I’ve read comments from motorized users and cyclists regarding the BNF’s travel plan. A theme of denied access and rights taken away is common.
Being locked out or being treated unfairly are common themes. You won’t often hear any references to soils, water quality, impacts to others, displacement of wildlife, laws/standards that govern the lands, or any hints of impacts associated with their recreations. It’s usually all about “rights.”
It would be nice to read comments that incorporate a range of peer reviewed science about impacts or quotes of the laws that govern the lands in question. The science is there and more often than not, points to the impacts associated with their recreations. They’re left falling back to “rights,” being locked out, or just a refusal to look at their possible impacts.
About 3 percent of the lower 48 is Wilderness; a little more being WSA’s or Recommended Wilderness (over 2000 miles of roads on the BNF alone- amazing!). It’s hardly extreme to do all we can to protect the last 3-4%. It’s not just about us, there’s a lot more at stake. As recreationists (myself included) all of us (hikers, climbers, bikers, OHVer’s, …) could exercise a little humility regarding our impacts. A first step would be knowing the rules/forest standards that govern various pieces of federal lands, educating ourselves about the true impacts our recreations have, and then act accordingly. A little ethical self-reflection is in order.
We all enjoy and recreate on public lands; pretending recreation has no impacts is selfish. We can choose to recreate in other areas if needed. Plants and animals depending on those areas for survival can’t relocate. They’re running out of room. How much more should they sacrifice for our weekend warrior recreations?
Gary Milner
Corvallis