A retired naturalist in Northern Minnesota--who supports the bill--alerted me to this Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee on Wednesday. As someone who has seen damage created by hoolihans who forge their own sidetrails and ride up shallow creeks on public lands, I can see my source's point.
It's worth checking out letters of written testimony for and against HF2791.
Here's the coverage from Session Daily:
Increasing popularity of off-roading requires better trail planning, legislator says
By Margaret StevensWith more than $18 billion in economic impact nationwide, riding all-terrain vehicles and motorcycles is the third-largest outdoor recreation activity in the country, according to 2022 data from the U.S. Department of Commerce.
This ranks well behind using recreational vehicles ($71 billion) and boating ($47.3 billion), but it’s on par with hunting, shooting and trapping.
In Minnesota, the number of off-highway vehicle users has more than doubled in the past 20 years. Vehicle weights and horsepower have increased even more.
The increasing popularity requires the state be more intentional about spaces set aside for ATVs and dirt bikes, said Rep. Kristi Pursell (DFL-Northfield), who sponsors HF2791.
As amended, the bill that would modify planning, placement and use of trails for off-highway vehicles was laid over Tuesday by the House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee.
“We must have a better balance in how we recreate outdoors and how we protect our priceless water, wildlife and habitat,” Pursell said.
The bill would better protect state land and water while offering better coordination in trail building, Pursell said, by doing four things:
- make law consistent across the state regarding use of designated trails and posted signs;
- codify requirements for buffer zones for water protection, especially to avoid the state’s remaining pristine streams;
- require environmental assessment worksheets for all off-highway vehicle projects; and
- ensure tribal and local input early in the process to level the playing field for all levels of government.
The provisions would apply to future, unpaved trails.
Bill supporters say the measures are needed to preserve habitat as off-highway vehicle trails can cause erosion, hinder growth of shrubs and trees, damage wetlands and transfer invasive species.
Opponents say it is a solution looking for a problem and the current multi-step process achieves all the stated aims. Moreover, Itasca County Land Commissioner Kory Cease said the buffer zone requirement would prevent any future trails from being developed in his area.
[MORE: See letters for, against the bill]
Rep. Roger Skraba (R-Ely) said his constituents include people who really want to develop trails and people who don’t want them at all. But, in the end, he believes the current system is working, and the Department of Natural Resources does a good job of overseeing the process.
Here's the Minnesota House Information Services YouTube of the hearing:
Photo: Representing the Minnesota Public Lands Coalition, Susan Schubert testifies before the House environment committee in support of a bill sponsored by Rep. Kristi Pursell, right, that would protect land, water quality and wildlife from the effects of using motorized recreational trails. (Photo by Andrew VonBank/ Session Daily).
Related posts
- Update: City of Houston MN council resolves to exit disliked OHV trail agreement with DNR
- Strib: Review finds stewardship gaps in motorized trail project in Houston, Minnesota
- Snowmobilers, ATV & MN Four-Wheel Drive Associations seek to curb trespassing
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments