Rich horsemen get special ticket to ride

[GernBlansten]

Rich horsemen get special ticket to ride

150 given access to restricted wilderness area

By Katie Kerwin Mccrimmon, Rocky Mountain News

July 21, 2007

 

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5639046,00.html

 

An elite group of 150 wealthy horsemen got special permission to ride through the Spanish Peaks Wilderness Area in southern Colorado during a weeklong, 100-mile trip that ends today.

Wilderness advocates are crying foul, arguing that if a large troop of Boy Scouts tried to pass through the same area, the U.S. Forest Service would turn them down. TinaMarie Ekker, of the Montana-base group Wilderness Watch, said that in this case, money bought special privileges.

 

The Roundup Riders of the Rockies, a secretive fraternity that has been conducting swanky rides through the Rockies for nearly 60 summers, paid about $15,000 to get a permit and pay for any damage they caused to trails or wetlands.

 

Normally, a "25-heartbeat policy" governs groups in Wilderness Areas. That means that no group with more than 25 people or animals will be allowed in Wilderness Areas. The Spanish Peaks were declared wilderness in 2000. Forest supervisors could not name another large group that was allowed similar access.

 

"The fact that they are paying that much money is a clear implication that there will be impacts. They're breaking the rules," Ekker said. She suspects they got special permission because they have friends in high places.

 

"This is a very politically connected group."

 

Neither Ekker nor forest supervisors could confirm who was on the ride. The organizers who got the permit were unavailable to comment while finishing the ride. In years past, the ride has sparked controversy. Former Colorado state parks chief Lyle Laverty used $5,000 in state funds so he could join the annual July ride. He later sold the horse to his son-in-law and returned the $5,000 to state coffers.

 

Pike and San Isabel National Forest Supervisor Bob Leaverton said the riders ended up having little impact on the wilderness area. He said the riders were only allowed to pass through the wilderness.

 

They set up their elaborate campsites every evening on private land.

 

The group brings along at least 20 camp hands to cater meals, set up cots, showers, heated tents and even a stage for nightly entertainment.

 

Leaverton said all those high-impact uses happened outside the wilderness area. He personally rode the trail on Thursday where the riders had gone on Sunday. He said the forest supervisors had made the right call to allow the large group and that little harm was done to the environment.

 

"It was excellent. At some places it was hard to tell they had even been through," Leaverton said. "Obviously this group is very aware and sensitive to wilderness ethics. I think we validated the assumption we made that this ride would not have an impact on other wilderness users."

 

Leaverton said the riders had to pay a non-refundable $5,000 fee for trail repairs and mitigation, but he doubted any repairs would have to be made. The other $10,000 went for permits and significant employee time to draft the permit and monitor the riders throughout the week.

 

Leaverton assigned a forest service worker to ride with the group on Sunday and Monday. He said on those days, the Roundup Riders encountered only one other group hiking through the wilderness area and that their experience was not marred during their encounter with the Roundup Riders.

 

Leaverton said he would be willing to review another group's application to get a waiver from the "25-heartbeat policy" if they proposed similar uses in the area. He said most groups want to camp in sensitive areas.

 

Ekker, of Wilderness Watch, fears that forest supervisors have set a precedent they will soon regret.

 

"This is a small wilderness with this huge group riding through it," she said, estimating that supervisors allowed as many as 15 times the number of horses and people that they should have.

 

"What kind of message is this going to send to the field managers who have to say no to the Boy Scouts.''

 

McCrimmonK@RockyMoun tainNews.com or 303-954-2502

 

[BadenP]

All I have to say is welcome to our capitalistic, materialistic world. Money always has and always will continue to perpetuate a priviledged class who can buy their way into or out of anything and nothing is ever going to change it, just look at history.

[packsaddle]

This kind of thing has been going on for a long time. It is essentially the same thing as the 'good old boy' system of operation. Money itself is not the problem. The problem is that people who have those kind of resources sometimes have an arrogance that is based on nothing more than spending power. That's not always the case, though, and if we all really did pay for our respective footprints (figuratively speaking) some of us would have a different perspective on things. The market approach is not all bad, it just needs to be applied honestly and consistently if at all. Seems a rare case though.

[GernBlansten]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

 

A proclamation by the pigs who control the government in the novel Animal Farm, by George Orwell. The sentence is a comment on the hypocrisy of governments that proclaim the absolute equality of their citizens but give power and privileges to a small elite.(This message has been edited by GernBlansten)

[GernBlansten]

"At some places it was hard to tell they had even been through"

 

How about all the other places? Was it easy to see they had moved through with 150 horses?

 

[Trevorum]

The article doesn't say if the Riders were required to prepare and submit an Environmental Information Document (EID). If the process was followed and the environmental impacts were legitimately considered, then there would be nothing amiss here. However, it appears that once the fee was paid, the Land Manager just unilaterally decided that there would be no impacts without actually conducting any analysis. That's a conflict of interest.

 

(edited typo)

(This message has been edited by Trevorum)

[GernBlansten]

One of the primary reasons for the wilderness designation is to protect the land from any undue human force. If a wildfire enters the wilderness, no fire fighting can take place. If a storm blows down timber, the timber stands as nature left it. It is really the last few places on earth that are designated to be free of human influence.

Of course a politically connected group with thick wallets can always trump that. Do you think Cheney was one of the riders?

[prairie]

Must not have been, no reports of anybody being shot. ;-)

 

I just donn't get traveling to some backcountry area and hauling all the baggage of urban life with you.

 

 

Every year George Orwell looks to be a smarter man than the year before, not sure if things are changing or just my view of them.