The world appears to be at war with off-roading. Some people enjoy the activity for the scenery, the camping, and the ability to get closer to nature, while others appreciate the challenge of a tough trail or a difficult obstacle, perhaps to see what their favorite machine can do. Still, as much as it can be a wholesome pursuit, off-roading is starting to draw negative attention, with concerns around the environment increasingly raised against the practice.
The situation has come to a head in the United Kingdom, where a relatively straightforward Toyota advertisement ended up banned from the airwaves for its portrayal of off-road driving. Produced by Papaya Films UK and titled Born to Roam, the 30-second spot starts off in grassland, with a group of Toyota Hilux pickups driving over the terrain. The trucks are then shown crossing a small river, before then driving through an urban scene.
The ad shows nothing you haven’t seen before; namely, a bunch of off-road vehicles doing some relatively basic driving off the beaten path. As reported by The Financial Times, however, the Advertising Standards Authority drew great issue with the advertisement, publishing a ruling against the automaker.
The clip was cited for showing “across off-road environments and natural ecosystems, which had no regard for the environmental impact of such driving.” Furthermore, the ad was said to show the vehicles “travelled across untarmacked plains and through rivers, with dust and scree visibly disturbed.” The authority ultimately ruled that “The ads presented and condoned the use of vehicles in a manner that disregarded their impact on nature and the environment,” and that they “had not been prepared with a sense of responsibility to society.” The ad was investigated after a solitary complaint by a UK-based group called Adfree Cities, on the basis that the clip “condones behavior that was harmful to the environment.”
It’s a strange and spurious argument to say that the ad encourages reckless driving with no regard for the environment. On Toyota’s part, the automaker claimed that the vehicles were not shown driving in ecologically sensitive environments, nor in those featuring wildlife. Furthermore, the ad was intended to demonstrate the vehicle for customers like farmers, forestry workers, and park rangers, for whom such off-road driving is routine. Toyota claimed that the ad, shot on private land in Slovenia, was an appropriate way to demonstrate the off-road capabilities of the vehicle, and that it shouldn’t need to depict specialized workers or specific work scenarios when advertising in this way.
Most enthusiasts who see this ad will wonder what the problem was. Regardless, the authority didn’t see it that way, and required Toyota to pull the Born To Roam materials display, stating they were not to be shown again in their existing form.
Advertising standards boards are perhaps known for being staffed by overzealous bureaucrats on the warpath, but attacks on off-road driving are becoming more commonplace of late. David Zipper, a visiting fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, has recently been taking automakers to task for adverts that glorify four-wheeling through the great outdoors. Zipper went as far as publicly calling out Ford’s Product Communications director, Mike Levine, for a post he shared on Twitter of his Ford Ranger crossing a stream. To some, it mattered not that Levine was using a stream crossing designated by the Forest Service and was perfectly within his rights to do so. Commenters poured in to accuse Levine of “destroying eco systems” and “trashing riverbeds” nonetheless.
Actually, David, the @Inyo_NF has designated this a 4×4 river crossing location because the trail *crosses* the river. I’m on the trail. There is zero wrong with this despite your virtue signaling. pic.twitter.com/WTeDQTkt2y
— Mike Now at Threads Levine (@mrlevine) August 27, 2023
These trends are beginning to show up in public policy, too. In October, the United States Bureau of Land Management announced it would close a full 317 miles of trails in Moab, Utah. In an area that has traditionally been known as a sort of off-roading paradise, it’s a significant reversal of fortune. Moab plays host to events like the Easter Jeep Safari, with off-roaders coming from far and wide to sample what the area has to offer. Prior to the closures, Moab had a full 1,057 miles of off-road trails, but activist groups in recent times have railed against the impact on the local environment. Popular routes along Labyrinth Canyon and the Gemini Bridges were closed by the BLM, drawing despair from members of the off-road community. Notably, some are intending to fight back, with off-road advocate group Blue Ribbon Coalition stating it will challenge the plan in court.
