By JOHN ARENZ
The article Roads, Rocks, and Debate (Moonshine Ink, Aug. 2015) was fairly balanced, with lots of very divergent viewpoints in the OHV vs. non-OHV world. A couple of comments: The 42 trails lawsuit and subsequent NEPA process and appeals attachment called for the immediate re-opening of 24 trails as mentioned. Of the other 18, nine have been re-opened since (after mitigation work), two more will open before the end of the 2015 season, and the balance will open by 2017. Most were re-opened using a combination of OHV grant dollars to pay for contractors and for U.S. Forest Service time and volunteer labor. I reject the notion that non-OHV recreation is “passive” and OHV recreation is “active.” All use of any land is active by its very nature. To suggest that a hiker’s boots, equestrian’s hooves, or bicyclist’s tires don’t cause impact because they are not connected to a motor is specious and misleading. Does OHV cause “more damage?” Perhaps, though it appears that at least in the case of the Rubicon they do much more mitigation and stewardship as well. I also reject the notion of “quiet recreation.” All recreation causes impact; it is a matter of degree. Non-motorized recreation has the entire acreage of the Eldorado, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, and Tahoe in which to recreate. Motorized recreation is limited to less than 3 percent of these forests. If an individual wants a quiet experience, why would they choose that 3 percent to recreate in and then complain about the sound of a motor ruining their backcountry experience? Part of reducing user conflict has to be reasonableness, education, and good decision making on the part of OHV users and non-OHV recreationists. Decide to recreate in the 97 percent of public lands where it will avoid conflicts — that seems simple and effective to me. Thank you for the article; I hope my comments are thought provoking.
~ John Arenz, Rubicon Trail Foundation vice president
