Incremental change.  That is how the government takes our public lands rights away.  They make an announcement, generally disguised as a "proposal", like the closing of BLM roads in a certain area that has been discussed here, knowing that it will stir up a hornets nest.  They fully expect the reaction they get.  They know it's coming. Then, in apparent consideration of the public reaction, they back off and let things settle down.  Then, after enough time has passed, they bring it up again.  If the reaction is still strong enough they back off again.  This is repeated until they feel that enough people have become sufficiently conditioned to the their proposal (read: loss of more rights), and have finally grown tired of the fight.  That is when the shoe drops, the "proposal" is enacted, and the public has lost another freedom.  And it is lost forever.  I have seen this happen over and over and over again.

I have watched the Forest Service use these exact tactics for the last 40 years here where I live, in the Plumas National Forest, CA.   Every year there is another turn of the screw.  They have eliminated hundreds of miles of roads, either by obliterating them, bulldozing a berm, or posting with a sign.  They are doing it incrementally, a few more roads every year.  Some of these roads have been used for 75 years or more.  We have now reached the point where we can not get a vehicle off of a dirt road when parking....for any reason.  Where we used to be able to cut any dead or down tree for firewood, we are now restricted to only cutting trees that are within 100 feet of the road.  All the rest of the tens of thousands of dead trees can fall over and rot away, but they cannot be used for firewood.  It has taken decades for the environmentalists that now infest the Forest Service in my county to totally hamstring people who cut firewood to heat their homes.  Now that firewood cutting almost a thing of the past, the new target is snowmobilers.   Just this summer a huge, I mean huge, chunck of land is "proposed" to become off limits to snowmobilers, and all other vehicular traffic, because there are 3 pairs of Bald Eagles that nest in the area.  The first public meeting has been held, and the expected public outrage has been expressed.  Of course the Bald Eagles are a straw man argument, but that is all the Forest Service needs.  One wonders how these eagles established their nests with the snowmobilers using the area.  The nests weren't there 15 years ago.  The local Forest Service apparently considers our national forest to be their personal property, and they would be happy if the public would just stay out of it.  And every year they take another small step to accomplish their goal.

It is not just a figment of our imagination that we are slowly losing our freedoms on our "public" lands.  It is happening.  A person can defend the government if they so choose, and maintain that the feelings expressed here and elsewhere are just paranoia, and an unjustified hatred of environmentalists.  If there are people who intensely dislike environmentalists it is not because envirnmentalists want "clean air", "clean water", and a world where animals can continue to exist.  Who doesn't want these things?  Environmentalists also want to prohibit , or outlaw, activities that they personally dislike.  That is why so many people dislike them.  They use their influence to get our government agencies to get what they want.  There is no denying that we have less freedoms on our public lands than we had just a few decades ago.  If the government did not take these freedoms away, then who did?

The BLM might postpone the actions that have been discussed here, if there is sufficient outrage, or they might just close a "few" roads.  Then next year or the year after they might close a few more roads.  They know that delay and patience can soften the blow, and make their actions seem less dictatorial, unnecessary, and arbitrary.  That's the beauty of incremental change, and why it is so effective.

Anyone who thinks that the BLM cannot or would not do these things is dreaming.  Let the doubters bring their jeep to the Plumas National Forest and park it 20 feet off the road to be safely clear of traffic and dust.  And then when one of our friendly, gun toting USFS individuals comes by and writes them a ticket they can tell me that the fears that have been expressed here are "bullshit."  If, 25 years ago somebody had said this would happen, it would have been laughed off as impossible.  If, 25 years ago,  somebody had said that a dead tree within archery range of a road could no longer be cut for firewood it would have been laughed off as impossible.

When it comes to fearing the impossible, where our goverment is concerned, it is not "bullshit". It is fear borne of experience.

Here's what a forest service guy has to say on the matter.. M38 Mike, a recent participant in the Alaska convoy and also owner of the Electro-Willys, a modified M38 that runs on batteries. He also is hosting the Fall colors tour again this year, so he knows of what he speaks about jeep trails. 



