She is using her resources to limit our access to trails. Use your resources to limit her income. (Article from Wall Stree Journal)

Recreation
Peeling Out, With Impunity

Now people who rip up the earth have their own parks; a Hummer spitting gravel
By CONOR DOUGHERTY
December 2, 2006; Page P1

GILBERT, Minn. -- Several weeks ago, Dan Olson took a drive in the woods, revving his blue Chevy Blazer through mud banks and over piles of boulders, coughing up plumes of smoke that smelled like a freeway accident.
In most towns, that would get you arrested. But Mr. Olson had traveled 4½ hours to an off-road park here that caters to all-terrain vehicle, Jeep and dirt-bike owners looking to tear around nature without fear of a trespassing ticket. "It's a lot of fun," says the mechanic from Colfax, Wis.
Area BFE in Moab, UtahThere's a new refuge for people whose hobbies run on the wrong side of public opinion: parks -- often on private property -- where guys (it's mostly men, but wives and girlfriends often come along for the ride) can rip up the earth without fear of the enviro cops. Over the last decade, the federal government and a number of states have banned off-roading from millions of acres of public land. Yet these vehicles are increasingly popular -- sales of ATVs over the past 10 years have almost tripled. That gap has created a business opportunity for entrepreneurs and local governments.
The parks -- there are now dozens, from South Carolina to Utah -- are gaining traction just as the off-road industry is rolling out a new generation of tricked-out vehicles: from buggies that climb up 80-degree inclines to the Quadski, a jet ski that converts into an ATV on land. The Rough Terrain Vehicle, a $30,000 buggy-like contraption from Rhino Off-Road Industries, has waist-high tires and roll bars across the roof. "Think of it as the child of a monster truck and an ATV," says Howard Pearl, Rhino's president.
Many of the off-road parks set up picnic tables and Port-o-Potties along the trails, which have names like "Axle Trap" and "Undertaker." Some offer ramps for trucks to attempt 50-foot leaps -- one park owner calls them "Dukes of Hazzard" jumps -- while others tout mogul runs of six-foot-high dirt piles and open fields for spinning donuts. At Iron Range Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area, the abandoned ore-mine-turned-offroad-park in Gilbert, a number of ATVers use "snorkels," or plastic extensions that allow vehicles to operate under water. The devices are banned on public lands in the state because submerged ATVs can pollute streams. Dave Schotzko, assistant manager of Iron Range, says that's not an issue at his park: "You can't really harm a gravel pit," he says.
The nation's off-roaders still spend most of their time on public forest and desert lands. But designated parks are increasingly an option, particularly for off-roaders in urban centers. Whether the parks are owned by private individuals or purchased by state and local governments to attract tourists, the goal is the same: to give off-roaders a place where they can escape the complaints about noise pollution, tire tracks and frightened animals.
In West Virginia, the government runs the Hatfield-McCoy trail system, a 500-mile network stitched together on land owned mostly by coal, timber and gas companies. Some 24,000 off-roaders used the park last year, compared with around 4,000 in 2001. In South Carolina, a pair of entrepreneurs have sunk $8 million into Carolina Adventure World, which is set to open early next year with cabins and a handful of yurts. Then there's Jeremy Parriott. The dirt biker and several partners paid around $1 million for 320 acres in the Utah desert, renamed it "Area BFE," and now let bikers and off-roaders ride free.
Iron Range Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area in Gilbert, Minn.For off-roaders, crackups are part of the thrill. At Iron Range, the same weekend Mr. Olson was tooling around, another Chevy Blazer tried to navigate a steep incline of mud, and tumbled down sideways, caving in the roof and ripping off a tire. A Hummer got stuck halfway up another long hill, its tires spitting gravel, and had to be bailed out with a winch.
The parks, though a popular outlet among off-roaders, aren't universally embraced. While the sales of former timber farms and other big plots provide an opportunity for well-heeled off-roaders to set up a ATV park -- they also provide an opening for conservation groups eager to rid those areas of "consumptive uses" like hunting and motorized recreation.
While the park in Gilbert was proposed in the mid-1990s -- at the time, the land was a popular spot to (illegally) dump old couches and refrigerators -- it took several years to realize. That's because of noise complaints, a lawsuit and the discovery of a rare fern on the stripped iron land.
It took Richard Mull four years to open his off-road park, Brushy Mountain Motorsports Park in Taylorsville, N.C. The first time Mr. Mull, a real-estate developer, tried to buy and rezone land, his plans prompted a big enough backlash, including threats of sabotage if the park were opened, that he abandoned the project without a fight. "We basically walked away from a year's time and $25,000 and started again," he says.
The off-road community argues that dedicated parks minimize the environmental harm. Trailpass, a network of private trails mainly in the Eastern U.S., says that its 1,000-plus miles of trails are built with bridges, to keep riders out of natural creeks, and switchbacks that counter erosion. Mr. Mull says he won't let in tires with more than a 3/4-inch tread because they rip up his trails, which he then has to pay to repair.
The off-road park clientele ranges from kids to retirees, and the trails are set up to appeal to novices as well as thrill seekers. The parks have borrowed the ski industry's green-blue-black nomenclature to rate the difficulty level of trails.
PLAYING DIRTY

