Bogley

Cachesoul · Joined: 14 Dec 2005 Posts: 16 Location: Logan UT

Yes, Nuisance is an apt. Definition; “one that is annoying, unpleasant.”

>>> You have obviously never been to AF Canyon on a weekend. Over 100 dispersed campsites within 25 yards of a road that sees 500-600 OHV users every weekend.

That is exactly the problem, too many in one place.

I agree on the hikers, hate to see messes left by anyone. What you describe is however not a common behavior. Most of us are carrying butt burritos out in our packs.

You ask for areas where there are too many ATVs… Starting with those that mean the most to me:
Beaver Creek road to the Idaho Border – used to be the best place to camp, now infested with 2 stroke madness.
Franklin Basin road – same as beaver creek
Temple Fork road – same as beaver creek
Right Hand Fork – same as beaver creek
Swan Flat road - …
ATVs have impacted every BLM and FS road where dispersed camping is allowed in Logan Canyon. Add to that
Green Canyon, High Creek Canyon, Cub River, Mink Creek

My purpose here is not to argue but to state my level of annoyance at the current situation. In my opinion the default condition of public lands should be one of conservation first, then access. I guess when I hear an ATV enthusiast admit they compromise the outdoor experience for others we will have a conversation, so far I haven’t heard it. Until they we are at an impasse.

Udink · Joined: 21 Jul 2005 Posts: 798 Location: Price, Utah

Cachesoul wrote: The fact is when my weekends get ruined by noise...
Is is the noise that ruins your weekend, or the way you feel about the noise? I'll bet the noise doesn't bother the ATV riders. :haha:

Cachesoul wrote: Yes, Nuisance is an apt. Definition; “one that is annoying, unpleasant.”
A skunk on the front porch is a nuisance, no matter who you are. I don't think ATVs can be considered a general nuisance because many tens or hundreds of thousands of people enjoy them on a regular basis in this state. One shouldn't confuse a "nuisance" with something that he/she doesn't like for whatever reason.

Cachesoul · Joined: 14 Dec 2005 Posts: 16 Location: Logan UT

>>>I'll bet the noise doesn't bother the ATV riders.

Well now that demonstrates a limited perspective.

BTW - I do ride a 4 wheeler around my pasture and to plow snow; I dont feel it appropriate to turn the mountains into my personal roller coaster, compromising the experience of others.

Get this straight, noise and dust is counter productive to the purpose of getting away from it all! We remain at an impasse.

Udink · Joined: 21 Jul 2005 Posts: 798 Location: Price, Utah

Cachesoul wrote: Well now that demonstrates a limited perspective.
Maybe so, but no more so than your own perspective that ATVs are a nuisance. Obviously the hundreds of thousands of ATV riders in the state would disagree with you.

Don't get me wrong, I totally see your point, though I'm not sure you've stated what solution (if any) you're advocating (presumably you want ATVs restricted to non-scenic areas?). I'm primarily a hiker, and I haven't had a single weekend ruined by "noise and dust." There's no shortage of places to go where you can get away from motorized recreation, but the fact is where there are roads, you're gonna have to share.

stefan · Joined: 09 Jan 2006 Posts: 4127 Location: somewhere

New group seeks tougher off-road penalties
By Lourdes Medrano
Arizona Daily Star

Calling off-road vehicles the top threat to public lands, a group of former government workers is pushing for tougher penalties for those who trample natural resources.

The newly-formed Rangers for Responsible Recreation comes armed with data from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management showing rampant abuse from off-road vehicles in Arizona and four other Western states.

"Off-road vehicles are causing major damage to watersheds and streambeds, and to plant life and wildlife," said former BLM director Jim Baca. He is part of the group seeking heftier fines, confiscation of off-road vehicles, and suspension of hunting and fishing licenses.
While acknowledging the problem, some off-road vehicle enthusiasts stressed that many of them promote safe riding to preserve access to trails.

"Usually, it's a small group spoiling it for everybody," said Brian Blangsted, who has been riding dirt bikes in the open desert of Southern Arizona for about three decades.

