atv - Wild Texas Forums: Parks, Travel & Recreation

05-27-2003, 11:16 PM

:rolleyes:

need info riding quads on north padre requirements, 2 people on one? helmets etc

Shannon · 07-10-2003, 12:03 PM

Howdy, 'nextoit' -- I emailed the Park Superintendent at Padre Island National Seashore to confirm my recollections of the park's rules regarding quads/ATVs. The information below has been confirmed to be accurate:

Sorry, use of quads/ATVs is not permitted at Padre Island National Seashore, except by National Park Service personnel and certain volunteers (Kemp's Ridley nesting sea turtle watch). Here's a direct quote from the National Park Service's Padre Island NS page:

Quote:

Remember that in Texas all beaches are public highways and all traffic laws apply, including seat belt regulations [b]All vehicles traveling on Padre Island National Seashore must be street legal and licensed. Please note that, with rare exception, Texas will not license all-terrain-vehicles (ATVs) for use on highways (the National Seashore has one of the few exceptions, because it uses ATVs in its program to save endangered sea turtles from extinction).

FYI, as of April 22, 2002, personal watercraft (PWC) are also not permitted within the park, due to federal park regulations. For more information on this, check the news release.

Shannon · 07-11-2003, 08:57 AM

PS: I just recently found out our newest forum member, schef, runs an awesome ATV portal website with news, forums, photos and other cool stuff. Check it out at atvoutdoors.net!

07-11-2003, 01:22 PM

Yea it is a cool site! I belong to it and it is very helpful. I am sure Schef wants to thank you for saying something about his site on here... so THANKS!

schef · 07-11-2003, 01:45 PM

Thanks for the little ad and kind words regarding ATV Outdoors. The site was pretty lucky to get some talkative and respectful members that helped it to grow.

As for padre, I wish they would open it up to ATV's. There isn't a ton of possible riding area out there, but it would be enough to keep me occupied for a while.

Shannon · 07-16-2003, 07:36 PM

I think they're just worried about the potential liability issues. It's one thing to have over-zealous pickup truck and other 4x4 drivers get stuck and require an expensive tow down island...it's an entirely different thing to try and airlift a teenager or other ATV rider if they get into a bad accident down island. There are no hospitals within reasonable travelling distance of North Padre Island/Padre Island National Seashore, particularly not if you're scores of miles down island or on the interior.

Also, they are probably justifiably concerned that some ATV riders won't heed the laws and will try to ride on the sand dunes, which will destabilize them and undue the preservation efforts the park was created for. Granted, that seems counter-intuitive when cars and trucks are allowed to drive down island, but it's MUCH harder to 'sneak' a truck or jeep into the dunes than it would be to do the same with an ATV. And again, we get into liability issues...in that situation, no one would even know if the riders are missing/injured.

schef · 07-17-2003, 01:14 AM

I respect your opinion (WT) on the ATV issue on beaches but I think differently on this subject. I believe people will act as good or bad as they are allowed. Post rules, enforce them and there will be few problems. There will be accidents (as there are vehicular accidents on the beach) but we should not limit ourselves for fear of something happening.

As for the idea of destabilizing the conservation, we must ask ourselves what we are conserving and should recreation be the cost of such a practice. It is easy to ban recreational activities and chalk it up to environmental issues but I believe this is a shot in the dark at a larger issue. Why have so many areas resorted to banning ATVs in areas? The answer is because there is little land left for "environmental" concerns to have a safe haven. ATVs should not be the scape goat when a general attitude of destroying nature to build subdivisions throughout the land. There would be no need for parks without suburban sprawl.

