Court order closes 42+ trails in the El Doradao National Forest (US - Sierra Nevadas)

[ScoutII]

OK I figured I should post something that affects Arizona so it closer to your home.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/jaguar-03-16-2010.html
This is for 50 million acres or critical habitat. Remember it's 640 acres per sq mile

Here is the map from there web site.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/jaguar/pdfs/Jaguar_critical_habitat.jpg

Just what is a critical habitat
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/docs/esa_references/critical_habitat.pdf

No this does not affect private land yet, meaning if you own the land you will still have access to it, but it does affect all federal land.

So if you look at each state and put all these maps together you will see a trend, and that is most of the US public lands will be off limits to the public.

So what is the CBD doing? They are using the endanger specs act to close access to federal lands.
No they are not closing all access as that would be a tough sale, so they take what the can get in steps, like 50 million acres. Once marked critical habitat they will then sue to close each and every off road access.
Even if those roads have been there a 100 years.

 

[FishPOET]

http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article/environmental-author-exposes-green-movements-excess

This link will allow you to open or save a Word document
Tom Knudson article in the Sac Bee

Not sure how anyone who has claims to enjoy backcountry motorized recreation and has actually taken the time to study the truth could possibly be a CBD apologist?

 

[craig333]

"It's important to voice concerns about losing access. But here's one thing I can tell you as a former insider....the crazy talk does not help the argument. At best, it gives the decison makers something fun to talk about around the water cooler...at worst it ruins what could be a valid point".

I have to agree with you about the crazy talk but to think it only comes from one side is, well crazy. http://stopthrillcraft.org/kind.htm

 

[agavelvr]

That's why 4x4 clubs do trail clean ups, volunteer to help maintain the trails. How many of these environmentalist groups go and spend all day cleaning up someone else's trash? The only thing I've seen environmentalist do is protest, take pictures of trash, and leave their protest signs in a heap pouring out of a trash can that was meant for all there crap.

I actually know a lot environmentalist that do a lot more than one day volunteer trash clean ups. The Sierra Club has a pretty extensive working vacation programs where people spend days to weeks working on projects such as trail maintenance, habitat restoration, and cleanups. The participants even pay for the priviledge to do so. Huge sections of the Arizona Trail were either built or maintained by people who would consider themselves environmentalists and sportsmen alike...many of them even own 4x4's

Bottom line is, there are good and bad people in all recreational and political persuits. The good people are solving problems that the bad create. Problem is, one rougue OHV causes a lot more damage than say one bad hiker. It's pretty easy to point at the damage left by motorized yahoos and thier culture. I guess that's why we have to be held to a higher standard. Anyhow, I agree with pretty much everything else you said.

 

[HillbillyfromAL]

Well I'm glad that there are some are out there doing something productive, but I've never witnessed it for myself. I have been on a trail cleanup in south GA where an enviromentalist group came and protested at our clean up and left there signs laying all around when they left. Apparently they bought extra large poster boards for the occasion and the guy with the truck that brought them there left early.
I totally agree there are good and bad people in every group, club, organization, and so on. Unfortunately when you encounter the bad its easy to blanket the rest of them in the same group. I do think if everyone would take the time to appreciate their differences instead of trying to convert people to their way of thinking we'd all get alot farther.

 

[Clutch]

Ever notice that everyone has animosity towards everyone else...

..we just kinda or tolerate each other "barely"

Riddle me this...why are environmentslist so against erosion...I mean look at what the Colorado River has done to the poor Grand Canyon Plateau, that USED a quite lovely place to visit. Now it is just a big hole in the ground. Oh the humanity!

Heck, the Earth itself is the biggest cause of erosion...they should ban Mother Nature....she is destroying this place as I type this....can't we end the madness.

 

[FishPOET]

This was a pretty funny thread to read thru. Personally, I find the greater OHV community's idea of what is and is not environmental damage is pretty ridiculous personally. The only loss in temporarily closing an area is personal recreation, which does not rank very high in the heirarchy of needs IMHO. If the closure is done justly in the name of watershed, wildlife, or soil conservation...I'm okay with that. I don't mind parking my truck or motorcycle in favor of keeping areas protected for the greater good and long term ecosystem health. Yeah, I realize this is not a popular opinion to have on this site

I have a few problems with this point of view. For one, these closures are frequently temporary in name only. Here's a link to a notice of extension of a "temporary" closure in the Angeles National Forest. This closure has been in effect since 2005, supposedly to protect "critical" yellow legged frog habitat. It represents the total closure of 1000 acres, about 1.6 square miles. There is no human access allowed in this area. So, point one, temporary isn't always what it appears.