It’s true that off-roading must be carefully managed on public lands in order to minimize any potential negative impacts on wildlife and the environment. It’s no good letting trucks roar through important breeding grounds for endangered animals, or in delicate areas where erosion could quickly see natural wonders destroyed. At the same time, government authorities and the off-road community have long maintained positive relationships to allow access in ways that allow the harmonious enjoyment of the land.
[Ed Note: Environmentalists have been speaking out against off-roading for a while, but things seem to be accelerating, with the closure of Moab’s off-road trails and a number of folks speaking out against things like river crossings. I attended a Subaru Crosstrek Wilderness event, and the company said something to the effect of: Subaru is all about being one with nature, whereas hard-core off-roaders like the Wrangler are more conquering nature. That’s not an exact quote, but the rep basically was trying to communicate that general premise. The point here is that, especially as more and more off-road vehicles hit the road, there appears to be opposition growing. -DT].
The reality is that we live in a time where the broader destruction of the environment is a hot-button topic for many, and for good reason, but this can mean that even a simple car advert shot on private land can inspire enmity and condemnation, something automakers are particularly keen to avoid. It’s unclear how these attacks can be put to bed.
The other reality is that much of the off-road community is an upstanding and self-policing group. Few will tolerate bad actors who misuse and abuse the trails and camping areas, after all, though there are exceptions.
Regardless, it’s clear public perception of off-roading isn’t the most positive right now. That will have to change if off-roaders are going to continue to enjoy the great outdoors from behind the wheel. It’s likely going to take a serious public relations effort to shift those perceptions over time.
Image credit: YouTube screenshot via PlatigeImage
Two Toyota NZ ads from the early 80’s that weren’t banned.
https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/crumpy-scotty-toyota-ad
There was also a 3rd one that WAS banned, where Barry gets driven around the city by Scotty. Barry has come to the “big smoke” and is on his way to his mates “burial” wedding. Scotty gives Barry the ride of his life, and this time the shoe is on the other foot! This ad was only shown 3 times due to NZ Advertising Standards Complaints Board having issues with the ad.
There’s also a couple of Toyota ads that were banned in both NZ and Australia, due to language.
https://youtu.be/CPYmtEQiG18?si=artvCUkYN3rnE3M5
Neither of those ads were ever banned in Oz and NZ. There were complaints but they were never pulled. There were only restrictions on the TV timeslot they could be shown…
Yeah, it’s funny the kind of language that flies here
Gee, around here I’d say it’s only about 80% of the off-road vehicle users (and this includes mountain bikes) that give the rest a bad name!
We have a local trails club for off-roaders that is very responsible and do their best to police their events and the trails they maintain. But they aren’t police, and I doubt they’re really trained to deal with armed offenders. And guess what goes really well with an off-road vehicle (note: gun owner and occasional off-roader myself)? There are some of our areas that have been so severely abused it’s hard to recognize them compared to twenty years ago, and I’m talking about areas that are not legally open to off-road vehicle use.
The side-by-side craze has only exacerbated this problem. They’ve also made driving some of our just plain dirt roads much more dangerous by consistently out-driving the sight lines.
The fact that there is almost NO law enforcement of any kind on our public lands doesn’t help.
OTOH, I get a lot of amusement from watching the ads with folks bombing around giving full-sends in the same rigs that here in town have to slow to ten mph to drive over a manhole cover or smallish pothole and require coming to a near-complete stop to cross railroad tracks–tracks that haven’t seen a train in over two decades.
There will always be bad actors. However, I think education and investment in perspective change has made huge differences in hunting and fishing circles. Enforcement is important, but it isn’t the solution.
At the end of the day there needs to be positive trail management where by trails are monitored and if degrading, closed until they can be shored up. The community needs to have more accessible events that can serve to educate and promote treading lightly, minimizing impact, and preserving the trail.
