Greens are poised to push for more Wilderness Areas in California. Bills are headed for Congress soon. Take action to stop them now before you lose your right to access public lands:
http://www.crowley-offroad.com/new_propose...reas_for_CA.htm
Crowdog
Full Version: Action Alert - Help stop more wilderness designation
Send a letter to your representatives today!
Here is a sample:
quote:
Dear ___________:
I am writing to you today regarding the continual closure of off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreational areas throughout the country. More and more lands that were once available for OHVs have been closed down due to a variety of reasons. Most often environmental groups have used the Endangered Species Act to file lawsuits against Federal agencies.
But now I have learned that some of these same groups along with Senator Boxer are proposing many new Wilderness Areas in California and other western states. This is of great concern to me because the primary effect of Wilderness designation is the reduction of access especially for recreation (the "no mechanized transport" rule of the Wilderness Designation Act, prevents even bicycle access). Any lands proposed for Wilderness Designation must meet the suitability and manageability test. Much public land in the west has wilderness character. Just because it has a wild character does not mean that the lands are appropriate for this most restrictive management designation.
These continual land closures are really a recipe for disaster. Statistics show that the actual acreage available for OHV use has dramatically declined in recent years while registration of OHVs has practically doubled. Squeezing more OHVs onto less land can only result in an increase in illegal off-road activities in areas not designated for motorized recreational use as well as increased impacts in legal OHV areas.
This most extreme of land designation should not be taken lightly. Wilderness has real, long-term consequences for our country. Please consider this issue carefully and oppose any new Wilderness Area designations.
Thank you for consideration.
Sincerely,
Use www.congress.org to find your representatives.
Crowdog
I am convinced that OHV incursions into fragile natural landscape is what is driving the closures. the agencies charged with administering our public lands simply are not prepared or equipped to deal with those motorized scofflaws that ride off trail. Until there is some proven way to control trail proliferation, closure seems to be the only avenue that will protect our natural lands.
Here's the way I see it: If there are 10% of you who are responsible for the lawless use of OHVs, these people will continue to ride anyway inspite of the closures at least until they are caught which could be never. The benefit to the environment will be that 90% of you will respect the closures. Kind of backwards, I know.
What can be done to protect your privilege to ride? How can user groups work with the industry to change user behavior?
My experience with user groups on this bbs and others is that most of you claim to be law abiding, yet get all upset with greenies who are just trying to protect our public lands from the scofflaws. Denying reports, demonizing the opposition etc.
You can make a difference and save access for your recreation. You have to want to do it and stop fighting the people who righteously are trying to control the damage done by OHV scofflaws.
my 2 cents
Here's the way I see it: If there are 10% of you who are responsible for the lawless use of OHVs, these people will continue to ride anyway inspite of the closures at least until they are caught which could be never. The benefit to the environment will be that 90% of you will respect the closures. Kind of backwards, I know.
What can be done to protect your privilege to ride? How can user groups work with the industry to change user behavior?
My experience with user groups on this bbs and others is that most of you claim to be law abiding, yet get all upset with greenies who are just trying to protect our public lands from the scofflaws. Denying reports, demonizing the opposition etc.
You can make a difference and save access for your recreation. You have to want to do it and stop fighting the people who righteously are trying to control the damage done by OHV scofflaws.
my 2 cents
RIGHTEOUS? REMEMBER BLUESKY, YOUR AGENDA DOESN'T OVERIDE ANYONE ELSES. WHAT MAKES YOUR THOUGHTS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MINE? ARE YOU BETTER? I THINK NOT. PEOPLE LIKE YOU RUIN AMERICA FOR THE REST OF US. I HAVE BEEN DUNING AND FISHING FOR YEARS AND WILL NEVER BE DENIED MY ACCESS TO THESE THINGS LAWS OR NO. WHY IS IT YOU REALLY WANT TO BOTHER WITH A PATCH OF SAND IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE? I'M SURE IT GOES DEEPER THAN THE "ENDANGERED SPECIES" IN THE AREA. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO GAIN? LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HAS SAID, THE DUNES NORTH OF HWY 78 ARE FLOURISHING WITH WILDLIFE AND PLANTS WHICH IS YOUR MAIN GOAL, RIGHT? TO SAVE THE MILKVETCH? OR ARE WE BREAKING THE SAND DOWN TOO? LMFAO STINKIN ENVIRONAZIS GET OVER IT AND US.
