ATV bill puts judgement calls in few hands
Some legislators call the recently-approved bill governing the use of ATVs and other off-highway vehicles in the state’s wetlands, particularly peatlands, as a reasonable compromise. Hopefully, it won’t be the environment that ends up compromised.
The new bill lifts a blanket prohibition on the use of off-road vehicles in many of the state’s wetlands. Instead, riders will now be able to travel in wetlands, as long as they don’t damage or destroy them.
For all practical purposes that now leaves it up to off-roaders and the relative handful of DNR conservation officers to decide whether their activities constitute “damage.” It is an approach that strikes many as unenforceable.
It has been disappointing to see the state’s Legislature backpedaling on environmental protection in recent years, and this session, and this bill in particular, only add to the evidence that Minnesota is no longer an environmental leader. More often than not, special interests now overrule the studied opinions of resource professionals in the state, and the environment pays the price.
This particular bill, which puts Minnesota in the minority of states that allow off-road travel in wetlands, went well beyond the language supported by the Department of Natural Resources and threatens to cause long-lasting damage to some of the state’s most sensitive areas.
Supporters of the legislation, which passed both the House and Senate in the closing days of the session, claim that it fixes a glitch in last year’s law, which made it illegal for farmers or hunters to access cattle or hunting shacks with their ATVs, if it meant crossing wetlands. Given that many northern Minnesota counties contain large areas of peatlands, it was a legitimate issue. But the solution was to limit wetland crossing to those who had an actual need. The Legislature has taken this approach in the past. But this year, with concern for the environment at a low ebb in St. Paul, they opened up most wetlands to all off-roaders.
This wasn’t just an effort to fix an obvious problem in the law. Northern Minnesota legislators who backed the bill cited the potential for added tourism, presumably as off-road enthusiasts flock to the region’s swamps and bogs to go “mudding.”
Some claim the new law actually expands protection of wetlands, by including types of wetlands that hadn’t previously had protection. That may be true, but the problem lies in the public perception that wetlands are now open for off-road riding.
While the law prohibits riding that damages wetlands, there are plenty of off-roaders who don’t see their activities as destructive. That view is supported by the comments of bill supporters, such as Rep. Tom Hackbarth, who stated to reporters: “Ruts in wetlands quickly disappear.” So, apparently rutting up wetlands is okay in Mr. Harkbarth’s mind.
Many other Minnesotans wouldn’t agree. The trouble is, there are no good definitions or terms for everyone to agree on in this bill. What may constitute damage to one person may be inconsequential to another. We fear it’s an unenforceable standard.
**LINK**
Some legislators call the recently-approved bill governing the use of ATVs and other off-highway vehicles in the state’s wetlands, particularly peatlands, as a reasonable compromise. Hopefully, it won’t be the environment that ends up compromised.
The new bill lifts a blanket prohibition on the use of off-road vehicles in many of the state’s wetlands. Instead, riders will now be able to travel in wetlands, as long as they don’t damage or destroy them.
For all practical purposes that now leaves it up to off-roaders and the relative handful of DNR conservation officers to decide whether their activities constitute “damage.” It is an approach that strikes many as unenforceable.
It has been disappointing to see the state’s Legislature backpedaling on environmental protection in recent years, and this session, and this bill in particular, only add to the evidence that Minnesota is no longer an environmental leader. More often than not, special interests now overrule the studied opinions of resource professionals in the state, and the environment pays the price.
This particular bill, which puts Minnesota in the minority of states that allow off-road travel in wetlands, went well beyond the language supported by the Department of Natural Resources and threatens to cause long-lasting damage to some of the state’s most sensitive areas.
Supporters of the legislation, which passed both the House and Senate in the closing days of the session, claim that it fixes a glitch in last year’s law, which made it illegal for farmers or hunters to access cattle or hunting shacks with their ATVs, if it meant crossing wetlands. Given that many northern Minnesota counties contain large areas of peatlands, it was a legitimate issue. But the solution was to limit wetland crossing to those who had an actual need. The Legislature has taken this approach in the past. But this year, with concern for the environment at a low ebb in St. Paul, they opened up most wetlands to all off-roaders.
This wasn’t just an effort to fix an obvious problem in the law. Northern Minnesota legislators who backed the bill cited the potential for added tourism, presumably as off-road enthusiasts flock to the region’s swamps and bogs to go “mudding.”
Some claim the new law actually expands protection of wetlands, by including types of wetlands that hadn’t previously had protection. That may be true, but the problem lies in the public perception that wetlands are now open for off-road riding.
While the law prohibits riding that damages wetlands, there are plenty of off-roaders who don’t see their activities as destructive. That view is supported by the comments of bill supporters, such as Rep. Tom Hackbarth, who stated to reporters: “Ruts in wetlands quickly disappear.” So, apparently rutting up wetlands is okay in Mr. Harkbarth’s mind.
Many other Minnesotans wouldn’t agree. The trouble is, there are no good definitions or terms for everyone to agree on in this bill. What may constitute damage to one person may be inconsequential to another. We fear it’s an unenforceable standard.
**LINK**