BLM statistics show that off-road vehicles are a serious law enforcement concern. The federal agency released the data recently to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which organized the current effort to shed light on off-road vehicle problems.
BLM numbers from 2004 to the first half of 2007 for Arizona, Nevada, California, New Mexico and Utah show more than 6,600 violations involving off-road vehicles in hit-and-run and reckless driving incidents. More than 2,300 violations stem from illegal use of closed trails and other areas that are off-limits to the public.

With slightly more than 600 violations, Arizona ranks fourth behind California, Utah and Nevada.

Ecologist Daniel Patterson, Southwest director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, deemed the data conservative.
The numbers reflect "a much higher problem" not just in BLM areas but also on other public lands, he noted.
Off-road vehicle enthusiasts routinely plow through restricted areas, ignoring trail markers and, in some cases, sparking wildfires in the drought-stricken West. They also challenge limited enforcement resources, Patterson said.

"We need harsher penalties that will deter reckless off-roading," including jail time for repeat offenders, Patterson said. His group's executive director, Jeff Ruch, said existing penalties — which can vary on federal, state and local lands —are not enough to deter violations.
For instance, using an off-road vehicle on federal lands closed to the public can bring in fines anywhere from $100 to $400, Ruch said, adding that transparency also is needed on the cost that off-road vehicles impose on taxpayers.

Off-road vehicles are known to cause disruption in the Ironwood Forest National Monument northwest of Tucson, and in the Redington Pass area northeast of the city.

"The BLM offices have big off-road issues," said Grady Cook, field staff ranger for the BLM office in Tucson. BLM is responsible for Ironwood; the Forest Service manages Redington Pass.
Blangsted, the owner of Tucson Moto Tours, dislikes being lumped with all other off-road vehicle owners.

"They need to split them up and put them in categories, to see which off-road vehicles are doing the damage," he said.
Dirt bikes, ATVs and four-wheel-drive trucks are among those classified as off-road vehicles.

Blangsted said the riders he guides through the vast desert lands stay on designated trails and have full gear and necessary riding permits. "I always talk to them about the importance of protecting the environment so we can keep access to it," he said.
John Cartwright, who said he's been riding in Arizona since the early 1990s, said hearing of the problems with off-road vehicles is not surprising.

"There's a lot of bad apples out there," said Cartwright, who owns Iron Horse Motorcycles in Tucson.
He said he always stays on trails. "We don't try to get our quads into washes."

But plenty of others do, said Ron Kearns, who spent about 25 years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He is one of the roughly dozen Rangers for Responsible Recreation who also enjoys riding his all-terrain vehicle near his home next to the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge south of Quartzite.
As a ranger, Kearns said he witnessed the use of off-road vehicles rise through the years, which has meant more scarring of pristine land.
"Those tires do a lot of damage," Kearns noted. He sticks to designated trails.

Living so close to the refuge, Kearns said he often spots off-road enthusiasts of all ages riding their ATVs without regard to safety or the preservation of the landscape around them.
"I see it every day," he said

____________________________________

stefan · Joined: 09 Jan 2006 Posts: 4127 Location: somewhere

fines+confiscation. i agree with utahfire, but i'd put the fines upwards of $2000-8000 for illegal off-roading ... closer to $5000 to start out with.

scoutabout · Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 598

Cachesoul wrote: >>>I'll bet the noise doesn't bother the ATV riders.

Well now that demonstrates a limited perspective.

BTW - I do ride a 4 wheeler around my pasture and to plow snow; I dont feel it appropriate to turn the mountains into my personal roller coaster, compromising the experience of others.

Get this straight, noise and dust is counter productive to the purpose of getting away from it all! We remain at an impasse.

Hikers who cut switchbacks, leave tp-bombs, toss trash, and have backcountry fires during restrictions are a public nuisance. Let's remove all human access from public land. Until you want to do that, you're just discriminating.

scoutabout · Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 598

stefan wrote: fines+confiscation. i agree with utahfire, but i'd put the fines upwards of $2000-8000 for illegal off-roading ... closer to $5000 to start out with.

