OHV's & Wilderness On Mt. Hood - An Opinion
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:12 pm
Off-road vehicles, wilderness don't mix on Mount Hood
By Guest Columnist
October 25, 2009, 6:37AM
View full sizeKate McCarthy
By KATE McCARTHY
For most of my 92 years, I've hiked the trails of Mount Hood National Forest. Through the decades, I've witnessed many changes on the mountain -- some driven by nature, others initiated by humans. From my vantage point, here on my family's property between Hood River and the mountain, the growing pressure that off-road vehicles are putting on Mount Hood reinforces the need for strong protection.
The natural beauty of Mount Hood is part of my personal history, and a desire to preserve it for future generations is why I proudly supported the wilderness legislation enacted last year. Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Earl Blumenauer worked hard to make that happen, but now the mountain is facing another challenge that could compromise that hard work.
A draft management plan recently released by the Forest Service could allow off-road vehicles right next to these wilderness areas. Although I understand that people who ride these vehicles have a right to enjoy the forest just like everyone else, I think they belong in some places but not in others -- especially not near wilderness and game habitat.
The Forest Service should be commended for recognizing that impacts from unmanaged off-highway vehicles represents one of the key threats facing the nation's forests.
The agency has taken positive steps to alert off-road vehicle users to where they are off-limits and has tried to balance motorized use in the forest with those who prefer quiet hikes and trail rides.
My hope is that the Forest Service will keep that in mind as it determines which plan to move forward, and that it will choose to keep strong protections around wilderness areas, wildlife habitat and popular hiking and horse trails.
For example, 40 miles of new off-road vehicle routes have been proposed at Bear Creek -- a beautiful area on the north side overlooking Mount Hood. These routes would be adjacent to the Mount Hood Wilderness Area, a quiet sanctuary where families such as mine have been hiking since the 1930s.
Bear Creek is important summer habitat for deer and elk, and sound carries far and wide in these parts. The noise of motorized vehicles will disturb wildlife and the peaceful outdoor experience that people from all over the country come to enjoy.
Gibson Prairie, east of the Hood River Valley, also is being considered for off-road vehicle routes. One of the few remaining horse camp sites in the area, Gibson Prairie is heavily used by trail riders, and there is an obvious tension between horses and off-road vehicles. Why set up a conflict?
The list goes on -- one proposed route bisects the Salmon Huckleberry and Roaring River Wilderness, and another is adjacent to the Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness. These places have long been quiet retreats from the hustle-bustle of city life. The intent behind designated wilderness is to keep these unspoiled, natural places in their pristine state.
Allowing off-road vehicles to encroach on these areas doesn't serve that intent, nor are motorized vehicles compatible with the outdoor experience most people seek when they come to Mount Hood National Forest.
Mount Hood National Forest is just 20 miles east of Portland, and more than 4 million people visit it every year. It is one of the most heavily used national forests in the country, and in terms of people enjoying nature, that's a very good thing. The downside is the wear and tear on the mountain -- something that off-road vehicles contribute to more severely than any other form of recreation.
The Forest Service should carefully consider the appropriate sites for off-road vehicles and protect the special places -- including wilderness -- in the Mount Hood National Forest.
By choosing to advance Alternative No. 4, the Forest Service can make sure these places will continue to provide clean water and offer opportunities for traditional, quiet recreation while safeguarding wildlife habitat from damage.
The people who ride off-road vehicles should have access to the forest, but it should be separate from the places the majority of visitors use to escape noise and pollution.
Otherwise, the peaceful forests of Mount Hood that I grew up with could slowly disappear.
Kate McCarthy lives in Mount Hood.
Comments (9 total) RSSPost a commentOldest comments are shown first. Show newest comments first
Posted by windyhill
October 25, 2009, 6:59AM
We have a ranch here in unity in the monument rock wilderness area there are only about 5 ranches and use atvs as a working tool. The forest service has moved out and is closing many roads. We also take trips out on the roads just to get out and explore but it is different when you live here and respect the land
Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by gnuut
October 25, 2009, 8:06AM
"The people who ride off-road vehicles should have access to the forest..."
