A developing story - Government Off Road land?

Tiki
Posts
10611
Joined
8/1/2006
Location
Corona, CA US
Fantasy
Edited Date/Time 1/24/2012 11:37am
President Obama has started the Great Outdoor Initiative. Please do not cast judgment either way until you know the full story. What I would like for you to do, is participate. Be civil - do not use the Vital Forum mentality but put some thought to your idea.

What it is, a community to submit ideas that our leaders can use and adopt. Pretty snazzy if you ask me and Kudos to the Administration for trying. Lets see where this goes.

Here is the website:
http://www.doi.gov/americasgreatoutdoors/index.cfm
The top link
Submit Your Ideas & Join the Conversation
This takes you to the ideas. Some are voted down many good one are voted up. There are a few regarding Off Road and OHV. Those, much like a Two stroke/Four Stroke Debate are heated. The environmentalist seem a little pissed that we know how to use a computer it seems.
Your support can help push our ideas, our dreams up higher. It would be nice to have riding areas wouldn't it. Maybe here is our chance.

This thread has some legs.

The right side has the "What's Hot" these are the threads that are getting a lot of traffic. Take a look and if you have some thoughts let's hear them.

thanks.
|
SoCalMX70
Posts
3555
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA US
10/5/2010 9:52pm
This thread needs to stay at the top. AT LEAST select "Promote" on the good ideas including the above thread link. Posting a comment would be good too!

After reading about 50 of those responses I just get that same angry feeling I get every time I read the BS enviornmentalists write... Definitely going to post a well thought out response later.
10/5/2010 10:05pm
Tiki wrote:
President Obama has started the Great Outdoor Initiative. Please do not cast judgment either way until you know the full story. What I would like for...
President Obama has started the Great Outdoor Initiative. Please do not cast judgment either way until you know the full story. What I would like for you to do, is participate. Be civil - do not use the Vital Forum mentality but put some thought to your idea.

What it is, a community to submit ideas that our leaders can use and adopt. Pretty snazzy if you ask me and Kudos to the Administration for trying. Lets see where this goes.

Here is the website:
http://www.doi.gov/americasgreatoutdoors/index.cfm
The top link
Submit Your Ideas & Join the Conversation
This takes you to the ideas. Some are voted down many good one are voted up. There are a few regarding Off Road and OHV. Those, much like a Two stroke/Four Stroke Debate are heated. The environmentalist seem a little pissed that we know how to use a computer it seems.
Your support can help push our ideas, our dreams up higher. It would be nice to have riding areas wouldn't it. Maybe here is our chance.

This thread has some legs.

The right side has the "What's Hot" these are the threads that are getting a lot of traffic. Take a look and if you have some thoughts let's hear them.

thanks.
thanks WE are going to need every but of help we can to save our sport...
Tiki
Posts
10611
Joined
8/1/2006
Location
Corona, CA US
Fantasy
10/6/2010 6:15pm
Really? Two comments? Tell me more of you guys care about this.
stumpjumper
Posts
430
Joined
1/24/2009
Location
Muntucky, IN US
10/6/2010 6:29pm
We need real people lobbying for us,Not relying on the A.M.A. to do it!

The Shop

redalert144
Posts
1777
Joined
5/24/2009
Location
Yuma, AZ US
10/6/2010 6:34pm
Just went through and voted a bunch, keep our trails and land alive!
SoCalMX70
Posts
3555
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA US
10/17/2010 12:56pm
I think this needs a bump. Everyone should at least check out the site and read some of the ideas. Click "Promote" for anything you support
SoCalMX70
Posts
3555
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA US
10/17/2010 3:41pm
Kinda wish I didn't bump this. Sorry guys.
SoCalMX70
Posts
3555
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA US
10/17/2010 6:01pm
SoCalMX70 wrote:
Kinda wish I didn't bump this. Sorry guys.
way to go NOOB!
Only took ya 2 years! Tongue
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
10/17/2010 6:10pm
I just read the Dirt Rider article, and it was the sorriest excuse for journalism I ever read in my life. No facts, no proposals, no rational analysis, just lunatic paranoia and political propaganda.

Off road motorcycle and ATV riders are at risk of being restricted, and for good reason - because wherever they operate, they ruin the wilderness experience for everyone else. I've been hiking out of Ouray for hours and still can't get away from the constant noise of four strokes blasting at 70+ mph down dirt roads miles away - and when you come down off the mountain and you have the misfortune to need to hike a short distance on a dirt road, you're seriously in danger of being run over, not to mention the ever-present dust, especially from four wheelers. The thing is, off road motorcycles ruin everyone else's experience, but hikers don't bother the riders at all. It's a one-way deal. The bikers get everything, the hikers get nothing. It's insanity to think that's OK. But there's no single voice in the OHV community proposing any rational solution so far.