A snapshot of some of the off-road parks that are popping up.
NAME PRICE DISTINGUISHING FEATURE COMMENT Area BFE
Moab, Utah Free Ramps are set up for a 50-foot leap -- the owner calls it the "Dukes of Hazzard" jump This park, on a uranium deposit in the Utah desert, is one of the more extreme in the country; among other tricks, it has metal railings that cars jump onto and slide down Hatfield-McCoy
Lyburn, W.Va. $19/day ATV riders can hit a McDonald's drive-through because the trail system runs through some small towns Among the country's largest off-roading networks, with 500 miles of trails spread over four counties in southern West Virginia Durhamtown Plantation
Union Point, Ga. $25/day ATVers have to share the park with hunters, anglers and skateboarders The 8,000 acres are deep with history, from remnants of moonshine stills to a cemetery that holds plantation families and slaves Paragon Adventure Park
Hazleton, Pa. $25 to $35 Off-road classes ($500) teach truck owners how to wade through water -- and recover their truck when it gets stuck The park has everything from green trails ("Turtle Trail") to trails that can't be accessed without a park guide ("Death Valley")
ATVs have also come under fire for their safety record, especially when the riders are children. The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimated that in 2004, the latest data available, ATVs were the cause of 136,100 emergency-room-treated injuries, up 48% from 2000. Mike Mount, spokesman for the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, the trade association for the ATV industry, says that because of the big increase in ATV usage, the injury rate has remained flat for the last couple of years. "We still want that number to go down," he says.
For towns like Gilbert, off-roading represents a chance to diversify an economy hit hard by the decline in mining jobs. The town's population has plummeted about 30% over the past two decades, to 1,800. The off-road park has spawned some new businesses in town. Fun Time Rental, which rents out ATVs and snowmobiles, runs out of stock most weekends. Across the street, Milt Lerfald, a laid-off miner, used savings and a bank loan to build a $500,000 car wash that caters to all the trucks and trailers that now pass through town.
But others are using their money to keep offroaders away. Roxanne Quimby, former CEO of cosmetics and candle company Burt's Bees, has spent just under $40 million since 2000 buying some 70,000 acres of forest land. She has shut down dozens of miles of ATV and snowmobile trails. For riders that ignore the new mandates, Ms. Quimby has erected gates, destroyed bridges and culverts that patch together trails, and laid boulders across access roads. "It's bad news for them when I buy a piece of property," says Ms. Quimby.

 

Bah. They make great products.

If the woman wants to buy property and shut it down, let her. It's up to others to buy property, open it, respect it, and maintain it.

 

Yes, they do, and that's the bummer.