I don't see that assumption as a given. Tell them to get off their butts and use the forest as a cathedral, not an amusement park with thrill-rides.
Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by will1955
October 25, 2009, 8:17AM
I would argue that the use of ATVs for recreational purposes has nothing to do with an appreciation of nature and enjoyment of its serenity and grandeur. Instead it is about excitement and adrenaline. There certainly are appropriate sites for this, but not in Mt Hood.
Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by rwl1776
October 25, 2009, 12:29PM
"The agency has taken positive steps to alert off-road vehicle users to where they are off-limits and has tried to balance motorized use in the forest with those who prefer quiet hikes and trail rides."
Don't expect to get any support from the mountainbike community, not after Mr. Blumenauer and his latest Wilderness Designation in Mt Hood CLOSED 110 miles of trails to bicycles, trails that mountainbikers rode and maintained for over 2 decades. We lost access to 57% of the trails we had legal access too, thanks to our elected officials.
You know who we are NOT voting for, the supposed 'Bicycle Friendly' Congressman Earl Blumenauer.
Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by g1k1f1
October 25, 2009, 7:43PM
ATV's get about 80 miles per gallon.
/hmmmm
Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by stumpspeech
October 25, 2009, 9:44PM
And horses and hikers get nearly unlimited miles per gallon of gasoline. So what?
Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by felidajoe
October 25, 2009, 11:12PM
Forests are only "cathedrals" to loopy liberals that worship trees. Trees themselves are nothing more than giant weeds.
Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by cubilist
October 26, 2009, 11:12AM
"A grove of giant redwoods or sequoias should be kept
just as we keep a great or beautiful cathedral." - Theodore Roosevelt
Oh those "loopy Liberals."
Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by GeezerGeorge
October 26, 2009, 7:15AM
Thanks to Kate McCarthy for this essay on the impacts of ORVs. Considering that fewer than 1 percent of visitors to the Mt. Hood National Forest use them at all, it's reasonable to limit ORVs to three small areas, as in Alternative 4. When I first fished and hiked in the national forest in the 1950s and 60s, I never saw or heard a single ORV. They should never have been allowed to take over so much of the land.
By Guest Columnist
October 25, 2009, 6:37AM
View full sizeKate McCarthy
By KATE McCARTHY
For most of my 92 years, I've hiked the trails of Mount Hood National Forest. Through the decades, I've witnessed many changes on the mountain -- some driven by nature, others initiated by humans. From my vantage point, here on my family's property between Hood River and the mountain, the growing pressure that off-road vehicles are putting on Mount Hood reinforces the need for strong protection.
The natural beauty of Mount Hood is part of my personal history, and a desire to preserve it for future generations is why I proudly supported the wilderness legislation enacted last year. Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Earl Blumenauer worked hard to make that happen, but now the mountain is facing another challenge that could compromise that hard work.
A draft management plan recently released by the Forest Service could allow off-road vehicles right next to these wilderness areas. Although I understand that people who ride these vehicles have a right to enjoy the forest just like everyone else, I think they belong in some places but not in others -- especially not near wilderness and game habitat.
The Forest Service should be commended for recognizing that impacts from unmanaged off-highway vehicles represents one of the key threats facing the nation's forests.
The agency has taken positive steps to alert off-road vehicle users to where they are off-limits and has tried to balance motorized use in the forest with those who prefer quiet hikes and trail rides.
My hope is that the Forest Service will keep that in mind as it determines which plan to move forward, and that it will choose to keep strong protections around wilderness areas, wildlife habitat and popular hiking and horse trails.
For example, 40 miles of new off-road vehicle routes have been proposed at Bear Creek -- a beautiful area on the north side overlooking Mount Hood. These routes would be adjacent to the Mount Hood Wilderness Area, a quiet sanctuary where families such as mine have been hiking since the 1930s.
Bear Creek is important summer habitat for deer and elk, and sound carries far and wide in these parts. The noise of motorized vehicles will disturb wildlife and the peaceful outdoor experience that people from all over the country come to enjoy.
