2009 Update

Six Strategies for Success

Effective Enforcement of Off-Road Vehicle Use on Public Lands
Copyright © 2007, 2009 Wildlands CPR. All rights reserved.

The Natural Trails and Waters Coalition works to protect and restore all public lands and waters from the
damage caused by dirt bikes, jet skis and all other off-road vehicles. It uses a variety of legislative, adminis-
trative, legal, media, and grassroots strategies targeted at those who manage or make decisions or policies
regarding our state and federal public lands.

Wildlands CPR works to revive and protect wild places by promoting watershed restoration through road
removal, preventing new road construction, and stopping off-road vehicle abuse.

Wildlands CPR
Post Office Box 7516
Missoula, Montana 59807
Telephone: 406.543.9551
info@wildlandscpr.org
www.wildlandscpr.org
Six Strategies for Success
Effective Enforcement of Off-Road Vehicle Use on Public Lands 2009 Update

Writer, researcher,
and publication designer: Michele L. Archie, The Harbinger Consulting Group

Research Assistant: Noah Jackson

Editors: Howard D Terry, The Harbinger Consulting Group

Bethanie Walder, Wildlands CPR

Reviewers: Kristen Brengel and Vera Smith, The Wilderness Society;

Anya Schoolman, Wyss Foundation; Jason Kiely, Wildlands
CPR

Project Support: This report was made possible with generous support from
the 444S and Lazar Foundations.

Cover photos
Front cover, clockwise from top right—Off-road vehicle tracks surrounding Factory Butte, Utah (Ray
Bloxham/Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance); Snowmobile incursion into closed area, California (Jeff
Erdoes); Muddy ruts, Utah (Dan Schroeder); Unauthorized route, Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida
(Brian F. Call Photography); Jeep emerging from desert water hole, Pritchett Canyon, Utah (Kevin Walker/
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance); Snowmobiler showing off behind wilderness sign, California (Jeff
Erdoes).
Back cover—Chris Alcantara/Dreamstime.com.

Please note:
The information contained in this report was collected through telephone interviews and other corre-
spondance with multiple parties. While numerous efforts were made to verify the information collected,
that verification did not include on-the-ground field checking. For that reason, it is possible that some of
the examples and case studies included here may not be exactly indicative of conditions on the ground.

The 2009 report update focused on adding information to the strategies presented in the original 2007
document. The case studies were not reviewed and updated.

Printed on recycled paper.

 Six Strategies for Success:
Effective Enforcement of Off-Road Vehicle Use on Public Lands
Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 2

Introduction to the 2009 Update .................................................................................. 4

Introduction to the 2007 Edition .................................................................................. 6

Enforcement Success Strategies

#1 Make a commitment
Engage in serious enforcement efforts ............................................................................... 11

#2 Lay the groundwork

Create enforceable routes and regulations ......................................................................... 18

#3 See and be seen

Engage in visible action and meaningful collaboration ..................................................... 23

#4 Make riders responsible

Promote a culture shift among peers ................................................................................ 28

#5 Use the force

Incorporate technologies that work................................................................................... 33

#6 Fit the punishment to the crime

Make penalties meaningful............................................................................................. 35

Conclusion
Keep track: Monitor to gauge progress and fine-tune action ............................................... 40

Case Studies
Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance and Bridger-Teton National Forest....................... 44

Commitment to Our Recreational Environment .......................................................... 46

Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area...................................................................... 48

Ocala National Forest ................................................................................................... 50

Friends of Fourmile ...................................................................................................... 52

References .................................................................................................................... 54

Interviewees and other contributors ............................................................................ 55

1
Executive Summary
Over the past two decades, advances in off-road vehicle
technology have enabled riders to drive on nearly any type
of terrain, up steep slopes, and onto lands that once were
accessible only on foot. At the same time, the popularity
of off-road vehicle recreation has soared.
Together, these forces have overwhelmed the regulatory
and enforcement efforts of public lands agencies. The
results: An extensive network of unauthorized, user-
created routes that criss-cross the landscape and a legacy
of damage to environmental and cultural resources.
Safety concerns for humans and wildlife, and conflicts
among motorized and non-motorized recreationists have
escalated.
Public land management agencies are facing these
challenges with inadequate enforcement funding and
staff. They are unable to protect the lands under their
stewardship, and at a loss to turn around the attitude of
lawlessness alarmingly common among off-road riders.
The common perception among off-road riders is that
Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
1) Make a commitment—Engage in serious
enforcement efforts
• Expand enforcement capacity;
• Target and intensify patrol efforts;
• Do not tolerate damage from off-road vehicles;
• Clarify authority for enforcing off-road vehicle rules;
and
• Enhance funding for enforcement.
2) Lay the groundwork—Create enforceable routes
and regulations
• Create off-road vehicle route systems with an eye
toward enforceability;
• Confine off-road vehicle use to appropriate areas;
• Make the route systems clear on maps and on the
ground;
• Implement a system that identifies off-road vehicles
or limits their number; and
• Clarify and strengthen off-road vehicle trespass rules.
3) See and be seen—Engage in visible action and
meaningful collaboration
• Organize and publicize volunteer labor;
• Form broad coalitions for public support;
• Formalize law enforcement collaborations;
• Retask agency staff to provide a greater educational
presence in the field;
• Create opportunities for citizen reporting;
2 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
breaking the rules some of the time is all right, especially
if someone else has ridden off-route before and cut a
visible trail. This has become a significant public problem
because of the destructive capabilities of off-road vehicles.
A strong commitment and effective approaches to
enforcement are critically important for land managers
to take control of this situation. This report recommends
six strategies for enforcement success. It is based on
interviews with more than 50 public land managers,
private landowners, citizen group leaders and volunteers,
and law enforcement officers.
A brief concluding section underscores the importance
of monitoring implementation and outcomes for all six
strategies. Five case studies illustrate how these strategies
have been combined to create on-the-ground successes
in enforcing off-road vehicle rules; protecting wildlife
habitat, water quality, and terrain; enhancing recreational
enjoyment and safety; and minimizing impacts on
adjacent public and private lands.
• Use nonprofit status to gather money; and
• Publicize progress.
4) Make riders responsible—Promote a culture shift
among peers
• Use mass media campaigns to educate riders and
cultivate support;
• Work with off-road community leadership;
• Focus on common values;
• Promote rider responsibility;
• Require training and certification for riders; and
• Expand educational efforts.
5) Use the force—Incorporate technologies that work
• Use remote electronic monitoring;
• Track noise violations; and
• Track recurring problems and repeat offenders.
6) Fit the punishment to the crime—Make penalties
meaningful
• Toughen penalties;
• Consider natural resource damage in determining fines;
• Add community service as a penalty;
• Link off-road violations with other recreational
privileges;
• Impound vehicles; and
• Make a steep, escalating scale of penalties for repeat
offenders.
Which Strategies Best Fit Your Situation?
The six strategies offer a range of actions that may be combined for maximum effectiveness in different
circumstances. Use the following chart to help focus on strategies that are most applicable to the situation in your
area or agency.

Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6
Make a Lay the See and Make Use the Fit the
commit- ground- be seen riders force punish-
Situation ment work respon- ment to
sible the crime
Illegal route creation, trespass on closed
routes ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Known illegal play areas and entrance points
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Repeated off-road vehicle violations, attitude
of lawlessness among riders ✓ ✓ ✓
Limited budgets and capacity for enforcement
and monitoring ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Recently changed management of off-road
vehicle travel and routes ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Conflicts among different recreation types
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Areas are difficult to monitor
✓ ✓ ✓
Volunteers are available
✓ ✓ ✓
New or renewed agency commitment to
enforcement ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Shared values such as wildlife, water quality,
or pride in natural areas exist ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Executive Summary 3
Introduction to the 2009 Update
When Six Strategies for Success: Effective Enforcement of
Off-Road Vehicle Use on Public Lands was published in
2007, off-road riding was one of the fastest-growing
forms of recreation in the country. During the 1990s
and early 2000s, off-road vehicle sales grew rapidly
across the country, with dramatic increases in riders
across virtually every region and age group.
Sales have stagnated or even slipped a bit in the past few
years, yet off-road vehicles still represent a significant
challenge to public land managers, who remain at a
management deficit for reasons outlined in the original
Six Strategies report. These include increases in off-road
vehicle use and outdoor recreation use in general; the
destructive capacity of these vehicles; declining and
sometimes unpredictable enforcement and education
budgets; penalties that are difficult to impose and that
do not deter violators; and a widespread disregard
among riders for strict adherence to rules and
designated routes.
Off-road vehicle management has garnered much
attention at the state and local levels since the research
for Six Strategies was completed. Much of this update
explores changes that states and localities have made—
or are considering—to increase the effectiveness of off-
road vehicle enforcement.
In addition to legislative and regulatory activity across
the country, a few states have convened advisory
groups and commissioned reports to recommend
changes to enhance the effectiveness of off-road vehicle
management and enforcement. This update reviews
some of those efforts, exploring an emerging consensus
about what it will take to bring off-road vehicle use into
line with the protection of natural areas and wildlife,
reduce conflicts among public lands users, and improve
safety.
Finally, this update examines monitoring as an
overarching and indispensible key to effective
enforcement of off-road vehicles on public lands.
Management Changes Afoot on Federal
Lands
Across the country, the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) are implementing a new
…[E]nforcement is extremely difficult
given the huge increase in ATV
[all-terrain vehicle] usage on state
conservation land and on private
property, the mobility of the machines,
and their use in rural or remote
locations. Even when enforcement
is successful, fines for the violation
of most ATV regulations are not
sufficiently high to act as a deterrent.”
Report by the Massachusetts
Environmental Law
Enforcement Review Panel,
March 2005, p. 20
approach to travel management that, in many instances,
restricts vehicle use to designated routes only. As new
travel management plans are put into place, cross-
county vehicle travel will be largely outlawed on federal
lands. This policy represents a meaningful shift toward
creating a more enforceable system of off-road vehicle
routes.
On Forest Service lands in particular, the designated-
route management approach puts the onus on riders,
who are responsible for understanding and following
motor vehicle use maps, riding only on routes and
in areas that have been designated as open to off-
road vehicle use. These systems of designated routes
are unlikely to result in meaningful changes in rider
behavior if they are not created with enforcement in
mind. In addition, education and enforcement are
critical to ensure that new route maps and regulations
translate into riders keeping their vehicles on designated
routes.
As noted in the original Six Strategies report, significant
percentages of ATV and off-road motorcycle riders

4 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

prefer to ride off-route, and, in one study, reported
doing so on their last outing (Fisher 2001). Another
study suggests that even riders who are inclined to
be law-abiding commonly—and who know the
fundamental “stay on the trail” principle—believe it is
okay to occasionally ride cross-country or off designated
routes (Monaghan 2001).
Recent studies suggest this picture has not changed. A
2007 survey of Montana off-road vehicle users found
that:
• Nearly a quarter (23 percent) say they always or
sometimes ride off-route (even though off-route
riding has been illegal in Montana since 2001);
• More than a quarter (28 percent) said they
never or only sometimes avoid riverside areas
and wetlands;
• Of the 64 percent of survey respondents who
had used an off-road vehicle while hunting,
more than half (58 percent) reported always
or sometimes breaking the law by traveling off
legal routes to retrieve hunted game animals.
Because it puts the onus on riders to know where they
are and where it is acceptable to ride, the success of a
designated-route-only vehicle management strategy
depends in large measure on changing the culture and
practice of off-road vehicle riding.
Education is clearly essential, especially when
undergoing a significant transition to more managed
off-road vehicle recreation. However, a perceptible
commitment to enforcement is equally indispensable,
and must be combined with effectiveness monitoring
and adaptive management.

• Fewer than half reported always carrying maps What’s New in the Updated Version?
showing land ownership and travel restrictions; W
NE Look for the “new” icon to identify information
and that has been added or updated since the 2007 original.
And see the new section on monitoring, beginning on
page 40.
W
NE
U.S. Forest Service and BLM Rangers Pessimistic
about Off-Road Vehicle Management
A survey of federal rangers in the southwest United States found that most believe off-road vehicle
problems are getting worse, not better, and that current penalties and enforcement efforts fail to provide
much of a deterrent.

• More than half (53%) feel “off-road vehicle problems in my jurisdiction are out of control.”

• 74% say that off-road abuses “are worse than they were five years ago” while fewer than one in six
(15%) believe the situation is improving.

• Nearly two out of three (65%) think current penalties for ORV violators are not tough enough.

• 67% feel they lack or are uncertain if they “have the authority to confiscate ORVs used in
violations of ORV use rules.”

• 62% believe their agency is not “prepared to deal with the ORV problems we are experiencing.”

• 78% do not think their department “devotes adequate resources to cope with ORV problems.”

Source: Rangers for Responsible Recreation, 2007

5
Introduction to the 2007 Edition
Unmanaged recreation made former U.S. Forest Service road vehicles (English et al 2004). However, this small
Chief Dale Bosworth’s list of four key threats facing percentage of users has a huge impact on the landscape
national forests and grasslands in the 21st century. In and the quality of recreation for other forest users. The
this category, the chief highlighted impacts from off- price tag for public lands is hefty.
road vehicles. He cited dramatic increases in this type of
recreation and “impressive advances” in motor vehicle A 2004 National Park Service internal survey revealed
technology. pervasive problems with illegal off-road vehicle use.
Damage to natural and cultural resources and conflicts
This threat is equally significant on Bureau of Land among visitors were reported in more than 70 of the
Management terrain. The majority of the 264 million system’s 400 units. In many other units, damage likely
acres it manages is open to cross-country travel by off- went undetected and unreported because of a lack of
road vehicles. Off-road vehicles are also allowed, to staff, funding, or procedures to monitor use and enforce
varying extents, on many units of the National Park existing rules.
Service, National Wildlife Refuges, and Department of
Defense lands. The Forest Service has documented at least 60,000
miles of “unclassified” roads on its lands. Some may
Changing technology has allowed off-road vehicles to have been legally constructed during timber sales or
be driven on nearly any type of terrain, up extremely other management activities, but most were likely
steep slopes, and onto lands that were once accessible unauthorized, created by off-road vehicle riders.
only on foot. When initial off-road vehicle restrictions
were created in the 1970s and early 1980s, vehicle
technology was simpler. Land managers could rely A New Western Pastime
on the terrain itself to restrict off-road vehicle use. The tremendous growth in popularity of off-road riding
Advancing technology soon outstripped the ability of in western states offers a glimpse into the off-road riding
landscapes to restrict access by more modern off-road boom nationwide.
vehicles. Today, user-created routes have proliferated on
public wildands in remote, rugged, and sensitive areas Average
once thought to be “naturally protected.” Total annual
increase increase
Off-road riding is one of the fastest-growing forms U.S. sales of all- 14% 1.5%
of recreation in the country. From 1972 to 2004, terrain vehicles
the ranks of Americans who owned or used off-road (1992-2000)
vehicles grew from five million to 51 million (U.S.
Forest Service 2006). With this 920 percent increase,
the numbers of off-road vehicle users grew seven times U.S. sales of off- 36% 4%
faster than the population as a whole. highway motorcy-
cles (1992-2000)

Mounting Pressure on Public Lands Western states sales 154% 25%

of all-terrain
High-quality public lands are attracting increasing
vehicles and off-
residential development to their borders. Populations highway motorcy-
are booming in many regions surrounding these natural cles (1995-2000)
areas—and off-road pressure has mounted.
Source: Monaghan & Associates. Status and Summary
According to recent studies, only about six percent of Report: OHV Responsible Riding Campaign. (Report
national forest visits involve the recreational use of off- to the Colorado Coalition for Responsible OHV Riding,
November 15, 2001.)

6 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

On Montana’s Lewis and Clark National Forest, for
example, Chief Bosworth identified more than 1,000
user-created roads, stretching for more than 650 miles.
User-created, “renegade” routes are a significant
problem on all national forests except those few that
do not allow off-road vehicles at all (the Hoosier in
Indiana, the Monongahela in West Virginia, and the
Chugach in Alaska, which allows snowmobiles, but no
wheeled vehicles). As these routes spider-web across our
public lands, so do environmental damage and safety
concerns for non-motorized recreationists and wildlife.
Enforcement: The Short Leg of the Stool
In the standard mantra of recreation managers, the
“three Es” are essential to managing off-road vehicle
use. Engineering, education, and enforcement form
the three-legged stool on which the protection of our
public resources rests.
Off-Road Vehicles Defined
Off-road vehicles include dirt bikes, snowmobiles,
all-terrain vehicles, swamp buggies, dune buggies,
air boats, four-wheel drive vehicles when used off-
road, and any other vehicle designed for and/or
capable of off-road travel.
The wheeled vehicles in this category are often
referred to as off-highway vehicles (OHVs), with
snowmobiles and personal watercraft sometimes
treated separately. This terminology, however, can
be misleading since most off-road vehicles are not
street-legal, and are prohibited from public roads
and highways. Many cannot even be driven on
Forest Service roads. These vehicles are built for off-
road travel, not simply off-highway travel.

