OHV Grants comments

[Plays In The Dirt]

I'm with you, PITD. THere are generally two types of people who have moved to the high desert.
One type moves there to experience quiet sunsets, with a glass of wine, their significant other, and a lack of noise and dust, avoid other people, and live in a rural setting where their neighbors aren't within spittin' distance.

Now wait a minute Dan, you're painting people who want to live away from the noise and congestion of cities and in a rural atmosphere as being anti-social and that's just not the case.

The other moves to the high desert so they can ride their OHVs/jeep/buggy/whatever right out of the garage instead of having to trailer the whole kit and kaboodle 150 miles each way once or twice a month just to experience two days on the trail. Both deserve what they move there to experience, and neither deserves to be hassled and harrassed by the other.

Yes, agreed, and they deserve their space too. However, most all of the people you describe in your statement do not ride quads and motorcycles whom only design and purpose are for going faster. Now I'm not against speed and going fast, but only in a place set aside for that form of enjoyment. Just riding a quad down a marked dirt road in to the outback is a different story. Each of them are designed and ridden/used differently.

For the most part, they don't step on each others' toes. The ones that are a problem are the illegal riders who incessantly moto around other peoples' homes, and those who advocate dictation of what their neighbors can and can't do from their own property.

Yes, and there are so many of these types of riders that it has become a nationwide problem, hence the new laws to combat them.

So, it's simple. Pass laws only that affect areas within 1/2 mile of houses, and include a noise exception that allows enough time for the 10 or more OHV riders to get through the area and into the legitimate trail system.

Just regular trail riders, (you know, the ones who only want to get out and view the country), are not the problem.

Don't allow one homeowner to dictate what the others can do on their own property, save what is covered in the California State Penal Code under 415PC, and don't attempt to stand over 1000 years of legal precedent concerning trespassing on its ear.

415PC is a disturbing the peace section of the Cal. Penal code, no mystery there. But 415PC can cover a wide range of disturbances and not focus on a particular problem in a specific desert area with specific problems associated with that area. I guess why 3973 was created, huh? And BTW, one homeowner is not creating law, it's many.

That's why they spent so much time working out the Penal Code, and that's why every state in the union has adopted it nearly verbatim.

Not true Dan, every state has it's own interpretation of the law that governs it's state, and not every state follows California law, thank God!

Fair enough?[/quote]

Nope!

[Pharo]

people who want to live away from the noise and congestion of cities and in a rural atmosphere

Well I guess the first step for these people would be to check out the area before they buy. I mean if they are after peace and quiet, then they shouldn't buy a home in the middle of a traditional dirt bike use area. It would be easy enough to do, just drive around the area and look for trails or OHV activity BEFORE THEY BUY!

Now if the dirt bikes started showing up after the people bought their homes that would be a different story. But from what I'm reading here about SB county that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems to me these people bought the home without doing any homework and are now crying about activities that have been going on in the are for well over 50 years. And this is flying in the face of the people that have lived and been riding there for many years, if fact some have been doing it for a few generations.

So who is really getting the shaft here? The people that have been there for years or the people who couldn’t seem to afford to pay attention?

Later,

PBiZ

[Dan]

PITD, I consider you a good guy. But good guys also can be wrong.

Where do I start?

I don't think I said these people were anti-social, but there is no question they move to rural areas to avoid people and the effects they bring with them. Butcheragain recently posted somewhere that he recently returned to the area surrounding Juniper Flats, and was very surprised at how close civilization was creeping, bringing associated people problems with it. Those who choose to live in rural areas often choose to do so to avoid such problems. But it's not fair to saddle one fairly helpless group of recreationists with the problems created by a few of the people in said civilization while it encroaches ever closer to what was once a rural area.

PITD: "Yes, agreed, and they deserve their space too. However, most all of the people you describe in your statement do not ride quads and motorcycles whom only design and purpose are for going faster. Now I'm not against speed and going fast, but only in a place set aside for that form of enjoyment. Just riding a quad down a marked dirt road in to the outback is a different story. Each of them are designed and ridden/used differently. "

The sales of motocross and enduro models for high performance make up roughly 80% of the off-road market. I personally know dozens of people who moved to the high desert for precisely the reasons I cited, and 100% of their vehicles are the high-performance type you don't seem to like. Sometimes, these people like to moto, and do so in appropriate places, sometimes on limited use trails. Sometimes, they just like to cruise some local trails. Singling them out based on the type of vehicle they drive is as unfair as banning Ferraris from the freeways. You have your preference, allow others to have theirs. If I'm riding on a trail that hasn't seen a dirt bike in a week, there is virtually no one else within miles, and there is no speed limit, you're darn right I have the right to ride as fast as I want. There are no speed limits on limited use trails, nor should there be. The one exception is the 15 mph limit when adjacent to camping areas and staging areas where other vehicles are present. Nothing wrong with that. Half the fun of OHV use in areas where there are no other vehicles is spirited riding (no, I don't mean 100 mph, but I also don't think speed limits are appropriate). What's the difference to anyone if some riders want to ride 45 mph on an empty trail? It's fun, and it places NO ONE in danger except the person who does so without paying enough attention.

