Combined Use good or bad?

[woody]

I'm wondering if there is any interest in wheeling on public land that are otherwise being used by other concerns. Example being on Road 21 in CO, the trail comes up out of the canyon onto a mesa, where there are gas wells, tanks etc... There was some evidence of this in Moab as well, an exposed 3" gas pipe. To me it wasn't a detractor in the least bit... Out west this may be the norm?

Does the presence of mineral/gas/oil/timber/farming etc... activity totally spoil an outing for you? (considering the alternative of being locked out completely) Do you think there ought to be multiple use consideration when the US Govt awards leases to Corp's?

Irresponsible use (potential for lawsuit) and/or vandalism (potential for lost profit) by recreationalists will be the first point of contention (by the Big Biz) which is easily foiled by pointing out the historical track record of Big Biz when it comes to enviromental responsibility. I'd be curious to hear from 'industry' as to their feelings on shared use of leased land. Especially if the use was by organized and insured groups.

 

[JKTXJ]

Fact of the matter is, we live in a society where shared use is a necessity. We use wood for our houses, metal for our cars, electricity and natural gas for heating, etc. Who lives in a manner where they are not part of the degradation of the natural environment? Very few people! With that said, I think that there has to be a balance when it comes to public lands. Do I want to see roads and oil rigs at every one of my favorite wilderness lakes?? No way. Do I accept it as a fact of life that they will be in many places? You bet I do. I use gas, I use wood, I use power. And I like the roads they use to get to those remote places But everything has to have a limit. In addition to being a backpacker who enjoys a great wilderness lake that I have to hike to, I also enjoy a great 4x4 trip too. I want 4x4 trails, I want mountain bike singletracks, and I even want my undisturbed wilderness too. It can all be done if people would respect that we all live on this planet and all have a right to enjoy it. It doesn't all need to wilderness, and it doesn't all need to be dirt roads and logging operations either. Moab is a great example. There are wonderful hiking opportunities where you can escape the trails, yet there are endless bike and 4x4 trails too. It is a wonderland for me. And in my mind, the current Moab problem doesn't come from shared use, it comes for irresponsible use. Every time I am there I see numerous tracks off trail through sensitive areas. And often times they are not 4x4 tracks, they are moutain bike tracks or motorcycle/quad tracks. But, I see my fair share of off trail 4x4 destruction too. This kills the sport and gives greenies tons of ammo to shut stuff down. I would much rather see a gas well on my journey than tire tracks going in 10 directions up a steep hillside. The few irresponsible peoples actions just makes the fight to keep public land open that much tougher.

Kind of a long answer I suppose. What I meant to say was, a gas rig or oil rig, pipeline maintenance road, etc.. they are all good and don't ruin my trip. Garbage on the side of the trail and tire tracks through a pristine meadow, that does.

 

[poomba]

JKTXJ pretty well sums up my outlook on things, as well. I do find it ironic that there are some who would ban vehicles..what about banning hikers, cuz, I'm afraid one of them thar backpacks might get caught in a Ujoint? "Honey, what's a speed bump doing way out here?" Dunno dear, but its got a Lands End logo on it...

 

[Lupine]

Is combined use good or bad? Woody, that's one hell of an interesting question, but it may be irrelevant. Combined use, particularly on public land, is here to stay. Personally, I strongly resent any attempts to prevent people from accessing public land. However, I've found that corporations are not necessarily interested in preventing people from accessing land they have projects on, it is true that they (unfairly) receive the litigious blame when someone hurts himself recreating on land or streams that the corporation has access to.
What's very interesting is that most state and federal government agencies are required to provide for recreational uses of public land.

 

[woody]

Maybe I wasn't clear, and remember this is an east-coaster's perspective...

I grew up in suburban Boston (now called 'metrowest' LOL) where any opportunity to get off road was a tresspassing event. Most times folks went unmolested, others faced $100 TWMV tickets or some worse if they ran & didn't get away.

Around here, most public land is locked up against 'combined use'...if a timber co has a lease, that's it...maybe it's also designated 'game land' for hunters and/or fishers, but no OHV access. OHV is generally contained to smallish tracts with well-delineated trails (and $5 per vehicle/day use fee collected at established pay-points)

I can see where a corporation may be interested in restricting access to prevent their liability or exposure to mischief... but what I was getting at was is seeing if "responsible" off-highway land users object to wheeling (or otherwise recreating) nearby industrial activities. In many cases I can see it being a win-win for all parties.

If I went primitive camping/hiking/canoing etc...getting away from most traces of humanity would be paramount to the experience, but just to go wheeling, I wouldn't care if the trail passed through or adjacent to a logging cutover, mineral quarry, gas wells, etc...

 

[Lupine]

Woody,

How the heck can "public land" be locked up against combined use?

 

[woody]

Woody,

How the heck can "public land" be locked up against combined use?

by the direction of the USFS supervisor and (rarely) benevolence the lease holders is how. OHV use out here is contained and folks are corraled into 'for fee' areas on USFS controlled lands or they recreate on private property.

Tresspass opportunities abound, no doubt, but that isn't productive, nor in the scope of this discussion.

You west coast folks are blessed with lots of 'open unless posted closed' opportunities. Out east, it's closed (by locked gate) unless marked open.

 

[XJEEPER]

by the direction of the USFS supervisor and (rarely) benevolence the lease holders is how. OHV use out here is contained and folks are corraled into 'for fee' areas on USFS controlled lands or they recreate on private property.

Tresspass opportunities abound, no doubt, but that isn't productive, nor in the scope of this discussion.

You west coast folks are blessed with lots of 'open unless posted closed' opportunities. Out east, it's closed (by locked gate) unless marked open.

Woody...all the more reason to move West and help us fight the WAGS that think all the public, multi-use land should be thiers for hiking only.......