There's no threat to riders on private property except from insurance companies, and once again, nobody seems to be addressing the issue of risk, particularly to children. If you think it's OK to have the kinds of injuries we routinely see to kids racing motocross, and lawyers and insurance companies aren't going to eventually come down on that, you're wrong. It's not a government intervention issue there - as long as you're on private property - it's a liability issue. And despite the obvious legal risk, I can go to any track in the Houston area and walk one lap around it and find at least a dozen things that kids can hit, places that are very dangerous if you mix a kid and a fast guy on a 450, places people can get on the track and accidentally go the wrong way, and so on. It wouldn't be hard to find 50 locations on Houston area tracks where, if a kid got hurt and the insurance company investigated, they could find that the injury was due to negligence and irresponsibility of the parents and the track owner, and initiate legal action. Once again, there is no single group or organization that has any kind of program to shield track owners by inspecting facilities, suggesting improvements, or anything like that. It's not hard to initiate a program to improve track safety, and it doesn't cost much to do it - and you can't make everything safe, but at least if you have a program and some standards, when the insurance company shows up you're not just standing there with nothing but a liability waiver for protection. At least you're trying to do what you can to make things as safe as possible.

But like everything else, people just want to cry about it and decide who to blame. That's the American way these days. Don't fix anything, just decide whose fault it is.

SoCalMX70
Posts
3555
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA US
10/17/2010 6:42pm
WhKnuckle wrote:
I just read the Dirt Rider article, and it was the sorriest excuse for journalism I ever read in my life. No facts, no proposals, no...
I just read the Dirt Rider article, and it was the sorriest excuse for journalism I ever read in my life. No facts, no proposals, no rational analysis, just lunatic paranoia and political propaganda.

Off road motorcycle and ATV riders are at risk of being restricted, and for good reason - because wherever they operate, they ruin the wilderness experience for everyone else. I've been hiking out of Ouray for hours and still can't get away from the constant noise of four strokes blasting at 70+ mph down dirt roads miles away - and when you come down off the mountain and you have the misfortune to need to hike a short distance on a dirt road, you're seriously in danger of being run over, not to mention the ever-present dust, especially from four wheelers. The thing is, off road motorcycles ruin everyone else's experience, but hikers don't bother the riders at all. It's a one-way deal. The bikers get everything, the hikers get nothing. It's insanity to think that's OK. But there's no single voice in the OHV community proposing any rational solution so far.

There's no threat to riders on private property except from insurance companies, and once again, nobody seems to be addressing the issue of risk, particularly to children. If you think it's OK to have the kinds of injuries we routinely see to kids racing motocross, and lawyers and insurance companies aren't going to eventually come down on that, you're wrong. It's not a government intervention issue there - as long as you're on private property - it's a liability issue. And despite the obvious legal risk, I can go to any track in the Houston area and walk one lap around it and find at least a dozen things that kids can hit, places that are very dangerous if you mix a kid and a fast guy on a 450, places people can get on the track and accidentally go the wrong way, and so on. It wouldn't be hard to find 50 locations on Houston area tracks where, if a kid got hurt and the insurance company investigated, they could find that the injury was due to negligence and irresponsibility of the parents and the track owner, and initiate legal action. Once again, there is no single group or organization that has any kind of program to shield track owners by inspecting facilities, suggesting improvements, or anything like that. It's not hard to initiate a program to improve track safety, and it doesn't cost much to do it - and you can't make everything safe, but at least if you have a program and some standards, when the insurance company shows up you're not just standing there with nothing but a liability waiver for protection. At least you're trying to do what you can to make things as safe as possible.

But like everything else, people just want to cry about it and decide who to blame. That's the American way these days. Don't fix anything, just decide whose fault it is.

The bikers get everything, the hikers get nothing? Are you kidding me? I can think of at least 6-7 places within TEN MILES (maybe even 5 miles) of where I'm sitting right now that I can go hike where no offroad vehicles are even remotely allowed... The variety in the hiking trails and the amount of trails is virtually unlimited around here.

If I want to RIDE I gotta load up and drive at least an hour and there's TWO places I can go. If I want to ride in a more open area that isn't crowded I have to drive at least 2 hours. All the OHV trails getting shut down end up being "hiking" trails (or nothing trails where no one can go...). Hikers are getting more, OHVs are getting less.

A middleground can certainly be found... There's already hiking ONLY trails EVERYWHERE, so make the OHV parks OHV ONLY. As in don't walk down a designated trail unless you want to put yourself in danger or get a ticket. I certainly can't take my bike down a hiking trail (and I never would) because it would just get impounded in about 5 minutes.

Why can't we do that? It's either that or everyone SHARE and be more understanding. That'll never happen so keep everyone separate and stop closing shit down.

I guess the other problem we OHVers have is the enviornmentalists. You want to talk about lunatic paranoia and propaganda? Just go read some of their BS on that website given in the OP. Some of it is just completely mind blowing.

WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
10/17/2010 7:33pm
WhKnuckle wrote:
I just read the Dirt Rider article, and it was the sorriest excuse for journalism I ever read in my life. No facts, no proposals, no...
I just read the Dirt Rider article, and it was the sorriest excuse for journalism I ever read in my life. No facts, no proposals, no rational analysis, just lunatic paranoia and political propaganda.

