By now, many readers interested in recreational issues have heard of the report published about the BlueRibbon Coalition by a group calling itself the "U.S. Public Interest Research Group" (U.S. PIRG). Although few may have actually read the report itself, it has done the usual rounds in the media. Frankly, the fact that U.S. PIRG felt the need to write this "report" at all is the best indication that the BlueRibbon Coalition is doing a good job in exposing the anti-recreation goals of green extremists. When asked by Bill McAllister of the Denver Post whether this report might indicate that the BlueRibbon Coalition is growing in national prominence, Clark Collins (executive director) stated with a laugh "I'd like to think that what this says is that we're more powerful than WE think we are."

All the fervor and fury from opponents of the BlueRibbon Coalition is not unanticipated. When you take a stand on an issue, you have to expect the opposition to take some pot-shots at you, and this is exactly what the U.S. PIRG report amounts to: a number of cheap-shots in the guise of non partisan reporting.

Anyone reviewing the report has but to look deeper at U.S. PIRG to quickly see how partisan they actually are. Their support for the more extreme side of environmentalism is well established on campuses across the nation. In fact, much of their funding comes from student fees which has caused them some trouble themselves. The January issue of Clarion, a North Carolina publication, reported that "the state PIRGs receive funding from student governments on college campuses, and U.S. PIRG receives some of [this] funding from the state PIRGs. These student governments, of course, are bankrolled by student activity fees, which students are required to pay as part of enrolling into a university."

Needless to say, this does not sit well with students who oppose the political agenda of U.S. PIRG. Some students have gone as far as to sue for a refund of these fees, and the courts have proven quite sympathetic. In retaliation, U.S. PIRG formed the Center for Campus Free Speech to fight these efforts.

The Clarion article went on to state that, "in light of these court cases, it was with no small amount of chutzpah that U.S. PIRG launched the Center for Campus Free Speech. The PIRGs' calling forced support for their work free speech' is like the British navy of 1800 calling its impressment of captured American sailors freedom of association."

This appears to be a standard tactic of U.S. PIRG in response to something that gets in their way. The students who opposed the use of fees to support the PIRGs were met with the "Center for Campus Free Speech." So too, when the BlueRibbon Coalition's efforts came into conflict with the goals of U.S. PIRG on the Clinton Administration's Roadless Initiative, U.S. PIRG retaliated by publishing their "report." As with the Center for Campus Free Speech, the validity of this report is based on shaky ground.

The main point made repeatedly in the U.S. PIRG report is that the BlueRibbon Coalition receives funding from various corporate sources. Although greatly exaggerated (the actual amount of corporate contributions is less than 5% of the BlueRibbon Coalition's yearly budget), this should hardly come as a surprise to anyone. Just about every non-profit organization receives at least some corporate support. The Ford Foundation gives 17 million to various environmental groups each year, and they are not alone. Billions of dollars from corporate foundations is contributed each year to organizations on the U.S. PIRG side of the environmental issue. Attacking the BlueRibbon Coalition's modest corporate contributions of around $20,000 a year is so hypocritical as to be laughable.

It is also the contention of U.S. PIRG that the BlueRibbon Coalition is just a mouth-piece for the resource industry. This is simply not true. We are a grassroots organization, and our financial support comes from individual recreationists and local recreational organizations (Individual members make up 88% of overall membership, and recreational organizations which are themselves members of the BlueRibbon Coalition make up an additional 6%). We are their voice, and no one else's. The mistaken assumption on the part of U.S. PIRG results from the fact that it is the BlueRibbon Coalition's view that recreation and responsible resource use are neither incompatible with each other, nor incompatible with sound environmental land management.

Lastly, let's take a moment to analyze the published statement of U.S. PIRG that the Clinton administration's Roadless policy is not a threat to motorized and mechanized recreation. On the face of it, this might seem true. Nowhere in his speech does President Clinton actually state that such forms of recreation will be banned from "existing roads." But that's just the problem. Many historic Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) trails and roads exist in these "roadless areas," but have simply not been officially recognized. What's more, there is nothing to stop the roads that ARE recognized from being closed. Under the Wilderness Act, only an act of Congress can designate an area as Wilderness, a designation which bans all motorized or mechanized use (including mountain bikes). The Clinton administration's Roadless Initiative would allow these so-called roadless areas to be closed without the process of congressional review.

Groups like the Wilderness Society pushed for the Roadless policy decision, and they got it. There can be no doubt that when this initiative is put in place, they will also ask for wholesale closures of roads and trails in these areas. They will likely get that too. Is it any wonder, then, that any organization supporting the multiple-use recreational philosophy would try everything in its power to oppose this end-run around congress?

It is the firm view of the BlueRibbon Coalition that all forms of recreation should be allowable. It's still a pretty big country, and there are places where one can hike to get "solitude," and there are places one can go to enjoy OHV recreation. But the areas available to the latter are growing fewer each year. What the BlueRibbon Coalition has said in the past, and will say again, is that enough is enough! It's not a difficult message to grasp, but groups like U.S. PIRG apparently need a little extra clarification.

(Michael Patty is the Editor of the BlueRibbon Magazine. For questions or comments on this article or related issues, he may be contacted through the BRC main office: 1540 N. Arthur, Pocatello, ID, 83204. Email [brmag@sharetrails.org].