BRC: You have no "right" to public land.

[Mrs DuMass]

Hey Bebe, Jim asked me to post this from the Toyota Land Cruiser Association's March/April 2012 "Toyota Trails":

http://www.tlca.org/trails/Open-Gate.shtml

The Open Gate

March/April 2012
By Greg Mumm

When it comes to our ability to recreate on public lands, there are a lot of things to know. Starting with these four, I've decided I will share some musings to that end in my next several columns.

1) It is a privilege.
Enthusiasts—and even some advocates—will often claim the "right" to recreate on public lands. Unfortunately, that isn't true. However, much like your rights, if you ignore the privileges you have, they too will ultimately go away… which leads me to the second thing.

2) The privilege requires your involvement.
The lay of the land (pun intended) when it comes to recreational access is different today than it was five years ago. Likewise, it was different five years before that. It is constantly changing and evolving. If you aren't involved, it is likely that the things you enjoy about our public lands, things you would like to see continue for yourself—and remain as a legacy for future generations—won't be there five years from now. It is that simple. I wouldn't count on someone else to do it for you—they might be counting on you to do it for them.

3) You can't do it alone and you don't have to do it alone.
I read once that all land use is political and all politics are local. It's true. It has also been my experience that in the absence of a group to speak on behalf of, decision-makers aren't listening.

I have often said that you don't need a club to go wheeling with your buddies but you do need a club to make sure there is someplace to go wheeling with your buddies. Organized recreation groups are who agency and political decision makers look to and you need to belong.
"To belong" means that at the very least, you need to join a local club who is taking the necessary steps to be involved in local land use. It also means you need to belong to your state umbrella organization and you need to support the national organization or organizations of your choice through membership. On top of membership (and especially if you can't donate time and expertise), donate money to their efforts. Your privilege comes as a result of their efforts and their efforts cost time and money. A couple hundred dollars a year in memberships and donations is a small price to pay.

4) Proactive trumps reactionary, especially if you aren't proactive.
In life as in land use, in the absence of a plan of your own, someone else's plan will rule the day. What I am saying is, don't wait for someone else to determine what is going to happen with your favorite trail or area—you snooze, you lose. By the time a planning effort is formed, half the decisions are already made and you are relegated to only reactionary involvement.

I am not saying you shouldn't be involved in those planning processes; it is important that you are involved. But more importantly, we need to be ahead of the game, being proactive in building the necessary relationships with local land managers and asserting ourselves in local efforts so our plans are acted on, not those of someone else.

As its Executive Director, I can tell you that BlueRibbon Coalition is deeply involved and we are working to keep you informed at www.sharetrails.org.

I can only say that Jim would use more descriptive terms for the level of BS necessary to make such a statement by someone in a position of trust and authority.

BRC's 909 tax form
40% salary
25% legal
35% (of the 35%, 17% is listed as "unknown")

Maybe some post-secondary education on Constitutional Law would be a better use of the money we give you, until you comprehend the concept of "public" land.

Shame on you Gregg

[Bebe]

I fully disagree with Greg on point #1.

It's a matter of opinion since it hasn't been tested in a court of Law.

Having said that, it's not really a belief system I can support with my hard earned $$$. The right to travel has been fully tested, and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

To me, happiness was wheeling on the Rubicon, hanging out with my friends at a bonfire, sharing food and drink on public land.

I agree that like anything - responsible use is always a must. Draconian attitudes bring the suck.

[paragon]

this isn't a matter of opinion nor a matter of precedent.

this is a matter of simple common logic.

a privilege is something reserved for a special class

I suggest Mr. Mumm break open a dictionary and learn what the words mean that he so carelessly throws around.

a privilege suggests that We the People live by the leave of our federal government. We do not. The federal government does not own the public land. We the People own that land and task the federal government to manage it for US. The federal government exists at We the People's leave it's getting about damn time for We the People to wake up from this tail wagging the dog.

[Stonebone]

Thanks for opening my eyes to this guy... Public land is our land. We do have the RIGHT to wheel it!!

[cruzila]

http://www.thelibertyvoice.com/right-to-travel

Despite actions of police and local courts, higher courts have ruled that Americans citizens have a right to travel without state permits.

by Jack McLamb

(from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

[cruzila]

Then there is the 9th amendment...............

