Looks like the BLM can be held responsible for not protecting areas from OHV damage.

Appeals Court Deals Blow to Off-Roaders
Saturday, August 31, 2002


BY GREG BURTON
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) can be compelled to protect wilderness study areas (WSAs) in southern Utah, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled late Thursday.
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) filed a federal lawsuit three years ago claiming the BLM was not properly managing off-highway vehicles (OHVs) in proposed study areas at Moquith Mountain, Parunuweap Canyon, Sids Mountain and Behind the Rocks.
Despite conceding that OHV use in those regions "has seriously impaired the wilderness values" and that SUWA had "presented significant evidence about the alleged impairment that is occurring in the WSAs due to [OHV] use," U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball dismissed SUWA's claims two years ago.
Kimball reasoned "that as long as [BLM] is taking some action" toward meeting its mandatory duties, it could not be compelled to take action under the National Environmental Policy Act.
SUWA appealed the decision to the Denver-based court, which reversed Kimball and remanded portions of the lawsuit to Utah. The case has been reassigned to newly appointed federal Judge Paul Cassell.
"This decision gives some of Utah's most significant landscapes a new lease on life from ever-encroaching off-road vehicle damage," SUWA attorney Steve Bloch said. "It's time to bring balance to how BLM manages public lands; peace and quiet is as important a public resource as oppor- tunities for recreation."
But SUWA's victory was not absolute. Cassell still must rule on the merits of SUWA's arguments regarding the impact of OHV use that environmentalists initially presented to Kimball.
In a dissenting opinion, one federal appeals judge argued that the "BLM simply is not required to achieve each and every goal of its aspirational land use plans or have that failure, however slight," be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act. The majority of the three-judge appeals panel ordered Cassell "to determine whether the BLM has truly failed 'to take a hard look' at information suggesting that OHV use has substantially increased" since the disputed wilderness study areas were initially established.
Once the case returns to Utah, a number of OHV organizations, including the Idaho-based Blue Ribbon Coalition and Elite Motorcycle Tours, probably will argue that the BLM continues to adequately address OHV use.
In its attempt to convince Cassell otherwise, SUWA will be joined by the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Great Old Broads For Wilderness, the Utah Council of Trout Unlimited and other environmental groups.
"Now that the court has announced it will be looking over BLM's shoulder, we can only hope the agency will take its responsibility to protect magnificent public lands from off-road vehicle damage more seriously in the future," said Jim Angell, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund attorney who argued SUWA's appeal in the Denver court.

Amazingly, at glamis the wilderness study area north or 78 has had close to no incursions. Some, but so few as to be insignificant.

The earthjustice league defense fund has the backing and the money to litigate. I will remember that and try to be kind to the BRC's legal defense fund this year.

BTW

-What do you call a lawyer with an IQ over 70?

-Judge

Not to mention that all the WSA's in the dunes (other than the closure north of 78) were alredy released from study and are no longer listed as WSA's.

Spider - how about posting something postive every now and then instead of one sided leftists articles about "evil OHV's". Why not use your position as moderator to help educate dune users about the plants, animals and issues in THE DUNES - instead of antoganizing with posts about "dangerous OHV's that need to be regulated" and this kind of thing.

It seems to me that you're abusing your position and not really helping the forum reach it's goal.

Jason,

When I posted on the clean up work the OHV groups are involved in, I had people swearing at me and sending me hate mail for being phony. When I deleted the four lettered words out of people's posts, I was attacked again and sent more hate mail. When I posted the article recently on motocross safety, I had people accusing me of stirring up trouble, and a campain was started to ban me from all other sections of the message board. I'll never understand that.

This article came up so I posted it. It actually has a good issue worth discussing. Who should be responsible for protecting areas? I'm sure many OHV groups do try to protect areas and do repair to areas, but no one takes the time to bring that issue up. Instead, too many people assume they're being attacked when what I've done is to post a news article that concerns OHVs.

If people would take some time to think about the issues in the articles rather than shooting off attacks at me, we might be able to have a discussion or two here.

And I've never heard of anyone accusing the Salt Lake Tribune of being leftist except for you. The articles I've posted have consistently come from mainstream newspapers. If you don't want to discuss what is in the mainstream press, then you are really trying to shut yourself off from what most people are thinking and learning about your recreation.

Spider, while this article may be from a more mainstream article the last few you've posted have been from the LA Times or NY Times both of which are extremely well known for being heavily biased.

Just look at the "safety" article you posted which claimed that OHV accident rates are climing and something has to be done about it - but completely ignored the facts as they presented them that the use of OHV's climbed even higher than the accident rates.

I wouldn't have a problem with the posting of these articles if you'd also do something to spark positive intelligent discussion about issues in the actual dunes - which is the point of this BBS after all.

Why not start threads explaining some of the various plants and animals that are native to the dune areas. The idea of this forum was to try and get more duners to "stop and smell the milkvetch" if you will.

There are quite a few of us who really do love and respect the dunes and want to learn more about the things that can be found out there - why not cultivate that instead of just posting articles with a negative bent?

Jason,

Again, I posted the articles because they deal with OHV and environmental issues and they are from the mainstream media. Your politics may allow you to see the NY Times and LA Times as leftist, but they also happen to be the most widely read newspapers in the U.S.. They are mainstream whether you like them or not.

You also ignored the part in the NYTimes article where OHV folks are coming up with their own solutions to the problems of injuries. The article could have been the beginning of a nice discussion on how people are working on their issue on their own. Instead you have decided to focus on something you consider negative in the article. The articles are not the problem.

You also called the Salt Lake Tribune leftist, but I'm guessing you are backing down from that one. True? Or is the Utah press filled with pinko-hippies.

Even though you seem to think I'm abusing my "power", I've allowed people to post a wide variety of views here even when their sources are slanted. You might think of ways to attract more people to your own forum instead of taking so much time to attack me and this forum.

If you are so interested in the animals and plants in the dunes, then please post something on them and stop complaining.

oh great my first time in enviromental section and I see a arguement........Too funny

For whatever my 2 cents are worth (probably about a penny): I don't have a problem with Spider or anyone else posting from the mainstream media, especially when doing so informationally, and with minimal editorial comment (as was the case with this BLM article). Heck--it would also be acceptable to post Sierra Club articles, as this would be informative to those of us who disagree with their agenda.

If an article is published, I think it's to our advantage to know about it. Shooting the messenger doesn't kill the message.

I wanna know who the Great Old Broads For Wilderness is..

Vor

quote:

---

Originally posted by jkp:
Shooting the messenger doesn't kill the message.

---

So true and I agree!! But it gains so much satisfaction!!!