New BLM Rules

MARK

Well-Known Member
Posts
172
Reaction
1
Lets see, I have a green sticker on my bike to ride in the dirt. I live in Pismo and have a pass to drive or ride on the beach, and to ride in the hills 40 mins. away i must have an adventure pass. Now i must have a pass to go to the desert. where does it stop? In the last 15 years half of the trails in Pozo (where i ride the most) have been closed, and all but a few have been widened for quads which make them too easy for bikes. In Pismo, you once could drive and ride all the way to Point Sal, now you only get to ride on a postage stamp size area of the dunes. The only money I have seen spent from the adventure pass is to pay a ranger too make sure you have your 2 passes. he,s a nice guy but must do his job. I guess what im trying to say is we pay more and get less!!
MARK
 

jimpat

Well-Known Member
Posts
942
Reaction
50
some time ago the mayor of San Diego promised off roaders that if we supported him in the upcoming governor elections he would be all for off roading...
We helped elect him and helped him kick us on the ass......
I dont trust lawyers, politicians and Indian chiefs
jim
 

EQuin

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,276
Reaction
16
The Boston Tea Party was a form of protest over England's policy of taxation without representation. Our Colonial ancestors were being taxed without having a say in it, while their counterparts in England, who were also being taxed, at least were represented and had a say in the matter. That's where the whole "no taxation without representation" phrase comes from.

But Klaus is absolutely right. The desert racing community does not get sufficiently involved in the rule-making process.

Each and every federal regulation on the books today had to undergo a public comment period. The law (Administrative Procedure Act) REQUIRES a PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD whenever a regulation is proposed. But the public is NOT REQUIRED to comment on a proposed regulation if it does not want to. So when a rule is proposed, and no one comments on it, then it becomes an official regulation.

There are a couple of instances, though, when a regulation is unlawful. One instance is when it is an unlawful delegation of Congressional authority. The other instance is when it is an unlawful exercise of delegated authority.

The way it works is that our representatives in Congress pass a law that orders a federal agency to implement it. For instance, the law may say that the lands of the United States must be properly managed and maintained in trust for the public. It then says who is going to maintain and manage it which, in some cases, could be the BLM, the Forest Service, the Park Service, etc. The law goes further by requiring the agency in question to promulgate rules and regulations governing the maintenance and management of the land in question. This is called "delegated authority." Congress delegates its authority to an agency (the executive branch currently run by Bush) to come up with the detailed particulars of land management because it is too busy with more important matters, like international trade acts, ratification of treaties, interstate commerce and stuff like that to be bothered with the minute details of the day-to-day implementation of land management.

The BLM then proposes rules, not because it wants to, but because Congress required it to. Believe me, drafting regulations is no fun task. It's a tedious, hand-wringing, thankless process done by underpaid federal employees stuck in small, drab cubicles with bad lighting and terrible air conditioning in the crime-ridden, overly priced town of Washington, D.C. But I digress. Once a rule is proposed, it is then published in the Federal Register for the public to comment on it. After that, it's up to the public to provide its comments on the proposed rule expaining what's wrong with it, or what should be changed about it, or what other factors should be considered. The agency must then consider and respond to the comments. It can make changes to the proposed rule, ignore the comments if they're off-the-wall, or scrap the rule altogether and start again.

So no, the rules are not promulgated ("passed" would be the wrong word, because only Congress "passes" laws, whereas agencies "promulgate" regulations as required by Congress) without giving the public a say.

Just thought I'd humbly try to clarify the process a bit.
 

drtdevil93

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,769
Reaction
11
and what about presidential executive orders, national secutity council memos, national security decision directives, and national security directives? these are examples of the executive branch writing laws without the consent of congress or the people. the presidential executive orders are printed in the federal register or sometimes Presidential Findings which are known to congress. the presidential executive orders go into effect without any oversight whatsoever. where is this provided for in the constitution? it clearly prohibits such a thing.

erik

"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson
 

EQuin

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,276
Reaction
16
Hmm. I believe the original post is about a BLM regulation that affects the public's use of land (no pallet burning, and a permit required to take pics for profit). I don't believe the activities are governed by any executive order or national security directive.

Either way, you're absolutely right about their issuance. Neither receive any public comment whatsoever, although executive orders are required to be published in the Federal Register upon their issuance.

An executive order is more akin to an employer's memo on how a business operates, or how it is to be managed. Here is a link to a good description of an executive order - http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/ .

Despite the lack of public participation in preparing and issuing executive orders, the President does have the Constitutional authority to issue them as part of his inherent power to manage, or supervise, if you will, the executive branch and its functions. Some argue that the first executive order, which was more of a proclamation, was issued by George Washington in October, 1789. In that order, Washington established our Thanksgiving holiday, as requested by a Congressional committee.

Here's a link to an example of a recent executive order issued by Bush - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030620.html . This executive order simply says which agency will be responsible for implementing a certain environmental law passed by Congress. The law in question gives "the President" the authority to respond to a release of a hazardous substance. Since the President cannot obviously respond personally to a release of a hazardous substance, an executive order is issued delegating that authority to the various agency heads within the executive branch to do so.