PITD: "Yes, and there are so many of these types of riders that it has become a nationwide problem, hence the new laws to combat them."

So, what you are saying is, that it doesn't matter if the laws are unconstitutional, discriminatory, and directly contradictory to superior state laws, as long as it "combats" the problem?

PITD: "Just regular trail riders, (you know, the ones who only want to get out and view the country), are not the problem."

The fallacy in your argument is that the "new laws to combat them" (the annoying riders) affects only those willing to voluntarily obey the laws. Those who break the laws will break these new laws also. Analogy? Every time a nation or a major city bans firearms in the name of reducing violent crime, the problem of violent crime increases. Why? Because they are not addressing the root cause, only ensuring the rights of the innocent are violated. Examples: Australia, Britain, South Africa, Canada, Washington DC, Somalia, Congo, Uganda, and most recently, Mexico.

PITD: "415PC is a disturbing the peace section of the Cal. Penal code, no mystery there. But 415PC can cover a wide range of disturbances and not focus on a particular problem in a specific desert area with specific problems associated with that area. I guess why 3973 was created, huh? And BTW, one homeowner is not creating law, it's many."

California adopted its Penal Code from the Model Penal Code, which was written specifically so that states would have a model of a set of general uniform laws which they could use as a model for their own legal system. The word they actually used was to "harmonize" differing state laws. 2/3 of all states have adopted the MPC almost verbatim, including California. A few states have reworded a few sections for clarity or for local circumstances, and a few have added or dropped a few items. The goal was to have an orderly society without unduly violating anyone's rights, and the MPC does an excellent job of that. 415PC in California is directly adapted from the MPC, and is identical to 415PC in many other states. Its use by law enforcement agencies is used for noise and annoyances ranging all the way from a barking dog, to discharge of firearms, to yelling, using noisy power equipment at the wrong times, noisy engines, lawnmowers, loud music, and yes, OHV noise. It can be widely applied to any noise that obviously disturbs the peace and quiet of any location in the state of California with the possible exception of military bases or Indian reservations. It would be directly and successfully applied in these cases as well. There is no reason to believe otherwise. There is nothing so different about OHV noise that it would not fall under the jurisdiction of 415PC. Do you realize that there are people who attack MPC specifically BECAUSE it CAN be used across such a wide range of noisy activities, including OHV use?

PITD: "Not true Dan, every state has it's own interpretation of the law that governs it's state, and not every state follows California law, thank God!"

Actually, it IS true. Yes, every state MAY have its own interpretation of minor details, but most choose to use the MPC verbatim. The California Penal Code is not an invention of hairbrained liberal lawyers in Kalifornia. 3973 IS an invention of hairbrained liberal lawyers from Kalifornia, egged on by about 50 local residents surrounding places like Wonder Valley and Juniper Flats, to serve their narrow specific purposes of ridding the high desert of OHVs, legal, illegal, or otherwise.


If you want to know the basics of MPC, go to the link below. It refutes nearly everything you just said about it being a California law that doesn't apply to OHVS in specific areas like Wonder Valley or Juniper Flats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code

The Sheriff, BLM Law Enforcement, and USFS Law Enforcement all have the jurisdiction to enforce the California Penal Code in the two areas above, which house the vast majority of complainers. The problem the people of Juniper Flats have, is that the Sheriff won't drive out there for fear that it's another wild goose chase phony baloney complaint like what they get incessantly and regularly from some people in Wonder Valley. They can't come right out and say that, but they smile and tell us "no comment" when we ask them about enforcement of illegal riding using the Penal Code. They have to show respect for all citizens and taxpayers, even the ones who abuse the complaint process. Anti-OHV people in the area have complained that law enforcement did not "have the tools" to prosecute illegal riders. That is pure baloney. 415PC and 602PC are all the laws that are necessary for enforcement. What they wanted was restrictions that go well beyond making illegal riding illegal. WTF? It was ALREADY ILLEGAL. Don't you see? That's the entire point of 3973. It establishes another layer of increased restrictions enforced by yet another layer of law enforcement, and is intended to create yet another deterrent to ALL OHV use in the county. If it wasn't, then only illegal OHV riders would have to buy $155 permits to ride or stage on their own property.

What 3973 seeks to do is begin to overturn the concept called "mens rea". If you don't know what that is, I'd suggest googling the term. It will be a real eye opener for you.