Yet, at the same time that off-road vehicle use and National Park Service staff called
recreation use in general has boomed, public lands illegal off-road vehicle use “one of
management and enforcement budgets have trended
downward. This has happened even while land
our most pernicious management
managers have requested greater funding to keep up problems” on the Appalachian
with growing challenges and mandates. National Scenic Trail, which
Other challenges to improving enforcement exist. stretches from Maine to Georgia.
Penalties are often difficult to raise or tailor to
individual circumstances. Off-road vehicle use often
crosses jurisdictional boundaries, placing a premium on
collaboration across levels of government and agencies.
Violators can be difficult to catch in the act, so building
solid cases that stand up in court is equally challenging.

Yet, without a serious commitment to enforcement,

education and engineering won’t protect natural
areas from damage springing from uncontrolled or
inappropriate use, including the creation of renegade,
user-created routes. Off-road vehicles cause erosion, add
sediments and contaminants to waterways, and spread
noxious weeds. They allow incursions into sensitive
habitat areas, and harass, stress, and kill wildlife.

Absent effective enforcement, off-road vehicle use will

continue to disrupt the quiet, natural experience of
other public lands users, and present ongoing safety
hazards to riders, other recreationists, and wildlife. Aerial view of damage from off-road vehicles, Big Cypress
Public land agencies are challenged to minimize the National Preserve. (Brian F. Call Photography)

Introduction 7
impacts and conflicts that result from wide-ranging off-
road vehicle use by a small minority of visitors.
Countering Lawlessness
Although off-road vehicle riders comprise a small
proportion of public lands visitors, they can make a big
impact. Off-road vehicle advocates maintain that most
of the problems and violations can be traced back to
“a few bad apples” in their ranks. But research suggests
that most riders knowingly violate rules from time to
time.
A Utah study reported that large proportions of off-
road vehicle riders prefer to ride off established trails,
and many had done so recently (Fisher et al. 2001).
(See “Off-Route Riding,” at right, for details.)
In another study, off-road riders in Colorado
demonstrated an awareness of the rules of vehicle
use on public lands. Despite identifying “stay on the
trail” as a fundamental principle, as many as two-
thirds of study participants go off-trail from time to
time. Commonly, these riders believe it is okay to
occasionally ride cross-country or off designated routes
especially if routes have been previously cut by other
riders (Monaghan 2001).
These attitudes, held by people operating vehicles
capable of great damage, are part of the destructive
cycle that enforcement needs to break.
Where is the Money?
Across federal agencies, law enforcement functions have
been chronically underfunded. As battles are waged to
boost enforcement budgets—only small fractions of
which are dedicated to off-road vehicle enforcement—
many agency units have turned to other sources to fill
gaps in off-road vehicle enforcement. The two main
People figure it out pretty quickly if we
don’t patrol consistently.
Linda Merigliano
Recreation and Trails Manager
Bridger-Teton National Forest
8 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
Off-Route Riding
Prefer to ride off-route
ATV
riders
Rode off-route on last outing
Motorcycle
riders
4x4
drivers
n=335
10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Source: Fisher, Andrea L., et al., 2001. Off Highway
Vehicle Uses and Owner Preferences in Utah. Logan,
Utah: Utah State University.
sources are managed at the state level, usually by state
parks, recreation, or conservation agencies. In some
instances, funds may be used for enforcement, but most
off-road vehicle funding from these sources is used to
develop, construct, and maintain motorized routes.
State off-road vehicle recreation grant programs
State programs are funded through fuel taxes and off-
road vehicle user or registraton fees. Their grants go
to government agencies to fund a variety of off-road
vehicle recreation activities.
In most states, these activities include enforcement, as
well as trail building and maintenance, education, and
restoration. Many states require community support of
grant applications.
Recreational Trails Program
Funding for grants made under this program comes
from federal fuel excise taxes. Funds are granted for
the development and maintenance of motorized and
non-motorized recreational trails and facilities. This
program provides up to $70 million annually for trails
activity, through 2009. A minimum of thirty percent
of these funds are allocated to motorized recreation.
The program is up for reauthorization in 2010 and
appropriations and allocations could change as a result.
States set funding priorities for their grant programs.
Funds may be used for off-road vehicle enforcement in
some states. See the Federal Highway Administration
website for details, including a list of state program
administrators.
About this Report
Six Strategies for Success is designed for land managers
and concerned citizens. It suggests strategies for
boosting the effectiveness of enforcement to:

Funding uncertainties • Protect wildlife habitat, water quality, terrain, and

The state grant programs and those funded by the
Recreational Trails Program are highly competitive,
often receiving many more grant applications than they
can fund. Even successful programs that receive funding
for several years may unexpectedly be cut off, leading to
uncertainty in budgeting and hiring. Some programs,
such as California’s, are considering funding multi-
year grants to reduce uncertainty, especially for smaller
jurisdictions.
cultural resources;
• Enhance recreational enjoyment and safety on our
public lands; and
• Minimize trespass and other impacts to adjacent
private lands.
This report’s foundation is a series of interviews with
public land managers, private landowners, citizen group
leaders and volunteers, law enforcement officers, and

Funding for Off-Road Enforcement—An Example from Montana

On the Hebgen Lake District of Montana’s Gallatin National Forest, off-road vehicle regulations are
implemented by four different types of enforcement personnel, each funded differently.

Montana
Off-High- Recre-
Forest way Vehicle ational
Service Grant Trails
Position Budget Program Program Notes

Law enforcement officers
(year-round)
Off-highway vehicle ranger
(six-month seasonal)
Back-country/wilderness
ranger (six-month seasonal)
Snow rangers (three-month
seasonal)
100% Typically spend only a small part of their
time on off-road vehicle enforcement.
10% 90% Responsible for enforcement, education,
sign maintenance along routes. Grant
funding is not guaranteed. It had been re-
ceived for five years, but was not renewed
for the 2007 season. Residual grant fund-
ing will covered only part of that season.
10% 90% Focuses primarily on non-motorized and
wilderness trails, but also spends time on
motorized trails and at trailheads. Grant
funding is not guaranteed, but was re-
ceived for the six years prior to 2007.
100% Enforce winter regulations and patrol wil-
derness boundaries. Funding has not been
consistent or sufficient, and the rangers’
season is sporadic.

Source: Milton Fusselman, Hebgen Lake Ranger District, personal communication, January 2007.

Introduction 9
others involved with enforcing off-road vehicle use on A brief concluding section underscores the importance
public land. These interviews confirmed the need for of monitoring implementation and outcomes for all
more on-the-ground resources, greater commitment, six strategies, and offers examples of approaches to
and smarter, more innovative enforcement. Where off- monitoring, and digesting and disseminating collected
road vehicle use is appropriate and allowed on public information
lands, it must also be enforced.
Most efforts weave more than one component into a
This report identifies six strategies for enforcement more comprehensive strategy or model for improving
success: enforcement. Thus, the report wraps up with several
case studies that illustrate how organizations, agencies,
1) Make a commitment—Engage in serious and collaborations have put these models into action.
enforcement efforts;
2) Lay the groundwork—Create enforceable routes
and regulations;
3) See and be seen—Engage in visible action and
meaningful collaboration;
4) Make riders responsible—Promote a culture
shift among peers;
5) Use the force—Incorporate technologies that
work; and
6) Fit the punishment to the crime—Make
penalties meaningful.

The next section details each of these six approaches,

offering insights into when they are most appropriate
and examples of how to implement these strategies.
Stories from the field illustrate many of these action
examples. New ideas and challenges round out each Riders on an eroded trail.
strategy. (Dan Schroeder)

How Federal Agencies Stack Up on Law Enforcement

Acres per Visitors per Enforcement as

uniformed law uniformed law percentage of total
enforcement officer enforcement officer agency budget

National Park 32,000 161,000 5.9%

Service

Bureau of Land 1,044,000 211,500 2.7%

Management

U.S. Forest Service 358,000 652,000 1.8%

Data are from fiscal year 2004. (Figures represent all law enforcement activity, only a small
portion of which is directed at off-road vehicle enforcement.)

Source: USDA Forest Service, 2005. Internal memo proposing enhancements for the law
enforcement and investigations program in fiscal year 2006. Published by Public Employees
for Environmental Responsibility.

10 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

Enforcement Success Strategy #1
Make a commitment
Engage in serious enforcement efforts
Use this approach when…
Illegal route creation is a persistent problem;
An atmosphere of lawlessness prevails;
Agency law enforcement budgets and staff are
stretched thin;
New rules, route designations, and other changes
are being implemented; or
Historically, enforcement has been lax.
Making a serious commitment to enforcement is a
critical underpinning to success for all of the approaches
outlined in this report. Without this foundational
commitment, efforts to create enforceable off-road
vehicle management systems will not get the job
done. This commitment is essential to effective citizen
collaborations, responsible riding ethics, and sustained
use of technologies and penalties.
W In 2007, the Massachusetts state government
NE
convened a working group of off-road vehicle
stakeholders to recommend means of improving
education and enforcement on public and private
lands. Asked at its first meeting about the single
most important issue to address, the working group
identified, with near unanimity, insufficient capacity
among law enforcement agencies to deal with off-road
vehicle complaints and offenses. The working group
pointed out that this problem is shared by the state
Office of Environmental Law Enforcement, the state
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,
and local law enforcement agencies.
Capacity remains a critical issue across agencies and
levels of government. But it is not the only issue that
stands in the way of making a serious commitment to
off-road vehicle enforcement. Recent recommendations
and actions by states suggest that clarifying and
concentrating authority are equally important steps,
as are providing sufficient funding for enforcement.
Further, an interagency working group in New Mexico
recommended biennial training in off-road vehicle
enforcement issues for all law enforcement officers in
the state.
Tactics
1) Expand enforcement capacity.
• Create formal agreements to clarify, share,
and fund law enforcement duties. Cooperative
and cost-sharing agreements may involve land
managers, law enforcement, funding agencies, and/
or citizens groups. Agreements may be formalized
through memoranda of understanding.
In some cases, land management agencies have
agreed to share law enforcement duties on lands
that cross management boundaries or where more
than one authority has jurisdiction. For instance,
federal agencies have signed agreements with
county sheriff’s departments and state fish and
game agencies to add enforcement capacity.
These cooperative agreements are important
because, while an agency may have authority to
enforce off-road vehicle violations, that does not
guarantee action. This is the case in Montana,
What’s lacking is the assurance of
tough enforcement and evidence
of backbone needed to bring this
runaway problem under control.
—Jim Furnish
Former deputy chief, U.S.
Forest Service
Strategy #1: Make a commitment 11
 where the Fish Wildlife and Parks department
adopts Forest Service travel plans into its
regulations. Violations can be enforced by game
wardens during hunting season. However, with its
limited staff, enforcing off-road vehicle violations is
not an agency priority.
For example: A citizen’s group called Commitment
to Our Recreational Environment (CORE)
spearheaded efforts to boost enforcement on public
lands in California’s Calaveras River watershed.
CORE supported the local sheriff’s application
for state grant funds to hire a full-time off-road
vehicle deputy, and later, a half-time deputy. Grant
funds have also enabled the sheriff’s department to
purchase off-road vehicles for enforcement.
Personnel cost: $65,000 annually for the full-time
deputy
$18,000 for the part-time deputy
A memorandum of understanding between the
sheriff’s department and the state Off-Highway
Vehicle Recreation Commission, which allocates
the grant funds, details this arrangement.
• Add agency enforcement staff by upgrading field
staff to forest protection officers (FPOs). FPOs
undergo a 40-hour training course to enable
them to assist law enforcement officers by making
public contacts and issuing citations. They are not
uniformed or armed.
For example: The Ocala National Forest (Florida)
trained 15 recreation technicians as forest
protection officers. These staff members are now
able to cite off-road vehicle riders for violations
such as riding through wetlands.
W
NE
• Give state law enforcement officers authority to
enforce off-road vehicle travel restrictions on all
public lands. Especially in states with large tracts of
federal land, this measure can dramatically increase
law enforcement presence on public lands.
For example: In 2008, Colorado set a national
precedent with the passage of the Division of
Wildlife Cooperative Law Enforcement act. This
act makes it a state offense to operate motor
12 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
vehicles (including off-road vehicles) on any public
land in Colorado unless that use is authorized
by the controlling land management agency. It
grants state peace officers authority to enforce this
prohibition, effectively increasing the potential
enforcement of new designated-routes-only travel
plans on Colorado’s national forests and BLM
lands.
In Colorado, the pool of peace officers includes
some 150 Division of Wildlife enforcement
officers, who are the most likely to be involved in
enforcing this law. The law was designed to bolster
enforcement efforts of the Forest Service and
BLM. In 2004, on average across the country, a
uniformed Forest Service law enforcement officer
covered nearly 360,000 acres, while a uniformed
BLM law enforcement officer covered over 1
million acres.
This legislation (which originated as 2008
Colorado House Bill 1069), included several
features key to garnering support from a broad
coalition of hunting, off-road vehicle, and other
outdoor recreation groups, the Division of Wildlife
and wildlife conservation organizations, and federal
agencies. These include:
1) A statement that the act’s prohibitions do not
restrict the Colorado Wildlife Commission’s
authority to regulate motor vehicle use on
lands it controls, nor interfere with legitimate
Off-road vehicle riders are typically more
receptive to a patroller who approaches them
on a similar vehicle than on foot or in a truck.
(Bridger-Teton National Forest)
 motor vehicle use by Colorado businesses
and individuals, including for allowed
agricultural uses, ski area operations, and
logging;
2) Delay in enforcing the act’s provisions until
the controlling land management agency
has made publicly available information
about whether motor vehicles are allowed
on a route (through maps, route markers, or
signs); and
3) A sunset clause that repeals the act in 2013,
to force review of the law’s effectiveness and
revisions as needed.
The law establishes violation of motor vehicle
travel restrictions or destruction of signage as a
misdemeanor offense, punishable by a fine of $100
outside wilderness and $200 inside wilderness
areas. If the person was engaged in hunting,
fishing or trapping at the time of the violation,
the law specifies penalties of five to fifteen license
suspension points, depending upon the violation.
(In 2008, the U.S. Forest Service increased its fines
in Colorado to $250 for operating a motor vehicle
outside a designated route or area and $500 for
motor vehicle use inside a wilderness area. Fines
are now similar on other federal lands in Colorado.
Offending acts may incur citations from both state
and federal law enforcement officers.)
Finally, the law requires an annual report to the
legislature of the number of citations issued and
convictions achieved under this law, and the status
of Forest Service and BLM efforts to notify the
public of travel restrictions.
2) Target and intensify patrol efforts.
• Conduct saturation patrols to raise the profile of
enforcement and to increase the likelihood that
violators will be caught. Saturation patrols involve
flooding an area with law enforcement personnel
and sometimes using additional methods such as
airplane overflights for spotting violators.
Because of their intensity, saturation patrols
often require participation from additional
law enforcement officers from surrounding
jurisdictions or other agencies. This support must
be arranged through cooperative agreements, but
such patrols do not necessarily require a formal
memorandum of understanding.
• Use overflights to scan for violations, especially
in remote areas where enforcement is difficult.
Coordinate overflights with on-the-ground law
enforcement efforts.
For example: In eastern Montana, a large landscape
with little tree cover and few natural barriers,
saturation patrols on the C.M. Russell National
Wildlife Refuge are often combined with annual
deer and elk counts. Sometimes, they are scheduled
during high-use times such as the last few days of
hunting season. As state fish and wildlife staff fly
over looking for animals, they also spot off-road
vehicles. The spotters radio information about
illegal activity to law enforcement personnel
stationed near popular access points.
• Boost enforcement efforts during times when
violations are most likely to occur.
For example: On holiday weekends, county sheriff’s
deputies join law enforcement officers at Oregon
Dunes National Recreation Area.
• Adjust the level of enforcement as new rules take
effect.
For example: During the first season of major
changes to off-road vehicle rules on a portion
of the Bighorn National Forest (Wyoming),
enforcement efforts focused primarily on education
about the new regulations and where to ride.
Only repeat or flagrant violators were cited. Law
enforcement personnel noted that most violations
seemed to be due to a genuine lack of knowledge
that the rules had changed.
Recreation staff and law enforcement officers
carried maps that identified open routes, as well
as where new routes or connectors were being
constructed. Staff members were able to convey the
major reasons for managing motorized travel, as
well as reasons for specific route designations.
During the second season, education was still an
important component of law enforcement contacts
with off-road riders. However, formal warning
notices and citations with fines attached were
commonly issued, as well.
Strategy #1: Make a commitment 13
3) Do not tolerate damage from off-road
vehicles.
• Use area protection orders to address chronic or
emerging off-road vehicle problems. More than
one interviewee suggested that ignoring problem
situations will only lead to them becoming
intractable and even more difficult to resolve.
An “area protection order” is issued by agency
land managers to protect the natural resources of
particular areas or trails from considerable adverse
effects caused by motorized vehicles. Such an
order indefinitely prohibits the use of vehicles.
Area protection orders are authorized under Sec.
9. Special Protection of the Public Lands from
Executive Order 11989 as it amends Executive
Order 11644.
W
NE
4) Clarify authority for enforcing off-road
vehicle rules.
As off-road vehicle recreation has grown and state
management evolves, common-sense and sometimes
simple clarifications of authority may still be needed.
• Clearly designate enforcement authority.
For example: In 2007, Rhode Island enacted a law
that clarified the authority of state conservation
officers regarding off-road vehicles. The law added
Snowmobile damage to whitebark pines in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in
Nevada. This area is closed to motorized travel. The slow-growing whitebark pines
are an important food source for wildlife in this high-elevation area. (Jeff Erdoes)
14 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
all-terrain vehicles to the list of areas over which
conservation officers have enforcement power.
• Centralize state off-road vehicle management and
enforcement authority in a single agency, which
can coordinate the state’s efforts.
For example: In New Mexico, a 26-member
state board is in charge of administering aspects
of the state’s 2005 Off-Highway Motor Vehicle
Act. A 2008 state interagency advisory report,
commissioned by the state legislature, found that
this board “lacks the resources, authority, and
complex administrative structure to address the
full range of issues involved in managing off-road
vehicle recreation.” The report recommends that
management and enforcement be centralized in
an agency such as the New Mexico Department
of Game & Fish, along with sufficient authority,
staffing, and budget. This move would bring New
Mexico in line with how off-road vehicles are
managed in most states.
W
NE
5) Enhance funding for enforcement.
• Create a dedicated funding stream.
For example: In 2008, responding to a 347 percent
increase in off-road vehicle use since 1998, the
Arizona legislature created an Off-Highway
Vehicle User Indicia to be issued by the Arizona
 Department of Transportation. The annual $25
fee and display of the decal on the vehicle’s license
plate allows an off-road vehicle to be operated off
of improved and maintained roads within the state.
(Vehicles operating on private land do not need to
display this decal.)
Seventy percent of the proceeds from annual
decal fees will augment the existing Arizona
Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund, creating
additional resources for off-road vehicle facilities
development and management, as well as
enforcement. (The remaining revenues from indicia
sales will go into the state’s Highway User Revenue
Fund.) The Arizona Game and Fish Department
receives 35 percent of the monies in the OHV
Recreation Fund for off-road vehicle education and
enforcement.
• Boost registration compliance.
For example: A 2008 report by the Massachusetts
Off-Highway Vehicle Education and Enforcement
Working Group recommends directing fines
recovered from off-road vehicle violations—as well
as revenues from registration and other sources—to
Legislated Division of Funds from Arizona’s Off-Highway Vehicle User
Indicia Sales
60%
Ariz. State Park Board
Funds maintenance and repair of routes;
construction of new off-road vehicle areas
and facilities; enforcement of off-road
vehicle laws; information and education
programs, signage and maps; resource
protection and restoration including
closure of existing routes, areas, and
access roads; and environmental, historical
and cultural clearance and compliance
activities. Not more than 35% of these
funds may be used for constructing new
trails.
a new Off Highway Vehicle Program fund. The
fund would support enforcement, education,
acquisition and management of trails and facilities,
and a local grants program for enforcement and
trail systems.
The same report suggests boosting registration
compliance and revenues by making the off-road
vehicle registration process more convenient
for vehicle owners. Recommendations include
expanding the network of registration sites beyond
the five existing offices, and authorizing dealers to
register off-road vehicles. Vehicle registrations are
now renewable online.
• Fine-tune management and allocation of funding
sources.
For example: The 2008 New Mexico interagency
report previously described recommended that the
legislature increase the cap on registration fees from
$30 to $44. This would allow the agency to be
charged with managing off-road vehicle use more
latitude in implementing and funding an effective
program.
35%
Ariz. Game & Fish Dept.
Pays for seven full-time enforcement staff, and
funds informational and educational programs
about safety, the environment, and responsible off-
highway vehicle use.
5%
Ariz. State Land Dept.
Pays for costs associated with off-road vehicle use
of state lands, including mitigating damage, going
through necessary environmental, historical and
cultural clearance or compliance activities, and
enforcement.
Strategy #1: Make a commitment 15
 Other funding recommendations in the report enforcement capacity is already sorely lacking in
include revising how the state administers its public land management agencies, designating
federal Recreational Trails Program fund to allow funds for enforcement is essential.
the use of funds for enforcement. (This program is
• Find new funding sources. While often used for
described on pages 8-9.) The New Mexico report
route construction, funds from many state fuel
also recommended using a portion of the State
tax off-road vehicle recreation grant programs
Trail Safety Fund for enforcement. The 2005 law
can be used for enforcement. This use of funds
that created the State Trail Safety Fund did not
is becoming more common, although some
allocate funds proportionally among enforcement,
programs restrict the proportion of annual grant
promoting safety, and providing a statewide
funding that may be used for enforcement. In
system of off-road vehicle trails. The state tourism
Washington, for example, only 30 percent of the
department currently makes spending decisions for
state’s Nonhighway and Off-Road Vehicles Activity
the fund.
Program (NOVA) funding may be used for
Note: Legislative and regulatory allocation of funds education and enforcement.
from off-road vehicle registration fees, indicia
For example: When the Bighorn National Forest
sales, and other sources should clearly designate
changed its off-road vehicle rules, grant money
a fixed or minimum percentage for enforcement
from the Wyoming State Trails Program supported
and a fixed or maximum percentage for new
additional field enforcement and purchased patrol
route development and land acquisition for new
vehicles. Funding for the State Trails program
riding areas. Pressure from the off-road riding
comes from off-road vehicle registration and user
community for expanded riding opportunities
fees and gas tax distributions.
can skew the allocation of available funds toward
route expansion and away from enforcement. Since

