Dept. of Interior wants to expand desert OHV access

YES!!!!

Let's all hit this up. As you all may be painfully aware, what happens in California trickles down to the rest of the country. If we can actually expand access to off-road riding, it will be a boon to the whole industry.

Gotta wonder how much public comment actually counts in these situations. Ill do my part from all these miles away though.

early wrote:

Gotta wonder how much public comment actually counts in these situations. Ill do my part from all these miles away though.

It all goes in the public record. Part of my job is researching federal initiatives and I see comments from individual people all the time (pipeline projects, electric lines etc.). Granted they don't have as much weight as larger blocks of people. The more articulate and respectful, the better, of course. People are also much more likely to comment if they are opposed.

This would be a natural place for rider groups, manufacturers, gear companies, AMA, riding clubs, etc. to file comments. The potential for electric bike usage is huge, because it might keep the greenies happy (sort of).

Public comment saved the public riding land in Stillwater, OK at the first of the year. Every little bit helps as long as it is a positive message

Damn that Trump!

I wonder whats changed in the government to cause this? Lol. Its almost as if having people who believe that public land belongs to the GOVERNMENT and not the people, causes them to attack citizens who want to enjoy THEIR TAXPAYER FUNDED land. Strange indeed.

Aceofspades wrote:

I wonder whats changed in the government to cause this? Lol. Its almost as if having people who believe that public land belongs to the GOVERNMENT and not the people, causes them to attack citizens who want to enjoy THEIR TAXPAYER FUNDED land. Strange indeed.

I know you're kidding, but Trump as President has the power to appoint department heads in the federal goverment- and they guide department policy from the top down. This is true for everything from the Department of Education to Department of Energy and Interior. He obviously believes in utilizing resources. But changes to policy or law require lengthy rulemaking processes .

We need more celebs in it. Maybe Leo D'Cap can put this fake global warming stuff on the side and focus on some real shit!!!

Aceofspades wrote:

I wonder whats changed in the government to cause this? Lol. Its almost as if having people who believe that public land belongs to the GOVERNMENT and not the people, causes them to attack citizens who want to enjoy THEIR TAXPAYER FUNDED land. Strange indeed.

NorCal 50+ wrote:

I know you're kidding, but Trump as President has the power to appoint department heads in the federal goverment- and they guide department policy from the top down. This is true for everything from the Department of Education to Department of Energy and Interior. He obviously believes in utilizing resources. But changes to policy or law require lengthy rulemaking processes .

Only slightly kidding. We've had 8 years of environmental lunatics running these groups in government whose role is to ostensibly allow we the citizens to enjoy OUR land, yet they have colluded with Sierra club, earth first, and every other group if psychos to sue the government and disallow us to responsibly have access to land that we have ecery right to enjoy. Anyone Trump appoints will hopefully free us of the politburo of leftist nitwits who steal our land to appease turtles and minnows . MAGA OR GTFO.

Well if they are going to open it to corporate raping, drilling, and mining, who cares if we ride a few dirt bikes on the land, it won't matter anyway.

ob wrote:

Well if they are going to open it to corporate raping, drilling, and mining, who cares if we ride a few dirt bikes on the land, it won't matter anyway.

"Allowing " the people whose money bought and upkeeps this land to enjoy said land is way away from "raping"it lol. That argument is the same one the environmentalist nazis have used to shut you and me out if this land for decades. The fact that people vote in politicians who steal public land away from us "for our own good " just does not compute with my understanding of freedom. That fucking land BELONGS to us! Be happy That we are seemingly getting it back.

The new Secretary of Interior is a ex NAVY SEAL Team 6 member. I do not know him personally, but I know people that do. Infact, a guy I know that works for the BLM just accepted a position working with him in DC. The guy I know is an ex SEAL as well. These are strait shooters that are not going to put up with Sierra Club rhetoric. They like to hunt, fish and enjoy life.

Below is a link to his web site. Times are a changing.....



https://www.doi.gov/whoweare/secretary-ryan-zinke

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
Secretary Ryan Zinke
Ryan Zinke was sworn in as the 52nd Secretary of the Interior on March 1, 2017.

