The following quote is the kind of response that made me seek out and reply to the October Four Wheeler Magazine article, "Low Rage, One man's rant" by Ted Reese. This response, turning down my request for help with letters to the BLM to preserve motorized access on Surprise Canyon Road, may have discouraged more enthusiasts to defend their favorite choice of recreation:

"There's an article in this months FOUR WHEELER about Surprise Canyon. Take a look at it. I'm afraid that I must agree with the writer. If the stuff that he says is really happening then, yes, close it. Unfortunately there are alot of ORV users who care only about themselves and nothing else. These people, in my opinion, are more of a threat to our trails than any enviro group."

If the misleading article discouraged you from defending motorized recreation on Surprise Canyon Road (or any other reason made you miss the original deadline) you have another chance to get your comments recorded on the travel classification alternatives (and anything else you want entered into the BLM record regarding Surprise Canyon).

The public comment period for Surprise Canyon Road travel classification alternatives has been extended to October 3, 2002.

The subject and details are up on the Land-Use Forum (along with the NEMO plan Wild & Scenic River closure considerations for Surprise Canyon Creek):

Surprise Canyon Road Comment Period Extended (http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81976)

Remember that the current temporary closure to vehicles was not at the request of the public, but at the request of a litigant (the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club) within a mid-lawsuit stipulation agreement. The CBD originally sued the BLM for not acting in good faith to protect species, by claiming the BLM did not update their management plans frequently enough. The BLM was failing to deliver the new plan within the lawsuit agreement timetable (they could not meet legal public review requirements and meet the lawsuit schedule), so the CBD met with the BLM and offered an extension to the deadline timetable. The deadline extension came with a price (something like a leveraged trade -- in nice terms). One of the CBD/SC demands was the temporary (but immediate) Surprise Canyon Road closure. The BLM accepted the offer, and the motorized community was forced to accept it as well, because the threatened alternative was a total closure of all motorized access to the entire NEMO and NECO plan revision area (almost all of the Southern California Desert, at least until the NEMO and NECO decisions are completed).

As you can guess, many people believe this leveraged "litigate and stipulate for demands" process stinks, although, as the BLM agreed to settle the lawsuit (by agreeing to the stipulations) the right of an organization to legally sue the government on these grounds may never be tested in court (let alone the legality of altering land management policy by stipulation agreement, without the oversight of congress).

I urge you to read the NEMO plan revision Wild and Scenic River (WSR) consideration (also posted in the Land-Use forum) as it is a parallel assault against motorized access on Surprise Canyon Road (another tactic to close the canyon road to motorized travel).

The WSR eligibility recommendation as a "scenic" and "recreational" river essentially gives the BLM an additional opportunity to prohibit motorized use within 1/4 mile of the creek (the canyon bottom, and the 60-foot wide road corridor). Since the "scenic" WSR recommendation is for the entry of the canyon (the land starting below Chris Wicht camp) it can be used to prohibit any access to the upper canyon. This is important to understand, even if you never plan to wheel Surprise Canyon, as any of the areas identified for WSR consideration in Senator Boxer's Wilderness bill will face similar restrictions (learn what ESA protection tactics you can expect to eventually challenge your right to wheel Fordyce Creek, Dusy-Ersham, and even the Rubicon).

The lack of BLM acknowledgement or recognition of Route P71 in the WSR recommendation is astonishing; usually it's hard to ignore a recognized county road (recognition that we all expect to preserve travel on the Rubicon, although the same recognition is currently being tested on Surprise Canyon Road). To some long time desert residents the ignorance of recognizing a road in a BLM plan is not surprising considering the apparent ideology of some of the BLM staff managing the NEMO plan. Some of the staff appears willing to do anything to place more restrictions on vehicle usage (as reflected in the record of this and other decisions).

I do not believe the local BLM staff expected the WSR decision on NEMO to be released before the Route P71 travel classification public comment period was closed (and expose the conflict and apparent ignorance of the NEMO plan team in regards to the subject of Surprise Canyon Road).

This current public review process, and the multiple attacks on the public right-of-way on Surprise Canyon Road, is likely to take a long time. A good development is the BLM is now considering oversight of the local office on this issue (after the elected administration change). If the national elections had turned out differently, many people believe motorized access would have been rejected without the current level of honest public review. The bad development is the closure advocates are trying, and learning from, every tactic in their bag of tricks to close this legally recognized road (tactics they are expected to employ nationwide). As motorized recreation enthusiasts, we can only try to keep the BLM honest, learn from the process, and oppose the unreasonable closures to motorized recreation.

Thanks for the letter writing support, every letter helps.

Happy Trails!