At the risk of being flamed, if it's only 50 acres, I'll take walking / bicycle / horse trails instead.
This close to KC metro, 50 acres is ridiculous. It would be completely destroyed in about 2 months--that is, all vegetation stripped bare and erosion problems. There would probably be a dozen injuries in that time period as well. Too much demand--too little space.
So if all we are talking about is 50 acres, I guess I'll choose walking trails--somewhere to take my girl for an easy afternoon hike.
I don't know what the answer is. I also don't understand what the big environmental scares are about. Yes, motorcycles and ATV's tear out the vegetation and you end up with erosion wherever there are trails. Yes, some wildlife is displaced, but I'd argue that very little wildlife actually moves out. I've been tearing through the trails at Milford's School Creek ORV area and come across a family of deer napping under pine trees along the trail---they didn't even run away.
The pattern seems to be that we allow the riding area to get terribly eroded and then shut the area down. I think part of the solution is to treat riding areas like shoes. Everybody knows that two pairs of shoes alternated will last more than twice as long as one pair worn every day. Take 1,000 acres and split it in half. Ride 500 acres for 2 years, then ride the other 500 for 2 years while allowing the first half to re-grow.
I'd also argue that despite all the damage done by offroad traffic, if you close an area, in 10 years, the land will recover in amazing ways. A lot of people are ready to fight to protect 500 acres from being "destroyed" by offroad activities, yet every month another 40 acres is completely cleared for a new suburban housing development. These same people seem to be just fine with covering that 40 acres with concrete, herbicides, and pesticides. It's OK to "destroy" land for your 6 bedroom home, swimming pool, and manicured lawn.
How about golf courses?! A golf course is a purely recreational use of land. Which is a more destructive use of 200 acres? Which displaces more animal life?
- Build trails (basically a minimum amount of clearing) and then riding ATVs and motorcycles on those trails
- Clear almost all vegetation, use bulldozers to completely reshape the landscape, create man-made ponds, and dump thousands of pounds of fertilizer and pesticides
If you said "golf course", give yourself a gold star. Hey, you know how I feel about quadtards, but I'd argue the asshole:acre ratio is greater at the golf course, too.
I don't want every piece of land to be covered with offroad trails. I enjoy hiking trails where I don't have to worry about a motorcycle or ATV flying over the hill. I enjoy the "silence" of nature, too. It's nice to have places where we can go and not listen to motors. But good grief! Kansas has about 81, 815 square miles of land which is about 52, 361,000 acres. Over 52 Million acres! Can't we have a few places with about 500 acres each to enjoy a recreational activity that is very popular with a large percentage of the population?!
I wonder what the actual percentage of the Kansas City Metro area population would be counted among those that enjoy off-road motorized recreation? Maybe part of the problem really is that we simply are not organized and vocal enough. We can sit back and cry about how "they" don't give us trails, but who are "they"? It's OUR government. WE elect those people. HOW do we find about meetings, votes, etc that are of interest to off-road enthusiasts? I usually hear about these things after the fact.