Enforcement Works
On the Hebgen Lake Ranger District in Montana’s Gallatin National Forest, a small investment in off-road
vehicle enforcement has paid big dividends. In 2001, the district hired a seasonal off-road vehicle ranger
using state grant funds. During his five-year tenure, he has seen big changes.

Year 1 Year 4
Violation rate among off-road 67% 4%
vehicles encountered
Most common violations Resource damage, off-trail riding, riding Missing decals, children without
in closed areas helmets, careless and reckless riding

Additional observatons Violations were reduced while

the number of off-road vehicles
encountered tripled from Year 1, due
to better patrolling. Resource recovery
and a significant decline in new
resource damage were noted.

Activities: Enforcement, trail and sign maintenance, wilderness boundary patrol, and education in local
schools and rental shops.

Annual investment: $16,000 for six months. Status: Questionable due to lack of continued grant funding.

16 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

New ideas
W
NE
• Set triggers for removing motorized route or
area designation that are linked to reported or
detected violations, user conflicts, or resource
damage. The 2008 New Mexico interagency
report recommended using triggers as a way to
protect environmentally sensitive areas. They can
also be used to protect areas near where motorized
use causes conflicts with the majority of other
uses nearby. Problem areas could be marked with
a special sign letting users know that the route
or area is in danger of being closed if misuse
continues.
• Create systems that facilitate citizen involvement
in enforcement, such as statewide off-road vehicle
enforcement hotlines similar to hotlines that
welcome tips to help track down poachers.
Challenges
Biases of local law enforcement personnel can make
a big difference in how seriously enforcement is
conducted. For example, on the Stanislaus National
Forest (California), informal agreements between the
Forest Service and one sheriff’s department have led to
cooperation in off-road vehicle enforcement. But the
sheriff’s department in a neighboring county takes a
hands-off approach to off-road vehicle management,
and will not engage in cooperative enforcement efforts.
This results in mixed messages to off-road riders.
Relationships among enforcement agencies vary from
state to state. Understanding these relationships is
critical to the ability to change or expand them for
better off-road vehicle enforcement.
Roads and routes often cross agency and county
jurisdictions. This places a premium on coordination
among different management and enforcement
agencies, as well as citizen groups and conservation
organizations. If, for example, one jurisdiction allows
travel off-road and the adjacent jurisdiction does not,
this confuses riders and reduces enforcement capacity.
Confusion can also stem from differences in regulations
governing camping, game retrieval, and other activities.
Routes on public lands also often pass through
private lands and through public lands where grazing
permittees are responsible for the safety of their
livestock and for environmental damage. This scenario
requires close consultation with the landowners and
permittees.
Additional training and support may be needed for law
enforcement officers and, especially, forest protection
officers. Officers can encounter potentially violent
situations, and as one district ranger noted, “A lot of
situations are testy to begin with, because we’ve allowed
certain uses for so long that they’ve come to be seen
as rights. Nine times out of ten, if you let them blow
through this, you can have a reasonable conversation.
Those skills are critical.”
Strategy #1: Make a commitment 17
 Enforcement Success Strategy #2
Lay the groundwork
Create enforceable routes and regulations
Use this approach when…
Agency staff is unable to enforce and monitor
widespread networks of routes and open areas;
Creation of illegal routes is a persistent problem;
Use of closed routes is ongoing;
Natural or cultural resources, or other users, are
affected by motorized use;
Violators claim or appear not to understand
regulations; or
The agency is making a new commitment to
enforcement.
The Forest Service and BLM transitions to designated-
route off-road vehicle management systems provide
perhaps the most sweeping example of this strategy.
Other levels of government are also transforming the
off-road vehicle landscape by implementing systems
that control off-road vehicle use, or direct it to or away
from certain areas.
Tactics
1) Create off-road vehicle route systems with an
eye toward enforceability.
• Designate routes and open areas based on on-the-
ground knowledge and observation. Factors may
include physical conditions; impacts to habitat,
quiet recreationists, water and wildlife resources;
how riders use specific routes; problem areas; and
rider preferences (e.g., loop and connecting trails,
access to developed facilities, and so forth).
W constructed for specific activities or
NE For guidance in designating and managing off-
road vehicle routes on forested lands, rely on
best management practices detailed in the 2008
document, Best Management Practices for Off-
Road Vehicle Use on Forestlands (Wildlands CPR
and Wild Utah Project, 2008).
18 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
• Do not legitimize unauthorized, renegade routes
by adding them to the system or even considering
them for designation.
• Create buffers around residential areas and
ecologically sensitive zones such as streams.
For example: In the Oregon Dunes National
Recreation Area, there is a two-mile sound buffer
between designated off-road vehicle routes and
residential areas.
• Limit motorized staging areas to a few points
that law enforcement officers can quickly access
and reliably find violators as they return to their
passenger vehicles.
• Create routes within contained areas (e.g.,
between ridgetops or within small watersheds).
This makes enforcement easier, contains noise, and
discourages the proliferation of user-created routes
across the landscape.
• Designate separate areas for motorized and
nonmotorized recreation.
For example: On the Sawtooth National Forest
in Idaho, winter recreation areas in the Wood
River Valley are delineated by ridgelines. Some
are designated for motorized or nonmotorized use
only, and some are left open for shared use. Using
natural features as boundaries is critical in winter,
when other landmarks may be covered with snow.
Most existing roads and trails on
public lands were created by use
over time, rather than planned and
needs.
Bureau of Land Management
Instruction Memorandum
1600 (210)/8300 (250) P
• Conduct joint planning across adjacent lands that
are managed by different agencies—or different
entities within the same agency—to ensure
consistency in rules and enforcement methods.
For example: In southern Colorado, the Forest
Service and BLM have joined offices and functions
under a program called Service First. As a result,
they have jointly developed travel management
plans for adjacent BLM and Forest Service
lands, such as in the Molas Pass Winter Travel
Management Plan.
W 30 days in jail, as well as vehicle impoundment.
NE
2) Confine off-road vehicle use to appropriate
areas.
• Implement a designated-route system.
For example: States are also implementing
designated-route systems. A new Arizona statute
(originating as 2008 Arizona Senate Bill 1167)
restricts off-road vehicle operation to roads, trails,
routes, or areas that are open under the regulations
of a federal agency, the state of Arizona, a county,
or a municipality. This law also bans off-road
vehicle use where it is disallowed by federal, state,
or local rules or by proper posting on private land.
Violations are classified as Class C misdemeanor
offenses.
Further, the law specifies the following as
misdemeanors:
• Damaging wildlife habitat, riparian areas,
cultural or natural resources, and property or
improvements by driving off an existing road
or route;
• Violations of rules, regulations, ordinances
or codes that protect the environment
(including animals and plants) from damage,
pollution, or impairment; and
• Placing or removing a regulatory sign
governing off-road vehicle use, unless acting
as an agent of an appropriate authority.
The legislation exempts private landowners and
lessees performing normal agricultural or ranching
practices on private or leased land.
• Ban off-road vehicle use where it is disruptive or
creates conflicts.
For example: In April 2008, the city of Huntington,
West Virginia, banned off-road vehicle use on
public roads and public property within city limits.
The ban was prompted by concern over noise
complaints, children driving without protective
gear, and erosion caused by driving on the city’s
flood wall. The city police department requested
the ordinance.
Violations are punishable by a fine of $500 and/or
Though the law applies to minors, the municipal
court is limited in its power to levy such hefty
fines against juveniles, which likely means lesser
penalties. The ordinance does not provide for
accountability of parents or guardians in the case of
juvenile convictions.
The vehicle impoundment provision has raised
concerns that the city might be stuck footing
the daily fee for impounded vehicles that are left
unclaimed. Further, the proposed citywide ban on
off-road vehicle use was amended to apply only
to public roadways and government land. Thus,
the “backyard exception,” which allows off-road
vehicle use to continue on private property, leaves
neighbors with no protection against noise.
• Make it harder to ride off designated routes.
For example: Obliterate renegade routes or routes
that are no longer open to off-road vehicle use.
Ron Wiseman, Judith District Ranger on the Lewis
and Clark National Forest (Montana), called route
obliteration the only “close to 100 percent effective
way to stop off-road violations and impacts.”
On his district, the primary approach to route
obliteration is to get rid of the road prism, drag
debris over the route, and let it reseed naturally.
(The prism is the primary structure or foundation
of the road.)
Because route obliteration benefits soils,
watersheds, and wildlife, while making off-road
vehicle enforcement easier, Wiseman said it is
relatively easy to fund this activity from multiple
parts of his district’s budget. Grouping many
Strategy #2: Lay the groundwork 19
 miles of routes in proximate areas together into
one obliteration contract brings costs down. In
2008, the district obliterated 22 miles of closed
and renegade routes at a cost of about $70,000. In
2009, an additional 28 miles will be removed.
3) Make the route system clear on maps and on
the ground.
• Make signs and mapping clear and consistent
system-wide. Print maps in full color and at a
sufficient scale to be easily read, especially where
there are multiple routes and boundaries.
For example: The Forest Service and BLM manage
most of the 100,000 acre “Fourmile” area of
Colorado’s Arkansas river drainage. In 2000, the
agencies initiated a travel planning process for the
entire area to make regulations consistent across
agency boundaries. One color map now shows
designated roads and trails for the whole Fourmile
region, with detailed maps of off-road vehicle areas.
Route markers are consistent across the entire area,
regardless of jurisdiction, to avoid confusion.
• Institute polices that designate all routes and areas
closed to off-road vehicle travel unless posted or
mapped as open.
• Restore or camouflage closed or problem routes,
focusing on visible entrances. One study of off-
road rider behavior in Colorado found that, while
riders know the rules about staying on authorized
routes, there is a widespread sentiment that it
is acceptable to break these rules from time to
time, especially if someone else had already cut a
path (Monaghan 2001). When no renegade path
is visible, riders may be more likely to stay on
designated routes.
• Install effective physical barriers to prevent access
to closed areas or routes.
4) Implement a system that makes off-road
vehicles easy to identify or limits their
number.
• Designate all routes within a management area
as roads, bringing into play any state regulations
concerning licensing of off-road vehicles.
20 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
For example: On Montana’s C. M. Russell National
Wildlife Refuge, all routes have been designated
as roads. Under Montana law, off-road vehicles
operated on state roads must be street-legal and
display a small state license plate. Law enforcement
officers are more easily able to identify vehicles that
are not allowed on the refuge. This approach sends
a basic message about responsible vehicle use and
eliminates use by riders under 15 years of age.
W
NE
5) Clarify and strengthen off-road vehicle
trespass rules
• Align rules for off-road vehicles on public and
private land.
For example: In its discussions, the Massachusetts
Off-Highway Vehicle Education and Enforcement
Working Group agreed the best way to control
vehicular trespass is to treat the landscape as a
whole, providing similar protections for lands
managed by the state and private landowners,
including conservation lands managed by
nonprofit organizations.
The working group’s recommendations addressed
two sections of the state code—one covering motor
vehicle trespass, and one specifically addressing off-
road vehicles. In legislation that resulted from the
group’s recommendations, the following changes
clarified and strengthened vehicular trespass
provisions:
1) Trespass laws were clarified to stipulate that
private landowners enjoy protection from
motor vehicle trespass regardless of whether
their land is posted. This mirrors the existing
state policy under which motorized use
is authorized only on state lands that are
designated and posted open to off-road
vehicle use.
2) Off-road vehicle laws were amended to
contain a similar provision, stating that,
except in case of emergency, off-road vehicles
may not be operated on private property
unless:
a) By the owner or an immediate family
member;
 Colorado’s Friends of Fourmile group
relied on volunteers to put together
a full-color map of motorized
and mountain bike trails. A larger
version is included on informational
materials the group’s volunteers hand
out to area users. (Friends of Fourmile
chapter of the Greater Arkansas River
Nature Association)

We’ve reduced our reliance on law enforcement presence through steps we’ve taken
to manage off-highway vehicles —motorized area designations, a ban on alcohol
outside developed areas, and permit-based, dispersed designated campsites.
In 1992, we would have needed a small army to write tickets for all the violations.
Everyone with any law enforcement training was called out to work 14- to16-hour
days on holiday weekends. Now, it’s like night and day. Even as a supervisor, I
could take a holiday weekend off if I wanted to.

