In response to current litigation involving the Shawnee National Forest, a local recreational all terrain vehicle group has filed a motion of intervention seeking representation in future negotiations involving the forest.

In September, Federal Judge Phil Gilbert ruled that there was sufficient evidence in the Sierra Club and the Regional Association for Concerned Environmentalist’s (RACE) litigation claiming mis-management of the Shawnee National Forest by United States Forest Service officials.

As a result, he issued a decision to restrict the use of all-terrain vehicles because of their impact on the forest.

Advertisement

Lawyers on both sides then began negotiating proposals on ways the land could still be used for different purposes by both the Forest Service and environmental groups.

Tim Rush, president of the Southern Illinois All Terrain Vehicle Association, in a motion filed in January with two other groups the Recreational Riders Association and the Blue Ribbon Coalition believes that his group’s interests are not being considered in the development of negotiations.

He said his group feels ATV use should be allowed in the forest.

We have worked with the Forest Service for many years, Rush said.

When we found out in November of the lawsuit by the Sierra Club and RACE, we felt we were being left in the dark.

Sierra and RACE does not tell us what is going on. We believe we have a right to intervene. We just want to ensure that the forest will remain multi-use.

Gary Ballesteros, a lawyer representing RACE said he believes it may be too late for Rush and the three groups’ motion.

Advertisement*

Procedurally, it may be too late for their motion to be valid, Ballesteros said. We have filed a response and will await the decision from Judge Gilbert.

I’m not real sure what side the ATV group wants to be on. It seems they just want their riding privileges.

Mark Donham, RACE member, said he too is a little confused on what exactly the ATV people want.

It is still unclear how the scope of the Judge Gilbert’s decision will affect what the Forestry (Service) can and cannot do, Donham said. I think it may be too late in the game for them, this has been settled since September.

Rush said he believes groups such as his have just as much of a right to the land as anyone and that more groups are going to adapt to this philosophy.

You will probably see more of this from different groups, Rush said. We don’t want to see the forest damaged, just equal access to use it.

Shawnee National Forest has been maintained by the U.S. Forest Service since the 1930’s, and management of the forest has been criticized by many Southern Illinois environmentalists.

Rush said ATV use has less of an impact on the forest than many environmentalists think.

The forest is in better shape now than it was 30 years ago, Rush said. Our ATVs are not ripping up the land like some would want to believe.

Donham, however, said he disagrees.

I can show you sensitive areas in the creeks and the creek beds that are clearly illegal for recreational vehicle usage yet are still being abused, Donham said.

Even though ATV use is prohibited, there are still permits being issued to disabled individuals who are still allowed to use such vehicles in the forest.

Letting the handicapped with permits use the forest is a form of reverse discrimination, Rush said. We decided not to just roll over but to stand up for our rights with the forestry issue.

They want to be able to ride wherever they want, Donham said. It is ironic that they would address the handicap issue yet say they want equal usage.

J.B. Ruhl, assistant professor in the SIUC School of Law said he believes that legally, both sides have issues that need to be worked out. But he said the issue will not be resolved until Judge Gilbert’s decision regarding the motion of intervention is made Feb. 8.

The motion for intervention is common in environmental law, Ruhl said. It will be up to Judge Gilbert to consider if the intervention will prejudice (be unfair to) the parties involved.

Jim Hipkiff, attorney for the Forest Service, declined to comment on most aspects of the case, but he did say that the case has involved both parties since 1988.

Becky Banker, public affairs officer for the forest, said the Forest Service is in a tight spot in this issue.

The Forest Service has to look at every area of a preserve and try to find the best way to use the land, Banker said. It is hard to assure that every one who uses the forest gets what they want.

John Phelps, professor of forestry, said the Forest Service is in a difficult position with the issues involved, trying to please all parties.

They have to be able to keep the forest available for many different types of usage, Phelps said.