I was looking through all the sites for and agianst public land use by OHV's and was feelling really swamped by all the arguements that surround the issue. I definitly don't want any of the "current " open land to become unavailable. Yet there are those few individuals who aren't the norm, that go out and trash and destroy the trail the rest of us care about and enjoy resposibly. Taking into acount a few crazy acts and damage that comes with the four wheeling crowd will accure. I would say that the people that the land closures really hurt are the only poeple who truly do care about preserving the land they use.

But if a trail is closed off and we are told not to use it. Is there a way to get it back a little farther down the line in the future? Wouldn't a little success for the greens take the pressure off the offraod community so that we can retake it later and under better premises. even possibly discouraging those that came and abused the land from returning agian or changing thier habits. I am not really saying that we should turn over any land to the greens but I was just exploring the issues cause and effects. let the flaming begin!

Trail closures hurt the typical conservation minded motorized recreation enthusiast, but it really hurts the average person looking for remote recreation, more than any single specialized (motorized) hobbyist.

We enjoy wheeling, and we enjoy the vistas and diverse recreation opportunity that motorized trails provide, and we strive to maintain the quality of the land. While we share the desire to keep the quality of the land high, we diverge from the "radical environmentalist" in that we are willing to go the extra effort to share the experience. We enjoy introducing and taking along friends who may also enjoy the learning experience afforded by visiting the wilds (everything from anthropology to zoology, with some fun like fishing and camping experience in-between).

We may think that the one-hour drive down the access road, to the difficult challenges on a trail, is just good scenery and we overlook the true opportunity an open trail offers to the general public. When a wheeling trail closes, we lose a single trail. Our friends, even those who are less enthusiastic about motor travel, lose dispersed campsites, fishing holes, township history sites, access to mining claims, and even more critical: a vacation opportunity for obtainable solitude that fits into the typical four-day "working American" weekend holiday.

The one-hour drive through the woods, the drive that is a delay to the fun for the "hard core", is the opportunity for fun (from mile one) for the general public. The one-hour drive becomes a three-day hike, after the trail is closed, and the remote campsites are located out of reach of the general public (families) weekend holiday.

Should we risk a temporary trail closure becoming permanent, if there is a potential trade off of more open trails in the future? It sounds reasonable, but history reveals that few trails are reopened after closure.

The problem is that trails are closed because someone (an advocacy group or club) objects to the current use, stating that "potentially irreversible damage is occurring." They file a lawsuit with an order to make a "temporary" closure for study of the potential problem. Sometimes they even threaten closure of a greater area, and offer smaller closures of specific trails as a "compromise" with the potential of reopening other trails in the future "if we can reach an expedited agreement." Closure areas are often referred to as wilderness study areas (WSA's). Group enough WSA's together (5000 contiguous acres) and you can offer the land as a candidate for Wilderness designation.

The study of the closed area may take years (or weeks), and if damage is found the closure is recommended for permanent status. If damage is not found, then the "quality" of the habitat is reported to be so high that motorized recreation is considered too potentially damaging for an "allowed use." Regardless of the report on habitat damage potential, the motorized recreation community (and the greater general public) loses recreation opportunity. The litigants call this a "win-win" resolution as the habitat is protected from recreation impacts (all recreation impacts, except theirs, fighting for more closure and abandonment).

Now, some may believe a few trails really need a "temporary" closure for habitat recovery. Many trails are closed for seasonal protection, and their line of thought parallels that of a seasonal restoration. What they miss are a few important points: density impacts on adjacent trails, and maintenance efforts.

During a seasonal closure, few people frequent the area and the impact from the usual off-season visitor density is slight. The closed trail recovers, and the adjacent open trails also wear well due to the light traffic. A "temporary" closure, during the popular season, places the increased visitor density on adjacent trails. This usually causes more widespread damage than what occurred on the closed trail (followed up by photos of the damage, used by the closure advocates to bolster their claim for a permanent closure need). The damaging density impacts increase on the general habitat, directly due to the "temporary, protective closure" (but you will never learn of this problem on CNN).

