Monday, March 15, 2010

Court Upholds FS Fee Program and Eco-Hypocrisy

The General was reminded today about the eco-hypocrisy that exists in much of the modern so-called environmental movement. The missive today was prompted by a March 14, 2010 news article where a federal judge upheld the Forest Service user fee program.

March 14, 2010 Article on Court Decision

The Recreation HQ took special note of Daniel Patterson’s (a long time anti-OHV activist in the Southwest) role in the story. The real news in the article is not that the FS Fee program was upheld, but rather that Daniel Patterson and his eco-buddies have long fought against paying user fees on public lands while at the same time he is listed as the founder of PEER’s infamous “Rangers for Responsible Recreation.”

Patterson Listed as the Founder of Responsible Rangers

This faux pro-recreation group has tried to cast itself as a “responsible” voice for OHVers and other outdoorsmen. As a “Responsible Ranger” you saw Patterson champion the new Arizona OHV “Copper Sticker” Program, yet where is he when it comes to paying himself for access to public lands?

You see, many eco-groups don’t think they should pay for anything. Rather, their public access should be funded by OHVers and other outdoorsmen who pay user fees and taxes.

Patterson was fined several years ago by a BLM ranger (a real ranger) when he failed to purchase a day pass (which is required by all vehicles) for the vehicles he used to stage a media stunt at the Glamis Dunes.

See News Story about Patterson Being Fined

Off-roaders have long supported user-pay/user-benefit programs such as the CA OHV Program (except for when the enviros ran the OHV Commission from 2000-2008 and gutted trail funding) or federal fee programs as long as the funds stay on the unit in support for on-the-ground public services.

What OHVers won’t support is the eco-hypocrisy by some in the environmental movement who feel they are above the law by virtue of their political views.

Your comments are welcome!

Thanks for your service


  1. so you're bitching about this not because it tossed out, but because the person advocating for access is a personal foe of yours?

  2. Walker,

    Not because he is a personal foe, but because he wants YOU to pay fees, while self-exempting himself from paying fees.