If, for example, an executive order is issued that exceeds the President's Constitutional authority, then one of two things can happen. Congress (who really rules the roost) can simply pass a law disallowing it, or it can decide not to appropriate any funds to the agency implementing the executive order. In fact, Congress has already passed a law regulating the issuance of executive orders (The Federal Register Act of 1935). Or the federal courts can rule it unconstitutional, as they have done on several occasions in the past.

Probably the most profound executive order is E.O. 9066, issued in February, 1942 by Roosevelt. The order required the internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII. This is arguably the most controversial executive order issued under the President's Constitutional authority under national emergency situations.

As for national security directives, they are issued in a similar manner as executive orders. These are orders documenting the President's policy on various national security issues, such as foreign intelligence, arms control, and military implementation strategies. We need them to keep our nation safe and secure from our enemies who want to see our country and way of life (including our passion for desert racing) disappear.

But you're right, we the public have no say whatsoever in their issuance. Again, Congress can blast them out of the water if it so chooses, either by passing a law disallowing it, or letting it die an agonizing death by not appropriating any funds for it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a little perturbed by the BLM requirement for a permit to take photos or film a race, even if it applies only to profit-making ventures. But the point I'm trying to make is that this requirement (assuming it's a bona-fide regulation found in the Code of Federal Regulations) could have received my humble opinion in the public comment period had I been checking the Federal Register and been less apathetic.
 

drtdevil93

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,769
Reaction
11
congress can blow any executive order out? are you familiar with senate bill 2834 (title VII)? look in to it.

erik
 

drtdevil93

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,769
Reaction
11
this has gotten way off topic. i can discuss it privately with anyone that wants, but where this conversation has gone belongs where it is, partly (maybe mostly) my fault.

anyone know where fish's baseball is?

erik
 

martininsocal

Well-Known Member
Posts
22,828
Reaction
5
Man- I go on vacation for a few days...

Ok- The Demo fees at Glamis were exactly that, a Demonstration fee program to show that user derived fees could be used to fund the work required to maintian the area in which the fees are in place. Same with the Forest Adventure Pass. When they started the Glamis Pay to Play permits, they were very forward that they would eventually apply this idea to all recreation areas on federal lands. This is not new, althoughthe price us quite a bithigher than they had said it would be. I would exoect it to beno more than the current 35 dollars they charge for the annual passes on forests. Don't be fooled and lied to about your green sticker funds. Glamis, Stoddard, Johnson, Mirage, etc... all geceive OHV Grant money from the Green Sticker fund to pay for things like porta potties, dumpsters, Law enforcement, etc... to the tune of millions of dollars a year. Here is the current catch- the OHV commission is made up of appointed folks by the Gov and the States legislators. There is currently a PRO Green majority on this panel because of all the pro-green commie bastard legistlators who are owned by the Sierra Club et al... who have been denying the grant monies to pay for the grants applied for by the federal agencies. Theye did this with the Snow Mobile G grooming this last winter and they have done it recently with Glamis for a law enforcement grant. Their idea is that if they don't fund the programs, we will hang ourselves.

As to how much would it cost? Well, I have been tracking the sales of the privateparcels of land that exist inside the Stoddard and Johnson Valley open areas that sell at auction. Small parcels run about 500 bucks an acre and large parcels go for as little as 40 bucks an acre. There has been discussions on here before about buying up land to build "private" off road parks and this is infact the norm on the east coast. Cal City is one are that has been under consideration. I have been looking in Barstow and Lucerne, epecially because I don't want the econazis to buy up a chunk of land in teh open areas and close up out and then complain for a buffer zone because of the noise we make or worse, a speed limit to reduce dust. Some of us to keep on top of this stuff, but the numbers are dismall considering how many actually go to races.

I won't complain about the need for trained first responders out on the course and I sure won't whine aboutthe loss of pallets, they are nothing but a pain. Eric- just pull the nails prior to taking them out to the dez, then they are fire wood!

For those who want to get involved, there are groups that represent your interests in the dez. CORVA and Blue Ribbon are 2 of the best and you can bet they won't let this pass without some effort to change the rules. I have complained about the forced course rule to the folks atteh BLM office. Their answer? None of the promoters care or even comment on this stuff. They don't represent themselves at the WEMO meetings and they don't write letters. It is just casual complaints from people like me, Paige, Tim, etc...that they catch. Many of them don't think the same course thing will work over time either and they point to the Hodge Road area as proof of what will happen if grooming doesn't occur.

I guess it all boils down to this, we have to be our own keepers and providers in this sport. We are not going to receiev outside help. If we want to continue to play in the desert, we are goingto have to police ourselves, clean up after ourselves, and lastly, pay to play. Because of this, I think it wil be reasonable to make some demands from the other side, like applying our land use fees as we see fit.
 

Desert_Roller

Well-Known Member
Posts
850
Reaction
18
Wednesday night is your chance to hear what is happening in the desert straight from the BLM. Mike Ahrens, the OHV Program Coordinator from the Barstow field office will be out guest speaker at the F.A.I.R. meeting August 6th at 8:00pm.

Fullerton Radisson 222 West Houston Avenue 91 frwy @ Harbor Boulevard.

Meetings are open to the public, come on out and meet some of the fastest drivers and pit crews in the sport.

Tom Sobray
F.A.I.R. President
www.fairpits.com
 
Top