------------------
freinds don't let freinds ride red
------------------
freinds don't let freinds ride red
P.S. HOW DOES SCOFFLAW TRANSLATE FROM ENVIRONAZI TO ENGLISH? LOL
------------------
freinds don't let freinds ride red
------------------
freinds don't let freinds ride red
Furor over Cache Creek designation
April 24, 2002
By UCILIA WANG
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
LAKE COUNTY
LAKEPORT -- A plan to give added protection to some federal land in Lake County drew resistance Tuesday from county supervisors.
Concerns about losing access to water prompted the objection to Sen. Barbara Boxer's proposal to include about 42,000 acres around Cache Creek in a bill to designate millions of acres throughout the state as federal wilderness areas.
In Lake County, some residents are still angry about a decision by the Board of Supervisors to sell Yolo County rights to water in Clear Lake nearly a century ago. The current board fears the county would lose more control if the wilderness proposal becomes law.
"I can tell you that I am opposed to anything having to do with Cache Creek," Supervisor Gary Lewis said. "It's too scary to give up our rights. We have enough wilderness areas."
The board voted 4-1 to send a letter opposing a wilderness designation for Cache Creek. Supervisor Ed Robey cast the dissenting vote.
Robey also supports an 11,500-acre expansion of the Snow Mountain Wilderness Area in the Mendocino National Forest, which is likely to be included in Boxer's legislation.
The board didn't take a position on that provision.
All of the land under consideration already belongs to the federal government.
Lake County supervisors said they fear that wilderness protection would make it more difficult to build dams, reservoirs or other facilities along Cache Creek, which is the outlet for Clear Lake.
The county has no current plans to develop water from Cache Creek.
North Coast residents have flooded public meetings in the past year as Boxer's staff and the environmental groups supporting her effort presented her vision of what should be included in the legislation.
The bill, which is still being drafted, is scheduled for introduction in Congress in May, said Tom Bohigian, assistant state director for Boxer.
Wilderness designation is given to federal land that has retained its natural characteristics. It protects the land from development, such as oil drilling, road building and logging.
People can ride horses, hike and hunt in wilderness areas, but they can't mountain bike or use off-road vehicles.
"I support the expansion of wilderness areas because they are a place for solitude," Bill Knispel, an agricultural consultant and hunter, said at the board meeting. "It's also a reservoir for game and a free and quality place to hunt."
Critics said the designation would prevent many people from enjoying land that is maintained by tax dollars.
"Giving up our rights to the government is a one-way trip," said Randy Ridgel, a Kelseyville resident. "We are about to give the federal government the right for us to enter those areas."
Other North Coast areas being considered include the King Range in Humboldt County and land surrounding the Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness, which crosses Mendocino, Trinity and Shasta counties.
Boxer isn't considering any areas in Sonoma County.
Her bill, which could include up to 2.5 million acres, would be the largest expansion of wilderness areas in the state since the 1994 California Desert Protection Act, which was sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
The Desert Protection Act gave special status to 7 million acres of land, doubling the size of the state's wilderness areas.
Boxer's bill also would ask for the "wild and scenic" designation for eligible rivers in the state. The designation would prevent development such as dam building and prohibit major diversions.
Black Butte River in Mendocino County could be included, according to an environmental coalition working with Boxer on the legislation.
In Lake County, proponents initially wanted to designate Cache Creek as "wild and scenic," but dropped the idea after hearing strong opposition from Lake and Yolo County.
You can reach Staff Writer Ucilia Wang at 462-6473 or uwang@pressdemocrat.com.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/local/news/24...derness_b1.html
April 24, 2002
By UCILIA WANG
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
LAKE COUNTY
LAKEPORT -- A plan to give added protection to some federal land in Lake County drew resistance Tuesday from county supervisors.
Concerns about losing access to water prompted the objection to Sen. Barbara Boxer's proposal to include about 42,000 acres around Cache Creek in a bill to designate millions of acres throughout the state as federal wilderness areas.
In Lake County, some residents are still angry about a decision by the Board of Supervisors to sell Yolo County rights to water in Clear Lake nearly a century ago. The current board fears the county would lose more control if the wilderness proposal becomes law.
"I can tell you that I am opposed to anything having to do with Cache Creek," Supervisor Gary Lewis said. "It's too scary to give up our rights. We have enough wilderness areas."
The board voted 4-1 to send a letter opposing a wilderness designation for Cache Creek. Supervisor Ed Robey cast the dissenting vote.
Robey also supports an 11,500-acre expansion of the Snow Mountain Wilderness Area in the Mendocino National Forest, which is likely to be included in Boxer's legislation.
The board didn't take a position on that provision.
All of the land under consideration already belongs to the federal government.
Lake County supervisors said they fear that wilderness protection would make it more difficult to build dams, reservoirs or other facilities along Cache Creek, which is the outlet for Clear Lake.
