Roadless Court Decision - Greens and Court Validate OHV Recreation

RDR (left), FS (center), The General (right) on Trail Planning Project Review

The Recreation HQ has received a number of private emails asking what it thinks about the recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling regarding suits filed against the Clinton Roadless Rule.

BRC News Release on Court Ruling
http://www.sharetrails.org/news/2011/10/24/recreation-groups-respond-roadless-rule-decision

AP Article on Roadless Ruling
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/21/nation/la-na-forest-roadless-20111022

HQ’s missive today is not an endorsement of the court’s decision that negatively restricts the agency’s ability to do resource management of federal timber in inventoried roadless areas.

Our view from a strictly trail-based recreation perspective is that the court decision validates the appropriateness of OHV recreation in IRAs. Unlike the early days of the roadless battle where you had some Forests closing jeep routes in IRAs because they interpreted the Clinton Roadless Rule as a closure directive, you now have green groups, FS, and the court supporting the designation of OHV routes in IRAs.

Blog on Green Groups Supporting OHV Routes in IRAs
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009/08/green-groups-defend-ohv-trails-in.html


HQ believes the commitment of BRC and other OHV groups to challenge the Clinton Roadless Rule in numerous legal venues over the last 10 years has been of great value because those fights have resulted in the greens and courts validating and supporting the designation of OHV routes in IRAs.


HQ agrees with BRC’s hope that users and the Forest Service can now redirect efforts and energy from court battles to going out on the ground and doing post subpart B project level trail planning.

BRC Example of Recent Project Level Planning Trip on the Shasta Trinity NF
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Beegum_Project_20110001.pdf

Trail Planning in WA
http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/2011/10/19/washington---olympic-nf-hosts-public-meeting-regarding-orv-riding-in-calawah-watershed

HQ believes post subpart B project level trail planning is what users and the agency should be focused on. It will require a lot of hard work by both parties, but the end result will be worth it.

Global Warming, Eco Hoaxes, and OHV Predictions

As a soldier in land-use wars for the last 20 years, The General has often been able to read the stitches on the fastball when it comes to predicting and exposing environmental hoaxes and eco-frauds.

In the late 1990s, I testified before Congress regarding the anti-access tenets of the Clinton-Gore Roadless Agenda. Today the BRC Legal Defense Fund continues to battle Enviros on several “Roadless” lawsuits

*
BRC Roadless Legal Efforts (look at Roadless and So Cal Lawsuit – which is also roadless related) http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article.php?legal=1&nonav=1

*
In 2002/2003, The General was the only OHV leader who formally objected to the CA Route Inventory and Designation Process because he knew it was going to be used to defund trail maintenance grants to FS and BLM units, close trails, and lay the foundation for the current TMR debacle that we see on many Forests and Regions.
*
Overview of CA RID
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009/05/travel-management-good-idea-or-big.html

*
In 2005, I wrote a book review on Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. In that review, The General agreed with the book’s thesis that man-made climate change was a hoax and that the Wilderness was a political agenda driven issue as well.
*
2005 State of Fear Review
http://www.delalbright.com/Articles/book_fear.htm

*
Some folks were quick to criticize The General for daring to question the Climate Change Industrial Complex (e.g. Algore’s scheme to create taxes and fees for carbon credits, etc)

With today’s expose of the man-made global warming hoax, The General feels vindicated on his position that man should not be blamed for climate change. As many of you know, climate change is a fact of life and has been occurring since time began. In fact, my ancestors (the Vikings) were driven off the North American Continent by a mini ice-age. It will continue regardless of what man does.

*
Good Blog on Global Warming Hoax
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

*
Sen. Inhofe’s Effort on this Front
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2188feb3-802a-23ad-4de4-3fbc0a92e126&Issue_id

*
As off-roaders we are obligated to be good stewards and use sound science and a substantive land-ethic in the management of our sport on public and private lands. We have a long history of volunteerism and taxing ourselves to pay for OHV-related trail maintenance, conservation, and law enforcement. I see that continuing.

What is at question is how we expose, respond to, and address eco-hoaxes, ill-conceived or agenda driven land management planning efforts, and proposed land closures?

Lastly, you can be assured that “Donstradamus” (that name was given to me by an OHVer because of my accurate predictions on roadless, CA RID, man-made global warming, and other issues) will continue to look into the future and prepare for what awaits the OHV community.

*

Friday Update on Roadless Issue and OHV Access

The General has received a number of PMs from riders who want to know a little bit more about the roadless battle and how BRC’s legal effort got started and why we were concerned about access to trails and jeep roads in “roadless areas.”

********************************************

Photo at right is of designated OHV trail in an Eldorado NF "Roadless" Area.