Nor do I believe ATVs harm the land if used properly. Texas has taken steps to make sure that only responsible drivers are able to ride on public lands. For example, a rider safety course if required in addition to having the ATV registered and stickered from the DPS. It is very possible to ride on land without harming it. That is if you do not consider moving dirt a couple feet harm. I ride on the same land that my family farms. I ride it often and we produce crops every year. Animals are disturbed you say? Tell that to the birds that land 3 feet away from me when I stop for a break on the ATV. It all boils down to what destruction of land really is. Take a look at the grand canyon. Now that is destruction. That is one of the largest ecological catastrophes to ever take place, correct? Some may say it was the most amazing things to see, regardless of the fact that billions of tons of Earth were moved to create it. I realize that is a rather exaggerated example, but you get where I am coming from. Land cannot be destroyed by displacing it and neither can vegetation. A 4 foot wide trail hurts little. Pollution some may say? Take a look at the cars that drive near it. Noise? There are regulations in place for noise as well as spark arresters to limit the chance of fires.

Sorry to get so long winded and possibly off subject but this is a subject I am pretty passionate about and will use every opportunity I can to share my ideas and possibly share new thoughts with others.

Shannon · 07-18-2003, 10:16 AM

I figured we'd get a spirited discussion going here.

Quote:

As for the idea of destabilizing the conservation, we must ask ourselves what we are conserving and should recreation be the cost of such a practice.

In the case of Padre Island National Seashore, the rule of no driving on the dunes is to protect the longest remaining undeveloped barrier island in the world. The island, and primarily the dunes on it, are what provide that all important barrier when hurricanes and tropical storms make landfall. Think Claudette was bad? Imagine if she hadn't had the undeveloped barrier islands of Padre & Matagorda to help buffet the storm surge and keep it away from our heavily developed commercial/tourist coastline. Destabilize the dunes (by hiking, driving or ATV-riding on them), and the next big storm washes away even more of the island than it already does. In Saving the Best of Texas: A Partnership Approach to Conservation it is noted that the "Texas coast features some of the best naturally stabilized barrier islands... in North America." We didn't get there by allowing hikers, ATV's and pickups to tear through the dunes..."moving dirt a couple feet", as you describe.

Quote:

There would be no need for parks without suburban sprawl.

If that were really true, why was the National Park Service founded in 1916? Yes, cities were growing by then, but suburban sprawl wasn't really in widespread existence at that time. The need for parks is not just for recreation and solace, it is also (to borrow from the National Park Service's mission statement): "...to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." The parks exist not for the NOW but for the FUTURE. Living in the now means we'd make decisions that are self-serving and could harm the parks, their unique habitats and continued existence. Already, many "natural wonders" we have set aside as parks are encroached upon by things outside of the park services' control -- pollution from neighboring cities or from Mexico, increased flooding or drought due to damming of rivers upstream, etc.

There has to be a balance between the recreational use of parks and the conservation element. Otherwise, just pave some more lanes, add a roller coaster, and make a theme park with sand dunes, wave pools and the like out of every park.

Quote:

It all boils down to what destruction of land really is. Take a look at the grand canyon. Now that is destruction. That is one of the largest ecological catastrophes to ever take place, correct? Some may say it was the most amazing things to see, regardless of the fact that billions of tons of Earth were moved to create it. I realize that is a rather exaggerated example, but you get where I am coming from.

Not really... you are comparing a natural "disaster" over eons to man-made actions over, what, decades? That's like comparing the meteor impact that may have led to the extinction of the dinosaurs to a brick of Black Cat firecrackers. The scale is just a little off, and the forces at work are entirely different -- nature, in one, man in the other...

Quote:

Land cannot be destroyed by displacing it and neither can vegetation. A 4 foot wide trail hurts little.

I encourage you to read the book I mention earlier in this post, Saving the Best of Texas. While I respect your view, it's slightly ill-informed on topics such as conservation, land degregation and general land use policy in Texas. Destruction of the stabilizing vegetation on the dunes at Padre Island National Seashore, for example, immediately accelerates the rate of erosion, allowing the dunes to "blow out" and become part of the Gulf of Mexico or Intercoastal Waterway system. No more dunes means bad things, washing even more of the island away. In remarkably short order (years, not decades or eons), it wouldn't be surprising to find you could only drive 1/2 the distance down island as you can now because a new channel from the Gulf to the Intercoastal waterway has formed through/over what used to be the island. Driving through tundra has similarly devastating effects.

