The laws that protect us from OHV abuse in Riverside, LA and San Bernardino counties are a response to a nationwide problem. Now they're poised to pass a similar law in Brevard county in Florida.
http://www.triwheeler.com/images/law.pdf
county laws against OHV mischief catching on natonwide
- Allen
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:08 pm
- The middle number please (4): 7
- Location: CA, High Desert
Re: county laws against OHV mischief catching on natonwide
Sal,
This is the "Desert Environmental and Land Uses" forum. Florida is anything but desert.
What's an old man like you doing awake at 1:56am? Are the visions of Sugar Plum Fairies dancing through you head keeping you awake? Get some help for that or it could make you crazy.
This is the "Desert Environmental and Land Uses" forum. Florida is anything but desert.
What's an old man like you doing awake at 1:56am? Are the visions of Sugar Plum Fairies dancing through you head keeping you awake? Get some help for that or it could make you crazy.
-
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:25 pm
- anti-spam detector: No
- The middle number please (4): 4
Re: county laws against OHV mischief catching on natonwide
sal cant figgure that one out. sal is sal is sal, so go figgure.
Mike
Mike
-
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:31 pm
Re: county laws against OHV mischief catching on natonwide
Sal wrote:The laws that protect us from OHV abuse in Riverside, LA and San Bernardino counties are a response to a nationwide problem. Now they're poised to pass a similar law in Brevard county in Florida.
http://www.triwheeler.com/images/law.pdf
Yaaawwwwnnn
Re: county laws against OHV mischief catching on natonwide
Hmm, Maybe Sandman could help me out here
How many counties filed as intervener status to defend the BLM on the WEMO lawsuit?
As I recall from the beginning, I think Kern and SB?
How many counties filed as intervener status to defend the BLM on the WEMO lawsuit?
As I recall from the beginning, I think Kern and SB?
Re: county laws against OHV mischief catching on natonwide
I'm not sure who filed for intervener status. From my perspective as a rural property owner in this area since the 1970s, I have witnessed an explosion of user created trails and route proliferation from illegal OHV use on surrounding BLM lands. The premise of the lawsuit is a simple question. Was the "Decision Tree" following existing Federal law in regard to NEPA and the FMPLA act of 1976? Regardless of whatever one percieves the political leanings of the Judge, the law is quite clear in this regard.Goldseeker wrote:Hmm, Maybe Sandman could help me out here
How many counties filed as intervener status to defend the BLM on the WEMO lawsuit?
As I recall from the beginning, I think Kern and SB?
Hmm, Maybe Sandman could help me out here
How many counties filed as intervener status to defend the BLM on the WEMO lawsuit?
As I recall from the beginning, I think Kern and SB?
Prior to the construction of a road or motor vehicle route, certain guidlines must be followed to be in compliance with NEPA and FMPLA. Bypassing the established legal process by using an arbitrary and capricious decision tree is a violation of existing Federal law and clearly did not stand up in court. One would think that a party filing for intervener status in a federal lawsuit would have something worth while to contribute.
To be honest Wayne, there is an existing route network from 1980 that provides access and recreational opportunities that suit the needs of the recreational public. The post 1980 spagetti bowl of illegal route proliferation has damaged the area with an erosive and redundant mess that continues to grow worse with each passing year. An example can be found in the Arrastra Canyon area of the WEMO. Some illegaly burned single track routes were added to the WEMO route designation here with the premise that if we give riders some single track, they will stay on it and it will reduce the proliferation. In reality, the opposite has happened and riders continually stray off the designated routes turning the hillsides into a chewed up and eroded mess.
Letters of comment and concern about the damaging effects of illegal OHV route proliferation in this specific area were ignored by the select committee using the decision tree in WEMO planning and alternatives were given no consideration whatsoever as the decision tree trumped NEPA and FMPLA and the Judge recognized this in her decision.
The bottom line is, if the OHV community wants to construct new trails to ride in Limited Use areas of public lands, they must follow the law in regard to Nepa and FMPLA. Land use managers are required to not only study the effect of motorized use upon the route, but also upon the surrounding lands as well. Otherwise, the play riders would be better suited to ride in open OHV areas like Johnson Valley and El Mirage where cross country OHV use is permitted.
Re: county laws against OHV mischief catching on natonwide
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/prog ... -28-09.pdf
From the law suit:
III. Procedural background
This lawsuit was filed on August 14, 2006. By order filed January 11, 2007, the Court granted a motion by Kern County, San Bernadino County, Imperial County, and the Quadstate County Government Coalition to intervene with full party rights with regard to liability and remedial matters.
In addition, by order filed January 4, 2007, the Court approved a stipulation by all parties to allow various OHV interest groups to intervene with full party rights as to remedy issues, and as amicus curiae with respect to liability. On February 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Brew
From the law suit:
III. Procedural background
This lawsuit was filed on August 14, 2006. By order filed January 11, 2007, the Court granted a motion by Kern County, San Bernadino County, Imperial County, and the Quadstate County Government Coalition to intervene with full party rights with regard to liability and remedial matters.
In addition, by order filed January 4, 2007, the Court approved a stipulation by all parties to allow various OHV interest groups to intervene with full party rights as to remedy issues, and as amicus curiae with respect to liability. On February 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Brew
Re: county laws against OHV mischief catching on natonwide
the problem being, Sandman, that riders think that the rules inside the OHV parks apply outside as well. The paradigm for riders is "ride wherever you want." "make new jumps and hillclimbs wherever you desire." "worm tracks and MX tracks can be burned into the earth's surface wherever you camp." "Anyone who opposes these practices is anti-American and is trying to curtail our God-given rights to enjoy our public lands."OHV areas like Johnson Valley and El Mirage where cross country OHV use is permitted.
- Allen
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:08 pm
- The middle number please (4): 7
- Location: CA, High Desert
Re: county laws against OHV mischief catching on natonwide
Who are you quoting several times in your post, Sal? Are you still attempting to read people's minds?Sal wrote:the problem being, Sandman, that riders think that the rules inside the OHV parks apply outside as well. The paradigm for riders is "ride wherever you want." "make new jumps and hillclimbs wherever you desire." "worm tracks and MX tracks can be burned into the earth's surface wherever you camp." "Anyone who opposes these practices is anti-American and is trying to curtail our God-given rights to enjoy our public lands."OHV areas like Johnson Valley and El Mirage where cross country OHV use is permitted.
-
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:45 pm
- anti-spam detector: No
- The middle number please (4): 4
Re: county laws against OHV mischief catching on natonwide
Well HI Ken!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtw2icpz3xE Take care and see you up there with my quad Ken