study of behavior of off-road riders

Sal · **Joined:** Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:56 am **Posts:** 836

check out the linked report. Looks like 50% of riders are "bad apples"

Quote:

Many public land managers assume that designating additional off-road vehicle routes will lead directly to greater compliance, less cross-country travel and, as a result, less resource damage and fewer conflicts among incompatible uses. Some believe that off-road vehicle riders will quit creating renegade routes once more routes are designated “open” and riders are educated as to where they are and are not allowed to ride.

In contrast, the research above shatters the myth that damage and conflicts are being caused by an insignificant percentage of off-road vehicle riders. The findings of these studies suggest that even if the “demand” for more off-road vehicle riding opportunities is met, riders will continue to fulfill their preferences by riding off legal routes. They also conclude or at least strongly suggest that education and information alone are not effective strategies for changing off-road behavior.

Instead, Monaghan and Associates offers the following recommendation: “In order to be successful and actually influence behavior, OHV users must be motivated to behave properly.”

http://www.wildlandscpr.org/biblio-notes/just-few-bad-apples-research

MMM · **Joined:** Sat May 09, 2009 6:25 pm **Posts:** 454

sal you link goes directly to a known wilderness advocate group. Also, look at the actual number of people surveyed. There is an old saying, that goes something like "sats can prove anything, given the right group to poll". Small poll group mans biased findings.

Mike

Sal · **Joined:** Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:56 am **Posts:** 836

Quote:

the Utah Division of Parks & Recreation commissioned Utah State University to survey riders to determine their “OHV uses and owner preferences.” The university conducted a telephone survey of 335 riders from a random sample of the 50,676 people who registered off-road vehicles with the state in 2000.

sounds pretty fair.

Dan · **Joined:** Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:49 pm **Posts:** 1661

I've ridden quite a bit on Utah's trail systems. I haven't seen the damage they cite, Sal. Care to point that out to us?

MMM · **Joined:** Sat May 09, 2009 6:25 pm **Posts:** 454

sal the poll pool is to small to be of any usefull information. based on the nymbers you posted 335 riders out of 50,676 owners represents about 0.6% of the owners. Further, the criteria used to select the people polled is not given, hence, the poll may be skewed to prove the idea of rouge riders.

Mike

Dan · **Joined:** Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:49 pm **Posts:** 1661

Yes, Mike. Of course it's skewed. That's the whole reason for half the polls that are done on most topics. You can get a poll to indicate that the Abominable Snowman has three balls and a purple goatee if you want.

Sal · **Joined:** Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:56 am **Posts:** 836

MMM wrote:

the criteria used to select the people polled is not given,

Here's the criteria Mike:

Quote:

The university conducted a telephone survey of 335 riders from a random sample of the 50,676 people who registered off-road vehicles with the state in 2000.

MMM · **Joined:** Sat May 09, 2009 6:25 pm **Posts:** 454

sal 0.6% of any population is not indicative of the entire population. Also how "random" was the poll? True and complete polls are very expensive.

Mike

Sal · **Joined:** Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:56 am **Posts:** 836

Mike:
First you say the criteria for selecting interviewees was not given. When I pointed out to you that the University used a "random" sample, you responded by asking how "random" the sample was.

If you read the description I cited above, you read that the all of the samples were taken from a list of registered OHV users in Utah. ALL of the answers were given by OHV owners.

The survey was conducted by Utah State University. Do you have any reason to believe that they would want to skew the numbers to favor any one group over another?

Brew · **Joined:** Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:43 am **Posts:** 342

The following is a slight divergence on the original topic, but shows that OHV recreationists are not responsible for all of the damage to fences and the environment and is something that both sides could come together on finding a solution.

A little-spoken of war is taking place behind California's fences and property lines -- trespassing marijuana growers are setting booby traps, resorting to violence and vandalism, and spoiling the land by stealing water and spraying dangerous chemicals that leach into streams. As the federal government focuses on stopping illegal marijuana crops in public parklands and U.S. forests, local sheriff's and state drug enforcement officials including in Kern County face the persistent and potentially dangerous problem of pot growers commandeering private land for their crops. While some land owners fear violence, others face environmental havoc.

For the whole report:
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x ... s-pot-wars

Brew

study of behavior of off-road riders

Who is online