Driving in your family's farm fields is a completely diferent "environmental" impact. For one, I doubt you drive OVER any crops your family is planning to harvest.

07-18-2003, 05:13 PM

I think on this subject I will keep my mouth shut because I agree with both you completely, which can be hard to imagine. But do I have to step in and be the mother here?

jk.. Take care kids and make this a clean battle.

schef · 07-22-2003, 12:18 AM

It seems that I did have a bit of a misunderstanding about the dunes when I made that post. After going back and examining the images that I took of the coastline when I was there, it is clear that you (WT) are obviously right about the erosion factor. I was applying the same ideas of erosion to the land in my area; which is quite different than a dune.

However I still stand by one of my statements. While "Urban Sprawl" may have been a bad choice of words on my part, the idea remains the same. Although it is unavoidable with the development of society, the growth of the population forces people into all parts of the land. As your quote stated, the purpose of the National Park Service's is:

Quote:

"...to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

There would be no need to make an effort to preserve any areas if the population had not grown to the current numbers. That was the basis of my point.

Quote:

why was the National Park Service founded in 1916?

The answer to that is that even in 1916 it must have been clear that there would be a point in the future that the population would eventually eliminate all of the natural wilderness if something was not done. This makes me wonder how much longer parks will be around. From looking at the numbers alone, one would have have to figure that there will be a time where our population reaches a point that the parks will end up being done away with to allow people to move in and replace the parks (if this was clear in 1916, then it must be even more of a threat today). I'm not saying I expect that to happen, but that statement was only meant as a "what if".

Quote:

Already, many "natural wonders" we have set aside as parks are encroached upon by things outside of the park services' control -- pollution from neighboring cities or from Mexico

How much longer can it last?

Shannon · 07-26-2003, 11:27 AM

Thanks for the well-reasoned reply, schef -- certainly what I expected from you and it's a pleasure to engage others in this type of passionate discussion about nature and recreation -- things both dear to my heart!

In regards to our discussion about why parks exist at all, in particular the Federal Park System, you are right in concluding the following:

Quote:

The answer to that is that even in 1916 it must have been clear that there would be a point in the future that the population would eventually eliminate all of the natural wilderness if something was not done. This makes me wonder how much longer parks will be around.

Parks will be around as long as what they offer is seen of value to historians, conservationists and most importantly society -- people. Bear in mind that not all parks are natural wonders like "Old Faithful" or Niagra Falls. Many equally important parks are of the simple "playground and a softball field" city park, not just the "hiking and nature trail system park with seasonal hunting" variety.

Parks serve many interests, both here in Texas, throughout the USA and indeed worldwide. In fact, some parks are strictly historic -- to protect valuable national monuments, like the Statue of Liberty, the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park (including the Alamo) and famous battlefields. Why do they exist? They exist for the very same reasons libraries and museums and old black and white silent films exist -- they remind us of where we have come from and, in some cases, where we may return if we're not mindful of certain lessons history has tried to teach us (Holocaust Memorial, etc.)

Quote:

From looking at the numbers alone, one would have have to figure that there will be a time where our population reaches a point that the parks will end up being done away with to allow people to move in and replace the parks (if this was clear in 1916, then it must be even more of a threat today). I'm not saying I expect that to happen, but that statement was only meant as a "what if".

I think we can agree few of us would want to live in a world like that. There's a reason many people who call themselves environmentalists are as much, if not more, concerned with curbing/stabilizing popultion growth (particularly in undeveloped countries, the places on this earth the least capable of sustaining even more population growth). Humans can live on this earth without becoming the scourge you allude to, crowding out every other living thing and taking up every usable area of space. For one, while we are social creatures I imagine society itself will unravel long before we reach a point where we have to debate in Congress, "Hmm....should we colonize the Grand Canyon and Zion National Park? Let's start with 15 subdivisions and a large community center at the base." At least, I hope we never come to that. Some would say the over-development of some of our national parks amounts to that... abusing the areas we have set aside as "natural" to the point that there's little of their true "nature" left. I, for one, am not that cynical. I do grimace when I see (or get trapped in) traffic jams in a national park because a doe and her young are out grazing, or a grizzly's been sighted, but that's the challenge and curse of working in the Park Service. Those folks deserve a lot of credit for making things work as well as they do, on the limited budgets they're provided and with some of the... hmmm... a little brain dead folks who visit parks.

