New "hands-off" policy for public lands?

[robert_kennedy]

Recently, I was in the Coronado National Forest, when I came upon an

all too common sight. Some ATV riders had literally plowed over a

fence demarcating an environmentally sensitive area, a "no-go" area

for ATVs. They were just happily digging up this terrain and

whooping it up.

 

As I drove down the road that cross the NF, I came upon a ranger.

This was only about 2 miles from where these morons on their ATVs

were. I hailed the ranger and mentioned what was going on. I

figured since the rangers had put UP that fence, they would like to

know about what was happening.

 

I couldn't have been more wrong.

 

I was told that there was nothing they could do, because they had

been handed down a "hands-off" order when it came to off-road

vehicles! As long as they were not harming private property (this is

range land also) then no problem!

 

I was stunned. Yet it didn't surprise me, as there has been more and

more of a push in my area to leave all public lands wide open to

vehicles. Regardless of the problems this may cause (last summer it

caused a massive forest fire).

 

Then again, this could just be a very lazy ranger.

 

Has anyone else had similar experiences or heard similar things? I

am a bit concerned that recent political changes may have resulted in

a "don't ask don't tell" policy when it comes to abuse of public

lands.

[bobatkins]

I'm afraid current administration policy is going (has gone) that way. Just look at the reversal of the snowmobile ban in Yellowstone, or at least the "revision" that will no doubt lead to reversal.

 

Money talks these days. ATV (and snowmobile) manufacturers have louder voices than environmentalists.

[greg s]

A decade ago (when I became involved in U.S. forest policy issues) I learned an important lesson about where the real power of the presidency lies. It involves his cabinet appointments and their decision making process to enforce or not enforce the law as they choose. Laws are worth absolutely nothing without enforcement, and it has been common practice for various administrations to have internal policies to not enforce many of the environmental laws which Congress passed.

 

Regarding ATV's, I don't know. But this is the way the departments which oversee the use of the public's lands operate (or not operate, however one sees it).

[Two23]

Wouldn't we have to know what made a specific tract of land "sensitive" to be able to comment on it? What if it was "sensitive" because it's a nesting site for pintail ducks? Not many ducks are nesting this time of year. While I don't see the ability to run all over the place willy nilly with an ATV or whatever as a good thing, it is DEFINITELY a good thing that the snowmobile ban was reversed. As photographers, we should be on guard when fanatical special interest groups (the "environmental" extremists) try to prevent us from being able to take our photos. I note that you said the incident took place on national forest land, not a national park. There is a big difference.

 

 

Kent in SD

[craig_gillette]

Have you contacted the Supervisor for the District questioning the "policy" quoted to you? Talked to your Congressman? I know of areas around me that have been placed under blanket closures to restore fire damage and enforcement is strict and consistent. OTOH, the last administration closed many areas in legacy building efforts that had little or nothing to do with legitimate environmental issues.

[dan_smith]

A good thing the snowmobile ban was reversed? Is your head up your ass? Years of scientific reports & study went into the ban, all to be undone by a cocaine addict with an even bigger addiction to power.

 

If an area is posted as off limits for some reason it is prudent to find out why. Even if we don't agree we don't trash it but work to change things within the legal system. Course, if your President is an alcoholic & drug addict maybe if you wave the right incentive in front of him he will do anything you want.

[bob_finley]

"Is your head up your ass? undone by a cocaine addict with an even bigger addiction to power. if your President is an alcoholic & drug addict maybe if you wave the right incentive in front of him he will do anything you want."Dan Smith

 

Ahh politics, it always brings out the well reasoned rational and "factual" arguements.

[Two23]

<<all to be undone by a cocaine addict with an even bigger addiction to power. >>

 

An excellent example of the extreme partisan type I don't want running our national policies. I spoke on the phone tonight with a state game warden (about another matter) and asked him if he knew of any big changes in the way these lands are being handled (since he patrols some of them.) He said there have been no substantial changes, especially regarding vehicles. He suggested that perhaps the ranger mentioned above was simply overworked to the point he longer cared. (Pay & moral are apparently low in some areas.)

