|
Environmentalists' analysis finds that most respondents want
off-road vehicles banned - Motorized or traditional travel in forests? By
PETER JOHNSON 11/21/03
A vast majority of Montanans and Americans commenting on the proposed Rocky Mountain Front travel plan urged the Forest Service to scrap the idea and adopt a plan that favors traditional, nonmotorized uses such as hiking and horseback riding. That was the conclusion of a lengthy analysis by an environmental coalition of some 7,600 comments submitted last year to the Forest Service. The Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front, a group of 12 environmental and recreational groups, announced Thursday that: ãMore than 98 percent of the respondents nationally were opposed to off-road vehicle use on the Front and supported traditional uses. Nearly 6,300 of the comments either came from outside of Montana or were e-mails that didn't list an address. ãMore than 92 percent of the 1,305 respondents from Montana opposed off-road vehicle use on the Front as did 83 percent of those 476 respondents living along the Front. Last year, the Lewis and Clark National Forest developed a travel plan that will determine for years to come if and where off-road vehicle use will be permitted. The proposed plan permits motorized travel by dirt bikes, off-road vehicles and snowmobiles in two-thirds of the Front, which is the 100-mile stretch from just south of Glacier Park to Rogers Pass where the eastern Rocky Mountains meet the prairie "The fragile nature of the Rocky Mountain Front is so eggshell thin that attempting to accommodate motorized recreational uses over the majority of the land will destroy the quiet and the solitude that so many people today are seeking," said Chuck Blixrud, a Rocky Mountain Front outfitter. "The Rocky Mountain Front is in the top 1 percent of wildlife habitat and wildlands in the continental United States," said Roy Jacobs, 56, a taxidermist and lifelong Choteau resident. "That's largely because the Front remains free of motorized travel. I would hate to see it turned into a motocross track. ORVs can be as devastating as oil and gas development." But Russ Ehnes, vice president of the Great Falls Trailbike Riders Association, said motorized vehicle users should have a right to use the Front for recreation even though they didn't "solicit and generate as many comments." "We made one comment on behalf of our club, but it represented more than 100 families who are currently members," he said. "The riders I know from Great Falls, Cut Bank and all over the state really value the Rocky Mountain Front for recreating," Ehnes said. "We enjoy seeing the scenery and wildlife, like everybody else and are extremely interested in protecting it." According to the coalition, the public cited a variety of concerns in opposing off-road vehicle use on the Front, including: ãAppreciation of the Front as a unique and beautiful wild landscape that should be protected from damage and development. ãA desire to preserve essential wildlife habitat and safeguard culturally significant lands. ãA belief that greater off-road vehicle use on the Front would damage landscape and wildlife habitat and lead to more recreational roads for ORVs that would make it easier for destructive oil and gas development to take place on the Front. "I oppose the proposed travel plan because one of the trails ends right at my ranch," said Karl Rappold, 51, of Dupuyer, a third-generation rancher. "I definitely don't want all-terrain vehicles users on my ranch or on the Front, which is the special place where 1,000-pound grizzlies can live. ATV users can spread noxious weeds, cause erosion and harass both wildlife and domestic stock." Ehnes said his trail riders group stresses the importance of staying on trails and washing their machines after every use to prevent the spread of noxious weeds. "Our interest is to keep the environment as clean as we can and to enjoy it," he said. "We don't want to be locked out." Jerry Levandowski, another Great Falls dirt bike rider, said he has ridden on trails elsewhere, but doesn't oppose riding on the Front. "My personal feeling is that the Montana Wilderness Society wants nonmotorized designations everywhere," he said. The Forest Service says the existing travel plan already allows motorized travel in many parts of the Front. Similarly, Ehnes said the proposed plan actually would reduce the number of nonloop trail miles that motorized users could travel. But the Montana Wilderness Association and other coalition members believe that existing plan is illegal. "In the past, ORV use was not restricted and didn't need to be," said coalition member Kendall Flint, an East Glacier Park family doctor. "But in the last decade, ORV sales have tripled and the vehicles now are powerful enough to go up places they never could before." Flint said there already is considerably more ORV use in the Badger-Two Medicine area on the Northern Rocky Mountain Front. Dick Schweke, Forest Service team leader for the transportation plan, said the number of comments were the most he's ever seen on a ranger district plan. He said he counted about 1,600 individually prepared comments, and about 7,000 seemed to be form e-mails or letters. Kate Sako of East Glacier Park, who coordinated the coalition's counting effort, said many of the form letters included personalized comments. But even if the form letters are not counted, she said, 92 percent of the public supported traditional rather than motorized uses on the Front. "The Forest Service certainly realizes that most of the comments were against nonmotorized use, and we're preparing a possible alternative to do that," Schweke said. "But I don't think our decision-makers are swayed so much by the number of people making an argument as the strength of the arguments they make. "We look at everybody's comments, make an analysis of how significant issues would be dealt with through different alternatives and then try to come up with a reasoned decision." |