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!

No comments:

Post a Comment