- Location
- Desert Beach So Cal
BlueRibbon Coalition - United Four Wheel Drive Associations -
American Council of Snowmobile Associations -
California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs
Media Release:
RECREATIONAL GROUPS DEFEND ACCESS IN ROADLESS LAWSUITS
Contact: Paul A. Turcke
Phone: (208) 331-1807
Fax: (208) 331-1202
E Mail: [email protected]
February 22, 2006
San Francisco, CA- A coalition of groups committed to preservation of recreational access has sought to intervene in the latest round of lawsuits addressing management of Forest Service "Roadless" areas. The motion was recently filed in federal court in the Northern District of California by the California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs, United Four Wheel Drive Associations, the American Council of Snowmobile Associations, and the BlueRibbon Coalition. The lawsuits at issue were brought by the states of California, Oregon and New Mexico and numerous environmental organizations led by the Wilderness Society.
"These organizations have been actively involved in all aspects of Forest Service recreation management," stated Paul Turcke, the Boise, Idaho, attorney serving as lead counsel for the Recreational Groups. "Contrary to their title, many of these 'roadless' lands have well-established routes which the public has long used to gain access to treasured destinations on our public lands. The Recreational Groups seek to join these suits to continue their defense of this legitimate recreational access," Turcke concluded.
At President Clinton's direction, the Forest Service enacted a "Roadless Rule" which was finalized in 2001 immediately before the inauguration of President Bush. Numerous states and private parties challenged that rule in court, including several of the Recreational Groups. An injunction against the 2001 Roadless Rule was issued in federal court for the District of Idaho, but that injunction was eventually reversed in 2002 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A federal court in Wyoming then found the 2001 Roadless Rule illegal and permanently enjoined implementation of the rule. During review of that decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Forest Service issued a new "Roadless Rule" in May 2005 which allows governors in affected states to submit petitions to the Forest Service outlining their desired management for the Forest Service "roadless" areas in their state. The current cases in the Northern District of California seek to have the 2005 Bush Administration Roadless Rule declared invalid and to reinstate the 2001 Clinton Administration Roadless Rule.
The appeals in both the Ninth and Tenth Circuit courts were brought by private environmental organizations, some of whom are now plaintiffs in one of the current Northern California lawsuits. Both appeals were argued after President Bush took office, and the Forest Service did not attempt to defend the 2001 Roadless Rule in either appeal.
The Recreational Groups filings contend they rightfully belong in this latest round of the long-running debate over "roadless" area management, just as the supporters of the 2001 Roadless Rule were allowed to intervene in the challenges to that rule. The Recreational Groups have requested that argument be held on their motion on March 28, 2006.
American Council of Snowmobile Associations -
California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs
Media Release:
RECREATIONAL GROUPS DEFEND ACCESS IN ROADLESS LAWSUITS
Contact: Paul A. Turcke
Phone: (208) 331-1807
Fax: (208) 331-1202
E Mail: [email protected]
February 22, 2006
San Francisco, CA- A coalition of groups committed to preservation of recreational access has sought to intervene in the latest round of lawsuits addressing management of Forest Service "Roadless" areas. The motion was recently filed in federal court in the Northern District of California by the California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs, United Four Wheel Drive Associations, the American Council of Snowmobile Associations, and the BlueRibbon Coalition. The lawsuits at issue were brought by the states of California, Oregon and New Mexico and numerous environmental organizations led by the Wilderness Society.
"These organizations have been actively involved in all aspects of Forest Service recreation management," stated Paul Turcke, the Boise, Idaho, attorney serving as lead counsel for the Recreational Groups. "Contrary to their title, many of these 'roadless' lands have well-established routes which the public has long used to gain access to treasured destinations on our public lands. The Recreational Groups seek to join these suits to continue their defense of this legitimate recreational access," Turcke concluded.
At President Clinton's direction, the Forest Service enacted a "Roadless Rule" which was finalized in 2001 immediately before the inauguration of President Bush. Numerous states and private parties challenged that rule in court, including several of the Recreational Groups. An injunction against the 2001 Roadless Rule was issued in federal court for the District of Idaho, but that injunction was eventually reversed in 2002 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A federal court in Wyoming then found the 2001 Roadless Rule illegal and permanently enjoined implementation of the rule. During review of that decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Forest Service issued a new "Roadless Rule" in May 2005 which allows governors in affected states to submit petitions to the Forest Service outlining their desired management for the Forest Service "roadless" areas in their state. The current cases in the Northern District of California seek to have the 2005 Bush Administration Roadless Rule declared invalid and to reinstate the 2001 Clinton Administration Roadless Rule.
The appeals in both the Ninth and Tenth Circuit courts were brought by private environmental organizations, some of whom are now plaintiffs in one of the current Northern California lawsuits. Both appeals were argued after President Bush took office, and the Forest Service did not attempt to defend the 2001 Roadless Rule in either appeal.
The Recreational Groups filings contend they rightfully belong in this latest round of the long-running debate over "roadless" area management, just as the supporters of the 2001 Roadless Rule were allowed to intervene in the challenges to that rule. The Recreational Groups have requested that argument be held on their motion on March 28, 2006.
