Showing posts with label Wilderness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wilderness. Show all posts

Thursday, January 6, 2011

1st Land Use Bills from New Congress are Wilderness Bills - What the Heck!

112th Congressional Agenda?

Today, The General is expressing his grave disappointment in the GOP when the very 1st “land-use” bills introduced in the 112th Congress were not bills designed to address road and trail closures by TMR, or the ongoing closure of 70K acres at CCMA to all users, or the reintroduction of EAJA reform legislation to address taxpayer funding of eco-lawsuits gone wild, instead they selected to champion two Wilderness bills in Southern California.

San Diego Union on the Wilderness Bill
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jan/06/wilderness-proposal-gets-new-life-congress/



Rather then being able to call BRC or AMA and offer kudos regarding an access bill that they had been working on that was introduced today, The General had to call his good friends and colleagues at the California Wilderness Coalition today and congratulate them for being the first out of the blocks with land-use legislation.

See CWC News Release on CA Wilderness Bills
http://www.calwild.org/index.html

HQ had high hopes for this new pro-access Congress, but those hopes were dashed on the rocks today by the announcement of two Wilderness Bills.

Let’s see what new land-closure initiatives this new Congress unveils tomorrow and in the coming weeks.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Road Ripping is Coming to a Forest Near You


As the Recreation HQ waits for the Six Rivers complaint to be delivered to federal district court in San Francisco, The General wanted to give riders new to this blog a quick history lesson on the topic of travel management rule-related road-ripping (the politically correct or sanitized term is decommissioning).

Some of you may ask just how did this all get started and what groups are behind it? Well, it started out in the Clinton-Gore administration as a well orchestrated (I don’t use the term conspiracy … I just say darn good planning) effort between federal agents and anti-OHV groups such as the Center of the Prevention of Roads, Trout Unlimited, The Wilderness Society, and many others including the California Wilderness Coalition who got their head anti-OHV guy (Paul Spitler) appointed to the CA OHV Commission in 2000.

It is interesting to note that several driving forces in the Clinton administration are now king pins in the groups pushing subpart A of TMR and use of federal funds via the Legacy Roads Initiative to aggressively rip thousands of miles of good roads and jeep trails throughout the country.

Info on Legacy Roads (and Trails!!!) Remediation Initiative
http://wilderness.org/content/legacy-roads-and-trails-fund



Wildlands Center for the Prevention of Roads (note FS anti-roads guy Jim Furnish as one of the board members)
http://www.wildlandscpr.org/legacy-roads




Trout Unlimited (my good friend Chris Wood – a FS lieutenant in the 90s and master strategist (he is a good fisherman by the way) of the Clinton Roadless Rule and other plans). Chris Woods’ 2010 TU Letter to the FS on Road Decommissioning
http://www.wildlandscpr.org/files/TULegacyRoadsLetter.4F.doc
*
The Wilderness Society and Road Ripping
*
The Aforementioned Paul Spitler (fmr. OHV Commissioner) at The Wilderness Society
http://wilderness.org/about-us/experts/paul-spitler
*

History of the CA Route Inventory Process (RID) and how Spitler/enviros used the CA program to lay the groundwork for the 2005 TMR and the landscape level trail closures we are seeing on the Shasta Trinity NF and the illegal road ripping that is being challenged in court on the Six Rivers NF.
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009/05/travel-management-good-idea-or-big.html



Enviros continue to bully Region 5 and threaten lawsuits if the FS does not follow their template on issues such as mixed-use, non-designation of “unauthorized” trails, and road decommissioning. As you are beginning to see (many pro-access FS staffers and The General saw this in 2001 as the CA RID process was promoted by enviros, the FS, State Parks, and even some OHV groups), TMR is being used by enviros and some in the agency to implement the closure agenda that was started in the mid 1990s.

Just how road-ripping impacts OHV Wars has yet to be seen. Be assured The General has planned for the fight and asks you to join him.

Thanks for your service!






Friday, October 30, 2009

Quiet Recreation is Making Noise



After submitting formal comments on the Mount Hood National Forest’s DEIS for Travel Management, I am reminded of the growing howl coming from anti-access groups like BARK demanding that more multiple-use roads, trails, and areas be closed to OHV use.