This what happens when you try to appease everyone. Give lunatics an inch they dig in and want a half mile. Then a mile they use the argument to apply everywhere. They don’t have to prove it causes damage but requires proof it doesn’t cause damage. It is no win. A thunderstorm or a flash flood causes more changes than 4 wheeling, a lightning strike forest fire causes more damage than control burning does but environuts stop control burning. The environuts were once pushing for nuclear power before adamantly against it. Who cares if billions are against it.
People need to do research figure out the best recourse, stay the course and ignore the people who don’t bath, don’t work, don’t research and take their clue from marketing pushing their new multimillion ideas.
Man you need to get out more, I can’t tell who you agree with in any of your comments except that whatever it is, it’s not who the article is talking about.
Sorry if you can’t tell but if that is the case maybe it’s you who needs to get our more, widen your circles see things from all angles and colors rather just 2 sided and black and grey?
So in a hurry for your génération to die.
If this were genuinely aimed at farmers, it would be one truck pulling a grain trailer or a manure spreader, after dark, with a kid playing video games in the passenger seat.
If this were genuinely aimed at foresters, it would be two trucks driving at modest speed single-file, with tools in the back.
The ruling was correct.
No nowadays you need commercials that attract and excite. You can’t show your product doing the basic minimum it has to show its limits.
Correction “your génération of over testosteroned junkies needs commercial that attract and excite”.
Normal people don’t NEED any advertisement. A good and wanted product will sell without.
We all know that’s not inherently true. It ignores the fact of other products in the market in competition, and also that purchases aren’t merely some rational decision made solely based on a spreadsheet of statistics.
Actually, everytime I buy a vehicle I first compile a spreadsheet of statistics. Start with 12-15 vehicles, use that info to narrow it down to 2-3, go test drive them, and then make a purchase.
+1
Also:
if this were aimed at park rangers or wildlife biologists, it would show the truck parked at the end of the road and the rangers hiking off into the roadless area, carrying tools and packs.
Source: several decades of volunteer work with rangers and wildlife management..
SUV ads from about 30 years ago are permanently seared into my brain, because they seemingly all bore some reminder to Tread Lightly!, that proceeded to fall out of fashion as we got out of the kinder, gentler 90’s, and promoting responsible stewardship doesn’t sell the fantasy quite as much.
I also wish to see this type of advertising to go away. I mean, on one hand mall parking lots are “off road” so pretty harmless, on the other tearing up river beds and habitat to get your jollies on is not all that culturally distant from coal rolling.
I get that vehicles are needed to get to certain places, like infrastructure maintenance or farm duties, but promoting these as toys is obnoxious.
Society didn’t advance to today’s class by creating items that only perform to today’s limits. If medical research limited itself to this we would still be using leeches to cure the bubonic plague that killed half of the population of Europe. Of course now that would eliminate the segment of the population who wants to eliminate all risks. But Darwins survival of the fittest insures thevweak won’t inherent the Earth Mother Nature will kill them. It’s like the guy who moves in to a bear population who inevitably gets mauled by a bear.
So hot take here is I am not mad about this.
Let’s be real; the driving shown in many truck commercials is not exactly good off-road driving practice. I am not in the slightest upset to see less of it in the media putting the idea in people’s head that any of that is how you drive off-road.
I have done a lot of instruction on off-road driving and the hardest part is teaching people to go slower, spin less tire, and keep tires on the ground as much as possible.
I agree maybe require a 4 wheel drivers license accommodation like motorcycle licenses. Make sure people doing the driving are trained in the driving. Why hasn’t thus been presented?
Maybe because most people would ignore that requirement? Especially those of us that drive on county “roads” that are little more than glorified off-trails.
“Some people enjoy the activity for the scenery, the camping, and the ability to get closer to nature, while others appreciate the challenge of a tough trail or a difficult obstacle…”
And some people do it to partake in all the bad behavior they can’t get away with in populated areas.
The UK is much smaller than the US and there is no huge wilderness, desert or mountains to drive about in like there is over there. You will never see twenty plus trucks roaming like herd animals across the plains and rivers as depicted in this film.