Gibson Prairie, east of the Hood River Valley, also is being considered for off-road vehicle routes. One of the few remaining horse camp sites in the area, Gibson Prairie is heavily used by trail riders, and there is an obvious tension between horses and off-road vehicles. Why set up a conflict?
The list goes on -- one proposed route bisects the Salmon Huckleberry and Roaring River Wilderness, and another is adjacent to the Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness. These places have long been quiet retreats from the hustle-bustle of city life. The intent behind designated wilderness is to keep these unspoiled, natural places in their pristine state.
Allowing off-road vehicles to encroach on these areas doesn't serve that intent, nor are motorized vehicles compatible with the outdoor experience most people seek when they come to Mount Hood National Forest.
Mount Hood National Forest is just 20 miles east of Portland, and more than 4 million people visit it every year. It is one of the most heavily used national forests in the country, and in terms of people enjoying nature, that's a very good thing. The downside is the wear and tear on the mountain -- something that off-road vehicles contribute to more severely than any other form of recreation.
The Forest Service should carefully consider the appropriate sites for off-road vehicles and protect the special places -- including wilderness -- in the Mount Hood National Forest.
By choosing to advance Alternative No. 4, the Forest Service can make sure these places will continue to provide clean water and offer opportunities for traditional, quiet recreation while safeguarding wildlife habitat from damage.
The people who ride off-road vehicles should have access to the forest, but it should be separate from the places the majority of visitors use to escape noise and pollution.
Otherwise, the peaceful forests of Mount Hood that I grew up with could slowly disappear.
Kate McCarthy lives in Mount Hood.
Comments (9 total) RSSPost a commentOldest comments are shown first. Show newest comments first
Posted by windyhill
October 25, 2009, 6:59AM
We have a ranch here in unity in the monument rock wilderness area there are only about 5 ranches and use atvs as a working tool. The forest service has moved out and is closing many roads. We also take trips out on the roads just to get out and explore but it is different when you live here and respect the land
Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by gnuut
October 25, 2009, 8:06AM
"The people who ride off-road vehicles should have access to the forest..."
I don't see that assumption as a given. Tell them to get off their butts and use the forest as a cathedral, not an amusement park with thrill-rides.
Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by will1955
October 25, 2009, 8:17AM
I would argue that the use of ATVs for recreational purposes has nothing to do with an appreciation of nature and enjoyment of its serenity and grandeur. Instead it is about excitement and adrenaline. There certainly are appropriate sites for this, but not in Mt Hood.
Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by rwl1776
October 25, 2009, 12:29PM
"The agency has taken positive steps to alert off-road vehicle users to where they are off-limits and has tried to balance motorized use in the forest with those who prefer quiet hikes and trail rides."
Don't expect to get any support from the mountainbike community, not after Mr. Blumenauer and his latest Wilderness Designation in Mt Hood CLOSED 110 miles of trails to bicycles, trails that mountainbikers rode and maintained for over 2 decades. We lost access to 57% of the trails we had legal access too, thanks to our elected officials.
You know who we are NOT voting for, the supposed 'Bicycle Friendly' Congressman Earl Blumenauer.
Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by g1k1f1
October 25, 2009, 7:43PM
ATV's get about 80 miles per gallon.
/hmmmm
Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by stumpspeech
October 25, 2009, 9:44PM
And horses and hikers get nearly unlimited miles per gallon of gasoline. So what?
Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by felidajoe
October 25, 2009, 11:12PM
Forests are only "cathedrals" to loopy liberals that worship trees. Trees themselves are nothing more than giant weeds.
Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by cubilist
October 26, 2009, 11:12AM
"A grove of giant redwoods or sequoias should be kept
just as we keep a great or beautiful cathedral." - Theodore Roosevelt
Oh those "loopy Liberals."
Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by GeezerGeorge
October 26, 2009, 7:15AM
Thanks to Kate McCarthy for this essay on the impacts of ORVs. Considering that fewer than 1 percent of visitors to the Mt. Hood National Forest use them at all, it's reasonable to limit ORVs to three small areas, as in Alternative 4. When I first fished and hiked in the national forest in the 1950s and 60s, I never saw or heard a single ORV. They should never have been allowed to take over so much of the land.