See My Sept 9 Blog on BARK/Quiet Recreation and the Mt. Hood
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009/09/howling-at-moon-in-or-to-stop-ohv-use.html


Photo: Amador on Single Track Trail on Mt. Hood

Some of you have seen recent articles espousing the economic virtues of non-motorized “quiet” recreation such as hiking while downplaying the economic benefit of motorized recreation such as ATV or dirt-bike use.

Article in Fiscal Impacts of “Quiet Recreation”
http://www.naturaloregon.org/2009/06/11/making-noise-about-quiet-recreation-in-national-forests/


It appears that a new study called the “Recreation Economic Impact Tool” produced by
Kreg Lindberg at Central Oregon Recreation Services is being used or misused as a bullhorn by the quiet recreation crowd to loudly shout (or BARK in some cases) for blanket closures to OHVs including non-street legal OHVs on Forests going through the TMR process.

Link to CORS and the Tool
http://www.corsbend.com/




I did contact Professor Lindberg regarding my concerns about the fact that I could not find in any of his research where the nexus is appreciated between the use (and hence the economic benefit) of motorized vehicles by forest visitors to access non-motorized activities.

The General served on the California OHV State Park Commission in the 1990s and I remember an old public land planning tool/concept that was used by both state and federal land agencies. That historic foundation block in land use planning was that a vast majority of all types of recreation (motorized and non-motorized) is vehicle-based and takes place with ¼ mile of the vehicle.

See How the Quiet Recreation Crowd wants OHV (Mt. Hood is a good case study) restricted to just a few "small islands" in the NF.
http://nativeecosystems.org/critterthink/shifting-the-recreational-paradigm-by-aaron-clark/comment-page-1



One source of user conflicts between quiet recreationists and the OHV community is often times roads and motorized trails are used by folks who want quiet recreation and then they are frustrated when OHVs use the same area. Since, most quiet recreation occurs (or should occur) in Wilderness or other non-motorized land-use classifications…the quiet user is only ¼ mile or less from the road. Hence, the quiet recreation sought after is sometimes disturbed.






Many quiet recreationists don't have time to hike into the core of Wilderness areas because of a lack of time or resources. Rather they use a vehicle for rapid access to the outer boundaries of the Wilderness (or go to an OHV area!) and then complain about legal motorized uses.

OHV advocates must be aware of Quiet Recreation Groups who are now loudly screaming for you – the OHV user – to not only be silent… but be gone as well.






Thanks for your service!

Thursday, October 8, 2009

OHV Acres Left in California


Every once in awhile, The General gets a question from a rider or reporter about the number of acres in California that still allow motorized recreation. Often that question stems from the wild claims of Wilderness advocates who state that “our Wilderness Bill is only for areas that don’t have legal OHV use in them and that OHVers have lots of other places to ride.”

Well that claim might have been true when the Wilderness Act of 1964 was signed into law, but since then we have had various new rounds of Wilderness designations including the Wilderness Act of 1984 (that’s when a lot of legal OHV routes were closed) and others including the California Desert Protection Act where millions of acres were closed to OHVs or lands were transferred to the National Park Service.

In 2002, OHMVR published a report called Taking the High Road – The Future of OHV in California. I don’t think there are any copies left or in circulation. However, I have posted page 13 of that report which shows the loss of OHV acres from 1980 to 2000. Remember too that California is approximately 100,000 million acres in size.

Link to Taking the High Road
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Taking_The_High_Road_page_13.0001.pdf



Certainly the new rounds of Wilderness proposals, travel management plans, reclassification of lands, and other issues will impact OHV access to public lands. What that means is the fight will be harder to keep what we have left. That means staying engaged in the land-use and political process. Yes, I did say political since ALL land use decisions are political decisions. This is no time for the faint of heart or for those who are easily discouraged. Rather, this is the time for effective advocacy on all fronts.

Helmets off to all of you who support land use organizations, attend meetings, rally local clubs, and partake in the administrative and political process.

Friday, October 2, 2009

HR 1925 UT Wilderness Bill is a Zombie


One thing that I really hate are zombies. There is almost nothing that you can do to kill them … and, just when you think they are dead – they come back to life.

The never ending effort by SUWA and out-of-state legislators to resurrect the infamous 9.4 million acres of "potential Wilderness" in new versions of the same old Wilderness bill (now called HR 1925) reminds me of a land-use version of a zombie.

