New "Rider-Fit" OHV Laws in CA and OR

I know most of my readers are bogged down just trying to keep up with all the FS TMR related planning documents and proposed closures in the West. Also, enviros are filing lawsuits at an alarming rate against OHV recreation on both state and federal lands.

The General wants you to take a minute from your busy schedules to be aware of new “rider fit” laws in CA and OR.

In CA, AB 134 will take effect on Jan. 1, 2010. Law enforcement officers will be able to cite the parent or guardian for allowing a child less than 14 years of age to operate an OHV when they (because of their size) are either too small or too big from being able operate all controls needed to safely operate the vehicle.

*
AB 134
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_134_cfa_20090630_114101_sen_floor.html

*

OR’s law is similar but it impacts children under the age of 16.
http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/ATV/Rider_fit.shtml

I believe one could argue on either side of this issue regarding if “another OHV law” was needed. The main point is that this type of bill has been in the pipeline for several years in CA and to restate a phrase from the Mayor of SF…”This puppy is coming whether you like it or not.” As many of you know, CA passes laws like some riders pass gas while sitting around a campfire telling stories.

What is different about this new OHV law is that legislators used some common sense in crafting this bill. For CA (and OR) this bill could have been a lot worse.

Buffers, Filters, Camels, and Travel Management

As more National Forest’s enter into the DEIS or FEIS phase of the Travel Management Rule, there is a disturbing trend that has appeared. Some Units appear to have developed
a “decision filter” through which the designation of OHV roads and trails must pass.

*Photo: Don Amador at 2004 Black Dog DS Ride on Mt. Hood National Forest

Yesterday, the public comment period ended for the Mount Hood National Forest’s DEIS. On behalf of the BlueRibbon Coalition, I filed a comment letter on the proposal.

BRC Oct. 28, 2009 Comment Letter on the Mount Hood DEIS
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Mount_Hood_DEIS_BRC_Comment_Letter_10.28.090001.pdf

One of the DEIS’s procedural flaws was that it “created” new OHV policies based on public input and developed a “new” purpose and need/proposed action that was starkly different than the original purposed and need/proposed action. Also, the need to buffer out OHV recreation that was near Wilderness areas or other non-motorized land-use classifications was now an implicit or explicit part of the agency’s decision matrix.

The General wants riders to watch for the “buffer” issue to be used on other Forests.
As some of you know, in most Wilderness Bills (including the recent 130,000 acre Lewis and Clark Wilderness Bill for the Mount Hood) there is very strong language that prohibits the agency from creating buffer zones (including buffers for “quiet recreation”) around Wilderness areas.

See Sec. 105, page 73, for Buffer Language in the 2007 Lewis and Clark Wilderness Act
http://www.oregonwild.org/wilderness/new-wilderness/mount_hood_wilderness_campaign/Lewis%20and%20Clark%20Mount%20Hood%20Wilderness%20Bill%202-14-07.pdf

It is important for OHV advocates to know about this very specific buffer language because you will often find local “quiet recreation” advocates cheering for more OHV routes to be closed next to Wilderness or other non-motorized land classifications

Oct. 25 “Quiet Recreation” Guest Column
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/10/off-road_vehicles_wilderness_d.html

The General urges OHV advocates and local recreationists to be on the lookout for Forest Service units that have created a highly restrictive “closure filter” through which TMR must pass. From what I have seen on some Forests – it may be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for an OHV route to be designated.

Thank in advance for your continued efforts on TMR. It has, and continues to be, an extremely difficult process. Hang in there!