Thursday, January 28, 2010

The Creek Song - A Song Dedicated to the CCMA Battle

As the Clear Creek saga continues, there are a lot of ways to fight back and contribute to the battle. Many have and will make fiscal donations, write comments, attend meetings, and join and get friends to join OHV organizations.
Photo: A couple of riders enjoying a trail at CCMA when it was open for OHV use

A unique way that one person has contributed to the Clear Creek effort is to write and sing a song dedicated to all those who are fighting the good fight.

The General encourages dirt-bikers, ATV riders, club members, 4WDers, rockhounders, gem collectors, hunters, and others who want to see CCMA reopened to visit the Friends of CCMA website and listen to The Creek Song.

The Creek Song (just click the play button on the song)

A big salute from the Recreation HQ to all of you who are working to reopen CCMA!

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

IMBA Drinks Wilderness Kool-Aid

On January 8, 2009 The General posted a mountain-bike oriented OHV War history lesson for land-use newbies who ride both mountain-bikes and OHVs.

Recently, BRC issued an Alert regarding a new Wilderness push in Congress – an effort that not surprisingly has the support of IMBA.

See BRC Alert on Wilderness Push

What should be bothering many of you who are mountain-bikers is that IMBA has joined this ill-advised congressional push for more Wilderness quality lands to be managed as de facto Wilderness -- a land management prescription that by the way bans both mountain-bike and motorized uses.

See IMBA Effort in Support of de facto Wilderness

If I was a hard-core mountain-biker, I would be asking just what the heck is going on at IMBA. I believe that organization is going through some sort of identity crisis. IMHO, they should be joining forces with BRC and other access groups as enviros seek to close state and federal recreation sites to ALL uses including mountain-biking.

The Vichy French taught us that siding with your enemy is not a good long-term military strategy. The General believes IMBA should study history before launching pro-Wilderness initiatives.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Carnegie and Executive Branch Authority and Discretion

One thing that surprised The General while attending the January 13 BLM CCMA DEIS public meeting in Coalinga was the number of ranchers and farmers who were monitoring the Carnegie SVRA crisis.

The main concern is that a victory by anti-OHV groups at Carnegie would open the legal floodgates for similar lawsuits - to be filed against property owners – that would seek to interfere with an agency's executive branch authority to exercise discretion regarding how they select to enforce state regulations.

An excellent response and overview on this topic by the CA Water Board on the Carnegie lawsuit is posted by my good friends at

What the anti-OHV groups are doing at Carnegie could be likened to having some public interest group filing a lawsuit against the CHP for not properly enforcing the state’s driving or speed laws. As you know, the CHP is given a lot of discretion on how it deploys its officers to enforce said laws. Having a “citizen’s group” successfully insert itself into what is historically an administrative decision-making process at Carnegie could have grave impacts to private property owners, small businesses, and recreationists throughout the state.

As the Recreation HQ has stated before, 2010 will be a very challenging year for OHV access interests at Carnegie, CCMA, and elsewhere. The HQ thanks you for your service and support.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Clear Creek Closure - Need for Peer Review

A packed house of between 500-600 recreationists, gem collectors, and other access interests attended the final BLM CCMA public DEIS meeting held in Santa Clara on January 20.
Photo: Health Risk (you could die) Sign at CA State Park Beach
The central theme running through public comments was that this is a politically motivated closure, does not pass the smell test, and is based on a flawed EPA risk assessment that does not even meet the basic methodology requirements of an 8th grade science project. The following was learned and/or restated for the record during the 1 hour open house where users could ask agency representatives questions and during the comment period.

1 – One of the testing roads had just been ripped by a bulldozer before the testing occurred

2 – The EPA OHV testers were not adequately monitored regarding if they stayed on the test route network

3 – The riding times were grossly overstated in the analysis and did not reflect real world riding times or conditions

4 – The EPA did not know that Jade Mill and other sites where they staged from and/or rode through were former commercial mill sites.

5 – The BLM has asked the EPA to revise their draft risk assessment to pull out the statement that the risk to public health could be zero.

One question The General asked the BLM is even if there is some health risk why they did not research how their own agency or sister agencies address public health and safety (i.e. falling in a mine shaft, fishing/eating mercury laden fish, snake bites, falling to your death while rock climbing, drowning while swimming in a river or lake, etc.) risks? Their only answer was that they selected not to do ANY research to see how they could keep the area open.

