A member of a local board that I frequent posted this:
[ QUOTE ]
I usually don't fire off rebuttals to editors, but that article was horribly slanted. Did the author even speak to anyone in a group that wasn't primarily dedicated to closing off access to parkland as much as possible?
[ QUOTE ]
I have to admit to a great level of disappointment with this article -- I could name half a dozen sources offhand that could have been consulted to give the article a broader and more open and informative perspective. Two excellent examples include Tread Lightly (
www.treadlightly.org) and the United Four Wheel Drive Associations (
www.ufwda.org), both of which are primarily concerned with minimizing the environmental impacts associated with recreational vehicles without placing undue limits on the freedom of Americans to use publicly owned American land. I'm certain both organizations would be delighted to offer a more eye-opening view of the problems we face than that presented in Mr. Clayton's article.
[/ QUOTE ]
Edit at 1556 -- an interesting response from the author.
[ QUOTE ]
Dear Mr. Sanders,
Thanks for your comments. I've been trying to point out, with only moderate success, that the article is focused entirely on illegal ORV use in parks - not that of legal users. That was the focus of the government's survey, so that's what I reported on. The issues you seem to be indicating in your note I think are with respect to the larger issue of legal access... another thing entirely. When I write on that I will seek out some of the sources you're talking about.
thanks for reading the CSM,
Mark Clayton
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I think that may be symptomatic of a general misunderstanding on many parts. It's possible that many people who aren't already familiar with the land use debates will read the article and assume that ORV access is illegal in *all* national parks and public lands, or that all ORV users are indifferent to the potential problems at more sensitive sites. The people who are the root cause of of the problems discussed in the report are becoming the exceptions rather than the rule, which is almost certainly a good thing for everyone involved. Recent movements by the general ORV community to organize and self-police are gaining momentum rapidly, and I think you may find a good follow-on article in documenting some of their successes. Exploring all the perspectives involved might be an eye-opener for many, and could engender an increased level of interest in a mutually positive solution that could prove beneficial to those desiring to use the sites, those wishing to preserve their resources, and to the agency that chooses to report on the topic.
Chuck
[/ QUOTE ]
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 15:59 by Chuck »
[/ QUOTE ]