Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

This forum is for the discussion of topics of political nature that affect the duning community.

Moderator: Sitewide Forum Moderators

Post Reply
AnotherDuck
1st Gear Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:31 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7

Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by AnotherDuck » Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:36 am

Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010, Only Takes 1 Minute
http://www.petitiononline.com/notS2921/petition.html

Quack, Quack, Quack :wink:

User avatar
Woodglue
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6312
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:37 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Riverside Co, Ca.

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Woodglue » Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:48 pm

What's wrong with using your other account Mr Duck? :? (btw, I'm signature #829 on the petition)
My Avatar is BLM's DRAMP Proposed OHV Access under Alt #3.
Purple = Closed
Green = Open
IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?
More here

User avatar
Sloppyduner
CA Event Committee Chair
CA Event Committee Chair
Posts: 4012
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 11:17 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: continually being flung around the Sun

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Sloppyduner » Tue Mar 30, 2010 7:15 am

Oppose the Dems attempt to reach out to the OHV community? Oppose turning all kinds of trails into designated to OHV use and it'll take an act of congress to over turn (close)? Why Mr duck do YOU oppose this? Same question to you Woody, and any others? What am I missing?
Image

Image

Image
....and at the end of that light there is another tunnel

User avatar
Woodglue
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6312
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:37 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Riverside Co, Ca.

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Woodglue » Tue Mar 30, 2010 7:24 am

I am opposed to S2921 because I oppose legislation that restricts the public’s access to public lands. I oppose the creation of new wilderness areas and National Monuments that withdraw lands from public access and close existing routes. I oppose the creation of new wilderness areas that do not meet the standards of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which established the National Wilderness Preservation System. This is all information from the petition's website.

Why would any off roader be in favor of this particular legislation?
My Avatar is BLM's DRAMP Proposed OHV Access under Alt #3.
Purple = Closed
Green = Open
IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?
More here

User avatar
Sloppyduner
CA Event Committee Chair
CA Event Committee Chair
Posts: 4012
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 11:17 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: continually being flung around the Sun

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Sloppyduner » Tue Mar 30, 2010 7:36 am

What existing routes will be closed? I talked with a person who took a boat load of time and helped go out and find existing trails all over California so they would be included in the areas set aside for OHV use. My understanding is that if its open to OHV use now, it will be open for until this this is over turned.

"Maintains existing recreation uses, including hunting, vehicular travel on existing open roads and trails, grazing, camping, horseback riding, rock collecting, etc."

Also check out the section Title XVIII: Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Areas

http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/inde ... Print=true
Image

Image

Image
....and at the end of that light there is another tunnel

User avatar
Doc
Website Admin
Website Admin
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2000 9:42 pm

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Doc » Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:09 am

Woodglue wrote:I am opposed to S2921 because I oppose legislation that restricts the public’s access to public lands. I oppose the creation of new wilderness areas and National Monuments that withdraw lands from public access and close existing routes. I oppose the creation of new wilderness areas that do not meet the standards of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which established the National Wilderness Preservation System. This is all information from the petition's website.

Why would any off roader be in favor of this particular legislation?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I would hope that you would read the whole bill before rejecting it out of hand.

If your opposition is based on items that are actually in the bill that is great and maybe you could elaborate on those. But if your opposition is based on the author or the legislations title than perhaps reading the entire bill may be something you may want to do.

No one likes to see public lands restricted and this legislation is no exception. However this legislation provides some level of protection to recreation that is not currently available.

I will give you an example of how this bill could protect some off road areas. Last week I went on a tour of a solar site in the Imperial Valley that is proposed to be built. This area currently has many off road routes through it. When I asked the developer if these routes would be available when the plant was constructed they said no. This area would be off limits to OHV and the routes would be closed. I then asked if they were proposing any mitigation for the loss of these routes and they again said no.

So a better approach is to try and either limit commercial activity on OHV areas or demand that some form of mitigation is included in these developments.

This bill has some level of protection for some OHV areas from commercial development.

User avatar
Woodglue
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6312
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:37 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Riverside Co, Ca.

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Woodglue » Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:15 am

I have read the Bill Summary, and the following are from that document:
Title VI: Vinagre Wash Special Management Area

Designates a “special management area” covering a total of 76,000 acres in eastern Imperial County in order to conserve, protect and enhance plant and wildlife management as well as nationally significant ecological, recreational, archeological, and cultural resources. The area also contains approximately 49,000 acres of potential wilderness and approximately 12,000 acres of former private land donated to the federal government for conservation.
49,000 acres in Imperial County can become potential Wilderness? I'll pass.
Title VII: National Park System Additions

Adds approximately 74,000 acres of land to the National Park System
Title V: Wilderness

Designates approximately 250,000 acres in five BLM Wilderness Study Areas
Section 1904: Prohibited uses of donated and acquired land.