In Sept, BRC issued an alert to have its members send letters to their legislators in prep for the Oct. 1 hearing:
http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/?alert=1070



It looks like a lot of riders sent those letters, based on what I heard about the testimony of the UT Congressional Delegation and other gov.t officials:
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=27&extmode=view&extid=292




AMA also had something to say about the proposal
http://www.ama-cycle.org/news/story.asp?id=1375



On May 5, The General wrote a blog about new Wilderness bills and the need to include the “Pombo Doctrine” in any new Wilderness legislation – see blog for a discussion of that issue and a copy of the Pombo Doctrine.
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009/05/time-to-revive-pombo-wilderness.html



I think I have found a cure for the “Wilderness Zombie.” How about giving the wilderness undead a large dose of the Pombo Doctrine?



Thursday, September 17, 2009

TMR Now Used to "Create" new Wilderness Areas


The General believes that on a growing number of National Forests - TMR has actually very little to do with addressing “repeated cross-country travel.” Rather, it appears to be laying the groundwork for future Wilderness designations by green groups and Congress.
*
Photo: Note mapped OHV routes - arrows point to OHV routes - that were on the 1994 Forest Map that have either been closed by the new MVUM or other decision (click on map for large format)
*

Nowhere is this “Wilderness creation” concept more evident than on the Smith River National Recreation Area in Northern California where a series of agency management decisions over the last decade have successfully to date banned motorized use on once legal OHV trails that were on official Forest Maps.

See Decision on 2000/2001 BRC Appeal where we offered a managed recreation alternative and it was rejected by the FS:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/2001/fy01_0079.htm


Just recently, the NRA published its new MVUM. As you may know, The General (on behalf of the BRC) and Del Norte County appealed and won regarding the unit’s attempt to misuse the Roadless Rule as an excuse to close mapped OHV routes in a previous TMR EA. Now the agency has used a provision in TMR whereby they simply identify “system routes” that are available for wheeled vehicle use and publish the MVUM. No substantive public process is required.

If you go to the NRA’s North Dist. Map, you will see a large block of land where use of mapped OHV routes has now been banned or was banned in a previous decision. It is a strange coincidence that public use has been banned of all mapped OHV routes in the High Plateau Mountain/Diamond Creek area and that this area mirrors the exact outline of a Proposed Wilderness Area.

N. Dist. MVUM (note large blank area in center of map)
http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5084307.pdf


Some of you may remember that in the North Coast Wild Heritage Wilderness Bill (HR233) that enviros used the rationale for new Wilderness Areas in areas that had historic and legal OHV use as follows: “…our Wilderness proposal will not close any currently legal OHV riding.” How convenient?

While protecting landscapes that meet true 1964 Wilderness Act characteristics may have value on a case-by-case basis, the OHV community should be alerted to the potential that current and future Forest planning efforts (including TMR) can and will be used to “create” new Wilderness areas out of lands once used by the public on OHVs.
*
# # #

Monday, April 13, 2009

Not Preaching to the Choir - New Age Meets Off-Road


One of the side benefits of BRC attending
the 24 Hours of Electricross was the opportunity to have a discourse with new age or eco-groups
that had an interest in quiet OHV recreation.

The General has often been encouraged by riders to engage those non-motorized stakeholder groups that do not understand the OHV community or traditional motor sports.

Just such an opportunity presented itself at the 24 Hours of Electricross where Don Amador was interviewed by David Herron, an internet journalist for a new age website. I think the interview/video was a good chance to share
our commitment to the resource via OHV sound education with folks who are not familiar with the BlueRibbon Coalition or the OHV community.

*********************************************************
Photo to right is of the famous KAZBUS. The General was raised in
Humboldt County in Northern California in the late 1960s/early 1970s
and seeing this bus was fun, since the concept for such “modified vehicles”
was actually created or born in Humboldt County
*********************************************************

In the following video, David Herron shares his perspective (about 8:16) of the video
and then switches over to Don Amador for his views on the electric motorcycle, potential for creation of new urban OHV parks, sound being a public lands issue, etc.

