Recently, the MA Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) has ramped up their environmental protection policies, to a point that will drastically impact orienteering activities in the state.
DCR has land holdings that cover >2/3 of orienteering maps in the state (I may be a bit off; I couldn't find a comprehensive list of NEOC's maps). Over the past 3-4 years, DCR has begun drafting Resource Management Plans (RMPs) for all of their land holdings. These RMPs include a classification of land type by Zone, where a classification of Zone 1 indicates that the area is limited to trails-only access, even for permitted events. In other words, no orienteering there. Info on the various RMPs that have been adopted or are in planning can be found
here.
To give you an idea what this means in practice, here are the RMPs for a few of the biggest maps in the state:
-
Mt. Tom - entirely Zone 1 (scroll to last page). Currently in review as of Feb. 2013, not yet approved by the Stewardship Council.
-
Middlesex Fells 50% of 2011 US Long Champs map is Zone 1 (see p.70). Adopted by stewardship council Jan 2012.
-
Blue Hills - all of Blue Hills East and most of Ponkapoag are Zone 1. Adopted by Stewardship Council April 1, 2011, but apparently not a joke.
-
Harold Parker - large areas of Zone 1 in HP and Boxford SF. RMP is in final draft form, currently in review.
-
Great Brook Farm - no draft RMP yet, but initial public participation has happened already.
It is unclear how much can be done at this point to reinstate orienteering as an acceptable off-trail activity in parks that have large Zone 1 areas. Please discuss any ideas, activisim, or coordinated lobbying.
You should talk to staff and ask them what it means. You wrote, "Zone 1 indicates that the area i slimited to trails-only access." But, the LSZ guidelines say:
"...recreation activities will be limited to dispersed, low impact, non-motorized recreation and dependent on assessment of specific resource sensitivity and
stewardship considerations by resource specialists - e.g. NHESP, MHC, DCR Bureau of Planning and Resource Protection - in conjunction with field staff. Snowmobiles may be permitted on existing designated trails during the appropriate time of year and according to DCR policies and regulations."
Maybe they won't allow orienteering, but it isn't clear from the LSZ guidelines.
If you talk to staff, you might can make sure you understand the guidelines and build some relationships that will be helpful.
The bottom line is, orienteering club(s) have to be proactive and have to be using their areas each year, preferably multiple times a year. It also helps to create and maintain relationships with the parks, but more so, with established park advocacy groups; these people are who the park usually listens to, and cannot afford to not listen to or alienate. Too many clubs don't do this homework, opting instead to devote resources to the creation of more maps.
My experience talking to staff while planning courses for an event this weekend was that permits for off-trail activities are not granted for Zone 1 areas.
What other off-trail activities are there apart from orienteering? I mean the ones that require a permit.
Is "Stewardship Council" Mass-speak for "eco-fascist lunatic fringe group"?
Whoa GuyO! I'm sure I speak for many orienteers when I endorse efforts to protect endangered flora and fauna in certain areas. Do we really have a right to regard all public lands as our personal "athletic fields?"
Haven't we all had the experience when running deep in the woods, of breaking into a lush and beautiful glade, where delicate plants and flowers crush under our feet? Don't we feel guilty for such damage? Don't we wish some "council" had asked the Course Setter to route us AROUND such areas?
I'm sure that just as in
Illinois, Massachusetts' DCR has had similar laws on the books for many years. Revising and "ramping up" these laws will have little effect unless funds are also dedicated to enforcement.
Even still, most local O clubs have found ways to work with the enforcers, and present a full orienteering schedule. And when we run those courses, deep in the woods, we really don't miss those protected areas. Does that make us fascists? Or law-abiding citizens?
The first thing that comes to mind when I read this, Clark, is an area that I ran on once at a mid-week A-meet back in 1988. The land managers considered it to be an incredibly delicate and fragile piece of land, and I they granted permission to use it with restrictions, including extensive out-of-bounds areas that had to be indicated on the map (and IIRC, marked off in the terrain with tape).
