Access by means someone else is dictating. For the most part the restrictions don't close land permanently just as long as you jump the barriers put up, so the point is agreed that they haven't completely eliminated access.
Sure. It's an old game used to get the desired result. "We won't ban use on this lake by jet skis, but we do require a $1,000,000 insurance policy for jet ski use."
So I'll make one argument to the point that nuanced details like how you use your public lands is preferential. When roads and trails are made off limits to technology like vehicles you raise the bar for gaining access very high and so defacto you close a great deal of land. What used to take hours to see now will take days and weeks.
Unless you're on a horse or raft. Then you get essentially a private playground at the taxpayer's expense.
True. I think many of the overuse issues should be addressed by permits instead of closures, just like backpacking permits. At some point, an area can't bear the load, but that doesn't mean it's necessary to ban a particular mode of transportation. The sad truth is that it's easier to just say no than it is to develop and implement a usage plan. Horse & raft generally get a pass for now, but that could easily change.
So does the government work for us or do we work for them? I was under the belief that our system of government is supposed to implement our desire. That 9th Circuit ruling seems to agree that if The People want to use their collectively owned land (in that case perhaps a public park) in a particular way the government must accommodate it.
The key aspect of your statement is "our desire". These use issues are rarely one sided, whether it be OHV use of Pismo, or people that live on public sidewalks.
That 9th Circuit ruling is being applied to all public spaces, not just parks, which is why people are being allowed to live on any public property they want. The flip side to that is there are plenty of people that don't want that to occur on the public property that
they have rights to access, too.
The end result is chaos. Frankly, I can see it being used to justify access to Pismo for OHV use, since it's public land, right?
They are more organized without a doubt. I also agree that with a right comes responsibility. I don't like jerks any more than the most anti-OHV environmentalist. We do definitely bring on the pain ourselves. I mean that collectively, meaning a yahoo side-by-side must necessarily be inclusive of the most lightest Tread'er, since splintering is politically worse than throwing one user group under the bus. But unfortunately the self policing must do just that. If they can't play nice then what alternative is there?
I have no solution for the Jerk Factor in public spaces. At least permits would theoretically limit the overall concentration of jerks at any given moment.
The problem is that the simple act of being there is offensive. There is no acceptable use low enough impact that will assuage the opponent other than being strictly limited to a few corridors and locations. Yet the dunes have been there for eons and have been driven upon for decades. They were vehicles using the dunes before there were houses around it. So couldn't the argument be having houses is infringing on the users there first?
I get that, but as I'm sure you know, it's a losing argument. The people live there now, and they aren't going away just so some sand rails can fly over the dunes.
Of course the argument is the flora and fauna were there before people, so humans being anywhere is a challenge to what was there earlier. But that's a circular existential argument because the ecosystem is always changing, so it must be limited to human interactions with each other, especially in this case because to be logically consistent if vehicles are bad then surely houses, streets, power lines and commuter are worse for the wildlife and environment, right? So shouldn't the opponents using "environment" as justification be tearing down their houses, too? Oh no, we're "enlightened" so the footprints we leave while living are less damaging than yours.
So I don't think we can't keep losing access and I don't see any measured improvement keeping, much less re-opening, anything. Why must we -always- lose access. It's not just OHVs, mountain bikes are more popular than ever yet we're funneled onto fewer trails with predictable results, more wear and damage. At which point the anti-MTB forces highlight the wear and damage as justification for more closures. It's a spiral that will only end when only approved uses (as decided by who?) are permitted. That's what I see as the end goal, hundreds of millions of acres left reserved for only those wealthy enough to afford weeks of off time to spend walking in the woods.
We don't have to, and we shouldn't be losing access at such an alarming rate. You're absolutely right about people not giving an inch on their position on either side, which means that the numbers will always favour the people pushing for closures. That's clearly their goal, and they have the momentum, public support, funding, and political clout to make it happen.
Unfortunately, it's taken decades to get to such a state of polarization, and like other topics, it's hard to reach a point of moderation. I know it feels good for OHVers to
trash the opposition and dig into their positions, but that's guaranteed to lose more ground. Better to engage with the opposition and let them expose themselves as the extremists they are than to play into the stereotypes they use to characterize every OHV operator.