page_195 < previous page page_195 next page > Page 195 hikers, hunters, snowmobilers, horseback riders, and operators of four-wheel-drive vehicles (mostly pickup trucks). The different user groups have been competitive. One local story tells of a group of horseback riders who protected their trail by laying spikes in the ground to cause blowouts in vehicle tires. As the forest has grown, it has fallen outside of valley society or the law. Occupants in the forest make their own civil arrangements, as in the case of the horseback riders. The pickup drivers are "outlaws" of a sort, generating fear and resentment. Indeed, they find their activity appealing precisely because it is disorganized and wild. Just as the forest provides the space in which people can act with abandon, its trees stand as welcome obstacles, making it a place unlike any other in the valley. Of the various forecasts for the federal land, none has noted the recent history of uncontrolled access as an issue for future enforcement. Should managers prohibit pickup trucks in the forest? "Yes!" public officials and some residents answer resoundingly. If so, how easy will they find bringing this forest and one group of its "inhabitants" back into the law? The policy rationale for prohibiting trucks speaks to environmental concerns. A common refrain is that pickup trucks are wrecking the federal land. The evidence that, vehicles cause severe localized soil erosion on trails is beyond dispute. Still another sentiment lies under the surface of the ecological argument against four-wheel-drive vehicles: only people of a certain class (lower), gender (male), or age (young) drive trucks on the land, and their actions appear antisocial. The policy issue of access now becomes complex and potentially explosive. The social and cultural politics embedded in forest access and control could bedevil the most well-intentioned plans for the new reserve. In the 1930s, when valley communities urged the federal government to control flooding on the Kickapoo River, they put in motion a number of social and ecological processes, all of which changed the people and landscape of Stark. The government became a major landholder in the area. Absentee landownership increased, as did parcel size, while the number of people declined. Forests returned as new landowners removed more and more land from agricultural production. Sections of the Kickapoo River reverted from a warm-water fishery to a cold-water fishery (i.e., trout) as soil erosion decreased and forest cover shaded the river channel. The return of trout created a modest tourism sector with a small number of guides and bed-and-breakfasts catering to fishers (Marcouiller, Anderson, and Norman 1995). Wildlife populations, especially deer, turkey, and coyote, which were rare in the 1930s, flourished. They, in turn, put pressure on crops and livestock, becoming a nuisance to area farmers. The advent of a recreational economy is at hand, but any benefits that such economic diversification might provide are offset by a foreboding that the larger world now dictates life's economic and social pace in Stark. The  < previous page page_195 next page >