How to close an OHV area

[WB9YZU]

Here is a link to an interesting Sierra club document.
http://idaho.sierraclub.org/orv/

 

[DaJudge]

I find it interesting that they list a bunch of statistics with no reference to the studies or actual surveys this information supposedly came from.

 

[WB9YZU]

What I believe is more significant than that is that this IS a manual on how to Close a trail. Do we (the Off-Road community) have a manual on how to open/preserve one? Their job is easier than ours as it is always easier to tear down than to build.

 

[reddragon72]

That's funny, it realy is. For them to make that paper they would have to have had paper copies of all the other studies, and then drove to several places to get those copies. By doing that they have help destroy several trees in the rain forest, caused more polutants and atmosheric destruction and degredation by useing ink on which the print is made of. Then all the other items the wooden house that they live in the concrete/brick buildings that all the others used to and live in to form the statistics. They have donw more harm to the Earth by makeing that report than one OHV owner could ever do in there lifetime.

I've said it once and I'll say it again "You can do no right in the eyes of those who do wrong." This is how it is and this is how it will be, my life was completely destroyed by people like this, who have no right or need to stick there noise in places it does not belong, and then make themselves look like the good guys, by creating false and bogus information. Unless statistics are formed in a responsive format and or people who want the land to use for OHV stand up and tell them that it is our country to, we will loose all that we hold presious. One day the who world will be a massive giant city and those that are stopping the use of outdoor area's will be the ones to cause the Earths demise.

 

[5-90]

Now, don't confuse them by bringing logic to bear - it's wasted effort!

I find it worrisome that there are so many people who crave some sort of outside orgainsation, and the "independent" thinkers of these movements really aren't.

Is it any wonder I'm going to unass California when I finish school here?

Gawd.

5-90

I find it interesting that they list a bunch of statistics with no reference to the studies or actual surveys this information supposedly came from.

 

[Ed A. Stevens]

I find it interesting that they list a bunch of statistics with no reference to the studies or actual surveys this information supposedly came from.

They do not need references to make the public believe their biased agenda, so why confuse the public with references that could be researched and found to be fraudulant?

This is one lesson they learned with the OHV hit piece Off Road to Ruin.

The references for this report were checked and many were found to be false or second hand reports from within their own ranks of members (the member heard that ... with no method to confirm). One example was reference 116, that leads one to believe OHV enthusiasts started a wildfire. The referenced grant report did not state OHV's started the fire, but did state that funds were requested to provide fire prevention monitoring with OHV's (because the Willow Fire blamed on OHV's was actually reported by OHV Volunteers riding on OHV's and the Sheriff wanted to have the same OHV capabilities - they left out the fire is suspected to have been lit by hikers who camped at deep creek hot springs).

The photos in the report were also reviewed for accurate dating and found to be misleading. The Desert Tortoise photos were found to be first published in 1974, and the Dove Springs photos from 1978 (with the problems addressed through education and regulation long before the 2001 report). The opening page photo was researched (tire tracks through a posted closed area) and it was found the CWC took the photos the day the signs went up (indicating reckless OHV behavior or a pre-existing condition). OHV enthusiasts should be commended for good stewardship, because the CWC had to dig deep into the old Sierra Club archives to find photo evidence of excessive resource damage, or stage the photos like on the opening page.

This report was so misleading that the State had to fund and publish their own report to provide correct facts and accurately communicate the current improved management of OHV recreation. This report is called Taking the High Road.

Guess which one gets referenced more in current anti-access reports?

All OHV enthusiasts (and outdoor enthusiasts) should read these publications to understand the challenge of reporting facts about dirt road & trail recreation. When someone claims to know how terrible OHV's are we need to be polite and set the record straight (even the hikers are OHV participants when driving to the trailhead, and we all care about the environment and habitat protection).

 

[WB9YZU]

Thanks Ed, good info! I like the references to CA's "Taking the high road".

 

[Begster]

I especially like the part about safety.