A fifth-generation Montanan and former U.S. Navy SEAL Commander, Ryan Zinke built one of the strongest track records in the 114th Congress on championing sportsmen’s access, conservation, regulatory relief, forest management, responsible energy development, and smart management of federal lands.

“As a former Navy SEAL, Ryan has incredible leadership skills and an attitude of doing whatever it takes to win,” President Donald Trump

TeamGreen wrote:

Damn that Trump!

damn him. lol. making things fun again.

I don't like to post links... but if you have a few mins watch this hearing with the BLM on their decision on Clear Creek.
This is part 1. Part two will pop up after. Watch this and see how insane it has become. Trump is certainly interesting... he's not putting up with this stuff I'll bet going forward.

&t=11s

It's interesting that the California Wind Energy Association is aligning with Trump on this desert proposal, because they represent large-scale developers of wind and solar (mucho $$$$ behind them). Most renewable energy lobby groups are mortal enemies of Trump because of his stance on climate change and his rabid support of coal energy.
But environmental groups are starting to oppose large-scale projects in the deserts even if they are wind or solar because of the huge footprints. It's crazy for CWEA to be backing a Trump resource management plan. Trump knows how to divide and conquer.

"Nancy Rader, executive director of the California Wind Energy Association, said she was "very pleased" by Thursday's announcement from the Trump administration. In an email, she said the desert plan "flatly prohibited wind energy projects (though not oil and gas development or cattle grazing) across most of the vast desert region without ever specifically evaluating the potential impacts of those projects."
"California will need access to the state's best remaining wind energy resources in order to meet its ambitious climate change goals while contributing to the state’s economic development," Rader said.

One of the reasons this approach is being considered is the current Government wants to open most if not all of the US lands to energy exploration and mining. They have been opposed mostly as when they do this they throw out any and all environmental studies and data. They also grant exclusive rights to the big energy / oil and mining companies who promise the biggest campaign contributions.

The new idea is to grant typical users (the little people) access to areas that have been closed, so that they will have a larger body of people who will not protest. Once it happens, the fine print in the bill will once again grant the corporations exclusive rights to bar the public, due to "safety concerns". Be careful what you wish for, I've seen this before. Look at wind farms, solar farms, Oil and Fracking, etc. All off limits, huge areas. BLM enforced. See California, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. There goes your drinking / ground well water.

Nice not have the country run by a community organizer from Chicago.

Cancerman wrote:

One of the reasons this approach is being considered is the current Government wants to open most if not all of the US lands to energy exploration and mining. They have been opposed mostly as when they do this they throw out any and all environmental studies and data. They also grant exclusive rights to the big energy / oil and mining companies who promise the biggest campaign contributions.

The new idea is to grant typical users (the little people) access to areas that have been closed, so that they will have a larger body of people who will not protest. Once it happens, the fine print in the bill will once again grant the corporations exclusive rights to bar the public, due to "safety concerns". Be careful what you wish for, I've seen this before. Look at wind farms, solar farms, Oil and Fracking, etc. All off limits, huge areas. BLM enforced. See California, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. There goes your drinking / ground well water.

Do you have any examples? I don't know what forum would allow energy companies to "throw out" all environmental studies and data to develop on federal land.

ob wrote:

Well if they are going to open it to corporate raping, drilling, and mining, who cares if we ride a few dirt bikes on the land, it won't matter anyway.

How else will they build NiMH batteries for your green energy Prius you drive?

Just had an interesting conversation with a guy headed to DC to work on some of the public lands access issues.
Expect a lot of positive changes with regard to access to public lands for OHV, hunting, etc to be happening in the next few years. Sounds like some big policy changes are a coming that help the people that want to use the lands actually use them.

Cancerman wrote:

One of the reasons this approach is being considered is the current Government wants to open most if not all of the US lands to energy exploration and mining. They have been opposed mostly as when they do this they throw out any and all environmental studies and data. They also grant exclusive rights to the big energy / oil and mining companies who promise the biggest campaign contributions.

