Update:The Squeaky Wheel?

Public comments will be accepted until Tuesday, May 3.  Comments may be submitted by email to atvrule@state.vt.us

Last night’s public hearing over ATV use on public lands demonstrated VASA’s ability to pack a room, but provided no valid reasons why that use should be permitted.

Rather like the arguments in Congress that say we shouldn’t “raise” taxes on the rich even though it is only proposed to sunset temporary tax CUTS,  arguments offered by the ATV crowd are heavily dependent on the illusion that ATV users now have a “right” to traverse public lands. This, despite the fact that their access lasted just a single season and was awarded by a departing governor against the recommendations of a legislative committee and public comments that came in at a rate of three-to-one against.

The refrain of the riders is always the same, ” We will ride responsibly; and, If you take away our right to use the trails legally, don’t blame us for what goes on illegally!”  Apart from the hint of blackmail, this assertion completely ignores the established fact that even while riding “responsibly” on the trails, ATV traffic is inflicting harm on the wild environment.

And what about that right to access?  Is it purely a question of fairness, as one rider insists:

“It’s a question of fairness. People who own and ride ATVs are Vermonters just as much as anybody,” Ed Gallo of Richmond said. “There’s no question there are outlaw riders, there always will be, but 99 percent of the people want to ride legal.”

Even if we accept the legitimacy of  VASA’s petition that supposedly has 4,000 signatures, that leaves 617,000 Vermonters who may have a different idea of what constitutes fair access.  Judging from public comments the Legislature received against Gov. Douglas’ rule change, the majority of Vermonters believe it is unfair to make them suffer the exhaust and noise of ATV’s on public lands, when that is just about the only place where one can avoid motorized vehicles if one wishes to do so.  

As Liam McSweeney, a Montpelier high school senior put it

“you want to get away from the smells and sounds that ATVs create. Every generation, a little more wilderness disappears.”

If we were to take the “fairness” arguments from VASA at face value, we might as well permit bicycles on I-89 because undoubtedly there are bike riders who think it is unfair to be barred from use of that public route just because one doesn’t own a car.

It’s time to make your voice heard loud and clear by your legislators.  Tell them that the environmental evidence is overwhelming; and common sense about the purpose of public wilderness only makes the argument against ATV access more compelling.

There simply is no such thing as “responsible” ATV use on these public lands.

About Sue Prent

Artist/Writer/Activist living in St. Albans, Vermont with my husband since 1983. I was born in Chicago; moved to Montreal in 1969; lived there and in Berlin, W. Germany until we finally settled in St. Albans.

2 thoughts on “Update:The Squeaky Wheel?

  1. Member if VAFT (Vermont association of flame throwers) I demand fair and equal access too. To burn it all down. Just because some of you like the ‘green’ mountains, some of us really appreciate scorched earth. 99% of flame throwing members are responsible and only burn down on private lands, and if we don’t get fair access to public lands you never know what that 1% might do. There are always some that take matters into their own hands.

    And, as a cyclist, I demand access to the interstate. Do you know how hard it is to get from one end of the state to the other on state and town roads? Especially when pulling my trailer full of burning gear.  

  2. He has a point. In some parts of the state, the shoulder on the secondary roads is so narrow that cars zip past within inches of your left elbow at 60 mph (which seems to be a typical rate on some of those 50 mph roads). In those areas, you’re probably safer on the highway. However, it would be better to do bike lane planning for the state, widening some roads as needed over time, as part of the maintenance plan for those roads.

    As to ATV use on public lands: those lands were made public for the purpose of preservation. That’s the primary intended “use” of those lands. Use by humans for quiet enjoyment is secondary to preservation. ATV use is antithetical to the purpose of land preservation, and thus should not be allowed. As a mountain biker, I’m also strongly in favor of disallowing mountain bikes from areas that could be damaged by mountain bike use.

    It’s important not to lose sight of the primary objective of setting the land aside.

Comments are closed.