Off road motorcycle and ATV riders are at risk of being restricted, and for good reason - because wherever they operate, they ruin the wilderness experience for everyone else. I've been hiking out of Ouray for hours and still can't get away from the constant noise of four strokes blasting at 70+ mph down dirt roads miles away - and when you come down off the mountain and you have the misfortune to need to hike a short distance on a dirt road, you're seriously in danger of being run over, not to mention the ever-present dust, especially from four wheelers. The thing is, off road motorcycles ruin everyone else's experience, but hikers don't bother the riders at all. It's a one-way deal. The bikers get everything, the hikers get nothing. It's insanity to think that's OK. But there's no single voice in the OHV community proposing any rational solution so far.

There's no threat to riders on private property except from insurance companies, and once again, nobody seems to be addressing the issue of risk, particularly to children. If you think it's OK to have the kinds of injuries we routinely see to kids racing motocross, and lawyers and insurance companies aren't going to eventually come down on that, you're wrong. It's not a government intervention issue there - as long as you're on private property - it's a liability issue. And despite the obvious legal risk, I can go to any track in the Houston area and walk one lap around it and find at least a dozen things that kids can hit, places that are very dangerous if you mix a kid and a fast guy on a 450, places people can get on the track and accidentally go the wrong way, and so on. It wouldn't be hard to find 50 locations on Houston area tracks where, if a kid got hurt and the insurance company investigated, they could find that the injury was due to negligence and irresponsibility of the parents and the track owner, and initiate legal action. Once again, there is no single group or organization that has any kind of program to shield track owners by inspecting facilities, suggesting improvements, or anything like that. It's not hard to initiate a program to improve track safety, and it doesn't cost much to do it - and you can't make everything safe, but at least if you have a program and some standards, when the insurance company shows up you're not just standing there with nothing but a liability waiver for protection. At least you're trying to do what you can to make things as safe as possible.

But like everything else, people just want to cry about it and decide who to blame. That's the American way these days. Don't fix anything, just decide whose fault it is.

SoCalMX70 wrote:
The bikers get everything, the hikers get nothing? Are you kidding me? I can think of at least 6-7 places within TEN MILES (maybe even 5...
The bikers get everything, the hikers get nothing? Are you kidding me? I can think of at least 6-7 places within TEN MILES (maybe even 5 miles) of where I'm sitting right now that I can go hike where no offroad vehicles are even remotely allowed... The variety in the hiking trails and the amount of trails is virtually unlimited around here.

If I want to RIDE I gotta load up and drive at least an hour and there's TWO places I can go. If I want to ride in a more open area that isn't crowded I have to drive at least 2 hours. All the OHV trails getting shut down end up being "hiking" trails (or nothing trails where no one can go...). Hikers are getting more, OHVs are getting less.

A middleground can certainly be found... There's already hiking ONLY trails EVERYWHERE, so make the OHV parks OHV ONLY. As in don't walk down a designated trail unless you want to put yourself in danger or get a ticket. I certainly can't take my bike down a hiking trail (and I never would) because it would just get impounded in about 5 minutes.

Why can't we do that? It's either that or everyone SHARE and be more understanding. That'll never happen so keep everyone separate and stop closing shit down.

I guess the other problem we OHVers have is the enviornmentalists. You want to talk about lunatic paranoia and propaganda? Just go read some of their BS on that website given in the OP. Some of it is just completely mind blowing.

You misunderstood what I said - a hiker does not bother a rider even if they're in the same place; a rider on a loud four stroke bothers a hiker more than a mile away. I think you're on the right track as far as sharing in the sense that it's reasonable to have some areas that are set aside for OHVs and others that are set aside for hiking, but the best way to deal with the situation is to recognize the reality that your presence ruins their experience, and agree to some give and take. At the same time, hikers need to recognize that you need lots more room than they do in the areas that you CAN operate, and they need to recognize your right to be there. But I read something like this idiotic Dirt Rider deal and I realize there's no hope of acceptable compromise. How do you reason with someone who has no interest in facts?

As far as environmentalists, sometimes they have some good points as far as erosion and that kind of thing, but they obviously go overboard pretty often. Just like OHV people do, they think their viewpoint is the only valid one. To me, there doesn't seem to be much difference. OHV people think they have a God-given right to ride anywhere and any restriction is the work of the devil, and environmentalists think they have a God-given right to prevent people from touching the Earth. I don't see either side as reasonable.

I don't live in SoCal, and I understand it's more restricted than other areas out west, but here in my part of Texas there's almost no public land that allows OHVs, and people manage to ride every weekend.

In the end, it's unlikely that many rules will change either way, but whatever is changed will be howled and wailed like bloody murder. Like I said, that's the American way these days.
kirkco
Posts
21
Joined
8/10/2009
Location
Yorba Linda, CA US
10/17/2010 8:26pm
WhKnuckle wrote:
You misunderstood what I said - a hiker does not bother a rider even if they're in the same place; a rider on a loud four...
You misunderstood what I said - a hiker does not bother a rider even if they're in the same place; a rider on a loud four stroke bothers a hiker more than a mile away. I think you're on the right track as far as sharing in the sense that it's reasonable to have some areas that are set aside for OHVs and others that are set aside for hiking, but the best way to deal with the situation is to recognize the reality that your presence ruins their experience, and agree to some give and take. At the same time, hikers need to recognize that you need lots more room than they do in the areas that you CAN operate, and they need to recognize your right to be there. But I read something like this idiotic Dirt Rider deal and I realize there's no hope of acceptable compromise. How do you reason with someone who has no interest in facts?

