OHV Hearing In Washington D.c.

[U4WDA]

BLUERIBBON COALITION ACTION ALERT!
ANTI OHV HEARING IN WASHINGTON D.C. COULD BE OPPORTUNITY FOR POSITIVE ACTION​

ACTION ITEM REQUESTED

This Thursday, March 13, the House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands has scheduled a hearing on the impacts of unmanaged off-highway vehicles on federal lands.

Although as of this writing no witness list had been posted on the Subcommittee's website, both BRC Executive Director, Greg Mumm, and our Western Regional Representative, Don Amador, have been in contact with Subcommittee staff. Pending any last minute changes, the witness list will include representatives from the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, as well as a sheriff from New Mexico, a doctor from Children's Mercy Hospital, a Tribal representative and a retired Game and Fish officer.

Also testifying will be Ken Rosevear, American Sand Association (ASA), and Russ Ehnes, National Off Highway Vehicle Conservation Council (NOHVCC).

More info on the hearing can be found on the web, including a link to view the hearing live via internet: CLICK HERE

The hearing appears to be designed to bring both Congressional scrutiny and another round of bad press (here we go again), again vilifying the tens of millions of OHV users.

But it is also an opportunity to let your Congressional representatives know how important OHV use is to you and your family, and to bring Congress's attention to the fact that they have not funded recreation commensurate to its importance to the American people. So we are asking our members to send email to the House subcommittee.

We've put together some very simple instructions below for a "cut and paste" email, including suggested comments from both BRC and from Larry Smith at Americans for Responsible Recreational Access (ARRA). Follow the simple instructions and send your email today.

Come Thursday morning, I imagine we'll be reading in the newspapers how eeeeevil OHV users are. Please know that BRC and other national OHV groups talk to the media often, it's just that most of them are biased against OHV users and rarely print what we say.

Thanks in advance for your action.

Brian Hawthorne
Ric Foster
BRC's Public Lands Department
(208) 237-1008 ext 107

PS: BRC will be submitting formal written testimony as well as attending in person. But your emails will make a difference. Please take a minute and use our step-by-step instructions.

______________________________________

Easy Step-by-Step instructions on how to send your comments to the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands for the hearing on the impacts of OHV recreation on Federal Lands:

NOTE: Your email will be considered Congressional Testimony. You must be polite and scrupulously accurate and factual.

STEP 1: Open your email program and start a draft email. Address it to david.watkins@mail.house.gov and casey.hammond@mail.house.gov. Also, please cc to BRC at brlandsinfo@sharetrails.org.

STEP 2: Cut and paste the following comments in to your email:

I understand that OHV use should be managed, but I want to be clear that wholesale closure does not equal effective management.

OHV recreation is a legitimate use of federal lands, and has been recognized as such by federal land managers.

OHV recreation can be managed and sustainable, while also providing a valuable recreational experience for OHV enthusiasts.

Motorized recreation is a family activity that offers an opportunity for parents and children to experience all that our public lands have to offer in a unique manner.

The U.S. Forest Service has identified "unmanaged" recreation as one of four key threats to forest lands. If unmanaged recreation is such a top threat, then why won't the agency put recreation management as a top priority in their budget?

The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management both indicated that partnering with local constituents through effective volunteer programs is essential to long-term success, yet very little to that end is taking place on the ground. When OHV users ask "can we help," all too often the answer is "no."

Education and enforcement, including useful maps and signage, are crucial elements to resolving OHV issues, and yet the agencies have not made any of these components a priority in their efforts to move to actively managed OHV recreation.

STEP 3: Take just a minute to add a bit about where you live and where you like to ride. Be certain to include your name and address. A return email address is NOT sufficient! ("anonymous" emails are often discarded) Then click "send" and you're done!

 

[taco chaser]

Well I've done what you guy's asked and I hope this will help.

 

[The BN Guy]

Can't send it from work but will definitely send a copy from home.

 

[Ursidae69]

The transcripts are available at the link posted above for the hearing. Very interesting reading from the various participants. Thanks for the links.

Why does this hearing get labeled as "Anti ohv" by the OP when the participants at the hearing are from both sides and the point of the hearing was right in the title, "The Impacts of Unmanaged Off-Road Vehicles on Federal Land." Bold added by me. Unmanaged is the problem thanks to funding shortfalls.

I also found it interesting how the majority of the negative comments were directed at ATVs. At some point in the future I think the OHV community needs to separate themselves from ATVs as they are hurting our cause. Just my opinion of course and I'm sure the usual answer will come "It's not the ATV, it's the driver", which is true, but in general, ATVs are the ones going off trail illegally more often than not on our public lands and I don't want to support them.

