Thursday, April 1, 2010

CA OHV Commissioner Wins Appeal and Closes Routes on Modoc Forest

In late February, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors praised the Modoc National Forest’s Travel Management Record of Decision because the plan added 331 miles of unauthorized routes as Forest Service System Trails and designated 513 miles of Level 3 Roads as available for use by non-street legal dirt-bikes, ATVs, and side-by-sides. In contrast, the BOC criticized the Shasta Trinity National Forest’s plan to close almost 100% of its currently legal dirt-bike and ATV trails less than 50 inches in width. The article also noted an appeal filed by the Wilderness Society against the Modoc plan.

See Article about BOS Praise for Modoc Decision and Threat of Appeal

Well folks, the Recreation HQ was not surprised to learn yesterday about the Regional Forest’s decision to uphold the recommendation of the Appeal Reviewing Officer to CLOSE all unauthorized routes and to BAN use of non-street legal OHVs on 513 miles of level 3 roads.

See March 11, 2010 Regional Office Decision to Uphold Appeal and CLOSE routes

*Stan Van Velsor – who wrote the appeal for The Wilderness Society is also an OHV Commissioner at CA State Parks – Gee, thanks Stan!
Here are the OHV Commission Policies -- see if you think Stan lived up to the spirit and intent of these policies of SB742

The General and his legal staff are reviewing the appeal decision as it is the first time that the HQ is aware of an appeal decision overturning a ROD decision without requiring the ROD to be withdrawn and a reset button pushed to start the planning process all over again.

Historically, the NEPA appeal process does not allow for substantive changes to a ROD. Generally only technical or non-substantive changes are allowed.

What the Regional Office has done is take a plan that was crafted with local involvement and decision-making and replaced it with a heavy-handed top-down decision that is an affront to that local process.

As the General told many riders at the Carnegie Rally…”2010 will be a very challenging year regarding OHV access.” This decision sadly fulfills that gloomy albeit realistic prediction.

The Recreation HQ thanks you for your support and for staying engaged.


  1. amazing, we put our time and efforts only to be completely ignored. At some point we will not even bother to own green and red sticker vehicles, then there will be no more revenue from the stickers, then what? I just got two invoices for 52 dollars each for two of my vehicles. Not to mention this is all leading to major overcrouding of the trails they will leave, and subsequent damage from the overcrouding...

  2. And so the swan has entered the song, and the song is closure to OHV.
    District 36 LAO will be sending a letter to the OHV Commission Chair requesting he contact the appointing agency that put him on the Commission in the first place, and request removal from this Commission. The actions taken by him and his affilliation with the The Wilderness Society speaks volumes on his "personal" viewpoints and agenda towards OHV recreation in this state. Having said that, sitting on the Commission, and responding to the OHMVRD process, we have an appointed Commission member that is NOT there for a balanced approach to legal, OHV recreation in our state, and looking for SOLUTIONS to this form of recreation, is doing nothing more that obstructionist behavior and dedication to destroy the recreation form he is supposed to represent. This follow the prior Commission members who resigned in shame for using this appointed position(s) to further their environmental radicalism agenda until they were stripped of their fiduciary duty and lost control of the money. So, it is obvious to the inth degree that Commission Member Stan Van Velsor is following the same path of vindictive, destroy the program mantra that the likes of Paul Spitler, John Brissendon, and the other commissioners that resigned had taken...........
    Ditto the letter to the appointee committee that put him in place. Commissioners are in to assist the state have clarity and direction for the long term health and viability of the program, including enviornmental policies that make sense, not destroy the program....

  3. After reading the doc's. the appeal didn't seem unreasonable. The problem is that there are so many laws (hurdles) that must be crossed in order to justify the existance of a road or trail. I wonder if there are mitigating rules elsewhere. This action should help sell street legal dirt bikes but what about the hunters?