The county has no current plans to develop water from Cache Creek.
North Coast residents have flooded public meetings in the past year as Boxer's staff and the environmental groups supporting her effort presented her vision of what should be included in the legislation.
The bill, which is still being drafted, is scheduled for introduction in Congress in May, said Tom Bohigian, assistant state director for Boxer.
Wilderness designation is given to federal land that has retained its natural characteristics. It protects the land from development, such as oil drilling, road building and logging.
People can ride horses, hike and hunt in wilderness areas, but they can't mountain bike or use off-road vehicles.
"I support the expansion of wilderness areas because they are a place for solitude," Bill Knispel, an agricultural consultant and hunter, said at the board meeting. "It's also a reservoir for game and a free and quality place to hunt."
Critics said the designation would prevent many people from enjoying land that is maintained by tax dollars.
"Giving up our rights to the government is a one-way trip," said Randy Ridgel, a Kelseyville resident. "We are about to give the federal government the right for us to enter those areas."
Other North Coast areas being considered include the King Range in Humboldt County and land surrounding the Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness, which crosses Mendocino, Trinity and Shasta counties.
Boxer isn't considering any areas in Sonoma County.
Her bill, which could include up to 2.5 million acres, would be the largest expansion of wilderness areas in the state since the 1994 California Desert Protection Act, which was sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
The Desert Protection Act gave special status to 7 million acres of land, doubling the size of the state's wilderness areas.
Boxer's bill also would ask for the "wild and scenic" designation for eligible rivers in the state. The designation would prevent development such as dam building and prohibit major diversions.
Black Butte River in Mendocino County could be included, according to an environmental coalition working with Boxer on the legislation.
In Lake County, proponents initially wanted to designate Cache Creek as "wild and scenic," but dropped the idea after hearing strong opposition from Lake and Yolo County.
You can reach Staff Writer Ucilia Wang at 462-6473 or uwang@pressdemocrat.com.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/local/news/24...derness_b1.html
Hey Blue I know you don't have the ability to give a reasonable response to any question BUT tell me where could ANY OHV go other than stay on the trail
[This message has been edited by Mr.Red Elvises (edited 04-25-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Mr.Red Elvises (edited 04-25-2002).]
Blueski,
And I believe I'm speaking for most of us.
No not all ohv use is damaging these areas,
Yes they were originally designated for such.
People need space to roam as well as animals but in comparison to the total yeilded area the combined roads to not outweigh the amount of untouched land.
Yes there are millions of acres of back country that go untouch by even bicycles.
Maybe you should just eliminate yourself if you dont like such. that way you dont have to worry about it, it will be accessible and there for future generation and being green has more to do with involving people in open spaces not eliminating them.
What needs to be done is better urban planing with larger open spaces and the control of population growth as well as sprawl. Concentrate on that.
OHV use is extremely minimal in terms of use in comparison to land avail. In California alone the National Association of Realtors states that only 3% of Californias land is infact used for human habitation the rest is open space. Take all that and subtract the amount used by OHVs and you'll find quite a tiny island for public OHV use. Most routes as the one shown above are hardly traversed. But access should not be denied.
FYI I was a biology major, consider myself a greenie, love and appreciate he outdoors, pack it in pack it out, have packed, hike, and studied many of the outdoor areas throughout Calif. Planted trees in areas of distruction, and work with the people not against them. So I'm not coming from left field.
[This message has been edited by Sandshark (edited 04-25-2002).]
And I believe I'm speaking for most of us.
No not all ohv use is damaging these areas,
Yes they were originally designated for such.
People need space to roam as well as animals but in comparison to the total yeilded area the combined roads to not outweigh the amount of untouched land.
Yes there are millions of acres of back country that go untouch by even bicycles.
Maybe you should just eliminate yourself if you dont like such. that way you dont have to worry about it, it will be accessible and there for future generation and being green has more to do with involving people in open spaces not eliminating them.
What needs to be done is better urban planing with larger open spaces and the control of population growth as well as sprawl. Concentrate on that.
OHV use is extremely minimal in terms of use in comparison to land avail. In California alone the National Association of Realtors states that only 3% of Californias land is infact used for human habitation the rest is open space. Take all that and subtract the amount used by OHVs and you'll find quite a tiny island for public OHV use. Most routes as the one shown above are hardly traversed. But access should not be denied.
FYI I was a biology major, consider myself a greenie, love and appreciate he outdoors, pack it in pack it out, have packed, hike, and studied many of the outdoor areas throughout Calif. Planted trees in areas of distruction, and work with the people not against them. So I'm not coming from left field.