Prohibits the use of donated or acquired lands for...off-highway vehicle use (except designated routes)
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make limited exceptions in cases where it is deemed in the public interest.
All too often our sport is not included "in the public's interest".

This, in addition to all the Solar / Wind Industry discussion (Solar/ Wind = fences around leased land), sure makes me want to oppose the bill on the basis that it can restrict Public Access with 'tools' such as National Park or Wilderness designations.

It's frustrating to me to have approx 20,000 acres of ISDRA on the north side of Hwy 78 designated as "wilderness" back in 2004 by Congress. Given that a horse or human cannot efficiently walk on a Dune, this area has basically been sealed off from any Public Access. And on the basis that it's Public Land, that is just wrong!

Now, with that stated, I do not understand this, which was in the ASA's March 2010 What's New e-mail publication:
ASA POSITION ON S2921 THE CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT OF 2010
The ASA Board of Directors has reviewed the Ecologic Partners recommendation regarding S 2921. Ecologic Partners is the legal arm of the ASA. It consists of ASA, Off Road Business Association (ORBA), San Diego Off Road Coalition (SDROC) and AMA District 37 Off Road. The mission statement of Ecologic Partners is "The mission of Ecologic Partners, Inc. is to advance land use policies that conserve natural resources while providing responsible outdoor recreation for American families."

The ASA Board authorized Dick Holliday, Ecologic Board member to support the following:
On December 21, 2009 U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced S.2921 the California Desert Protection Act of 2010. After careful analysis of all aspects of this bill Ecologic Partners are going on record as supporting the bill in its current form. Any changes or amendments that will be proposed through the committee process of approving this legislation will require a through review of the ability of the Ecologic Partners to continue to support this legislation. This legislation creates two new National Monuments, new Wilderness areas, and sets siting guidelines for renewable energy projects and gives five BLM open areas in San Bernardino County, CA official Congressional designations as OHV areas.

Both ORBA and AMA D37 organizations worked closely with the Senator’s staff to ensure that within the proposed Monuments OHV use on designated trails will continue. They also secured language that would protect organized OHV events that currently occur there. In the proposed Wilderness areas the Senator’s staff worked with many individuals and OHV organizations to exclude from the wilderness areas some of the high value trails therefore keeping them open in perpetuity.

Rasor OHV Area, Stoddard Wells OHV Area, El Mirage OHV Area, Spangler Hills OHV Area and a portion of the Johnson Valley OHV Area are all slated to receive a congressional designation as OHV areas. These proposed designations signify that the senator respects the rights of California families to recreate responsibly on public lands and that she is aware of the significant impact that OHV recreation has on the California economy.

The monuments proposed in this bill are the Sand to Snow Monument, which is located in northern Riverside County and the Mojave Trails National Monument, which follows segments of Historic Route 66 and also covers portions of the Central and Eastern Mojave Desert, will remain under the management of the BLM.

We appreciate Senator Feinstein and her staff for taking a collaborative approach on this legislation. A variety of stakeholders including off-roaders, environmentalists and local residents were consulted early on in the process. This bill protects long standing recreation areas, sensitive desert lands and allows for responsible renewable energy development.
:?:
My Avatar is BLM's DRAMP Proposed OHV Access under Alt #3.
Purple = Closed
Green = Open
IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?
More here

User avatar
Doc
Website Admin
Website Admin
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2000 9:42 pm

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Doc » Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:32 am

Woodglue wrote:
Now, with that stated, I do not understand this, which was in the ASA's March 2010 What's New e-mail publication:

:?:
What don't you understand about the article in the "What's New".

It states that the ASA via our legal group supports the legislation in its current form and that any changes that come from committee will be evaluated to see if we can continue that support.

If there are changes that we cannot support we will so state and write letters of no support.

As I said everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone does not see things the same as other people see them. We have looked at this legislation and of course there are things that we don’t like but on balance we believe that advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Again this is based on our lawyers close examination of the wording and the participation of OHV groups in the designation of routes during the writing of this legislation.

User avatar
Woodglue
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6312
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:37 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Riverside Co, Ca.

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Woodglue » Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:03 pm

Doc wrote:
Woodglue wrote: Now, with that stated, I do not understand this, which was in the ASA's March 2010 What's New e-mail publication:
:?:
What don't you understand about the article in the "What's New".

