(note from JD: I fixed the link to the CLF's ATV page)
Those of you who follow forest recreation issues are well aware of the recent proposal from the ANR to open up some state lands to ATV riders. They sought public input and commentary on the matter, a good thing, right? I thought so too, until I received this email alert from the Conservation Law Foundation, who have been working on trying to prevent the new proposals from being enacted:
After reviewing nearly 2000 comments submitted by Vermonters like you, ANR estimates that those opposed to the ATV rule outnumbered those in favor by a margin of 4:1. Nonetheless, ANR has chosen to move forward with the proposal after making some minor changes, including the addition of a pilot program.
You can read the revised proposal here. Outnumbered 4 to 1 and they went ahead with it anyways.
The Argus had a bit on this new rule a few days ago, and among other things, noted that due to the current economic crisis and budget cuts, the money for enforcement will be hard to come by. Of course, they feel that money from registrations (and hence, more trails) will take care of that.
To add to the outrage, the scientific impact (page 8 of the report) is blank. Apparently, they're going to wait until the pilot program to fill that part in. Good luck getting that genie back in the bottle.
Fortunately, the eight-member Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules will consider ANR’s proposal at a daytime hearing on Tuesday November 3 in the Vermont Statehouse, Montpelier from 10 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. It's open to the public, and one can hope they'll be a bit more receptive. It's important to show up, as supporters tend to be a rather vocal minority. The CLF suggests:
Witnesses should plan on speaking nor more than 3-5 min. and, if opposed to the rule, it's most helpful to focus their remarks on the 3 criteria on which the committee can object to the rule:
1) the rule is not in accordance with legislative intent;
2) the rule is beyond the authority of the agency;
3) the rule is arbitrary.
If you plan to provide handouts, please bring at least 20 copies. Advance copies to LCAR are appreciated. To testify, contact: Katie Pickens, Committee Staff Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (LCAR) 828-5760
Agency of Natural Resources Secretary Jonathan Wood is quoted in the Free Press
A remark that is more than up to the standard logic of Rob Williams Entergy’s Vermont Yankee legendary press flack. See? They aren’t going to open state lands except where they do!
It’s a case that we are going to have a rule whether we like it or not.
Really, just how does a state agency ignore 4:1 opposition?
One thing I find really ironic is VASA’s proposed solution to illegal and damaging ATV’s on both private and public land is to create a trail. That says we are going to have ATV’s on our lands whether we like it or not. Illegal, legal, or both. That’s not acceptable and it doesn’t even make sense. I’ve caught registered VASA-stickered ATV’s riding illegally on my property. They ride illegally up and down the dirt roads in the town. They ride legally when they are on a VASA trail and illegally elsewhere.
Enforcement isn’t going to increase in any significant amount. The claim that more trails means more ATV registrations and hence, more enforcement money and better enforcement is false. It ignores the fact that more registrations means more ATV’s to police. It ignores the fact that more trails means more trails to police. Besides that, it does nothing to help reduce illegal use outside of VASA trail corridors.
The CLF is correct, the proposal was changed enough that it should go to another round of public comment…well, it ought to be canned based on the 4:1 opposition….
I think this is a GOP plan to put pressure on the Democrats to come out in the public and oppose this plan by the ANR people. They know they don’t have the environmental vote anyway, but they do have the ATV riding crowd. Get this crowd fired up and pitted against the environmental crowd. A mini gay marriage dividing line.