See how Illinois State Parks addressed a similar recreation-oriented asbestos issue next to an EPA Superfund Site (there are a number of studies linked in the article)

Would a different BLM area manager have kept CCMA open? The General believes that the former area manager. Bob Beehler, would have not told the EPA to amend the draft risk analysis and would have keep CCMA open until better science was produced.

During the public comment period, the chairman of the OHMVR commission said he felt there is a need for a peer review of the EPA risk assessment. The General agrees.

The ugly CCMA saga continues…

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

BRC/OHV Groups File Motion to Intervene in Eldorado Lawsuit

As BRC and its partners file a motion to intervene in the Eldorado lawsuit which was filed in the Fall of 2009 by anti-OHV groups, some of you may want to ask why do you have to file a motion to intervene v. just filing your legal intervention?
Photo: Single Track Trail on Eldorado NF
The answer is complex, but The General will try and do his best to explain. Historically, 9th District Courts have taken a position on several important points regarding OHV-related litigation. They often take the position that NEPA/APA was never created to protect the public interest as it relates to pro-OHV access and recreation. They also have created an extra legal hurdle that makes it hard for pro-OHV legal interests to intervene in lawsuits where OHV groups want to protect/defend FS and BLM recreational opportunities. Those “OHV legal positions” are not held by other federal court districts.

BRC News Release on Motion to Intervene in Eldorado Lawsuit


*Note of interest for Carnegie folks.- Our good friend, Karen Schambach, who is at the center of the Carnegie lawsuit via her position at PEER, is also the kingpin for the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation which filed the Eldorado lawsuit to stop OHV recreation.

Karen at PEER


Although enviro groups often claim to be champions of fair and open debate, isn’t it funny that those same groups are trying to prevent BRC and its partners from filing our intervention on their Eldorado lawsuit? (that is why we had to file a motion to intervene)

To join BRC and/or make a donation to our legal effort against more land closures, you can go online at: (you can direct funds to general legal or specific cases)

Stay tuned as 2010 will be a very active legal year for OHV interests.

Thanks for your service!

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

EPA - Violates Public Trust at Clear Creek

I know a lot of riders are still trying to figure out just what the heck is going on behind the scenes regarding the BLM’s closure of CCMA. The General continues to believe the closure is politically motivated and is where the agency used flawed science and a non-artful public flim-flam to effect their desired outcome.
PHOTO: BRC's Don Amador (left) and SRMC's Ed Tobin riding trails at CCMA when it was open.

As some of you already know, BRC and other public interest groups occasionally file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests on federal agencies to obtain documents not otherwise available for public scrutiny. This information is then used to help BRC and its members and other stakeholders understand how federal agencies make decisions.

As The General gets ready to attend the BLM CCMA DEIS public meeting in Santa Clara on Wednesday (having already attended the Harris Ranch meeting), he asks the question, “How can the public have any confidence in this public process when the EPA denies a FOIA request – when in fact there has been correspondence between EPA and other parties for a number of years?”

EPA FOIA Case Study Regarding CCMA. – Sent to both EPA/Wash and EPA Region 9

Full archive of BRC BLM/CCMA FOIA documents

General EPA FOIA Information

Fortunately in this case, the BLM fulfilled their legal requirement to daylight information via a similar FOIA request and BRC obtained some EPA related documents. The same cannot be said about the EPA which - in The General’s opinion - violated the public trust.

The EPA’s refusal to share information with the public regarding their decision-making process at CCMA does not reflect kindly on the agency. It also undermines their credibility as the primary science-arm of the federal government.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Jan 14 Clear Creek Meeting - BLM (and EPA) Should Be Ashamed

As more OHVers become interested in the fight to keep public lands open for motorized recreation, I wanted to share a rather ugly side of the battle to reopen the Clear Creek Management Area (CCMA).
Photo: New 1.7 million dollar BLM decontamination center being constructed while area
is closed and could remain closed - people are asking, "What the hell is going on?
Tobin's blog on multi-million dollar structure:

Last night, over 300 members of the recreation community attended a public meeting for CCMA’s DEIS to voice their anger at the closure.

Ed Tobin, spokesman for the Salinas Ramblers Motorcycle Club said it best in the TV clip below – “The BLM (and EPA) should be ashamed of themselves.”

