From the LA Times:

December 24, 2002
E-mail story Print

THE STATE
Policy Could Increase Access to Wild Lands
* Administration is willing to give disputed roads and paths to state and local governments. The environment could suffer, critics say.

ROADS
PUBLIC ACCESS
WILDERNESS AREAS
PUBLIC LANDS

By Elizabeth Shogren, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- Disputed roads and paths through wilderness areas could be made more accessible to the public if state and local governments take advantage of a new policy that the Bush administration is expected to announce later this week, according to environmentalists and Interior Department officials.

The policy could permit traffic across disputed rights of way that cross all kinds of federal lands -- from national parks to refuges and forests.

"The impact will be felt in numerous small property disputes between state agencies and the federal government," said James Hughes, deputy director of the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management.

"We'll be able to resolve those without lengthy legal disputes or congressional action."

Environmental groups and their supporters in Congress say that the new so-called "recordable disclaimer interest rule" could harm public lands by opening the door for the Bush administration to transfer to the states ownership of thousands of disputed rights of way.

The result could be fewer protected wilderness areas and more access for motorized vehicles, they said.

The impact is expected to be greatest in Utah and Alaska, where the states dispute thousands of miles of trails, animal tracks and even former wagon routes.

California could feel the impact of the rule too, because some counties, such as San Bernardino, have already cleared the way to claim the contested paths.

"This will let the administration enter into closed-door negotiations for paving our national parks, refuges and forests," Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said. "It's another dilution of the 'public' part of 'public lands.' "

Congressional Democrats and environmentalists criticized the policy as the most recent of many actions by the administration to cut back on environmental protections.

But the Bush administration said its new policy is aimed at avoiding costly bureaucratic red tape. "Our goal is to not spend a lot of money adjudicating this or spend the Congress' time on what is basically an administrative issue," said Hughes, the Interior official.

The critics said the administration was seeking a route to reestablish Statute 2477, an 1866 law that allowed states to claim rights of way across federal lands. Congress repealed that rule in 1976.

A draft fact sheet explaining the administration's initiative states that Statute 2477 right of way disputes can "without question" be resolved through the new policy. However, the administration argues that the new policy is crafted broadly enough that it does not conflict with a moratorium on rules and regulations relating narrowly to Statute 2477.

Heidi McIntosh, conservation director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, said the full impact of the new policy is "not going to be apparent immediately."

"Eventually, thousands of these so-called rights of way will be given away," she said.

This could end up making it harder for groups such as hers to pressure Congress to designate remote areas as wilderness, she said. Areas can be disqualified as wilderness if there is preexisting development.

She also said it could make it easier for off-road vehicle enthusiasts to gain access to protected public lands. "There are a variety of ways this statute could really wreak havoc on public lands management and protections," McIntosh said.

But Hughes said the environmentalists were painting a "worst-case scenario" of the effects of the new policy.

"I think they're probably overstating the impact of the rule," Hughes said.

[ 12-24-2002, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: SailAway ]

All I can say is, !!!

LIVE FREE OR DIE!

Good news?? Yes! But I don't think we should be greedy....How about we keep what we had before the stupid closures and we'll all call it even?????

We're far from even I'm afraid. Long before the interim closures we had already lost major portions of our desert to unverified environmental causes.

Swallowing the environmental machine's propaganda is very dangerous. If we start feeling grateful for every little scrap they throw to us we're dead in the water.

Open the interim closures back up. Re-open Kelso Dunes. Give back no less than 50% of the Pismo closures. Ignore the new management plans that close the Rice Valley Dunes and Ford Dry Lake. That's just a beginning.

No, getting back the interim closures is just not enough. It's what woke us up but it sure won't satisfy us now.

Vicki

Speaking of Kelso Dunes, I didn't know they were once open. I've always seen it on maps and on signs on the way to Vegas and Dumont. Anyone been there? How were they and why were they closed? I always thought they were part of the Mojave Preserve and had never been open to OHV.

Kelso ....

Kelso got closed in the late seventies and they are noted as closed in the cdca plan from 1980.

But most people didn't know that, for example the Desert USA listed them for a long time as open.

then there was this Swinestein thing going on in the nineties, so 1994 they created the "Move the public out of the Mojave Desert" or better known as Mojave National Preserve. At this time Kelso got the wilderness designation ... BTW this year we lost also Val Jean Dunes to the Kingston Wilderness, Ibex Dunes in the Ibex Wilderness as a part of DVNP, Eureka Dunes, Salin Valley Dunes and Panamint Dunes (all DVNP extension) and many fourwheel and dirtbike routes around this areas ...

Then about Kelso, I never drove there, but some stats :

Kelso wilderness is 120 kacres
Kelso Dunes itself is 28800 acres (that's more sand then currently is open at the ISDRA)
Kelso Dunes are second highest dunes in California, only Eureka is higher. Talk about a China Wall... only tree times higher
Kelso has like Dumont many razors and stardunes (and the same booming sand )...
and there is a double outhouse, info kiosk, wood fence and trash cans for tree to 100 registered users (****ing hikers ) per year (still waiting for official numbers from NPS, I got this numbers from BLM) !!!

It would be the ****ing best place to ride, size of Glamis and technical like Dumont ........

And Vicki you are correct, we are far from even ...

[ 01-03-2003, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: v8rail ]