Link to Herron’s Video Interview with Don Amador
http://www.7gen.com/blog/20090412/25538-podcast


In Herron’s narrative, you see him talk about (w)ilderness or is it (W)ilderness?
Although BRC has advocated for continued use of existing routes via cherry-stems in Wilderness designations, its main purpose is to champion responsible use of non-Wilderness public lands where OHV recreation is an allowed or prescribed use. I think that distinction may have
gotten lost in the translation. However, that may be a difference without a distinction since in modern day Wilderness bills you have lands next to county garbage dumps
being proposed for Wilderness.


While preaching to the choir may be something we do a lot of…The General feels that
getting out to new venues and sharing our land use views with non-traditional news sources is a good thing.

# # #

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Pro-Access Members of Congress Vote Down S.22


Who says writing letters and making phone calls don’t work? I believe the ever growing national grassroots movement against having condescending elements of Congress or overzealous bureaucrats trying to shove “dark-of-night” legislation or regulations down our throats was best evidenced today when Pro-access and pro-business Dems and Republicans voted NO on S.22.
See BRC March 11 Alert on S.22 Vote

The Senate Omnibus Public Lands Management Act (S.22) failed to get the 2/3 votes needed to pass under suspension. I don’t think this was a vote against common sense Wilderness bills such as the 2006 Boxer/Thompson Wilderness Bill for Northern California (HR 233). Rather it was a vote against a misguided bill that was anti-access and anti-job.

The BlueRibbon Coalition and House Members from both parties worked hard on HR233 to see that it was fair and balanced.

See article below:
http://www.legrange.net/id94.html

House panel OKs land preserves
Wilderness measure includes Lost Coast area, adds sites for off-road motor sports.
Published Thursday, July 20, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Legislation that would add wilderness protection to more than 275,000 acres of federal land along California's North Coast cleared a key House committee Wednesday, a crucial step that virtually assures the bill will become law this year.

The measure by Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, emerged from the House Resources Committee on a voice vote with the blessings of its California chairman, Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, after the two lawmakers, working with California's two Democratic senators, negotiated furiously over the last few weeks to compromise.

The final deal lops about 25,000 acres of land, almost all of it from the Six Rivers National Forest in Del Norte and Humboldt counties, from the original measure Thompson introduced in the House and that Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein twice moved through the Senate.

But the agreement also designates about 75,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management lands in the Cow Mountain area of Mendocino County as a "recreational management area" for off-road vehicles and mountain bikes that was not part of the original bill.

The compromise was a last-minute addition to the House panel's agenda. It could come to the floor of the House as soon as next week. That would clear the way for passage by the Senate before Congress ends for the year in early October.

In introducing the compromise Wednesday, Pombo told his committee the changes make the bill "more broadly supportable." Thompson, meanwhile, said the changes don't damage his overall goal of giving the highest level of land protection to the North Coast's most spectacular wild spots.

As wilderness, the areas will be closed to all mechanized access except firefighting equipment. Some privately owned property also will remain accessible but only to the landowners.
Among the most spectacular areas are coastal lands in the King Range National Conservation Area along California's Lost Coast. Once open to logging and farming, the BLM said the King Range additions will become the "crown jewel" of its wilderness inventory.

The original bill also called for wilderness protection for about 30,000 acres in the Cache Creek area in Lake County, a popular whitewater rafting area; a 50,000-acre expansion of the Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness in the Mendocino National Forest; 48,000 acres of additions to Siskiyou National Forest wilderness; and 53,000 acres in the proposed Yuki Wilderness Area of the Mendocino National Forest. Other rivers would be protected under national scenic river designations.

Those areas remain in the bill, but exact acreages won't be known until maps are redrawn to reflect the compromise.

Wilderness has been controversial in Del Norte County, and designations there were slashed by 10,000 acres, to about 28,000 acres. Another 15,000 acres around Mad River Buttes, the Underwood area by the Trinity River and Orleans Mountain in the forest in Humboldt County were also dropped.

Still, Jon Owen, Washington representative for the Campaign for America's Wilderness, hailed the compromise. ""This demonstrates that wilderness truly is America's common ground," he said.

The deal also drew begrudging nods from some of the fiercest opponents of wilderness designations. "I think Representative Pombo did his best to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear," said Don Amador, spokesman for the Blue Ribbon Coalition of off-road enthusiasts. Amador said he was disappointed that the Black Sands Beach area of the King Range north of Shelter Cove was not reopened to public access, as his group had sought. But he took solace in the recreational management area for off-road vehicles in Mendocino County.