As far as environmentalists, sometimes they have some good points as far as erosion and that kind of thing, but they obviously go overboard pretty often. Just like OHV people do, they think their viewpoint is the only valid one. To me, there doesn't seem to be much difference. OHV people think they have a God-given right to ride anywhere and any restriction is the work of the devil, and environmentalists think they have a God-given right to prevent people from touching the Earth. I don't see either side as reasonable.

I don't live in SoCal, and I understand it's more restricted than other areas out west, but here in my part of Texas there's almost no public land that allows OHVs, and people manage to ride every weekend.

In the end, it's unlikely that many rules will change either way, but whatever is changed will be howled and wailed like bloody murder. Like I said, that's the American way these days.
I have lived in SoCal all my life and have seen more areas closed to accomodate hikers, milk weed plants, kangaroo rats and tortoises. What I have not seen is a single riding area reopen after any study has been completed. Let alone open a new area for us to ride. I have been to Mojave where half of our riding area has been closed for hikers, but have yet to ever see a hiker. There are places where it is not reasonable to hike, Lucerne Valley comes to mind. Yet these places have been closed to OHV use.

Some of the racial undertones people say they arre feeling may not be towards a certain person but maybe a party in general. Some of my views have been shaped by what has been taken away from my family. I am talking about politicians such as Allen Cranston, Barbra Boxer and Diane Feinstein. And thats just in my state.

Hikers have closer more desireable areas to access then I could ever wish to ride. We have over 40,000 open acres in OC that nobody can access because of enviormental sensitivies. But they can build houses on the land when it becomes convienant. Enviromentalist are hipacrits. And your drinking their coolaid.
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
10/18/2010 3:34am
kirkco wrote:
I have lived in SoCal all my life and have seen more areas closed to accomodate hikers, milk weed plants, kangaroo rats and tortoises. What I...
I have lived in SoCal all my life and have seen more areas closed to accomodate hikers, milk weed plants, kangaroo rats and tortoises. What I have not seen is a single riding area reopen after any study has been completed. Let alone open a new area for us to ride. I have been to Mojave where half of our riding area has been closed for hikers, but have yet to ever see a hiker. There are places where it is not reasonable to hike, Lucerne Valley comes to mind. Yet these places have been closed to OHV use.

Some of the racial undertones people say they arre feeling may not be towards a certain person but maybe a party in general. Some of my views have been shaped by what has been taken away from my family. I am talking about politicians such as Allen Cranston, Barbra Boxer and Diane Feinstein. And thats just in my state.

Hikers have closer more desireable areas to access then I could ever wish to ride. We have over 40,000 open acres in OC that nobody can access because of enviormental sensitivies. But they can build houses on the land when it becomes convienant. Enviromentalist are hipacrits. And your drinking their coolaid.
I'm not on the side of environmentalists at all - I work in the energy business, and we built a power plant south of Bakersfield, and needed to build a 4 mile long pipeline to bring fuel to the plant. Some environmental group found that an endangered snub nosed lizard lived in the direct pipeline route, so we had to go around it - and wound up building a 16 mile pipline. I'm no environmental genius, but I'm pretty sure you'll kill more lizards digging a 16 mile ditch than you'll kill digging a 4 mile ditch. And the land with this lizard was a fruit orchard, not virgin land - so people can drive pickup trucks around it all day every day and not hurt the lizards, but putting a pipeline underground is going to doom them to extinction?

The reason riding areas get closed is because most of the outdoor community can share space - mountain bikers, hikers, equestrians, fly fishermen, etc - but not OHV people. The noise, the dust and the general obnoxious behavior of OHV people has made them enemy #1 for any outdoor group, even the very reasonable ones. You're your own worst enemy, and this has been brewing for a long time. You have no idea how annoying it is to hike 3000 vertical feet and 3 miles from a trailhead in Ouray and the sound of four strokes pinned in 5th down dirt roads seems to be right next to you. That's why riding areas get closed - every outdoor enthustiast has experienced that kind of thing again and again. And the OHV community has no single voice that can negotiate a civil arrangement, while the outdoor community does. You need to get an organization together that's empowered to negotiate for you, you need to accept up front that your goal is to have SOME reasonable riding areas, not all of them, and you need to stop whining about how badly you get treated. You're getting treated the way you'd expect, given the behavior of so many OHV people.
10/18/2010 6:28am
I'm pretty close to the LBJ national grass lands here in TX.

It's 20,000 acres with 50miles of trails for hikers, bikers and horse-back riders but no motorized vehicles are allowed off road.

http://www.grasslandsbandb.com/test/lbj_grasslands.htm

Out of 20,000 acres why couldn't they set aside 500 acres for OHV.

