On Topic BLM on OHVs

Dave Cole 4454

KING MAKER
Posts
549
Reaction
3,525
I didnt read much of the report but enough to get the direction it was leaning. On the upside, that report is 12 years old. If it was impactful and had merit we would have seen more of the same rhetoric.
 
Posts
16,402
Reaction
3,523
We have, Dave. Examine the TMP's BLM has released since that was published. Look beyond CA when you do so. :(
 

Bro_Gill

Well-Known Member
Posts
12,436
Reaction
7,518
I dealt with some of the reports that feed this report from the WEMO and NEMO studies from 2000 to 2002. The vast majority of the information used at that time was that Off Road activity was a net negative to the environment and the lands. Period. While sitting on the committee, I was witness to what the Sierra Club and all the other major players were trying to do- END COMPETITIVE MOTORSPORTS on Gov't controlled land. Period. They were willing to allow limited use in many areas (read that as, street legal vehicles on designated trails only) and were willing to keep the very same Open OHV areas we had then (with some cutting of acreage) but would limit ALL vehicle travel to a max speed of 35mpg MAXIMUM in the name of dust control and eliminate ALL competitive motor vehicle activity in those open areas. There were many things they did that massively reduced the limited use areas as well, like eliminate many trails that started and finished in the same places as they stated there was no need for 'duplicate routes'. That is why we currently have so few trails that cross the Mohave from West to East. They allowed some historic routes to remain while eliminating many others that traveled through desired location, but, when topography dictated pinch points (like mountain passes), they used those to show duplication of route and had the not as popular routes eliminated. All we are seeing now is what transpired in 2000-2002, but was never put into actual practice because the minute the final plan was on paper, the enviro groups sued to stop its implementation and held it up in court until Bush was out and Obama was in and that meant a whole new regime from the enviro side. In the end, all this plan is is more of the same, more Wilderness and limited access that used to be limited access and open. We lose but we keep telling ourselves we win because they threw in the open areas are still open areas. And don't kid yourselves, What Congress and the Senate do they can undo, so don't even think that the guaranty that the designation of a new federal OHV Lands designation means it will never change. Look what the Solar Industry has done to lands that aren't suppose to be developed.
 

Fourstroker

Well-Known Member
Posts
4,967
Reaction
1,179
Agree with Bro_Gill says. Only true gain I can see is them giving back 30000 acres in Spangler. That will reopen some of the coolest trails in the area.
 
Top