This was posted on a SoCal dualsport forum by a park ranger that
rides. Interesting perspective...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear All,
I'm new to your site, but not to land use issues or the constant
attack on OHV use that seems to come from every section of our
society. Consumer protection laws say our vehicles are unsafe, or they
have lead, and so on. Local governments try to apply unrealistic sound
restrictions and even prohibit you from using your OHV on your own
private property. State officials use emissions laws or "puppet"
commissions to restrict more and more lands from OHV use. Federal
authorities will eventually find something threatened or endangered
"everywhere" (did you know that just within the National Park system
they discover over 400 new species every year...). I am positive that
you can go into any area at 10 mile measurements and find "something"
unique to that area. Thus, eventually, the Endangered Species Act will
provide a means to close off ALL PUBLIC LANDS...it really will be the
"King's Forest" situation just like in old England where all
"citizens" were prohibited entry and only the government could enter.
If that wasn't enough...stand by for the next attack..."DUST". Arizona
has already put in restrictions on OHV use based upon "particulate
levels" within designated air basins.
For too long OHV users have been fighting a defensive
battle...suffering the assaults and then trying to solidify "what's
left". With no threat of "loosing lands" themselves, the Sierra Club,
CBD, and politicians have been reinforced by our lack of counter
effort to continue with their lawsuits, legislation, and management
policies that lock out OHV's from more and more areas. We, the OHV
users have no one to blame for this but ourselves. When the Sierra
Club wants to close off a trail, they go to meetings, they hold
protests, they even chain themselves to trees. When's the last time
you chained yourself to an OHV trail entrance they were trying to
close? That's the level of effort it is going to take to win this
modern day "range war".
We are out of time. Look around at how few areas are left to OHV use.
Consider our past approaches...and how they have consistently failed
to protect our access rights. We have to move this fight from a
defensive one to a major offensive one if you don't want to see OHV
riders as the next "endangered species". So how do we bring the fight
to our adversaries (and make no mistake they see this as a fight...so
we need to see it that way also), the following a just a few
approaches:
The first is lawsuits, doesn't matter if you can win...just the shear
number of upcoming legal battles can change the position of a land
management agency. They only have a certain amount of funds for such
lawsuits and will be forced to negotiate if they can't defend against
them all (my agency is constantly have to determine policy as a result
of such threatened litigation). This is the strategy our adversaries
have repeatedly used...I guess we are just "slow learners" on this,
but we need to learn it.
The second is we need to win back public opinion. Honestly friends, we
need to get rid of the term "off-road". Think about it, how often are
you really riding where there is no road or trail at all? Maybe the
dunes? But usually you are "dirt roading" on a fire road or a trail.
When the general public hears the term "off-road", they think we are
blasting through the 10ft tall chaparral, through boulder fields, and
destroying every plant and feature on every hill side. Using the term
"dirt roading" generates a totally different response from the
layperson.
The third is we need get some laws on our side, to counter the
Endangered Species Act and other State and Local attempts to restrict
OHV use. Having Degrees in Outdoor Recreation and Parks and Recreation
Management, I can tell you that "RECREATION" is a form of
expression...similar to speech or freedom of religion. It is a form of
"human maintenance" that even the founding fathers of our nation
recognized when the included the phrase "...life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness..." within our founding documents. Thus, I have
considered contacting the ACLU to try to get them to file a Federal
lawsuit that restriction of recreation choice is a civil rights
violation. Think about it. Recreation is a human renewal
activity...just like going to church. Can the government tell you
which church you can go to? What about our population in which more
and more folks don't practice any religion at all...to them "renewal"
activities other than religion is all there is...this would then be by
definition "RE-CREATIONAL" activities. How then can the government
restrict this "non-religious" form of renewal. If Recreational choice
could be so protected, it would become a civil rights violation for a
land management agency to restrict such a recreational choice. This
could even defend against the Endangered Species Act whereby a civil
rights violation could pre-empt a recreational restriction.
The fourth is revised OHV use management. Currently, to my knowledge,
OHV use is the only outdoor activity that is managed by banning the
activity. Even if you agree with the critics that OHV activity is a
"consumptive use"...so is hunting, fishing, logging, mining, and even
hiking if too many folks are on a given trail. The difference is that
hunting and fishing are managed by seasons and limits, permits
regulate logging and mining, even wilderness permits can regulate the
number of hikers in a given area...but OHV's are just banned. Properly
targeted legal action should be able to undermine this "policy" by
demonstrating it is inconsistent with other land use policies. Thus, a
carrying limit should be determined for OHV use and then permits
issued to prevent "excessive" levels of damage. Think about it, what
would damage a meadow trail more...a couple of thousand hikers or say
50 motorcycles? Both could cause damage...however only one is banned.