The second difference between seasonal closures and "temporary" closures is one of maintenance. A seasonal closure receives maintenance each year after the trail opens. Many of the folks on this website (FOTR) participate in these maintenance efforts. Erosion potential is eliminated, turbidity potential at stream crossings is minimized, and the potential of getting "off-trail" into sensitive habitat is reduced by marking the trail and improving the variation of challenge opportunity. None of these maintenance "development" improvements occur on closed trails (one point of the combined Revised Transportation and Roadless Rules is that road maintenance is considered "development" in the Transportation Rule, and "development" is prohibited in Roadless areas). Ask yourself (and your Congressperson) if any of the beneficial efforts of maintenance occur on closed trails (or if they will ever be allowed to occur in Roadless areas)?

This divergence of increased actual impacts, compared to published reduction of impact, is the great fallacy of closure advocates. They lead us to believe that the land can recover behind closed gates, without our help, while the true dangers to wildlife and riparian habitat (long term erosion and mineral pollution in river and wetland areas) remain unresolved. Abandonment management has failed throughout history. A brokered closure never relieves the pressure on the "rabid radical environmentalist" (one who harbors a rabid fear of accessible public recreation).

A brokered "temporary" closure (the environmentalist success) may seem to take the pressure off the off-road community, politically (the journalist media can write warm fuzzy editorials about how off-roaders worked together with environmentalists), but it really increases the pressure density on the land (the long term potential for closure). What would you rather have: short term political warmth on the editorial page, or long term habitat stability with shared recreation opportunity in the wilds?

You asked a great question, one that is not asked enough, "Is there a way to get it (closed trails) back a little farther down the line in the future?"

Much of the closed land is designated by Congress a Wilderness. This land has the distinction of being Congressionally designated (capital W) Wilderness. This is not the "wildlands" that the Sierra Club has taken to printing on the back of their protection campaign stickers (although, Wilderness is what they want wildlands to become). Designated Wilderness is a legal description. Federal law restricts motorized access just like Federal law restricts discrimination on the basis of race.
The only way to get motorized access back into Wilderness is through a vote of Congress. Now, Congress is populated by folks that do not want to be perceived as uncaring to the environment (even if their failure to act harms habitat). Imagine the political media campaign if Congress were to consider "reducing protection of the most pristine and endangered habitat in the free world to the evils of development?"

The likelihood of getting any access back is slim. The only potential for opportunity is by providing Congress a less restrictive "land protection" designation to minimize the political risk of opposing Wilderness. This is where a visit to the Blue Ribbon Coalition website, and a review of the "Backcountry Recreation" land designation proposal is encouraged. A "Backcountry Recreation" area designation will prohibit "commercial development" and allow multiple use recreation (including motorized recreation access).

A Backcountry Recreation land designation should help the public from losing more land (in the future) to restrictive Wilderness, but it will take an Act of Congress to take back land already closed. Every "temporary" closure, now, is at risk of permanent closure.

So, do you honestly think "a little success for the greens (will) take the pressure off the offroad community?"

Happy Trails!

As usual, I can add very little to what Ed said. But, one thing I can say is in all the years of OHV land use activism I have been involved in, I can't remember even ONE road that was closed being reopened.

I can't add anything, but I will back up Brad on this one, though I've only been involved in Land Use for about 3 years, I never seen a closed trail reopened. I think the "if they have a little success theory, they will go away" theory sounds good for any logical human being. But since we're talking about extremists and control freaks its more like laying down on the railroad tracks and waiting for the train. They gain momentum towards their "total control agenda" with each closure, therefore the only way to counter this is to become pro-active and fight fire with fire (ie. lawsuits and counter suits, etc.)....


my $.02


:usa:

Well said guys

I just want to add that when these people use the tacticts that they are using (lying misrepresentation and misleading the general public) we need to fight fire with fire. I'm not saying to lie cheat and steal but just to not give an inch because they will take ten miles. These people have infiltrated the land management agencies and will do whatever it takes to forward their cause with no regard for the truth (good science) or other people. I want to protect the land as much as the next guy but closing it is definately not the answer IMO. And most of these people live nowhere near and never use the areas they want to close.

