Self-Policing?

If you've been paying attention to the debate on Douglas's proposed ATV rules, which Douglas has now promulgated even over the unanimous objection of the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules, you know that one of the big arguments is how bad it will really be if ATV trails are allowed on public lands. Will the new rules open the doors to hooliganism and generally destructive behavior, as environmentalists argue, or will the ATV riders effectively police themselves, as the trails' supporters claim?

The experience on snowmobile trails is instructive. 

The Burlington Free Press reports that so far this winter there have been three fatal snowmobile crashes in Vermont, with alcohol involved in one of the crashes.

The advocacy group for snowmobilers is the Vermont Association of Snow Travelers.  VAST pays $170,000 to Vermont law enforcement for patrols on and near snowmobile trails. The money is divided among state police, county sheriffs’ departments, and Vermont Fish and Wildlife officers. Police conduct patrols on snowmobile trails, much like police look out for drunken drivers on Vermont highways, said Sgt. J.R. Underhill, the recreational enforcement coordinator for the Vermont State Police.

So what can we take from this? Even spending $170,000 a year, the Vermont authorities can't keep snowmobilers from driving like maniacs and killing themselves in the woods.

We also know that ATV riders are already violating accepted standards of behavior. In a report in the Burlington Free Prss, the reporter and her local guide came upon unauthorized trail use:

 A number of signs warned that the trail is off-limits to all but paying members of an umbrella group, the Vermont All-Terrain Vehicle Sportsman’s Association, or VASA. On the other hand, a dozen yards from the legal trail, ATVs had begun to carve a second, unauthorized trail away from the trailhead. Tracks showed in the flattened grass, and a deep mud hole was forming at a low spot.

“That isn’t supposed to be there,” Carlin said, blaming it on “a group of guys who want to go up that way.” He said the club had made a barrier of brush across the informal trail, but it had been removed.
“We have a trail patrol that logs hundreds and hundreds of hours,” he said. The patrols watch for improper use, keep the trails clear and safe, and educate nonmembers about the benefits of joining, he said.

What are the odds they will do any better when the trails are on public lands?

 

8 thoughts on “Self-Policing?

  1. I am amazed at the “small government” “self-policing” mantra continually espoused by right-wingers like Douglas.  Haven’t we learned it just doesn’t work?  The recent behavior in the financial markets, once again, proves this unequivocally.  And Jack, the death count went up, tragically, again this past weekend with 3 generations of the same family dying on Lake Dunmore: http://www.burlingtonfreepress

    In my own backyard I’ve watched as a VAST trail has widened drastically in five years.  What was once the width of a walking trail is now literally a rut-filled road.  In the summer, this unzoned and unmaintained road erodes and dumps soil runoff into a creek that feeds directly into a brook feeding the Winooski River.  Not necessarily malicious, but obviously not good…

  2. when the world is desperately struggling to reduce emissions is so completely tone-deaf that it boggles the mind!  But considering the Douglas administrations performance with regard to Clean and Clear, it’s par for the course.

  3. i love the ‘vast’ acronym. when said aloud i chuckle. blah blah blah ‘snow travelers’ – as if there is a dedicated and pious group of folks out there nobly traveling from village to village in the frozen, dark and cold wasteland of winter, bringing medicine and food the the children and elderly of our dear state…

    traveling. sure.

    humans – we went to the moon and one of the first thing we did was figure out how to drive all over it.  

  4. There is a huge gap between Vermont’s statewide snowmobilers’ group those from any other state … as a matter of fact the difference is vast!

  5. until you take into account that it is shared between three different agencies and must cover all the mishaps and misdeeds possible in a membership of 35,000 individuals statewide.  That’s roughly $4.50 per member.  Has anyone done a cost analysis tracking statewide expenditures related to VAST’s activities?

Comments are closed.