Even in well-designed and managed ORV facilities, injuries occur. One study reported injuries at a rate of one for every 186 outings.

Well, 1 in 186 outings, how many deaths per day are there from car accidents ON road? Everywhere you go, there is the potential to get hurt. Whatever yuppie typed up that report had the potential to get electricuted from there computer didn't they?

Like Reddragon72 said, its a bunch of stuck up, well off people who are complete snobs and think their cause is the only right one who feel the need for some reason to kill whatever causes others pleasure. I hate those type of people who have no right to interject in other peoples matters like that.

This is the same reason Al Bundy was taken off the air on Married with Children. Some dumb broad's child started watching it, and instead of maybe having a parental lock on the show, or even worse, changing the channel, they had to petition to get the show taken off the air because SHE didn't feel it was appropriate.

 

[DaJudge]

I'm with Zuki-Ron! Thanks Ed for educating us! All of your land-use posts are clear and informative. I am fairly new to regular offroad usage so I am not aware of all of the issues we face with land-use. It is true with all things though, if you don't speak up for yourself, no one else will. If we want to continue to use public lands for recreation we need to actively pursue that course. We can be sure that those who published the information that this thread was initiated to point out are pursuing their course.

Glen

 

[casm]

I'm with Zuki-Ron! Thanks Ed for educating us!

Same here, and thanks are *definitely* due. This has been some of the best food for thought regarding land use issues that I've seen in some time, since it gives a good insight into the both the legal and operational manoeuvreing that these people do.

Having read through it, there's something I picked up on that I'm hoping someone can clarify for me under the section 'Close an Area or Trail':

"Go forth with your camera. Snap a photo of the ugly hill- climb scars, the eroding streambanks, the crushed alpine tundra, and the wheel-rut mazes through moist meadows. Send a copy of the photo with a letter which details the location of the resource damage and uses the phrase, "Please immediately close this area to ORMVs as required under 36 CFR 295.5." Send the letter to the Forest Supervisor and the District Ranger in charge."

So, I did some research on 36 CFR 295.5; although I couldn't find the most recent version (unless this is it), it and other related documents of interest are available in both text and PDF format here. What interested me was the wording of one part of the document:

"If the results of monitoring, including public input, indicate that the use of one or more vehicle types off roads is causing or will cause considerable adverse effects on the factors and resource values referred to in Sec. 295.2, the area or trail suffering adverse effects will be immediately closed to the responsible vehicle type or types until the adverse effects have been eliminated and measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence as provided in 36 CFR part 261."

36 CFR part 261 has some interesting reading in it, but none of it really talks about land closures except by order. The emphasis above is mine, but this seems to indicate that a trail could only remain closed until such time as it has been repaired - not permanently, though I am aware that there are other provisions in law to allow that. Taking that in the context of what's said in 36 CFR part 295.2:

"b) Off-road vehicle management plans shall provide vehicle management direction aimed at resource protection, public safety of all users, minimizing conflicts among users, and provide for diverse use and benefits of the National Forests."

Again, emphasis mine, but it seems as though the Sierra Club and NFS/USFS are opening themselves up to some serious legal action by denying 'diverse use' - since off-road vehicles are defined, listed, and recognised in the law, they are already part of the 'diverse use' that the land management bureaux are required to provide. A bit more from part 295.2:

"(3) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors."

More emphasising, but this seems to screw the Sierra Club right there - either they're knowingly trying to close designated routes against the standing laws (which in my opinion they are), or the various government bodies overseeing these trails has negligently placed them in such a way as to not "minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses".

So, my question... Am I completely misinterpreting the laws, or do these nutjobs just not have a leg to stand on? I realise that how a law is written and how it's enforced can often be two very different things (and also that I'm not a lawyer), but their tactics seem dubious at best since off-road vehicle use is recognised as a legitimate use of public lands.