Boxer and Feinstein said they, too, were pleased with the deal, which has been six years in the making. "I am more optimistic than ever that we will soon see this bill signed into law," Boxer said.
-- 30 --
_________________________________________________________


Sure there were compromises, but I still feel today that having a vigorous debate between the various stakeholders did turn HR 233 …”into a silk purse.”

Wilderness bills are hard work and I think those politicians who stifle debate and try and cram such proposals down the throats of access minded stakeholders do themselves and their movement a great disservice.

The ongoing battle for responsible access to public lands is sure to continue, but let’s hope that debate is encouraged and time is taken to improve those Wilderness bills so that both resources and access are treated in a fair manner.
# # #





Tuesday, March 3, 2009

National OHV Land Use Awakening?


It is sometimes said that it is tough to awaken a sleeping giant, but after reading ESPN’s March 2 story on land use battles… I think the giant that is the off-road community (media, dirt-bike moms and dads, motocross racers, X-game champions, enduro racers, and trail riders) has had those heavy scales removed from its eyes.

The General has been hearing from a lot of troops about the collective weight of land-use battles currently being waged on any number of fronts. The Wilderness Bills in the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act -S.22, the CPSC ban on youth OHVs, money being stolen from the California OHV Fund, Riverside County banning private tracks, trails being closed by the Forest Service’s Travel Management Rule, and many other issues that collectively appear to be causing a national off-road land-use “awakening.”

As a long time OHV advocate, The General has had a dream that all of the various disciplines of off-road motorcycling would join together and fight these land closures with a loud and effective voice.

I think the ESPN article is a strong indicator that The General’s dream is becoming a reality.

ESPN Article (quotes from MIC, AMA, and BRC)
http://espn.go.com/action/news/story?id=3947200

You can also take the important steps of joining your local, state, and national OHV groups. Join them all. Becoming an involved member of a land use group is the most important thing you can do.
To Join BRC go to:
To Join AMA go to:
Also join your local and state organizations.
Thanks for waking up!!!

# # #

Monday, March 2, 2009

PEER SENDS LOVE LETTER TO IMBA


For many years, some leaders of the mountain bike community
have had a dream of finding a way to rewrite federal law so that
mountain bikes are allowed in designated Wilderness areas or
other non-mechanized land classifications.

The following Feb. 17 PEER News Release
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1160
should serve as a potent reminder to mountain bike leaders that
many green groups lump their form of recreation in the same category of other hated land-use groups which include OHV, timber, mining, and cattle grazing.

All one has to do is simply replace the term “mountain bikes” with “OHVs” and
the PEER news release would look like so many others they and other green groups have
filed against dirt-bikers, ATVers, or 4WD owners.

The General continues to feel that mountain bikers and OHVers have a lot in common
and should join forces to advocate for continued motorized and mechanized responsible access to our Backcountry. Maybe PEER’s news release will fill the mountain bike community’s nostrils with the not-so-sweet aroma of green bias arising from the brew of the enviro's conflict industry.

# # #

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

The General's Thoughts on Omnibus Land Bill S22

Thoughts on Omnibus Federal Lands Bill – S. 22

I think a lot of recreationists who voted for “Change” in 2008 are disappointed by the Senate’s recent action to move S22 in the “dark of night” last weekend. Many OHVers in Nevada are still stinging from Harry Reid’s Black Rock Desert Wilderness Bill which he inserted into a non-related appropriations or defense spending bill at the 11th hour some 8-9 years ago.

I understand there were some Wilderness bills in S22 that had buy-in from local OHVers, counties, and other access interests, but those access provisions are jeopardized by the Senate’s late night maneuvers.

Many access and resource interests worked hard on the 2006 North Coast Wild Heritage Wilderness Bill (HR233) for a number of guaranteed access tenets and also some local economic relief in the form of grand-fathering historic commercial surf fishing permits in the Orick area - http://www.klamathforestalliance.org/Newsarticles/newsarticle20060930.html

Those victories came about by vigorous debate in an open forum, not crafted or deleted behind closed doors.

I can almost guarantee that many access tenets that users and pro-recreation Republicans
and Democrats fought for in the proposed Wilderness Bills in S22 will be penciled out or somehow compromised.

# # #