Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts

1980 LWB 280GE
3,504 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Support the folks who are working for all of us to keep public land public!
-Dave G.

El Dorado National Forest to stay open to OHV's

Sacramento, California (5/9/05) U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton
issued a tentative ruling today that directs the Forest Service to
continue authorizing motorized travel on approximately 2245 miles of
system roads within the forest. California Association of Four Wheel
Drive Clubs, Inc., (CA4WDC) members received this major pro-access
victory today in a case involving the Eldorado National Forest.
Anti-access groups filed a lawsuit in 2003 requesting closure of most of
the forest to motorized access.

Don Klusman, Natural Resource Consultant with the California Association
of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs stated, "This is a huge victory for all of us
who believe in responsible use of our forest lands. The anti-access
groups had wanted to close the entire forest to the public. I think we
showed reasonable evidence that motor vehicle recreation is a
responsible use of our public lands. This is why we need to be prepared
to enter into the legal arena when all other efforts fail. "

This means the Barrett Lake, Hell Hole, Rubicon, Deer Valley and other
four wheel drive trails will remain open for off-highway vehicle (OHV)
use. According to Dennis Porter, legal counsel for CA4WDC, "This
ruling recognizes and preserves legitimate OHV motorized use by the
public in this forest. This is why we have a legal team involved in
preserving the rights of the public to access public lands." Judge
Karlton had earlier issued a ruling that found the 1990 Travel
Management Plan and the Rock Creek Trail Plan had not complied with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

CA4WDC, the BlueRibbon Coalition, and other pro-access groups joined
together to receive intervention status shortly after it was filed in 2003.

The case is titled Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation; Center For
Biological Diversity; and California Wilderness Coalition v. John Berry,
et al., Case No. CIV-S-0325 LKK/JFM

1981 300GD
71 Posts
Another good reason to take good care of what we have.

Widescale preservation efforts that make major swaths of public land unavailable for public use don't necessarily work as intended.

People won't preserve what they do not value. They do not value what they cannot see and touch.

It's a fine balance between use and overuse. Non-use and over-use both destroy.

As a hiker, having vehicle free forests is a good thing. The last thing I want to hear when I'm walking in the woods is a big G-series crunching up the trail. As a G-owner, having some vehicular access to the backcountry is also a good thing.

I hope we can preserve both.
1 - 2 of 2 Posts