spazaddict

I'm interested in what other states do for ATV trail systems. I live in Vermont where ATV riding is growing VERY fast. The problem is we're such a liberal tree hugger state that we have no real trail system. We pretty much rely on a few land owners willing to open a section of there property for us to ride on.

Do other states allow ATV riders on gov't land? Is liability insurance an issue? Are the ATV clubs gov't run?

I'm trying to get our state reps. to realize the huge amount of revinue ATV trails could bring to our state, but they want info on what othere states do. They want to know how ATV clubs keep "damage" to the environment to a minimum....I personally don't see how ATVs damage the environment any more than the thousands of moose trampling through our woods but......

Any info would be great.
Thanks, Chris

onetime2

Here's a resource for you.

http://www.nohvcc.org/noflash/index1.htm

The common term nowadays is Off Highway Vehicle (OHVs) as ATVs are traditionally 3 or 4 wheelers. Personally, I ride a motorcycle (2000 Honda CR 250) here in NJ. We are struggling with the same issues (as is every other state). There is a concerted effort by environmental groups to limit access to OHV operators and the environmental groups are far more organized in both getting media attention and organizing voters. Just look at the laws that have now limited access to snowmobilers in Yellowstone and other parks for evidence of it.

Enviros cite noise, emissions, and erosion problems as reasons for banning OHV use. As OHV manufacturers modernize their designs (and two strokes are phased out) emissions are becoming less of an issue but that argument will not go away. IMO, carving out trails with OHVs does not do significant damage to the environment but it's easy for those in opposition to them to take a politician out to some of the worst examples and convince them that it's the norm. The noise pollution argument can be mitigated with silencers and spark arrestors but until OHV enthusiasts show they're a political force by rallying votes, we will continue to see our interests ignored.

I hope to open a private OHV park in NJ at some point in the future but finding a site has been difficult.

As far as where people ride in NJ now, it is mostly either on private land (with and without landowner permission), on public property (in some cases this is legal and in others illegal), or in a park operated by a non-profit group in Southern NJ. The park is on state land.

Liability insurance isn't much of an issue as far as I know. If you are to ride in NJ on public land you need to register your vehicle but no insurance is required.

--Paul

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

shakran

That WAS sarcasm right?

K, I live in Minnesota, where every summer there's a huge fight about what to do with ATV's in the northern part of the state. If you want to read the bloody details, do a GIS for "Boundry Waters Canoe Area" + ATV

ATVs tear the crap out of the environment. They wouldn't do nearly as much damage if people would ride them responsibly, but few do. They see a mud hole, they immediately start racing through it over and over again. Puddle gets bigger and bigger. It's not uncommon for me to be hiking in northern MN and come across an area the size of a few football fields that's nothing but deep muddy ATV tracks.

Once the mud gets too whipped up by the ATV's, you can't get most ATVs through it anymore, so they start going around it. And tearing up the ground on the side of the giant mudhole. Whole sections of hiking trails have been wrecked by inconsiderate ATV drivers.

Then there's the noise pollution factor. ATVs are frikkin' loud when you hear 'em roaring by your tent out in the middle of nowhere where the loudest sound is usually a hoot owl. That not only wakes people up (for some reason the ATVers seem to like to get started at 6am) but all that noise drives away the wildlife that hikers came out to see. I can't tell you how many times I've been feet from a deer watching it do its thing when a fleet of ATVs roared by even as far as half a mile away and scared the animal off.

Minnesota has attempted to accomodate ATV riders by designating certain trails as ATV trails and others as hiking/X-country skiing ONLY trails. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. The ATV riders go on the hiking trails - or many times they just go off the trails wherever they feel like going. And of course, there aren't exactly a whole lot of security cameras out in nature, so it's difficult if not impossible to catch the assholes that are wrecking things for everyone else.

It's at the point now where the ATV riders and the hikers are about to come to blows. The hikers complain about what I talked abotu above, while the ATVers say the hikers don't have an ATV, don't understand ATVing, and don't understand that ATVers have just as much a right to be out in the state / national parks and forests as the hikers do.

My personal opinion is that merely buying an ATV does not automatically give you the right to ride it on any public land. One of the responsibilities of the government is not just to OWN the public land that makes up the parks, but to PRESERVE it. ATVs and environmental preservation are pretty much mutually exclusive due to the small, but significant, minority of inconsiderate riders. After all, there are about 150,000 privately registered ATVs in Minnesota. If only 1% of the ATV riders (a conservative estimate) break the rules on the trails, that means 1,500 ATVs are out destroying park land every year.

