Counterpoint: That study on the economic benefits of ATV trails? Treat it with suspicion.

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Readers recently saw headlines from a recent study that ATV trails in Minnesota attracted enough sports tourism in three northern counties to generate $36 million in 2023. This claim seems almost too good to be true — because it is.

Before taking this seriously, it is important to understand the context under which the study was conducted.

ATV clubs have formed a strong lobby seeking permission from the Minnesota Legislature to build more ATV trails. Currently there are 8,828 miles in the Forest ATV Trail System Inventory and a total of 100,000 miles accessible to ATVs statewide, according to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources data. This includes all county mileage.

The ATV lobby is supported by “scientific” research that claims to demonstrate the financial bonanza ATV recreation brings to local communities. This research is typically sponsored or administered by the ATV clubs such as the economic impact study cited in a Minnesota Star Tribune article (“ATV riders spend millions, create jobs,” Jan. 12) and elsewhere.

This study collected rider frequency and expenditure data from riders on several selected trails and riding events, with an emphasis on online surveys. Problematically, rather than a random selection of trails from the trail network, five trail locations known for regular traffic were hand-picked by the clubs for trail counters (and these same vehicle count numbers were then applied to the rest of the trail system).

Surveys online were promoted through club social media targeting club members (not necessarily your everyday ATV rider) rather than having randomly selected ATV riders from the broader, defined rider population. It is not necessary to have a math or statistics degree to know that this gives new meaning to the word “bias.” It would be like polling people in line at Starbucks to find out their weekly coffee expenditure and then inputting that amount to represent every coffee drinker in the city.

The study applied a commercially available computer model that multiplied survey expenditures through the broader economy known as the ripple effect to come up with the $36 million.

However, it’s important to note that this computer model can only be as accurate as the data fed into it.

In addition, the survey study focused solely on monetizing benefits and forgot to monetize the associated financial costs. Examples of these costs would include road maintenance, lost revenue from other forms of recreation not compatible with off-highway vehicles and search-and-rescue, etc. There are also environmental cost impacts to consider, such as habitat degradation and fragmentation by trails and noise disturbance that negatively affect wildlife. Wildlife watching in Minnesota generated $5 billion in 2022, according to DNR figures. Soil erosion and water degradation are also a cost factor, as well as invasive spread and management. Terrestrial invasives spread is a $3 billion annual problem in Minnesota affecting economies, environment and ecosystems.

The health of our forests, wetlands and rivers is essential to the Minnesota tourist industry and economic development.

These natural resources can be and are monetized. The St. Louis River annual benefits have been valued at $5 billion to $14 billion annually. Environmental impacts and remediation are real financial costs to an economy that can be assessed with computer models and are not estimated in this study. Without that input, the study needs to be reconsidered.

Informed legislators know the premise of the study is flawed, but it serves the purpose of extending political cover to our representatives in St. Paul who prioritize Polaris, other manufacturers and ATV clubs over commonsense measures to help preserve public lands for all Minnesotan stakeholders.

Daniel Wilm is a retired DNR forester and is with the Minnesota Public Lands Coalition. Russell Smith is a retired professor of marketing (Winona State University). Willis Mattison is an ecologist and retired Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regional director. Bruce Anderson is Forest Committee chair for the Minnesota chapter of the Wildlife Society.