Sharon Stewart
Dispersed Recreation Supervisor
Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area
Siuslaw National Forest, Oregon
Strategy #2: Lay the groundwork 21
 b) The operator is carrying signed
documentation of landowner permission
or evidence of belonging to a group that
has such permission; or
c) The area is designated for off-road vehicle
use and posted in a state-approved manner.
3) Off-road vehicles were restricted to
crossing public ways using crossings that
are designated, marked and approved by
appropriate state or local authorities as part
of a public or private trail system.
These recommendations, along with many others
from the working group, were incorporated into
legislation that passed the Massachusetts Senate in
2008, but was not voted on by the house. The bulk
of this legislation is now included in three separate
bills being considered by the 2009 legislature.
• Take the burden off private landowners by
extending the protection of vehicle trespass laws
to all private land, regardless of whether it is
posted.
For example: In October 2008, the York County
(South Carolina) Council passed a law requiring
those who ride off-road vehicles on private land to
carry written permission from the landowner. The
rule also applies to dirt bikes and larger vehicles
such as Jeeps.
The penalty for riding without permission is a
fine of $300 to $500 or imprisonment for 30
days. The law allows deputies to charge both the
violating riders and the owners of the vehicles.
The ordinance also holds parents accountable for
children who do not follow the rules.
Under the new law, officers must have probable
cause to enter private property. Most often, this
would be a complaint from a landowner about
illegal riding.
Riverside County, California, adopted a similar
ordinance in 2004. Its ordinance survived legal
challenges. It establishes a sliding scale of penalties
ranging from $100 for a first offense to $1,000
and/or six months in jail for third and subsequent
offenses.
22 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
New ideas
• Take a “landscape approach” to designating
routes for off-road vehicle use in suitable and
manageable areas. Make clear and system-wide
route designations within specified areas that are
appropriate for off-road use. These zones might be
bounded by natural features such as ridgelines and
waterways, or by roads that law enforcement can
readily patrol. The landscape approach provides
an opportunity to address multiple recreation
management issues concurrently, and provides
a mechanism for separating incompatible uses.
Under this approach, some areas are designated
for motorized use while others are managed for
wildlife habitat, other recreational activities, water
quality, or other values.
• Designate off-road vehicle routes based on an
analysis of where the management agency has the
financial and personnel resources to sign, enforce,
monitor, and maintain such use.
Challenges
An attachment to “the way things were” among off-road
vehicle riders and other recreationists can make change
difficult.
The interface between public lands and adjacent private
lands can make developing enforceable route systems
challenging, especially if those private lands support
illegal access to the public lands or vice-versa.
Ensuring that no user-created routes become part of
the designated route system through travel planning
or similar processes is as critical as it is difficult. The
creation of unplanned, unauthorized routes must not
be legitimized.
Funding shortages can limit the ability of land
managers to appropriately study and designate routes,
and fully implement their plans.
Enforcement Success Strategy #3
See and be seen
Engage in visible action and meaningful collaboration
Use this approach when…
The same riders violate repeatedly;
Patterns of violations and resource damage suggest
that rules are not taken seriously;
Citizen partners may enhance the agency’s
commitment to, or implementation of, enforcement
efforts;
Agencies are implementing a new route system; or
Agencies are demonstrating a new commitment to
enforcement.
The tactics proposed in this strategy are unique in that
most can be instigated by citizen groups, or by agency
land managers. Almost all involve citizen engagement
at some level. Concerned citizens may approach the
agency with proposals, or agency staff may approach
citizens to enlist their help. The bottom line is the same:
Public engagement in enforcement can extend agencies’
capacity and help raise broad awareness about off-road
vehicle issues and successes. This sends a clear message
that people care about their public lands.
Tactics
1) Organize and publicize volunteer labor.
• Recruit volunteers for signing routes and
trailheads, constructing fences, installing barriers,
and restoring sites. Include a variety of recreation-
oriented groups in specific projects. These groups
may be fishing and hunting organizations, off-road
clubs, hiking groups, horse packers, mountain
bikers, and so forth. This sends the message that
many people with many legitimate interests care.
For example: Colorado’s Friends of Fourmile citizen
group partnered with the Forest Service to devise
a restoration and fencing program at the Spanish
Mill site, an area of illegal use. Friends of Fourmile
engaged Trout Unlimited, off-road clubs, and the
Quiet Use Coalition in its restoration efforts.
In addition to generating good publicity, the
Friends group was able to stretch agency and grant
funds by leveraging volunteer support to construct
fences and reseed. Prison crews and volunteers
cut and transported fence posts, which were
contributed by the Forest Service. The contractor’s
work was limited to that which required heavy
equipment such as constructing rock barriers.
For example: In Arizona, the Bureau of Land
Management is proposing reaching out to
volunteers as an integral part of intensively
managing recreation use at certain popular sites on
the Agua Fria National Monument and Bradshaw-
Harquahala planning areas.
• Include the names of volunteers or partner
organizations on area information signs to
improve peer compliance and enforcement.
We need to live together on these lands
for the long term, and mutual trust
is the key to that. With so few agency
staff on the ground, actual arrest and
prosecution are tools that we can’t rely
upon to get the whole job done.
Alan Robinson, Volunteer
member, Friends of Fourmile
Chapter, Greater Arkansas
River Nature Association
Strategy #3: See and be seen 23
• Give volunteers tools to easily and effectively For example: Minnesotans for Responsible
monitor off-road vehicle use. Create simple Recreation (MRR) has identified what it terms,
trespass reporting forms. Host workshops to train “a quiet majority.” A 2001 outdoor recreation
volunteers to identify, interpret, and report signs survey in St. Louis County (county seat, Duluth)
of illegal activity in a safe and non-confrontational confirms the existence of a large majority of
manner. residents who highly value outdoor recreation and
prefer quiet pursuits. Many have stopped recreating
• Make monitoring fun and safe by organizing
in areas because of conflicts with other forms of
group events.
recreation (especially snowmobiles, ATVs, and jet
For example: Montana’s Great Burn Study Group skis).
conducts regular monitoring field trips throughout
MRR’s campaigns focus around the common
the year to document off-road vehicle trespass
values of quiet recreation, fairness, efficiency,
and help the Forest Service identify hot spots for
and transparency in public funding of motorized
enforcement.
recreation.
• Give volunteers informational tools to hand out
• Cultivate a local and regional “enforcement ethic”
in controlled settings such as trailheads or club
so individuals and citizen groups can support each
meetings. Route maps, rules brochures, and other
other, and see their work as an important part of a
written tools can put volunteers more at-ease with
larger effort.
direct contact.
For example: In Colorado, the Friends of Fourmile W
NE
citizen group produced a volunteer-designed • Convene inclusive task forces to advise on off-
brochure and map (see p. 21). It contains road vehicle policy.
information on routes, recommended activities,
For example: In 2007, two state agencies convened
and safety and good behavior tips. Visitor contacts
the Massachusetts Off-Highway Vehicle Education
generally begin with the question, “Have you
and Enforcement Working Group to advise the
received the Friends of Fourmile map yet?” They
Commonwealth on issues related to off-road
also developed a Memorial Day insert in local
vehicle use on public and private lands. The
newspapers, aimed at expanding the information
group included representatives from off-road
from the brochure. The papers printed extra copies
that Friends volunteers handed out in field contacts
with riders.

2) Form broad coalitions for public

support.
• Invite participation from a variety of
recreationists and other public lands users.
Involving many different kinds of users—in
citizen groups or in specific projects—may
help create a climate in which off-road
violations are treated seriously.
• Build on themes or qualities that are
important to many people, such as wildlife,
habitat, watersheds, trails, quiet recreation
opportunities, fun, stewardship of public
lands, or fiscal responsibility.
Volunteers doing restoration work. (Wildlands CPR)