Sorry that this is probably not what you wanted to hear. It sounds like you'd probably be a responsible rider. Unfortunately, your fellow riders may not be so considerate, and as they say, once nature's gone, it's gone.

onetime2

Not sarcasm at all. A few examples of bad conduct do not justify penalizing everyone. Ramp up enforcement, install cameras at the known points of damage, etc. There are other options besides wholesale bans. ATVers are paying money towards the acquisition of public lands just as hikers are.

Can you tell me how many trails were designated for ATV use versus the total number available to others? I'm sure it was quite limited. Is it any wonder that they didn't heed the directive? This isn't to excuse their actions, just to highlight the inherent problems associated with managing multi use lands.

No one group has more right to public land than another.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

shakran

Install CAMERAS? you want to install a camera up every tree 5 miles into the wilderness?

And as I pointed out, ramping up enforcement is not practical. Some parks are more than 90,000 acres. You'd require every national guard soldier in the state to cover a quarter of that. How do you propose to pay for it?


What's your point. It's a wilderness, not a race track.

Uhh. Yes, it is a wonder. Let's see. I drive a racecar on the weekends in the summer for fun. I pay for the public roads just like you do, therefore by your reasoning I should be allowed to drive my Formula Mazda down the interstate.




So semis should be able to drive on the hiking trails? Gimme a break. The ATVers have just as much right to the trails as others as long as they walk like everyone else.

spazaddict

shakran.....

I'm sorry but I don't see why a 100 foot stretch of mud in the middle of the woods matters. WALK AROUND IT. Not that I go out of my way to create huge mud holes but.....I try to watch my path if I can avoid rutting up a trail I do so. Not for the purpose of saving the planet but because Huge ruts are the reason the state doesn't open state land to ATVs.

In VT we have thousands of miles of hiking trails and maybe 400 miles of ATV trails(scattered across the state made up of approved private property). The ATV trails in VT are completely seperate from the hiking trails(mostly state owned). If an ATV is found on private property, the main road or on state owned land it can be confiscated. Most of the time though the rider is just heavily find.

You know what bugs me most of all though....Ski resorts can clear cut an entire mountain and the pinko liberals are happy as s--t, but if they see an ATV in the woods its the end of the world.

Chris

shakran

It wouldn't, if it were just a 100 foot stretch of mud that you could walk around. Let me tell you what it really looks like up in Tettagouche State Park in Minnesota (part of the Superior National Forest)

You have hiking trails that double as ATV trails in many places. They've been made extra wide to accomodate the ATV's. The ATV's have responded by driving across the entire trail as fast as they can no matter how soggy the ground is, resulting in places where, for half a mile or more the ATV's have created a mudhole. Getting off the trail is often not an option as you either have sheer cliffs on either side or extremely dense forest, or a marsh. And anywhere there is soggy ground, the ATV's have gone off the trail and turned half an acre or more into a mudpit, because it's fun to tear around getting muddy. Now we have a huge scar that hikers have to slog through.

Meanwhile there are plenty of ATV parks that have ready made mudholes, jumps, ruts, etc. All the fun shit you could want to do on your ATV, but no one uses them because it's cheaper and more fun to tear up the hiking trails.

No one is limiting access to anyone. Anyone who wants to can hike the hiking trails.

Saying you're excluding a group from accessing a place simply because you don't allow their recreational vehicle in that place is a shallow attempt to deceive people into thinking your rights have been violated. They still have the right to access that area as long as they walk, rather than drive. Similarly, I have the right to access the interstate as long as I drive, rather than walk. Or do you want to make the claim that restricting pedestrian traffic on the interstate is a rights violation as well?

onetime2

Apparently you missed the part where I said the areas of damage are typically VERY limited. You point to one mud hole and an area of ruts and think they're evidence that it should be banned completely and there are no other options? Please. Install a camera at the points where there are serious issues. A remote camera that's triggered by movement can be bought for about $200, not exactly rocket science there.

As far as enforcement, again, we're talking about limited areas of abuse not the whole 90,000 acres.

