National wildlife properties

[AA]

Rant on......

Near my house in Stow there are 2200 acres of land that are being turned into a National Wildlife refuge. They are scheduled to open the property this year and they have released the usage plan. This 250+ page document outlines all the uses and allowed activities and all the prohibited activities including the rational for inclusion / exclusion. Over the last few years they had meetings and allowed you to write in to voice your opinion. Bottom line, mountain bikes are excluded. I knew this was coming based on the meetings I attended and the conversations I had with various people. What really pisses me off is as I read the usage plan why bikes are excluded (including the paved road the circles the property). I'm paraphrasing here but the plan states that bicycles create a disturbance to the natural patterns of the animals and frighten the animals. Now when I read further about hunting the refuge (an allowed activity) they state that hunting of deer and turkey by shotgun, bow & arrow and primitive arms is allowed and helps manage the refuge animal population.......

Huh?????

I'm not anti hunting and that isn’t the point of my rambling diatribe here. My issue is that it's not OK to "frighten" Bambi with your bicycle but it's OK to blast her to high heaven with your 20 gauge.

We as a group still have a long way to go when it comes to general acceptance.

Rant off.....

[ArmOnFire]

AA- is this the same spot you gave me a tour of last summer?

That really sucks, and I don't get that logic either. :-[

Does it mention that it's OK to crash your radio controlled plane and take all the electronics but leave the balsa wood and plastic! ;)


-dan

[AA]

Dan,

You actually got a tour of the Stow Town forest. The property I mentioned is directly across the river.

Funny you mentioned the radio controlled planes. I recall one meeting I attended where a guy from the plane club was trying to explain how the planes wouldnt bother the migratory birds... it was rather humurous.

[ArmOnFire]

The town forest was fun, we'll have to ride again this spring/summer.

-dan

[nhiker]

With out having read this report AA I would agree that this line of logic is way off base. I would like to see evidence that biking causes anymore disturbance to the "natural cycle" of the wildlife than hunting and hiking. let alone shotguns and muzzle loaders going off all around.
Question is horseback riding permitted?
You didn't mention it but are ATV's permitted? I would hope not.
NH

[TrailBate]

When does this become discriminatory? Can you discriminate against one type of user when there is no evidence that one user causes more damage than another? Can this be brought up in a lawsuit?
Or is it going to be once they show that bikers cause no more damage than hikers, they're going to use this "they scare the wildlife" excuse instead?

[AA]

No Horses or motorizes vehicles of any kind, also no dogs. So they are being consistent up to that point. But bicycles frightening the animals but hunter being ok just seems silly to me. They are going to allow "jogging" after much debate. I love to see the enforcement of the no jogging law.

"hey you slow down, no jogging you may trample an ant"

[sizlinseagulsoup]

AA, Anything we can do?

[AA]

AA, Anything we can do?


Unfortunately I dont think so. The comment period came and went a long time ago. Historically cycling is not an allowed activity on National Wildlife refuge properties. Many refuges dont allow any access of any kind. My frustration is the inconsistency of the usage plan for these properties.

here is a link to the document

http://library.fws.gov/CCPs/assabetriver_final05.pdf

Takes a while to open up

[digger]

I took a look at some of the info on this NWR. I have the Parker River NWR in my backyard, so am familiar with the drill you hear from this agency. All recreation that is allowed is "wildlife based", wildlife photography, wildlife education, etc. Hunting and fishing are a wildlife management function and may not be a free for all that lasts all season. More likely it's limited in some way.

At the PRNWR, I have to say that they have over time adopted a reasonable view about bicycles on the refuge road. One of the main attractions at Parker River is the beach and even when they close the refuge after something like 500 cars are in, they still will allow bikes to enter (didn't always used to be like this). They have opened a launch for canoes and kayaks despite the fact that you are not allowed to land a watercraft on their shores. This is crazy: they close the beach until about late july every year to protect the endangered and prhaps the world's stupidest bird, the piping plover, then they allow vehicles on the beach by permit to allow "night beach fishing".

I wonder about the Assabet River Rail Trail. Doesn't it go though this place? It sounds like the "trails" in the ARNWR are all on old roads. Did the town ever officially abandon them? It does sound like it's way beyond the time where you will be able to get much changed. There is already a friends group that is active and probably the last thing they want in there is bikes. Or maybe not, can't hurt to ask. It seems like it might be nice to at least have a gravel road route or 2 off the rail trail.

DS

[AA]

The Assabet river rail trail will pass by the refuge but not cross it at any point. The property was taken by the government during WWII to establish an ammo depot. All the residents were kicked out and the one paved road was put in by the Army. No roads have been recognized or maintained by the town since. The property is actually is in 4 towns (Maynard, sudbury, Stow & Hudson). There is a Friends group and they are definately the non-bike type folks

http://www.farnwr.org/index.html

One of the first things that they did was help mark the boundary (along with the government surveyers). What this accomplished was the cutting off of several trails and access points around the premiter of the refuge. In the past the Army allowed use of these trails with no hassle. When they did the official survey they ruined connections between trails in Maynard & Stow. Now to use those trails you risk getting a ticket.

There was one member of the friends group that decided that he himself was going to disuade motorcycles and ATV's. He did this by cutting multiple trees down so they would block trails. These were big trees (12+ inches). All this do-gooder did was force the motorcycles & ATV to blast through the woods to make new trails.