24 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

vehicle groups and other recreation groups, state
conservation and law enforcement agencies,
conservation organizations, and nonprofit
conservation land management organizations. The
Department of Conservation and Recreation and
the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental
Affairs are spearheading implementation of the
group’s 40 action recommendations.
As recommendations requiring statutory change
have been translated into proposed legislation,
most recommendations have remained true to the
group’s intent. However, this is not true across the
board, and key legislators as well as the legislative
process may amend the group’s proposals in
significant ways.
An age restriction for off-road vehicle operators
is an example of this. Group members spent
much time talking through their varied opinions,
and ultimately recommended mandatory safety
education for riders under the age of 18, and
immediate adult supervision for riders younger
than 14.
Contradicting those recommendations, a key
legislator has added a provision to the legislation,
prohibiting children younger than 14 from
operating off-road vehicles at all. While such a
prohibition enjoys support from a variety of safety
advocates and others, Gary Briere, a Department
of Conservation and Recreation employee
involved with the working group, noted that
this proposal did not come out of the working
group’s deliberations. “This angered the off-road
community, whose representatives had participated
in this process. They felt hoodwinked by the
state, when that was not our intention. This is a
piece of the process we could not control. The
operator age issue will end up being a lightning
rod for the whole process, even though there was
broad agreement on other issues.” Involving key
legislators may help to avoid such conflicts in
similar processes.
3) Formalize collaborations among law
enforcement entities.
• Make a public commitment to enforcement
by teaming up with law enforcement officials
from other federal, state, and local jurisdictions.
Agreements between agencies can also expand
enforcement capacity.
• Lend citizen monitoring capacity to agency
enforcement efforts. Volunteer monitoring can
help law enforcement personnel pinpoint problem
areas and implement more effective enforcement
strategies.
W
NE
4) Retask agency staff to provide a greater
educational presence in the field.
• Assign and train field workers to interact with off-
road vehicle riders and other recreationists.
For example: On the Lewis and Clark (Montana)
National Forest’s Judith ranger district, trail
crew members go out into the field with a newly
expanded job description. In addition to clearing
brush and downed trees, they have been assigned
to interact with people they meet. Crew members
provide directions, advice and a general presence
in the field, as well as reminders about area rules,
including for off-road vehicles.
5) Create meaningful opportunities for citizen
reporting.
• Give trail users tools and resources to patrol for
violations.
For example: In a partnership spearheaded by the
Inyo National Forest, members of the California
Nordic Ski Patrol monitor trails designated for
non-motorized use during the winter months.
Volunteer skiers carry radios that they use to report
violations to Forest Service law enforcement staff
who respond to patrol calls.
Strategy #3: See and be seen 25
• Enlist assistance from researchers and others
already in the field.
For example: Wyoming’s Jackson Hole
Conservation Alliance enlists assistance from
winter recreationists and wildlife researchers to
monitor closed areas and report violations. These
volunteers use standard monitoring forms to
document their observations.
• Make sure law enforcement officers respond to
reported violations, and adjust patrols based on
information from citizen reports.
• Law enforcement officers or agency managers can
follow up on reported violations with a postcard
or thank you telephone call to the citizen monitor.
• Post a hotline telephone number for reporting off-
road vehicle violations.
For example: The Michigan Department of
Natural Resources maintains a law enforcement
hotline for abuse reports. On the Bridger-Teton
National Forest near Jackson, Wyoming, trailhead
kiosks include a telephone number for reporting
violations. The calls go to an interagency dispatch
center staffed by the Forest Service and National
Park Service. Reports are routed to the nearest
enforcement officer.
W officers can investigate and often write citations
NE
• Help citizens make the most of hotlines for
reporting off-road vehicle violations.
For example: For many years, Montana’s toll-free
TIP-MONT hotline has provided a single point
of contact for people calling to report violations
in the forests. Familiar signs invite forest users to
report illegal activity, and in 2008, TIP-MONT
received more than 1,800 calls from people
reporting violations ranging from poaching to
vandalism. In recent years, people have started to
use TIP-MONT as a place to report illegal vehicle
use on public lands, often but not always, during
hunting season.
In 2008, the Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks
ran commercials inviting people to use the TIP-
MONT hotline to report problem use of off-road
vehicles. Calls to report vehicle violations, such as
26 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
driving off-route or in closed areas, grew from an
average of 84 in each of the preceding two years to
more than 140 in 2008.
The hotline, which is run by the state Department
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, receives funding from
the Forest Service and BLM. TIP-MONT directs
reports to the appropriate land management and
enforcement agency. More people in the woods
with cell phones can translate into more reports
of violations in progress, and more accurate and
complete reporting as trained hotline staff probes
for pertinent information.
The Forest Service and BLM also provide public
education about the TIP-MONT hotline.
Noting the importance of complete and accurate
information, Lewis and Clark National Forest
district ranger, Ron Wiseman, said that discussions
were underway on his forest to run a series of
radio and newspaper ads to help educate the
public about the kinds of information law
enforcement officials need to effectively investigate
and prosecute violations. “It’s the classic who,
what, where, when, why, and how, with as much
detail as possible,” Wiseman said. “The best
possible scenario is a report that includes a vehicle
description, license plate number, and a detailed
description of the person. Our law enforcement
based on this kind of complete information.”
6) Use nonprofit status to gather money.
• Citizen groups may become, or affiliate with, a
nonprofit organization to qualify for grants and
donations. This status may also help them forge
cooperative arrangements with or between land
managers and law enforcement agencies.
• Help funnel donations and grants for
enforcement to land managers. Federal agencies
are prohibited from soliciting funding from outside
the agency. Supporting groups (often named,
“Friends of…”) can work in partnership with
agencies to secure funds beyond agency budgets
and available enforcement grants.
7) Publicize progress.
• Detail specific projects and accomplishments in a
continual series of press releases.
• Offer press and public tours of project sites.
Include reporters, public officials, community
residents, and members of relevant organizations.
• Monitor progress and keep a database that
includes photographs.
For example: Friends of Fourmile is building a
database of photographs that illustrate progress
over time on restoration and other projects.
Challenges
Sustaining momentum and membership or interest over
the long term can be difficult.
Raising money can become a continual and energy-
intensive focus.
Shortages of agency law enforcement staff may make
it impossible to respond promptly to citizen reports.
Prompt response is generally a key to catching violators
and to maintaining public participation in the reporting
system.
Recreation groups should be invited to invest labor
and money only into projects where thorough resource
evaluations have been completed. This helps to lessen
the possibility of the public land management agency
later backtracking and modifying access to these areas.
Strategy #3: See and be seen 27
Enforcement Success Strategy #4
Make riders responsible
Promote a culture shift among peers
Use this approach when…
Enforcement is difficult because of terrain, access,
the nature of routes, or patterns of land ownership;
The agency is shifting to a closed-unless-posted-
open or designated-route-only management
scheme for off-road vehicle use;
A small geographic community allows for ongoing
personal contact;
Shared values exist; or
Volunteers are already working in the area or are
available to monitor use and violations.
Tactics
1) Use mass media campaigns to educate riders
and cultivate support.
• Reach out to target audiences with an aggressive
media campaign.
For example: The Jackson Hole Conservation
Alliance responded to rampant violations of
winter wildlife habitat closures with a campaign of
radio spots. This “don’t poach the powder” radio
campaign focused on the importance of winter
range to preserving big game populations. The
target audiences included hunters and people who
recreated in areas of the Bridger-Teton National
Forest close to the towns of Wilson and Jackson.
The public service announcements also note the
penalties and fines for violations.
2) Work with the leadership of the off-
road community to gain commitments to
enforcement.
• Collaborate with off-road clubs and organizations,
dealers, and outfitters to encourage a culture of
peer enforcement.
28 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
For example: Enforcement staff on Wyoming’s
Bighorn National Forest are building relationships
with local off-road vehicle dealers to enlist their
assistance in educating riders.
3) Focus on common values.
• Focus media campaigns and public outreach on
shared values such as stewardship, healthy wildlife
populations and habitat, respect, fun, healthy
watersheds, and safety.
• Involve the off-road community in broader efforts
that do not target off-road vehicle use specifically.
Efforts such as watershed mapping, monitoring
water quality, or gauging forest health can help
build relationships among different recreation
users.
During the fieldwork, done by a
core of about 30 volunteers from
both motorized and non-motorized
communities, there evolved a better
understanding of each other’s
perspectives, and an appreciation of
the legitimacy of multiple uses, so long
as there was a respect for each other
and the landscape.
Volunteer, commenting on
the process of surveying
routes for the Fourmile
Travel Management Planning
process, Colorado
4) Promote rider responsibility.
• Encourage off-road vehicle riders to patrol their
own ranks.
• Place the burden of responsibility on riders to
consult trail maps before they ride. Just as hunters
are responsible for knowing where they are allowed
to hunt, make off-road vehicle riders responsible
for knowing where they are allowed to ride. This
approach is part of the 2005 Forest Service travel
management rule and is being implemented as
route designation required under that rule takes
effect.
W • Starting January 1, 2014, all persons.
NE
5) Require training and certification for riders.
• Mandate an off-road vehicle training course.
For example: In 2007, Oregon adopted a law
requiring safety training for all Oregonians
operating off-road vehicles and motorcycles
for recreational purposes on public lands. This
requirement will be phased in over several years,
beginning with operators under 16 years of age,
who must meet this requirement beginning
January 1, 2009.
By January 1, 2014, all off-road vehicle operators
will be required to have completed the safety
Snowmobiler on a groomed trail. (Sascha Buchard/Dreamstime.com)
training and carry a certification card when riding
on public land. Age groups will be phased in
according to the following schedule:
• Starting January 1, 2010, all persons under
age 31;
• Starting January 1, 2011, all persons under
age 41;
• Starting January 1, 2012, all persons under
age 51;
• Starting January 1, 2013, all persons under
age 61; and
For example: A similar proposal from the
Massachusetts Off-Highway Vehicle Enforcement
and Education Working Group would instate
a safety and responsibility course for anyone
born after a specified date (18 years prior to the
legislation taking effect). The intent is that, in
the first year after enabling legislation is passed,
riders who are 18 or younger would be required
to complete the course. Thereafter, all riders born
after that date, regardless of age, would be required
to complete the program.
Strategy #4: Make riders responsible 29
 A parent or the legal guardian of an operator
under 16 would be required to participate in at
least one section of the safety and responsibility
course. Riders would be required to carry proof
of successful completion of the course with them
while operating an off-road vehicle.
• Create driver’s license endorsements for operation
of off-road vehicles
For example: Concomitant with raising the legal
age at which children are allowed to operate off-
road vehicles on public lands to 16, the New
Mexico 2008 state interagency advisory report
described earlier recommends creating two new
driver’s license endorsements, one for all-terrain
vehicles, and one for off-road motorcycles.
Operators of all legal ages would be required to
carry these endorsements on their driver’s licenses.
W • Staff time/labor to participate in Off-
NE
6) Expand educational efforts.
• Charge a broad-based task force with educational
efforts.
For example: In 2008, Kentucky adopted some
changes to the state’s Recreational Trails Authority
(RTA). The RTA is a governor-appointed body
of representatives from motorized and non-
motorized recreation interests. It is responsible for
planning and implementing programs to expand
tourism opportunities for both non-motorized
and motorized recreation, including pedestrians,
bicycles, mountain bicycles, horses, and off-road
vehicles on designated lands in Kentucky.
The changes include expanding the group’s
membership to include broader representation
from recreation groups, private landowners, and
the judiciary.
This expanded group has been assigned new
responsibilities including developing and
implementing a strategy to promote responsible
and legal recreation by all types of users including
off-road vehicles on private land. This strategy is
to include an information campaign for residents
and out-of-staters focusing on the implications of
trespass, vandalism, and littering.
30 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
• Engage off-road vehicle club members to patrol
and conduct peer-to-peer education.
For example: In 2007, the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) established a
two-year volunteer Trail Ambassador program
to promote safe, environmentally responsible
operation of off-road vehicles on public lands.
Through the program, trained volunteers from
off-highway vehicle clubs spend time in the field,
making informational, educational contacts and
monitoring efforts.
The two-year initiative runs from 2008 through
2009. Each year, the DNR provides $250,000 in
grants to qualifying organizations to cover costs
associated with these off-highway vehicle safety,
environmental education and trail monitoring
activities. Grant funds may be spent to cover:
Highway Vehicle Safety and Conservation
program activities, with priority on educating
public trail users and riders; and
• Items and expenses that are directly related to
the program.
Individuals interested in volunteering for the Trail
Ambassador program must meet the following
requirements:
• Be 18 years of age or older;
• Be an active Certified Minnesota DNR
Volunteer Youth All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV)
Safety Training Instructor;
• Submit to a thorough background
investigation;
• Possess a valid drivers license;
• Complete the Minnesota DNR ATV Safety
Training CD;
• Be sponsored by a qualified organization;
and
• Complete a “Trail Ambassador” training
session.
Qualified organizations, or sponsors, are local off-
road vehicle clubs that are committed to outdoor
recreation, off-road vehicle safety, and education,
and that participate in the Trail Ambassador grant
program through a formal agreement with the
DNR. Qualified organizations are required to be
members in good standing of one of the following
state associations:
• Amateur Riders Motorcycle Association;
• All-Terrain Vehicle Association of Minnesota;
• Minnesota United Snowmobilers
Association; or
• Minnesota 4-Wheel Drive Association.
Each trail ambassador must complete a day-long
training to prepare to interact with the public in
the field. The training includes a review of off-road
vehicle laws; training in trail monitoring, invasive
species identification, and making public contacts;
first aid and GPS training; and program policies
and paperwork requirements.
Trail mbassadors always work in pairs for safety.
Data collected by the state indicate that most
Fresh tracks behind a route
closure sign, near Paiute Trail.
(Dan Schroeder)
off-road vehicle accidents and violations occur
Thursdays through Mondays between 11 a.m. and
8 p.m. Volunteer hours are concentrated during
these peak times, and in areas of intensive off-road
vehicle use or at events.
Trail ambassadors are not law enforcement officers,
and cannot issue citations. Their education and
monitoring roles, however, help extend the reach
of the DNR, helping identify problem areas and
problem riders for law enforcement intervention.
The DNR has only three law enforcement officers
statewide that focus on off-road vehicle issues.
New ideas
• Set triggers for closure orders based on violations.
Especially for routes through sensitive areas or
where illegal activity is a problem, set and publicize
parameters for keeping routes open.
• Make it easy to report violators. Every state
advertises a telephone number for reporting
poachers. A similar tool could be put in place
for reporting off-road violations. Interviewees in
Wyoming, Montana, and California reported that
hunters are accustomed to reporting violations
among their own ranks. They use cell phones and
satellite phones to call poaching hotlines with
reports of off-road vehicles used illegally to retrieve
downed game. (See TIP-MONT example, page 26,
for one way to implement this idea.)
Vermillion Cliffs National Monument.
(Grand Canyon Wildlands Council)
Strategy #4: Make riders responsible 31
Challenges
Fostering a peer enforcement ethic may be difficult in
larger areas where media campaigns are not practical
and community investment plays a minor role.

Peer enforcement is more challenging if the majority of

riders are visitors who lack ties to a local community.
Visitors may not bear the broader consequences of
illegal actions (such as the triggering of area protection
orders based on violations and resource damage).
Enlisting assistance from off-road vehicle outfitters and
rental shops may help with visiting riders.

Some studies suggest that many people ride off-road

vehicles for excitement. Even knowing the rules, most
riders are willing to violate them some of the time.

The peer culture still needs to be backed by serious

and consistent enforcement and monitoring. Remote
and difficult-to-patrol areas can leave openings for
undetected violations, as can limited enforcement
budgets.

To date, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of

peer-to-peer programs such as the Minnestoa Trail
Ambassadors. Some critics have expressed concern that
the same clubs and riders that cause problems one day
sometimes turn up functioning as trail ambassadors the
next.

32 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

Enforcement Success Strategy #5
Use the force
Incorporate technologies that work
Use this approach when…
Illegal access routes to public lands or closed areas
are a problem;
Law enforcement officers are able to respond to
violation alerts;
Trails are out-and-back or loop trails with limited
access points so officers responding to the alert are
likely to catch the violator on the way out; or
Areas have become well-known—albeit illegal—play
areas among riders.
Tactics
1) Use remote electronic monitoring.
• Employ seismic, magnetic, or infrared detectors
to monitor entry points to closed areas. Devices
such as these are sometimes referred to as “rangers
in a can.” Law enforcement officers interviewed for
this report agree that these technologies cut down
on illegal entries.
For example: On California’s Inyo National
Forest, seismic monitors are placed near roads
or trails closed to off-road vehicle use. When a
vehicle passes, the electronic transmitter sends
an immediate radio signal to a law enforcement
officer’s receiver. Signals can be transmitted for a
distance of two to five miles, or up to ten miles if a
repeater is used.
Equipment cost: Purchase and maintenance
costs vary, depending upon
terrain, the complexity of
the system, distance required
for transmission, and other
factors.
2) Track noise violations.
• Use decibel meters to limit the use of illegal or
unusually loud off-road vehicles.
For example: In the rural, eastern part of Kern
County (California), large BLM tracts offer riding
opportunities that attract significant numbers
of off-road riders. The Kern County sheriff’s
department uses decibel meters to help identify
riders whose vehicles violate California noise
standards.
In its 2006/2007 California Off-Highway Vehicle
Grant application, the sheriff’s department
requested funds to purchase three decibel meters
to respond to local community concerns about
the noise associated with off-road vehicles. By
enforcing noise standards, the department hopes to
increase compliance and create more community
acceptance of the nearby riding areas.
Equipment cost: 1 decibel meter = $2,600
Maintenance for a year = $750
We know these UAV’s (unmanned
aerial vehicles) are the wave of the
future.
Lance Brady, BLM geographic
information systems specialist
commenting on their proposed
use in monitoring riparian and
vegetation conditions in large,
remote areas
Strategy #5: Use the force 33
3) Track recurring problems and repeat
offenders.
• Maintain a database of violations and problems,
as well as the responsible individuals.
For example: The Kern County sheriff’s
department’s off-road vehicle enforcement team
maintains such a database on a laptop computer at
its mobile command post. Team members use the
database to prioritize law enforcement responses
and expedite the resolution of common violations
and complaints.
• Employ video surveillance equipment or
automatically triggered digital or infrared cameras
to enable officers to identify violators.

Challenges
Remote monitoring at specific access points can push
abuses to other access points or routes.

Equipment is expensive, susceptible to vandalism, and

needs to be regularly maintained.

Many states lack effective noise standards.

34 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

Enforcement Success Strategy #6
Fit the punishment to the crime
Make penalties meaningful
Use this approach when…
The same riders violate repeatedly;
Patterns of violations and resource damage
suggest that rules are not taken seriously; or
Agencies are demonstrating a new commitment
to consistent enforcement.
Tactics
1) Toughen penalties.
NE
• Mandate a court hearing to assess damages
• Increase penalties for off-road vehicle
violations. In some places, fines for a first
offense are as low as $50, generally escalating
with subsequent violations. Fines must be
meaningful and enforcement uniform.
For example: On the Ocala National Forest
(Florida) fines for off-road vehicle violations
causing natural resource damage were recently
raised from $100 to $500. This was done
through the standard process for changing
penalties (see “Challenges” section, p. 39).
• Add vehicle confiscation as a possible penalty
for multiple or egregious offenses.
For example: Third-time offenders on the
Stanislaus National Forest (California) may
have their vehicles confiscated.
2) Consider natural resource damage in
determining fines.
• Levy fines for damage to natural resources
that results from off-road vehicle violations.
For example: In response to natural resource
damage caused by increasing off-road violations
on Pennsylvania’s Michaux State Forest,
the district forester consulted with district
attorneys and local law enforcement officials
in three counties covered by parts of the forest.
These consultations helped the district forester
devise a strategy for cracking down. A number of
state regulations and laws apply, ranging from the
state forest regulations to agricultural vandalism,
criminal trespass, and criminal mischief. The
forester promised, “Anyone caught cutting trees to
get around gates or closed roads, damaging gates,
or damaging wetlands and vernal ponds will be
charged restitution.”
W
For example: Proposed legislation in Massachusetts,
based on recommendations from the Massachusetts
Off-Highway Vehicle Education and Enforcement
Working Group, establishes penalties for vehicular
trespass ranging from $250 to $1,000, 60 days to
one year imprisonment, or both, and restitution to
the property owner for damages resulting from the
trespass.
When your $3,000 or $4,000 or
$6,000 machine turns up missing
and you come to the National Forest
Service looking for it, we’ll be happy
to see that you get it back. But not
until you’ve gotten your ticket.
Woody Lipps, U.S. Forest
Service law enforcement
officer commenting on
seizing illegally-operated off-
road vehicles as evidence
Strategy #6: Fit the punishment to the crime 35
 The legislation mandates a court hearing to
W
assess damages before the final disposition of NE
• Allow community service to be substituted for
a complaint. It requires the court to order the
other penalties.
defendant to pay restitution for all damages
“including but not limited to, environmental For example: New Mexico’s interagency working
damages such as erosion and compaction of soils, group recommended a statutory change to allow
damage to wetland areas, disturbance of habitat, judges to substitute community service restoring
harassment or destruction of wildlife, and damage natural areas for some or all of the jail time or fines
to crops, planted areas, forests, and fields.” that would typically be levied for off-road vehicle
offenses.
W
NE
• Allow for both criminal and civil penalties
For example: Legislation adopted in Hawai‘i in 4) Link off-road violation penalties to other
2008 adds criminal penalties to the existing civil recreational privileges.
process used for penalizing violations of off-road
• Revoke hunting or fishing privileges—or assess
vehicle regulations. In states where assessing
points against hunting and fishing licenses—as a
damages is not part of the criminal procedure
penalty for certain off-road violations.
(as recommended in Massachusetts, see above),
preserving both criminal and civil avenues of For example: The Missouri Conservation
prosecution allows for imposition of fines and Commission added suspension of hunting and
other penalties, while preserving the state’s right fishing privileges as a penalty for unlawful use of
to seek restitution and recover damages in a civil off-road vehicles in streams. Using procedures
process. already in place for other wildlife-code violations,
the Missouri Department of Conservation may
The law, which originated as Hawai‘i Senate Bill
now recommend that the Commission suspend
1891 (2008), gives Department of Land and
hunting and fishing licenses for violators. One-year
Natural Resources enforcement officers the power
suspensions are the norm, but the Department
to issue criminal citations, confiscate off-road
may recommend longer suspensions for more
vehicles according to criminal rules of evidence,
egregious offenses.
and arrest violators.
Because Missouri participates in the Interstate
Wildlife Violator’s Compact, these suspensions
may be honored in 30 other states that, thus far,
3) Add appropriate community service as a
have joined the compact.
penalty.
For example: South Carolina’s Department
• Add community service to the list of allowable
of Natural Resources uses a point system for
penalties for certain off-road vehicle violations.
violations of hunting and fishing regulations and
Violators could be required to contribute their
marine resource laws. Once a certain number of
time to the restoration or construction of barriers
points have been issued against an individual’s
to areas damaged by motorized recreation,
hunting or fishing license, those privileges are
biological inventories, or classroom education.
suspended.
For example: Rather than ticketing and fining
• Print the names of off-road vehicle offenders
young offenders, a sheriff’s department responsible
and descriptions of their violations in the local
for enforcing off-road vehicle regulations on the
newspaper.
Stanislaus National Forest worked with families of
some local youth who had committed violations. For example: Off-road violators in California’s
A portion of the punishment included removing Inyo National Forest find their names printed
illegal trails, constructing berms, and restoration.

