[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST SUBMISSIONS

'Access' has become excess

Wednesday, October 31 at 6:00 AM

This Speakout has not been edited.

By David A. Lien

The NRA (Not Really an Ally), it seems, is up to its old tricks again, playing the bogus “access” card to cover its tracks with hunters, who it no longer represents due to its strident support of anti-wildlands, habitat-desecrating politicians and positions. The most recent example of this is the NRA’s opposition to protecting a part of the Browns Canyon area in Chaffee County as wilderness.

Colorado Backcountry Hunter and Angler, and Army JROTC instructor, Paul Vertrees calls it like it is: “On my morning break…I picked up my copy of the October 2007 issue of American Rifleman. The NRA is still operating under the guise of “protecting hunting and hunters.” The latest dose of misinformation and outright falsities comes from none other than the NRA President, John Sigler. In his article this month he states that closing the Turret Road in the proposed Brown’s Canyon Wilderness would make it off-limits to “elderly hunters, disabled hunters just back from Iraq and ordinary hunters like you and me, who can’t afford to spend days hiking into the place just for one day of hunting. So we fought the rule and won.” [1]

“Sigler is so far off-base, it amazes (and angers) me. First, I frequent the proposed area, and I can tell you, I’ve never seen any elderly, infirmed hunters, or anyone even remotely resembling a disabled (enough so to earn the right to use an ATV) veteran. Matter of fact, the ONLY folks I’ve seen over there are twenty-to-forty something men, who are affluent enough to afford a 7 or 8 thousand dollar machine, in addition to the trailer to haul it and the pickup to tow the trailer. Sure doesn’t sound like “ordinary hunters like you and me”, does it? I really resent the NRA using elderly hunters and Iraq war veterans to prop up their position. As a veteran, I find that insulting. As for spending “days hiking into the place “ ... Sigler has never even set foot inside Brown’s ... guaranteed. You can hike ACROSS Brown’s in a good day.”[2]

Infinitely more hunters are effectively denied access to public lands by being driving out by the motorized hordes than the tiny number of old and disabled who hunt, and even the majority of these good folks support the protection and preservation of roadless backcountry habitat. A 1992 report required by The Americans With Disabilities Act shed some light on the issue of wilderness access by outdoorsmen and women with disabilities. The highlights of the report are as follows: People with disabilities appear to visit the wilderness for the same reasons people without disabilities do.

A total of 76 percent of person with disabilities surveyed do not believe that the restrictions on mechanized use in the Wilderness Act diminish their ability to enjoy wilderness.[3] Clearly, older and disabled Americans, like the rest of us, understand that when crowds of motorized users spook and chase away wildlife, tear up the landscape, muddy streams and drown out nature’s voice with far-reaching engine noise, those of us who work hard to gain access to these very values—undisturbed wildlife, natural surroundings, and the ability to hear through the quietness the distant song of a bull elk—are effectively forced out. Our access has been denied.[4] Excessive motorized use destroys habitat security, degrading the opportunities and experience of hunters and anglers and other outdoors enthusiasts.

Besides, any game warden will tell you that 9 out of 10 folks on ORVs are young men in their 30s, healthy and fully capable of walking. They make a conscious choice to use ATVs—cutting corners and doing things the easy way.[5] According to recent studies, only about 6 percent of national forest visits involve the recreational use of off-road vehicles. However, this small percentage of users has an incredibly destructive impact on the landscape and the quality of recreation for other public lands users.[6] Dan Heinz, a former district ranger for the U.S. Forest Service, noted that visitors say by a 10-to-1 margin that they visit the forests for quiet.[7]

Yes, we all use vehicles to visit our favorite spots to hike, camp, hunt, fish, or just relax, but 90-plus percent or more of us do our actual exploring on foot. What about our rights? In a nutshell, OHVs are carving up our public lands like a cadaver, and it has to stop. This form of recreation may be fun to some, but it is inappropriate to allow a small special interest group to destroy public lands, to rut and tear them up, to the detriment of the greater population and the resource.

Like Paul Vetrees, I’m a veteran, and like Paul, I find the NRA’s use of elderly hunters and Iraq veterans to support its position of supporting the ruin of wildlands and wildlife despicable. I hope you do too.

David A. Lien is the co-chair of Colorado Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (coloradobackcountryhunters.org). He is a resident of Colorado Springs.

[1]Paul Vertrees. forums.kifaru.net: 9/18/07
[2]Paul Vertrees. forums.kifaru.net: 9/18/07
[3]The Wilderness Society (TWS). The Wilderness Act Handbook. Washington, D.C.: TWS, 2004, p.63
[4]David Petersen. “Studies confirm that ATVs and elk don’t mix.” The Durango Herald: 3/16/07
[5]Mike Beagle, BHA Chairman. “Deterrents Can Help Curb Public Lands Abuse.” Backcountry Journal: Summer 2007, p.2
[6]Wildlands CPR. “Six Strategies for Success: Effective Enforcement of Off-Road Vehicle Use on Public Lands.” 2007.
[7]Judy Fahys. “OHV abuse of public lands at crisis stage.” The Salt Lake Tribune: 6/29/07

READER COMMENTS