I pay taxes.
Utrider
Posts
460
Joined
8/20/2006
Location
West Haven, UT US
10/18/2010 8:46am Edited Date/Time 10/18/2010 9:10am
Once again, Sam climbs on his soap box and professes to know all. I will take a quote out of your above little rant to illustrate the ignorance with which you speak. Whknuckle wrote "The thing is, off road motorcycles ruin everyone else's experience, but hikers don't bother the riders at all. It's a one-way deal. The bikers get everything, the hikers get nothing. "

Now having been a student of logic, and life, how is it that someone, anyone can make this leap. To state that "off road motorcycles ruin everyone else's experience" and to further compound the ignorance, the writer further states "hikers don't bother the riders at all. It's a one-way deal. The bikers get everything, the hikers get nothing."

First off there are plenty of people in the outdoors, who when they choose to hike are not bothered in the least by off road motorcycles......humm there's a thought, so categorically your arguement and assertion are false.

Now, hikers do in fact bother riders. It has been well documented as to the "terrorist" tactics taken on by some hikers and others in the environmentalist community who believe they are the sole arbiters of who should and should not recreate on our public lands. I myself have been the victim of an attempted trail sabotage incident.

So to sum it up, Sam I am all sorry you were forced to tolerate other people enjoying the great outdoors on your recent trip to Ouray. Further because there is not much public land near you in Texas, the rest of the country should be subjected to what YOU think is appropriate. Got It.

(rolls eyes smiley face thingy)
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
10/18/2010 9:21am
Utrider wrote:
Once again, Sam climbs on his soap box and professes to know all. I will take a quote out of your above little rant to illustrate...
Once again, Sam climbs on his soap box and professes to know all. I will take a quote out of your above little rant to illustrate the ignorance with which you speak. Whknuckle wrote "The thing is, off road motorcycles ruin everyone else's experience, but hikers don't bother the riders at all. It's a one-way deal. The bikers get everything, the hikers get nothing. "

Now having been a student of logic, and life, how is it that someone, anyone can make this leap. To state that "off road motorcycles ruin everyone else's experience" and to further compound the ignorance, the writer further states "hikers don't bother the riders at all. It's a one-way deal. The bikers get everything, the hikers get nothing."

First off there are plenty of people in the outdoors, who when they choose to hike are not bothered in the least by off road motorcycles......humm there's a thought, so categorically your arguement and assertion are false.

Now, hikers do in fact bother riders. It has been well documented as to the "terrorist" tactics taken on by some hikers and others in the environmentalist community who believe they are the sole arbiters of who should and should not recreate on our public lands. I myself have been the victim of an attempted trail sabotage incident.

So to sum it up, Sam I am all sorry you were forced to tolerate other people enjoying the great outdoors on your recent trip to Ouray. Further because there is not much public land near you in Texas, the rest of the country should be subjected to what YOU think is appropriate. Got It.

(rolls eyes smiley face thingy)
I explained that hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts hate OHVs because they make noise, make dust, blast down dirt roads at high speeds and generally make a nuisance of themselves. Those are indisputable facts.

OHV people are a special interest group, and special interest groups are judged by their most-annyoing traits. In the case of OHVs, it's noise, dust, irresponsible riding habits and leaving trash in their wake. In the case of environmentalists, it's irrational lawsuits that have nothing to do with protecting the environment and everything to do with stopping progress. They're both annoying special interest groups in my book. If OHV people would come up with some reasonable proposals for riding areas that acknowledge the fact that they're a nuisance to everyone else, they might find a sympathetic ear. But if they just keep up the "we're not bothering anyone and we have a right to ride wherever we want" mantra, they're no better than environmental lunatics whose agenda is to wall off the whole world. Neither group recognizes that their position as a special interest group should compel them to come up with creative and reasonable solutions to the problems that THEY cause. But, no, it's easier to just bitch about the injustice of it all.
Utrider
Posts
460
Joined
8/20/2006
Location
West Haven, UT US
10/18/2010 9:54am
Utrider wrote:
Once again, Sam climbs on his soap box and professes to know all. I will take a quote out of your above little rant to illustrate...
Once again, Sam climbs on his soap box and professes to know all. I will take a quote out of your above little rant to illustrate the ignorance with which you speak. Whknuckle wrote "The thing is, off road motorcycles ruin everyone else's experience, but hikers don't bother the riders at all. It's a one-way deal. The bikers get everything, the hikers get nothing. "

Now having been a student of logic, and life, how is it that someone, anyone can make this leap. To state that "off road motorcycles ruin everyone else's experience" and to further compound the ignorance, the writer further states "hikers don't bother the riders at all. It's a one-way deal. The bikers get everything, the hikers get nothing."

First off there are plenty of people in the outdoors, who when they choose to hike are not bothered in the least by off road motorcycles......humm there's a thought, so categorically your arguement and assertion are false.

Now, hikers do in fact bother riders. It has been well documented as to the "terrorist" tactics taken on by some hikers and others in the environmentalist community who believe they are the sole arbiters of who should and should not recreate on our public lands. I myself have been the victim of an attempted trail sabotage incident.

So to sum it up, Sam I am all sorry you were forced to tolerate other people enjoying the great outdoors on your recent trip to Ouray. Further because there is not much public land near you in Texas, the rest of the country should be subjected to what YOU think is appropriate. Got It.