 

[Brett M]

Why does this hearing get labeled as "Anti ohv" by the OP when the participants at the hearing are from both sides and the point of the hearing was right in the title, "The Impacts of Unmanaged Off-Road Vehicles on Federal Land." Bold added by me. Unmanaged is the problem thanks to funding shortfalls.

I think that it was that way because, well, how often do you hear of anything positive in goverment concerning land access and such?

 

[Ursidae69]

I think that it was that way because, well, how often do you hear of anything positive in goverment concerning land access and such?

I hear ya, but I like to spin things positive I guess.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

I too see nothing intrinsically anti-OHV in this hearing. I see nothing to indicate that OHV users are excluded from contributing. It's a simple public process to address a very real issue regarding public lands, which belong to everyone, not just OHV users.

Tacochaser, what makes you "sad" about those who support the African Conservation Fund? What makes you think those people only support one cause, or only causes on another continent? My wife (the director of the African Conservation Fund) and I just spent an entire day cleaning up immigrant trash on neighboring public land with a local group of hunters. And, I might add, not a little trash left by OHV users.

Statistically, those who support one cause usually support several. The people you need to be concerned about are the majority of Americans who don't care much about any cause.

And if you are concerned about wildlife, as your post indicates, then you should definitely be concerned about unregulated OHV use on public lands.

It's not tree huggers who will shut down motorized access to public lands, it is self-centered, unlawful ATV and 4x4 users. The rest of us need to shut them down rather than somehow laying blame on those who also support conservation in Africa.

 

[Skylinerider]

It's not tree huggers who will shut down motorized access to public lands, it is self-centered, unlawful ATV and 4x4 users.

Truer words have never been said. (sadly)

 

[Scott Brady]

At some point in the future I think the OHV community needs to separate themselves from ATVs as they are hurting our cause.

I agree, 100%.

There are several reasons for this, principally the ability for a 12 year old, with no concept of conservation and no consequence or his actions can ride one. There is also the anonymity of riding an ATV: No license and wearing a helmet. ATVs are cheap and highly capable, they are also smaller and can bypass road blocks, tight trees etc. The consequence of laying one on its side might only be some scratched plastic. Using an expensive 4wd on the trail often means (some) restraint.

In my time on the trail, I see 80% of the damage occurring from ATVs.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

I agree about ATVs. I haven't yet figured out why so many otherwise seemingly intelligent humans act like selfish idiots on ATVs (Scott is probably on the right track). And I have years of statistically significant evidence from our own property to back up my opinion.

Our property line crosses a wash below the house. When we first moved in we tried to leave it open to ATV traffic, and installed a sign asking people to stay in the wash as it was private property. After coming home numerous times to ATV tracks leading out of the wash, past the sign, and right to our house, we gave up and signed it No Trespassing, period. Yet constantly we have ATV riders ignore those signs too:

This . . . person . . . not only ignored the sign, he had to bend the post out of the way to force his ATV through the gap. He rode up the road until he spotted our house before spinning around and riding away. We were out of town. Now I'm being forced to install a real barbed wire fence at much cost in materials and labor, to try to keep these . . . people . . . farther away from our property.

Anyway, in my opinion if you consider ATV riders and 4WD users to be in the same community, then, we have met the enemy, and he is us.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...In my time on the trail, I see 80% of the damage occurring from ATVs.

In my Utah travels its 95%

It seems to be a growing problem with ATV rental places popping up all over the state and cheap import bikes appealing to a much broader market (ie you can buy a dirtbike at Pep Boys ). These rental places have no formal training on conservation or Tread Lightly principles, let alone passing said info onto customers.

This is an issue that has perplexed the U4WDA for several years now... to stay united as a "team effort" or distance ourselved for the greater good? Sadly its as debated as motorized versus non-motorized.

While I agree that "tree-huggers" won't get things shut down, its the illegal riders... that only half the issue IMO. There are very legit and legal routes that are in danger of closure, not becuase of off-trail riding or other illegal practices, rather because the anti-motorized crowd doesn't want to smell you, see you or hear you. There have been some trails shut down under emergency protection orders or resource damage concerns in the last couple of years, but the majority have been closed to limit impact or to "protect" lands with Wilderness characteristics, ie psuedo Wilderness.

