HQ believes that U.S.
District of Montana Judge Molloy in his April 2 Decision issued more than a
slight rebuke to the current TMR- related closure-oriented legal paradigm that
OHV users are facing in Western courts. Molloy’s order appears far from the
wrench that anti-access advocates hoped to toss in the works:
Link to April 2 Molloy
Order
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Molloy.Order_RE_MSJ_04-02-12.pdf
Judge Molloy’s latest
decision is serendipitously timed as lead plaintiff Wildlands CPR defends
itself against concerns from those who wonder whether a frequent litigatory
combatant should be writing a key FS trail guide.
HQ Blog on FS/Wildlands
Trail Guide Scandal
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2012/03/hq-review-of-new-fs-318-page-ohv.html
Stalwart road/trail
warrior Paul Turcke lined up again in this one against Goliath on behalf of
intervenors Montana and Idaho State Snowmobile Associations.
For students of the
judicial process there is some very solid language coming from Judge Molloy
regarding the nature of review, jurisdictional principles, deference to the agency,
and lessening the need for the agency to perform “exhaustive” site-specific
analysis when designating a route. The Court rejected the “home run”
challenges against the Subpart C “exemption” of the Forest Service Travel
Management Rule on the jurisdictional grounds advanced by MSA/ISSA.
Additional points – the
court discussed non-motorized v. motorized impacts to wintering wildlife and
conflicts of use between the same.
The General is not the
most famous snowmobiler, but HQ believes this decision reflects awareness and outlines
legal principles to dismantle the green’s legal “house of cards” when it comes
to TMR-related lawsuits.
# # #
Don, none of us are lawyers and i tried to read this but... is there anyway you can summerize it so a layman can understand this??? Thanks,
ReplyDelete