36 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

 in the local paper. Peer pressure—notably from
snowmobile shops and clubs—comes into play to
try to avoid bad publicity.
• Revoke entry privileges on public lands to
penalize egregious or chronic violators.
For example: Two pickup truck drivers who drove
off-road around a geothermal area in Yellowstone
National Park were permanently banned from the
park as part of their penalty.
5) Impound vehicles.
• Use criminal law and rules of evidence as a
rationale for confiscating vehicles as evidence,
especially in cases of egregious violations or when
the violator has hidden a vehicle for illegal use.
For example: In Hawai‘i, law enforcement officers
are able to issue criminal citations, make arrests,
and seize vehicles as evidence for violations of
the state law against riding off-road vehicles on
beaches.
• Incorporate vehicle impoundment as part of the
penalties for off-road vehicle offenses.
For example: New York state law bans off-road
vehicle use on public lands or roads that are
not designated for their use. Penalties for these
violations vary by county, and many incorporate
vehicle impoundment. In Suffolk County, in
addition to fines for illegal off-road vehicle use,
violators may be required to pay impound fees
for their vehicles. These fees are $500 for first and
second offenses, and run up to $3,000 or possible
vehicle forfeiture for the third offense.
W
NE
• Mandate vehicle impoundment for repeat
offenders.
For example: A 2008 Delaware law enhanced
penalties for off-road vehicle violations. Prior to the
new law, the penalties included a fine of not less

Getting Serious about Off-Road Vehicle Penalties

In 2002, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection issued a new policy directive on
off-road vehicle use, which is prohibited on most state land. The directive was motivated by “a marked
increase in the unlawful use of these vehicles on public lands,” resource damage, interference with other
user groups, and other costs. It included tougher penalties for off-road vehicle violations, including the
following.

1) Automatic assessment of the maximum fine of $1,000 for violations on state park and forest lands.
The fine may be reduced only if:
• It is a first violation involving no adverse impacts to natural resources or public safety; or
• A lesser penalty is authorized in writing by a state official, due to other extraordinary
circumstances.
2) Automatic assessment of the maximum fine of $200 for violations in Wildlife Management Areas.
3) Triple damage fines when the cost of restoration from damage to natural resources in Wildlife
Management Areas exceeds $100.
The directive also ordered the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection to
work with other state authorities to develop legislation increasing penalties and authorizing vehicle
impoundment for unlawful use. To expedite the assessment of restoration costs, this policy directive
ordered the development of a damages table covering resource damage typical of unlawful off-road
vehicle use.

Strategy #6: Fit the punishment to the crime 37

 than $11.50 nor more than $345, impoundment
of the vehicle for 30 days, or both.
The new penalties provide higher fines and longer
periods of impoundment:
• First offenses are punishable by a fine of
$100 and impoundment of the vehicle for
up to 100 days from the time of conviction;
• Subsequent offenses within two years of a
prior conviction for state off-road vehicle
violations or similar local laws, statutes, or
ordinances are punishable by a fine of $400
and vehicle impoundment for a mandatory
minimum time period of six months.
Penalties for vehicular trespass are steeper for repeat
offenders. Section 6821 of the Delaware Code
prohibits operating an off-road vehicle on public or
private property without express permission of the
owner or knowingly in violation of any restrictions
imposed by the property owner. Violations are
punishable as follows:
• First offenses are punishable by a fine of
$100 and vehicle impoundment for up to 30
days, which may be suspended by the court;
• Each subsequent offense within two years of
the first offense earns a fine of $1,000 and
vehicle impoundment for a minimum of 60
days.
• The law also mandates that restitution be
made for the value of damage to real or
personal property resulting from vehicular
trespass.
Impounded vehicles are returned to the owner
upon payment of the fine and impoundment costs.
If the fine is appealed, and the owner or operator
is found not guilty, the vehicle is returned and the
owner does not have to pay impoundment costs.
W
NE
• Clarify whether vehicle confiscation is allowed,
and under what circumstances.
For example: Proposed legislation in Massachusetts,
based on recommendations from the
Massachusetts Off-Highway Vehicle Education and
Enforcement Working Group, provides for vehicle
38 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
impoundment as one penalty for riding on private
land without permission or riding on public lands
not open to off-road vehicles. A law enforcement
officer may impound the vehicle “for a period of
not less than thirty days nor more than one year
from and after the date the owner or operator of
the vehicle is convicted of such violation.”
W
NE
4) Make a steep, escalating scale for penalties
for repeat offenders.
• Revoke riding and registration privileges for
repeat offenders.
For example: An Iowa law adopted in 2007
prohibits riding off-road vehicles in areas not
specifically designated for their use, and creates an
escalating scale of penalties for repeat offenders,
including mandatory revocation of off-road vehicle
registration and riding privileges.
The law, which originated as Iowa House File 742
(2007), mandates a one-year revocation of off-road
vehicle registrations and user permits for a person
convicted twice of trespassing while operating an
off-road vehicle within one year.
The law allows the court to suspend or revoke one
or more off-road vehicle registration or user permit
privileges as part of the judgment against a person
convicted of violating any off-road vehicle rule.
Violation of off-road vehicle rules while a person’s
registration privilege is suspended or revoked are
treated as:
1) A simple misdemeanor if the person had no
other convictions within the previous three
years;
2) A serious misdemeanor if the person had one
other conviction within the previous three
years; and
3) An aggravated misdemeanor if the person
had two or more convictions within the
previous three years.
• Mandate an escalating schedule of penalties
For example: Under a 2008 law, Hawai‘i provides
for a sliding scale of penalties, including mandatory
minimum fines or imprisonment or both:
 • For a first offense, a mandatory fine of not
less than $500, or imprisonment of not more
than thirty days, or both;
• For a second offense within five years of a
previous conviction under this section, a
mandatory fine of not less than $1,000, or
imprisonment of not more than thirty days,
or both; and
• For a third or subsequent offense within five
years of two prior convictions under this
section, a mandatory fine of not less than
$2,000, or imprisonment of not more than
thirty days, or both.
• Use a “three strikes and you’re out” approach
For example: The New Mexico interagency working
group recommends steeply increasing penalties
for repeat offenses, and using a “three strikes and
you’re out” approach for certain off-road vehicle
violations. These include violations involving
natural resource or other damage, and riding in
wilderness or other restricted areas. Penalties for
repeat offenses would escalate from fines and
community service to vehicle confiscation and
ultimately, jail time.
New ideas
• In some states, community service is an accepted
penalty for operating an off-road vehicle while
intoxicated. Amend statutory authority to add
community service as an allowable penalty for
certain other, first-time, off-road vehicle offenses.
• Similarly, some states assess points against a
driver’s license for driving an off-road vehicle while
intoxicated. This system could be extended to other
offenses.
Challenges
Bond schedules, which set penalties for each type
of violation, are guidelines for sentencing. Most
law enforcement officers adhere to the dollar figure
provided in the bond schedule when writing tickets.
They have the ability to require a court appearance and
request a higher penalty for serious violations. However,
magistrates may reduce or increase the bond amount
in court at the time of sentencing, or even dismiss
the penalty altogether. Given the wide discretion of
both law enforcement officers and magistrates, it is
important that all parties understand the serious nature
of off-road vehicle offenses.
Changing penalties can be a difficult, involved, and
politically challenging process. For both the Forest
Service and the BLM, agency divisions may propose
changes in the bond schedule to the relevant U.S.
District Court through consultations with the U.S.
Attorney’s office. This tends to happen infrequently, at
intervals of roughly eight to ten years.
In general, federal officials cannot fine or incarcerate
juvenile offenders, as the states have primary authority
over young offenders. Magistrates may only place these
offenders on probation, in most cases. Any penalty or
regulatory system establishing the need for a driver’s
license or an age limit for operating an off-road vehicle
would need to address this gap in federal authority.
Strategy #6: Fit the punishment to the crime 39
 W
NEConclusion
Keep track
Monitor to gauge progress and
fine-tune action
In business, technology, and management circles, a
common saying advises, “What is measured, improves.”
A corollary maintains that what is measured, reported,
and acted on improves more rapidly.
No matter which enforcement strategy, or
combination of strategies is applied, monitoring both
implementation and outcomes is essential. Without
monitoring, only guesses about effectiveness are
possible, and adapting management approaches and
tactics to respond to changing circumstances is next to
impossible.
This section describes two approaches to monitoring,
digesting, and disseminating collected information.
These are intended as examples to help generate new
ideas for feedback loops about the effectiveness of off-
road vehicle management. This is not a comprehensive
guide to monitoring.
1) Maintain a comprehensive and publicly
accessible database.
For example: Among the 2008 recommendations
of the New Mexico interagency working group on
off-road vehicles were these:
• The managing agency should establish a
comprehensive database of metrics on ORV
recreation including data on accidents and
injuries, natural resource damage, user
conflicts, registrations and permits, and
prepare reports for the managing agency
director. The database should include specific
metrics for recreational impacts on ranchers
and farmers.
• Establish a centralized monitoring/reporting
infrastructure which also supports synergistic
use of ecological monitoring, research
studies, and ecological restoration data,
40 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
between scientific institutions, non-profits,
and State of New Mexico agencies and
departments. Access to a central, integrated
database by scientists at research institutions
and state and federal entities could provide
needed information without initiating costly
new efforts.
Rather than starting from scratch to build a centralized
reporting and data collection infrastructure, the
working group recommended expanding upon
the existing Environmental Notification Tracking
System. This system, operational at the New Mexico
Department of the Environment, provides a public
interface for reporting non-emergency environmental
problems (see http://nmenv-it.nmenv.state.nm.us/
EnvComp/Incident/incident_hdr_list.php). This
system could be expanded to allow web portals from all
involved state and local agencies. It could also be used
for data mining by the public and researchers.
The working group noted that another effort, the
New Mexico Forest and Watershed Health Plan
(2004) pointed out a similar need for monitoring,
research, and education on environmental issues, and
proposed mechanisms for centralizing and prioritizing
restoration measures. Expanding these already-proposed
mechanisms to include off-road vehicle issues would
further the Forest and Watershed Health Plan and serve
the state’s needs related to off-road vehicles.
The working group called for “distributed data
collection” by public officials, researchers, and citizens
yielding data on trends, problems, need for monitoring
specific areas, loss of species and so on. The report
noted, “On-the-ground, rapid reporting of erosion,
illegal trails, damage to remote riparian areas, and other
threats to ecological integrity, natural processes, and
long-term resiliency” could more rapidly trigger needed
restoration or revegetation efforts, point out problems
to law enforcement, and inform recreationists about
areas to avoid and researchers about areas to study.
2) Monitor management, maintenance, and
enforcement.
For example: After implementing a new designated
route system in 2007, the Ocala National Forest in
Florida developed a process for evaluating off-road
vehicle management on the forest. (See the case
study about enforcement of the Ocala’s designated
route system on page 50.)
The monitoring system was developed with input
from off-road vehicle groups and conservation
organizations. It focuses on establishing whether
off-road riders are complying with the new rules,
staying on designated trails, and keeping off non-
designated routes.
The monitoring plan includes 21 questions, each
with an evaluation mechanism. Some evaluation
mechanisms draw on reports from Forest Service
staff and volunteers in the field. Others rely on
special surveys or photo points for data collection.
The aim of the process is quickly and economically
to evaluate the effectiveness of management,
produce information that could help the
Forest Service target problem areas and revise
management approaches, and, over time, yield data
that could be used to establish trends.
The Ocala provides just one example of monitoring
the implementation and effectiveness of off-road
vehicle management efforts.

Ocala National Forest Monitoring Framework

Section 1: Designation and Implementation

Question How evaluated How reported and comments based on
Year 1 monitoring experience
1. Are designated trails and mixed- Visual survey of markers. All trails in Phase 1 of the route system had
use roads posted or marked on the been signed. A table identifies how many signs
ground? and carsonite posts were placed on each trail.
2. Are signs or posts being Reports and observations of Vandalism incidence varied from trail to trail.
vandalized or removed? the number of signs missing On one trail, with 24 signs and 100 carsonite
or vandalized from each trail. posts, 15 had been vandalized and 11 removed
over the course of the year.
3. How many OHV volunteer Forest records of volunteer Not reported in preliminary 2007 report.
hours were contributed each month hours logged.
or quarter?
Section 2: Education and Compliance
4. Are users staying on designated Number of new or Three non-designated routes leading from
routes? unauthorized trails off private property onto the forest still showed
designated trails. signs of heavy use. A total of 45 unauthorized
trails were blocked with downed trees in
summer 2007. Most of the use on non-
designated roads forestwide appeared during or
immediately after hunting season.
5. How much OHV use is there on Visitor counts at selected This item has not been monitored yet due
each sampled trail? trailheads, electronic counters to lack of funds to have workers stationed at
on trails. trailheads to survey use, or to purchase trail
counters. Installing electronic counters was
to have been done by University of Florida
researchers under a cooperative research
agreement. This task was not completed.
(Continued)

Conclusion 41
 Section 2: Education and Compliance (continued)
Question How evaluated How reported and comments based on
Year 1 monitoring experience
6. How many violations or Number, location, and type of A table of incident reports, violation notices
warnings were written for access violations. and warning notices by type and district
non-compliance in the last year? appears in the report. The report notes,
however, that it is difficult to use violation
information to establish trends because the
number of violations depends on the number
of users on the forest and the number of forest
officers in the field.*
7. Are OHV trucks and trailers Number of vehicles parked On approximately two dozen occasions,
parking in approved designated along forest roads or public vehicles were observed parked in two locations
areas only? highways. where OHV users had been instructed to park
prior to implementation of the new plan. This
is not considered illegal parking, but rather
part of the transition to the new plan.
8. On how many days during the Occupancy of OHV trailhead A table reports that each of six monitored
year did trailhead parking reach parking lots. parking areas (of seven total trailheads)
capacity? reached capacity on four days during the year.
Trailheads were over capacity on Thanksgiving
weekend and the weekend just before
Christmas.
9. Which non-designated routes Photo points located at Staff compiled a Photo Points Monitoring
show evidence of continued junctions of designated trails Notebook. The report includes both notes
motorized use? and non-designated routes. about the biggest problem areas and a table
reporting for each major trail: 1) Percent of
non-designated trails still being used, and 2)
Percent of non-designated trails still apparent
on the landscape but not being used.
10. Are wetland areas being Number and location of Report includes notes on three wetlands areas
impacted by users of the wetlands & degree of impact of concern, indicating the apparent success of
recreational trail system? (emphasis on wetlands of blocking access with posts and downed trees,
concern within 200 feet of and reporting observations of percent ground
off-road vehicle trails). cover and any evidence of continued use.
Section 3: Recovery of Non-designated Roads and Trails
11. Are non-designated roads and Percent live vegetation and Report includes average percentages of ground
unmarked travelways recovering? total ground cover by ocular cover and live ground cover at photo points, as
estimate. well as percentage of non-designated roads still
being used along each designated route.
(Continued)
* Despite challenges in using reported violations to establish trends, it is important to test the widely held assumption
that a high level of violations in the early days of a new route system will give way to greater compliance over time
as users get used to the new rules. This assumption grounds the common approach of focusing largely on education
during the first year or more after a new system is designated, and gradually shifting the emphasis to enforcement over
time.

Keeping and comparing detailed records of each type of violation and educational encounter over time, as well as
careful monitoring of other indicators such as those in Section 2 of this monitoring framework, may provide the basis
for gauging the effectiveness of route designations over time and the value of the education-first approach for different
types of violations.