[This message has been edited by Sandshark (edited 04-25-2002).]
This old argument is starting to get on my nerves...
"you need to educate the 1% and police yourselves or we will close your riding areas down."
That just makes me sick. Do we not have law enforcment in this state? If 1% of banks were robbed should we close them down?
And, by the way, we ARE doing our part to educate the off-roaders... but it is ALSO up to law enforcement to do their part. If I hear, "we just don't have the money or manpower to police these areas properly." one more time I think I'll puke! I pay taxes, you pay taxes, everyone pays taxes... BUY SOME DAMN COPS!!!!
Oh hell, lets just close everything down whenever someone breaks a law... it's easier!
BULL
Vor
------------------
May the Dune Gods Smile Upon You
ShiftingDunes.com
"you need to educate the 1% and police yourselves or we will close your riding areas down."
That just makes me sick. Do we not have law enforcment in this state? If 1% of banks were robbed should we close them down?
And, by the way, we ARE doing our part to educate the off-roaders... but it is ALSO up to law enforcement to do their part. If I hear, "we just don't have the money or manpower to police these areas properly." one more time I think I'll puke! I pay taxes, you pay taxes, everyone pays taxes... BUY SOME DAMN COPS!!!!
Oh hell, lets just close everything down whenever someone breaks a law... it's easier!
BULL
Vor
------------------
May the Dune Gods Smile Upon You
ShiftingDunes.com
I must say I agree with VOR on this.
We "evil" OHV users perform hundreds of hours of community service in the ISDRA including public education, installation and maintenance closure signs (remember the initial signs were installed at 100 yd intervals?), clean-ups, patroling, and general "good-guy" activities.
Additionally, we generate hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue for local and state agencies from parking/camping permits, OHV parts, registration, taxes, and fees (in addition to sales tax, etc...), some of which are designated to be used specifically in the ISDRA!
I have yet to meet a PEER, Sierra Club, or other pro-environment/anti-OHV individual at any of our formal and informal clean-ups, junior ranger programs, or other postive duning activities. Instead they choose to "improve" the area by calling for total closure.
While they cluck, strut, preen, and crow from the sidelines, the dune community is getting the job done. We've rallied for more enforcement, additional safety services, improved access/camping facilities, dune clean-ups, and have taken the lead in improving the ISDRA for multiple user interests.
The restricted areas are virtually null and void of tracks, the enviros acknowledge that the flora and fauna is flourishing, DUI's are down, violence and arrests are down, all while the enviros squawk from the sidelines.
I'm just sorry that the enviros choose to stand on the sidelines yelling "the sky is falling" and taking an adversarial stance instead of fostering a cooperative environment in which logical, common-sense solutions could be developed so that "we" can enjoy our choosen form of recreation, while at the same time protecte and even enhance the threatened flora and fauna.
Well, I've written more today than I have during the last year. Take care everybody and I'll see you in the dunes.
Dunetamer
(and family)
[This message has been edited by Dunetamer (edited 04-25-2002).]
We "evil" OHV users perform hundreds of hours of community service in the ISDRA including public education, installation and maintenance closure signs (remember the initial signs were installed at 100 yd intervals?), clean-ups, patroling, and general "good-guy" activities.
Additionally, we generate hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue for local and state agencies from parking/camping permits, OHV parts, registration, taxes, and fees (in addition to sales tax, etc...), some of which are designated to be used specifically in the ISDRA!
I have yet to meet a PEER, Sierra Club, or other pro-environment/anti-OHV individual at any of our formal and informal clean-ups, junior ranger programs, or other postive duning activities. Instead they choose to "improve" the area by calling for total closure.
While they cluck, strut, preen, and crow from the sidelines, the dune community is getting the job done. We've rallied for more enforcement, additional safety services, improved access/camping facilities, dune clean-ups, and have taken the lead in improving the ISDRA for multiple user interests.
The restricted areas are virtually null and void of tracks, the enviros acknowledge that the flora and fauna is flourishing, DUI's are down, violence and arrests are down, all while the enviros squawk from the sidelines.
I'm just sorry that the enviros choose to stand on the sidelines yelling "the sky is falling" and taking an adversarial stance instead of fostering a cooperative environment in which logical, common-sense solutions could be developed so that "we" can enjoy our choosen form of recreation, while at the same time protecte and even enhance the threatened flora and fauna.
Well, I've written more today than I have during the last year. Take care everybody and I'll see you in the dunes.
Dunetamer
(and family)
[This message has been edited by Dunetamer (edited 04-25-2002).]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.