The new idea is to grant typical users (the little people) access to areas that have been closed, so that they will have a larger body of people who will not protest. Once it happens, the fine print in the bill will once again grant the corporations exclusive rights to bar the public, due to "safety concerns". Be careful what you wish for, I've seen this before. Look at wind farms, solar farms, Oil and Fracking, etc. All off limits, huge areas. BLM enforced. See California, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. There goes your drinking / ground well water.

NorCal 50+ wrote:

Do you have any examples? I don't know what forum would allow energy companies to "throw out" all environmental studies and data to develop on federal land.

"Throwing out" may have been a strong description. What happens is they grant the "User", or Grantee, the exclusive use of the land. Then, due to public safety, they exclude the public from using the area the grantee is using. Then, they load up attorneys and their own "experts", and apply for exemptions from the environmental restrictions and monitoring. I was born and grew up in So Cal. Raced all over the state until the mid 90's. I saw this so many times. Army, Marines, Boron mining, Phosphor Mining, other minerals, on and on. Let's watch and see if it goes like that. You don't have enough money to stop big business, they are the ones making large campaign contributions. The current administration will sell everything off to big business. We'll be paying for this the next 20 plus years, if not forever. There needs to be a balance in the world. I love my riding too. But I love clean drinking water more. Just my input.

ob wrote:

Well if they are going to open it to corporate raping, drilling, and mining, who cares if we ride a few dirt bikes on the land, it won't matter anyway.

newmann wrote:

How else will they build NiMH batteries for your green energy Prius you drive?

haha.....it's only going to get less Earth friendly from here...

NiMH battery production doesn't have half the environmental impact of Lithium. The carbon footprint created to dig up enough lithium, aluminum, silicone, leather, copper, nickel and petroleum to make one Tesla is the equivalent of digging up enough materials (mostly steel) to make 4 Chevy Tahoes and drive them each for 100,000 miles. ...and thats not even including whats going to happen when it comes time to dispose of old batteries. Literally know one even knows what they are going to do with them...or if they are even recyclable

...there's your Truth.org,

I'm just glad I live where I do...and Weatherby is locating it's headquarters and new state of the art plant about a mile from my house this summer, so I'm feeling really good about the future... The state of Wyoming only has old money. We turn down everyone who wants to industrialize here, including Intel, IBM, Sysco Foods, Budweiser, and a hundred others who've tried to come here. Even our mining is highly controlled by the private sector, because so much of the land is privately owned...it's rationed out less than anywhere in the country and we have some of North Americas largest deposits of coal, methane, and oil.

oh yeah...don't come here. We got guns. lots of them.

Cancerman wrote:

One of the reasons this approach is being considered is the current Government wants to open most if not all of the US lands to energy exploration and mining. They have been opposed mostly as when they do this they throw out any and all environmental studies and data. They also grant exclusive rights to the big energy / oil and mining companies who promise the biggest campaign contributions.

The new idea is to grant typical users (the little people) access to areas that have been closed, so that they will have a larger body of people who will not protest. Once it happens, the fine print in the bill will once again grant the corporations exclusive rights to bar the public, due to "safety concerns". Be careful what you wish for, I've seen this before. Look at wind farms, solar farms, Oil and Fracking, etc. All off limits, huge areas. BLM enforced. See California, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. There goes your drinking / ground well water.

This is a good post.

I hate the Sierra Club as much as the next person. But look where they get their funding. Same place that also lobby heavily in conservative politics.

There’s so much smoke & mirrors in all this stuff it’s hard to know how badly they’re fucking us over. Just a little? Or a lot?

I care about the environment. I also like riding and freedom. These things aren’t mutually exclusive. Remember folks, “divide & conquer” is the playbook these politicians live by. Be it left or right. Dont get fooled into being myopic.

Cancerman wrote:

One of the reasons this approach is being considered is the current Government wants to open most if not all of the US lands to energy exploration and mining. They have been opposed mostly as when they do this they throw out any and all environmental studies and data. They also grant exclusive rights to the big energy / oil and mining companies who promise the biggest campaign contributions.