42 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement

Section 4: Trail and Area Conditions and Attributes
Question How evaluated
12. Which non-designated roads Non-designated roads listed
and unmarked travelways are being in Prescription Burn Plans,
used for administrative purposes? invasive plant control plans,
and wildlife survey plans.
13. Are impacted wetland areas Percent vegetation coverage,
recovering? ocular estimate.
14. What percent of designated List of OHV routes surveyed
OHV routes have been surveyed? by fiscal year.
15. Are invasive species spreading Location, size, and type of
along designated roads and trails? invasive species infestation.
16. How many OHVs exceed 96dB Decibel level at 20” of OHVs
at 20”? at selected trailheads during
weekends.
17. Are widths of OHV trails Number, location, and
changing? If so, why? approximate lengths of
trail sections experiencing
widening.
18. Is the trail verge or shoulder Number, length and
widening? location of trail sections with
expanding verge.
19. Are designated routes affecting Fledgling success for red-
red-cockaded woodpeckers? cockaded woodpecker clusters
within 200 feet of designated
routes.
20. Are designated routes affecting Condition of known locations
threatened and endangered plants? of threatened and endangered
plants within 200’ of
designated OHV routes
compared to conditions of
threatened and endangered
plants on closed routes.
21. What is the documented Confirmed mortality of
level of “take” for threatened and threatened and endangered
endangered wildlife species? species.
How reported and comments based on
Year 1 monitoring experience
Report includes a list of routes and notes
or questions about their use. Some of these
routes have been opened by the public during
hunting season.
Additional photo points were established at
impacted wetlands, and reported in the Photo
Points Monitoring Notebook.
Reporting includes average number of photo
points per mile of trail.
A table reports the size and GPS location of six
observed infestations of invasive plants. These
data will be used for establishing trends in
future years.
Sound meters have not yet been purchased so
this item has not been monitored.
An appropriate way to measure this item
has not been identified. Some routes have
“problem spots” and those are dealt with as
they appear, through trail grooming, dozing,
and relocating. The report concluded it
would be ineffective to measure and count
the “widened” trail segments, since widening
is corrected immediately, as all trails receive
grooming over their entire length on a
monthly, or sometimes weekly, basis. Based
on Year 1 experience, the report suggests
dropping this item. (Report includes number
of maintenance days per trail.)
Report includes action taken to correct the
problem.
Similar measures could be created for any
species of concern.
There are no incidences of threatened
and endangered plants within 200 feet of
designated routes.
None observed or confirmed.
Conclusion 43
Case study
Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance
and Bridger-Teton National Forest
Winter wildlife closure campaign
Who: Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, an
1,800-member citizen group, and the
Bridger-Teton National Forest
Where: Bridger-Teton National Forest and Grand
Teton National Park (Wyoming)
What: A media, community education, and
enforcement campaign aimed at reducing
incursions into winter wildlife closure areas
The successes
What began as a privately funded series of radio
messages has evolved into a broad community
partnership. The partnership supports protecting
critical winter wildlife habitat from human intrusion on
snowmobile, skis, and foot. Since 1990, there has been
a dramatic reduction in the number of violations of
winter wildlife closures. Field researchers who monitor
winter range now document one or two violations per
season, down significantly from the early 1990s.
Highlighted enforcement success
strategies
#3 See and be seen—Engage in visible action and
meaningful collaboration.
#4 Make riders responsible—Promote a culture shift
among peers.
The story
“A cascade effect,” is how former Jackson Hole
Conservation Alliance (JHCA) staffer, Fred Smith,
describes the evolution of the Winter Wildlife Closure
Campaign. The campaign began in 1990, when
a JHCA member noticed that designated winter
wildlife closures on the Bridger-Teton National Forest
44 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
were being violated, with no effective enforcement
mechanism in place.
With funding from private donors, JHCA started
running radio spots to educate people about the winter
closures. The messages in the “Don’t Poach the Powder”
campaign focused on the importance of winter closures
to preserving big game populations in an area beset by
rapid residential development. The wildlife closures
apply to everyone—whether they use motorized or
non-motorized means to access the forest.
Over time, the seed of this radio campaign has grown
into an impressive network of relationships and
activities around the common values of protecting the
area’s abundant wildlife.
• Local snowmobile clubs and outfitters support
the campaign. Snowmobile outfitters now donate
money toward the media spots.
• The Forest Service and local law enforcement
staff work together to assess and monitor routes.
Volunteers are also involved in gathering data for
route designation.
• Volunteers provide trailhead education and patrol
areas that are accessible to most forest users.
Wildlife researchers working in the area help
monitor for violations.
• Support for on-the-ground activities is subsidized
by a range of organizations and agencies. These
include the Teton County Conservation District,
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and the
Wyoming big game licensing fee program.
Smith noted, “The success of this ongoing program has
made the acquisition of community grants feasible—for
research with Wyoming Game and Fish, mapping
activities, trailhead signs and maps, and community
monitoring.”
In 1990, as now, the campaign focused on a defined
geographic area, close to the town of Jackson. Here,
people recreate close to home, and monitoring and
enforcement are physically viable. By focusing on local
forests, access points, and use, JHCA has avoided the
larger conflicts about motorized winter recreation in
Yellowstone National Park and the surrounding region.
The campaign has also built on people’s commitment
to, and pride in, their small communities.
Face-to-face contact has been an important element in
the success of the campaign, which has reached well
beyond the norms of speaking with off-road vehicle
users at trailheads. For example, the rationale for the
winter wildlife closures is explained every year to
students in avalanche and backcountry travel classes.
The closures are now a usual topic of conversation
among recreationsists, and snowmobilers often talk
about the closures and discuss their importance with
other riders. They are also noted on the avalanche
information website.
The education, collaboration, and rider responsibility
components of this successful campaign are backed by
enforcement. The radio spots promote the importance
of respecting the winter closures for the sake of wildlife
and note the penalties associated with violations—
$125 for a first offense, with a likely mandatory court
appearance for repeat offenders.
The Bridger-Teton National Forest has played an
important role in making the partnership work. The
forest coordinates on-the-ground signing and patrols.
Creating loop trails and limiting access points within
snowmobile and cross-country ski areas has helped
create an enforceable route system.
Prior to 2000, patrolling the wildlife closure areas
was spotty at best. Forest recreation and wildlife staff
pursued enforcement grants. In 2001-2002 outside
funding provided two ski patrollers for the areas close to
town where skiiers and dog walkers were concentrated.
Two snowmobile patrollers handled areas further away
from town where motorized use was concentrated.
Funding gaps in 2003 led to a reliance on community
volunteers, which met with mixed success. Now, the
forest and state of Wyoming pay for four patrollers
who are accompanied by other staff (all of whom are
qualified as Forest Protection Officers). The forest’s
FPO program is one of the most active in the nation.
Community volunteers are recruited primarily to help
put up closure signs each fall and to monitor use.
Monitors document what they see on standardized
forms. A small number of volunteers go through
classroom and field training to participate in patrols.
“The quality of the message and the approach makes
a huge difference,” notes recreation manager Linda
Merigliano.
Trailhead kiosks include a telephone number for
reporting violations. Calls go to an interagency dispatch
center run by the Forest Service and Park Service. “We
get a lot of calls on this number,” says Merigliano. “It’s
increased over the past few years because people know
we’re responding.
Challenges
• Some parts of the larger landscape present
enforcement challenges because of their remoteness
and the nature of the routes that traverse them.
Overflights would be necessary to effective
enforcement in these areas, but the campaign does
not have funding for this.
• Many of the methods used in this campaign are
most effective with riders who are part of the local
community. Snowmobile outfitters and shops,
as well as local riders in the field, can help pass
along the respect for wildlife closures. Still, getting
visiting riders to comply may be a challenge.
• Cultivating an ethic of lawful riding and respect
for the landscape and wildlife may be easier to
accomplish in a local setting than it is in larger
areas where media campaigns may not be practical.
Reaching off-road vehicle riders who are not part
of a recognizable group or community, as well as
riders who are prone to showing off, is a challenge
with this approach. Interviewees noted that,
without consistent enforcement, whatever positive
peer ethic exists is easily eroded.
Case studies 45
Case study
CORE (Commitment to Our Recreational Environment)
Citizen organization spearheads improvements in local enforcement
Who: Commitment to Our Recreational
Environment, a 100-member citizens
organization working in concert with a local
sheriff’s department and land managers
Where: Stanislaus National Forest (California) and
a patchwork of BLM and private timber
lands within Calaveras County
What: An effort to use state off-road vehicle grant
money to fund enforcement, mediation,
and other activities
The successes
Collaborative efforts by a citizen group and local and
federal law enforcement agencies have led to a marked
decline in illegal off-road vehicle use in an “interface”
area where hundreds of residences are in close proximity
to the forest. Hikers, mountain bikers, and dog walkers
have returned to the area. Gates installed to close a road
near these residences are no longer being ripped out
under cover of night.
Highlighted enforcement success
strategies
#1 Make a commitment—Engage in serious
enforcement efforts.
#2 Lay the groundwork— Create enforceable routes
and regulations.
#3 See and be seen—Engage in visible action and
meaningful collaboration.
#6 Fit the punishment to the crime—Make penalties
meaningful.
46 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
The story
Commitment to Our Recreational Environment
(CORE) involves about 100 committed residents of
four small Sierra Nevada towns, including several small-
lot subdivisions. It was formed in 1998 in response
to a decade of complaints about off-road vehicle
violations on a patchwork of public and private lands
in the Calaveras River watershed. CORE’s mission is
to promote responsible management of off-highway
vehicle recreation on public lands.
CORE has successfully worked with California’s Off-
Highway Vehicle (OHV) Grants and Cooperative
Agreements program to fund off-road vehicle
enforcement and create leverage to promote better off-
road vehicle management on Forest Service lands.
Each year, between $16 and $18 million dollars are
awarded through this program. The program receives
some 200 applications annually, requesting a total of
$40 million.
In 2001, CORE supported the application of the
Calaveras County sheriff’s department for funding to
hire additional staff for off-road vehicle enforcement.
Most of the funds from this state OHV program are
granted to federal agencies, and trail-building projects
had long been favored over enforcement, conservation,
and restoration.
According to Judith Spencer, CORE’s president, “For
25-30 years, the seven-member, politically appointed
commission that administers these grants was
dominated by off-highway vehicle interests.” CORE
supported the sheriff’s application through letters and
participation in commission meetings. Spencer says,
“It was a few private landowners fighting a belief that
paying vehicle registration fees and fuel taxes could
buy riders complete access to public lands, and that
the funds should be used primarily to enhance that
privilege rather than to prevent and repair damage.”
The success of this application was part of a sea change
in off-road vehicle program funding in California.
Ongoing funding through the program has, for five
years, allowed the sheriff’s department to hire a full-time
deputy. Last year, it added a half-time law enforcement
officer to patrol for off-road vehicle violations.
Since 2005, a portion of California’s OHV program
funds is required to be granted to enforcement,
conservation, and restoration projects. The makeup
of the commission has changed, too. A majority of its
members now support environmental accountability.
CORE succeeded in convincing this commission to
stop grant funding for the Stanislaus National Forest
until agency staff implemented an acceptable plan for
managing off-road vehicles in the residential interface
area and other parts of the forest. Now that this plan
is in place, CORE supports Stanislaus grant proposals,
and these proposals are again successful.
A protracted 8-year process of responding to Forest
Service environmental reports and proposals without
resolution led to a different approach. With the help of
a state-funded mediator, CORE and other individuals
and groups with varied recreational interests developed
a community agreement that was accepted by the
Forest Service. This agreement outlined recreational
management of an urban interface area of the Stanislaus
that had been the source of marked conflict for many
years. The process resulted in buffer areas protecting
homes and watersheds from off-road vehicle recreation
impacts, and a separate off-road vehicle use area in the
interface zone. The OHV area can be accessed without
entering any subdivisions and is located behind a ridge
that blocks noise from nearby residences.
While much of CORE’s activity has centered on the
funding program, the group has been involved in many
other aspects of off-road vehicle enforcement. Members
helped build signs for an interim route system while
new off-road vehicle routes were being constructed.
They helped close the old system when the new system
was completed. While they do not actively patrol
areas, members do report their observations to law
enforcement officers.
CORE’s collaborative approach characterizes other
enforcement activities in the area. Sheriff’s deputies and
Forest Service personnel communicate often and work
together to improve enforcement strategies for the large
areas of public and private land affected by off-road
vehicle activities. The deputy sheriff teaches off-road
vehicle safety to local youth and attends homeowners’
meetings by request to provide information and hear
concerns. In some cases involving youth offenses, the
deputy has opted to work with families of some local
youth who had committed violations. Together, they
craft alternative punishments including removing illegal
trails, constructing berms, and restoration.
Challenges
• While many states have similar programs to
fund off-road vehicle activities, California has
the largest funding program (and also the largest
state population) in the country. Rules regarding
the allowed use of grant funds and the politics
of receiving grants differ from state to state. In
addition, many states also receive matching funds
from the Recreational Trails Program, funded
through the Federal Highway Administration (see
p. 6).
• Funding through competitive grant programs
is uncertain, leaving the potential for uneven
enforcement efforts and presence. Some members
of the California commission support multi-year
grants to help smaller communities with long-term
planning and hiring.
• Illegal off-road vehicle use in other sections of the
county and on private timberland is growing.
Case studies 47
Case study
Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area
Wholesale changes reduce violations and damage
Who: U.S. Forest Service working in collaboration
with local law enforcement agencies
Where: Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area
What: A complete overhaul of routes,
management, and enforcement strategies
reduces negative impacts and lawlessness
associated with off-road vehicle use
The successes
Law enforcement officers, previously unable to keep
up with all the violations, are now able to address most
problems. The visitor profile has shifted from party
groups of young adults to family groups. There has
been a dramatic drop in litter and resource damage, as
well as fewer complaints from residents. Forest areas
and wetlands that punctuate the dunes have revegetated
rapidly.
Highlighted enforcement success
strategies
#1 Make a commitment—Engage in serious
enforcement efforts.
#2 Lay the groundwork— Create enforceable routes
and regulations.
#5 Use the force—Incorporate technologies that work.
The story
In the early 1990s, the Oregon Dunes National
Recreation Area had become known as a party place.
“When summer brought scorching temperatures to
popular party and off-road riding areas such as Glamis,”
noted Siuslaw National Forest recreation supervisor,
Sharon Stewart, “this was the party spot.”
The 1994 Oregon Dunes Management Plan attempted
to address some of the issues related with off-road
vehicle use. The plan established open cross-country
48 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
riding areas for off-road vehicles; areas open on
designated routes only; and closed areas including
buffers near sensitive coastal habitats and residential
areas.
In the early years, implementation focused on
eliminating off-road vehicle use on paved roads,
developing new staging areas and camping facilities,
signing closed areas, and monitoring sound levels.
Sound levels had been identified in the planning process
as a significant concern for adjacent communities
and non-motorized recreationists. The terrain and
conditions such as wind and inversions allow sound to
travel great distances. In response, Oregon Dunes set a
decibel limit below state standards. Law enforcement
staff use decibel meters to monitor for noise violations.
These violations can lead to citations, and, if noise
problems continue, possibly to area closures.
Despite these measures, problems persisted. By 2001,
Stewart estimated the area was used by several thousand
more riders than it could support, especially on busy
holiday weekends. Unlawful and destructive behavior
by off-road vehicle riders escalated. To get a handle on
2001-2004 Monitoring Results
Area Closures Generally Observed
Generally, most off-road vehicle operators observed
the posted closures. Less than five percent of users
violated the closures.
Off-Highway Vehicle Noise a Problem
Only about half of the off-highway vehicles that
were tested met the current decibel limit of 93 dB,
with an additional 2dB allowed for field testing
conditions. Many newer off-road vehicles with
larger engines, often equipped with aftermarket
exhaust systems, have difficulty meeting the
Oregon Dunes decibel limit (Siuslaw National
Forest).
an increasingly out-of-control situation, forest officials
next took a step that was relatively easy to implement—
banning alcohol consumption except in developed
areas.
In 2005, officials took another step—one that had been
outlined in the 1994 management plan—by replacing
unregulated sand camping with a system of designated,
dispersed campsites available by permit only. Alcohol
consumption is not allowed in these campsites. Permits
can be revoked for breaking rules, including the alcohol
ban and limits on the number of occupants.
Other changes include the following.
• Law enforcement officers and forest protection
officers patrol year-round, with enhanced numbers
during busy summer months. Booths at key access
points are staffed to provide information and
collect fees. Decibel meters are used at these access
points to monitor for noise violations.
• The Oregon Dunes Patrol, an off-road vehicle
group, has a memorandum of understanding
with the Forest Service to help educate, monitor,
and report violations. A liaison from the Forest
Service helps maintain consistency as the group’s
leadership changes over time, and provides training
to members.
• The three county agencies in the area receive state
off-highway vehicle program grants. This money
pays deputies to provide law enforcement services
at Oregon Dunes. Forest Service staff meet with
the county officers annually.
• A riding curfew is monitored by recreation
personnel and law enforcement officers.
Oregon Dunes has long relied on a combination of
forest protection officers (FPOs) and law enforcement
officers. Four FPOs do most of the patrolling, with
backup by law enforcement officers as needed.
Additional forest staff are trained as FPOs to provide
needed coverage on busy holiday weekends.
The Forest Service receives funding from Oregon’s
off-highway vehicle grant program for aspects of off-
road vehicle management and enforcement. Roughly
$40,000 supplements law enforcement officers’ pay,
while a $288,000 operations and maintenance grant
includes funding for two FPOs and an off-highway
vehicle coordinator.
Challenges
• Accidents involving off-road vehicles are a
continuing challenge. The Forest Service is
supporting an Oregon proposal for increasing
safety education, helmets for all riders, prohibition
against riding double on single seat vehicles, as well
as titling ATVs.
• Noise levels pose ongoing problems for nearby
communities and non-motorized recreationists.
Continued noise-related conflicts could lead to
the closure of currently-open areas of the Oregon
Dunes. About half of the recreation area is now
managed for off-road vehicle use.
• Great progress has been made in setting and
enforcing area closures to protect habitat, reduce
user conflicts, and limit the impacts of off-road
vehicle noise. Still monitoring results from 2001-
2004 suggest that up to five percent of off-road
riders may violate these closures.
• Problematic off-road vehicle use is now more
intense on BLM and other adjacent areas where
enforcement and management are less restrictive.
The marriage between law
enforcement officers and forest
protection officers is important.
LEOs provide the support, and the
FPOs do most of the patrolling,
public contact, and monitoring for
compliance. They can write citations
for some offenses, but when it’s
more serious—like alcohol use at a
campsite—they back off and report
the situation to the LEO.
Sharon Stewart
Dispersed Recreation Supervisor,
Siuslaw National Forest, Oregon
Case studies 49
Case study
Ocala National Forest
Serious commitment to enforcement yields progress
Who: U.S. Forest Service working in collaboration
with the state wildlife agency and volunteers
Where: Ocala National Forest (Florida)
What: Forest-wide changes in enforcement,
education, and off-road vehicle route
designation address a range of law
enforcement problems
The successes
Early results suggest that a new commitment to
enforcement on an urban national forest in proximity
to 8 million people has yielded change. Families are
returning to the forest to recreate. Most off-road vehicle
riders adhere to new route designations. Residents
of adjacent communities are beginning to step into
leadership roles as they see the Forest Service take
enforcement and resource protection seriously.
Highlighted enforcement success
strategies
#1 Make a commitment—Engage in serious
enforcement efforts.
#2 Lay the groundwork— Create enforceable routes
and regulations.
#6 Fit the punishment to the crime—Make penalties
meaningful.
The story
The process of designating off-road vehicle routes
on the Ocala National Forest began in 2000.
Implementation started in May 2006, beginning with
laying out routes and letting contracts for new trailhead
construction. Enforcement of the nascent designated
route system began in September 2006.
50 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
Initially, enforcement focused on areas with severe
natural resource damage. The early focus on education
involved volunteer patrols, forest protection officers,
and law enforcement officers. They employed a map of
the new trail system and temporary trailhead parking
areas, and exercised a willingness to work through
testy situations with riders, accustomed to far fewer
restrictions.
District Ranger, Rick Lint, noted that many
enforcement contact situations are touchy to begin
with. He points out that the ability to listen and offer
reasonable explanations is critical. “We’ve permitted
virtually unrestricted access to the forest for so long that
it’s come to be seen as a right. But nine times out of
ten, a situation that starts with, ‘I’m a taxpayer and you
work for me, buddy,’ can end on a reasonable note. You
just have to let them blow through that initial reaction.”
Lint says that increased attention to off-road vehicle
management and enforcement was part of a forest-wide
effort to “provide more structure for all visitors, not
just for motorized users.” Lint calls the Ocala an “urban
forest,” and points to an intensifying range of problems
including squatters, methamphetamine labs, off-road
vehicle problems, and other recreation concerns.
In the face of these problems, forest staff appealed to
higher levels of administration. Vacant law enforcement
postions from elsewhere in the country were reallocated
to the Ocala. Enforcement capacity was further
expanded by training 15 recreation technicians as forest
protection officers (FPOs). These unarmed officers are
able to make public contacts and write citations for
violations that include resource damage and riding in
closed areas.
Grant funding from Florida’s off-highway vehicle
recreation program pays off-duty state wildlife
enforcement officers to patrol the forest. These officers
enforce state laws, including those that prohibit
damaging public lands and riding off-road vehicles on
public roads.
Safety for volunteers and FPOs is a concern that the
forest addresses in a variety of ways, including sending
them out in pairs. If a volunteer is working an area, an
FPO will be assigned there, too. A law enforcement
officer may be assigned to the same area, as well.
Law enforcement vehicles are equipped with cameras
that record interactions among officers and visitors.
This helps to substantiate cases that go to court. Lint
notes that the forest’s “excellent working relationships
with the U.S. Attorneys and magistrate” exist in large
part because forest law enforcement officers are careful
to take them well-documented, strong cases.
Through the standard process (see p. 23), the forest
boosted fines for off-road vehicle violations involving
natural resource damage from $100 to $500. “Most
people want to follow the rules,” noted Rick Lint, “So
within a few months we were down to only a few hard
cases. Those people get tickets and mandatory court
appearances. The magistrate has banned one from the
forest altogether.”
Lint noted that increased off-road vehicle enforcement
went hand-in-hand with efforts to provide an improved
network of motorized vehicle routes. The Ocala now
provides new trailheads, 140 miles of routes, and
grooming equipment for motorized recreation. The
forest has relied on state grants and volunteer labor
to sign routes, construct trailheads, and patrol trails.
According to Lint, when enforcement efforts are part of
this bigger picture, they are more effective.
Challenges
• Significant visitor turnover from season to
season and year to year means that the process of
educating off-road vehicle riders is continuous.
• The Ocala is implementing significant recreation
management changes that will take some time to
be accepted. These changes have been welcomed by
some area residents and forest visitors, and blasted
by others.
• The changes on the Ocala are recent, and sustained
success is not assured.

