• Forum membership has its advantages....

Study says BLM land visitors prefer quiet recreation

buckwild

Well-Known Member
A first-of-its-kind survey shows that nearly two-thirds of visitors to the 246 million acres of public land across 11 western states and Alaska enjoyed quiet – as in nonmotorized – recreation activities.

In California, there were 4.9 million visits during 2014 to the state’s 15.2 million acres overseen by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, says a recent study from Pew Charitable Trusts.

Pew’s study, “The Economic Value of Quiet Recreation on BLM Lands,” was released late last week.

There are more than 5.8 million acres of BLM-managed lands in San Bernardino County, although the study did not delve into county-level numbers.

These quiet-seeking visitors to California BLM land:

• Directly spent $244 million on quiet recreation visits within 50 miles of recreation sites.

• Generated $97 million in income to people specifically tied to quiet recreation on BLM lands, including wages, salaries and benefits.

• Supported 2,605 jobs.

The study comes out at a time when California BLM managers are wrestling with a court-ordered revision to the West Mojave Route Network Project, which has the goal of designating routes for off-highway vehicles while protecting sensitive desert resources, on more than 2 million acres.

These lands span parts of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Kern and Inyo counties as well as a small portion of Riverside County.

“The BLM has until April 29 to seek additional time and present a proposed schedule for completing the West Mojave Route vision to the plaintiffs and the court, said Stephen Razo, BLM spokesman.

In 2009, a federal judge ruled that the President Bush-era plan favored off-road vehicle use over protection of endangered species, archeological sites and other sensitive areas.

A draft of a revised route plan would designate 10,000 miles for OHV use, up from 5,000 miles in the plan rejected by the court.

The purpose of the study was “to provide solid empirical data on the importance of quiet recreation to the BLM’s management teams,” said Ken Rait, director, Western Lands Initiative, The Pew Charitable Trusts.

“This new study confirms that quiet-type recreation is the primary type of recreation on public lands managed by the BLM,” said Ileene Anderson, senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs in a 2006 lawsuit against the original West Mojave
“Quiet recreation is compatible with wildlife conservation, and this synergistically benefits both. BLM needs to shift its recreation focus to managing for quiet recreation for the awesome benefits it provides to people and the environment,” Anderson said.

Camping and picnicking were listed as the most popular quiet activity on BLM lands during 2014, the year data was analyzed. This was followed by non-motorized travel.

“My first reaction is this is exactly the report that was needed, said Seth Shteir, desert programs manager for the National Parks Conservation Association and a Joshua Tree resident.

“Many of us who live here (in the California Desert) have been a little disheartened by all the renewable energy development and the (BLM) emphasis on (motorized) off-paved road recreation,” said Shteir.

Nationally, quiet-seeking visitors to BLM lands in 12 states generated $2.8 billion for the U.S. economy and supported nearly 25,000 jobs, the study said.

Pew hired ECONorthwest, of Eugene, Oregon, to conduct the study.
 

hendersoned

Well-Known Member
Locally ( southern Nevada) the BLM received a grant to study what a wilderness experience is. Things like noise, group size and how to manage people issues will be studied.
 

mrmatt

Well-Known Member
This study seems extremely one sided and the results seem a little skewed to me. I am also sure that the questions for this study were
written in a very misleading manner to get the results that were desired.... I wouldn't know though since I never got to take part in said study.
I don't see too many people who pack the family up and go have a nice quiet picnic in the middle of Barstow.
I bet the questions that were asked for this study were written something like " which would you prefer...have a nice day recreating on blm land or have a chainsaw taken to your face? Choose one answer only"


Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 

Goatpoker

Well-Known Member
I suppose the million or so visitors to glamis and dumont were there for the serenity. I am always amazed by the shear chaos of hikers in the north algodones wilderness.

At least they are on our side about the renewable energy hoax. "you can't drive those noisy buggies around the tortoises, but we can bulldoze thousands of acres for solar panels"


Sent from the RDC Mobile App. Get it for your IOS device today
 

trophygoat

Well-Known Member
I'd be glad to do a study on how much income that specific off-road races and off-road activity brings into BLM-controlled areas. Too bad I don't have the time or credentials!
But seriously, I think we know how much we contribute economically and from a land conservation standpoint, but studies for our side of the story never seem to be conducted, at least that I know of
 

Slippery P

Well-Known Member
What a crock O shat!
 

johnnyweb

Well-Known Member
That's funny I subscribe to the BLM's month news letter and I never received a survey? Hmmmm I never come across quit picnickers in my travels in cars and motorcycles in the desert.