It states that the ASA via our legal group supports the legislation in its current form and that any changes that come from committee will be evaluated to see if we can continue that support.
I don't understand how the ASA and EcoLogic have taken a position in favor of S-2921. In "its current form" it looks from the bits that I posted earlier to restrict Public Access to Public Lands.

In fact, the website opposing this bill states:
We, the undersigned are opposed to S2921. We oppose legislation that restricts the public’s access to public lands. We oppose the creation of new wilderness areas and National Monuments that withdraw lands from public access and close existing routes. We oppose the creation of new wilderness areas that do not meet the standards of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which established the National Wilderness Preservation System.
This, while the ASA's Updated Mission Statement is:
THE MISSION OF THE ASA IS TO "UNITE, INFORM, AND MOBILIZE." WE ACCOMPLISH THIS MISSION
THROUGH THE USE OF VOLUNTEERS AND STAFF TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO RECREATE ON PUBLIC
LANDS.
WE BELIEVE IN RESPONSIBLE, ENVIRONMENTALLY BALANCED MANAGEMENT FOR ALL PUBLIC
LANDS. THE ASA COOPERATES WITH NATIONAL, REGIONALAND LOCAL SAND SPORT ASSOCIATIONS.
The following is stated in one form or another, several times in the Bill Summary:
Permitted uses would be hiking, camping, mountain biking, sightseeing, hunting, off-highway vehicle use on designated routes and horseback riding. Prohibited uses would include new mining, permanent roads, commercial uses, or activities that would preclude the potential wilderness areas from becoming wilderness in the future.
Is this the kind of thing where OHV users are provided a single 6' wide "designated route" through a 5,000 acre plot of land and "permitted use is being granted to OHVs". Or is the door being left open to someday say that OHV use is an 'Activity that precludes the area from becoming a wilderness in the future', therefore OHV use is a "Prohibited use"? Even further, Is this Bill a stepping stone to making these areas Wilderness Areas in the future?
Doc wrote: As I said everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone does not see things the same as other people see them. We have looked at this legislation and of course there are things that we don’t like but on balance we believe that advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Again this is based on our lawyers close examination of the wording and the participation of OHV groups in the designation of routes during the writing of this legislation.
If the advantages of the passed-bill outweigh the disadvantages of the passed-bill, I wouldn't automatically call for support. There is another option on the table.... the advantages of the failed-bill.

My opinion (posted here and above) is just that, my opinion. And, perhaps I'm wrong on this. Perhaps what I read to be restricted access is not.
But, take a look at the people who are opposing this bill. They are from members of all kinds of Off Road Clubs and Organizations, including Gold Coast Cruisers, Shasta Rock Rollers, Rock Zombies, Southern Nevada Land Cruisers, Reno4x4.com, Sierra Nevada 4wd, District 37 Dual Sport, Las Cruses 4wheel Drive Association, Pirate4x4 (several), Cal4Wheel, NORA, GlamisDunes.com, Friends of Giant Rock, AMA District 37 (several), Tierra Del Sol San Diego, Public Lands for The People (several), Ventura County 4 Wheel Drive Club (Several), SDORC, Friends of Johnson Valley (several), and even CORVA (Several), the American Sand Association (Several) and the Blue Ribbon Coalition (several).
So, while EcoLogic and it's backing Organizations are on the record as supporting this bill, it looks like some of the individual members of those Organizations are opposing it.

One particular opposing petitioner, Number 4 in fact is Steve Kuehl Past President - California Off-Road Vehicle Association ("CORVA")
In addition, The California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs is formally opposing this bill.

Seems they too are not seeing things as Ecologic sees them.
My Avatar is BLM's DRAMP Proposed OHV Access under Alt #3.
Purple = Closed
Green = Open
IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?
More here

User avatar
Doc
Website Admin
Website Admin
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2000 9:42 pm

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Doc » Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:39 pm

Mike

Yes there are those that are opposed to anything with the word ‘wilderness” in it. I will let this discussion die with one final thought and respect your views.

In your quote below you quote the section of the bill that states:

The following is stated in one form or another, several times in the Bill Summary:
Quote:

Permitted uses would be hiking, camping, mountain biking, sightseeing, hunting, off-highway vehicle use on designated routes and horseback riding. Prohibited uses would include new mining, permanent roads, commercial uses, or activities that would preclude the potential wilderness areas from becoming wilderness in the future.

As I’m sure you are aware that these areas are not open areas for the most part and as such the only current OHV activity in these areas is on designated routes. What this is saying is that these routes will still be available for OVH use.