[Plays In The Dirt]

[quote="Dan"]PITD, I consider you a good guy. But good guys also can be wrong.

Well thank you Dan, I consider you to be a good guy too. Hopefully someday we'll all get to meet somewhere and have a few beers (or whatever floats your boat), and sit around and talk.

Anti-OHV people in the area have complained that law enforcement did not "have the tools" to prosecute illegal riders. That is pure baloney. 415PC and 602PC are all the laws that are necessary for enforcement.

Of course they have the tools, and you are correct that 415PC (Disturbing the peace), would cover noise created by OHV's. Current trespassing laws would cover illegal trespass on private property. Perhaps what the Anti-OHV people (as you call them) mean is that the current laws don't have any bite to them, and is really useless to combat this growing countrywide problem.

[Dan]

PITD: "Perhaps what the Anti-OHV people (as you call them) mean is that the current laws don't have any bite to them, and is really useless to combat this growing countrywide problem."

I really call them anti-OHV because they advocate laws which reach well beyond the existing limitations, seek to create illegal OHV use out of what is currently legal OHV use, and advocate for closure of more public lands as punishment to legal and responsible OHV users because of the transgressions of a small percentage of other people.

Punishment of the innocent simply as retaliation for the frustration of not being able to punish those responsible for such behavior is childish and amounts to nothing more than a desire for revenge.

Similarly, when a law is determined by society to not have "enough bite", then each county can set its own bail schedule for those guilty of any section of the Penal Code. The closest thing I could find to a San Bernardino County bail schedule online, was Kern County's penal bail schedule. In it, the listing for 415PC is $150 + court costs. So, make it $250 + court costs. Don't change the whole concept of mens rea around simply because society and the perps don't think the penalties are high enough. Additionally, higher penalties will deter some people, but remember that many felonies carry fines of $10k, $20k, $25k, $100k, and more, and even THAT isn't enough to deter. They have to believe they stand a chance of getting caught. That's where better enforcement comes in.

But just suppose for a moment that many of these complaints you read on the internet are fabricated as a trumped-up and orchestrated campaign against OHV use. Suppose 1/2 of them are pure fabrications. Wouldn't it be a travesty if strict new regulations were created, outlawing currently legal OHV activities, largely based upon those fabrications? What if those new regulations included a requirement that required a property owner to get his neighbor's written permission to ride an OHV on the property owners own land? What if you needed your neighbor's permission to cut your lawn? Operate a trencher? Have gravel delivered to your home for your driveway by a dump truck? Permission to run a table saw, tile saw, chipper, jigsaw, drill, grinder, or air compressor? Why is it strictly limited to OHVs? Some of these other devices are far noisier and far more annoying. Why not them?

Perhaps because they don't ride trails with knobby tires, jumping and climbing up, down, and around hills, on public lands, in what some other people consider "their back yard"?

Personally, I believe much of the complaint list is bogus, orchestrated between environmental group lecturers (much like Phil Klasky, Karen Schambach, and Jason Fried) and landowners who fancy themselves as protectors of nature. Much like the newest members of a club are the most enthusiastic, recent converts to the environmental causes are often a bit overzealous in their attempts to further the reach of their chosen "club". Even some legitimately annoyed landowners get sucked into the cause as a method of ridding themselves of the annoyance of local teenagers who show up after school and on the weekends to ride their bikes near home. At some point, many are willing to do just about anything short of taking matters into their own hands using lethal force and scare tactics. At that point, telling a little white lie a dozen times a year doesn't sound too bad. Nobody gets hurt except that snot-nosed kid that keeps annoying the resident, right?

I also believe there is a bit of politicking going on. One of the most difficult obstacles environmental groups run into when attempting to take over as clearinghouse for human economic activities in a particular area is private property owners, who are typically not too interested in allowing enviros to study their property for endangered species (for reasons that should be obvious to anyone). Over the last decade, enviro groups have made a concerted effort to overcome restrictions on their authority on private property by gaining the trust of private property owners themselves. That way, enviro groups remove the obstacle when owners of private property are cooperative and friendly toward them. What better way to sign them up on the team than to demonize a common enemy? Although there are clearly exceptions to the rule, supporters of enviro groups tend to lean toward the liberal side of the political aisle, and supporters of OHV use tend to lean toward the conservative side. In order to have their policies enacted, which are often not going to be accepted by the public willingly, enviro groups must use the force of government in most cases. Clearly, the political left favors using this force of government far more often than the political right. For the most part, Americans don't like being told what to do. It's been largely a part of our character since the American Revolution. The acceptance of many enviro group policies is by force, such as ESA, EPA fuel emissions and fuel mileage standards, the use of tiny fuel efficient cars instead of luxury sporty coupes, sedans, and SUVs, and dozens of other issues. The political left, and in particular, enviro groups, are huge into seminars and teaching their members how to politic and become politically active on behalf of the organization. Considering that environmentalism is nowadays more like a religion than a movement centered on the environment, many of the members are more than willing to commit their time, money, and tithe to the environmental group whatever support is necessary. It's infectious to the newer members. They are beyond enthusiastic.