Off-roaders here have to keep to designated tracks and lanes, when driving for leisure, and typically head out in small groups of 5 or 6. Neither is this showing a forestry worker on a fire-road or a farmer crossing his paddock
This ad gives the impression that owning a 4×4 means you can just ride out en masse wherever you like, and that is very much not the case in this country.
Greenlaning is a blast!
How is 4 wheeling any worse than a gambler 500 meet?
You want an example of spurious? Read below:
“Furthermore, the ad was intended to demonstrate the vehicle for customers like farmers, forestry workers, and park rangers, for whom such off-road driving is routine.”
This is BS. If you want to appeal to foresters, farmers, and rangers why are there none of the above engaged in their typical activities in the ads and no farms, parks, etc. used as demonstration settings? Nope, just the usual dreamy off-road landscapes routinely exploited by wheeled tourists and racers. So exactly who is Toyota really trying to appeal to, because it’s not working farmers and woodland pros. It’s recreational drivers.
It’s fine to disagree with the argument that these commercials promote irresponsible behavior, but it’s equally wrong to suggest that they promote responsible behavior. They do neither.
Toyota claims the ads were filmed on private land in areas that are not ecologically sensitive, but neither of those claims is supported in the actual presentation. Should they be? I don’t know, but I do know you won’t convince the anti off-road faction with these ads as structured or with the empty rationalizations offered in explanation.
I’m not personally opposed to off-roading, have even participated a time or two, but I am also aware that not all off-road enthusiasts are good stewards of the wilderness and as the numbers of off-roaders grow, the increase in environmental damage is commensurate.
In a similar (though not exact) example, I used to live adjacent to the Appalachian Trail and volunteered to help maintain a several mile segment. During the 13 years I volunteered, the numbers of thru and day hikers rose dramatically and so, too, did the amount of trash, illegal campsites, vandalism to Trail structures and signage and other irresponsible behaviors. Not to mention nuisance behaviors affecting nearby residents and private property. This led to some community resentment that manifest itself by a measure of hostility toward hikers when they ventured off trail for supplies, entertainment or a rest. No one at that time seriously campaigned to close, divert or limit Trail use, but there was grumbling. Now, exacerbate that situation by adding vehicles and it’s easy to see how prohibition can quickly become a rallying cry.
I’d suggest that ads that explicitly portray responsible off-road usage and behaviors versus generic “fun,” could head off a lot of criticism. It won’t appease the most extreme opponents (because nothing will), but it might keep more moderate folks on-side and help avoid draconian backlash against all off-roading.
Bear in mind, too, that the ads were banned in Britain, a geographically constrained area, which leads to a heightened sensitivity to potential environmental loss. So, what might seem like an over reaction from here, could be viewed very differently there.
It is showing the product at its ultimate performance. Car commercials don’t show new cars driving 40 mph down the road for 30 seconds.
No – Sometimes they show them parking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZMhIQRwF50
I love you brother. People just don’t think
They don’t show sports cars bombing around a handling course road, presented like a public road, cutting across both lanes and driving at twice the theoretical speed limit, Then decry “but it’s on a closed course, it’s not a real road!”
Because if it looks like a public road, in the eyes of the average viewer it may as well be one, at that point you’re effectively promoting street-racing.
I too would love if we could see some artful footage of cars being thrown around at their limits, but advertising has to condescend to the least intelligent among us, and part of that entails not being seen to condone irresponsible behaviour.
Really? I see cars ripping and roaring driving fast Joe Isuzu catching up to and posing bur never a car stuck in traffic. And cars driving on a closed course with caveat of do not duplicate. You must not pay attention.
The UK is different but I have seen this mentality in real life. Out here there is a public easement access road that someone has taken it upon themselves to shut down multiple times. They put rocks, signs concrete barriers, in fact they caused more damage by forcing people to drive around the barriers.
And for a non road example, environmentalists are fighting an underground water pipeline because it passes under public land. Said project would be made using a boring machine +50′ underground and would never disturb the surface. Instead they are forcing the project to go under existing roads through Las Vegas near the surface, this means more traffic(+the carbon emissions and pollution), paving equipment and more money. I wish they would consider the consequences of their compassion.