 

Also, I do recall that on the national grassland I hunt antelope on every year, last October I noticed a sign at the entrance that said, "Please keep vehicles on established paths." This sign was not there in previous years. Finally, I did notice some needed repair work being done at the Badlands NP when I was out there last month. The previous administration bled money from our national parks and put it on yet more superfluous social programs designed to buy them votes. It was left to the present administration to dedicate sufficient funds, in June 2001, to begin taking care of the tremendous backlog due to neglect. Photographers everywhere have much to cheer about in this regard.

 

Kent in SD

[karl_lehmann]

I think we should be allowed to use chain saws on public lands whenever we want to. Very often a composition can be improved by removing a few trees and it's much more convenient than looking for a different vantage point. Fishing with dynamite should be allowed too because it's much more efficient than wasting time with one of those silly fly rods the environmental extremists use. And we need lots of dirt bikes in our wilderness areas, so people don't have to waste their time hiking.

[gary_duffy]

<i>Ahh politics, it always brings out the well reasoned rational and "factual" arguements.</i><p>

How true! Now how about the tens of thousands of assorted motor vehicles complete with save the environment stickers on the back bumpers making there way through Yellowstone & elsewhere? Hypocrisy rocks! :-)

[ShunCheung]

I don't think this thread has a whole lot to do with nature photography.

[bobatkins]

Not if the thread keep going the way it is now...but the issue is certainly related to nature photography in that if we want any nature to photograph, it's really best not to let ATVs and snowmobiles race around wherever they want to with no controls., and that's what a "hands off" policy amounts to.

<p>

Two more years. Let's hope too much damage isn't done before we can change things. In the meantime I think it's prudent for nature photographers to finincially support organizations like the Sierra Club. They are really the only hope we have of keeping things from going too far.

<p>

Whatever you may think of the previous president's personal morality, I VERY much doubt we'd see any thing like <a href="http://www.ut.blm.gov/monument/Monument_Management/Initial%20Planning/Background/proclamation.html"> this </a>happening today.

[robert_kennedy]

True.

 

My concern is that when politics overcomes common sense, nature photographers, hikers, wildlife lovers, etc. will be the ones to loose out.

 

Case in point. This summer in Coronado, some ATVers decided they were simply too good to stay on the the trail. So they took off over some grassland and had all the fun they wanted.

 

Until the fire started.

 

Which burned thousands of acres and resulted in a closure of several months of the Coronado NF.

 

Just because two morons didn't realize that "hot catalytic converter + tinder dry grass = fire" and because they figured there was no need to stay on the trail, thousands of people were later denied access to this area.

 

And a huge hunk of forest burned down.

 

Now, while there are people out there who would love to see total closures of various wilderness areas, they are by far in the minority. Blaming ANY closure on "extremists" is pretty lame. Usually an area is closed for good reason. Often because of abuse.

 

On the other side there seems to be a group that simply demands usage rights. Regardless of the damage. In Coronado, I regularly pass areas where people have hauled up old appliances, and other pieces of trash and used them for target practice. There are huge areas just COATED with spent shotgun shells, brass cartridges, clay pigeons, etc. None of this is ever cleaned up. Likewise, many of the Jeepers up there (and I own a Jeep so don't go off on me here) will leave old axles, shredded tires, etc. up there.

 

Meanwhile I have yet to hear any of the "all access" people say "Hey, we need to stop this". Instead they just blab on about how they are being oppressed by Big Gubermint, and how evil it is that public lands get closed.

 

Well maybe if you helped clean up and help support an END to wanton land use lands wouldn't be closed!

 

Sorry, but the whole idea that you are either an environmentalist, or someone who uses public lands is bull! It seems the debate is down to "you are with us or against us".

 

This is false.

 

If anyone stopped to think about things, they would realize that the key here is SMART land use.

 

And we already have some good examples of this.