Right now we are in a lawsuit over the designated routes for the WEMO plan because only routes that were in place when the California desert plan was signed (1980 CDCA plan) are designated as valid routes. This lawsuit is over which routes are valid and which are not so having designated routes defined in a congressional bill will go a long way to protecting these routes from being closed.

Is anything final? No, only death and taxes are said to be for sure.

Thanks for your participation in the discussion.

User avatar
Woodglue
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6312
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:37 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Riverside Co, Ca.

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Woodglue » Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:42 pm

Thanks Dick.
My Avatar is BLM's DRAMP Proposed OHV Access under Alt #3.
Purple = Closed
Green = Open
IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?
More here

User avatar
Sloppyduner
CA Event Committee Chair
CA Event Committee Chair
Posts: 4012
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 11:17 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: continually being flung around the Sun

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Sloppyduner » Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:46 pm

I wrote this and after this I too will let it rest.
Woodglue wrote:
But, take a look at the people who are opposing this bill. They are from members of all kinds of Off Road Clubs and Organizations, including Gold Coast Cruisers, Shasta Rock Rollers, Rock Zombies, Southern Nevada Land Cruisers, Reno4x4.com, Sierra Nevada 4wd, District 37 Dual Sport, Las Cruses 4wheel Drive Association, Pirate4x4 (several), Cal4Wheel, NORA, GlamisDunes.com, Friends of Giant Rock, AMA District 37 (several), Tierra Del Sol San Diego, Public Lands for The People (several), Ventura County 4 Wheel Drive Club (Several), SDORC, Friends of Johnson Valley (several), and even CORVA (Several), the American Sand Association (Several) and the Blue Ribbon Coalition (several).
So, while EcoLogic and it's backing Organizations are on the record as supporting this bill, it looks like some of the individual members of those Organizations are opposing it.

One particular opposing petitioner, Number 4 in fact is Steve Kuehl Past President - California Off-Road Vehicle Association ("CORVA")
Yhis is what I was refering to aft5er the Pomona show. A bunch of people running around saying "don't support the Feinstein bill" This was before ANYBODY who was opposed to it could have read it. I was lucky enough to talk to the people who we working on it, marking trails, looking at the verbage and so on, all of which have been off roading longer than I have been alive and have tons of cash tied up in their toys and have given YEARS in the OHV fight. I was at the show going between the two sides trying to figure out What the heck? THAT is what got me thinking, "how much is it going to suck when the Dems START to give in a bit to our side? How are we going to come together as a group(comunity) and get this stuff settled?"

Woody you say THEY say routes will be closed? Which routes? Lets start there. I want to read the part of the bill that says X route in this county will be closed.

Again I see an oportunity, in the way its written now to lock OPEN trails in Californina. without closing any existing trails. How can I vote against that? Why would ANY off roader? (to use your words)
Image

Image

Image
....and at the end of that light there is another tunnel

User avatar
Woodglue
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6312
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:37 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Riverside Co, Ca.

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Woodglue » Tue Mar 30, 2010 2:00 pm

Please show me where I said that trails would be closed, and I'll show you where I got that information from.
My Avatar is BLM's DRAMP Proposed OHV Access under Alt #3.
Purple = Closed
Green = Open
IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?
More here

User avatar
Sloppyduner
CA Event Committee Chair
CA Event Committee Chair
Posts: 4012
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 11:17 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: continually being flung around the Sun

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Sloppyduner » Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:03 pm

Woodglue wrote: I oppose the creation of new wilderness areas and National Monuments that withdraw lands from public access and close existing routes.
Perhaps I confused your use of "routes" with the word trail. So I'll ask this. What routes will be closed?
Image

Image

Image
....and at the end of that light there is another tunnel

User avatar
Woodglue
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6312
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:37 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Riverside Co, Ca.

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Woodglue » Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:19 pm

Sloppyduner wrote:
Woodglue wrote: I oppose the creation of new wilderness areas and National Monuments that withdraw lands from public access and close existing routes.
Perhaps I confused your use of "routes" with the word trail. So I'll ask this. What routes will be closed?
Woodglue wrote:I am opposed to S2921 because I oppose legislation that restricts the public’s access to public lands. I oppose the creation of new wilderness areas and National Monuments that withdraw lands from public access and close existing routes. I oppose the creation of new wilderness areas that do not meet the standards of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which established the National Wilderness Preservation System. This is all information from the petition's website.
Here is the link to that information which I was quoting: Click!
My Avatar is BLM's DRAMP Proposed OHV Access under Alt #3.
Purple = Closed
Green = Open
IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?
More here

User avatar
HSSC
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 614
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:17 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Mt. Rose HWY, Reno NV.