These latest Utah RMP's will shut at a minimum 10-30% of the trails in those areas. Not because of resource damage, rather from the propogated "user conflicts" and lack of protection. Many of these routes are 50+ years old (such is surely the case with the Moab RMP where many of the roads are left overs from the Uranium boom days)... still they are systematically closed to create LWC, WSA and Wilderness designations. I am all for Wilderness, however I beleive the existing routes should be protected in these areas with a cherry-stemmed designation... SUWA and their cohorts won't comprimise on that.

 

[taco chaser]

Tacochaser, what makes you "sad" about those who support the African Conservation Fund? What makes you think those people only support one cause, or only causes on another continent? My wife (the director of the African Conservation Fund) and I just spent an entire day cleaning up immigrant trash on neighboring public land with a local group of hunters. And, I might add, not a little trash left by OHV users.

Johnathan, from what I have read and heard about from Overland Journal and knowing some of the same people you do that speak very highly of you and your wife, you guy's sound like amazing, unselfish people that have sacraficed a lot for the good of many others and many causes, thank you. I do feel the African Conservation Fund is a huge necessity and a very positive cause as I stated in my post " Though the African fund is a very positive and necesary thing". I appologize if I offended you and your efforts but the idea was to stir the fire under those who don't seem to acknowledge the issue's at all. I just personally feel that we have so many issue's in the US that do not have the support or funding needed, from education to land use issue's, that more of the money needs to stay in this country to take care of or own problems, but that is just how I feel. More education and environmental morals need to be taught to the local population of the individual country's with issue's at hand including the US and thats something that no dollar amount can fix anywhere. Unfortunately the only way to fight these issues above and beyond individual efforts is the legal systems which seem to be a bottom less money pit in this country. I know the US citizens have it so much better than the large majority of African citizens who are used to the AK47 legal system, so major support is necessary for the few who are trying to make a difference.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

No offense taken. I just wanted to point out that it is people who don't care at all who are the problem, not those who do.

 

[DesertRose]

Title of this thread edited

A note from the Conservation moderator - I edited the title of this thread. Originally it said "Anti Ohv hearings". I removed the "Anti" because we are trying to maintain open-minded dialogue here, and the label "anti" is inflammatory to the purpose of the "conservation and education" mission of this section.

We encourage everyone educate themselves and act as you see fit, but let's try to keep the rhetoric on this forum in check - we can find plenty of it elsewhere!

 

[DesertRose]

Well I've done what you guy's asked and I hope this will help. It is really sad to look over this section of the forum and see that there are more people worried about issues like the African conservation funds than participating in the fight to conserve land, wildlife, and maintain our right to passage in our own country of the United States. Though the African fund is a very positive and necesary thing, about 1% of US citizens will actually set foot on African soil let alone drive a vehicle across the plans and actually aid in the fight to preserve the wild life over there. The money is needed in this country also to help us and the organizations who fight to preserve our rights, land use, and recreational lifestyles from being non existent. So for a forum of people who seemingly think of them selves as vehicle dependent outdoors men there dosen't seem to be to many people here to worried about protecting there way of life. I'm late in becoming truly active myself, beyond ranting, donations, and clean ups but it is never to late and now is the time to try to make a difference, get active in the fight for your rights on this continent too.

Speaking for my own involvement in a lot of third-world charity work (not just Africa), I do so because I have already dedicated 20 years to conservation and community work in this country, including recreational access, saving land from development (land which can now be used by everyone, rather than being paved over and lost forever), as well as wildlife conservation work - and I felt that we here in the West have every advantage possible, and I'd rather help much less-advantaged people enjoy a little of what I enjoy.

I don't see that there is any comparison between the "right" to clean and accessible water, something to eat every day, a house, access to land that has been used for millenia, medicine and healthcare, and a democratic governance structur and what you say: "our rights, land use, and recreational lifestyles."

Recreational lifestyles are not a right, they are in fact a privilege, one we must all maintain by staying on existing legal trails, picking up trash, and generally behaving like we care about the landscape we purport to love.

Access to public land is also not necessarily a right - that is, any one user group is not guaranteed by right that they can do whatever they want on public land. We are all held to a democratic process to decide what goes on on which lands. We all must take part, which is what we do at hearings and so forth.

It may not be perfect, but we have a great system in the US for public land.

In other places in the world - most places - voting in and of itself is dangerous if not non-existent . . . let alone any ideas that you might have the "right" to a recreational lifestyle.

I want to also openly express my gratitude to all the wonderful people on Expedition Portal who have donated to the effort of African Conservation Fund. It just shows how many generous, open-hearted and open-minded people there are out there, willing to step beyond their own lives and help someone else.

Sorry you guys had to read a snarky bash on your generosity. We appreciate it very much, though!