I'd like to add my 2 cents to this discussion.  I work for the FS now as a project planner for the San Isabel NF.  I am a strong proponent of keeping roads open, multiple use, and wise use for resource extraction.  I have been watching, and fighting from within, the slow removal of the multiple use concept that the Forest Service was originally based on.  The public groups that use national forests are getting more and more polarized.  Unfortunately the environmental preservationists are decades ahead of most other groups in learning how to gather support and influence policy.  I'm sad to say that many of the folks who now are in leadership positions in my agency are not leaning toward multiple use, but toward restricted use for much of the national forest system lands.
 

What's happening nationwide is a groundswell of protectionism.  The way to combat that is to get active in motorized recreation organizations.  Even if it's just a basic membership.  That gives the group numbers, and numbers matter on the balance beam of decision making for land management.  When we meet with opposing groups to talk about land management, one person's opinion is small next to the opinion of an organization that has dozens or hundreds of members.  



One of the problems we face in land management is what we call a user-created route.  That's where somebody drives their vehicle straight up the side of a hill just to see if he can do it.  He leaves tracks behind that someone else then follows, and someone else, and someone else.  Pretty soon, in our dry climate you have a two-track road going straight up the side of a hill.  And when the rains do come, they tend to come hard.  That road now becomes a wash out gully.  That's hard to repair and may take decades to heal.  



What we are trying to do is to create routes that will not wash away when we make new roads or trails.  With good design we can access the back country with roads and trails that will remain for decades with little maintenance.  We are working with ATV and Jeep groups to build new routes.  Or to rebuild old ones that are eroding.  But it takes volunteer effort to get it done.  Our declining budgets don't have much maintenance money left in them.  In Colorado the Forest Service gets to benefit from literally tens of thousands of volunteer hours of work each year, both motorized and non-motorized, to keep trails open and repaired.  



But we are also a battleground.  The preservationists want all roads eliminated.  They don't care about fire protection, or disabled recreationists, or the jobs lost by locking up forestland.  They don't live here.  In fact most of them don't even hike here.  They simply want to impose thier will on the rest of us.  And they do it by launching missles at us from courts in distant cities.  In the end, the court will tell us what we can do, and what we can't do.  Not from a resource management professional's perspective, but from the perspective of who won the legal tug of war.  Our Nation Forest is in Denver Federal Court right now with one of those lawsuits challenging over 750 miles of road.  Some of those roads were there before most of us were born.  The fight isn't logical.  But it is comprehensive.  And for our part we are doing all we can to show the court the documents that prove each of those miles of road has a purpose for being there, and was intended for public use.  It's a significant battle.  And it leads to loads of frustration on our part.  

So Carlsjeep, I can feel your frustration and anger.  I get it too.  Perhaps even more so because I get to see how some of these decisions are being made. END OF QUOTE

Again I ask.
Is there a nationwide organization of "wilderness users" that can lobby at the Federal level?
Is Tread Lightly that group?
Or the Blue Ribbon Coalition?
Or?
And if not, why not?
We need to band together - Jeepers, ATVers, dirt bikers, hunters, fishermen, all who use motorized transport to access the "wilderness".
We need to feed support to those who can combat the opposition in DC and in the courts.
We need to police ourselves by busting those who break the rules in the off-road areas. Turn them in to the police with video whenever possible. Most local law guys appreciate help.

So again - does such an organization already exist? And if so, is it effective?

Just so you know, the first link is to the Blue Ribbon Coalition. After Tom's comment about them I did some digging and found several articles  linking the BRC to Big Oil and Mining interest funding sources. HOWEVER I could not find anythng verifying that anywhere yet. and there were some real truth stretchers elsewhere in the same articles. It wouldn't be beyond Big Oil to fund some ORV  organizations but some of the statements were so flat wrong about us 4 x 4 users.....that it lent no credulity to what was said. It seems the mudlslinging is not limited to just our tires. There are those out there who equate jeep use with non socially acceptable behavior....and are trying to legislate total elimination of off road use of public lands, using "socially sustainable use" as a landmark.

Please try to stick to the facts as we continue this discussion guys.. Some of you may still need to go back and edit your previous posts..personal attacks, generalizations about certain political leanings, etc, have no place here.

And those of you that do still have access to public lands and places like the power lines......please be responsible. It just takes one idiot bonehead to paint us all with the same brush.

Where would Ansel Adams have been today with such limited access to those wonderful places he photographed?