Sent from the RDC Mobile App. Get it for your IOS device today
 

johnnyweb

Well-Known Member
If you know the result you are looking for in a study. You will usually be able to find it. Especially if the guys paying for the study want that result.


Sent from the RDC Mobile App. Get it for your IOS device today
 

MattV

Well-Known Member
I find this difficult to believe. ASU conducted a study on the economic impact of OHV use in Arizona. The number they came up with was $4 Billion, annually. And that's just money actually spent in Arizona. It doesn't include what OHV users spend in other states.
 

snoreracer

Well-Known Member
This study seems to be one-sided
Very one sided, when the Las Vegas RMP revision started and they had the scoping meetings and over 80% wanted more motorized access to public lands. If you ask the 50 to 70 demographic if they want motorized access 95% will say yes. Someone telling you that quiet recreation creates jobs is a lie. The university of Utah did a study on job loss and economic downturn from wilderness areas and it is so bad that the sate of Utah passed a bill telling the us government that there can be no more wilderness in Utah with out state support
 

J Prich

Well-Known Member
I find this difficult to believe. ASU conducted a study on the economic impact of OHV use in Arizona. The number they came up with was $4 Billion, annually. And that's just money actually spent in Arizona. It doesn't include what OHV users spend in other states.
Do you have a link or any source info for that study? Would be interested in seeing it.
 

Bdub 1020

Well-Known Member
Using tax payers dollars to get one sided results. But lets put off road racing in the spotlight and make it bigger right. Its a political joke but isn't all politics about who greases who's palm with lobbyists. Seriously we need to keep desert racing smaller and fly under the radar if you want to keep it for our kids. Leave all the big hype, drawing attention to the short course guys or the Libs will get to the Gov. agencies and create lawsuits making receiving permits almost impossible in the future.
 

J Prich

Well-Known Member
Using tax payers dollars to get one sided results. But lets put off road racing in the spotlight and make it bigger right. Its a political joke but isn't all politics about who greases who's palm with lobbyists. Seriously we need to keep desert racing smaller and fly under the radar if you want to keep it for our kids. Leave all the big hype, drawing attention to the short course guys or the Libs will get to the Gov. agencies and create lawsuits making receiving permits almost impossible in the future.
Not really trying to get in to a pointless argument about politics here but you could make the case that making it more popular and making it more visible will draw more people, making it harder to ignore as well. It works both ways. How hard is it for the BLM to shut down a small time game that most people don't know anything about anyway. Who will miss it?

Quantify with numbers...revenue generated, attendance, tv viewership, overall positive impact, and you start making it harder to cut out as more people care about it. I understand your point of view, I just don't agree that it's necessarily correct.

Need to start supporting elected officials that share your/our opinion of the BLM, etc. They are out there. What's missing, in my humble opinion, is what's always been missing. A highly visible, well funded, consolidated body or organization working on behalf of recreational off road users....racers, weekend warriors, etc supported by companies that earn a living by selling those products...to "fight back".
 

Bdub 1020

Well-Known Member
Point taking Prich , I just think that there are way to many of really well funded enviro groups that out number our tri state and Mexico small group of desert racers. They only believe in Law Suits and have no common sense when it comes to competitive desert racing as a HOBBY. Sure they will not go after the weekend warriors , Glamis users ,campers or recreation people because of big companies and revenue.. But they will go after the BLM issuing permits for desert racing. Especially if an endangered plant or animal is hurt or a UTV ran over by a 6000 lb 120 mph unlimited and someone is killed. I'm not really trying to fight either but the loudest bearing gets the grease.
 

Slippery P

Well-Known Member
You cannot win against those who have lawyers on standby and the backing to fund them. They are looking to create laws to keep you from doing what they see unfit.
 

JDDurfey

Well-Known Member
How much you want to bet the first study mentioned in this thread was done at Sierra Club meetings.
 
Top