CA Desert Riparian Policy Halted

[kcowyo]

A victory for off-roaders in CA, policy aimed at cutting funds for off-road recreation may not be implemented until full public process is completed -


BAKERSFIELD, CA (February 5, 2007) – On Friday, February 2, 2007, the off-highway vehicle (OHV) community won a victory over improper efforts to curb off-road recreation in California. The judge stated the California Off-Highway Motorized Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Commission may not implement its “Desert Riparian Policy” unless and until it develops formal rules defining the policy’s terms and scope. As currently drafted, the Policy would prohibit use of OHMVR grant funds for projects that allow OHV use in desert riparian areas. The Commission’s policy states that “Desert Riparian Areas” are any bed, bank or channel. If strictly interpreted this policy could have crippled funding in many areas where California families recreate on OHV’s.

Counsel for EcoLogic, David Hubbard, said he was very pleased with the Court’s ruling. “This could not have worked out better. We claimed from the beginning that the Desert Riparian Policy was jammed down our throats without public input, without adequate definitions, without evidence as to need, and without limits on its scope. The court has now leveled the playing field on these questions and forced the Commission to justify the policy in an open public debate. And if the rules adopted by the Commission would substantially damage funding for OHV projects in the desert, we will be back in front of the judge.”
EcoLogic Partners, Inc., along with five OHV groups – the San Diego Off-Road Coalition, the American Sand Association, the California Off-Road Vehicle Association, the Off-Road Business Association, and American Motorcyclists Association District 37 – sued the Commission last year over the policy, claiming that it conflicted with the text of the OHMVR Act itself.

At the February 2nd hearing the judge denied EcoLogic’s request to dissolve the Desert Riparian Policy outright, but he did rule that the current language of the policy is so vague that it could lead to interpretations inconsistent with the existing law. He also expressed concern that the Commission might adopt future policies, with broad language similar to that in the Desert Riparian Policy, which are designed to cut off funding for OHV projects in other areas of the state. When viewed cumulatively, such policies could effectively gut the OHVMR grant program. For these reasons, the Court instructed the OHMVR Commission and the OHVMR Division to develop workable definitions and rules that properly circumscribe the scope of the Desert Riparian Policy. This, said the Court, must be accomplished prior to implementation of the policy. Moreover, it must be done through an open public process. Then the rules must be reviewed and approved by an Administrative Law Panel. When asked how long the rule making process would take, counsel for the OHMVR Division estimated 18 months to 2 years. During that time, the Desert Riparian Policy will remain dormant and unenforceable.

Although the judge stopped short of telling the Commission what the rules should contain, he explained that the OHMVR Act was adopted to promote responsible OHV recreation, and any policy that retreats from that purpose, or operates in conflict with it, will be subject to legal challenge. He invited EcoLogic and the other OHV groups to participate in the rulemaking process, and to come back to court if the rules adopted by the Commission still create conflict with the text of the Act.

 

[DesertRose]

Hey KC - IMO this is not a victory for ATVs but a loss for the most special and rarest of all our desert habitats - riparian areas. I just got back from chasing a total bozo who was roaring up our wash on his ATV, trying to go through the desert to get around our no trespassing signs. He ripped up a bunch of grassland, and just tore off - and I watched a little herd of mule deer tearing off away from him.

This is just the kind of idiot that that law was intended to stop. I truly wish we'd pass something like that law here in AZ.

There are enough places for us to drive our vehicles and motorcycles without tearing up washes and creeks, and we need to stop these X#%# ATVs which are multiplying by the day.

I realize the wording of the CA act was too vague - but dangit, it's these bozos faults and I really could care less about them! No ifs, ands or buts - these guys are disturbing wildlife and wrecking habitat by driving in places they have business driving.

End. of. Rant.

 

[kcowyo]

Rant away Roseann.

I just copied and pasted to share info. None of my own thoughts or words are included in the original post.

I do enjoy it when you get the potty mouth filter revved up though -

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Yeah, when Roseann types "bozo," it's pretty easy to figure out what she's really thinking.

I have to admit that this policy as written sounded dangerously ambiguous, and I blame the people behind it for quite possibly doing that intentionally. Nothing says environmentalists can't be devious. And selfish.