When the Bill of Rights was first proposed, the major argument against it was that by specifying some rights that the government was not free to violate, there would be the implication that the government was free to violate any rights not specifically protected in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment was written to address this concern.

Implicit Rights:
But most justices do believe that the Ninth Amendment has binding authority, and they use it to protect implicit rights hinted at but not explicated elsewhere in the Constitution. Implicit rights include both the right to privacy outlined in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), but also basic unspecified rights such as the right to travel and the right to the presumption of innocence.

[Bebe]

I'm pretty sure the NRA does not strip it's members 2 amendment rights because criminals use guns too.

As responsible wheelers we enjoy our rights responsibly. Because there are those who drive where they don't belong doesn't mean the right to travel somehow morphs into a privilege at the whim of someone with a newsletter.

Just because the right to "wheel" isn't specified in the Bill Of Rights, as posted above, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And as I mentioned earlier, it has been well tested in this Country's Court system.

[Ghetto Fab.]

I always understood driving to be a privilege, something I see a lot of drivers take for granted.

However, access to public lands is a right of the citizens, doesn't matter if your driving, biking, horseback riding, or walking.

Kevo

[ABearden]

Originally Posted by Ghetto Fab.

I always understood driving to be a privilege, something I see a lot of drivers take for granted.

However, access to public lands is a right of the citizens, doesn't matter if your driving, biking, horseback riding, or walking.

Kevo

This. Sounds like Mr. Mumm was trying to use a scare tactic to drive BRC efforts. He should know that won't work with your typical wheeler.

Just because politicians pass laws restricting it does NOT mean that it's not a right, merely that the law is trampling that right. Hell, they don't understand the definition of "shall not be infringed" in specifically enumerated rights deemed highly important to the nation so what makes you think they understand more nuanced rights like public land access?

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by Ghetto Fab.

I always understood driving to be a privilege, something I see a lot of drivers take for granted.

However, access to public lands is a right of the citizens, doesn't matter if your driving, biking, horseback riding, or walking.

Kevo

Here is a case for you:

CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

[Kurtuleas]

So what is your point here? To slam Gregg? To slam BRC? or to bring a discussion about right vs. privedge?

Look, I don't agree with Gregg on this point...but I don't agree with my wife on certain things too. That does not mean I am going to kick her to the curb.

What is do know, what is a FACT, is that Gregg works his ass off for us and is even more passionate about our access than I am.

So I am just going to "agree to disagree" and keep fighting along side of Gregg.

Same thing with other groups. I have made it clear on here that I disagree with some of the things RTF has done or had proposed, but I will still go through the fire for them becuase in the end.....we all want the same thing: access.

[momar]

I think I agree with this, but I think it is a right that can be taken from you in certain situations (which might make it a privilege?).

For example, in my opinion, driving around drunk off your ass should result in your loss of that right being that you are now a threat to someone Else's rights.

So if an individual is wheeling irresponsibly and goes mudding through a meadow in spring time, THAT INDIVIDUAL should lose his right/privilege to wheel until he has been "rehabilitated" . However, the rest of us should not lose our right to access these trails. Similarly, if one dumbass gets drunk and crashes his car, we all don't lose the right/privilege to drive down the roads...

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by Kurtuleas

So what is your point here? To slam Gregg? To slam BRC? or to bring a discussion about right vs. privedge?

To disagree.

[RockMolester]

Originally Posted by Kurtuleas

So what is your point here? To slam Gregg? To slam BRC? or to bring a discussion about right vs. privedge?

Look, I don't agree with Gregg on this point...but I don't agree with my wife on certain things too. That does not mean I am going to kick her to the curb.

What is do know, what is a FACT, is that Gregg works his ass off for us and is even more passionate about our access than I am.

So I am just going to "agree to disagree" and keep fighting along side of Gregg.

Same thing with other groups. I have made it clear on here that I disagree with some of the things RTF has done or had proposed, but I will still go through the fire for them becuase in the end.....we all want the same thing: access.

