Inyo County under attack

[Bro_Gill]

So, on Flag Day, PEER and the CBD decided to file a lawsuit to stop Inyo County from asserting it's RS2477 rights. Quick deal of 2477, it allows a county to keep possession and maintain roads that pass through federal land areas like parks and monuments if the roads were built and/or being maintained by the county prior to 1976. If the county states they are keeping the road, then the Feds cannot close the road to public use.

Inyo County has been implementing a program that allows some public roads to be used as connectors between OHV access points throughout the county to maintain continuity and promote proper access and use of OHVs. Because some of these roads traverse Death Valley National Monument, of course the green groups are opposed to any OHV access, even on County Roads. They have filed suit to stop Inyo County's designation for multi-access on county roads saying it will have a negative environmental impact. OHVs would be allowed to use these roads only after following all proper street licensed vehicles regulations such as speed limits and safe driving practices.

[SPONSOR]

Membership in the largest desert racing community has its advantages - Participate in Forum Discussions - Send and Receive Private Messages - Maintain Public Photo Albums - Access to Groups - User Profile in our Social Network - Increased Access to more Sub Forums - Reduced Online Advertisements Join our community today

[coilover88]

It seems that RS2477 is being ignored more frequently, in more places, by more agencies. It amazes me how many laws, rules, etc are thrown over by big gov't when they become an inconvenient problem for the "progressive" members of our society.

[inyonative]

OHVs would be allowed to use these roads only after following all proper street licensed vehicles regulations such as speed limits and safe driving practices

and what you want to do will be limited by following those rules?

[inyonative]

I see what you mean now, Gill. OHV would be allowed on RS2477 in DV but PEER doesn't even want them if even if they follow the rules.

The new Inyo county trails program is being tried out because at present there is so much scofflaw usage of any and all roads and trails not meant for motorized rec that the authorities are overwhelmed, The thought is (and this was supported by Friends of Inyo) that if there are more trails open to motorized use that riders will be compliant and stay off routes in sensitive areas.

ROTFLMAO!

[Bro_Gill]

Inyo- The problem, as it has happened on just about all federal forests and BLM land is, loss of connectivity. In the firest I live in, we had an OHV route that almost connected between the Cleghorn on I-15 and Pioneer Town down in Yucca Valley. That was suppose to be the goal. Over the last 15 years, not only has the route not been completed, but it has been butchered into little 2-5 mile sections with the connectors closed to OHV use. So now, instead of off loading your OHV at the staging area at Cactus Flats and riding west to Arrowhead, as you used to be able to do, you can't even go west, only east, to a few miles short of Pioneer Town in the middle of no where, then turn around. If you want to take an OHV on John Bull trail, you have to trailer it all the way to the trail rather than off loading at the staging area and driving it there. Contrary to your misguided belief, most OHV users aren't out there just to destroy the land and leave barren waste behind as you wish to depict us. Many of us like to use our OHVs to go somewhere or travel to see the surroundings, not simply to burn gas. Your comment about sensitive areas in non-sensical- to you, every area IS sensitive and OHVs should be allowed anywhere. I can agree that there are areas I do not believe OHVs should not travel on, but it does not include EVERY AREA.

[inyonative]

here's the whole story:

"

Lawsuit Filed Challenging Plan to Allow ORVs on Inyo County Roads INDEPENDENCE, Calif.— The Center for Biological Diversity and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility took action today to hold Inyo County accountable to adequately review the environmental impacts of an ill-conceived pilot project to allow off-road vehicles to use county roads. In a lawsuit filed in California Superior Court today, the two conservation organizations challenged the county’s recent approval of a procedure that would allow non-street-legal vehicles to use county roads without the environmental review required by California law.
The Inyo County Board of Supervisors’ action would allow all terrain vehicles, dirt bikes and other “greensticker” vehicles to use the same roadways as street-legal vehicles. “Greensticker” vehicles are not required to comply with emissions, noise and safety standards (e.g. lights and turn signals) required for street legal vehicles, and are not required to carry insurance. In addition to the obvious risk to human life and limb, increasing access for off-road riders, known to venture off roads and trails, also threatens the numerous sensitive plants and wildlife that call Inyo County home, and exposes residents to chronic noise and harmful particulate matter.

“Inyo County is setting up a wreck,” said Ileene Anderson, desert program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The county is home to so many threatened and endangered species that could be hurt by expanded ORV use — on both public and private lands. The county needs to figure out how to protect these resources, as well as public health, before it approves this new use of county roads.”

The plan’s poor-quality environmental review did not even attempt to identify and analyze the impacts of the countywide program, which is designed to expand off-road vehicle use in many sensitive areas and areas that have been restored for rare species.

“Inyo County has approached this proposal with blinders on,” said Karen Schambach, California director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “It’s too bad they have to be litigated into environmental review, but they are ignoring their responsibility to their own citizens, as well as to the natural resources that make Inyo County a destination for many kinds of outdoor-based recreation besides ORVs.”



Gill--as I stated above riders do not follow any rules in Inyo county. They stage in county camping parks and ride on hiking trails to the top of the Sierras and back in 45 min. Something was going to be done.

[Bro_Gill]

And as usual, Inyo, you are making an argument that isn't rellevent! Illegal riding and legal riding are 2 different things. And I really fail to see how allowing OHV to travel on County Roads is going to damage anything new. OHV or street legal, the impact is the same to the road. Your bias against OHV use has blinded you to reason. If you support PEER and the CBD in this issue, itis because you will support them in every endeavor they take on, and not because of teh substance of their cause. Call it blind faith, but on you, it is perfectly visible.

[CraigMT]

Bro_Gill,

Dont bother trying to reason with that screwball. Facts don't enter into his arguements, he just wants anything to do with motorsports shut out.

[inyonative]

Bro_Gill,

Dont bother trying to reason with that screwball. Facts don't enter into his arguements, he just wants anything to do with motorsports shut out.

I pointed out facts. read above June 16. Gill gives some good reasons. could be we are talking apples and oranges. Doesn't change the truth of the facts I have reported.

[inyonative]

"OHV or street legal, the impact is the same to the road." by Brogill


I think that statement could be argued. street legal vechicles have lic plates and insurance. They are less likely to be driven off of legal routes.