Red flags raised on ATV use
|
|
Toolbox
By LOUIS PORTER Vermont Press Bureau - Published: October 23, 2009
MONTPELIER — The disagreement between environmentalists and all-terrain-vehicle riders over whether to allow ATVs on state land has been very public, both in written comments and in meetings on the subject.
But there has also been a less public disagreement within the Agency of Natural Resources.
The agency this week completed its work on a rule that would allow the Vermont All Terrain Vehicle Sportsman's Association to apply for permission to build trails on state land in some circumstances. The only trail proposed so far — but not approved — would be a short stretch along Route 105 in the Northeast Kingdom. But the disagreement over the rule, which will now go before lawmakers, has much more to do with precedent than with that several hundred-foot stretch of track, which will still require additional approvals.
Jonathan Wood, secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, said the proposed rule on ATVs has been modified and clarified in response to a few thousand public comments received earlier this year when the issue first arose.
As it is now written, the rule would provide for a pilot program under which a limited number of trails could be approved.
"I think the rule is good," Wood said. Objections from agency scientists and managers over the last several years to the idea of ATVs on state land have more to do with previous bad experiences and worries over the potential for such use and less to do with the rule as it is now written, Wood said.
"They have been very clear about their concern about ATVs on state land," Wood said. "There is concern at the staff level about anything that goes on on state land."
But some of the comments about the idea included in public records obtained by the Conservation Law Foundation — an opponent of ATVs on state land — are striking.
"I remain concerned for several reasons. One of those reasons is the precedent it will set that all of ANR will have to live with," a Fish and Wildlife Department official wrote in an e-mail in 2008. "If this is a path the agency is going to take, I sure don't want to be the Dept. that starts us down that path."
Some of the concern from ANR staff scientists and law enforcement officials was about current illegal use of ATVs on state land.
"Not to beat a dead horse, but it seems to me that it would be appropriate to resolve the issue of illegal use on state lands before we talk about designating new ATV trails," one biologist wrote earlier this year, according to those public records.
"ATV use is generally seen as a high impact, conflicting and often illegal use" in some state areas, a game warden wrote in February.
"In a majority of cases ATV riding has a clearly negative impact on the natural resources we steward. This activity also precludes some other uses of these lands by members of the public," another scientist working at the agency wrote in 2008
"It's obvious that nobody wants this project to happen or at least they have serious concerns about it. Rightfully so as ATVs on state lands starts us down a very slippery slope," one administrator wrote, summing up the fears of those inside the agency last year.
But Danny Hale, executive director of VASA, said Thursday that it is not surprising that ANR scientists have a bad impression of ATV usage. After all, the riders they encounter on state land are in general in violation of the law that limits the use of the vehicles to private property, Hale said.
"The Agency of Natural Resources staff, by nature, are not going to be what I would call pro-ATV people," Hale said. "The nature of what they do and their training is going to make them very aware of the negative impacts of ATVs."
"They have yet to see in their professional lifetime a managed ATV trail within state lands," Hale added.
And that is one of the reasons VASA wants to operate such trails in a limited way and with the stringent oversight that will come with doing so, Hale said.
"We are held to a fairly high standard if we are going to be allowed to use anybody's land, public or private," Hale said. "We are used to that. We are used to being given small opportunities and used to being evaluated."
The Agency's process on the rule making worries Anthony Iarrapino of the Conservation Law Foundation in Montpelier, however. In the past, agency staffers have had their say on whether a rule on ATVs should move forward. In this case it has been "top down" management, Iarrapino said.
With tight budgets at ANR and elsewhere in state government — as demonstrated by unsuccessful attempts to get state money (rather than ATV registration funds alone) for enforcement, it is not the time to add to the work load at the agency, he added.
"There is obvious evidence of illegal riding in spite of VASA's best efforts," Iarrapino said. Some riders "are looking to go mudding. They are looking to test the power of their machines on untracked terrain."
But one way to get ATV riders to register — and pay registration fees that VASA uses for enforcement — is to provide more trails, Wood counters.
"The more registrations we have the more money we have for enforcement," he said.
And, Wood added, the rule doesn't implement any ATV trails on public land but merely allows such applications to be made.
"We may not see one for several years," he said. "The purpose of this is not to look on state land to see where a trail could go."
Where the rule goes now is not known either. If the legislative committee that deals with such rules objects to the proposal, it is possible the rule would be modified again, although the agency could also put it into practice in spite of that objection as well. The committee meets on Nov. 3 at the Statehouse.
In fact the very scope of the changes to the proposed rule means it needs to go back for another round of public comment, Iarrapino added.
"To my mind that suggests the rule should go back out for public comment," he said.
2