Well-said! I couldn't have put it better myself.
Even if they aren't "perfect" in everyone's minds, BRC has done more to help defend our rights than any other group. I don't support Gregg's statement, but he's still working his tail off to preserve my God-given right to responsibly recreate on the public lands for which I pay taxes to my government to manage for me and every other responsible American. BRC will continue to receive my donations as long as they continue the fight.

[atvobsession]

Originally Posted by RockMolester

Well-said! I couldn't have put it better myself.
Even if they aren't "perfect" in everyone's minds, BRC has done more to help defend our rights than any other group. I don't support Gregg's statement, but he's still working his tail off to preserve my God-given right to responsibly recreate on the public lands for which I pay taxes to my government to manage for me and every other responsible American. BRC will continue to receive my donations as long as they continue the fight.

what I would like to know....

A) How much fundraising does BRC do in California

B) How much % of their total legal dollars spent, is it in California.

C) What State do they spend the MOST money in, as a %.


It's pretty easy to do fundraising in California, but spend it in Utah or where ever.

RTF, obviously 100% $ collected, is spent on the Rubicon.

Corva...California obviously.

Supporting national organizations is great, but for places like El Dorado County, Johnson valley, etc....I think it's going to take local/state horsepower to depend on...not a national organization.

IMO...Orgs like BRC, should be focusing on National influence...Lobbying at a Federal level....like NRA....not battling individual roads.

That should be orgs like CORVA for OUR (California) needs....and RTF if you love a specific trail.

Just my opinion.

[Bebe]

Or...Cal4...right?

[RockMolester]

Great point. That's why I also am a member of UFWDA, CORVA, attend Cantina for the 'Con, and give donations to Cal4Wheel and RTF. I spread my wealth around because ALL of these organizations are fighting to preserve my rights.

[cjcraig7]

by Jack McLamb

(from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.


I wonder how Jack McLamb would feel about the Rubicon Trail being closed to public use (unless you choose to pay the toll) for two weeks during the peak season.

There are elitest on both sides of the issue, neither of which are 100% committed to unrestricted access to our roads and trails. Therefore, judges like Karlton will have the last say.

[atvobsession]

Originally Posted by Bebe

Or...Cal4...right?

Yeah...of course. I was talking conceptually, not specifically. my bad.


I saw the other post talking about one organization. I agree....that one is simple...here's where my thoughts lie.

A gun is one thing. Like the NRA. And while, some local areas may try enact gun laws (like chicago) or at the State level..like California, they are fairly limited....the primary focus of Gun advocacy, is National. Hence..NRA. It's just not that fragmented.

Trails and Public access, isn't that simplified. Within each State....and even some counties..there can be HUNDREDS of trails. A National organization, like BRC would find it very problematic to fight every battle, for every trail , in every state, in every county.

I'm not saying BRC doesn't have its place...on the Contrary. I think BRC plays a pivotal role....but at a National level. BRC should be focused on lobbying congress, working on national appointments, like the head of the FS or BLM. Working with lawmakers to prevent bad legislation, and promoting good legislation. We need to build better relationships at the top, and that takes money, salaries to hire good people, influential people. Just imagine, if OHV had someone as charismatic and influential as say Bill Clinton talking to senators and representatives on OHV legislation..like Johnson Valley? No jokes about Bill...I'm talking about in theory..not the actual person.

It takes money to make money...BRC should be help focus fundraising on a national level, to a local level. Manufacturers, fabricators, parts makers, etc....need to wake up. When there's no place to wheel....people won't need a tire that costs $1000, or cryo frozen axle made of space age material, or an ATV, SxS...etc. If BRC was focused on that....local orgs could apply to them for grants to help their local areas.

So what I'm saying is....having one organization to give money to...isn't a horrible idea.....the problem is more local in nature...and that transferring of funds from a National to more localized area, with Orgs ready to use it in the right fight....would have to be in place.

[atvobsession]

Originally Posted by cjcraig7

I wonder how Jack McLamb would feel about the Rubicon Trail being closed to public use (unless you choose to pay the toll) for two weeks during the peak season.

Is this in reference to the Jamboree? or some hypothetical toll?

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by atvobsession

Yeah...of course. I was talking conceptually, not specifically. my bad.

I saw the other post talking about one organization. I agree....that one is simple...here's where my thoughts lie.