 

[Ed A. Stevens]

More emphasising, but this seems to screw the Sierra Club right there - either they're knowingly trying to close designated routes against the standing laws (which in my opinion they are), or the various government bodies overseeing these trails has negligently placed them in such a way as to not "minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses".

So, my question... Am I completely misinterpreting the laws, or do these nutjobs just not have a leg to stand on? I realise that how a law is written and how it's enforced can often be two very different things (and also that I'm not a lawyer), but their tactics seem dubious at best since off-road vehicle use is recognised as a legitimate use of public lands.

The SC and thier allies do knowingly lobby and litigate to close designated routes against the standing laws, it's what works for them to achieve their anti-access goals.

The "nutjobs" have political power and have considerable support on the field manager person level within the land management agencies (the USFS and BLM/NPS). Enforcement style is the critical element to recognize.

The laws of this country are only actively upheld by anti-access sympathetic managers when the management direction supports thier agenda, and they choose to drag their feet and manage contrary to the law as long as they can get away with the deception (as long as there is no opposition). We always read about closure and restrictive management challenges by (evil) industry, because they have the money to challenge and win when the anti-access folks and sympathetic agency employees conspire to close public land to the mandated usage (in the USFS the mandate has always been "Multiple Uses"). We seldom read about non-commercial challenges because they cost money and there are few and far between.

Be careful to recognize the wording of managment and the statements of "use" conflicts compared to "user" conflicts. Public land is managed to prevent conflicts in "use" not conflicts between "users." A use conflict is a strip mine in a National Park, a user conflict is hikers complaining that legal vehicles on a legal road upset them. The distinction is important because the SC and anti-access forces will try to confuse the two, and try to get allied land managers to help them convince you that use and user conflicts are managed in the same fashion.

The greatest damage to multiple use public land management occured during the period from 1993 to 2001, during a political climate where the land management agency leadership was seeded with anti-access supporters. Almost every USFS District Ranger was required to serve in Washington DC for a minimum of six months to experience "education" on the "new expectation" for managing National Forests (the socialists have a good term for this style of "education").

The Administration was convinced (by the anti-access political lobby) that abandonment management was less expensive to execute than managing participants who value public land access (like horsemen and wheelers). Many agency management guidelines were revised to place "resource protection" as a priority over "multiple use" and left enforcement and methods up to the local managers. Protection methods and enforcement that demanded elimination of prior multiple use was a major favorite in the anti-access agenda (one reason "roadless areas" can qualify even when roads exist, and why it's fine for hikers to continue tramping and trashing existing roads but vehicles and horses are regulated to exclude them from cleaning up hiker debris while driving the same road). These "educated" leaders remain in agency position of local power that have immediate control over the enforcement of management prescriptions. The leadership needs to change (an ongoing process) to realize a return to the multiple use guidelines, methods, and enforcement that conserved BLM and USFS lands at health levels greater than our National Parks for over one hundred years.

What we as enthusiasts who enjoy public motorized access need to keep in mind is the law is meaningless unless the current political agenda promotes enforcement that favors multiple use and public access. This awareness of the reality of an active management needed to protect cooperative access and conservation in our wild places must be supported by the political choices we make on election day. Be carefull who you vote for.

 

[GSequoia]

Be carefull who you vote for.

That's the hard part! Finding somebody who aligns with some of my key beliefs is almost impossible!

You know I read some of that document and must say this one line struck me as rather ammusing:

Environmentalists are not suit-happy.

I like illegal closings myself, if I recall Pipe's Canyon is an illegal closing, correct?

Good find Ron - we need to know what the other side is up to at all times! If it wasn't for what the fees go toward I'd join the Sierra Club to try to work from teh inside out. I agree with their original purpose - protection of the environment - but like a lot of large orginizations their methods have been corrupted over time.

Sequoia
Proud to call myself a REAL environmentalist.
(If you never go out in the environment how are you one?)

 

[Bent]

http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/metro/119689



http://www.nathpo.org/News/Federal/News-Federal_Agencies8.htm