News Story and TV Clip from Hollister Meeting

Both The General and Tobin believe the closure is politically motivated and based on threats by anti-OHV interests to file lawsuits if the BLM does not close the area to OHVs. The following correspondence between EPA’s Jere Johnson (she is quoted in above article and is on TV clip) regarding the uncertainty of their study and the BLM basically asking them to remove a section from the draft EPA report substantiates our concerns.
BLM/EPA correspondence from BRC FOIARick Cooper/CASO/CAIBLM/DOl

To Arnold Den/R9/USEPAJUS@EPA, Jere Johnson
cc Karl Ford/NOC/BLM/DOl@BLM
04/11/2008 01:42 PM
bcc Janet BedrosianfCASO/CNBLM/DOl

Subject Uncertainty in model

Jere and Arnold,

Just reading through the executive summary. The last paragraph places some doubt as to the adequacy of the model used. The risks could be lower or 0. I am aware that EPA has been consistent in mentioning this and it was in the previous draft.

Uncertainty related to the toxicity parameters of the risk assessment includes the application of the IRIS and OEHHA asbestos toxicity models, which were developed from epidemiological studies of occupational exposures, to infrequent and episodic recreational exposures. This uncertainty could mean that the actual risks could be much lower than those estimated in the CCMA assessment and perhaps zero. Another uncertainty, adjustments for early-lifetime childhood exposures, could mean that the actual risks are higher than those estimated in the report.

I am sure BLM will be asked “why make an emergency decision on a model that may not accurately portray the risks to the public?” The basis for the decision is the model’s depiction that most of the activities exceed the acceptable risk range of 1 in 10,000.

Any thoughts on a response

Rick Cooper
Field Manager
Hollister Field Office
20 Hamilton Court
Hollister, CA 95023
phone: (831) 630-5010

The Recreation HQ thanks everybody for holding their nose while attending these public meetings – the odor of foul play is really more than some of us can stand. I know a lot of these BLM employees and I am sure that many of them are not proud of their agency either. Let’s work to see CCMA reopened and hopefully our good relationship that once existed between users and the agency is restored.

Jan. 15 - Carnegie Legal Update

The General is back at Recreation HQ and has some great news on this day.

The court has set January 26 as its next “decision date.” This is according the newest post at OHMVR. Until then the park is OPEN.

OHMVR Website Post

Update: On January 14th, the Court of Appeal, in San Francisco, filed an order accepting an amicus letter brief from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), filed on January 11, 2010. This letter argued that the Superior Court in Alameda County lacks jurisdiction to close the park because PEER and CSPA failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with the Water Board first before going to the Court.

Peer and CSPA have until January 20th to file an opposition to the SWRCB letter.

State Parks and/or the SWRCB have until January 25th to file a reply to the opposition from PEER and CSPA.

The park will remain open pending further court action. We expect the court to make a decision on the issue of park closure on or after January 26, 2010.

This has been, and continues to be, a very important test case for water quality-based lawsuits filed by agenda driven environmental groups. Many nervous land owners, farmers, family businesses are also watching this case.

The General thanks all of you for your continued patience and willingness to help in the fight to keep our public lands open for responsible OHV use.

The Carnegie saga continues...

Thursday, January 14, 2010

CCMA Update - Harris Ranch Meeting - Join Our Quest to Reopen CCMA

Photo to left: Crowd at Harris
Ranch CCMA DEIS Meeting

Photo to right: The General giving
thumbs-down to closure

The General attended the BLM’s CCMA public meeting last night that was held at Harris Ranch near Coalinga. The ballroom was near packed to capacity with over 200 people in attendance. About ½ of the folks were OHVers and the other ½ were private property owners, gem collectors, small businesses, and ranchers. All spoke in favor of reopening CCMA to ALL users.

Friends of CCMA has an overview of the meeting and agenda

The next two meetings are as follows:

Jan. 14 – Veterans Memorial Hall, 649 San Benito St. – Hollister
Jan. 20 – Santa Clara Convention Center, 5001 Great America Parkway, Santa Clara

For those of you attending, I believe you should come prepared at 5:30 to each of the next two meeting with specific questions regarding your concerns on issues such as the validity of the EPA study, other scientific questions, flaws in agency analysis, or why the agency ignored much if not most of the science that was submitted during the scoping period, etc. Be sure and record the BLM and EPA’s answers to your questions.

Be sure and read BRC’s FOIA information that points out how there were even concerns by BLM staff regarding the science used in the EPA survey or how the draft report was massaged. Link below has BRC attorney letter with FOIA materials.

Later on in the program, be prepared to articulate (3 minute speeches) your position on how this closure has and will impact your family, your business, and why you think the agency has made a mistake. Also, be prepared to offer a management solution like one person did at Harris Ranch.