A gun is one thing. Like the NRA. And while, some local areas may try enact gun laws (like chicago) or at the State level..like California, they are fairly limited....the primary focus of Gun advocacy, is National. Hence..NRA. It's just not that fragmented.

And there is both the NRA and CalGuns along with many local gun clubs and Hunting .orgs.

Originally Posted by atvobsession

Trails and Public access, isn't that simplified. Within each State....and even some counties..there can be HUNDREDS of trails. A National organization, like BRC would find it very problematic to fight every battle, for every trail , in every state, in every county.

Exactly, there are three or more tiers to advocacy, BRC/United = National, Cal4/CORVA = State, and Friends of Groups for focused local issues.

Originally Posted by atvobsession

I'm not saying BRC doesn't have its place...on the Contrary. I think BRC plays a pivotal role....but at a National level. BRC should be focused on lobbying congress, working on national appointments, like the head of the FS or BLM. Working with lawmakers to prevent bad legislation, and promoting good legislation. We need to build better relationships at the top, and that takes money, salaries to hire good people, influential people. Just imagine, if OHV had someone as charismatic and influential as say Bill Clinton talking to senators and representatives on OHV legislation..like Johnson Valley? No jokes about Bill...I'm talking about in theory..not the actual person.

You are right, BC was a super smooth negotiator.

Originally Posted by atvobsession

It takes money to make money...BRC should be help focus fundraising on a national level, to a local level. Manufacturers, fabricators, parts makers, etc....need to wake up. When there's no place to wheel....people won't need a tire that costs $1000, or cryo frozen axle made of space age material, or an ATV, SxS...etc. If BRC was focused on that....local orgs could apply to them for grants to help their local areas.

Agreed 100%, BRC should focus on the big Mfrs. It really doesn't make sense to look for big bucks where there is little availability of discretionary funds. Maybe that's why they get the impression they are unloved I know folks give as much as they can, but it's never going to or has been enough.

No Trails = No Sales!

Originally Posted by atvobsession

So what I'm saying is....having one organization to give money to...isn't a horrible idea.....the problem is more local in nature...and that transferring of funds from a National to more localized area, with Orgs ready to use it in the right fight....would have to be in place.

And, the Local peeps can use your back more than they can your wallet...donating your time on the trail is actually far more productive at a local level. Donating to your State .org's legal fund and then donating to the National groups can be done as you have the extra bucks.

Thanks Ken....

[cjcraig7]

Originally Posted by atvobsession

Is this in reference to the Jamboree? or some hypothetical toll?

Yes, and unfortunately at least on principle, part of the issue that I have getting my mind around who gets to tell who, when and where they can travel.

And just so this post doesn't appear to be a troll, I will put some money where my mouth is. I will have a check for $10,000.00 made out to the Rubicon Trail Foundation, and present that check to RTF at the 2012 Cantina on the Con' in the event that RTF takes an unequivocal public position against any closure, temporary or otherwise, of the Rubicon Trail by any public or private entity.

So, can a private citizen or entity buy access, and if so, if $10,000 isn't enough, how much is enough?

What I do take away from all these threads over the past three days - there is not a whole lot of trust associated with those carrying the message for the public. Possibly, a good place to start renewing trust and direction is through a commitment to core principles at home.

[atvobsession]

Originally Posted by cjcraig7

Yes, and unfortunately at least on principle, part of the issue that I have getting my mind around who gets to tell who, when and where they can travel.

And just so this post doesn't appear to be a troll, I will put some money where my mouth is. I will have a check for $10,000.00 made out to the Rubicon Trail Foundation, and present that check to RTF at the 2012 Cantina on the Con' in the event that RTF takes an unequivocal public position against any closure, temporary or otherwise, of the Rubicon Trail by any public or private entity.

So, can a private citizen or entity buy access, and if so, if $10,000 isn't enough, how much is enough?

What I do take away from all these threads over the past three days - there is not a whole lot of trust associated with those carrying the message for the public. Possibly, a good place to start renewing trust and direction is through a commitment to core principles at home.

Gotcha Craig. Well...RTF had our annual meeting (yes..at our own cost) in Placerville last month. One thing we talked about...was our mission statement. It's not that long (mission statements shouldn't be), but it says A LOT...if I may....