Environmentalists also got 67 new nuclear reactor projects canceled during the 1980s while coal consumption shot up from 569 million tons in 1980 to 782 million in 1990 and 986 million in 2000
It’s infuriating that we could all be humming along on cheap nuclear power by now, but instead nuclear is politically DOA
And it could have been solved by making the utilities and their owners/stockholders responsible for risk & waste. Easy, they could post a bond, insurance companies are good at judging risk.
Except that then none of the reactors would have been built.
Privatize profit, socialize risk.
lol at UK, Brexit shenanigans continue! Curious to see if they ban a Land Rover advertisement, or does this only apply to “those damn foreigners”?
For Great Britain, I feel like you’re missing the element of private land ownership. Though densely packed, there are rural areas of the Isles that typically has had a right of way for general public use. To a certain extent one has had the right to roam, albeit with some limitations. However, as a wealthy class moved into rural areas, and weren’t granted lordship of the area, they’ve started closing large swaths of public access.
It’s similar phenomenon to current New England. Where 90% of the land is privately owned. It’s fairly common around here to have some right a way in your yard. I personally have a hiking and snowmobile trail running though mine. With all the land being privately owned there is a significant societal pressure and view of social responsibility to allow access. When people move up here from like Florida or Texas they often stop access right away. Often moving into prime real estate this can close a large trail system in one fell swoop. The environment is often used as a convenient excuse. As they can become public enemy #1 if your yard happened to be popular with locals. With increasing migration, this is only going to accelerate. And with Off Road vehicles tending to be the least popular form of outdoor recreation, there is little priority for its access issues.
It seems to me a small disclaimer on the screen would suffice:
All local regulations regarding the use of the terrain shown were respected. Always operate your vehicle with regards to regulations.
First they come for your horses.
Then they come for your dirt bikes.
Then they come for your pickup.
………
It seems to go Dirtbikes, Trucks, and then Horses continue to drop shit along the entire trail while the horse riders get pissed at anyone else daring to use the trails because their steed is 1200lbs of easily startled muscle.
“dust and scree visibly disturbed”
Like… okay. Even though most Americans don’t take their pickups offroad, the offroad use case in a lot of places is horse pastures and cornfields. Like, how the hell does the UK advertising board permit tractor advertisements if dust being kicked up is problematic?
All that said, Moab gets an interesting mention. An article about land-use in the West with the divergent interest groups – including, out there, SITLA, BLM, SUWA, the Nation, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the executive branch and the issues around Executive Orders, and so on – and how it impacts offroading in the area would be an interesting deep dive, particularly given the prominence Jeeps play on this site.
Even within the state of Utah, there’s a lot of people who think in a very binary black-white in terms of land use and vehemently argue, despite never having been in the area. Earlier this year, I was in Grand Staircase – probably only one of maybe a dozen or so people in the whole monument on a snowy weekday – and the passenger in my truck asked “How is it so many people are so invested in a place nobody visits?” (GSNM has been the subject of several National Monument designation EO’s over which a considerable amount of digital ink had been spilt).
“The reality is that we live in a time where the broader destruction of the environment is a hot-button topic for many”
And I’m one of them. I’m not against off-roading per se. But it’s always a few idiots ruining it for everyone else. On top of that, when I see videos of a lot of the more challenging off road trails, it strikes me that those trails would be better enjoyed on foot or on a mountain bike.
It may be easier to hike them, but there are two things to consider:
1) technical offroading is a valid use case that people enjoy.
2) you cant make hikes too long, anything over 5 miles is practically off limits to a large majority of people. (families, day use, elderly)
Isn’t that the whole point though? If you have to earn the access on foot, it’s very difficult for it to get over used
Those trails are also unusable to 80% of vehicles, what’s your point #2?
