I support land preservation, just as I support sanctioned OHV parks. New Times had no justification for putting the title “Get lost, greedy naturalists” on my letter (Feb. 12). The letter addressed the specious arguments used by greedy property owners and self-centered individuals to justify their willingness to disenfranchise others for personal benefit.
Michael Sullivan’s reply (“Ban vehicles from Oceano beach,” Feb. 19) to my “rant” is a perfect example. Mr. Sullivan 49 years ago used the dunes for OHV activities. Now older, he has moved on from OHV activity and expects nothing less than others to do the same, regardless of their age or interests. What’s his justification? Bad behavior by a few and wanting the beach for his personal use.
He wrote that he walked his young nephew in a sanctioned OHV area, who was nearly struck by “some fool in a huge truck.” I certainly understand Sullivan’s fright but fail to comprehend the logic and folly of walking a child in a well-posted vehicle area. Try another beach, Mr. Sullivan.
Sullivan is correct: Visitation at the dunes has increased. Closures of Clear Creek OHV Park and trail reduction programs have forced OHV users (the fastest-growing recreational activity in the United States) onto less land. Lobby for more OHV parks and Sullivan will see reduced visitation.
Approximately 25 percent of Americans participate in OHV recreation and account for nearly 70 percent of visitor days experienced on local, state, and federal lands. Appealing to preserve legally sanctioned and maintained areas for OHV use is anything but a rant. It is an imperative.