The first part of the two part article written by Martin Hackworth, the Executive Director at Sharetrails.
He is retiring this summer.
I have permission from Martin to share this here.
Link to the actual article.
https://idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/public-lands-the-looming-catastrophe/article_4d254f6a-9cc6-5c51-bd72-8d14b204e1e6.html
I’ve spent the last three years as Executive Director of Sharetrails.org, formerly known as BlueRibbon Coalition. Though I’m stepping down in a few months to “ridetire” I feel good about what we’ve accomplished in my time there. Sharetrails stands up for access to public lands for a variety of stakeholders - though mostly from the Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) world. It’s been my privilege to represent these folks who I think have been unfairly maligned through decades of protectionist-driven regulations designed to prevent them from responsibly using public lands.
The most interesting thing about my tenure at Sharetrails has been the realization that professionals, even those on the opposite side of the table, are generally easy to interface with. If it were up to myself and the directors of the organizations we work with, even those we often oppose, we could probably work out solutions that all of us could at least live with. There is a remarkable amount of agreement in public land world that recreation should be a component of public land management. Though we may disagree on the details and around the margins, we all agree that responsible recreation, in many forms, is a legitimate use of the great outdoors.
The problem in coming to accommodation without endless lawsuits isn’t the professionals or fair-minded advocates, it’s the zealots. Those who value principle above all else. Every one of these folks I’ve met, on any side of any issue, fancies themselves some sort of gallant warrior in the service of a noble cause. That’s rarely the beginning of a beautiful friendship when compromise is a necessary ingredient in any bonding agent.
I was in a meeting a year or so ago concerning a major land use initiative, with national ramifications, along with several members of the US House of Representatives, a Governor, the Executive Directors of a dozen or so land use groups and some nonprofessional advocates. The professionals in the room were mostly cordial, well-prepared and though they brought with them strong opinions they understood that no one was likely to get 100 percent of what they wanted.
That in contrast to the nonprofessionals who obsessed over relatively unimportant details of the bill on the table and displayed palpable loathing toward everyone who did not agree with them. Folks, I give you modern politics in a nutshell. Throw the partisan hashtag-on-their-forehead zealots out the window and I’ll bet more than I can afford to lose that it’s possible to forge political compromise.
All of the above may be put into the category of preaching to the choir in that the normal audience for my columns is made up of the last group of people who need to see any of it. But I’ll chuck up a Hail Mary and see if it lands somewhere useful. You zealots out there on all sides of the land use spectrum are screwing all of us — yourselves included.
The biggest threat to public lands is not “thrillcraft,” the shrinking of monuments, wildlife management or any of the other things that you spend your time raging about — it’s the complete loss of public lands for everyone (including the critters you obsess over). The only benefit for seething eco-warriors is that they are aging at a rate that makes this consequence something that their descendants are much more likely to confront than they themselves.
A friend recently pointed out that Teddy Roosevelt, for all of his vision in establishing what we now consider public land, probably bought us a century or so rather than posterity. Potent threats to public lands have been engineered into funding mechanisms by both political parties for at least two generations. The fiscal traps are looming, and when we have to choose what we value more, public land or, say, social services, (also placed purposefully behind the eight ball) I’m confident and afraid that I know which way that’s going to go.
Add to that the fact that younger people, as a whole, do not value outdoor recreation the way that older generations did — something to which any honest outdoor retailer will readily attest. The populations of hunters, climbers, hikers, bikers, snowmachiners, skiers and other outdoor recreationists is aging. My oldest son is a great kid, but neither he nor any of his friends think of a week-long backpacking trip as anything other than a seven day journey through no Wi-Fi hell. This loss of a visceral connection to the outdoors concerns me more than anything.
These looming issues represent a veritable meteor bearing down on what we currently view as public land. You put a future population of adults who have no visceral connection with public land together with difficult fiscal choices and I fear the outcome. No one wants to pay dearly for gigantic nature preserves they have no real connection with.
So you zealots out there keep on pushing recreation of which you do not approve aside at your considerable peril. I think that you will not like where it leads.
Associated Press and Idaho Press Club award-winning columnist Martin Hackworth of Pocatello is a physicist, writer and retired Idaho State University faculty member who now spends his time happily raising three children, llama farming, and riding mountain bikes and motorcycles.