You just really don't get it, huh? Every day, we lose MORE and MORE trails. Trails are closing MUCH faster than they are opening. It would be fair to say, actually, that NONE are opening. Every little bit MATTERS to those of us that like to take our trucks offroad to experience beauty only available off the beaten path.

 

That's the most slanted thing i've read in a long time........man.

 

Some of us do get it, but look at it differently than you. There are new trails opening. Every park that was mentioned in the article you quoted is an example. Land closures and land access can be seen in very different ways. Some people think that if land is closed to motorized access, it means you can't get out to see the area and enjoy it. Others think that if land is open to motorized access, it is also open to logging and mining and there will be nothing to see once you get there. It's a fine line, and depends a lot on how you want to use the land. The park they mentioned in MN is open to vehicles and has challenging trails, but I would never go there because all you get to see is the aftermath of a mining operation. To bring it closer to home for you, would the trails in Colorado be as enjoyable if you were just driving your truck through miles of clearcut? That is one way of interpreting open access, and is seen quite a bit out here in WA. Not my idea of a good solution.

 

ditto

i would be against anythign described as TEARING UP THE EARTH

 

is it ok with you if i post this on MD ttora

 

Once she's purchased it, it's hers to do with what she will, in the same way those creating parks are doing. While I disagree with her beliefs, she's going about it the right way.

However, I have seldom seen a more biased piece of "journalism". I think we would be better served by boycotting the Wall Street Journal or even better educating them.

I think we would also do well to better educate those same tree-hugger apologetics who always post to these threads with the same defeatist crap about how the Sierra Club and others looking to close our trails really have our best interests in mind, aren't really bad folks and we should suck up to them and beg them to be allowed to use small portions of public land.

After all, that has worked so well in the past. With friends like that, who needs enemas?

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

Hey Rob, I was hoping you would chime in.
Unbelievably I agree with you on the first part, I think she is going about it in the right way.
For the rest, I assume that it is at least in part directed to me, but don't completely understand. Most of the tree-huggers I know actually feel similarly to you about the Sierra Club, they are outdated and uninformed with unfortunately way to much clout in the government. Maybe my big problem with some of what you say is that the tree-huggers you know, and the tree-huggers I know are two very different groups, and I keep assuming they are the same people. As far as having someones best interest in mind, I'm not sure either of us are going to find a group that fits the bill. The problem with groups is they always seem to include at least a few people with differing views and its just human nature that nobody want to give up their ideas to reach a compromise. In the distant future I really hope it never comes down to either of us begging to use our public lands, but I also hope that in that future there is still public land that we want to use.
See you next time we're out picking up trash.

 

It wasn't directed anyone in particular. I typed that response to the thread on TTORA, then cut and pasted it verbatim here. It's directed at anyone for whom the shoe may fit.

The problem is that we are already there. We are already having to beg to use public land and increasingly, we are being denied anyway.

In my opinion, there's plenty of space for me to recreate and there's plenty of space for someone to sit in silence. The problem I have is that I don't hear that same attitude from the tree huggers. What I hear from them is that there's plenty of room to sit in silence, but that precludes my recreation.

They have been successfully closing things down for years. In western Washington alone, there's just a small percentage remaining of the trails that were open just twenty years ago. In the mean time, precious little has opened up.

If we don't start pushing back now, then when?

 

I'm becoming very Jaded, ya know those evil "speacial interest lobbiest" the left love to vilify...guess who has more winer's and dinners than anyone one guessed it enviroment groups!
Funny how they can get the long arm of the law to come down on the average joe trying to blow of some steam on a muddy trail, But turn their head the other way when millions os illegal alliens invade National Parks along our borders
What is the difference you ask I'll tell you Leftys agree with one "trashing of Mothernature" and don't the other!!

 

Ps I P/U at this place went in to use bathroom while trk was being loaded. Lady said its over there closed door it was a "compost toilet, you had to c@#$% in a paper sleeve then drop it down this chut to a compost tank,I said never mind.