(rolls eyes smiley face thingy)
WhKnuckle wrote:
I explained that hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts hate OHVs because they make noise, make dust, blast down dirt roads at high speeds and generally make...
I explained that hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts hate OHVs because they make noise, make dust, blast down dirt roads at high speeds and generally make a nuisance of themselves. Those are indisputable facts.

OHV people are a special interest group, and special interest groups are judged by their most-annyoing traits. In the case of OHVs, it's noise, dust, irresponsible riding habits and leaving trash in their wake. In the case of environmentalists, it's irrational lawsuits that have nothing to do with protecting the environment and everything to do with stopping progress. They're both annoying special interest groups in my book. If OHV people would come up with some reasonable proposals for riding areas that acknowledge the fact that they're a nuisance to everyone else, they might find a sympathetic ear. But if they just keep up the "we're not bothering anyone and we have a right to ride wherever we want" mantra, they're no better than environmental lunatics whose agenda is to wall off the whole world. Neither group recognizes that their position as a special interest group should compel them to come up with creative and reasonable solutions to the problems that THEY cause. But, no, it's easier to just bitch about the injustice of it all.
You made an assertion of an opinion, not a statement of as you put it "indisputable facts".

I myself am an avid hiker and outdoor enthusiast. I know, and this is in fact a FACT, that I don't hate OHV's. So, does this disprove your statement of "indisputable facts"?

Not all OHV's are blasting down roads at high speeds and generally making a nuisanse of themselves either. There are plenty of folks meandering casually down the trail enjoying the scenery and partaking in their chosen form of outdoor recreation.

You see, when you over generalize with words like "every" & "all" the logic just says it can't be. For if there is one exception (as noted above) it disproves your "indisputable facts".

Now, there is some rationale to the various user groups engaging in civil dialogue, and you are correct that some of the worst offenders to our (I mean our in the sense that a large portion of the folks on this website, are in fact OHV enthusiasts, not to necessarily include you) cause is those among us who don't use courtesy and respect.

I feel compelled to correct you on another error in your original post. You stated "wherever they operate they ruin the wilderness experience for everyone else". Once again, when I am in a "Wilderness Designation" area I have not had my experience ruined by the operation of OHV's. I would however assert that Wilderness Designation is over used and not judiciously applied in a lot of circumstances, but that is a discussion for another user group.
GuyB
Posts
35722
Joined
7/10/2006
Location
Aliso Viejo, CA US
10/18/2010 10:09am
I took the liberty of removing some dumb from this thread.

There's a reason why non-moto's not supposed to talk politics...because it brings out the worst in people. If you want to help this cause? Great. But don't turn it into a right vs. left, or Obama vs. XXXXX bash thread. It doesn't help.
Agent717
Posts
587
Joined
9/6/2009
Location
Cedar Park, TX US
10/18/2010 10:27am
Oh man...just read through about half of that thread and I can't believe the amount of ignorance.

I know it's the wrong thing to do, and exactly why we as OHV users are portrayed as punks but God damnit these "activists" make me want to get violent.
Titan1
Posts
9415
Joined
2/3/2010
Location
Lehi, UT US
10/18/2010 10:47am
The thing that needs to be pointed out here, is that the environmentalists are utilizing (perverting, really) the Wilderness Act of 1964 to rid public land of OHV's and fossil fuels exploration and extraction.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 is VERY specific about which land will qualify for a "wilderness designation". The land must be free of permantent human structures or influence (no roads, no structures, no sign of man), and be an area that man is "largely a visitor". Further, there must be at least 5,000 continuous acres of land to qualify.

What is happening, is the environmentalists are including non-wilderness act compliant land (it either isn't 'untouched', or it is smalled than 5,000 acres), in wilderness bills. And then getting those bills passed as "pork" added to other bills (the worst offender recendly was the Omnibus bill), so as to largely avoid public input and immediate and direct consideration for the bill.

Further, the environmentalist community are exaggerating, twisting, manipulating the facts and otherwise misleading the general public in order to gain ANY support for their bills.

I don't know about other states, but Utah is in a battle for it's life with exteme enironmentalists who are trying to lock up over 40% the public land in this state (and almost 50% of an entire county-not 50% of the public land in the county, but 50% of the entire county) as wilderness. That would be 9.4 Million acres, and area larger than the entire state of Maryland...of wilderness-the very most restrictive of all possible land designations-in one state.

And that doesn't even mention their attempt at perverting the Antiquities Act, with their BS monument designations...

The point is, the majority of the population either don't care about wilderness, or don't want it. So the only way the environmentalists can get it, is if they eliminate public input. and they do so via the antiquities act, and by putting their wilderness bills as pork on other bills.

This blantant dishonesty needs to stop.
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
10/18/2010 10:48am
Agent717 wrote:
Oh man...just read through about half of that thread and I can't believe the amount of ignorance. I know it's the wrong thing to do, and...
Oh man...just read through about half of that thread and I can't believe the amount of ignorance.