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by HSSC » Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:49 pm

Trust a democrat, you really think it will end here. It will end when all routes are closed. Blows me away when anyone will get in bed with these socialist.

I've duned the 49,000 acres closed area back in 1989. It is one of the most technicality challenging areas that I have ever duned. I was in a mid-engine Highjumper with a 150 horse VW in the 850lb. range sandcar and that was pure dunning heaven.

A week before X-mass and right after a major blow........................ :shock: :shock: 8)

If you have never done it, than......................well ...............I guess whats the big deal. Its only 49,000 acres. #-o

Passion, I'm glad to see some here. My cup is full of the stuff.

I'm #1212 I signed on because I saw it here. Don't get out much. #-o
Public lands are for public use.
Ken & family
Mt. Rose HWY,Reno NV.

User avatar
Woodglue
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6312
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:37 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Riverside Co, Ca.

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Woodglue » Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:10 pm

HSSC, to keep things in perspective, this Bill has no mention of anything in the ISDRA.
My Avatar is BLM's DRAMP Proposed OHV Access under Alt #3.
Purple = Closed
Green = Open
IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?
More here

User avatar
Sandcock
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2089
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:09 am
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Avacado Capital of the World

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Sandcock » Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:38 am

I, for one, am learning from this debate =D> Good points of view. I wouldn't have a problem if you guys continued :wink:
The real egalitarians are not the people who want to redistribute wealth to the poor, but those who want to extend to the poor the ability to create their own wealth, to lift themselves up, instead of trying to tear others down. Earning respect, including self-respect, is better than being a parasite. Thomas Sowell

User avatar
Doc
Website Admin
Website Admin
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2000 9:42 pm

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Doc » Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:30 am

While this issue is of concern to many people the most pressing current issue is the review and comment on the draft RAMP.

This document will drive the management of the ISDRA for the foreseeable future.

This is a complex document and needs thoughtful comments to be sure the BLM is fully aware of the users concerns. As has been posted elsewhere just a comment that you don't like it is not what is necessary.

You need to read the document and see where you think changes could or should be made. It took me 8 hours to read through this document. While reading I made notes on sections that I wanted to comment on. Then I spent about 8 hours writing my draft of the comments on the areas I think need corrections or change. Sometimes something in the later parts will answer a question in the front so that is why I completely read the document before starting writing my comments.

The ASA will have some samples of format for you to follow but start reading.

Another issue we are working on that will affect the ISDRA and the entire Imperial Valley is the PM10 issue. There are discussions going on between the Imperial Country Air Pollution Control District and the EPA that will have lasting effects on all recreation in the Imperial Valley. The ASA is involved in these discussions as is Ecologic.

So for now we will just monitor S2921 and see if there are any changes that come from the committee hearings and then evaluate out support of this legislation.

User avatar
Woodglue
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6312
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:37 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Riverside Co, Ca.

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Woodglue » Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:15 pm

Sandcock wrote:I, for one, am learning from this debate =D> Good points of view. I wouldn't have a problem if you guys continued :wink:
Are you learning about the issue, or the people / orgs? I guess there's all kinds of education to be had here. :lol:
With the debate done, I continue to oppose S-2921 based upon the infromation I've seen. I encourage others to do their own research and hopefully oppose just the same by signing the petition. Concurrently, I trust that those supporting the bill (i.e. EcoLogic) will assume responsibility for what it brings us, in the event that it is passed (in it's current form)... good or bad.
My Avatar is BLM's DRAMP Proposed OHV Access under Alt #3.
Purple = Closed
Green = Open
IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?
More here

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by LoBuck » Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:40 am

I attended a meeting concerning S-2921 a couple of weeks ago in El Centro. A deputy director from Feinsteins office was there as well as representatives from the California Wilderness Coalition (CWC) and numerous off-roaders from Imperial County. The purpose of that meeting was for the OHV'ers to point out and provide known and used routes in these areas. I was there for 3 hours and the meeting was still going when I left. Here's a few items I took away from this meeting.

