In our view Dec. 9: Protecting Pinchot

External combustion in our forests is bad enough. There’s certainly no need for any increase in internal combustion.

As Erik Robinson reported in Saturday’s Columbian, dozens of off-road vehicle enthusiasts from Oregon and Southwest Washington rallied outside the Gifford Pinchot National Forest headquarters in Vancouver on Friday. Members of the Gifford Pinchot Off-Highway Vehicle Alliance (GPOHVA) carried signs with messages such as “This is not the Queen’s Forest.” We’re glad that all they got for their efforts, apparently, was a plate of cookies from Acting Forest Supervisor Lynn Burditt. What the protesters really wanted, though, was an increase in trails available to internal-combustion engines in the 1.37 million-acre forest.

We’ve tried to put ourselves in the boots of the off-road motorcycle riders and all-terrain vehicle drivers, and about the only emotion we could muster is the desire that those boots spend more time on trails and less time revving up motors that drive knobby tires.

We understand five aspects of the vroom-and-venture folks: Yes, the great majority of them respect the outdoors that they visit. Yes, many belong to clubs and organizations, and many of those groups have volunteered to spend countless hours improving trail conditions and helping the forest. Yes, their sport is a popular one, growing rapidly, and they deserve a small place in the forest. Yes, the places where they’re allowed in the Gifford Pinchot are crowded, often to the point of being dangerous. And yes, the small minority of misbehaving off-road vehicle drivers are not the only ones mistreating the forest, littering trails and campsites, vandalizing and breaking other laws. Countless — and probably more — unmotorized invaders also damage the forest.

But those five concessions don’t address the real issue, which is not about off-road vehicle drivers. It’s about the forest. More crucial than what the people need or deserve is what the forest can handle.

Pinchot officials say it’s unlikely there will be any increase in the 268 miles of trails designated for motorized vehicles (229 miles for motorcycles and 39 miles for four-wheelers). Not only would the increased natural destruction be bad for the forest, but budget-challenged officials don’t have the money to extend and maintain trails. They have enough to do just blocking illegal incursions onto trails by motorized vehicles.

Two excuses by the internal-combustion crowd are especially flimsy. First, there is the point that the sparsity of trails results in drivers spilling over into environmentally sensitive areas. But those acts are illegal; citing multiple violations of the law is not the best way to lobby your case. Second, the growing popularity of the sport led one activist to complain that, if the regular motoring public had been as poorly treated in recent years, “we’d be driving on a two-lane road between here and Seattle.” No, that interstate highway between here and Seattle serves the general public and commercial truck drivers, not a highly specialized group engaging in a hobby. The comparison is flawed.

If off-road drivers didn’t know the Gifford Pinchot trail miles when they bought their vehicles, or if they didn’t know that the sport’s popularity is soaring, then they didn’t do their homework before making the purchase. And that is not the fault of the Gifford Pinchot forest.

For more information about the Gifford Pinchot forest’s off-road-vehicle trails, visit www.fs.fed.us/pgnf/recreation/trailbikes.