[brewster]

Some of you were asking about the BRC response to last weeks OHV commission meeting. Here it is!!!

http://www.sharetrails.org/releases/media/index.cfm?story=464

Keep informed and active

Ride on
Brewster
CERA.......assistant LAO

[CycleWriter]

From Mr. Amador: "Their actions to defund the off-highway vehicle (OHV) oriented law enforcement responsibilities of many county sheriffs' departments and federal agencies is shameful."

No money for enforcement? Is this really a bad thing? If it means less/no sheriffs out looking for red stickers then who will do it? Most of the rangers couldn't care less about the stickers, they're more concerned with spark arrestors. Could it be the commision is trying to help with repealing the red sticker law by not funding enforcement? Hmmm...

[brewster]

Could it be the commision is trying to help with repealing the red sticker law by not funding enforcement? Hmmm...
You gotta be kidding!! The controlling members of the commission would like all OHVs to be red sticker'd and extend the "no riding with red stickers" period to start Jan. 1, and end Dec. 30.

Keep informed and active

Ride on
Brewster
CERA....assistant LAO

[CycleWriter]

You gotta be kidding!! The controlling members of the commission would like all OHVs to be red sticker'd and extend the "no riding with red stickers" period to start Jan. 1, and end Dec. 30.
I was being somewhat facetious, but it seems to me that if the commission was that bent on restricting us, enforcement would be a priority. The first year of the red sticker was hardly a blip on our radar because there was no directive or money for enforcement. It wasn't until the riding areas affected by the law were threatened with cuts in funding that they were forced to start enforcing the red sticker law. Cut or eliminate enforcement funding and the same apathetic attitude towards the law is likely to return. State- and forest service-run riding areas would prefer not to enforce the ban season since it cuts down on sorely needed revenues. Of course, chances are someone on the commission will realize that without the enforcement money there is limited compliance and less restriction on OHV usage and they'll rethink their position, but if not, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. I hate the idea that any of our green stickie money goes towards hiring sheriffs to write us tickets. That was not in the language of the code when the OHV Fund was first instituted. When you look at how little of those monies collected over the years actually went to pay for the stated objective of the Fund, it makes one sick.

[brewster]

That was not in the language of the code when the OHV Fund was first instituted. When you look at how little of those monies collected over the years actually went to pay for the stated objective of the Fund, it makes one sick.
And that sums up why I've become so active in trying to redirect the OHV funds back to the original intention of our legislature.

The only law enforcement that the dominant 3 commissioners were concerned with had to do with wilderness intrusions from cycles, quads, and snowmobiles.

Keep informed and active

Ride on
Brewster
CERA.....assistant LAO

[Dan_from_HB]

The "Sacramento Three" on the Commission would much rather channel the money toward something that will eventually end our sport entirely than simply regulate it. The designation of Wilderness to them is sacred, and it's their ultimate goal for all land outside of high density urban areas.

[Dan_from_HB]

When you look at how little of those monies collected over the years actually went to pay for the stated objective of the Fund, it makes one sick.

This is OUR fault. The enviros saw an opportunity and grabbed it. We are not politically active enough or politically significant enough to warrant anyone in Sacramento helping us. The answer is that we must BECOME politically active and significant by screaming at the top of our lungs (figuratively speaking, of course) in the form of letters and phone calls to anyone in state government that will listen. Also, send money to CORVA, BRC, etc so they can use it to defend your rights to ride on public lands with funding from your own Green Sticker fees.
Law enforcement is not necessarily a bad thing in our riding areas. It doesn't need to be oppressive, just a minimal presence. The boneheads in our sport need to understand that everyone is now watching us since our opponents are screaming, and they are well-connected politically. Law enforcement is sometimes the only way to get their attention.

[CycleWriter]

This is OUR fault.I have said this many times, when it comes to getting organized to fight unfair legislation aimed at motorcyclists, we are our own worst enemy. We're too busy fighting over silly issues like brands, 2 wheels vs 4 wheels, types of riding, street vs dirt, trail vs track, synthetic vs dino, and any number of other trivial, petty little things that push wedges between us as a group. There is so much fractionalization within the motorcycle community that it paralyzes us from being able to support even causes that affect us all, like land closures and noise restrictions. Until, like the enviros, we recognize that we share a common goal and unite behind it, we will never be able to muster the opposition needed to convince lawmakers that we should be listened to. Politicians only respect groups when they share a common agenda and can vote in large blocks. Blocks big enough to threaten their continued employment in government. Elections always come down to, "Who will get the Black vote, the Latino vote, the Green vote?" because those answers can sway an election. When the question also includes the Motorcyclist vote, then we can effect change, but not until.