I believe as long as there are people who enjoy nature, "fresh" air, wildlife, outdoor recreation and something more than just prepackaged (false-)"reality TV" we will have no problems ensuring there are many parks of various sizes and pursuits for future generations. That doesn't mean it doesn't take constant vigilence and constant education, which is one very big reason I've run this site -- to show folks, Texans and visitors and lurkers alike, that there's a LOT more to Texas than just a couple big cities, some cattle and oil derricks (many of which are inoperable ever since the "oil rush" days), cowboys and pickups. The first step to protecting something is to experience it and learn about it.

I wouldn't give up on the future of parks anytime soon...but I'd definitely advise you, like me, to be very vocal anytime a (potentially) well-meaning but misinformed congress person, a neighbor or anyone else tries to negatively impact a park or other public area you value for its beauty, recreation potential and conservation value. Together, we ALL can make a difference...and I'm not a child of the 60's, so that's not left over "flower power" talking. It's the God's honest truth.

You deserve fantastic places to ride your ATV. Texas is sadly short on those, just as it's sadly short on actual park acreage comparable to the size of this state. (I tried looking for the exact percentage while drafting my original email to you, but let's just say Texas ranks VERY low out of the continental United States when it comes to public park land versus total land area. One reason for that is our long history as a farm and ranch land; the other reason is we just haven't been vocal as a community and seen the value in a spring or cliff face or river front like folks in other states have.)

07-06-2006, 10:40 PM

My sister has a ATV that was regitered and insured in Arizona. I heard if she owns property in Arizona that she can ride it onTexas highways. Is that true?

Shannon · 07-06-2006, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

My sister has a ATV that was regitered and insured in Arizona. I heard if she owns property in Arizona that she can ride it onTexas highways. Is that true?

Someone's pulling your leg... or trying to pull ours.

I haven't met an ATV that can drive at sustained highway speeds, much less one that qualifies as street legal for most city's streets. And her owning property in Arizona has no bearing on the transportation laws of another state... does she also have oceanfront property?

larisalynn · 07-10-2006, 01:47 PM

I just wanted to let y'all know that a guy I work with got 3 tickets while
on his 4 wheeler in a National forest near Toledo Bend. They were $175
each!! They got him and several of his friends he was riding with. This
wasn't even a cop, it was a forrest ranger.

They got them for:

1. Riding on a public road - A public road is any road on public
property....not necessarily a county road or state highway. Public property
is: property owned or leased by the state or a political subdivision of the
state. This would include where we ride at Kirbyville, TX (EO Seake National Forest).

2. Riding without a helmet - Yes it's required on "Public Property" to wear
a helmet on ATV's, regardless of your age.

3. Carrying a passenger - You cannot carry a passenger on a ATV with a
"saddle" type seat like all typical 4-wheelers have. The only exception to
this is if the ATV was designed by the manufacturer to carry passengers.
All the 4-wheelers I saw when looking had labels saying "no passengers".

The Texas ATV laws (in the link below) also says you have to have a
certification of taking a ATV safety course to ride on "Public Property" as
well as a pole with flag mounted on the ATV. So they let him off on those
two.

Link to the Texas ATV Laws -
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/MSB26ATVLaws.pdf

We have a Yahmaha Rhino... does anyone know where I can find out TX laws pertaining to side by side ATV's?

Thanks in advance,
Larisa

Shannon · 07-10-2006, 02:46 PM

Many/most/all National Park Service rangers are in fact law enforcement officials. They have the same powers and duties as any law enforcement officer, just that their jurisdiction is the confinces of a National Park/federally owned land. Just an FYI.