Take the woman Ken ran into at the smog check station in Yucca Valley a few months ago. She moved to Johnson Valley, which is the large Open Use OHV area S@ndman and EZRider and the other COWs keep telling us is the appropriate place to use OHVs on an unlimited basis. Guess what? The moment she moves there, she sets about trying to eliminate any OHV use near her home. She knew precisely what she was getting into, she complained that she has had to move several times due to OHV use. Well, DUH! If she doesn't like OHV use, then why did she move to what is the busiest OHV Open Use Area in the state? Methinks there is no other reason than the fact that she wants to move to the area specifically to end OHV use. I smell a rat. Don't you? She became so aggressive toward one of her neighbors that they swore out a restraining order against her. She somehow reportedly threatened them if they didn't stop riding OHVs on their own property in Johnson Valley. Where does this get reported? Nowhere, unless OHV advocates take the information and post it in places like DUSA. But let a kid on his quad spray a little dirt on a rancher in Juniper Flats, and it's a felony case all of a sudden. It becomes a reason to close down more public lands to OHV use, and to slap more restrictions on OHV users in the whole county. Sad.

OHV advocates on this forum were ridiculed for connecting the dots on socialist/communist ideals and the environmental movement today. We were ridiculed for connecting the envioronmental groups with anti-OHV zealots in Wonder Valley and elsewhere. Then along comes Phil Klasky, the collectivist, leftist, radical environmental activist, anti-OHV activist, Bay-area college professor who coddles and encourages self-described communist students to try and disrupt a non-partisan college memorial for 9/11 victims. Guess where his vacation home is? Wonder Valley. He's down here all the time as an Indian Studies Associate Professor, working with Indian tribes on recruitment to the environmental causes, among other things, I'm sure. San Francisco is among the most sympathetic places you could find in the world for communistic/socialistic causes and people. Phil fits right in there very comfortably. He's brought his own brand of leftist, anti-democratic, turn-the-Constitution-on-its-ear sort of political activism to the high desert of California, and he is the chief organizer and agitator for COW.

I'm not of a mind to consider these people anything but a well-organized, well-informed, and very articulate bunch of political activists. Not that there aren't legitimate complaints from legitimate complainers out there. I'm sure half of them are. But I also know when someone's trying to make a political mountain out of the proverbial molehill so their own personal views are enforced on the rest of society. And we all know how a very small mob of very vocal, legalistic, and angry politicos can have big influence on our public policy at all levels. We also know how a very few horror stories can keep circulating, with enough changes in the story, for years, masquerading as a dozen different incidents.

I'm convinced that far too many of these stories and complaints are nothing more than recycled ammunition we've seen before, and that's why the Sheriff doesn't bother to enforce half the time. That's the only reason 415PC and 602PC don't have any teeth. The boy has cried wolf far too many times, and the townspeople are sick and tired of dropping everything to help, only to find him laughing at them. That's why the boy, in this case, has recruited others to cry wolf for him.

[EZRider]

A little verbose perhaps, Dan, but since the title of the thread is "OHV Grants Comments" why not send your last comment to the OHMVR Commission?

EZ

[Dan]

A little verbose perhaps, Dan, but since the title of the thread is "OHV Grants Comments" why not send your last comment to the OHMVR Commission?

EZ

How do you know I haven't?

[Sal]

But just suppose for a moment that many of these complaints you read on the internet are fabricated as a trumped-up and orchestrated campaign against OHV use.

Just suppose they are all true. I know of NO ONE who makes up stories about OHV nuisance. It's all around. Dan is using this supposition to base his arguments on. The supposition is wrong and his arguments are wrong.

I say show me ONE example of someone lying about OHV nuisance. Dan is denying reality in order to argue for his right to ride a racing vehicle on land he does not own.

[EZRider]

A little verbose perhaps, Dan, but since the title of the thread is "OHV Grants Comments" why not send your last comment to the OHMVR Commission?

EZ

How do you know I haven't?

It's not your style, Dan.

EZ

[Dan]

Sal: "I say show me ONE example of someone lying about OHV nuisance."

OK, Sal. Here you are:

http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/file ... update.pdf



Sal: "Dan is denying reality in order to argue for his right to ride a racing vehicle on land he does not own."

This is not true, Sal. It's the only way you can twist the facts in order to demonize a caricature of me with which you can successfully argue.