A Clear Path for ATV Management on Public Lands

For years, the U.S. Forest Service and other government agencies have been trying to figure out a fair way to manage ATVs on public lands. Like other user groups, ATV enthusiasts have a right to recreate on taxpayer-funded land, as long as they do so responsibly and it doesn’t impair the resource of infringe on the rights of others. The biggest controversy has to do with trail designation, particularly in wilderness and roadless areas. There are two veins of thought. One is that public lands should be open to ATV riders unless posted closed. That’s the view most favored by the ATVers. The other position is that public lands should be closed to ATVs unless posted open. In other words, ATVs could only travel in areas on public lands that are clearly marked for ATV use. That is the position by most conservation and wildlife management folks.

There are problems with both approaches. First, both approaches require the resources — financial and manpower — to both post numerous signs all over public lands, and then to make sure ATV riders are obeying them. Given the financial constraints of most federal and state land management agencies, this would most likely mean that whatever rule is in place, enforcement would be difficult, if not near impossible.

Second, ATVers have a legitimate argument when they question why they are being singled out. Sure, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence out there suggesting that ATVs cause a tremendous amount of damage to wildlife habitat, stream quality, etc. However, I have yet to see any scientific data that both backs up the anecdotal evidence AND examines the impacts of other forms of recreation, such as mountain biking, horseback riding, or hunting, as well. ATVers argue that other forms of recreation have impacts on wildlife, too, and that they are being singled out unfairly because of the stigma attached to their sport. As someone who took up snowboarding back in the late 1980s and remembers the stigma attached to that sport by skiers, who accused us of being reckless and destructive to the trails, I know where they are coming from.

I’ll be honest and say that I don’t like ATVs, and I do think they are very destructive to soil, water, and other resources — not to mention loud and annoying. But as someone who enjoyed riding dirt bikes in the strip mines when I was a kid, I do think they are only as harmful as the user is irresponsible.

The real solution is better mentoring and education among young people who take up any kind of outdoor sport, whether it’s ATV riding or canoe paddling. Any sport can be destructive in the wrong hands, and I don’t think specific groups should be singled out because they are less traditional.

However, I do believe the land managers and conservationists when they say ATVs are a serious problem on some lands, and that they need to be dealt with soon. I have seen evidence of ATV damage myself, and I can tell you, it’s quite disheartening to see how people can so recklessly destroy the earth for their own amusement.

Rather than spending a lot of time and money on developing regulations to post public lands as either closed or open, I would urge land managers, conservationists, and ATVers alike to get together and begin talking about real ways to create more opportunities for ATV riders to enjoy their sport on public lands, but in places that will not destroy sensitive habitat. Just as we have publicly funded shooting ranges on national forestlands, for instance, perhaps we need more publicly funded ATV and off-road areas, where people can tear up the land to their hearts’ content without doing any real damage. It would be easy in the West, where there are vast stretches of desolate land, where playgrounds could be established. In the East, maybe the government can start buying up abandoned strip mines, quarries, and landfills, and turning them into rec parks. After all, many of these places are already magnets for illegal riding.

Sure, there will always be a handful of riders who will break the law and run their vehicles through sensitive wetlands on public lands where they shouldn’t be. But the more we simply scold or regulate them without offering another option, the longer this battle will go on. Perhaps rec parks could be a source of tax revenue or tourism dollars for rural economies. Perhaps they could charge user fees, which are then used to protect sensitive lands elsewhere. I don’t think ATVers hate the Earth and want to damage the land; they simply are trying to enjoy themselves outdoors, as all recreationists want to do.  If we show them that we care about their rights and respect their sport as much as we (anglers, boaters, hunters, etc.) want them to respect ours, we could discover ATVers, off-road enthusiasts, and other “extreme sport” aficionados to be important allies in the future.

Stop Stocking Rainbows and Browns in the East

When I was a boy, I had no idea that rainbow and brown trout weren’t native to the Pennsylvania streams where I fished. I knew they were stocked by the state, but it never occurred to me the fish didn’t belong there. I didn’t see them as any different than the brook trout we caught, although the brookies were generally much smaller.