Make it $10,000. It doesn't affect responsible users, so I'm all for it.

stefan · Joined: 09 Jan 2006 Posts: 4127 Location: somewhere

scoutabout wrote: stefan wrote: fines+confiscation. i agree with utahfire, but i'd put the fines upwards of $2000-8000 for illegal off-roading ... closer to $5000 to start out with.

Make it $10,000. It doesn't affect responsible users, so I'm all for it.

precisely ... the higher the fine, the more to fund enforcement. just thinking the start-out-fine increase, you know, so folks can get a taste of the penalty ... then to increase it sharply to ensure that someone thinks twice. but hell if they deem it reasonable to jack it up that high to begin with, then so be it.

in utah with the increase in fines for speeding in school zones ... yeah, that got people to quit speeding in school zones real quick like ... course there's infinitely more enforcement in school zones within cities than in the open space of utah.

scoutabout · Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 598

The problem is that the current fine structure sends the money towards something completely unrelated. Not enforcement, not maintenance, not education, something else. I can't remember what, but it is completely unrelated. I'd like to see fine money be spent on education, enforcement and trail maintenance along with them being MUCH higher.

CarpeyBiggs · Joined: 18 Mar 2007 Posts: 1737 Location: Fairbanks, AK

scoutabout wrote:
Hikers who cut switchbacks, leave tp-bombs, toss trash, and have backcountry fires during restrictions are a public nuisance. Let's remove all human access from public land. Until you want to do that, you're just discriminating.

Why is this always the rebuttal? It's the ultimate non-solution, and redirection of blame, and really just skirting the whole issue. It's like there is no better defense to be had, so let's blame hikers too!

While we're at it... People kill people with guns. We should remove all guns from the public too. Deal? Hate to be discriminatory.

Sombeech · Joined: 09 Dec 2004 Posts: 11774 Location: The Rubbish Bin

UtahFire · Joined: 19 Jun 2006 Posts: 251

stefan wrote: New group seeks tougher off-road penalties
By Lourdes Medrano
Arizona Daily Star

Same story...different newspaper.

It's amazing the milage one anti-OHV press release gets you with the news media these days.

scoutabout · Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 598

CarpeyBiggs wrote: scoutabout wrote:
Hikers who cut switchbacks, leave tp-bombs, toss trash, and have backcountry fires during restrictions are a public nuisance. Let's remove all human access from public land. Until you want to do that, you're just discriminating.

Why is this always the rebuttal? It's the ultimate non-solution, and redirection of blame, and really just skirting the whole issue. It's like there is no better defense to be had, so let's blame hikers too!

While we're at it... People kill people with guns. We should remove all guns from the public too. Deal? Hate to be discriminatory.

It's no excuse or solution, I'm pointing out how ridiculous the argument is. It is obviously ridiculous to you that we would close all hiking trails because of a few bad apples. It is equally ridiculous that we would close all motorized recreation trails because of a few bad apples.

I've never said that irresponsible OHV behavior is ok or that it doesn't exist. I've never said that no one cares about the problem. What I've said is that closing everything isn't a solution. Just as closing every freeway because of a minority of drivers who are DUI is not a solution.

Keep up.

The motorized recreation community is concerned about the few bad apples among us who give us all a bad name. The motorized recreation community is working on education, enforcement and maintenance projects to minimize the affects.

JP · Joined: 04 Jan 2007 Posts: 4598 Location: Shelton, CT.

scoutabout wrote:
I've never said that irresponsible OHV behavior is ok or that it doesn't exist. I've never said that no one cares about the problem. What I've said is that closing everything isn't a solution.
Since I've been here, your tune has been exactly that. :2thumbs:

As far as fines, they have limits. Between a ticket and say a misdemeanor. Make the crimes a higher misdemeanor crime. If they already fit in that bracket, the next step would be increasing the crime say to a felony. That's a big step for a lawmaker to consider.

In any event there has to be law enforcement out there to enforce these laws, but this is one of those areas that are always cut from budgets. The County, State, City and or Town always asks for "X" amount of dollars, they never get what they want because it usually leads to cuts to stuff that already have been in place or raising of taxes. Every department (Highway, education, law enforcement, fire, EMS, etc) has to skim a little off the top, more manpower is usually tossed for better equipment, supplies, pay increases, etc.