Off-Highway Vehicles Cause Damage in Shasta and Trinity Counties

November 9, 2008 By John Soares 17 Comments

Retired United States Forest Service employee Ken DeCamp has written an interesting and provocative piece in the Redding Record Searchlight about the damage caused by OHV riders in Shasta and Trinity counties. He even caught one member of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors riding an OHV off-road:

The reason for my amusement stems from an incident I had with one of the board members some time back in Clear Creek Campground, where I found him and three others riding ATVs off-road in and around the campground. I introduced myself to them as a Forest Service employee and explained that riding off-road was not only illegal but that it caused damage to the land they were riding over.

DeCamp then discusses three areas of particular abuse by OHV riders:

1. Highway 299 near the bottom of the climb up Buckhorn Summit.
2. the ends of Delta Toll Road and Slate Creek Road.
3. Backbone Ridge Road and the Jones Valley/Clickapudi Trail area around Shasta Lake.

DeCamp’s conclusions:

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for whiners who think their leisure time activities are being abused by government bureaucrats. They bring this kind of decision making on themselves by taking part in illegal activities, by doing nothing to educate abusers about the problems associated with off-roading, by not doing anything to prevent resource damage such as restoring abused landscapes, and by not policing themselves.
I know there are responsible riders and drivers out there, but where are they when it comes to taking responsibility for the actions of so many?

I’ve seen damage caused by motorcycles in many areas of Northern California, damage that has substantial environmental consequences. (I’ve written earlier about OHV access on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest and on the Lassen National Forest.)

What do you think, readers? What rights should OHV riders have? What limitations should be put on off-highway vehicles?