 

Look at groups like Ducks Unlimited. They like to hunt ducks. Anti-Environment? No. Instead of saying "We just want the right to shoot ducks! No matter what! Let's end hunting seasons!" they figured that if they built up wetlands and protected them; if they ensured a healthy environment, they would be able to still hunt.

 

Smart move.

 

Why does this concept seem so hard to apply to public lands? If we behave properly, and don't just go around f-ing things up for the sake of "what we want", if we discourage those who do, then our public lands will be better off, and we will be better able to enjoy them!

 

It's THAT simple.

[lee_shively]

I haven't read any of the follow up posts in this thread because I'm sure the conversation became another example of political polarization ad naseum and each side blindly blaming the other for all the world's ills. It's too freakin' tedious.

 

Anyway, the response from the so-called ranger sounds like total bullshit to me. These morons destroyed MY property. It's MY damn fence because I paid for the damn thing with MY taxes and I want the law breakers brought to justice! If this brain dead ranger wouldn't do anything about it, his superiors should have been contacted with a formal complaint and the willingness to press vandalism charges.

 

So, guys, go back to your political bickering now. This was only a short reality break.

[bobatkins]

Rangers do what they are told. They follow policy by and large. Most Rangers I've spoken with would love to enforce stricter rules on people they find abusing the land or wildlife, but they just don't have the power or the authority to do so. Remember this is a government agency, where rules and regulations and directions from above are all powerful. Common sense takes a back seat. Why else would you sell trees on public land for $1 each to logging companies?

[greg s]

"It's MY damn fence"

 

The cost of the fence is small potatoes as compared to the inestimable value of the environmentally sensitive area it was designed to protect. And it most likely was a symbolic politically motivated act by those who destroyed it, consciously perpetrated or otherwise.

 

Those public lands are MY lands and I want them protected to the letter of the law. And I don't want MY lands destroyed by big money interests, bought off politicians and an anti-environment fringe group.

[gary_duffy]

Robert, I assume you had your photo equipment with you? I would think this could make for a powerful photo-documentary, no? I also do not support damage of natural resources public or otherwise. Despite living in Vermont, I do not own or desire to own a snowmobile. I also do not support blaming people that do what I don�t do for damaging the environment in the worst way. As a landowner, I have had a good relationship with the local snowmobile clubs. If something is wrong all I have to do is call them and they make it right. Admittedly the results from 4 wheelers aren�t as good, but again I would not want to characterize the whole group on the actions of a few. The point of my post above was that we can look past what we like to do and blame the other guy for his/her hobby. The last time I read about this, the numbers of snowmobiles allowed in one day in Yellowstone were quite low and all machines have to be four stroke in a few years. Certainly this is far less pollution than the cars busses etc. I encountered in Yellowstone a couple of summers ago. Closer to home, the expansion of Ski areas here do not seem to slow down no matter who is president or what party is in power. As someone stated above it�s a lot about the money. That�s why ski areas can have massive clear cuts leaving ugly scars on the mountainsides. Should we blame skiers too? All any of us can do is try to minimize our impact on the environment and work with others to do the same. It would also help if we can get past the stereotyping of certain groups for the actions of a few. <p> Good light to all.

[lee_shively]

The reality check did not take, it appears.

 

Has anyone bothered to check with the National Forest Service authorities to acertain what this so-called "hands off" policy is or if it even exists outside this forum? No, because actual facts undercut all the fun we can have with speculation. It's a lot of fun to blame the government or the adminstration or the bureaucracy for all our ills. Obtaining the facts is too boring and spoils the fun.

 

In the meantime, while politics is being discussed among the world's great minds, a band of vandals have destroyed public property (MY and YOUR damn fence) and they are trespassing on other public property (again, MY and YOUR damn property) and creating a nuisance. I'm sure their mothers are to blame because they ceased breast feeding too soon but it doesn't change the fact that these acts are illegal. It's a battle that can be won. Don't sit around cursing the rain because your roof has a leak. Get up there and patch the roof and quit whining!

[robert_kennedy]

I did not have my gear with me. I often go out without it just to enjoy nature. Besides,a lack of a decent photo backpack hinders me a bit. No fun hauling all that gear "just in case".