That is inconsistent land use policy and maybe even a breach of duty
for the particular agency.
Lastly, consider that currently land use agencies only provide
"active" recreational OHV sites. This is an area where the primary
focus of participants is on "the activity". This brings the mental
image of kids spinning their ATV's in a circle at camp. They are doing
it only for the enjoyment of the activity itself. But agencies must
also provide "reflective" recreational opportunities, which are
activities that are "reflective" of the resource. An example here is a
dualsport rider who travels on a trail to reach a particular view
point or other natural feature. The primary activity here is
experiencing the resource, and the motorcycle is only the means of
conveyance. Another way to look at this is, image if the Forest
Service issued permits for downhill skiing resorts...but refused to
put in any cross county ski trails. It is the same situation when an
agency opens an "OHV area" for active OHV use...but then restricts OHV
use on reflective use trails. Thus, in this case, the land management
agency has not considered or provided for equal recreation opportunity
on its lands. We must not let our use of OHV's be "defined" to rated
trails (black diamond anyone?) and other restrictions that would imply
we are just an activity like baseball, downhill skiing, or similar.
Sorry for the book here...but hopefully I have established my opinions
on this matter. This way you have a better understanding of who I am
and what I stand for. I look forward to doing my part with your group
to help protect our rights.
Thanks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tami-
> This was posted on a SoCal dualsport forum by a park ranger that
> rides. Interesting perspective...
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dear All,
> I'm new to your site, but not to land use issues or the constant
> attack on OHV use that seems to come from every section of our
> society. Consumer protection laws say our vehicles are unsafe, or they
> have lead, and so on. Local governments try to apply unrealistic sound
> restrictions and even prohibit you from using your OHV on your own
> private property. State officials use emissions laws or "puppet"
> commissions to restrict more and more lands from OHV use. Federal
> authorities will eventually find something threatened or endangered
> "everywhere" (did you know that just within the National Park system
> they discover over 400 new species every year...). I am positive that
> you can go into any area at 10 mile measurements and find "something"
> unique to that area. Thus, eventually, the Endangered Species Act will
> provide a means to close off ALL PUBLIC LANDS...it really will be the
> "King's Forest" situation just like in old England where all
> "citizens" were prohibited entry and only the government could enter.
> If that wasn't enough...stand by for the next attack..."DUST". Arizona
> has already put in restrictions on OHV use based upon "particulate
> levels" within designated air basins.
> For too long OHV users have been fighting a defensive
> battle...suffering the assaults and then trying to solidify "what's
> left". With no threat of "loosing lands" themselves, the Sierra Club,
> CBD, and politicians have been reinforced by our lack of counter
> effort to continue with their lawsuits, legislation, and management
> policies that lock out OHV's from more and more areas. We, the OHV
> users have no one to blame for this but ourselves. When the Sierra
> Club wants to close off a trail, they go to meetings, they hold
> protests, they even chain themselves to trees. When's the last time
> you chained yourself to an OHV trail entrance they were trying to
> close? That's the level of effort it is going to take to win this
> modern day "range war".
> We are out of time. Look around at how few areas are left to OHV use.
> Consider our past approaches...and how they have consistently failed
> to protect our access rights. We have to move this fight from a
> defensive one to a major offensive one if you don't want to see OHV
> riders as the next "endangered species". So how do we bring the fight
> to our adversaries (and make no mistake they see this as a fight...so
> we need to see it that way also), the following a just a few
> approaches:
> The first is lawsuits, doesn't matter if you can win...just the shear
> number of upcoming legal battles can change the position of a land
> management agency. They only have a certain amount of funds for such
> lawsuits and will be forced to negotiate if they can't defend against
> them all (my agency is constantly have to determine policy as a result
> of such threatened litigation). This is the strategy our adversaries
> have repeatedly used...I guess we are just "slow learners" on this,
> but we need to learn it.
> The second is we need to win back public opinion. Honestly friends, we
> need to get rid of the term "off-road". Think about it, how often are
> you really riding where there is no road or trail at all? Maybe the
> dunes? But usually you are "dirt roading" on a fire road or a trail.
> When the general public hears the term "off-road", they think we are
> blasting through the 10ft tall chaparral, through boulder fields, and
> destroying every plant and feature on every hill side. Using the term
> "dirt roading" generates a totally different response from the
> layperson.