Where I live you can cross entire mountain ranges on trails. You just camp to hike longer. I spent 3 days in the Pyrenees, hiking over 50km. I find hiking to be a better and more respectful way to enjoy nature.
For those of us in the on-road fun crowd, this started happening maybe a decade (or more?) ago when regional drag tracks and raceways started closing.
Sure, it’s expensive to run these things generally, but there was also a growing Not In My Back Yard contingent concerned about the noise and perceived propensity for bad behavior off the track they generate. And sadly, the Fast n Furious thing really contributed to the negative feelings among the general public.
The closest drags to me has many many warning signs on the approach roads and in the parking lots warning you to keep it on the track or else, some even noting that in a sense, the continued availability of this is up to you.
FWIW, an oldie (from 1996!) but a goodie:
https://yourstrulyak.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/damage.jpg
For the record, it was a parody ad in a periodical called Adbusters. It was published around the same time (or shortly after) that Jamie Kitman, who occasionally contributes articles to this very website, wrote one of the first, perhaps actually the very first, mainstream articles to be explicitly critical of SUVs which were just then beginning to explode (!!) in popularity.
AdBusters was legendary.
Noticing the explosion in SUV sales and disingenuous marketing that was persuading housewives they needed a truck (for safety and to prove they loved the environment,) I wrote what I believe were the first anti-SUV pieces in England’s CAR in 1992 and for the New York Times in 1994. I was disinvited from several manufacturer car launches until they realized no one was listening to me anyhow.
Gosh, thank you for replying! Oh, yes, that was (& still is!) tough being a lone voice in the wilderness, especially when one is simply continually drowned out by a veritable tsunami of manufactured demand (so to speak) but I do remember those pieces you wrote rather well. I had already come to such conclusions about SUVs (at the risk of sounding like I’m patting myself on the back) but I do know your pieces did have a persuasive effect on a number, however lamentably all too small, of people so that was indubitably good of you to publish such pieces.
Indeed, it’s mighty unfortunate that the aforementioned wilderness is now rife with SUVs even if there’s no longer just one lone voice.
But one still hopes for some progress and an increase in rationality even though it’s been some thirty years since these pieces were published, gah, with some such progress potentially being achieved through increased focus on pedestrian safety and other concerns which seems to be gaining some traction.
In any case, thank you for writing and publishing those pieces, they were indeed read and appreciated by at least a few of us!
The funny thing is that you do not need SUVs to get into the wilderness. I remember years ago visiting a friend at his mountain house with a mile long driveway where I passed three stuck-in-the-snow SUVs in my RWD E46 BMW 335i. I don’t think I even had snow tires on it. Invariably people under-estimate what you can do with a sedan. I only remember turning around once due to a big rock in the middle of 2-rut road with that car and we frequently had been exploring with the DeLorme map book which was the first to research and map all the (dirt) roads in New England. I think people also overestimate the capabilities of their SUVs (without training/experience), and some things just get scarier when higher-up – going up steep slopes in a tall pickup is more heart-thumping than in even an old school Ranger or S-10. In general I appreciate the pandemic-driven outdoors recreation surge, but it can be a pain when every trailhead parking lot is full – which means that the populace in the outdoors is more likely to have yahoos since there are just more total people out there.
Another bad closure was the loss of the Tellico OHV area in western NC a few years ago. The trout fishermen won, even though there 1000s of trout fishing areas in the mountains of western NC.
The advertising standards body in the UK is very, very, strict when it comes to displaying behaviour in any kind of car that deviates from what is taught at the Institute of Advanced Motorists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYNH0DOs7Ks
It’s an interesting subject for sure — motor vehicles certainly put extra pressure on sensitive areas than foot traffic or other forms of use, but it’s an activity that also gets people experiencing the outdoors in a fun way. With more people getting into it combined with notable closures that seems to be a tough situation for off roaders.
The question is: Where do we draw the line?
Hikers cause environmental damage, too. They leave trash out and they step on sensitive habitats (cryptobiotic crust!), but hiking isn’t going to be limited because lots of folks (including probably the people making the rules) love doing it. It’s also likely that the effect on the environment isn’t as great as off-road vehicles driving through, but again, who decides where to draw the line?