 

My origonal point is that the politics of land use has seemingly gotten a bit more physical. When even the rangers won't enforce the law, we have an issue. Be it with one ranger or all of them.

 

What I find amazing is that when an environmentalist spikes a tree, it is called "terrorism", but when a group decides to just run over a fence because their politics dictate that that is o.k. and dig up the land causing erosion, killing cryptobiotic soils, etc. it is being a "patriot"....

 

Makes one wonder.

[brien_szabo]

Personally, I don't think either Republicans or Democrats do enough for the environment - niether can make enough money from it. In all my years in the field, it's the same ol story, woeful funding for State/National parks, WMA's and the rest. The Democrats give better lip service than the Republicans and usually barely give back what the Republicans took away. Look at how much has been chipped away at this stone, were down to pebbles now.

 

It seems to me though that when the Democrats do give more money they are really just creating more administration jobs instead of using that money in the field. And I will say this, I have watched various parks both improve and become worse under both types of administrations.

[jonathan_bundick]

"...nature photographers, hikers, wildlife lovers, etc. will be the ones to loose out. "

 

Robert,

 

I have to disagree. We all lose not just backpackers and nature lovers. Every one is diminished when our natural resources are destroyed for an afternoon of fun. Most of those that lose are not even born yet.

 

Lee,

 

You are correct. It is your money that paid for that fence, and the money of those that broke it down. Peolpe like that don't even care about their own property (public lands), and by destroying it they are ripping us all off. Strickter enforcement is needed.

 

With an ever increasing population, the invasion of public lands for private use has and will continue to kill, invade and destroy those lands we love to photograph. There is a high cost to perserve it, and depending upon the party in power, they may or may not want ot pay that price.

 

Better get out and photograph all we can before more of it is gone for good.<div></div>

[bobatkins]

If there is a "hands off" policy, the NFS certainly aren't going to announce it. I mean they'd have to be a whole lot dumber than they are to issue a press release basically stating that they aren't going to enforce any regulation except in cases where private property is involved.

<p>

Here's a quote from Georgia Forest Watch:

<p>

<em>Enforcement of the laws pertaining to illegal ATV use on the public forestlands under the administration of the USFS is a crucial part of any successful program. A lack

of clarity concerning Georgia state laws governing these vehicles and the same lack on the part of FS policy concerning the use of ATV�s on FS roads has been used

as an explanation in the past for a lack of enforcement. Also, shortages in funding and FS enforcement personnel have been sited as reasons for the lack of control of

this problem. And lastly, is concern over the reactions of local communities, politicians and user groups who enjoy motorized recreation. The FS is caught in a delicate

balancing act, caught between proper resource management and the desires of recreational user groups, but it is abundantly clear that there must be an active change

from business as usual in favor of the wonderful natural resources the FS is responsible for.</em>

[jeff medkeff anchorage, a]

<p>Hi Robert,

 

<p>I live in Sierra Vista, at the foot of the Huachucas, which is Coronado National Forest, Sierra Vista Ranger District jurisdiction. I know some people, and I'd like to talk to them about it, but can I ask - are you referring to the Miller Peak Wilderness? If so, where exactly? And do you know the name of the ranger you spoke to? Feel free to contact me directly if you wish. (And hey, wanna go hiking sometime?)

 

<p>Atrocities are common in this forest. ATV'ers have attacked and injured hikers, and some of my friends won't enter the forest unarmed. Its only a matter of time before someone gets killed, either a walker being run over, or an ATV'er being shot by a walker wishing to avoid being run over....

 

<p>I've found a lot of junk in Coronado NF as well, though so far I haven't seen any large-scale stuff. In the Huachucas, most of what I see are illegal alien droppings. Everywhere I hike in the Huachucas, <a href="http://roboticobservatory.com/jeff/other/">I find Mexican garbage</a>.