This "delicate terrain" consisted primarily of hardpan with extensive stands of greenbriar (smilax). In fact, greenbriar seemed to be the primary species, and it provided most of the navigational challenges, as it was well-mapped and formed a maze. However, there were other features. The meet notes indicated that a black X would denote a pile of junk, but only the ones containing at least one item the size of a refrigerator were mapped. The broken ground symbol was used to denote expansive piles of discarded tires. And there was a decaying paved area with a ruin, the former clubhouse of a motorcycle gang.
After the meet, the land managers inspected the terrain and reportedly found a footprint inside one of the out-of-bounds areas. There was never another meet on that map, as permission to use the area was permanently revoked.
Do we have a right to regard all public lands as athletic fields? That certainly seems like a reasonable idea to me (heck, in some countries all public and private land is an athletic field), but that's not the way it is in this country.
I've seen it all.
Decades ago Quebec orienteering lost the practical use of two beautiful provincial (national) parks because of the no off-trail activity. Clearly the poobahs had ATVs, dirt bikes and MTB's in mind and if they thought of orienteering at all it was probably with the image of the 200 or so participants running as one great herd through the woods.
Ottawa has had 45 years of orienteering in the Gatineau Park with no damage ever being reported by park officials. Yet the activity still faces a tightening noose with some regulations already in place, some areas banned from orienteering and new regulations on the horizon.
The orienteers task is to take the managers in hand to ask where is the damage. Even if a plant is trampled if it is a perennial it will be back next year. If it is not trampled by a human it may be by a deer or bear and certainly the first frost will temporarily kill it off.
So far I've had very good luck with the park managers in Florida (where we don't often get frost) that I encounter. They have a job to do. My practice is to help them do it and in return they've always been very helpful in helping me do mine. For instance instead of a blanket ban on off-trail activity to protect gopher tortoise burrows and sensitive native plants we take the time to make sure controls aren't withing 30 feet of a burrow and areas of sensitive plant are marked out of bounds both in the terrain and on the map. The only blanket prohibition I faced was of a large block of scrub terrain during the Florida scrub jay nesting period. If you have ever seen scrub terrain you don't want to go there anyway.
@guskov, hunting is an off-trail activity that requires a permit. I don't know if they plan to ban hunting at these sites or if it's currently permitted. As far as I'm concerned, an orienteer (or even 30 of them) is doing less damage to the off-trail areas than one guy dragging a dead deer out of the woods.
This document describes what management goals are for the 3 landscape designation types and 3 stewardship designation types:
http://www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/rmp/downloads/...
Mt. Tom might fall under the "excessively steep slopes with erodible soils" qualification of Zone 1 on pg. 5.
It seems somewhat contradictory to me that they propose to limit off-trail activity, ban new trail construction, and possibly eliminate existing trails in Zone 1, but snowmobiles can still tear the trails up. I think this speaks to the benefit of having a coordinated lobbying effort.
Well, orienteers by themselves are a very small fly (and intend on staying small by vehement adherence to an exclusive set of rules, and by not doing much if any promotion). So, in order to get any return on the lobbying effort, the only viable path seems to be to band up with existing advocacy groups. If the advocacy group doesn't like your agenda, then you're probably done.
Yes small flies are indeed a nuisance, according to Dr G.
Mt. Tom has been in O use since fall '78 and similar time spans with the other areas listed above. I doubt anyone could demonstrate "damage" done to Mt. Tom or Blue Hills in 35-40 years by orienteers.
Top three in damage over those 35 years are the little bugs killing the hemlocks, the beavers above and below Lake Bray, and logging on the side of Whiting Peak. Maybe also deer eating the young vegetation. Don't know where on the list off-trail human use would be.
If anyone thinks that a word from me, president OUSA, would help in any of this, let me know. I may ask that you fill me in on the particulars, the slant that needs to be taken, etc., but I would be more than happy to send a letter or talk with anyone who might make a difference.
