little more paranoid about preventing the ticks from getting a hold!!
Dare I say Climate Change?
"I found it to be an absolutely frustrating process, and it had me ripping my hair out. Here were a group of conservationists willing to compromise, and we were basically met with the run around and a bunch of head games." This was exactly my experience in Marble.
I too continue to be puzzled by what appears to be total intransigence on the part of the off-road promotion organizations. The current Labyrinth Canyon issue is a good example, 100 miles closed, 800+ miles open to ORV's. In a nutshell, road density is directly related to the number of species that can survive in an area. More roads, fewer species. So the demand that there be no limits whatsoever on ORV use reflects the view that the species just don't count in any significant way. The only thing that counts is a users "personal pleasure and enjoyment". This level of self interest would is expected in a 2-year old, but means catastrophe for the natural world. Maybe I'm naive, but I think its likely that the ORV promotional groups don't fairly represent the mass of ORV users who understand the need for reasonable rules, any more that the NRA represents the views of every gun owner in the nation.
I’ve been involved in issues like this going back to the formation of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 1967. Quite frankly, over the years I’ve seen a move by the environment groups and government agencies to take a hostile stance if they don’t get their way. For example, CARB went after the automotive aftermarket equipment industry in California. When hot rodders proved they could modify an engine and produce fewer emissions, CARB moved the goal posts. When I created the Telluride Rotary Club off road event fund raiser using public access roads, we were immediately attacked by environmental groups and it became more trouble than it was worth. By the way, money raised by this event not only went for scholastic scholarships, but we supported vocational scholarships.
It’s interesting that several commentators point that the off road people as being unwilling to compromise and I see just the opposite.
Dennis: I would agree that conservationists can also be intransigent and uncompromising. But in my experience, at least, the motorized off-road lobby (and yes, sometimes the mountain bike access lobby as well) is the most uncompromising of all. Take the Labyrinth Canyon plan or, a couple of decades ago, snowmobilers' unwillingness to give up just 200 acres on Molas Pass, or Utah county commissioners/sheriffs who forcibly and illegally re-open backcountry roads closed by the BLM or NPS and even threaten criminal charges against BLM bureaucrats who closed a quarter-mile road spur. You rarely see that kind of extremism from the other side. I understand your frustration at the opposition to your Rotary Club event, for sure, but I doubt the environmentalists would have gone so far as to sue you over it or to actually block the route had you gone ahead with it. It's the unwillingness of the road access groups to give up anything that I find frustrating. Thanks as always for your comments! --Jonathan
Thank you for this article. The exponential increase of OHVs funneling through our small mountain town and onto the Lead King Loop has been destroying our quality of life (not to mention the adverse impacts on the wildlife and low impact users). It has also become increasingly dangerous: https://coloradosun.com/2023/07/13/atv-driver-dies-three-injured-crash-marble/ For the past ten years, a small coalition of neighbors have tried mightily to work with our land managers attempting to get some type of mitigation plan in place. We have spent hundreds of hours in meetings with the Forest Service, County Commissioners and our town trustees. We have written letters. So many letters. We have been as gracious and patient as possible and very willing to compromise, only to be met with dismissal and the most maddening stalling tactics. Change is a slow process; I understand that, but when we finally thought we were getting close to a compromise all it took was one petition signed by OHV users (many not even residing in the same county) to completely dismantle any progress we made. None of them had to attend a single meeting or even write a letter. Just put their name on a piece of paper in the final hour.
In the mid eighties, there was plenty of give and take between the off road contingents and environmental groups. I was on the BOD of TREAD LIGHTLY! for two terms and I saw first hand the deterioration of cooperation between off roaders and environmental groups. Cyclists put a bullseye on the back of the Moab off-roaders and won. I quit taking my Jeep on the trails when side by sides became popular. From my perspective, environmental groups forced the issue with a take no prisoners attitude and everything when down hill from there.
Thanks, Dennis! Just FYI: Most of the roads the BLM is closing in the Labyrinth Canyon/Gemini area are also being closed to mountain bikes.
Seems with any issue - each side has too many that refuse to compromise.
I followed the debate in Silverton over banning OHVs in town, which narrowly passed in 2021. Is there any hope that a ballot measure could limit OHVs on public lands in sensitive areas? In other words, when these ongoing legal battles emerge regarding OHV limitations, do the conservationists consider a petition to start a ballot referendum, or would that not apply to BLM lands?
I often get passed by noisy OHVs and motorbikes when I'm running and hiking mountain passes on old mining roads. Some are polite and slow down and smile and wave; others are obnoxious and pass too fast and too close. I try to be charitable and remind myself that I discovered the San Juan Mountains in the back of my dad's truck, because my parents were not athletic but loved to explore the mountains from their vehicle. However, as you noted, they are so numerous, fast and noisy now, it's really different from the Jeeps that used to traverse the mountains in earlier generations.