[Dan_from_HB]

I have said this many times, when it comes to getting organized to fight unfair legislation aimed at motorcyclists, we are our own worst enemy. We're too busy fighting over silly issues like brands, 2 wheels vs 4 wheels, types of riding, street vs dirt, trail vs track, synthetic vs dino, and any number of other trivial, petty little things that push wedges between us as a group. There is so much fractionalization within the motorcycle community that it paralyzes us from being able to support even causes that affect us all, like land closures and noise restrictions. Until, like the enviros, we recognize that we share a common goal and unite behind it, we will never be able to muster the opposition needed to convince lawmakers that we should be listened to. Politicians only respect groups when they share a common agenda and can vote in large blocks. Blocks big enough to threaten their continued employment in government. Elections always come down to, "Who will get the Black vote, the Latino vote, the Green vote?" because those answers can sway an election. When the question also includes the Motorcyclist vote, then we can effect change, but not until.

Well said.

And toward that end, I'm sure you are aware, there is now a group called EcoLogic Partners, formed by CORVA, ORBA, District 37 AMA, American Sand Association, and a few others. It's prime goal is to mount an offensive against those who are anti-access to public lands for those of us who choose to do it on an OHV. David Hubbard is the lead attorney, and so far it seems to have some small amount of success. But they need more money. Contribute to your favorite land rights organization, and become active in writing your local and state politicians. They haven't heard from most of us, and they should.

[brewster]

Well said.
And toward that end, I'm sure you are aware, there is now a group called EcoLogic Partners, formed by CORVA, ORBA, District 37 AMA, American Sand Association, and a few others. It's prime goal is to mount an offensive against those who are anti-access to public lands for those of us who choose to do it on an OHV. David Hubbard is the lead attorney, and so far it seems to have some small amount of success. But they need more money. Contribute to your favorite land rights organization, and become active in writing your local and state politicians. They haven't heard from most of us, and they should.
Dan, there is very little information about EcoLogic Partners to be found. The only place I've seen it mentioned is in the AMA d37 forums. I'm sure that there are many folks that would be interested in hearing more about them.

How do we contact them?
What can we do to support them?
Have they initiated any legal matters yet?

It's great to have another legal foundation helping us out. Seems like we can't accomplish much with logic and reasoning.

Keep informed and active

Ride on
Brewster
CERA....assistant LAO

[cutaccross2]

From the dist 37 board. Roger is our legal defense rep,

Originally Posted by cactushopper
You can send your checks to: Eco Logic
c/o Roger Van Matre
11171 Davenport Pl
Riverside, Ca 92505

Make you checks payable to Eco Logic

2006 is going to be a big year. Financial help will be very much appreciated.

[cutaccross2]

More news from the Dist.37 board


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can document everything I say below.



A consultant for Summerwind Ranch is the Riverside Lands Conservancy, Executive Director Pete Dangermond. The developer's settlement deal with the Center for Biological Diversity and the Audubon required the developer to sell land for mitigation, and the Riverside Land Conservancy serves as a middle man, holding company or land agent.



But there had to be a way to get someone to buy land that could never be developed and manage it in perpetuity. The plan was to incorporate the lands sold for mitigation in what is planned to ultimately be a 10,000 acre State Park, San Timoteo Canyon State Park. The plan includes the 2,800 Badlands/DeAnza Cycle Park/Norton Younglove Reserve as part of San Timoteo Canyon State Park. Where would the other 6,000 to 7,000 acres come from, for the 10,000 acre no OHVs allowed State Park, since the existing San Timoteo Canyon State Park is only a bit over 500 acres? Who would be willing to or could be made to pay for so much land? There is also the problem getting their hands on the Badlands/DeAnza Cycle Park without really paying what it is really worth (tens of million of dollars) since it was mostly purchased with OHV Trust Funds.