What you permit, you promote. We’ve permitted largely uninhibited access to
public lands for so long that it’s come to be seen as a right. We’re putting in a
structure to manage motorized use to sustain the quality of the land over time.
What we’re doing now is analogous to what happened 70 years ago when there
weren’t any laws protecting game animals—and consequently there wasn’t any
game. When the Ocala became a no-hunting game preserve, it was during the
Depression, and people were doing anything they could to feed themselves. This
was a big change, and nobody liked it. But now we’re all thankful.
It might take 70 years before people appreciate what we’re doing, but that’s the
kind of thing we’re starting today.
Rick Lint, District Ranger
Ocala National Forest, Florida

Case studies 51
Case study
Friends of Fourmile
Citizen volunteers collaborate to craft and help implement a travel plan
Who: Friends of Fourmile, a small group of
15-plus motorized and non-motorized
recreationists
Where: 100,000-acre area managed primarily by the
San Isabel National Forest, and the Bureau
of Land Management (Colorado)
What: A collaboration among motorized and non-
motorized recreationists and land managers
to create and implement a single travel plan
that crosses agency boundaries
The successes
A collaborative effort to create a “citizens alternative”
for a travel planning process in a popular recreation
area has continued with a commitment to help land
managers implement the plan. Agency staff members
have observed increasing respect for designated routes.
They receive positive feedback from most users,
and observe increased tolerance among user groups,
decreased erosion and soil problems, and acceptance of
seasonal closures that protect wildlife habitat.
Highlighted enforcement success
strategies
#2 Lay the groundwork—Create enforceable routes
and regulations.
#3 See and be seen—Engage in visible action and
meaningful collaboration.
The story
Beginning about 1980, recreational pressure in the
Fourmile area near Buena Vista, Colorado, began to
intensify. Growing numbers of off-road vehicle riders
discovered its easily accessible, yet rugged terrain, as did
hikers, horseback riders, and mountain bikers.
52 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
By the mid-1990s, users—primarily off-road vehicle
riders—exploring off-trail had created an unmanageable
web of new user-created routes. Land managers became
concerned about these unapproved routes fragmenting
habitat for bighorn sheep, elk, and deer. They also
observed increased erosion and siltation in streams,
especially in play areas near streambeds and in hill-
climbing areas.
The Forest Service and BLM together manage almost
90 percent of the Fourmile’s 100,000 acres. Responding
to mounting recreation pressures, they kicked off a
joint travel management planning process for the entire
area. Early on, the land managers asked for a citizens’
alternative—inviting collaboration among agency staff
and recreators of all stripes.
That collaboration began with a thorough survey of
260 miles of approved and user-created routes. The
volunteers and agency staff involved assessed the
recreational purpose, condition, and maintainability of
each route. They identified routes that were problematic
because of erosion, steepness, duplication, or proximity
to wetlands or important habitat areas.
Nearly two years of study set the stage for a citizens’
alternative that was hammered out by different user
groups. The plan was submitted to the agencies for
environmental analysis, and ultimately adopted with
very little revision.
During this process, a number of citizen participants
started a service group called Friends of Fourmile. They
wanted to ensure that the plan they had worked so hard
to formulate would have public support and funding
required for implementation. Sheryl Archuleta, the
group’s current president, notes, “We organized at first
loosely, thinking of ourselves just as a labor pool. Later,
we became a chapter of a well-established conservation
education organization, the Greater Arkansas River
Nature Association. It was then we realized the need for
status as a nonprofit organization, especially to qualify
for grants.”
From 2001-2006, Friends of Fourmile:
• Secured almost $110,000 in grant funding from
sources supporting both off-road vehicle and non-
motorized trails;
• Helped develop and distribute 8,000 maps and
brochures and installed eight entrance panels with
maps and information;
• Reworked 30 miles of existing two-track roads into
off-road vehicle routes (mountain bikes and horses
also allowed) and extended a motorcycle single
track;
• Refurbished and re-signed 20 miles of a route
popular with mountain bikers, hikers, and
horseback riders;
• Closed user-created routes, reseeded disturbed
track, installed winter closure gates, and fenced,
reshaped, and reseeded unapproved play areas;
• Purchased and put into use an all-terrain vehicle
for making public contacts and assisting in
maintenance projects;
• Facilitated a major hiking trail reconstruction
project by a statewide volunteer group;
• Successfully attracted participation of members
from off-road vehicle, fishing, horseback, and quiet
use groups; and
• Contributed more than 3,000 volunteer hours.
The Forest Service and BLM have stepped up their
commitment of uniformed staff to patrol the Fourmile
area. However, law enforcement staffing is stretched
thin in both agencies. Each agency has one full-time
law enforcement officer in the area, but each officer
covers about 500,000 acres, of which the Fourmile
is a small—albeit heavily used—part. Two seasonal
employees help patrol, but they are at the level of forest
protection officers.
Friends of Fourmile members are registered volunteers
with the Forest Service and BLM, and have received
training in safe, effective visitor contacts. Volunteers
are instructed not to make visitor contacts after dark.
They wear Forest Service or BLM hats and other gear
identifying them as official volunteers, and engage in
other practices to enhance safety. Volunteers often use
an all-terrain vehicle when they make contacts. This
approach puts other riders more at ease, and is even
more effective than using a four-wheel drive truck.
These volunteers act primarily as educators on current
regulations and good behavior. Although they do not
have law enforcement authority, they help extend the
enforcement presence by passing along information
to the agency or county sheriff when they see serious
violations. Fourmile trail maps make it clear which
system routes are open to specific uses. They state that
routes are monitored by the land management agencies
and by volunteers.
On holidays and high-use weekends such as Memorial
Day weekend, the agencies and Friends collaborate to
get out a maximum number of uniformed agency staff
along with volunteers to demonstrate a commitment to
patrolling.
Challenges
• Promoting compliance among young off-road
vehicle riders and mountain bikers who are not
members of organized groups has proven difficult.
• With strict requirements for eye-witness accounts
and other acceptable evidence, agency law
enforcement staff members sometimes find it
difficult, or are reticent, to try to enforce and
prosecute obvious violations.
• Many sources of funding focused on off-road
vehicles tend to focus on projects that provide
additional routes and riding opportunities, rather
than supporting a well managed multiple-use
recreational approach.
• After a plan is put on the ground, motivating,
maintaining, and expanding active membership is
an ongoing challenge.
Case studies 53
References
English, Donald B.K., Susan M. Kocis, and Derek P. Hales,
2004. Off-Highway Vehicle Use on National Forests: Volume and
Characteristics of Visitors, Special Report to the National OHV
Implementation Team. Athens, Georgia: USDA Forest Service.
Fisher, Andrea L., Dale J. Blahna, and Rosalind Bahr, 2001. Off
Highway Vehicle Uses and Owner Preferences in Utah. Logan,
Utah: Utah State University.
Massachusetts Environmental Law Enforcement Review Panel,
2005. Final Report. Boston, Massachusetts: Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Off-Highway Vehicle Enforcement and Education
Working Group, 2007. Final Recommendations. Boston,
Massachusetts: Massachusetts Office of Conservation and
Recreation and Executive Office of Energy and Environmental
Affairs. (http://www.mass.gov/dcr/recreate/ohv/OHV%20Enforce
ment%20Working%20Group%20Final%20Recommendations%2
0March%207-08.pdf )
Photos of closed area taken in 1990 and 2004 show dramatic recovery
54 Six Strategies for Effective Enforcement
Monaghan & Associates, 2001. Status and Summary Report:
OHV Responsible Riding Campaign. Colorado. (Report to the
Colorado Coalition for Responsible OHV Riding, November 15,
2001.)
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, 2008. Off-Road
Vehicle Recreation in New Mexico: The Senate Joint Memorial 40
Report. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Department of Game
and Fish, Department of Agriculture, and Tourism Department.
(http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/main/sjm40/SJM40report-01-07-
09.pdf )
Rangers for Responsible Recreation. Survey of BLM and Forest
Service rangers and supervisors. Reported December 11, 2007, by
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
Siuslaw National Forest. Forest Plan Monitoring Report, 2001-
2004. (www.fs.fed.us/r6/siuslaw/projects/planmonitoring/2001-
2004/social.shtml).
U.S. Forest Service. Four Threats—Quick Facts, 2006 (www.fs.fed.
us/projects/four-threats/facts/unmanaged-recreation.shtml).
from motorized vehicle damage. (© Mark Alan Wilson)
Interviewees and other contributors

Thank you to all who offered their time, experience and invaluable insights in interviews and e-mail correspondance.

Gary Barnett Jeffrey Hunter Alan Robinson

Tahoe National Forest, California American Hiking Society, Tennessee Friends of Fourmile, Colorado

Bill Berg Jerry Ingersoll Karen Schambach

C.M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Forest Service, Recreation and Heri- Public Employees for Environmental Re-
Montana tage Resources, Washington, DC sponsibility, California

Ray Bloxham Mike Knight Brian Scherf

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Utah Brevard County Endangered Lands Pro- Florida Biodiversity Project
gram, Florida
Mark Booth Carl Schneebeck
Craig Cope Chris Leeman Blue Water Network, California
Bighorn National Forest, Wyoming Big Wood Backcountry Trails, Idaho
Fred Smith
Gary Briere Paul MacFarland Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance,
Massachusetts Department of Conserva- Friends of the Inyo, California Wyoming
tion and Recreation
Rosalind McLellan Judith Spencer
Jeff Brown Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative, Commitment to Our Recreational Environ-
Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation Colorado ment, California

Ramesh Bush Linda Merigliano Sharon Stewart

Alachua County Forever, Florida David Wilkinson José Lineras
Ray Spencer John Pino
Jerry Cimino Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming Jay Power
Ray Watt Siuslaw National Forest, Oregon
Inyo National Forest, California Sarah Michael
Idaho’s Nordic and Backcountry Skiers Mike Sugaski
Aaron Clark Alliance San Isabel National Forest, Colorado
Southern Rockies Conservation Alliance,
Colorado Greg Munther David Vandenberg
Former U.S. Forest Service, Montana Friends of Pathways, Wyoming
Jack Duggan
Landowner, Oregon John Nohomenuk Dave Walker
Bureau of Land Management, Colorado Royal Gorge Field Office, Bureau of Land
Sally Ferguson Management, Colorado
Winter Wildlands, Idaho Jim Northup
Forest Watch, Vermont Andrew Walters
Karl Forsgaard ATV-Free New Hampshire
Attorney, Washington Chris O’Hare
Brevard County Parks and Recreation Ron Wiseman
Jim Furnish Department, Florida Lewis and Clark National Forest, Montana
Retired Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest
Service, Maryland Ray Paige George Wuerthner
Brian Shinn Writer, photographer, Vermont
Milton Fusselman Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks
Gallatin National Forest, Montana Patrick Zurcher
Lisa Philipps Bureau of Land Management, Butte Office,
David Govus Quiet Use Coalition, Montana Montana
Wayne Jenkins
Georgia Forest Watch, Inc. Tom Quinn
Stanislaus National Forest, California
David Harris
Rick Lint Randy Rasmussen
Ocala National Forest, Florida Natural Trails and Waters Coalition,
Oregon

Interviewees and other contributors 55

2009 Update

Six Strategies for Success

Effective Enforcement of Off-Road Vehicle Use
on Public Lands
Designed as a resource for public land management agency staff, law
enforcement officials, and citizen groups, this report documents six
strategies for effective enforcement of off-road vehicle use. Five case
studies illustrate how these strategies have been combined to create
on-the-ground successes in enforcing off-road vehicle rules; protect-
ing wildlife habitat, water quality, and terrain; enhancing recreational
enjoyment and safety; and minimizing impacts on adjacent public and
private lands.

Six Strategies for Success is based on interviews and correspondence

with more than 50 public lands managers, private landowners, citizen
group leaders and volunteers, and law enforcement officers. This 2009
updated version includes new information about changes that states
and localities have made—or are considering—to increase the effec-
tiveness of off-road vehicle management and enforcement. Wildlands CPR
Post Office Box 7516
Missoula, Montana 59807
Telephone: 406.543.9551
info@wildlandscpr.org
www.wildlandscpr.org