> The third is we need get some laws on our side, to counter the
> Endangered Species Act and other State and Local attempts to restrict
> OHV use. Having Degrees in Outdoor Recreation and Parks and Recreation
> Management, I can tell you that "RECREATION" is a form of
> expression...similar to speech or freedom of religion. It is a form of
> "human maintenance" that even the founding fathers of our nation
> recognized when the included the phrase "...life, liberty, and the
> pursuit of happiness..." within our founding documents. Thus, I have
> considered contacting the ACLU to try to get them to file a Federal
> lawsuit that restriction of recreation choice is a civil rights
> violation. Think about it. Recreation is a human renewal
> activity...just like going to church. Can the government tell you
> which church you can go to? What about our population in which more
> and more folks don't practice any religion at all...to them "renewal"
> activities other than religion is all there is...this would then be by
> definition "RE-CREATIONAL" activities. How then can the government
> restrict this "non-religious" form of renewal. If Recreational choice
> could be so protected, it would become a civil rights violation for a
> land management agency to restrict such a recreational choice. This
> could even defend against the Endangered Species Act whereby a civil
> rights violation could pre-empt a recreational restriction.
> The fourth is revised OHV use management. Currently, to my knowledge,
> OHV use is the only outdoor activity that is managed by banning the
> activity. Even if you agree with the critics that OHV activity is a
> "consumptive use"...so is hunting, fishing, logging, mining, and even
> hiking if too many folks are on a given trail. The difference is that
> hunting and fishing are managed by seasons and limits, permits
> regulate logging and mining, even wilderness permits can regulate the
> number of hikers in a given area...but OHV's are just banned. Properly
> targeted legal action should be able to undermine this "policy" by
> demonstrating it is inconsistent with other land use policies. Thus, a
> carrying limit should be determined for OHV use and then permits
> issued to prevent "excessive" levels of damage. Think about it, what
> would damage a meadow trail more...a couple of thousand hikers or say
> 50 motorcycles? Both could cause damage...however only one is banned.
> That is inconsistent land use policy and maybe even a breach of duty
> for the particular agency.
> Lastly, consider that currently land use agencies only provide
> "active" recreational OHV sites. This is an area where the primary
> focus of participants is on "the activity". This brings the mental
> image of kids spinning their ATV's in a circle at camp. They are doing
> it only for the enjoyment of the activity itself. But agencies must
> also provide "reflective" recreational opportunities, which are
> activities that are "reflective" of the resource. An example here is a
> dualsport rider who travels on a trail to reach a particular view
> point or other natural feature. The primary activity here is
> experiencing the resource, and the motorcycle is only the means of
> conveyance. Another way to look at this is, image if the Forest
> Service issued permits for downhill skiing resorts...but refused to
> put in any cross county ski trails. It is the same situation when an
> agency opens an "OHV area" for active OHV use...but then restricts OHV
> use on reflective use trails. Thus, in this case, the land management
> agency has not considered or provided for equal recreation opportunity
> on its lands. We must not let our use of OHV's be "defined" to rated
> trails (black diamond anyone?) and other restrictions that would imply
> we are just an activity like baseball, downhill skiing, or similar.
> Sorry for the book here...but hopefully I have established my opinions
> on this matter. This way you have a better understanding of who I am
> and what I stand for. I look forward to doing my part with your group
> to help protect our rights.
> Thanks
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Tami-
He missed the biggest and worst one, the only one that in the end will
matter.
Those that want things closed down tight bribe politicians left and
right to introduce legislation they want, and to vote for it.
Dave
XML Sitemap
> rides. Interesting perspective...
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dear All,
> I'm new to your site, but not to land use issues or the constant
> attack on OHV use that seems to come from every section of our
> society. Consumer protection laws say our vehicles are unsafe, or they
> have lead, and so on. Local governments try to apply unrealistic sound
> restrictions and even prohibit you from using your OHV on your own
> private property. State officials use emissions laws or "puppet"
> commissions to restrict more and more lands from OHV use. Federal
> authorities will eventually find something threatened or endangered
> "everywhere" (did you know that just within the National Park system
> they discover over 400 new species every year...). I am positive that
> you can go into any area at 10 mile measurements and find "something"
> unique to that area. Thus, eventually, the Endangered Species Act will
> provide a means to close off ALL PUBLIC LANDS...it really will be the
> "King's Forest" situation just like in old England where all
> "citizens" were prohibited entry and only the government could enter.
> If that wasn't enough...stand by for the next attack..."DUST". Arizona
> has already put in restrictions on OHV use based upon "particulate
> levels" within designated air basins.
> For too long OHV users have been fighting a defensive
> battle...suffering the assaults and then trying to solidify "what's
> left". With no threat of "loosing lands" themselves, the Sierra Club,
> CBD, and politicians have been reinforced by our lack of counter
> effort to continue with their lawsuits, legislation, and management
> policies that lock out OHV's from more and more areas. We, the OHV
> users have no one to blame for this but ourselves. When the Sierra
> Club wants to close off a trail, they go to meetings, they hold
> protests, they even chain themselves to trees. When's the last time
> you chained yourself to an OHV trail entrance they were trying to
> close? That's the level of effort it is going to take to win this
> modern day "range war".