- There are a lot of trails/routes in these areas. As of today, some are legal and others are not.
- The reason for the need to identified the trails/routes in these areas is because the BLM has not marked the majority of the them, open or closed.
- Illegal trails/routes could possible be made legal trails/routes in this bill if it is shown that they are well used and/or needed.
- Legal trails/routes could be closed depending on where they are and what the use is.
- Per the CWC rep, approximately 50% of the trails/routes in these areas WILL BE CLOSED. Some will be legal trails/routes, but most will likely be trails/raoutes that were illegal to begin with.
- A BIG issue with this bill is the definition of Naviable washes. It is very vague as to what make a wash naviable. Another concern is how to address threaded washes, or those that weave back and forth across each other.
- As these are currently not Open Areas now, meaning not open to cross-country travel and restricted to legal trails/routes, trails/routes indentified in ths bill WILL REMAIN OPEN AND IT WOULD TAKE AN ACT OF CONGRESS TO CLOSE THEM.
- If this bill does not pass, these areas will remain in the curent status until one of the following happens; 1) the BLM decides to change its designation of the trails/routes, which they can do at any time on their own; 2) an org like CWC or CBD sues the BLM to close the trails/routes, or even the entire areas. AND based on what I heard at that meeting, the CWC might, and we know its just a matter of time before the CBD does.
- This is still a work in progress. For the most part the bill is what it is as it will be presented to the Senate.
- Feinstein's deputy director is very open to recommendations and is more than willing to meet with OHV groups to discuss the language in the bill.
- The CWC is the group has been taking the lead with Feinstein to write the language for this bill.
- Once the bill is passed, there will be a 3 year period in which trails/routes can be requested to be added, or removed, to an open designation.

I see a lot of issues with this bill. I also see positives, in particular the Act of Congress part to closed established trails/routes. A great many people have spent a great deal of time using GPS to idenitfy the trails/routes in these areas and that is still going on now. IF these get in the bill, the majority will stay open. If this bill fails, get ready for a fight of the likes never seen before. One that I fear the OHV community is not ready for.

I wish I could tell you I'm 100% for or against this bill. Based on what I know so far, I have to say that I'm 85% for it. That other 15% keeps nagging at me.

I will share this with you. The ASA, which I'm a member and volunteer of, has said it supports the bill in its current form. The El Centro Chamber of Commerce and Visitor's Bureau, of which I'm a memeber of the Board of Directors, has said it opposes the bill in its current form. Just a reminder that the El Centro Chamber is 1/3 of the founding members of the United Desert Gateway (UDG). The Brwaley Chamber and the Yuma Chamber make up the other 2/3rds. I don't know what their position is on the bill.

Good luck to all to figure out how you feel about it. Before you say yes or no, make sure it's not just because a website or an org said that's what you should think.

Now, back to the DRAMP.
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

User avatar
Sandcock
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2089
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:09 am
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Avacado Capital of the World

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Sandcock » Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:25 am

It is my understanding that the Dept. of the Interior has mandated the National Forests, BLM, et all that they implement a trail management plan (TMP). I watched a simulcast in DC with US senators, off-road advocates and environmental advocates present to discuss this issue. Forgive me because I can’t recall what committee it was and who was on it, but all advocates spoke their peace. It appears that some agencies are implementing the TMP while some are dragging their feet. I guess my question is: If this is being mandated and being implemented then why is S-2921 needed?

These statements concern me:
The CWC is the group has been taking the lead with Feinstein to write the language for this bill.
Per the CWC rep, approximately 50% of the trails/routes in these areas WILL BE CLOSED. Some will be legal trails/routes, but most will likely be trails/raoutes that were illegal to begin with.
Based on these two statements it is of my opinion that CWC and Senator Feinstein have an agenda that is questionable. However, if Senator Feinstein had garnered representation of various groups that represent the different uses of the desert to write the legislation then, IMO, it would give S-2921 more validity. My question is: Why didn’t Senator Feinstein employ advocates for the off-road community? Are they really considering the voices of the off-road community at these meetings or is this a ploy to say that they gave the public a chance to voice their ideas and concerns?

I spend about 50% of my riding recreation time at Ocotillo Wells. Those of you that have ridden the area know that it is pretty wide open. One can ride the thousands of trails and all of the washes. I’m starting to see trail markers and it has me wondering if at a point and time that it will be illegal to ride on trails that have not been marked, i.e. trails that have been deemed illegal by the agency and environmental groups (CWC). Who is defining what is legal and what is illegal? What are they determining factors as to what is a legal and illegal trail?

I realize that all areas are different and not all remedies can applied to all, but blanket legislation with to many interpretations may not work in the off-road communities best interests. I realize that there are many positions that one can take, e.g. fight the good fight, take what we can get, or not caring at all. Will we say that that this legislation gave us some crumbs and we are grateful?
There is already talk within the current administration to designate something like 13 million acres as national monuments in 11 western states.
The real egalitarians are not the people who want to redistribute wealth to the poor, but those who want to extend to the poor the ability to create their own wealth, to lift themselves up, instead of trying to tear others down. Earning respect, including self-respect, is better than being a parasite. Thomas Sowell

User avatar
Doc
Website Admin
Website Admin
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2000 9:42 pm

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Doc » Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:51 am

Sandcock

To answer a couple of your questions let explain why this legislation is necessary and why it came about.