Share on Facebook

Comments

The Trout Underground says
November 10, 2008 at 9:34 am
The damage caused by OHVs on the forest service property behind my house is significant – reponsible use of existing trails isn’t an issue, but new trails are being cut on an almost weekly basis, and yes, I’m a little tired of having to hustle off the trail when somebody decides to bomb their way around a blind corner of sightline-impaired rise.
Reply
John Soares says
November 10, 2008 at 9:46 am
I’m not opposed OHVs per se. When I was in my late teens and early twenties I had a Yamaha 125 Enduro, and then a Yamaha 400 Enduro, so I understand the thrill of riding off road.
We need specific places set aside for OHV riders that are large enough and challenging enough for them to truly enjoy themselves.
And we need to keep them out of the areas they don’t belong.
Reply
Dario Sartori says
November 10, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Ken’s letter n the paper was a extreme view, and that s just wrong comming from a forest service official. While there are those who do abuse their rights this is true everywhere. I see garbage bieng dumped on hiking trails left by hikers, I see people dying daily from drunk drivers. So do we ban all hikers? Do we ban all driving or all alchool? No we enforce the rules. In the past money was the excuse, well as of this year the cost for a sticker for a OHV has gone from 20 to 50, and there is talk of iit going from every 2 years to every year, so there is clearly more money now. Also OHVs need more riding areas not less, less area to ride will lead to more accidents and more land destruction as you have more riders in a smaller area. This is a lose lose situation for all, if there are good areas like Stoneyford, then people will tend to abuse less, and that also helps to patrol
Reply
John Soares says
November 11, 2008 at 8:28 am
Hello, Dario. Thanks for writing–I appreciate opposing views on a subject.
I don’t believe Ken is in favor of banning OHVs on public lands, and neither am I. (Please see my comment above.)
I think OHV users should have large spaces set aside for them to use. I think these sites should be created to minimize environmental damage, but that we should recognize and allow that many, many human activities are not environment-neutral. (Driving to the mountains to go hiking puts pollution and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.)
However, I think we should do what we can to keep OHV use in designated areas and do what we can to minimize OHV impact on the environment.
And for the record, Ken DeCamp is retired from the Forest Service, so there is no confict of interest.
Reply
The Trout Underground says
November 11, 2008 at 1:36 pm
The 800 pound gorilla is the unwillingness of ATV riders to stay on trails. The problem isn’t simply that trail use is bad, it’s that trail boundaries aren’t often respected, and the community has done little to police itself.
For that matter, I think the industry has to answer for some of the damages; commercials for ATVs often involve activities like cutting straight up the side of a hill, blasting through streams, etc – things that are damaging and in many cases illegal.
The idea that ATV riders need more space when as a group they haven’t demonstrated a willingness to police themselves is nonsensical.
I know several people who are responsible ATV users, but have unfortunately run into a lot more in this area who aren’t.
Reply
John Soares says
November 12, 2008 at 6:55 am
Tom, all excellent points.
I think a key issue is that it is very difficult to enforce rules on OHV users. A large majority of riders may follow the rules, but there is a substantial minority that does not.
Government agencies don’t have the personnel to monitor OHV use. Ideally it would be great if OHV users could monitor themselves, but in many instances it’s not practical.
Reply
Ken DeCamp says
December 13, 2008 at 10:40 am
Hi John… The vast majority of responses to my article have been positive. Those negative responses were mostly gut reactions to issues the responders themselves implied from my statements. I DO NOT favor banning OHVs from the Forest. I do, however believe that OHV groups should do more to police themselves and the groups of rogue riders who can’t seem to control themselves. I would also like to see OHV groups do more to restore areas where damage has occurred… ie: the areas off 299 that I referred to in my commentary and others like it. I agree that all sorts of people abuse public and private lands, hikers and mountain bikers as well as OHVers. It is up to responsible people to attempt to make good on the abuses of the irresponsible. I, for example, an avid hiker and backpacker. As such I have taken it upon myself to maintain a couple of trails out at Shasta Lake that I use for trail running. When I backpack I haul trash out of the wilderness and destroy illegal fire rings.
I hate to equate humans with pigs because pigs are clean animals if given the chance, but the comparison to the pig in the sty and those who abuse the environment has to be made. Unfortunately, pigs can’t read, nor do they care to learn. They want what they want and they don’t want anyone getting in the way who might inhibit their perceived rights to have fun at all cost.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment…
Reply
John Soares says
December 14, 2008 at 9:55 am
Hello Ken. I agree with what you say here. I think OHVs should certainly have lots of places they can go on BLM and USFS land. And I’d very much like to see them doing more to police the OHV users who don’t follow the rules.
I had an enduro motorcycle from ages 18-22. One memorable ride I took started from Old Shasta to Platina Road to the top of Bully Choop, the top of Shasta Bally, and then coasting down to the Brandy Creek marina on the fumes still in my gas tank. It was a special day with stunning scenery, and it was my OHV that made it possible. I stayed on the Forest Service roads the whole way.
Reply
Don T. says
December 16, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Ken’s comments are the typical “good cop,bad cop” response to law breakers. What Ken and the enforcement agencies DON’T mention is the LEGAL destruction of public lands through contracts with the gov’t that persue such activities as over forresting, strip mining and oil exploration. After all, these again are legal operatives even though the comparison in damage is not even worth mentioning. You’re a cop Ken! (how proud you must be..)
Reply
Nick says
February 5, 2009 at 1:17 pm
The real loser will be our childern if we all (hiker,ATVer and forest service ) to not work together on these issuse and not just throw blame. Responsible land use is everyone’s responsibility. The Clear Creek reference made by Mr DeCamp seems to be the kind of ammunition the land use critics grab on to. Before last June 2008 riding in Clear Creek was not illegal. Many of the conservation areas were fenced off and riders respected this for the sake of keeping Clear Creek Open. So this illegal riding statement by Mr DeCamp is misguiding and for someone working for the forest service should know this. Issues such as the closing of Clear Creek has consolidate the 40,000 plus annual Clear Creek offroad users to go to other riding / mountain Biking and hiking areas such as Shasta/ Trinity. The possibility of total land closure to all offroad (hiking/biking and ohv) uses in the name of conservation in California is real.
The Clear Creek closure was an example of how flawed/ Tainted information by the land conservationists and their lawyers pressure can stop all of our activities on public land. The land use issues in other parts of California will affect the Shasta Trinity area. So we need to become a group to promote responsible land use and set up work days with the BLM local offices to work on these damaged areas and not fuel the land closure fire. I will be the first to help. (D-36 Enduro rider) with 3 Kids 11, 14, 17 that ride responsibly and pack our stuff out when camping). With our economy suffering more and more families are looking to outdoor recreation. If we are not careful and do not work together this means of recreation will be eliminated.
Reply
Nick says
February 5, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Let’s work together
Reply
vinny says
August 12, 2009 at 9:51 am
Put me in too. I’ll do my part.
Reply
David Wilden says
July 23, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Hi John:
The majority of OHV traffic in the Backbone Ridge Road and Clikapudi Trail area are residents who must use ATVs to navigate Backbone Ridge Rd since no government agency will take responsibility to repair and rebuild the tremendous damage done to Backbone Ridge Rd. from the Bear Fire – from fire trucks, loging trucks and erosion from lack of vegetation. The section from Jones Valley to Clikapudi is only usable by 4×4’s and not passanger cars. We use quads to save our main vehicle’s tires/alignment when moving about our neighborhood. We all agree it’s no-no to ride on USFS land on them -it’s the weekenders. You will see many trails on personal property, however.
Reply
free bankruptcy lawyers mn says
May 31, 2014 at 1:11 am
This paragraph will help the internet visitors for creating new webpage or even a blog from start to end.
Reply
rocky says
September 4, 2014 at 11:52 pm
Jones valley my kids love riding there this is not right there’s no were to fishing and have some family fun any more
Reply