So a plan was hatched to milk the OHV Trust Fund. Dangermond and State Parks prefers to use the term leverage OHV Trust funds. So an extremely high mitigation ratio was agreed to and set for the "replacement" OHV park that was to be traded for the old Badland/DeAnza Cycle Park, 5 to 1. To force the OHV Program to buy land it was decided that no mitigation credit could be claimed for the the old Cycle Park. Also no mitigation credit is allowed for any unused land within the 2,400 acre so called replacement Cycle Park at the toxic Lockheed Laborde site. At most only half the the 2,400 acre Lockheed Laborde site could be developed for a replacement OHV Park, in other words 1,200 acres. But why would none of the remaining at least 1,200 areas of undevelopable land be claimed for mitigation? Again because the plan was to require the OHV Trust fund to buy mitigation land from developers who would get to sell land to meet their mitigation and/or settlement deal with the CBD and Audubon and with the Riverside Land Conservancy, AKA Danagermond.



So how many acres would need to be bought by the OHV trust fund to meet the 5 to 1 mitigation ratio required to use up to1,200 acres of the replacement OHV park? The answer is 6,000 acres. So the 2,800,acres from the old Badland/DeAnza Cycle Park, plus the 500 acres from the existing San Timoteo Canyon State Park, plus 6,000 acres of land that the OHV Trust Fund would be required to buy for mitigation, plus the 1,200 of undeveloped land at the replacement OHV Park, equals 10,500 acres, so that is the land for the planned "10,000 acre San Timoteo Canyon State Park.



The mystery of why the OHV Trust fund was satteled with a 5:1 mitigation rate, and why the OHV program was not allowed to claim any mitigation credit for the old Cycle Park, nor the undeveloped land, for the so called replacement cycle park, is solved.



This by itself is scandalous, but it gets worse. The California Department of Finance was specifically told that the plan was to buy the mitigation land immediately, and is urgent to do so. The Department of Finance was told the new OHV Park opening was imminent. Buy the Department of Finance was lied to, to deceive them into releasing money to buy mitigation lands for a new OHV Park that was not feasible. The Department of Finance was not told about significant concerns that local environmentalist had raised about the project's feasibility, these red flags were hidden from the Department of Finances's knowing. The Department of Finance was not told about the toxic waste issues and the severe problems with obtaining access to the Lockheed Laborde site. The push was to buy the mitigation lands right away and trade a clean accessible site, the Badlands/DeAnza Cycle Park, for a toxic soaked, inaccessible, and obviously infeasible site, the Lockheed Laborde Site. The four hundred thousand dollar "Feasibility Study" was literally a fake in that it claimed the site was feasible, when in truth the site was very far from being a feasible site.



There is one more sad aspect to long term conspiracy to attempt to defraud taxpayers and specifically the OHV Trust Fund out of fair value for land. The plan was to trade a clean accessible site, worth upwards of 100 million dollars, for an inaccessible toxic filled site, that would clearly end up being a long term liability to the State, if they got away with their dirty deal. The claim is if the OHV fund purchased land could not be used that it would be sold, but who would buy land that is now called a wildlife coridore, and who is dump enough to think environmental activist would let the OHV trust fund off the hook for managing any land purchased in perpetyuity to keep OHV's out of such lands? This deal must have made anti OHV environmental activist giddy will the prospect of such a deal going through? The OHV leadership did not ask hard questions about the project until recently. Next time when some comes to the OHV Community with a land deal, make sure your representatives insist on an open process, and that they ask hard questions, and do not take things for granted, trust but verify. And on this deal, insist on a full investigation, so awful deals like this are not tried on us again.




file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/admin/Desktop/SummerWind%20Ranch_files/OpenSpace.jpg

[Dan_from_HB]

It's great to have another legal foundation helping us out. Seems like we can't accomplish much with logic and reasoning.

Keep informed and active

Ride on
Brewster
CERA....assistant LAO

Logic and reasoning haven't been a part of the effort to close land to OHV use. It's been tried by those representing OHV users, but they need more money and more political clout. OHV users need to be more active and less apathetic. In California, we have roughly 5% of Federally-owned public lands available for OHV use, and that INCLUDES the currently OPEN use designations.

Once we are down to 1 or 2%, it's over. I mean over. Park the dirt bike, quad, or whatever. You're done.

It's time to put up or shut up. Quit arguing about which bike is best and send money to CORVA, ORBA, BRC, EcoLogic (thanks to Cactushopper and Cutacross2 for posting this information). What happens in California will absolutely set the stage for what happens in other states. You can count on that.