Nevertheless, riparian areas - especially in arid regions - no, everywhere, dammit - are among the most rare and delicate habitats on public land. They deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to use and abuse. Always. I'm with Roseann that these ATVers can get off their fat asses and walk through the riparian area if they're so intent on going there.

"Ecologic?" Give me a break. Ever noticed that only the solipsistic "me-first" groups have to use euphemistic names for their organizations? I'd have more respect for a group called "We're Too Fat to Walk and We Wanna Ride Everywhere."

There - that's my rant.

 

[DesertRose]

Afraid there are 2 things that really set me off and that I won't back down on (only 2 you say!?):

People ripping up or disturbing habitat that is so rare as to be vanishing from this planet (more than 97% of all our desert riparian areas are gone, en toto, poof! forever already)

and

When a bartender asks me if I want a beer chaser with my 12-year-old Balvenie double-cask.

 

[Ursidae69]

I wonder if these riparian areas being argued about have cows in them. Arguably, uncontrolled grazing in desert riparian areas is much more destructive than ATVs.

 

[devinsixtyseven]

This is why Salt Creek was shut to OHV travel. Sunday, Katie and I drove out to Chicken Corners...beautiful drive, except for the Bud Lite cans now sitting in my trash bin at home. If DR only called the can tossers "bozos", she'd be the good cop. I feel a little less polite. Thank goodness those "bozos" can't trash up a place like Salt Creek.

How do you restrict people, not vehicles? I know of no "stupidity filter."

Restricting an item (ATVs, motos, MTBs, pogo sticks) isn't fair in my opinion, since it unfairly groups all owners with the most egregious offenders. That's why management organizations need such big enforcement budgets, but proposed measures shouldn't be written so openly...if "riparian areas" were described as they are in the original proposal and enforced to the letter, the result I'm sure would be closure of many "overland" trails, if the trails they refer to are anything like Utah. I agree with the court's decision to stay the measure and suggest an inclusive means to an alternative...hopefully both sides will be reasonable (likely story). The trick is educating OHV users and finding time and money to pursue and prosecute the irresponsible ones like DR was chasing the other day...and to educate ecolitigators that not all OHV users have forked tongues and pointy tails.

It takes trust from everyone--realization and agreement that responsible OHV users and environmental lawsuit groups both seek preservation of natural resources, acceptance from the overly litigous eco groups that there will always be criminals but most people are not, and a promise that OHV users will actively educate each other and self-police their community to minimize the load on land management organizations.

I would also like a million dollars and a pony.

-Sean

 

[Pskhaat]

uncontrolled grazing in desert riparian areas is much more destructive than ATVs.

I'm thankful you've brought this up. Cattle being non-native species visibly destroy the desert, or the steppe plains, et al. Just look at the difference between fenced lands for grazing and the land just on the other side. It's quite a difference.

Ranchers and our public policy to help them by allowing massive grazing needs to be examined. Getting bison to range again in cattle's stead is a good step IMO.

 

[DesertRose]

This is why Salt Creek was shut to OHV travel. Sunday, Katie and I drove out to Chicken Corners...beautiful drive, except for the Bud Lite cans now sitting in my trash bin at home. If DR only called the can tossers "bozos", she'd be the good cop. I feel a little less polite. Thank goodness those "bozos" can't trash up a place like Salt Creek.

How do you restrict people, not vehicles? I know of no "stupidity filter."

Restricting an item (ATVs, motos, MTBs, pogo sticks) isn't fair in my opinion, since it unfairly groups all owners with the most egregious offenders. That's why management organizations need such big enforcement budgets, but proposed measures shouldn't be written so openly...if "riparian areas" were described as they are in the original proposal and enforced to the letter, the result I'm sure would be closure of many "overland" trails, if the trails they refer to are anything like Utah. I agree with the court's decision to stay the measure and suggest an inclusive means to an alternative...hopefully both sides will be reasonable (likely story). The trick is educating OHV users and finding time and money to pursue and prosecute the irresponsible ones like DR was chasing the other day...and to educate ecolitigators that not all OHV users have forked tongues and pointy tails.

It takes trust from everyone--realization and agreement that responsible OHV users and environmental lawsuit groups both seek preservation of natural resources, acceptance from the overly litigous eco groups that there will always be criminals but most people are not, and a promise that OHV users will actively educate each other and self-police their community to minimize the load on land management organizations.

I would also like a million dollars and a pony.