After the meet, the land managers inspected the terrain and reportedly found a footprint inside one of the out-of-bounds areas. There was never another meet on that map, as permission to use the area was permanently revoked.?
"Permanent" only applies if the land managers involved with the initial ban are still managing that land. If they are not, it's time to go to work on the new land managers. (although with the amount of greenbriar described, it might not be worth the effort...)
I tell you what - if you manage to get round this and keep the mountain bikers away, that would be amazing.
I was dismayed this weekend to find they've started making track everywhere in Ansonia as well, and area I had presumed would be resistant. Now we have herds of extra trails on Huntington, Paugusset and Ansonia, three of our premier areas with paths snaking round areas of the best detail. There's more flags popping in everywhere. It's really putting me off mountain biking, a sport I enjoy very intermittently.
These trails created by maybe 2 or 3 bikers (and semi permanently flagged?!) are way more damage to the terrain than my meet of 60 people yesterday.
From what I have seen and what others here have seen as well is that mountain bikers going off trail represent a grand majority of damage. Interestingly we have records of this, using our maps we can see unmapped trails which have developed since the mapping occured. It may be useful to use these records and cross reference official trails to make our case. Also research on how land usage is handled in places with much larger orienteering communities such as Sweden could be useful to our case.
There are studies from very unique (and at risk) habitats in the UK that has shown no long term damage from O'. There's certainly none of these habitats in MA, but if people were interested I could try to chase down the original reports.
I am totally with chinaclark on this issue. I admit I used to enjoy destroying, crushing and tramping on fragile and delicate plants on my way thru the forest. But now I got educated. As a law-abiding alien, I think we ran out of options other than redesigning orienteering, and replacing it with new Trail-O’ring, or Amerienteering, where a group, better “a team” of navigators, upon applying for, and passing the background checks, will be allowed to embark on a journey along a preapproved route, endorsed by authorities and insurers. Each team will include an enforcer. Perpetrators, who left the assigned route, will be given a community service of planting greenbriers, to prevent further transgressions. The committee with 3 members, chaired by GuyO, will determine the winning team, based on the number of likes
received by each team for the Facebook reports about their adventure.
I think that is the most awesome thing I have ever heard from yurets.
Yeah, I had to check the name twice to make sure I was reading it right.
...enjoy[ed] destroying, crushing and tramping on fragile and delicate plants
Awesome?
Cristina, that was classic yurets. Just this time you agree with him.
Yes, that's why I had to keep checking the name!
Awesome?
That was meant as a sarcasm on the attitude that prevails here: “enjoying beautiful nature” while doing orienteering. When I run, I scan forest in front of me for micro-route choice based on terrain runability, there is no time whatsoever to pay attention to what I step on, or what is around me, except for matching terrain with the map, and deciding where to go next.
...one also constantly scans for the presence of poison oak plants...
..and cottonmouth snakes, for that matter, just had an encounter. So there are regional variations.
Thx yurets :)
On a more serious note, I agree w/Spike here.
While it does take non-trivial work, and won't always get you where you want, you can talk regularly with land managers for any given park you use about how you're sure that both of you want to continue the long-existing program of educational, healthy-exercise, "dispersed, low impact, non-motorized recreation"al use of the land - which promotes understanding & respect of the land in a far more valuable way than any impact to non-fragile areas.
I think it's probably best to do this 1-1 with individual land permission grantors, where persistence, and adaptions to help find common ground in your goals with theirs, is more likely to succeed, than trying to argue head on.
This is government regulation, and head-on argument with an individual that doesn't want you there will get you mired in red-tape fights that we can't afford, even if you are 'right' that permission should be granted...
E.g. I think there was a multi-million $ battle between open space groups, and conservationists, that resulted in finally opening this trail - with a 'reservation' system, and chaperone required...
http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=147
This discussion thread is closed.