REP America challenges Blue Ribbon Coalition on ORV abuse of public lands

[Hobo Willy]

FYI--

Obviously Mark's REP AMERICA Group are anti-access and pro-private.

Ran across this statement FYI:
http://www.rep.org/opinions/pressreleases/ORVstatement.htm

[Snotty]

I think they are pro-access, but Anti-Motorized access. Very much on line with the QUC. They also want to eliminate the Historic RS2477 legislation.

[combatir]

Unless I missed something in reading the link, I did not read "anti" anything. The word "balance" was used several times, as well was the recognition of the need for the public to be able to enjoy motorized activity on public lands.

The focus of the letter seemed to be to insure that places like Yellowstone, Rocky Mountain National, Teton, Glacier National and other parks set aside by Roosevelt as wilderness areas do not become open to motorized activity. If this is their intent, I would agree with them. I enjoy wheeling with everybody I have met on this board, but when I am 13 miles into the back country at Yellowstone, camped next to my favorite waterfall and pristine pond, I don't want a motorcycle or car pulling up next to me. I went through the trouble of the hike to get away from all that.

Like I said at the opening of my post, unless I missed something while I read the letter, the proposal was that there should be areas for motorized play and there should be areas for non-motorized play. A balance. A chance for our grand kids to enjoy the same unspoiled beauty that we enjoyed as kids. Separate from where we 4 wheel.

Bill

[Steven_Mc]

Hmm... Tough issue. Combatir makes a good point, but I also think Snotty is right, there is definitely an anti-motorist tone to this letter. I must say I like the idea of being able to wheel anywhere there is a trail, but I don't want to disturb others' outdoor experiences either.

In all hobbies there exist those people that think their hobby is far supperior and more important than anyone else's. These are the people that ruin it for everyone.

"As conservatives, we are deeply concerned that the western world in which we were raised ? a world where responsible people behaved as good neighbors and treated the property of others with respect -- seems to be losing ground to an obnoxious, anything-goes, me-first culture. "

I think this line hits the nail on the head. Can't we all just get along? I'll respect you, you respect me, we all have fun and get to enjoy these outdoor hobbies we enjoy so much.

So we have to make our dirt bikes a little quiter, and not use loud headers, and mufflers on our jeeps... but then the conservationists could enjoy a more peaceful and quiet outdoor experience right? graemlins/smokin.gif

[ September 27, 2002, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Steven_Mc ]

[Snotty]

Bill, this is not meant as an offense. But did you read the same letter that I did? The first two paragraphs are anti-motorist. As I read even on, there were several more. I even re-read the letter three times to make sure I wasn't missing something here.

Now, I do agree that a balance needs to be agreed to, planned and implemented. My first experiences in the forests were hiking and backpacking. My concern is that they want to close off entire areas. Including historic trails and access that cross private property. The issue has now become one that no longer respects the good apples.

This is much more than calling on forest rangers to issue more citations to the "bad apples" -- the lawbreakers who tear up trout streams, blitz through trail closures, and burden taxpayers with watershed restoration costs.This statement means that we can no longer police our own nor let the FS do their job. The attitude is that if, one person screws it up, close the access to all of us. You should read what the Quiet Use Coalition wants to do. They feel that they are the majority of the users in the forest and therefore the government should cater to them. To hell with the OHV community and even so far as to limit the access to the forests to the Handicaped. Hell, if they can't walk in, it sucks to be them.

I do agree as well that some areas need to be closed and let to heal, but this heavy handed approch is wrong. There are already several areas that are foot traffic only and have lakes streams and canyons that you can't into unless you hike imto them. They want to close more and more area.

They now want to implement a policy that states a trail is closed unless posted otherwise. Do you have any idea what that would do to us? The sheer cost of new signs to replace the old ones would be staggering. It would be easier for the FS to just remove the signs and then all trails are closed. Seems to me to be a ploy here. But then I am conspiracy theroists... :D

I think the areas should be managed, but punishing all of us for a few is not the answer.

These two quotes here:

Thousands and thousands of miles of roads, legal and illegal, cover National Forest and BLM lands like spider webs. These roads, many of them in substandard condition, have ruined the wild character of many public lands. I might add that many of these roads increase wildfire danger by creating too-easy access for fire-starters ? ditzy campers, lost drivers, careless smokers, and dangerous arsonists.

Second, the successful evolution of "go-anywhere, anything goes" all-terrain vehicles has permitted a radical expansion of motorized vehicles deep into the backcountry, including easily damaged places where high-powered machines are just not appropriate. On top of that, federal land management agencies have failed to carry out President Nixon?s Executive Order requiring them to protect natural resources from ORV damage, and to minimize ORV conflicts with other, older uses of public lands.
What is a 4x trail to us? A substandard road. There mission is to close substandard roads and give us maintained roads only. Sorry, I don;t want to hang out with the Subaru people and get stopped at creek crossing because I can't go any further.

[combatir]

Heck Snotty,

I take no offense whatsoever to anything you have to say and certainly have no intention of offending you. You did only quote part of the paragraph. The rest of it read:

We’re talking about something deeper -- finding a true balance to ensure that one user group doesn’t usurp and dominate our nation’s outdoor heritage. We’re talking about respectful treatment for our wildest lands and waters, including monuments, conservation areas, and other special places -- the kind of places that President Theodore Roosevelt counseled us a century ago to leave unmarred for future generations. I read this to be more of a request to make sure that special areas are set aside to foot traffic only. I know that where I camp deep in Yellowstone, mountain bikes are not allowed there.
Another part of the proposition:

Every American has access to our public lands. But there are some places where machine access is neither desirable nor appropriate. It is possible that I misunderstand the intent of the proposition. I did not see it as a request to throw "us" 4 wheelers out of the mountain, just a request to set aside special places that us, mountain bikes and other wheeled traffic cannot go. Creating a balance. I agree that there are places where wheeled vehicles should not pass.