> We are out of time. Look around at how few areas are left to OHV use.
> Consider our past approaches...and how they have consistently failed
> to protect our access rights. We have to move this fight from a
> defensive one to a major offensive one if you don't want to see OHV
> riders as the next "endangered species". So how do we bring the fight
> to our adversaries (and make no mistake they see this as a fight...so
> we need to see it that way also), the following a just a few
> approaches:
> The first is lawsuits, doesn't matter if you can win...just the shear
> number of upcoming legal battles can change the position of a land
> management agency. They only have a certain amount of funds for such
> lawsuits and will be forced to negotiate if they can't defend against
> them all (my agency is constantly have to determine policy as a result
> of such threatened litigation). This is the strategy our adversaries
> have repeatedly used...I guess we are just "slow learners" on this,
> but we need to learn it.
> The second is we need to win back public opinion. Honestly friends, we
> need to get rid of the term "off-road". Think about it, how often are
> you really riding where there is no road or trail at all? Maybe the
> dunes? But usually you are "dirt roading" on a fire road or a trail.
> When the general public hears the term "off-road", they think we are
> blasting through the 10ft tall chaparral, through boulder fields, and
> destroying every plant and feature on every hill side. Using the term
> "dirt roading" generates a totally different response from the
> layperson.
> The third is we need get some laws on our side, to counter the
> Endangered Species Act and other State and Local attempts to restrict
> OHV use. Having Degrees in Outdoor Recreation and Parks and Recreation
> Management, I can tell you that "RECREATION" is a form of
> expression...similar to speech or freedom of religion. It is a form of
> "human maintenance" that even the founding fathers of our nation
> recognized when the included the phrase "...life, liberty, and the
> pursuit of happiness..." within our founding documents. Thus, I have
> considered contacting the ACLU to try to get them to file a Federal
> lawsuit that restriction of recreation choice is a civil rights
> violation. Think about it. Recreation is a human renewal
> activity...just like going to church. Can the government tell you
> which church you can go to? What about our population in which more
> and more folks don't practice any religion at all...to them "renewal"
> activities other than religion is all there is...this would then be by
> definition "RE-CREATIONAL" activities. How then can the government
> restrict this "non-religious" form of renewal. If Recreational choice
> could be so protected, it would become a civil rights violation for a
> land management agency to restrict such a recreational choice. This
> could even defend against the Endangered Species Act whereby a civil
> rights violation could pre-empt a recreational restriction.
> The fourth is revised OHV use management. Currently, to my knowledge,
> OHV use is the only outdoor activity that is managed by banning the
> activity. Even if you agree with the critics that OHV activity is a
> "consumptive use"...so is hunting, fishing, logging, mining, and even
> hiking if too many folks are on a given trail. The difference is that
> hunting and fishing are managed by seasons and limits, permits
> regulate logging and mining, even wilderness permits can regulate the
> number of hikers in a given area...but OHV's are just banned. Properly
> targeted legal action should be able to undermine this "policy" by
> demonstrating it is inconsistent with other land use policies. Thus, a
> carrying limit should be determined for OHV use and then permits
> issued to prevent "excessive" levels of damage. Think about it, what
> would damage a meadow trail more...a couple of thousand hikers or say
> 50 motorcycles? Both could cause damage...however only one is banned.
> That is inconsistent land use policy and maybe even a breach of duty
> for the particular agency.
> Lastly, consider that currently land use agencies only provide
> "active" recreational OHV sites. This is an area where the primary
> focus of participants is on "the activity". This brings the mental
> image of kids spinning their ATV's in a circle at camp. They are doing
> it only for the enjoyment of the activity itself. But agencies must
> also provide "reflective" recreational opportunities, which are
> activities that are "reflective" of the resource. An example here is a
> dualsport rider who travels on a trail to reach a particular view
> point or other natural feature. The primary activity here is
> experiencing the resource, and the motorcycle is only the means of
> conveyance. Another way to look at this is, image if the Forest
> Service issued permits for downhill skiing resorts...but refused to
> put in any cross county ski trails. It is the same situation when an
> agency opens an "OHV area" for active OHV use...but then restricts OHV
> use on reflective use trails. Thus, in this case, the land management
> agency has not considered or provided for equal recreation opportunity
> on its lands. We must not let our use of OHV's be "defined" to rated
> trails (black diamond anyone?) and other restrictions that would imply
> we are just an activity like baseball, downhill skiing, or similar.
> Sorry for the book here...but hopefully I have established my opinions
> on this matter. This way you have a better understanding of who I am
> and what I stand for. I look forward to doing my part with your group
> to help protect our rights.
> Thanks
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Tami-