Your disdain for those ATVers who have the gall to wake you up at 6am is clearly showing through in your reasoning. Yeah, I think semis should be allowed on hiking trails, that's it. Let's bring in rocket sleds too.

My point about the limited availability of trails was the same as the last statement I made in response to you, no one group has more right to public land than any other. You seem to think that hikers have more right to them than ATVers. Where do Mountain bikers fit in? How about bird watchers?

As far as your assertion about your race car, as you are well aware there are countless motor vehicle rules that your race car would have to abide by. Not the least of which are safety features, emissions, lights, etc. Your example is completely without merit.

If you'd like to start a thread discussing the issues with shared use lands or the reasons why lands should be activity specific, feel free to do it. It's obvious that any further discussion with you here will be completely off the original topic.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

spazaddict

Read this again....hikers can't go around because of "sheer cliffs" but ATV's can?

As far as ATV's waking you up at 6 in the morning.....why are you camping on a hiking trail? Go to a campground...obviously Minnisota needs to seperate the trail systems. If I encountered some tree hugger whining about my ATV waking him up and scaring away the cute little animals(the ones that get stuck in the tread of my tires)I would do one of two things. I'd either get pissed and make a point of tearing up the trail so the hikers would go elsewhere or I would simply get off and kick his sally ass.

Chris

shakran

so you guys have never heard of backcountry camping? Some of us prefer to walk 5 miles into our campsites.

As for the cameras, quit being stupid. You're proposing to run power and video cable way out into the middle of nowhere. Or you're proposing to find a wireless camera system capable of transmitting a good video signal 5 or more miles away to a ranger station while never running out of batteries. And what do you do once you have the ATV rider on videotape? They're covered in mud and wearing a helmet so how do you propose to identify them? How do you propose to apprehend him? Or does your plan include hoverjets so you can fly out there and capture him right away? Be realistic.

Funny you should mention that. Mountain bikes aren't allowed out there in MN. ATVs are, but not the bikes. Stupid, isn't it. Bird watchers hike in, if you didn't know. And as I said, you are NOT restricting one group from the public land. The ATVers are not banned from the land, only their ATVs are. They can walk in like everyone else and enjoy the park. You're using a smarmy, underhanded tactic here to try and paint ATV riders as a separate group of people who are inseparable from their ATV's. You want people to forget that you can climb off of your ATV and use your legs so that they will rally behind you in support.

Your reasoning is that any group of people that share a common interest in an activity should be allowed to take that activity out onto the trails in state and national parks. People who like to ride ATVs should be allowed to take their ATVs on the trails. If you follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, then people who like to drive 4x4 trucks offroad should be allowed to take their jeeps on the trails as well. People who enjoy chainsaw competitions should be allowed to hold them out in the forest where they can cut down some real trees.

It's obvious that that logic is stupid, and it stems from a fatal flaw in your premise. You're trying to use the diversity bandwagon to claim that you are in a separate group of people who should be given equal rights to everyone else, and are then claiming that your ATVs are an inseparable part of you. Therefore, if we ban ATVs from anywhere, we're discriminating against you and denying you access. Get off the 4wheeler and walk, and you won't have a problem.

Well actually even if I made it emissions legal I wouldnt' be allowed to drive it on the roads because it's never been certified. In other words, my special interest group of diverse people who share a common interest in racing are not allowed to take racing onto the public highways. It's the same logic as your proposition. If that logic is without merit (and it is) then so is yours.

No, we're not. Trails extend far away from the nearest ranger station. It can take an entire day to get places even on an ATV. We'd have to establish a full-fledged army of rangers to police people if we followed your plan.

And it's idiotic statements like that that highlights the irresponsible side of ATVing that wrecks it for the rest of the ATVers. Congratulations, you're one of the primary reasons ATVs are getting banned.

onetime2

Start a new thread if you'd like to continue this discussion. Although I'm not sure it needs continuation since you are completely inflexible in your viewpoint, insulting in your comments, and have shown no willingness to discuss the topic with any level of decorum.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

bermuDa

Shakran seems very stolid in his argument, but it's a simple one that doesn't require everyone to lose their heads, and one that I tend to agree with for that matter:

hiking trails are for hikers, not vehicles. period. (edit: I am not saying there shouldn't be ATV trails, just that they should stay off pedestrian pathways)

this discussion seems to have degenerated into the two sides of this argument bashing each other instead of coming to an agreement. I think everything that could be said has.

__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.