I may write another letter asking for some specific trails to be open to bikes to allow the connection of properties. I suppose it cant hurt.

[radair]

This really pisses me off. In my experience, wildlife is actually more spooked by hikers, since they go slower. I've had an instance where I cruised right past a couple bears that would no doubt have taken off running if I was on foot. Well, hopefully anyway.

If walkers and runners are allowed, bikes should be allowed.

[AA]

Here are the exact words from the plan...

Bicycling is not compatible with the refuge purposes for each of the 3 refuges. Bicycles frighten wildlife and cause changes in behavior that have potential adverse impacts to species. While there are places where bicycling can enhance wildlife dependent opportunities, in general the intention of a visitor on a bicycle is to engage in the act of cycling or transportation, not to observe wildlife. The refuges are small enough that bicycling is not needed to facilitate a wildlife-dependent public use. Additionally, while there may be some existing roads on the refuges (particularly Assabet River NWR) which seem to lend themselves to cycling, our long term plans for the refuges will include some road removal and return to a natural state.

[radair]

Here are the exact words from the plan...

...Bicycles frighten wildlife and cause changes in behavior that have potential adverse impacts to species....

Do they cite any studies that show this to be true? Because if they exist, we (as cycling advocates) should be made aware of them.

I think wildlife likes singletrack, if their tracks on the trails are any indication.

[DVRider]

Now when I read further about hunting the refuge (an allowed activity) they state that hunting of deer and turkey by shotgun, bow & arrow and primitive arms is allowed and helps manage the refuge animal population.......

Huh?????

I'm not anti hunting and that isn’t the point of my rambling diatribe here. My issue is that it's not OK to "frighten" Bambi with your bicycle but it's OK to blast her to high heaven with your 20 gauge.


This makes sense to me to a point. The purpose of wildlife management(hunting) is to sustain a healthy population. With human populations increasing and wildlife areas decreasing, the animal pupulation get's too big for the area and start heading for the 'burbs or much worse the entire population gets sick and dies off. Hunting is used as a way to manage the population to ensure the health of the remaining animals.

What I don't understand is when they stock those areas.



Here are the exact words from the plan...

Bicycling is not compatible with the refuge purposes for each of the 3 refuges. Bicycles frighten wildlife and cause changes in behavior that have potential adverse impacts to species. While there are places where bicycling can enhance wildlife dependent opportunities, in general the intention of a visitor on a bicycle is to engage in the act of cycling or transportation, not to observe wildlife. The refuges are small enough that bicycling is not needed to facilitate a wildlife-dependent public use. Additionally, while there may be some existing roads on the refuges (particularly Assabet River NWR) which seem to lend themselves to cycling, our long term plans for the refuges will include some road removal and return to a natural state.


This doesn't really make much sense to me, sounds like they're talking about roadies anyway. I will say that I've spooked my share of deer before, though I don't know how much that would actually changes their behavior.

Dave

[T Grimble]

I recall reading a study (or reference to a study) once that indicated bird watchers pose the most disruption to wildlife because instead of moving through an area, they tend to linger and freak the animals out. Has anybody else seen this?

[sizlinseagulsoup]

Yes I know a lot of these are not in our favor

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/herp.htm

http://www.northcountrytrail.org/news/impact1.htm

"Some environmentalists focus on mechanized recreation as particularly damaging to the environment. Motors do allow humans to go further, and faster, than non-mechanized recreation. Certainly motorized recreation has caused great damage to some ecosystems, such as the California desert. But motorized recreationists are not alone in having impacts; hikers and horses also impact the environment. Hikers and equestrians are more likely to leave the trail than cyclists, and horses often introduce invasive weeds. That Boulder study looked at a hiking trail, where bicycles and motors are banned. We need improved rules and education to minimize impacts and eliminate off-trail uses." - http://www.americantrails.org/trailtracks/Summer97TT/TwoViewsWildA.html

[sizlinseagulsoup]

Articles on birdwatching - http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:9GU9qXznrUAJ:www.stanford.edu/~cagan/SekerciogluOrniTourismEnvCons2002.pdf+birdwatchers +impact&hl=en&client=firefox-a

[radair]

Yes I know a lot of these are not in our favor

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/herp.htm

http://www.northcountrytrail.org/news/impact1.htm

http://www.americantrails.org/trailtracks/Summer97TT/TwoViewsWildA.html


None of these address bicycle influence on animal behavior.

The first reference is to an article by Mike Vandeman, who is a certifed anti-bike wacko.

The second is from the North Country Trail Association, who don't want bikes on their trail system because "it threatens to displace hikers seeking the type of experience for which the Trail is intended.

The third reference concludes that all trail users impact animal behavior, so why should hikers be allowed?

[sizlinseagulsoup]

I don't know if you ignored the "Yes I know a lot of these are not in our favor" but I think I made that pretty clear.

It's good to know the other side's talking points, anyone will tell you that. If you label them all as wackos, which they may or may not be, then you can at least get a good laugh out of it.

[radair]

I don't know if you ignored the "Yes I know a lot of these are not in our favor" but I think I made that pretty clear.

No, I didn't ignore it. But the references you posted have nothing to do with wildlife & cycling, as far as I can tell.



It's good to know the other side's talking points, anyone will tell you that. If you label them all as wackos, which they may or may not be, then you can at least get a good laugh out of it.

I didn't label them ALL as wackos, just Vandeman, who is from another planet.