Yellowsub1962
05-23-2001, 09:22 AM
I guess this could also be an action item as well, at least for those living in or recreating in Minnesota...
ATV use isn't central to land use decisions
Dennis Anderson
Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune
In coming years, Minnesotans will decide how much of the state will be set
aside for all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and other off-road vehicle use, and how
much of the state will be off limits to these machines.It promises to be an
interesting, and contentious, process.No better example exists of just how
divided the state is on the subject than the failure of the Legislature this
session to designate 102,000 acres of Con-Con land as state wildlife
management areas (WMAs).Con-Con land, 1.5 million acres in all, is spread
across seven counties, most in northwest Minnesota. The state took title to
the property in the Depression era last century, when the counties nearly
went broke.In exchange for the land, the state paid off ditch bonds the
counties had sold in an attempt to drain and settle the Con-Con properties.
The plan fell apart when the land ultimately proved too wet to completely
drain, and too unproductive to farm profitably.The 102,000 acres of Con-Con
land that were the subject this session of legislative debate were designated
- inappropriately, as it turned out - as wildlife management areas in 1991 by
then-outgoing Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Joe
Alexander.Neither Alexander nor his staff realized at the time that a slight
change in state law a few years earlier required legislative approval for the
designation. It wasn't until late 1999 that the DNR was informed by the
attorney general's office of the requirement.Last year, 250,000 acres of
Con-Con land were designated by the Legislature as WMAs and state forests.
That left only the 102,000 "Joe Alexander" acres to be cleaned up by the
Legislature for the Con-Con issue to be finalized.Wayne Edgerton of the DNR
said his agency is disappointed the designation didn't occur. Until it does,
Edgerton said, the property is in a sort of regulatory no-man's land.Jim
Breyen, DNR regional wildlife supervisor in Bemidji, Minn., concurred: "They
aren't state forests and they aren't WMA's," he said.During the past year,
the DNR sponsored informational meetings on the designation issue in three
northwest Minnesota counties and the Twin Cities. The DNR also solicited
comments from the public, receiving more than 800 in all on how the 102,000
acres should be managed.Of issues raised, primary was ATV use. Proponents of
the vehicles, Edgerton said, wanted to be assured that corridors would be
established in the region allowing cross-country ATV travel, without concern
that the Con-Con lands would prevent riders from driving from one community
to the next.There were other problems, too. One - raised late in the session
- was that some ATV riders not only wanted trails that would connect towns to
one another, they wanted ATV spur trails within the Con-Con lands
themselves."Until the spur trail idea came up, we were very close to getting
this done," Breyen said.Representing the riders' interests in the Legislature
was DFL Rep. Rod Skoe of Clearbrook, Minn., in the northwest part of the
state.Skoe said recently he felt he acted in good faith in his efforts to
help resolve the designation issue.Others, including some conservation
groups, didn't see it that way. They felt Skoe's efforts, if successful,
could have set a bad precedent for WMAs statewide, one in which these lands,
for the first time, would be open to ATV or other vehicle travel.Seemingly
lost in the debate is that the 102,000 acres of undesignated Con-Con lands
historically have been managed as WMAs, in part because their fragile nature
- most are wetlands - is best protected with that designation.Lost as well is
that there are many people, hunters and others, who have used these lands for
years absent the noise and intrusion of widespread ATV use. That's how they
want their use to continue.Should ATV riders be accommodated in the
designation process?Yes.But their interests shouldn't be paramount.Rather,
the land should be most important - and the wildlife it supports.On that
basis, the state's final Con-Con designation decision should be made.
ATV use isn't central to land use decisions
Dennis Anderson
Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune
In coming years, Minnesotans will decide how much of the state will be set
aside for all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and other off-road vehicle use, and how
much of the state will be off limits to these machines.It promises to be an
interesting, and contentious, process.No better example exists of just how
divided the state is on the subject than the failure of the Legislature this
session to designate 102,000 acres of Con-Con land as state wildlife
management areas (WMAs).Con-Con land, 1.5 million acres in all, is spread
across seven counties, most in northwest Minnesota. The state took title to
the property in the Depression era last century, when the counties nearly
went broke.In exchange for the land, the state paid off ditch bonds the
counties had sold in an attempt to drain and settle the Con-Con properties.
The plan fell apart when the land ultimately proved too wet to completely
drain, and too unproductive to farm profitably.The 102,000 acres of Con-Con
land that were the subject this session of legislative debate were designated
- inappropriately, as it turned out - as wildlife management areas in 1991 by
then-outgoing Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Joe
Alexander.Neither Alexander nor his staff realized at the time that a slight
change in state law a few years earlier required legislative approval for the
designation. It wasn't until late 1999 that the DNR was informed by the
attorney general's office of the requirement.Last year, 250,000 acres of
Con-Con land were designated by the Legislature as WMAs and state forests.
That left only the 102,000 "Joe Alexander" acres to be cleaned up by the
Legislature for the Con-Con issue to be finalized.Wayne Edgerton of the DNR
said his agency is disappointed the designation didn't occur. Until it does,
Edgerton said, the property is in a sort of regulatory no-man's land.Jim
Breyen, DNR regional wildlife supervisor in Bemidji, Minn., concurred: "They
aren't state forests and they aren't WMA's," he said.During the past year,
the DNR sponsored informational meetings on the designation issue in three
northwest Minnesota counties and the Twin Cities. The DNR also solicited
comments from the public, receiving more than 800 in all on how the 102,000
acres should be managed.Of issues raised, primary was ATV use. Proponents of
the vehicles, Edgerton said, wanted to be assured that corridors would be
established in the region allowing cross-country ATV travel, without concern
that the Con-Con lands would prevent riders from driving from one community
to the next.There were other problems, too. One - raised late in the session
- was that some ATV riders not only wanted trails that would connect towns to
one another, they wanted ATV spur trails within the Con-Con lands
themselves."Until the spur trail idea came up, we were very close to getting
this done," Breyen said.Representing the riders' interests in the Legislature
was DFL Rep. Rod Skoe of Clearbrook, Minn., in the northwest part of the
state.Skoe said recently he felt he acted in good faith in his efforts to
help resolve the designation issue.Others, including some conservation
groups, didn't see it that way. They felt Skoe's efforts, if successful,
could have set a bad precedent for WMAs statewide, one in which these lands,
for the first time, would be open to ATV or other vehicle travel.Seemingly
lost in the debate is that the 102,000 acres of undesignated Con-Con lands
historically have been managed as WMAs, in part because their fragile nature
- most are wetlands - is best protected with that designation.Lost as well is
that there are many people, hunters and others, who have used these lands for
years absent the noise and intrusion of widespread ATV use. That's how they
want their use to continue.Should ATV riders be accommodated in the
designation process?Yes.But their interests shouldn't be paramount.Rather,
the land should be most important - and the wildlife it supports.On that
basis, the state's final Con-Con designation decision should be made.