I couldn't get the link to work, so I don't know everything the article said.

There's no way that off-roading would have less of an impact that hiking, but the key word there is responsible off-roading. A lot of people who use public lands aren't responsible.

I have a hard time saying we should exclude this group or that group, because they may at some point want to exclude me and my group. I certainly agree that there should at least be areas that are off limits to vehicles, such as the wilderness areas.

It's a difficult question for sure, and I'm not sure what the answer is.

 

Yeah right. Hiking, cross country skiing, bird watching are all more destuctive then off roading. I'll never forget when I took my daughters out in the early spring to see all the wildflowers. Must have left ruts a mile long.

 

normally, i'd disagree too. except this article is from utah. lots of slickrock, therefore no atv tracks.

 

This statement has that wonderful "carved in stone" quality to it. Once she got it in print, it can be stated over and over and over again. Lets face it folks, she's right. The imprint of a single Vibrum sole will bring down entire hillsides, where as RESPONSIBLE off-roading would never do that! How come though that she never mentioned the health benefits of breathing engine exhaust?

 

You can bet that hikers didn't start this erosion. I took the photos on this site.

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/dnrdocuments/HayCreek.html

You'll notice that the author of that Utah opinion piece said she was an ATV rider. After attending many public hearings it is fairly obvious that most riders don't recognize the damage they are doing.