Wow! 14 views but no comment. Interesting, considering politicized science is one of the two most common underlying issues surrounding most land closures in the desert, which is the defacto topic of 90% of the threads here. The other, of course, is the accusation that OHV users all ride illegally, and therefore must be banned from public lands, so they don't stray into places where the activity has already been declared illegal.

I see this much the same way as the debate over private firearms ownership. Bad things happen when some certain percentage of those in possession of a firearm decide to do something that's wrong, or illegal, or both. Just like bad things happen when some certain percentage of those in possession of an OHV make a similar decision to do something wrong. But the narrative is that somehow all legal and responsible owners of firearms should be held responsible, and should lose their rights as a result of the actions of that small percentage, if they don't wave a magic wand and stop the bad behavior "among their own".

Of course, the difference is that, in regard to firearms ownership, there is this nagging little thing called the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment within that Bill of Rights. Hard to get around that, when the argument is actually taken on straight up. But the other mistake of those attempting to end OHV ownership, much like that of their brethren trying to end private firearm ownership, is that they believe the Constitution grants rights, and can therefore be changed, and that it only grants the rights it enumerates. Here's the problem: the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it enumerates the basic human God-given (or nature-given if you prefer) rights of all Americans WHICH OUR GOVERNMENT CAN NEVER ABRIDGE. The Constitution was never designed to limit the rights of individual citizens. It was designed to limit the ability of the government to control those rights, and all others not specifically eliminated by self-determination of the public and its representatives. In other words, we have the right to do as we please unless and until it violates the rights of others, or unless and until we ourselves give up those rights voluntarily. The very same burden is placed upon anti-OHV folk.

Personally, I think it's time one side of this debate learned to live their own bumper sticker slogan tag line: In other words: "COEXIST". And quit politicizing science. You're destroying its value.

God alone gives us life. Breathe deep and take in all that is good. The 2nd amendment to some document has nothing to do with it!

God alone gives us rights. Those who attempt to abridge them without the consent of the people are going against God's will, the US Constitution, as well as the will of the people.

They believe the Constitution grants rights, and can therefore be changed, and that it only grants the rights it enumerates. Here's the problem: the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it enumerates the basic human God-given (or nature-given if you prefer) rights of all Americans WHICH OUR GOVERNMENT CAN NEVER ABRIDGE.

I couldn't agree more. I'm alarmed at how quickly the government is taking control over more and more. Those in power almost always want more power. So many of us sit idly by and let them. We've forgotten where our rights come from. We think the government is the source of our rights. Ezra Benson, the secretary of agriculture gave a great speech “the proper role of government” on the topic and forever changed the way I thought about rights and the government’s role. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyDrC5q6S9o

I am concerned to see more of our public land is turning into wilderness area, especially here in the West. We have a lot of land that we want to claim mines on, but more and more of it is no longer available. More and more opportunities for small scale miners to gain a living are gone each year.

Dan Jones
Gold Rush Expeditions

so who gave you the right to harvest resources from lands paid for and belonging to the public? Corporations do this and then when asked to restore the lands when they have finished withdrawing the resources (such as ore or crude)..."it would cost us more to restore the landscape than all of the profit we made from years of mining or drilling"...that's what they say about Boron, that's what they say about uranium mines on Indian lands.


Wilderness protects the lands for use by the public. Recreational use is worth much more than resource extraction.