The new idea is to grant typical users (the little people) access to areas that have been closed, so that they will have a larger body of people who will not protest. Once it happens, the fine print in the bill will once again grant the corporations exclusive rights to bar the public, due to "safety concerns". Be careful what you wish for, I've seen this before. Look at wind farms, solar farms, Oil and Fracking, etc. All off limits, huge areas. BLM enforced. See California, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. There goes your drinking / ground well water.

Jabroni wrote:

This is a good post.

I hate the Sierra Club as much as the next person. But look where they get their funding. Same place that also lobby heavily in conservative politics.

There’s so much smoke & mirrors in all this stuff it’s hard to know how badly they’re fucking us over. Just a little? Or a lot?

I care about the environment. I also like riding and freedom. These things aren’t mutually exclusive. Remember folks, “divide & conquer” is the playbook these politicians live by. Be it left or right. Dont get fooled into being myopic.

Excellent post. I dont understand how people think that any of trumps policies dont almost exclusively benefit big business, or at least majorly benefit them with 'promise' it will trickle down to the little guy.

It makes perfect sense to open up the land for public use, then allow 'exclusive public use' or 99 year leases to the industries that donate to trump.

Please for the love of all that i holy, follow the money. How can people not understand this?


Opening up land for public use, with specific restrictions to prevent fracking, oil explorations etc etc, is what a politicion who cares about OHV users would propose, not this guy tho. Or potentially starting an OHV, or recreation on public land department to allow clubs and groups to propose uses for large swathes of public land, With restrictions. This is what a governemnt serving the people would do, A government serving its donors is what is happening now and its disgusting

PTshox wrote:

I don't like to post links... but if you have a few mins watch this hearing with the BLM on their decision on Clear Creek.
This is part 1. Part two will pop up after. Watch this and see how insane it has become. Trump is certainly interesting... he's not putting up with this stuff I'll bet going forward.

&t=11s

McLintock is one of the few CA Legislatures left with a brain and a set of balls.
Nothing in that link surprises me. 20 years ago we were in the parking /camping area at Ballinger and the forest Service came in and set up about 10 air sampling machines around the camping area. How did they power the 120v sampling pumps? With a gas powered generator sitting 5ft away from air sample pump of course.

Cancerman wrote:

One of the reasons this approach is being considered is the current Government wants to open most if not all of the US lands to energy exploration and mining. They have been opposed mostly as when they do this they throw out any and all environmental studies and data. They also grant exclusive rights to the big energy / oil and mining companies who promise the biggest campaign contributions.

The new idea is to grant typical users (the little people) access to areas that have been closed, so that they will have a larger body of people who will not protest. Once it happens, the fine print in the bill will once again grant the corporations exclusive rights to bar the public, due to "safety concerns". Be careful what you wish for, I've seen this before. Look at wind farms, solar farms, Oil and Fracking, etc. All off limits, huge areas. BLM enforced. See California, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. There goes your drinking / ground well water.

Jabroni wrote:

This is a good post.

I hate the Sierra Club as much as the next person. But look where they get their funding. Same place that also lobby heavily in conservative politics.

There’s so much smoke & mirrors in all this stuff it’s hard to know how badly they’re fucking us over. Just a little? Or a lot?

I care about the environment. I also like riding and freedom. These things aren’t mutually exclusive. Remember folks, “divide & conquer” is the playbook these politicians live by. Be it left or right. Dont get fooled into being myopic.

Zacka 161 wrote:

Excellent post. I dont understand how people think that any of trumps policies dont almost exclusively benefit big business, or at least majorly benefit them with 'promise' it will trickle down to the little guy.

It makes perfect sense to open up the land for public use, then allow 'exclusive public use' or 99 year leases to the industries that donate to trump.

Please for the love of all that i holy, follow the money. How can people not understand this?


Opening up land for public use, with specific restrictions to prevent fracking, oil explorations etc etc, is what a politicion who cares about OHV users would propose, not this guy tho. Or potentially starting an OHV, or recreation on public land department to allow clubs and groups to propose uses for large swathes of public land, With restrictions. This is what a governemnt serving the people would do, A government serving its donors is what is happening now and its disgusting

People get tunnel vision / fixated on the one part of the issue that benefits them. EVERYONE involved does this. MX riders want riding space, environmentalists want clean water, businesses want profit. That tunnel vision is what the politicians/lobbyists exploit.