My second problem is that I don't see any effort to analyze the issue from a balanced perspective. I understand that we may at times want to take actions to protect certain species. But, where is the tradeoff against the value of allowing humans to continue to access one of the prime hiking areas in the San Gabriel mountains? Does that have no value? Where is the tradeoff that shows that a total closure is the right action, as opposed to simply limiting access to existing trails? How do we trade that off against the value of protecting a species that has no known value save for it's mere existence?

Species become extinct every day. They will continue to do so with or without our efforts to control that process, and in fact if all humans vanished from the Earth tomorrow species would continue to become extinct.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I believe the Endangered Species Act and many other environmental laws have become tools to accomplish other objectives. Science is not perfect. Statistics can be mistaken, misunderstood, and yes, even manipulated to create a desired outcome. If you can manage to have a court declare the yellow legged frog endangered, you can close an area altogether. That this area was known to be a place where certain Forest users complained about the nuisance created by rock climbers on Williamson Rock may or may not be a coincidence.

Not sure why there hasn't been a response to your well versed response Dave?

This CBD released this action earlier this week.

http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/o/2167/t/5243/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=10685

Roadless and pristine wilderness areas provide important habitat for rare and endangered species -- including California condors, southern steelhead trout, arroyo toads, mountain yellow-legged frogs and San Joaquin pocket mice. Increasing protections in these habitat strongholds will help secure the future of wildlife in an era of global warming, and protecting life-sustaining waters will greatly increase their resilience in parched times

"Roadless and pristine wilderness areas." That is and has always been the goal of the CBD. They hire people to make CBD science fit CBD needs. They use lawyers paid for by us taxpayers to sue government land management agencies to close down public access. The CBD goal is to PERMANENTLY close down ALL motorized access to the San Bernardino National Forest.

I am glad the CBD is out there fighting for things that most people don't have a clue about.

I can't believe this point of view was actually written on a forum for those who enjoy backcountry motorized travel. I think it is pretty clear who doesn't have a clue what it is that the CBD is actually fighting for.

 

[cnynrat]

Not sure why there hasn't been a response to your well versed response Dave?

I've been wondering the same thing ...

 

[teotwaki]

------snip-------- Anyhow, the writing style and language in your posts makes it hard to take any of what you say too seriously. Suprised you didn't throw a couple of enviro-nazis in there for good measure

Enviro-Nazis example:

My Name is Emma Murphy-Ellis
and I support sabotage
By Usnea


I state without fear—but with the hope of rallying our collective courage—that I support radical actions. I support tools like industrial sabotage, monkey wrenching machinery and strategic arson. The Earth's situation is dire. If other methods are not enough, we must not allow concerns about property rights to stop us from protecting the land, sea, and air. Today, more than ever, the Earth needs our effective action using all the methods of resistance at our disposal. Radical actions and radical movements grow out of supportive cultures. Let us once again build a strong supportive base for them. --SNIP--


full rant here ----> http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/article.php?id=522

And exactly who founded and continues to guide Center for Biological Diversity??? These are laudable people??

Earth First'ers Kieran Suckling, Bill Haskins, Todd Schulke, Peter Galvin and a Phoenix doctor named Robin Silver


"Several years ago the SWCBD removed “Southwest” from its name making it the Center for Biological Diversity CBD and opened up field offices throughout the country.

In years past, the SWCBD has been listed in the Earth First Journal as an Earth First organization and over the years, staff members of the SWCBD have written numerous controversial articles for that radical/terrorist publication."


source: http://www.newswithviews.com/Clausen/barry101.htm


Earth First! emerged in the Southwestern United States in 1979. It was co-founded on April 4th, 1980 by Dave Foreman, Mike Roselle, Howie Wolke, and less directly, Bart Koehler and Ron Kezar.


.
.

 

[teotwaki]

How "Earth First!" and their comrades in arms view our community: "...the new disease of the frontier"


https://southwestearthfirst.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/what-off-road-vehicles-do-part-1/
https://southwestearthfirst.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/what-off-road-vehicles-do-part-2/

http://www.glorietamesa.org/ohv-orv-facts-sheet.php

 

[ScoutII]

Yes its out of control.

Off topic, but locally the city wanted to put solar panels on the old city landfill. This too was blocked by so called environmental groups. They said the panels would affect the hawks in the area as they would not be able to get the mice.
They showed a map that covered about 1/3 of California that this hawk uses for its territory. The city backed down the scale to 2.5 acres to appease the environmental groups. It's and old dump, perfect place to put a solar station to the "normal" person.

We the People need to stand up and be counted. We need to tell our lawmakers we want responsible legislation, not this whacked out crap. Restricting the U.S. citizens from their public land is not what we want. Simple as that!!! Stand up and be counted or lay down and be a sheep.