I have since learned that rainbows (native to the West Coast) and browns (native to Europe) have played a big role in decimating the native brookies in the East. Because the exotics are more tolerant of pollution and grow bigger than their native cousins, they out-compete them for both food and habitat. The more rainbows and browns you find in a stream, the fewer (if any) brookies you’ll find.

In the last decade, a great deal of science has come to light revealing the damaging impacts of not just non-native trout, but non-native species in general, on native plants and animals. Some of the better known examples are zebra mussels in the Great Lakes, which have decimated fisheries by turning the food chain on its head, and the Asian carp, which are so numerous in some Midwestern rivers that you can drive a boat down a river and have carp literally jumping into your boat.

Rainbows and browns are not nearly as feared as some other species; in fact, sport-fishermen love these species because they fight hard, taste good, and can be stocked in places where other trout and salmon cannot currently survive. However, it’s becoming more evident to fisheries biologists that any attempts to restore native brook trout and other species will have to first mean dealing with these exotic stocks.

Some anglers are pressuring states to continue stocking rainbows and browns because they are supposedly funner to catch than small brookies (though brookies would easily grow large, too, if they could be re-established in their larger native streams). Although state agencies are beginning to do more education to promote native brookies, they are feeling the pressure from license holders, who want to be able to catch their limit on the first day in the stream near their house.

I think it’s time for trout anglers in the East to stand up for the phasing out of stocked rainbows and browns in streams that are even remotely viable for restoration as brook trout habitat. Although many streams can’t support brookies now, with some hard work and investment, we can bring their temperatures back down, restore the streambeds, reduce the acidity, and return them to prime brook trout habitat. We are already seeing it happen in the smaller headwater streams, which are too remote for trophy and meat anglers to be concerned about. If we can slowly move into bigger and bigger waters further downstream, I believe we could go a long way in eventually restoring native brookies to their historic range. I also believe that, in 50 or 100 years, we could again be seeing brookies growing to their full potential, up to 4 or 5 pounds, as they still do in some parts of Maine and Canada.

I don’t consider myself a hardcore trout purist. I do believe browns and rainbows have their place in man-made ponds or in streams that in no way will ever be viable as native brookie habitat. After all, license revenue from people who fish for browns and rainbows provides a valuable source of funding for state agencies, which are already underfunded and short-staffed. However, I do think we have the scientific data and the understanding of the resource now that we need to make decisions based on what’s best for the resource, not for our own enjoyment.

We should ask our state agencies to start phasing out the stocking of browns and rainbows in viable streams immediately. We have already done a lot of damage to brookies, and the longer we wait to reverse the practices that got us there, the longer it will take to restore our native fisheries to their former glory.

If you want to help with efforts to restore native trout or other native species, visit www.fishhabitat.org. It’s the official site for the National Fish Habitat Action Plan, a joint effort between federal and state agencies and nonprofit conservation groups to restore native fisheries across America.

A View to a Kill: Are today’s TV hunting shows ethical?

Remember when hunting shows weren’t snuff films? I miss the good old days, when the camera would pan back to the hunter before the shot was made. The cameraman would then position himself near the downed animal and we would get to watch the hunter approach his kill. All very tasteful and ethical, in my opinion.

To me, the kill is something that should be between the hunter and the animal. Watching waterfowl somersault through the air after being shot or slow-motion replays of an arrow going through a deer is something I can live without. The endzone-worthy celebrations and high-fives create an image of callousness that I have yet to see in any real hunter I have ever met in the field. These shows are doing us a great disservice. The non-hunting general public likely agrees.

It all comes down to respect for the animal that is being hunted. For the hunters I know, the kill is a mix of celebration, sadness, and humility. We all celebrate at some point, but respectfully — a handshake, a pat on the back, even a prayer.

