There's a poll in the Christian Science Monitor concerning off-roading. Check it out and vote. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0907/p04s01-ussc.html

Worth looking at. The article mainly talks about the terrible affects of illegal activities. Then the poll askes if offroading should be allowed. In spite of the negative story, about 2/3 favor allowing motor vehicles in parks.

When I read the article I stopped at this quote:
[ QUOTE ]
At least 29 of its parks have allowed illegal off-road vehicles.

[/ QUOTE ]
I spent the rest of the article trying to figure out just what that meant....IMHO, it's kind of oxymoronish.

Also, the concept of an illegal off-road vehicle was ill defined. For all I know it could have been a Yugo running over those "chicks ..often trapped in the ruts left on the beach ...."

An off-road vehicle, by definition can mean any vehicle that goes off road. It does not mean that the vehicle is designed/sold/manufactured/modified to specifically to go off road.

Then there's the concept of the word "illegal." That could mean that the vehicle is <ul type="square">[*]not obeying park rules;[*]illegal under Federal/State/Local laws; or[*]both the above.[/list]All in all I found the article using a very wide brush to spread it's tar against a group of ill-defined vehicles rather than ill mannered and stupid drivers.

Like so many of our societal problems, it's not a vehicle problem... it's a people problem. But then you know me... I'm dumber than a box of small rocks.

[ QUOTE ]
And each day of a long summer weekend like Labor Day, as many as 2,200 motorized vehicles hit the beaches of Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina. "Not one of those is there legally," says Don Barger, southeastern regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association, a watchdog group.



[/ QUOTE ]

That's a load of crap, period. Been there several times and all there is to it is to veer off the highway where the big brown government issue Jeep sign is and head out on the beach. There are no special requirements to make you legal. It's the same as anywwhere..stay on the path.

Noticed the fine print about "other circumstances" (trails/boundaries/borders being ill-marked, etc.) that would allow "illegal access" without anyone (save the barkeater doing the snooping) knowing they were "out of bounds"... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

While it may appear they targeted "US" (4x4 drivers), the scope seems to include everything from common automobiles to jetski's to snowmobiles... guessing it's simply a ploy to close off MORE public lands from motorized traffic... including fire & emergency personnel responding to various situations like disasters & forest fires... DOUBLE [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/scs.gif[/img]

I think this "Christian" group should be ashamed of their article.

If someone believes that Off roading is bad for the environment adn it should be outlawed.. Ok, your entitled to your opinion, It's one of the great things about our nation... But their article is specifically targeting and stereotyping ALL Offroad vehicle, and as LEVE said, using the collected information for the article to spread their tar. The overtone of the article is slanderous against Off-road vehicles and makes them out to be evil. This is a dishonest protrayal and thus they should be ashamed as a "Christian" organization.

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 ]

Wow - WHO is this well spoken and articulate individual who wrote to the author. Obviously not one of "Bubbas" who drive the abusive ORV's in question, as we have neither the required vocabulary nor the social conscience to have written such a thing.

Oh, wait - does this mean that [shudder} there are those among us with the necessary communication skills to have penned such a missive?!?!?!

Hmmmm - who woulda thunk it?

Well there goes another myth about 4 Wheelers up in smoke.

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/RockOn.gif[/img]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Local board...but not local...It's someone in the Tidewater VA area...

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/neener.gif[/img]

You know this is comparable to so many things. In my home town of huntington ny which is on long island they had a problem with skateboarders. kids were gathering in just about any parking lot with skateboards, bikes and rollerblades and doing tricks on the curbs and benches. Messing up cars and themselves with no supervision and you know what the town of huntington did? smartest thing possible...They built a skate park! Now not only did they create jobs with maintaining the skate park and supervising the kids so nobody gets hurt but now there is no skateboards or rollerblades or bmx bikers in town hurting themselves they would all rather go to the skate park! Maybe they should create sections within these parks where the problems are for responsible and licensed 4 wheelers to go. You would have less people breaking the law and more people out enjoying the parks [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
sorry to go off on a rant but...
it just seems like such a simple solution that it amazes me nobody's thought of it before.
anyway thats my 2pennies for ya