 

It really is a bummer that many are close-minded as far as compromise, there will probably always be extremists in both the off-road groups and the environmentalists. Although I understand part of the problem may come from those environmentalists, most of it comes from an ignorant or misinformed general public. I would guess that some of the closures come from unfounded complaints by the same morons that start neighborhood groups to keep folks from parking their trucks in their own driveway because they deem it an eyesore. But I digress. It's a bummer that off-roaders have to work hard to keep access to areas, but the situation at Reiter shows that communicating with and educating the public and the officials overseeing the area does work.

Crackerjack, I read your posts twice and still don't really know what you were saying.

 

did anyone catch that? so we shouldn't really boycott burts bees should we?

 

In the English language there are these things called vowels. Would you like to buy one? Or two?

Anyway, about the topic at hand. It does suck that places are closing down left and right... yet, like others have said... it's mostly due to the small group of people that don't "Tread Lightly". It sucks, I know. Environmental care should be number one, not "the average joe wanting to blow off some steam on a muddy trail". Everyone just stick to the trail and it will be fine.

 

The lady is doing things the right way. It sucks for us, but she isn't closing any public land, just closing private land. But, it's hers to do with as she pleases.

That being said, if she is still making money in any way from that company, i'm happy to boycott.

MNBOY, you are someone i have a great deal of respect for. I sit firmly on Rob's side of this issue, but i think it takes a lot of guts to straddle the fence and stick your neck out here for the enviromental lobby. I like reading your posts, and hope you continue in these discussions. Its good insight, and you've got a really good perspective.

 

I DEFINITELY agree with educating everybody better on both sides. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

 

I think there are probably others on this board that feel similarly, and I think I'm lucky because I'm not really on either side. I actually agree with a lot of what Rob posts on the web, but have heard and seen things in dealing with him face to face that make me think our views are not very similar.
I have been wheeling for almost 25 years now, and riding and racing motocross before that. I was a climbing and mountaineering guide and during that time taught environmental education. I have also worked for several state and federal organizations as a biologist. All that gives me insight into several views of this issue. My bottom line is I enjoy getting out into wild areas and enjoying the escape from "civilization". I get there through a variety of methods, one of which is my Toyota. I completely agree with Rob that it would be a shame if the government took away my ability to access these areas with my truck, especially now that I'm getting old and lazy. What scares me even more is that the government can and will take away these areas completely, through clear cutting, mining, and "development". I want areas of prisitine wilderness, and I want wild areas that are motorized vehicle accessible, and I think there can be both that happily coexist. I am hoping for compromise but people continue to look at this as a them vs. us, and only see it in absolutes, where a choice will have to be made. If it comes down to choosing between limiting motorized access or driving my truck through a wasteland, I'll walk thank you.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that there must be a compromise.

I actually welcome compromise, as a person who enjoys hiking and biking as well as wheeling.

However, i feel that it is important to push a strong opinion forward. I feel that if politically active 4wheel enthusiasts put forth a "give and take" attitude, we get left with a lot more give and not much take. The envrionmental lobby is strong. And they have folks that are uncompromising as well. If we push our land use priorities strongly, and they push their's, we'll end up in the middle somewhere. If we don't push, there will not be as many places for us to wheel.

I'm not sure that all made sense, its a complicated issue, and a tough thing to get out in a small web posting.

 

BINGO!

It's critical that we present out case in no uncertain terms. They are clear what they want, we need to present a united front and be clear about what we want.

Right now, when it's off roaders v tree huggers, the tree huggers win court cases and public opinion. We need to get to the point where they don't automatically win. THEN we can discuss terms.

Case in point. Normally I would consider the Wall Street Journal to be for the most part neutral about land use. However, they plainly felt that there would be minimal repercussions from printing that article. Show me a similar, high profile / high visibility publication that has carried a STRONGLY pro off road article in a prominent location...