The myth of multi-use land

by: Eric B.

Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 13:58:10 PM EDT

Back in the 90s, the popular buzz-concept regarding public spaces was that a parcel of property ought to be managed for multiple uses at the same time. In our national forests, it was that you could have logging (ever wonder why our national forest system is managed under the USDA rather than the Department of the Interior?), wildlife habitat management, and recreation. In our recreation areas, it was that you could have hiking, wildlife habitat management, camping and mechanized recreation (ATVs, motorcycles, etc...). The idea was that you could make room everywhere for everyone. That way, the idea of putting land off limits to development wasn't so unpalatable to people who frequently give lots of political campaign money (i.e. property developers). It was also an acknowledgement that motorized recreation, which is both noisy and destructive to wildlife habitat, also often went hand-in-hand with moneyed interests. People who hike tend to stay in tents, or in public campground spots; while people who drove motorbikes and ATVs tend to require greater infrastructure -- places to park trailers, gasoline, showers, etc... -- which means more money for local hotels and restaurants and gas stations and what have you.

Looks nice on paper. In reality, mechanized recreation and everything else is just simply mostly incompatible. If there is someone hiking, someone fishing and someone tooling around a piece of property on an off-road bike, the odds are very high that the only person enjoying himself in the way he or she wants is the person on the bike. Everyone else, especially those persons who seek tranquility and peace in our wild places, has to endure the other person (and probably hope they go home soon). In other words, multi-use land looks good on paper, but in the real world invariably it is the person who is being the loudest and most disruptive to his local surroundings who derives the most enjoyment of his time there.

It's a truth worth keeping in  mind when reading about Tom Casperson's terrible idea to force motorized recreation into land conservancy preserves.

A state senator who introduced Michigan’s controversial land cap law now wants nonprofit land conservancies to pay property taxes — unless they provide unlimited public access and allow motorized vehicles in privately owned nature preserves.

Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, said he has drafted legislation that could ensure public access to tens of thousands of acres of private natural areas owned by groups like The Nature Conservancy.

The first problem is that nature preserves are a willing agreement, entered into by property owners. And, if our local conservancy operates like the rest, it has to come up with cash to make this happen. So, the land that's locked up and placed off limits isn't done so capriously. It's done after the area is studied for ecological value and after the conservancy raises money from donors to make the deal happen. In other words, Casperson says he wants local communities to get something for the lost tax revenue, but it's often the local communities in the form of private donations that makes a preserve happen in the first place.

But, it's really the infringement of motorized recreation into these places that is so obnoxious. ATVs and dirt bikes aren't just loud, they're also destructive to the places where they're driven. They cause erosion, in some cases damage unique natural relationships that sometimes take years to repair (cryptobiotic soil out West is a perfect example of this, and wreck nesting areas and spawning beds because the operators either have no idea what to look to avoid, don't bother doing it because they're traveling to fast to exercise proper caution, or just simply don't give a shit. The money issues aside, motorized recreation -- for which there are already plenty of trails -- is fundamentally at odds with the purpose of setting aside a preserve in the first place.

Part of the problem is that actual experience in outdoors settings is a quality that has mostly disappeared from policy making.  Used to be that Legislatures and Congress could count among its members a few people with considerable, genuine outdoors experience. Nowadays, most people consider themselves avid hunters if they sit in a heated blind and wait for a deer to wander up to their bait pile.