One speaker pointed out that one of BLM’s sister agencies – the National Wildlife Refuge – uses signs (rather than a ban) warning fishermen about the danger of eating too much fish that may be contaminated with mercury and other toxins.

Survey on Signs and Fishermen

Several other speakers also noted that other warning signs regarding health risks posed to pregnant women, elderly, etc. by using items such as cigarettes, alcohol, etc. are government approved ways to communicate health concerns to the public v. an outright ban.

The General agrees with the one or two speakers that stated to the group that at the end of the day, the CCMA is a political issue. On that note, I appreciated the fact that Senator Dianne Feinstein had a staffer there taking notes on this all too important issue. The Senator was helpful in protecting existing OHV routes in the 2006 North Coast Wilderness Bill and is also working to protect OHV recreation in the Johnson Valley area. Having your congressional representatives involved in the CCMA is very important.

As the FOCCMA website stated, BRC’s Don Amador spoke about how AMA, D36, TMC, CORVA, CAL4WD, BRC, FOCCMA, and SRMC are working in a cooperative manner to reopen the area to historic OHV uses. Amador also extended the hand of partnership to the gem collectors and ranchers to join our quest to reopen CCMA.

Stay tuned for updates. The General plans to be at the Jan. 20 CCMA meeting in Santa Clara and looks forward to visiting with you there.

Also, JOIN BRC and other groups to help us fight this closure
Join at:

The General’s Contact Info:
Don Amador
Recreation HQ
555 Honey Lane
Oakley, CA 94561

Forward this blog and info to your friends.

Thanks for your service and for attending these meetings.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Carnegie Legal Update - Jan. 12, 2010

A quick legal update from the field. The General understands the AG successfully filed their brief with the appellate court on Monday, January 11.

Now we must wait for the court to make a decision. That time period could range from a couple of days to several weeks.

The park remains open for now until that decision is rendered.

*The General is in the field and out Recreation HQ for most of this week. However, he will check in and try and provide quick updates as neeeded.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Mad as Hell Speech at Carnegie SVRA Rally

For those of you who missed being at this event, the Recreation HQ is proud to be able to share a clip from the December 28, 2009 Save Carnegie SVRA Rally. This video was shot by Bungee Brent – Dr. Xtreme. We owe him a great big thank you for capturing the rally on a DVD where over 1,000 off-roaders from as far away at Lake Tahoe came to rally in support of the park and in protest of anti-OHV groups who file politically motivated lawsuits that have nothing to do with the environment or science.

Video Clip of AMA Dist. 36’s – Dave Pickett’s “Mad as Hell – Will You Fight?” Speech
and BRC’s – Don Amador – “Day of Infamy and We are going to Win” Speech

For Updates on Carnegie and other OHV and Land Use Issues

AMA D36 members should be proud of the District’s response to this crisis. I know the Recreation HQ is proud of Mr. Pickett, Dave Duffin, and the many families and individuals who showed up and are answering the call to fight for their sport.

The General thanks you for your service in the defense of access to public lands.

Jan. 11 - Legal Fog Hangs Over Carnegie Crisis

The Recreation HQ has received several emails from riders who want to know what exactly is going to happen at Carnegie on the magic date of January 11, 2010.

The General has worked hard to sift through the rhetoric in order to inform Carnegie fans if the park will stay open or not until the water permit has been approved.

As some of you know, OHMVR has been ordered by the appellate court to submit its written argument on January 11, 2010. But that is where the clarity ends and the uncertainty of the park begins.

Based on my understanding of the appellate court (which is usually more moderate than a single activist judge), it can order any of the following actions:

After reviewing the state’s written argument, the court could decide to withhold any decision until after oral arguments are heard. However, the timeframe for them hearing any oral arguments could range from a few days up to several weeks or a month. What is uncertain is what the court would do regarding the park being open during the review period. It could remain open (a likely scenario) or the park could be closed.

Another option would be for the court to immediately review the argument that day and order the park to remain open or closed based on that review. Or, the court could give itself a certain timeframe (days or weeks) to review the arguments and render a decision during which time the park could remain open (a likely scenario) or the park could be closed.

Also, there are many other options as well that may or may not be just as convoluted.

The point I am trying to make is that nobody (including The General) can predict what the appellate court with do on Monday. It is very likely that the OHV community will not know the open or closed status of the park until 5 p.m. on Monday.

The General will be at meetings this next week (Mon – Thurs) so he may have limited amounts of time to post updates, but rest assured he will do his best. In the meantime, be sure and monitor the OHMVR Official Website for updates. They have worked hard to keep you informed.