I live out here near the Pawnee Buttes. They are way cool and would be a great place to rock crawl in my jeep. They are closed to anything more than foot traffic. Bicycles cannot even be used on the land. I support this in order to preserve the scenery and original beauty of the area. There are plenty of other places I can 4 wheel. I took the proposition as a request to preserve a few more areas. If I misunderstood the proposition, I apologize. With me not knowing any of these people, I have no idea what there true intent my be. I would love the chance to discuss with them however as I always have questions smile.gif

Thanks!
Bill

[Snotty]

Combat,

To me, this paragraph says it all:

For those American families who choose to teach their children about self-reliance and character-building by seeking non-motorized experiences on God?s natural landscapes, we need to protect our last quiet areas as classrooms, playgrounds and sanctuaries. These are the special places where Americans can enjoy the fullest measure of the America that our forefathers knew, and which has shaped our nation and its way of life. We need them more than ever before.
This is the last paragraph of the letter. To me anyway, it speaks volumes. Now tie this in with the QUC.

There has to be a balance, but I feel the intent is a heavy handed approach. As I really have no idea what the intent of the letter writer is, I have to make speculations. Those are based on experiences, both new and old. To me, there are already areas that are closed to all but foot traffic. That want to close more areas but give nothing back. It is this all or nothing approach that concerns me. The Sand Dunes in Cali are an example. The area was split into to areas. One for the OHV crowd and the other as an environmental sanctuary. The greenies want the entire closed now. REP is part of that group.

I feel that areas should be set aside for everyone. I don't want to wheel where everyone with a subaru can go. I like the sub-standard roads. I think REP and the others should recognize that fact and instead of proposing only new areas to be close, they should offer areas that are open and should stay open. For the most part, we have never asked that an area be opened that has always been closed. Note, I said for the most part. There are exceptions to the rule on both sides of the fence.

Snotty

[combatir]

Originally posted by Snotty:


I feel that areas should be set aside for everyone. I don't want to wheel where everyone with a subaru can go. I like the sub-standard roads. I think REP and the others should recognize that fact and instead of proposing only new areas to be close, they should offer areas that are open and should stay open. For the most part, we have never asked that an area be opened that has always been closed. Note, I said for the most part. There are exceptions to the rule on both sides of the fence.

SnottyThanks for the reply, Snotty. Although our words may be slightly different, I would say that you and I primarily have the same thoughts.
I have known zealots on both sides of the fence, those that think all public lands should be open to ORV's and those that think we should be banned from everywhere. I disagree with both sides that take the extreme position, but understand the necessity of it in order to maintain the balance. Either side taking a passive stance in the face of extreme opposition would stand to lose as many of the younger members of this board have learned as they follow the Barking Dog trail events. I support your efforts here, by the way.
I lived in the North West when many of the areas that I enjoyed motorcycling, snow mobiling and 4 wheeling were closed because of the Spotted Owl. I disagreed with this action as I never bought into the notion that the ORV community played a role in the decline of the owl. Personally, I though it was the spraying for the Tussock moth that was killing the owl.
I am starting to ramble now so I will close. I don't support the closing of lands that have been or presently are already open and I don't support the opening of national parks and sanctuaries to ORV traffic. I do support maintaining a balance.

As a personal note, I don't drive the Jeep Apex ;) but I have been building my TJ (although it seems I may never be done) and am constantly looking for more challenging trails. Maybe you can invite me to tag along with you and your group some time. I have truly enjoyed meeting new 4 wheelin' partners on this board and the chance to run new trails!

Bill

[Kevin Mitchell]

Scary how they are trying to cloak themselves in legitimacy. What a great reminder to send my contribution to BRC.

[Don S]

Originally posted by Kevin Mitchell:
Scary how they are trying to cloak themselves in legitimacy. What a great reminder to send my contribution to BRC...
Kevin Mitchell:... Good Idea...
Organizations like REP Really don’t want to take all our trails this year… just half of the ones we have left. Then next year…

... I personally dislike the noise of the ATVs, Snow-mobiles, Trail Bikes and PWCs and for that matter even loud ‘pipes’ on 4x4s. I removed my twin glass-packs in 1988 when I came to realize it was a nuisance to others. All my 4x4s are now ‘stock’ quiet.
... By joining the Blue Ribbon Coalition I am helping to defend these noisy things that I don’t like. Sure… I’m wasting my money because we’re going to lose because of a lack of effort in the 4x4 community. We are ‘out numbered and out gunned’. Our 4x4s are being ‘lumped’ together by the ‘Huggers’ with the noisy ATVs, Snow-mobiles, Trail Bikes and PWCs and we ARE loosing trails.

If you will check the voting records in the House and Senate you will notice the anti-gunners are the same people voting to close our few remaining trails.
... I was going to drive the trail west of Summit Pass to Silver Falls this Spring but found it CLOSED. graemlins/crybaby.gif Lucky for me, I got to drive it in 1991.

CUL graemlins/old_glory.gif … Don S..

ps here is a link to my Acronym site for Jeepers
http://groups.msn.com/ASW4x4CampingTrailTravelClub/abbreviations.msnw

[Kevin Mitchell]

Easy Don...

be careful not to lump all atvs and motorcycles into the "obnoxious pipe" group, just as some do by assuming all 4x4 drivers ruin the environment. I split half my time between jeepin' and riding my KTM enduro dirt bike - which has a nice quiet stock pipe that still gives great performance.

The only way we have a chance against the well financed greens is to unite all people that have interests in keeping public land open to the public, including a significant number of atv and dirt bike owners.

-sorry for such a long rant from a Newbie.