If it’s people who actually go off-roading, then the line gets pushed farther; if it’s people who don’t, then the line likely stops at hiking.
It’s a complex issue. I’m an avid outdoorsperson and nature lover, and never really saw off-roading as a huge threat to the environment, but I also haven’t dug deep into the science, and as a data-person, I can’t really draw any conclusions until I do.
FWIW there are rules and laws regarding hiking here. Camping is often limited to certain areas and campfires forbidden.
For a lot of people, the line is at motorized vehicles. Hikers, bicycles and horses can all make prints in the mud and leave trash, but that damage can be cleaned up. None of these modes of transport really have the speed or kinetic energy for mass landscape alteration.
There is just no comparison to the damage can be done with thousands of pounds and hundreds of horsepower. Up here in central Ontario, ATVs and SxS have turned some of the logging and forest access roads, snowmobile trails, etc into absolute war zones.
Some of the wet areas that were basically packed forest floor with moss (and a few inches of standing water in the spring) now look like a shelled WW1 battlefield. Mud holes 3-4ft deep, basically impassible now by anything other than a built ATV with paddle mud tires and snorkels. It’s gotten so bad that many of the snowmobile trails can’t even be groomed until mid winter for fear of dropping into a vehicle sized mud hole. These are trails that used to be navigable by foot or driven in an AWD passenger car.
I actually went ATVing last year on our work machine to see what the fuss was about, and was absolutely disgusted by what I saw. Dudes literally parking their lifted mud machines in the middle of the trail and just flooring it back and forth to see how deep they could dig. It’s not even the “good old boys” that seem to be the worst, but affluent suburbanites towing rigs up for a weekend thrill.
Maybe it’s just a few bad apples, but it doesn’t matter. Once even one person ruins the trail like that, responsible users have basically no choice but to drive off the trail around the mud hole (as they have no idea how deep it is and they can’t risk destroying their engine) and the “trail” just becomes a 75ft wide mud and boulder field in the forest. Most of these areas were once delicate mossy wetlands filled with every manor of bird, mammal, reptile and amphibian wildlife. Trails often skirt these areas because they are more “open” and the good intention is that fewer trees have to be cut.
I’m sorry but there’s just no way hikers, horses or even full power pedal assist e-bikes are capable of such wanton destruction. It’s just not possible. The absolute muddiest, most blown out MTB trail is no worse than the tidiest OHV route.
Great points.
I definitely agree that vehicles are capable of tearing up land more than animals/humans, though I also think that maybe it’s OK for some land to be torn up.
Obviously, we don’t fragile ecosystems destroyed, but certain areas that aren’t as fragile: Let it be.
Defining what’s “fragile” becomes a challenge.
David, most places I hike have areas where you cannot go. And areas with cryptobiotic crust usually have rules asking you to stay on established trails (which is similar to most areas, but they really mean it in these places.) It is not unusual to have trails and spurs closed due to too much environmental damage, sometimes the trail will open again after nature rebuilds and sometimes they are permanently re-routed to less sensitive areas.
Good points. Without looking at the data I’m confident saying that the average hiker will have less impact than an average off road vehicle traversing a trail of x distance based on weight and contact surface alone, but that really isn’t very meaningful on it’s own, and relative impact doesn’t really say anything about impact in real values.
Like any outdoor activity probably the best way to ensure it doesn’t have negative impacts is to specify where it can be done and create terms, but like you said if the people making the rules don’t do it they won’t see the value.
In Great Britain it seems like there is not a square inch of actual wilderness and any scenic area is more precious than the land here in the US. So there’s more people competing for use of a much scarcer amount of land, and the government is therefore more sensitive to off road shenanigans. Maybe?
Not the scree!
Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the scree!!
Not to mention the dust!
The term sounds like something from a Dr. Seuss book. “Don’t drive on the scree! You let that scree be!”