Thanks for your service!

Friday, January 8, 2010

Mountain Bike History Lesson in OHV Wars

The General believes the Carnegie crisis has actually had a positive impact as you look at the overall picture of land-use fights to preserve and protect responsible OHV recreation on public and private lands.

Besides awakening Bay Area off-roaders to the fact that anti-OHV groups have the sport square in their crosshairs, it has caused a lot of those same folks who also ride mountain bikes to ask the question, “Where are the mountain bike groups in the access fight?”

The onus for today’s study of OHV Wars is based on a recent article published in IMBA’s Magazine as written by Jen Dice.

2010 IMBA Article

The tough talk is welcome but my question is if IMBA has resolved its inner turmoil between the group’s pro-Wilderness advocates (some of the old IMBA hardliners have a motto which goes like this, “We have never met a Wilderness Bill that we won’t support – even if it bans mountain bikes”) v. some others who believe that IMBA should work more closely with groups like BRC and AMA to defend trail access rights?

This internal struggle was documented in an excellent 2006 article in Mountain Bike Action Magazine (a very good and informative read)

In my position with BRC, I had extended the hand of partnership to IMBA and other mountain bikers to join us in a fight to have the BLM include mountain bike and equestrian use on a large number of existing logging roads (over 50 miles) in the Headwaters Forest Reserve. This was a case where BRC (and The General) was willing to lead the fight to protect equestrian and mountain bike access in this area. In fact, it was not an OHV issue since OHV use had never occurred there and we were not asking for it. Sadly, IMBA rejected our offer and the BLM only gave them about 3 miles instead of 50 or more.

Link to Info/Overview of Headwaters Battle where non-motorized users got screwed

The Recreation HQ hopes the new readers of the blog will find these history lessons useful as they get up to speed on land use issues.

Thanks for your service!

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Carnegie Update for Jan. 7

As we get closer to the Jan. 11 date when the appellate court will decide if Carnegie stays open for public use while the permitting process is underway, the Recreation HQ has received a number of questions from riders who want to know if there is anything OHV legal interests can do to help at Carnegie (and other places as well) regarding 3rd party status in the ongoing legal fight between state parks/AG’s office and eco-groups?

While there is not currently an opening for OHV legal interests to weigh in formally as a 3rd party in this current lawsuit, a recent legal victory for OUR side was realized back in September 2009.

See Blog on this Victory (lots of good legal info)

What The General has tried to explain to some riders is that BRC and others are effectively engaged in the fight to preserve access to public lands. And, just because we have not been able to join in the legal fight at Carnegie, that fact, does not prohibit state parks from using a precedent setting legal decision in our favor that could allow the court panel to measure PEER’s claim of irreparable harm against the new legal high bar set by the wolf case.

Be aware that The General and BRC counsel are engaged in the defense of responsible access to public lands in a number of venues both in and out of California.

Stay tuned for updates on Carnegie. The HQ is manned 24/7 during this crisis.
Feel free to sign up on this blog so you can follow issues and comment as well.

Thanks for your service!

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Roadless Legal Update - New Brief Filed

As some of you already know, the BlueRibbon Coalition issued a news release yesterday with an update on our roadless legal fight in the 10th District Court of Appeals. There is a link in the news release to BRC et al’s amici curiae brief (a good read/overview)

BRC News Release on Roadless with link to brief

The BRC and partners have been in court for the better part of a decade challenging the legal efforts of anti-OHV groups to have some version of the Clinton-Gore Roadless Rule imposed throughout the West including California.

Folks have asked The General, “Does our side ever win any of these legal battles and will the anti-OHV groups ever go away?” The answer to the first part of the question is a resounding YES!

See Overview of BRC et al’s 2001 Legal Challenge to the Roadless Rule

Side note: For those of you following TMR in CA, you will find it more than interesting that the Shasta Trinity National Forest (yes, THAT Forest with currently the most hostile OHV travel proposal so far in CA) was the Forest that played a key role in our legal victory in the Judge Lodge decision (the Forest is mentioned in the above article)

The answer to the second part of the question is an equally (albeit discouraging) strong NO!

As we face ongoing and future legal and administrative roadblocks thrown at us by anti-OHV groups it will be important for those of you new to the fight to understand that we must be just, if not more, determined to defend our form of recreation and access to public lands.

Based on the conversations The General had with riders at the Carnegie Rally - you understand the import of that commitment.