-Sean

Amen, Sean - you said this so well (much better than my childish rant).

Thank you.

 

[DesertRose]

Cattle being non-native species visibly destroy the desert, or the steppe plains, et al. Just look at the difference between fenced lands for grazing and the land just on the other side. It's quite a difference. Ranchers and our public policy to help them by allowing massive grazing needs to be examined. Getting bison to range again in cattle's stead is a good step IMO.

Hey Scott, a note of clarification. It's the fencing patterns and overuse, not the animal - bison, cattle, makes no difference to the grass or browse. When herd animals can move naturally to areas with sufficient food, the landscape is much healthier. When forced into too-small areas by arbitrary fences, this causes overgrazing. It's the same everywhere - even in Africa, where cattle, like bison, are native and where they live amongst huge herds of other herbivores like wildebeests. The difference is they all - wildlife, and cattle - move widely following rains and forage. Now that the government is forcing people like Maasai to settle down and put up fences, - guess what? overgrazing and all the bad stuff that goes with it, including localized drought caused by desertification.

Grasslands need grazers to be healthy. Look at some of the ungrazed landscapes around here - like Buenos Aires NWR - which is very poor indeed in terms of bio-health and diversity.

It's too complex an issue to pin it on ranchers - that's not fair, I think. There are good ranchers and bad ones just like there are good ATVers and bad ones.

Like Sean says, too bad we can't regulate for stupidity!

 

[Pskhaat]

not the animal - bison, cattle, makes no difference to the grass

Hmm, I've actually read a number of articles discussing the viability of bison and their feeding patterns in North America vs cattle. For instance, bison don't eat the grasses to the roots, and though they naturally take more acres per pound of meat, the total environmental cost is forecast to be less.

When forced into too-small areas by arbitrary fences, this causes overgrazing.

There's no doubt of that of course. I'm referring to large BLM plots, how many cattle per hectare/acre I have no idea.

It's too complex an issue to pin it on ranchers - that's not fair, I think. There are good ranchers and bad ones just like there are good ATVers and bad ones.

Okay, maybe not fair and I'll rescend the pointed statement.

Well, to throw some batteries into the fire, I have yet to meet a responsible ATV'r, I know they're out there, but havn't yet met one. As per ranchers? I believe in aggregate, like farmers, they've been allocated more than a fair share of public subsidy be that grazing land or federal insurance claims. The ranchers I know (mainly Wyoming) believe it's their American right to graze their cattle on public lands and balk at those who wish to cross those same lands.

Please, oh please tell me otherwise!!!

 

[Ursidae69]

I disagree to some extent Roseann. In the southwest deserts, the grasslands didn't evolve with large grazers. How long has it been since a large herbivore, bigger than a pronghorn roamed Buenos Aires? The grasslands at Buenos Aires are in poor shape because they were over-grazed by cattle-growers in the 1900s, that allowed the mesquite to encroach into the grasslands. That is what hurts the diversity there now. It's now one large monoculture of Lehmann's lovegrass, an exotic planted by the government to stop erosion from the overgrazing years ago.

Most of the native fishes in the southwest are extinct or are going extinct now due to, in large part, cattle. They erode the stream channels, changing the dynamics of the flow. This widens the channel, reducing the flow and increases the water temps, so the fish that evolved in narrow fast running streams can't survive. That opens the streams up for exotics to move in. One of the only reaches of desert river that still has native species in it is in Aravaipa Canyon, no cows there.

Another ill we can thank cattle growers for is the introduction of salt cedar. The Department of Agriculture, at the behest of cattle growers wanting more cover for their animals, introduced this exotic on the early 1900s and a hundred years later it is ubiquitous on every river in the southwest, pushing out the native cottonwood-willow associations by changing the soil salinity.

Ranching in the southwestern deserts can work if the herd sizes are strictly controlled, but that affects profits in a business with an already tight profit margin. Most cattle growers on public land will simply go out of business if they can't exploit the riparian areas, that is the sad truth. I am encouraged by groups like Malpai and Quivera and hope more progress can be made, but in the meantime they need to get cattle out of riparian areas and springs for good (in the SW). If they are going to make it where I can't drive my truck across a stream, there better not be any cows walking in it either.
:mixed-smiley-030:

I don't feel left out now, everyone was ranting in this thread so I thought I'd throw mine in.