Facts vs. feelings in OHV debate
GUEST COLUMN
It is human nature to reject evidence that doesn’t support our opinions. Although we are all entitled to our opinions, it doesn’t mean we get to select our own facts. However, the strategy employed by those unmoved by facts, the uncomfortable truths, follows a time-tested pattern: disparage the science; attack the scientists; make outrageous statements, including the invoking of conspiracy theory; and, manipulate and use only the information that seems to support your side.
Science serves everyone, but only if we choose to listen. Facts don’t cease to exist because we won’t accept them, or worse still, ignore them. Current voices in the off-highway vehicle group implore us to not look at the mudholes, at the braided trails, the rutted hillslopes, the sediment-laden streams and the trail density beyond science– based thresholds. No, look instead at this shiny new OHV bridge (but please ignore the OHV ford beside it). This bridge is what responsible OHV use is all about, not that other stuff.
Science doesn’t give you the answer you want, it provides the result the evidence indicates. Some can’t or won’t acknowledge their role in the damage OHV use causes in watersheds, to fish and wildlife populations and the impact on other users. They attempt to cloak, obfuscate, disguise and divert attention away from the reality of the situation. Don’t let this chicanery fool you.
We can’t measure everything, everywhere. The logistics would be prohibitive, so science uses inference. A light switch turned on in the premier’s office, in the office of the opposition leader and in the homes of OHV users provides illumination, a successful outcome of science regardless of place. In the case of the last two places one might hope for enlightenment as well.
When studies indicate native cutthroat trout and bull trout (both threatened) are at risk with a trail density that exceeds 0.6 km/ km² it is reasonable to expect it will be true throughout the range of both species, including the Castle. When you measure erosion rates of 0.9 to 73 kg/m/year on OHV trails in a similar topographic region the probability of finding comparable results on OHV trails up and down the Eastern Slopes is high. Bet on it and you would win.
For the Castle this translates into roughly 64 million kilograms of sediment generated annually from 1,823 kilometres of roads and trails. That’s the equivalent of about 4,000 tandem dump truck loads of sediment. All roads and trails erode, those subject to motorized traffic erode more and many connect directly with streams. Reality about watershed damage can’t be suspended, can’t be ignored because your favourite recreational activity is challenged by facts.
Research related to linear disturbance (the length of roads/trails within an area) has enough replicates to indicate the theory about negative impacts to fish, wildlife and water quality is valid.
We need to know what the cumulative impact of all land use is, how much OHV damage can be tolerated, and whether we can accept these trade-offs. Only science will give us those parameters upon which reasonable decisions can be made. It does the OHV community little good to deny the very tool essential to making these key decisions for the source water of two out of every three Albertans.
Confirmation bias is the process of selecting the information that supports your opinions, while ignoring the rest. One of the slogans of the OHV group is “Engineered trails are responsible trails.” Without getting into the realm of how a trail becomes responsible, or what “responsible” means to OHV users, this poses a question that only science can answer related to the effectiveness of designed and built OHV trails.
The Alberta Off-Highway Vehicle Association promotes “internationally recognized trail building best practices to mitigate environmental impacts.” This begs the question — where are these trails? The current myriad of OHV trails in the Eastern Slopes exist on old seismic lines, logging roads, pipelines, powerlines and cross-country tracks that were not built to last, not designed for the traffic they now receive and have virtually no maintenance done on them.
In this mythical place of which AOHVA speaks, where trails meet some “international” standard, do native trout swim in abundance? Do grizzlies, elk and other sensitive species again occupy the watersheds where OHVs operate on such trails? Do the streams run clear after rainstorms? Your belief system may support this, but where is the evidence? Evidence is how adults navigate the world, not fairy tales, not fiction.
“The truth is out there,” as Mulder remarked in “The X-Files.” However the danger in embracing the science is that it will deprive OHV users of a utopian vision of their recreational activity. It will unequivocally lead to something more than the consolation of fiction. Although Yogi Berra wisely said “you can see a lot just by looking,” it is equally true that if you don’t want to see, don’t look. That includes shunning the science that could inform of the damage done by OHV use and lead us to consensus on watershed protection. The science is out there, and not far away.
“Some people drink deeply from the river of knowledge, others only gargle,” commented Woody Allen. This seems painfully true when reflecting on the position of many in the OHV community.
Lorne Fitch is a professional biologist, a retired Fish and Wildlife biologist and an adjunct professor with the University of Calgary.