*********************************************

The onus for our effort was based on the fact the Shasta-Trinity NF (circa 2000-2001) had actually decided not to reconstruct jeep trails in their roadless areas near McCloud.
*

*
See 2001 Article published by The Heartland Institute
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/1066/Court_questions_Clinton_roadless_rule.html

*

*

Again, riders and access interests should continue to monitor the roadless issue and advise BRC if trails or jeep roads are being excluded from designation based on a false interpretation of the Clinton Roadless Rule.

*

Green Groups Defend OHV Trails in Roadless Areas

With the “roadless” issue in the news today, The General wants to remind riders to be ever vigilant on your watch regarding the designation (or lack thereof) of OHV trails in roadless areas.

See LA Times Article with quote from BRC’s Attorney – Paul Turcke
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-roads6-2009aug06,0,1222397.story

BRC has long held and argued that the Clinton Roadless Rule was illegal. Those of us involved in the issue (myself since 1998) knew that no plan crafted in a DC smoke-filled room would past muster.

On behalf of the BRC, I had reminded many Forests (including our successful appeal on the Six Rivers NF) in the TMR process of the following facts:

The BlueRibbon Coalition believes that Region 5 and the Smith River NRA have improperly concluded that existing routes within “roadless areas” must be closed and/or not designated as a result of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This interpretation is contrary to the plain language of that Rule. In fact, the strongest proponents of the Roadless Rule have consistently pointed to the fact that the Rule preserves existing motorized access in defending the Rule as a necessary and balanced management tool.

Preservationist interests “defended” motorized access to roadless areas in their strong opposition to the intervention of access-advocacy interests in California ex rel Lockyer et al. v. U.S.D.A., Case No. 05-3508 (N.D.Cal.). That case, consolidated with a similar action brought by private groups led by The Wilderness Society (“TWS”) sought to challenge the 2005 State Petitions Rule. The California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs, United Four Wheel Drive Associations, American Council of Snowmobile Associations and BlueRibbon Coalition moved to intervene. The preservationist plaintiffs opposed, arguing “the interests that the Off-Road Vehicle Groups assert in motorized recreation in roadless areas are not at stake in this action.” Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. 79) at 7 Case Nos. 05-3508 and 05-4038 (N.D.Cal.)(March 7, 2006) In reaching this conclusion, the TWS plaintiffs summarized language from the Rule and its associated planning documents, stating “[i]n sum, even if the Roadless Rule is reinstated by this Court as plaintiffs request, it will not prohibit a single person’s off-road vehicle use or close a single off-road vehicle trail as alleged by the Off-Road Vehicle Groups’ declarants.” Id. at 5. The TWS surreply clarifies and extends on these conclusions, again saying the “Roadless Rule does not close any existing vehicular routes (ORV or otherwise) in any National Forest roadless areas.” Plaintiffs’ Surreply in Opposition to Intervention (Doc. No. 100) at 1, Case Nos. 05-3508 and 05-4038 (N.D.Cal.)(March 24, 2006) . That document goes on to address specific routes of concern identified by BlueRibbon declarant Don Amador and says “[a]s to the two routes Mr. Amador might hypothetically use for ORV recreation … neither route is more than 50 inches wide, and therefore the Roadless Rule would not even apply to them.” Id. at 2.

Riders should support those Forests who have correctly interpreted the Clinton Roadless Rule as allowing for designated OHV trails in inventoried roadless areas. If local users spot a trail that has been excluded from designation based on the “roadless” issue, they should cite the above information and remind the Forest that green groups support OHV trails in roadless areas.

As Turcke stated in the LA article…The Roadless Saga Continues.

*

Grassroots Push Back Against CPSC OHV Ban Continues to Grow

The nationwide grassroots effort appears to be growing as more
riders, shop owners, and parents (i.e. voters) are sending letters
to the CPSC and Congress demanding action to reverse what is
a functional ban on youth OHVs for use by children under the age
of 12.

I have not seen such pushback from the public on any issue since
the Clinton/Gore Roadless Plan in the late 1990s.

Continue the pressure – keep sending letters and schedule a meeting with your own Member of Congress. Take a local OHV dealer with you and ask your representative for help.

Below is a news article today from WND with quotes or info
from BRC and ARRA.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89516

Here is an article from PA – CPSC hurts business (and kids)
http://www.standard-journal.com/articles/2009/02/21/news/doc499fa03f83d99854121444.txt

Feb. 19 BRC Letter to CPSC

http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/BRC_Letter_to_CPSC_02.19.09_FINAL.pdf

Motorcycle-USA Video Interview with MIC on Lead Issue

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com:80/669/2590/Motorcycle-Article/Lead-Ban-Video-Explanation.aspx

Keep up the good work!