First it is to protect areas from commercial development, namely wind and solar development. Much of these areas were purchased and donated to the government by environmental groups to preserve them from development. When the renewable energy companies started looking at these areas the groups that donated the land cried foul. They started work with the Senator to preserve these areas from commercial development.

They did involve many OHV groups. Representatives from ORBA and AMA D-37 have spent hundreds of hours with the Senator's staff, on the ground, identifying existing routes in these areas so they can be defined in the legislation. Many OHV groups decided not to participate with the Senators staff and decided to just oppose the legislation out of hand. Do the environmental groups like these routes being designated as open, no but the process requires that many different groups work together to keep commercial development from eating up many of these areas which WILL close these routes if allowed to proceed. As I mentioned in a post above I have directly asked developers of one of these solar plants, in the Imperial Valley, if they are doing anything to mitigate the loss of OHV routes in the area they are developing and they said no. So I'm very sure that if commercial development is not prohibited in these areas many existing OHV routes will be closed forever. While many may associated Senator Feinstein with closures of OHV areas they need to read this current legislation and try to perceive what will happen without this legislation.

jce12ga
4th Gear Member
4th Gear Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:04 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by jce12ga » Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:52 am

I would have serious reservations about supporting anything from Feinstein's office.
I would like to see a second reading of this bill in its entirety before it is submitted for vote.
It is a very common practice to garner support for a bill from potential opponents, change the language from first presented, and then make statements such as
" we had the support from (opposing group) or worked with ( opposing group) to make this work" and then changing the bills language.

Feinstein will work to support legislation that satisfies her core constituency and that majority does not routinely include the OHV community.

This has the very high probability of being nothing more than a "bait & switch" to get the OHV communities support.

Route designation is a joke. I have been to route designation meetings and marked maps for submission to the BLM and other agencies only to find routes of travel deliberately excluded on final approved maps. If the agency responsible doesn't have the time, money or other resources to verify routes they are left out of final maps. No route markings on final maps, no routes and considered closed.

Just look how upset Feinstein was when the CBD closed major parts of the ISDRA and other rec. areas.
Been to El Yeti lately?

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by L&L Corvairs » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:51 am

Well, folks, I admit, I haven’t had the time to go through the bill. So, in fairness, I won’t pass judgment on it until I have. I do have a lot of respect for Doc and the rest of the ASA leadership. They have put in more time, in the trenches, working on this stuff, then we ever will, beyond reading the legislation.

However, I will say that we are no better and in fact exactly like Daniel Patterson, Karan Schambach,, the CBD and PEER if we oppose something simply because it came from Feinstein or any other democrat. The fact is, Feinstein and Boxer are what we have, and what we have had and what we most likely will have well into the future.. There is a strong negative backlash at incumbents, especially liberal ones in the country right now. It is just as possible that Feinstein has recognized that the conservative, OHV community is now large enough and organized enough, and financed well enough to have a major effect on politics in this state and maybe nationally. So perhaps she realizes that she needs to work with us and support us as well. Not saying this is true, but it is a possibility amongst others. Three are first times for everything.

Agreed, the bill could change into something we can’t support prior to passage, but that would be true regardless of who wrote and sponsored it, Democrat or Republican. That has been my major argument with Mr. (Steve Kuhl) The Duck for several years now. He’s always argued that we should pursue having Glamis turned into a Congressionally Mandated OHV exclusive National Park. Here we have a piece of legislation that does just that in some areas of hard pack and he’s the first one to say NO. Makes me wonder about Mr Duck.

If it is changed into something we can't support, then we withdraw that support. But not supporting something becasue of the fear it might change is, IMO, stupid logic at best. Usinig that logic, nothing can ever be supported. So why bother? We just sit around and bemoan how horrible the political process and poiticitions are to us OHVers because the liberals are in the majority? And what was our excuse when the conservativs were in charge? Is this our excuse to sit on our butts and do nothing but whine for ever? Circular logic.