But yeah, Im in total agreeance with you in that it baffles me that people get this way on topics. It’s universal. I dont know the solution either. Americans have truly failed democracy.

I’m glad to see that some of you guys know what’s going on.

Cancerman wrote:

One of the reasons this approach is being considered is the current Government wants to open most if not all of the US lands to energy exploration and mining. They have been opposed mostly as when they do this they throw out any and all environmental studies and data. They also grant exclusive rights to the big energy / oil and mining companies who promise the biggest campaign contributions.

The new idea is to grant typical users (the little people) access to areas that have been closed, so that they will have a larger body of people who will not protest. Once it happens, the fine print in the bill will once again grant the corporations exclusive rights to bar the public, due to "safety concerns". Be careful what you wish for, I've seen this before. Look at wind farms, solar farms, Oil and Fracking, etc. All off limits, huge areas. BLM enforced. See California, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. There goes your drinking / ground well water.

Jabroni wrote:

This is a good post.

I hate the Sierra Club as much as the next person. But look where they get their funding. Same place that also lobby heavily in conservative politics.

There’s so much smoke & mirrors in all this stuff it’s hard to know how badly they’re fucking us over. Just a little? Or a lot?

I care about the environment. I also like riding and freedom. These things aren’t mutually exclusive. Remember folks, “divide & conquer” is the playbook these politicians live by. Be it left or right. Dont get fooled into being myopic.

Zacka 161 wrote:

Excellent post. I dont understand how people think that any of trumps policies dont almost exclusively benefit big business, or at least majorly benefit them with 'promise' it will trickle down to the little guy.

It makes perfect sense to open up the land for public use, then allow 'exclusive public use' or 99 year leases to the industries that donate to trump.

Please for the love of all that i holy, follow the money. How can people not understand this?


Opening up land for public use, with specific restrictions to prevent fracking, oil explorations etc etc, is what a politicion who cares about OHV users would propose, not this guy tho. Or potentially starting an OHV, or recreation on public land department to allow clubs and groups to propose uses for large swathes of public land, With restrictions. This is what a governemnt serving the people would do, A government serving its donors is what is happening now and its disgusting

300 million people want to drive cars, instant heating and AC at home and the office, cell phones, computers, big screen TVs, fly away Bahama vacations, etc etc. Then say drilling, mining, nuclear, fracking, by energy companies should be stopped.
Then when a proposal for wind and solar is proposed as in this case, it's still a problem ? Just saying no to everything including renewables is not a solution.

Should we import all our energy from countries with less restrictive environmental laws and pretend we are good stewards of the environment like the State of CA does ? Or should we use our own resources where we can and in the process create jobs and revenues for the our economy.

This is great! We need more access to public lands.

And if there are reserves there to be mined/drilled...they should be mined and drilled (responsibly, with reclamation bonds in place prior to any development)...and the land should be used for wind and solar developments (with reclamation bonds in place prior to any development).

The reality is that every ounce of oil/gas/etc. could be developed in this country and there would still be more land that would be left untouched by anything than any one person could see in their lifetime. There is no reason to turn the public land in this country into a "look but don't touch" museum (National Park, Wilderness Area, Preserve, Reserve, refuge, National Monument, etc. etc.)...some of it? Yes, sure, a very very small amount of it (less than we have now...and not just because its a "pretty view"...but, for example, because it would protect our water shed-the water we actually drink...or because the residents living right next to the land want it designated)...the rest of the land should be open for development and use (riding, hiking, biking, camping, hunting).

I didn't vote for Trump...but if he keeps it up I'll be proudly voting for him in 2020. I love what hes doing for business, for public land, taxes, etc. I can't stand the guy...I think he's an idiot...but I like what he's doing as president (where I really liked Obama, and thought he was a good man...but I hated most everything he did as president).