It comes as little surprise that the rollback effected early in the Shumlin administration, of ATV access to public lands as was granted in the closing days of the Douglas administration, is now, once again, open to negotiation.  

In fact, I would have been very surprised had the current administration not responded to heavy lobbying from VASA’s (Vermont All Terrain Vehicle Sportsman’s Assoc. Inc.) active membership.  When it comes to land-use regulation, the governor has been nothing if not consistent in repeatedly disappointing the environmental community.  If it weren’t for his stand on Vermont Yankee, he would have little to recommend him to that constituency.

At first blush, it would seem to be only a modest adjustment of the rules, allowing exceptions to prohibitions against ATV use on protected public lands at the discretion of the Fish & Wildlife Commissioner.  One well might assume that the Commissioner would  exercise the utmost caution on behalf of…fish and wildlife, and so be unlikely to grant any dispensation from the rules.

After all, ANR Secretary Deb Markowitz has already granted one exception since the Douglas rule was revoked, permitting a 500-yd. “connector” near Island Pond; and we are assured by the current Fish & Wildlife Commissioner, Patrick Berry that

“It’s a very high bar” that an ATV proposal would have to clear in order to be permitted,

He says that the rule change would “codify” policies and make them more enforceable. This is certainly a compelling argument.  It has long been a sore point for the entire Agency of Natural Resources that so little seemed to be done to enforce its rules or apply penalties when they are broken.

But it is one particular aspect of the proposed rule change that concerns me most.  The current language apparently does not allow for any public input to the Commissioner’s decision-making process with regard to additional exceptions that might be considered down the road.

As drafted, the rule does not require any public notice or comment before such a decision is made.

“I have talked to officials at the Agency of Natural Resources and it seems there is a disconnect between their intention and the actual language in the proposed rule,” said Anthony Iarrapino, an attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation.

Though we are assured that the administration will not use the proposed rule change in order to permit two additional trail connections (one on the Les Newell Wildlife Management Area in Stockbridge and one at Buck Lake Conservation Camp in Woodbury) which are currently being sought by VASA, there would be little to prevent any “exception” from being adopted arbitrarily, without the benefit of public debate.

Both the Conservation Law Foundation and the Vermont Natural Resource Council are keeping a close eye on developments around the proposed rule change, and it behooves us to do the same.