I digress. How about we evaluate the bill based on it’s merits, not on where it came from? Just because we don’t care for Feinstein, doesn’t mean she can’t create something we can support. Finally, our country IS founded on compromise. My guess is that the enviro’s don’t like this bill either. A really good compromise sends everyone away from the table feeling like they got something, but not everything.
Last edited by L&L Corvairs on Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

User avatar
BHenry
Bulletin Board Administrator
Bulletin Board Administrator
Posts: 2730
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 3:41 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Surface...err...Valley of the Sun

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by BHenry » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:20 am

Well stated Lloyd, and I think you put into words what Sloppy was saying a few months ago about supporting a bill from a known OHV unfriendly politician (which Feinstein has been in the past). I think if we can have Congressional protected Wilderness, then there is no reason why we can't have Congressional protected Recreation as well. This bill (which I have not read) could set a precedent for future protection of motorized access to OUR public lands.
I'll relinquish my right to ride when you relinquish your right to breathe
Bryan Henry
KG6OQD

User avatar
Woodglue
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6312
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:37 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Riverside Co, Ca.

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Woodglue » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:37 am

jce12ga wrote:I would have serious reservations about supporting anything from Feinstein's office.
[-X The bill should be considered for it's content, not it's source.
jce12ga wrote:This has the very high probability of being nothing more than a "bait & switch" to get the OHV communities support.
Good point, I see that that the ground work is already there for this to occur. Look at this:
The Bill Summary contains the following:
Section 1904: Prohibited uses of donated and acquired land.

Prohibits the use of donated or acquired lands for...off-highway vehicle use (except designated routes).
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make limited exceptions in cases where it is deemed in the public interest.
I ask, how often in the past has our sport been deemed to be included "in the public's interest"?

Of greater concern, the following is stated several times in the Bill Summary:
Permitted uses would be hiking, camping, mountain biking, sightseeing, hunting, off-highway vehicle use on designated routes and horseback riding. Prohibited uses would include new mining, permanent roads, commercial uses, or activities that would preclude the potential wilderness areas from becoming wilderness in the future.
How easy is it to suppliment this bill with the argument that OHV use is an 'Activity that precludes the area from becoming a wilderness in the future', therefore OHV use is a "Prohibited use"?

Both of these are statements (in the bill's "current form") that make reservations for future judgements to be passed against the OHV Community.
L&L Corvairs wrote:...But not supporting something becasue of the fear it might change is, IMO, stupid logic at best. Usinig that logic, nothing can ever be supported. So why bother? We just sit around and bemoan how horrible the political process and poiticitions are to us OHVers because the liberals are in the majority? And what was our excuse when the conservativs were in charge? Is this our excuse to sit on our butts and do nothing but whine for ever? Circular logic.
You're right, that would be "Stupid Logic". However, I am opposing the bill because of what I read in it's current form. It's the idea of what it can change into that is just downright scary. Just as the ASA can withdraw thier support if the bill changes, those on the opposing petition can do the same thing.

Something else that has boiled my noodle on this issue....
This bill is pertaining to Hard Pack areas. Yet, the American Sand Association is taking a position on it.
I get it, via EcoLogic we are helping our brothers & sisters at ORBA, AMA 37, etc. (Putting aside the fact that members of these Orgs are on the opposing petition). In turn, we should expect to see these guys helping the ISDRA community, on PMV issues, on DRAMP issues, BLM meetings, comment period, etc. Right?
If ever there was a time for ISDRA support, it is now!
My Avatar is BLM's DRAMP Proposed OHV Access under Alt #3.
Purple = Closed
Green = Open
IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?
More here

User avatar
Woodglue
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6312
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:37 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Riverside Co, Ca.

Re: Oppose S-2921 The California Desert Protection Act Of 2010

Post by Woodglue » Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:26 pm

Woodglue wrote:I get it, via EcoLogic we are helping our brothers & sisters at ORBA, AMA 37, etc. (Putting aside the fact that members of these Orgs are on the opposing petition). In turn, we should expect to see these guys helping the ISDRA community, on PMV issues, on DRAMP issues, BLM meetings, comment period, etc. Right?
If ever there was a time for ISDRA support, it is now!
For what it's worth, history shows that not all of the partner Orgs of EcoLogic are supporting the ISDRA issues. At least not applicable to the scoping of the RAMP. From Page A-2, of Appendix A from Vol2 of of the DRAMP:
Letters were received from the following clubs and organizations:
• American Sand Association
• Center For Biological Diversity
• EcoLogic
• R and R Duners Club
• SandEaters
• San Diego Off-Road Coalition
• United Desert Gateway
My Avatar is BLM's DRAMP Proposed OHV Access under Alt #3.
Purple = Closed
Green = Open
IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?
More here

Post Reply

Return to “Political Discussions Only”