"To enhance the future health and use of the Rubicon Trail, while ensuring responsible motorized year-round trail access."

The key words resonate to me...enhance, future, responsible, motorized, year-round access.

On the closure of the trail Craig...funny you mention. I did get some great clarification from one of our board members, Dan, who is Pres of JJ. The trail is only closed in whole, 3 days. The other days, are just partial. They just ask on the Sat/Sun that people stay between Loon and Buck. Fair enough, IMO...and frankly, I wouldn't want to be any where near Cadillac on any exit day, which this year is Sun/Mon and Sun. I actually updated the Calendar as such, this morning.

This year...we will be putting a LOT of work into the RTF property.

[Mrs DuMass]

Originally Posted by Kurtuleas

in the end.....we all want the same thing: access.

No Kurt, in the end we apparently DON'T want the same thing. That's the problem.

When we had the USFS in full retreat, the CBD forced to support our assertion that the USFS themselves did more damage in a month than we could ever do, AZ State Land Dept in full retreat and the EPA ready to penalize all of them.

We couldn't get you to lock the thread to secure the evidence for the Office of the Inspector General to commence criminal prosecution against the USFS road engineer, who bragged about bulldozing the forest every year HERE IN THIS THREAD!!!

SaveRForestsFromUSFS NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT NOW!
/forum/land-use-issues/870008-saverforestsfromusfs-needs-your-support-now.html



At that point everyone "had great relationships" with their local USFS.

How'd that work out for ya in the end?





Were they really your friends? Should we have used the opportunity when we caught them red-handed to push the fight all the way back to Tellico like Jim told you? Or are you glad that Gregg didn't care then either (of course that was just AZ not Ca so who cares, right)?





Now it's an emergency and maybe you are finally ready to recognize that your tactics are grossly inneffective.



How much are we paying your wife to agree with you, what do you get paid?

What does Gregg get paid to spout something I would expect from Eric Holder?


In the end a volunteer should act in a professional manner even though unpaid, but a paid professional should never be both paid and unprofessional.




The Battle of Charoleau Gap should have been the land use equivalent of Pearl Harbor, instead that opportunity was wasted. We now have a dirt road to a hiking trail instead of a 4x4 road as it is signed by the USFS and you have the entire Eldorado forest closed.

Clearly that was NOT

Originally Posted by Kurtuleas

the same thing: access.

We need people who work to build bridges with these agencies, BUT we also must have people who will hold them accountable and punish them without mercy when they violate the law and the trust of the American people.




Which would surprize you more; President Obama suspending our civil rights or Ron Paul? The CBD not caring that the USFS wiped out the Charoleau Gap trail or BRC?




Perhaps someone should make Gregg aware of this thread and then he can apologize or explain himself?


Subjects beg for privileges, citizens have inalienable rights.

[cjcraig7]

Originally Posted by atvobsession

Gotcha Craig. Well...RTF had our annual meeting (yes..at our own cost) in Placerville last month. One thing we talked about...was our mission statement. It's not that long (mission statements shouldn't be), but it says A LOT...if I may....

"To enhance the future health and use of the Rubicon Trail, while ensuring responsible motorized year-round trail access."

The key words resonate to me...enhance, future, responsible, motorized, year-round access.

On the closure of the trail Craig...funny you mention. I did get some great clarification from one of our board members, Dan, who is Pres of JJ. The trail is only closed in whole, 3 days. The other days, are just partial. They just ask on the Sat/Sun that people stay between Loon and Buck. Fair enough, IMO...and frankly, I wouldn't want to be any where near Cadillac on any exit day, which this year is Sun/Mon and Sun. I actually updated the Calendar as such, this morning.

This year...we will be putting a LOT of work into the RTF property.

This really isn't about JJ. My point pivots on the principle of open and equal access to all, without equivocation, and further, the use of the legal finding in this discussion that I quoted in my first post.

But even on those three days, as a matter of principle only, do you not see the conundrum? How do Land Use leaders explain that rules are made to be broken, or applied inconsistently? And who determines the greater good beside CBD.

Summarily, I think you are right about the traffic, who would want to be there beside the participants? That factor only, IMO should be what regulates the usage without having to engage in an official closure.

Thank you for your efforts.