Thanks for your service!

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

New Direction for OHV Legal Interests in 2010?

The Carnegie saga woke up a lot of SF Bay Area off-roaders to the fact that motorized recreation is under a vicious and unrelenting assault by anti-OHV groups (that now include “fishing” organizations).
Photo: Federal Road Ripping During a Flood Event
It has also exposed the soft underbelly of some so-called environmental groups as having an agenda that has nothing to do with “protecting the environment” – but having everything to do with the exercise of political power over their adversaries. (e.g. timber, mining, OHV, ranching, developers, and farmers)

See my Blog on NIMBY War – this book confirms the political ambitions of enviro groups

For several weeks, The General has stated he believes off-roaders will see an avalanche of anti-OHV lawsuits in 2010 and beyond based on junk science, crisis mongering, and non-substantive technical violations.

What you won’t see are those same environmental groups challenging aggressive TMR road decommissioning projects that do not have site-specific NEPA documents or worse yet are being worked on with heavy equipment during the wet season (yes, the same wet season when OHV use is either banned or severely restricted). It has been The General’s experience that enviros (and some agency staff) turn a blind-eye to resource impacts if the goal of the project level activity is to CLOSE an area or route to OHV use.

Recreation HQ believes that OHV legal interests should consider filing a lawsuit on federal travel planning projects where there are either gross or technical NEPA violations
or where there are sediment impacts that violate BMPs or other water quality regulations to important salmon (yes, real salmon habitat – not the Carnegie hoax fish habitat) fisheries.

The General is asking the troops to keep an eye open for examples that match the aforementioned scenario as depicted in today’s photograph.

Filing lawsuits against enviro groups or agency bureaucrats based on corruption, dishonesty, or bias - although sounding good - really don’t have much legal merit. However, environmental law suits based on NEPA, water quality, or ESA violations do have merit and maybe that is the type of suit OHV legal representatives should be looking for besides our standard intervention-type legal actions.

Feel free to leave a comment on this blog (you must be signed up as a follower to comment). And yes, your comments are important!

Thanks for your service!


Sunday, January 3, 2010

OHV Legal Fights in 2010

Over the course of the last several weeks, the Recreation HQ has received a lot of emails from riders who were shocked into the real world of OHV politics by the Carnegie saga.

Some of those OHVers have asked The General what he thinks are the top land-use challenges that off-roaders will face in 2010?

One thing I can tell you is that we will be facing a plethora of anti-OHV lawsuits that are either based on the Roadless Rule, the Travel Management Rule, and/or Water Quality. For almost 10 years, the BRC Legal Team (and partners) has been in various legal venues to challenge efforts by certain enviro groups to have the courts – in both the 9th and 10th Circuit Court of Appeals - validate the Roadless Rule as a tool to restrict or ban OHV use (mostly single-track dirt bike trails and motorized trails used by ATVs and Jeeps) on inventoried and uninventoried roadless areas on Forest Service lands.

Currently, the BRC legal team and clients are fighting efforts by the State of California to have courts set aside forest plans that don’t propose enough Wilderness areas or other land classifications where OHV use is prohibited.

See So Cal Roadless Issue (we are still in court on this case)

Regarding the 10th Circuit Roadless Case, BRC should have an update on its legal efforts later this week. The General is glad to see his good friends from the Mountain States Legal Foundation have joined the roadless fight. I believe various mining associations and the western business roundtable have also filed an amicus brief on this case.

See Article on MSLF joining roadless fight

Some may ask what does the roadless issue have to do with OHV since those areas are “roadless?” The term roadless is an unfortunate and inaccurate term that has worked its way into the land use lexicon. Actually, most roadless areas have a lot of FS roads and legal OHV trails. Some of my favorite single-track motorcycle riding is in a roadless area at Downieville on the Tahoe National Forest.

Enviros have and will continue to try and use the roadless issue as a way to ban OHV use. A current real-time example is up on the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area

See my update on the Riley Ranch Issue in OR

The General and Recreation HQ wants to wish you all a Happy New Year and hope that you got some time to rest with your family over the holiday season as 2010 promises to be one of the most active and challenging time-periods in the battle for access to public lands.

Note: If you want to join BRC’s effort to protect OHV recreation not only in California but nationwide, consider going online today and become a member and/or make a donation at:

If you want to send The General a snail mail note. the Recreation HQ address is:

Don Amador
Recreation HQ
555 Honey Lane
Oakley, CA 94561
Thanks for your service!!!