My concern has been with the (truth be known) OHV associations that fail to adopt a area and take interest in the issues,
or,
Sit by and think "that can't happen here!"

Case in point, Glamis...

Now I'll probably hear it for this, but I have to say it, What were you thinking ASA!?
:confused:
All this reactive frustration to a concern that they knew was present.
We better learn from the Glamis situation! Learn what you ask?
Taken from an article on this site, is this information:

ASA had to find a way to force the DOI to re-consider the listing of the plant and to force them to use valid science, and this is only one of a few ways it can be done. When a species is added to the Endangered Species List it is not automatically removed if further study indicates it should not have been listed in the first place. With the faulty study removed from consideration and the new data showing the abundance of plants, the ASA argues that the Pierson's Milkvetch does not require protected status and the temporary closures should be lifted immediately.

Now, had they done this awhile ago the C.B.Diversity would never have been able to get a foothold in Glamis. Obviously, I was not in ASA meetings when all this first happened, so slap me if this is redundant, but I'm pretty sure they knew what was coming(because I was at the BLM meetings where it was discussed).

Its a given that most of us work full time and do not employ Biologists to send out proactivly to our OHV areas to do survey's and even in my case having a biologist and the studies, may not save my area. But , if I didn't I would not be writting this because my area would be CLOSED.

The fact is that information is power, and Oceano Dunes is next and they better get on
the Ball ! Get your head into the game or else the whole city will be sitting there going "What Happened?" for no good reason!
You would think that with all the money OHV generates in that city,with donations they could get scientific information and hire a consultant.
A lawyer is like tires in this fight, Information is a locker!

One more thing, we think like 4wheelers, the center for Bio diversity lawyers think like lawyer/biologists.

You can hire all the lawyers you want, what you need is BIOLOGISTS!


:usa:

The ASA did not exist before the CDCA lawsuit. The future membership and leadership were aware of the threats by the CBD/SC/PEER, but the ramification and exploitation of the Piersons Milkvetch ESA listing (any of the Milkvetch ESA listings) were not anticipated by anyone. We need to be prepared for more of this in the future (as specific closure targets are already identified in the CDCA lawsuit stipulation listing demands for other species, and their perceived natural range)

The need to draw Biologists and Legal representation over to the side of recreation (and motorized recreation) needs to start with an understanding that we already hire many good "experts" in the public land management agencies. Unfortunately, every time these folks hear a message that they are $#@& incompetent or evil (or as dumb as the rocks we enjoy crawling over) it fails to generate any compassion for off-roaders. We need to take care to not alienate inside help and distance ourselves from voices of sound experience, or we will lose these moderate experts to side of the PEER spouting radicals.

Information is power, and the opposition has stacked their ranks with biologists and educated life-science activists from the beginning of these organizations. We do need more expert help, and the ASA action to fund a competing Biological Opinion reflects good leadership. We should learn from the effort.

Our opponents have also enlisted legal activists at an alarming rate over the past twenty years. We do not have twenty years to catch up on the legal representation or the formation of legal activist shadow organizations. This is where we need to learn quickly (IMO) and bypass the separate assembly of legal and biological representation teams, by forming an organization that specializes in legal and biological experts (with communications experience) to further our shared cause. An organization along the lines of the CBD, for off-roaders and motorized recreationists.

The ASA has shown us that a lawsuit to the BLM, the same tactics used by the NRDC and CBD, is the more effective method to counter bad science and poor land management than expecting the management agency to represent recreation in unbiased settlement agreement resolution. The ASA is local, focused on a narrow area of the recreation spectrum, reflecting the need for a more regional legal and biological team organization. CORVA, and Cal4Wheel can practice the same tactics as the ASA (and may be better prepared, initially, compared to a new organization) but I fear too much history and ego conflict will prevent either of these organizations from banding together resources (i.e. dollars) without a delay in the decision process (and a timely responce is critical as pointed out by Paul Turcke).

Happy Trails!