I know it's the wrong thing to do, and exactly why we as OHV users are portrayed as punks but God damnit these "activists" make me want to get violent.
The activists are the special interest group that wants to pursue their sport without regard to the effect on other people and don't want to offer any solutions or compromises. That's an activist. A person who represents 1% of America but demands the right to unlimited access to America's public land, despite the fact that they ruin the wilderness experience for everyone else.
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
10/18/2010 10:57am
Titan1 wrote:
The thing that needs to be pointed out here, is that the environmentalists are utilizing (perverting, really) the Wilderness Act of 1964 to rid public land...
The thing that needs to be pointed out here, is that the environmentalists are utilizing (perverting, really) the Wilderness Act of 1964 to rid public land of OHV's and fossil fuels exploration and extraction.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 is VERY specific about which land will qualify for a "wilderness designation". The land must be free of permantent human structures or influence (no roads, no structures, no sign of man), and be an area that man is "largely a visitor". Further, there must be at least 5,000 continuous acres of land to qualify.

What is happening, is the environmentalists are including non-wilderness act compliant land (it either isn't 'untouched', or it is smalled than 5,000 acres), in wilderness bills. And then getting those bills passed as "pork" added to other bills (the worst offender recendly was the Omnibus bill), so as to largely avoid public input and immediate and direct consideration for the bill.

Further, the environmentalist community are exaggerating, twisting, manipulating the facts and otherwise misleading the general public in order to gain ANY support for their bills.

I don't know about other states, but Utah is in a battle for it's life with exteme enironmentalists who are trying to lock up over 40% the public land in this state (and almost 50% of an entire county-not 50% of the public land in the county, but 50% of the entire county) as wilderness. That would be 9.4 Million acres, and area larger than the entire state of Maryland...of wilderness-the very most restrictive of all possible land designations-in one state.

And that doesn't even mention their attempt at perverting the Antiquities Act, with their BS monument designations...

The point is, the majority of the population either don't care about wilderness, or don't want it. So the only way the environmentalists can get it, is if they eliminate public input. and they do so via the antiquities act, and by putting their wilderness bills as pork on other bills.

This blantant dishonesty needs to stop.
No, your side just needs to be as competent in presenting your case as their side is. I don't make any bones about it, environmentalists are a pain in the ass, but they're smart, they know how to use the system and they know what they want and how to get it. The OHV community consists mostly of a bunch of yahoos who show up at a town hall meeting and assert "I'm an American and a taxpayer and I have a right to ride wherever I want." Good luck with that tactic.

If there was a OHV organization that was tasked (and funded) with the job of identifying unused land that could be turned into OHV parks, and presenting proposals for those parks to the Department of the Interior, and in exchange would agree to stop riding in areas that are heavily used by other groups - in short, an organization that wants to make progress and not just noise - they'd get a heck of a lot further than they are now.

YOU ARE A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP. SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS HAVE MORE RESPONSIBILITIES THAN RIGHTS. The quicker you learn that, the better off you'll be.
Titan1
Posts
9415
Joined
2/3/2010
Location
Lehi, UT US
10/18/2010 11:09am Edited Date/Time 10/18/2010 11:09am
Whknuckle...the part of the equation you are forgetting is that these groups want OHV's banned completely from public land. They aren't going to compromise, unless it's a last resort, which isn't going to happen.

If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile...10 miles...100 miles...

There will be no give and take...it's take and take and take and take...or they'll give today, put a whole bunch of unreasonable 'conditions' on that "give", and then they'll take...it's just how they work.

Further, this is public land. It belongs to ALL Americans. It shouldn't be divided up, and negotiated and bartered over in closed door meetings between two groups, as though the land belongs to those two groups, and it's theirs to do with what they will. The public should have input, everyone should have a say.

A simple solution to this would be to have public land bills developed and brainstormed and organized at the COUNTY LEVEL. Spearheaded by county commissioners, with oversight from the states congressmen. This will ensure that the public gets the very most say in how it's done, and the special interest groups get as little as possible. Then take the counties proposal to congress for approval.

And yes, the environmentalists are well organized, and OHV users would do well to model themselves after them. But that doesn't make them right, and it doesn't mean they should get their way.

OHV users just need to take care of themselves, be respectful (of other people, and the land)....
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
10/18/2010 11:33am
Well, wanting them banned and getting them banned is two different things. There are people who want all guns banned. There are people who want all homosexual activity banned. There are people who want the practice of Islam banned. And, of course, there are people who want all environmental laws rolled back. None of those people are going to get what they want.

As far as give and take, the environmental groups have representatives who go get what they want. The OHV community doesn't. Guess who's going to get what they want and who isn't?

As far as all public land belonging to all Americans, that's true. And that hurts your case, because if you're out riding in the woods, the other guy can't hike in peace and quiet, the fly fisherman can't fish, the equestrian can't ride and the mountain biker has to watch to make sure you don't run over him. Your rights end where they're rights begin, and if one group offends 4 groups over a one mile radius that his noise irritates everyone, that one group isn't going to be in a very strong bargaining position. It's better to recognize that you need space to ride, and that space isn't easily shared with anyone else - so you need to work toward space dedicated to your sport in exchange for your "right" to ride wherever you want. Just look at history over the last 20 years - how much land has been closed to riding? How much more are you willing to lose due to a lack of willingness to pursue an acceptable compromise?