What lessons do these shows teach young hunters just starting out? That hunting is about going to the Lazy Hunter Ranch and sitting in a stand that someone else has scouted out for the past 10 deer seasons? Most people don’t hunt that way, yet that’s what kids see on TV. How about an episode on doe hunting on public land? Too boring for audiences, I’m sure.

So, TV hosts, please back off on the impact shots and high-fives for the good of our sport. Hunting is a bloodsport, and serious business. If you want to whoop and holler everytime you shoot something, try paintball. In the meantime, I will keep surfing past the outdoor networks for Scrubs reruns and Top Model.

What are your thoughts about these shows?

How Far Should We Go “Into The Wild”?

Last night, I watched “Into the Wild,” the movie (based on a book by Jon Krakauer) about a young man who graduates from college only to leave behind his family, friends, and society in general to live — and ultimately die — in the remote Alaskan wilderness. It’s a good story about our need to reconnect with nature. However, it raises some ethical issues for me.

When conservationists wrote the Wilderness Act of 1964, they defined wilderness as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” To me, the ethics of “leave no trace” are more important in wilderness than anywhere else on the planet, mostly because we have so few true wilderness areas left.

In the movie, the young man hitchhikes his way to Alaska, is dropped off at the end of a snow-covered service road, and begins trekking across the tundra with only a backpack, rifle, fishing net, machete, books on flora and fauna, and a few other necessities. Along the way, he stumbles upon an abandoned city transit bus that has been converted into a makeshift cabin, complete with stove, mattress, and other assorted knicknacks.

I don’t know if the area where the bus was located is actually designated wilderness area (it’s definitely public land, near Denali National Park). But it’s safe to say this bus doesn’t belong there. Whoever lived in it or used it before– presumably hunters, anglers, etc. — left it there as a piece of trash on public land, violating the “leave no trace” ethic. And I don’t care how simply you live, if you are making fires, consuming plants and game, burying your daily waste, and otherwise taking care of everyday needs, you are having an impact — no matter how small — on the land. Furthermore, if you are doing it without the proper licenses and permits, you are violating the law.

Even if this young man had not spent half a year living in these wilds — even if he had only spent a couple of weeks — he is clearly in the wrong, both legally and ethically.

The only reason I point this out is because the kid this story is based on is now a mythical figure in environmentalist/adventurist circles, and they don’t seem to see anything wrong with what he did. Also, this whole infatuation with visiting wilderness raises for me a fundamental question: Are there no sacred places left on Earth beyond the reach of man? With modern transportation, communications, technology, and the ability to survive otherwise deadly environments, have we become too adventurous for our own — and the planet’s — good?

I’ll be the first to admit I like visiting wilderness areas. But I’ll also admit it’s a selfish desire, not a need. Is my desire to fish or camp in wilderness areas — public land — really any less valid than some people’s desire to extract logs or oil from them. If we are going to ask some human activities to be off limits in the last intouched wilderness areas, shouldn’t we just say all activity should be off limits? There are simply too many other places that have already been trammeled by man and are managed for human contact for us to justify exploiting the remaining untouched areas for any purpose, no matter how personal or small. To me, the most ethical recreationists or nature lovers are the ones who accept the limits of man and put the resource first. We have swallowed up so much of the Earth’s resources already, should we devour them all? First it’s a bus in the wild. Then, it’s a book. Then, it’s a movie. Then, it’s throngs of people traveling to pay homage to the bus. Then, it’s a tourist destination for wannabe adventurers and hippies. Then, it’s no longer wild.

What is more important: Venturing into the wild, knowing that the minute you set foot in it, it is no longer untrammeled by man; or staying in places that are already trammeled by man, knowing that somewhere out there, places exist that man will never touch, where the true spirit of wilderness can remain for as long as our adventurous species will allow?

Many people will read the book or watch the movie about this young man and romanticize the notion of living in the wild. Some will try to emulate him. Are they really developing a deeper appreciation for nature by doing so, or are they simply adding to the problem of human intrusion into all corners of the Earth?

I know that this notion of “locking up lands” is a controversial one in my own circles, but I really think the notion deserves serious consideration, starting with ourselves.