He is retiring this summer.
I have permission from Martin to share this here.
Link to the actual article.
https://idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/public-lands-the-looming-catastrophe/article_4d254f6a-9cc6-5c51-bd72-8d14b204e1e6.html
I’ve spent the last three years as Executive Director of Sharetrails.org, formerly known as BlueRibbon Coalition. Though I’m stepping down in a few months to “ridetire” I feel good about what we’ve accomplished in my time there. Sharetrails stands up for access to public lands for a variety of stakeholders - though mostly from the Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) world. It’s been my privilege to represent these folks who I think have been unfairly maligned through decades of protectionist-driven regulations designed to prevent them from responsibly using public lands.
The most interesting thing about my tenure at Sharetrails has been the realization that professionals, even those on the opposite side of the table, are generally easy to interface with. If it were up to myself and the directors of the organizations we work with, even those we often oppose, we could probably work out solutions that all of us could at least live with. There is a remarkable amount of agreement in public land world that recreation should be a component of public land management. Though we may disagree on the details and around the margins, we all agree that responsible recreation, in many forms, is a legitimate use of the great outdoors.
The problem in coming to accommodation without endless lawsuits isn’t the professionals or fair-minded advocates, it’s the zealots. Those who value principle above all else. Every one of these folks I’ve met, on any side of any issue, fancies themselves some sort of gallant warrior in the service of a noble cause. That’s rarely the beginning of a beautiful friendship when compromise is a necessary ingredient in any bonding agent.
I was in a meeting a year or so ago concerning a major land use initiative, with national ramifications, along with several members of the US House of Representatives, a Governor, the Executive Directors of a dozen or so land use groups and some nonprofessional advocates. The professionals in the room were mostly cordial, well-prepared and though they brought with them strong opinions they understood that no one was likely to get 100 percent of what they wanted.
That in contrast to the nonprofessionals who obsessed over relatively unimportant details of the bill on the table and displayed palpable loathing toward everyone who did not agree with them. Folks, I give you modern politics in a nutshell. Throw the partisan hashtag-on-their-forehead zealots out the window and I’ll bet more than I can afford to lose that it’s possible to forge political compromise.
All of the above may be put into the category of preaching to the choir in that the normal audience for my columns is made up of the last group of people who need to see any of it. But I’ll chuck up a Hail Mary and see if it lands somewhere useful. You zealots out there on all sides of the land use spectrum are screwing all of us — yourselves included.
The biggest threat to public lands is not “thrillcraft,” the shrinking of monuments, wildlife management or any of the other things that you spend your time raging about — it’s the complete loss of public lands for everyone (including the critters you obsess over). The only benefit for seething eco-warriors is that they are aging at a rate that makes this consequence something that their descendants are much more likely to confront than they themselves.
A friend recently pointed out that Teddy Roosevelt, for all of his vision in establishing what we now consider public land, probably bought us a century or so rather than posterity. Potent threats to public lands have been engineered into funding mechanisms by both political parties for at least two generations. The fiscal traps are looming, and when we have to choose what we value more, public land or, say, social services, (also placed purposefully behind the eight ball) I’m confident and afraid that I know which way that’s going to go.
Add to that the fact that younger people, as a whole, do not value outdoor recreation the way that older generations did — something to which any honest outdoor retailer will readily attest. The populations of hunters, climbers, hikers, bikers, snowmachiners, skiers and other outdoor recreationists is aging. My oldest son is a great kid, but neither he nor any of his friends think of a week-long backpacking trip as anything other than a seven day journey through no Wi-Fi hell. This loss of a visceral connection to the outdoors concerns me more than anything.
These looming issues represent a veritable meteor bearing down on what we currently view as public land. You put a future population of adults who have no visceral connection with public land together with difficult fiscal choices and I fear the outcome. No one wants to pay dearly for gigantic nature preserves they have no real connection with.
So you zealots out there keep on pushing recreation of which you do not approve aside at your considerable peril. I think that you will not like where it leads.
Associated Press and Idaho Press Club award-winning columnist Martin Hackworth of Pocatello is a physicist, writer and retired Idaho State University faculty member who now spends his time happily raising three children, llama farming, and riding mountain bikes and motorcycles.