I like the idea of these decisions being made at the local level, but I chuckle a little at your assertion that this would keep "special interest" groups from getting anything. Sorry, dude, but you're a special interest group.

And your last sentence is the crux of the matter. If OHV people recognized that their ability to pursue their hobby was totally dependent on their behavior, and they rode and acted like they had some sense instead of behaving like college frat boys on spring break, they'd have a lot more to go on. In the pipeline world, we have patrolmen whose primary job is to make sure the the land owners are kept happy - if they need a new gate, we put one in; if they need a new water well drilled, we help pay for it; if they're hungry, we take them out to lunch. We don't HAVE to do that because we have a RIGHT to have our pipeline there, but it's much easier to get your way when you need to dig the thing up if you've helped that farmer hang a new gate. But at this point, I don't know if a casual PR program will help - the OHV community almost needs to make a big PR push to undo some of the damage. And even then, it's a long shot.
Utrider
Posts
460
Joined
8/20/2006
Location
West Haven, UT US
10/18/2010 11:35am
Blue Ribbon Coalition, USA-ALL, Share Trails, Tread Lightly etc. Are all working to stem the tide of irrational and senseless land grabs proposed by those who would take your freedom from you, lest you not know what to do with it. Sound familiar?

Yes, the OHV community can do and is doing a much better job at expressing their side of the the story. We recently ( I mean that as, we in the OHV community, not necessarily you Sam) won a very important battle against those who have tried to keep us from access to our lands.

The Wilderness Act has been so bastardized and perverted by the "Close it now, close it all" crowd, and the tide is beginning to turn against them.

No one on "our" side is or has proposed to my knowledge unfettered access to ALL lands, we understand that there are areas that are and should be protected. We also understand, that there are many closures only warranted because, some do gooder thinks he knows whats is best for EVERYONE, once again............sound familiar?
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
10/18/2010 11:40am
Well, good luck to you. The Sierra Club alone has more than 1.3 million members, and there are many, many other organizations with similar memberships. And I can assure you that none of them want you anywhere near them.
Utrider
Posts
460
Joined
8/20/2006
Location
West Haven, UT US
10/18/2010 11:56am
I don't necessarily believe we need luck, although it would be helpful. What we do need is those in the OHV community to take an interest in participating in being part of the solution and not part of the problem, we need to police ourselves and be respectful and courteous to others.

Just as we would like to be treated with respect and courtesy. I get that there is not a lot of public land to ride on in Texas, out here in the real West however, MILLIONS of acres!!! There is plenty to go around.

How many of your 1.3 million Sierra Club buddies venture more than 2 miles off any road from their cars during a given year? I would be amazed if more than 10% do. Now, how many OHV's do the same? The percentage is probably not that different, it's just that I don't want to stop you from doing your chosen form of recreation why do they....you? want to stop or keep me from doing mine? I promise if you came across me on the trail, I would be very courteous and respectful of you. I know I do it.

As to them not wanting me anywhere near them, that probably says more about them and who they are than about me. (winky smiley face thingy)
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
10/18/2010 12:15pm
Utrider wrote:
I don't necessarily believe we need luck, although it would be helpful. What we do need is those in the OHV community to take an interest...
I don't necessarily believe we need luck, although it would be helpful. What we do need is those in the OHV community to take an interest in participating in being part of the solution and not part of the problem, we need to police ourselves and be respectful and courteous to others.

Just as we would like to be treated with respect and courtesy. I get that there is not a lot of public land to ride on in Texas, out here in the real West however, MILLIONS of acres!!! There is plenty to go around.

How many of your 1.3 million Sierra Club buddies venture more than 2 miles off any road from their cars during a given year? I would be amazed if more than 10% do. Now, how many OHV's do the same? The percentage is probably not that different, it's just that I don't want to stop you from doing your chosen form of recreation why do they....you? want to stop or keep me from doing mine? I promise if you came across me on the trail, I would be very courteous and respectful of you. I know I do it.

As to them not wanting me anywhere near them, that probably says more about them and who they are than about me. (winky smiley face thingy)
I don't want to stop anyone, I just want to be able to hike in peace, and it's my opinion that separate areas are the answer. As you say, this is emminently solvable because there are millions of acres out there - there is more than enough land, and what's even better, good hiking/fishing/mountain biking land isn't necessarily good off road riding land and vise versa. There's EASY solutions to the problem, but it requires people who have natural animosity to sit down and hammer out a solution.

When I go hiking, you don't even know I'm out there. If you go riding, I can hear you two miles away. That's the difference. But if you have some way to go riding in the area I'm hiking and leave me in peace, more power to you.

As far as not "wanting you anywhere near them", I mean they don't want to hear your noise, they don't want to have to keep their kids out of your line so they don't get run over, they don't want to breathe your dust and they don't want to see the trash you leave behind. Nothing personal.

Post a reply to: A developing story - Government Off Road land?

The Latest