[Two23]

<<Whatever you may think of the previous president's personal morality, I VERY much doubt we'd see any thing like this happening today.>>

 

Wrong on two counts. First, if you start with a guy that constantly lies to you, it doesn't matter what he says. He doesn't mean it, and he'll flip-flop next week when he has big money boys pay him for a sleepover at the White House. Second, it's been the Republican Party that has actually performed when it counted. For instance, how much credit does Richard Nixon (far more honest than Clinton) get for his creation of the EPA? Or his creation of the Endangered Species Act? We wouldn't have national parks in the first place if it weren't for presidents like Teddy Roosevelt and U.S. Grant. Clinton raided the parks budget for money to pay off those who voted for him. The current president is the one that not only restored funding, but increased it. More recently, it was Sen. Tom Daschle that came up with the current plan of "pruning" forests to prevent fire danger. I was at a meeting in Rapid City SD where he took credit for that before a local audience. The Bush administration adopted Daschle's plan with virtually no changes, and even gave him the credit for it.

 

I too belong to Ducks Unlimited. This is the single most effective conservation program in the world, judged by results, judged by what percentage of money actually goes to conservation in the field. (Government programs only put about 25-30% of budgeted money into actual projects.) Note that in my first post I clearly said that having ATV's running willy nilly is something I'm NOT for. However, the current crop of "environmentalists" are elitists. You are foolish if you think they will allow fly fishing--something they label a "consumptive use" of the forest. These people are indeed out to kick us out of the places we like to photo in. To them, we are just as bad as ATV operators etc. Someone mentioned an ATV that started a fire--what about the Fatali fiasco a couple of years ago? The extreme "environmentalists" are indeed using that as evidence to severly curtail photography too.

 

As I wrote above, I did indeed try to see if there really was a "hands off" policy, as someone WILDLY speculated. My source, a state game warden who enforces the laws, said there is NOT. This was all made up! It was SPECULATION apparently based on one response and is not true.

 

We must have common-sense access to national forests/grasslands. Otherwise, we can't photo in them. Four-stroke snowmobiles work quite well and achieve the goals everybody wants--except the fanatics that want to exclude everybody including US! We need roads and vehicles to get our photo gear out there. The compromise is that we can simply restrict such vehicles to the roads, as is done in Yellowstone year round. We must fight the environmentalists--they are our enemy. They lie, they try to scare us, and their aim is to exclude us. The land is big (I live out here and see it,) and there is room for all of us and our activities. We just need common sense about it. Putting rabid "environmentalists" in charge of land use policy makes as much sense as putting the Taliban in charge of women's education.

 

 

Kent in SD

[wildpicture]

I have been following this thread with interest. It seems that politics are even more dividing between nature photographers than opinions about what Arthur Morris is doing. :-)

 

As somebody who lives in Europe and has done most wildlife photography in Africa, the US situation always surprises me. I think it is a very bad time for environmental concern in your country. Your president is merely the voice of big oil corporations. They just want to drill for oil everywhere: "Alaska is just a big empty place", without regulations.

 

Sorry, I don't want to offend you but a president who actually has come up with an answer for forest fires in the form of just cutting down the trees (what is cut can't burn anymore) is over the edge for me. Remember this guy (and his father) signed a petition to put the Botswana government under pressure to allow lion hunting!

 

But another reason for being a bad time for the environment is because the present government has just one concern: wage war. All over history, war has been a great thing to take peoples minds of domestic problems. And it seems that at present Bush sees terrorists everywhere. Freedom of speech and freedom of thought seem to have put on hold in the US. Now it is situation of "either you are with us, or you are against us". And this does not just count for foreign policy. It goes for any susbject these days. Either you are with the Bush government, or you are not a patriot, almost a terrorist.

 

Maybe in Europe we always had a bit more shades of grey, but at present it seems in the US there is just white and black. We have often looked up to the US for it democracy and freedom. But nowadays we may have to look elsewhere.

 

Let's be carefull with the few spots of true nature we have still left. Nature is not there to harvest for profit. Its there because we can't do without it. Let's not trash it and work together to protect what is left, instead of fighting each other over it.

 

Happy New Year to you all!!!