This is not the map I was looking for, they must have updated there website.
But this one works too. Note the read is little to no Human use.
Ah, thanks for that. But, if I understand correctly, the CBD's numbers wouldn't be affected. In the example I used earlier, the cost of the hired attorney (CBD) would be reimbursed to the client (Sierra Club)...que no? In any case, your earlier question would be an interesting thing to look into. It would be interesting to know how much in-total it is costing all of us when these suits are brought by the CBD and are lost or defaulted by our government. Of course, this may just add another element/angle to how they play their twisted game.
Specifically, officials from 65 of the 75 USDA and Interior agencies we contacted told us that they did not track or could not readily provide us with this information.
Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, said in statement issued in October that environmental groups collect only a small portion of overall fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. He said his own group receives only a tiny fraction — less than 0.5 percent, on average — of its annual revenue of about $8 million from those attorney fees recovered.
The other map is a couple years old, I'm sure I could find it, but its a mute point.
Forget the map, they took it off their site or moved it.
Not propaganda, fact. Even if I posted it you would find some other BS reason not to believe it.
But that is hi jacking the topic of the thread.
Haven,
Please keep in mind this organization doesn't give a damn what the NFS or its field biologists have to say regarding this issue. They have no regard for the NFS and all the NFS is attempting to do here is avoid having to enter into litigation with them. From this link to their site, it appears they have targeted the Eldorado NF at least five times in the last decade, and as recently as last year.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/off-road_vehicles/action_timeline.html
As for the $$$$$, here is the best I could derive from public records:
Here are some examples of the salaries received by board members directly from the "Center". Keep in mind these individuals also pursue their own endeavours. Kieran and Peter also derive income from speaking engagements and appearances that could match their salaries if contracted wisely.
Salaries:
Kieran Suckling Exec Dir 104,313.00
Peter Galvin, Director $94,922.00
Robin D. Silver Secretary 81,500.00
Todd Schulke Treasurer 51,500.00
Also keep in mind, they are considered a non-profit. Salary disparities between a staff attorney and a board memeber won't often be as great as in private sector law practice. In fact, some staff attorney salaries could exceed that of the Director or Exec. Director in many cases, and they have many attornies. They have a much larger legal tool bag than scientific.
Earnings:
2008 IRS filings show $1,398,161.00 in receipts for legal fees reaped while suing the U.S. Government.
In 2009 they showed $ 1,173,517.00 doing same.
In 2010, $ 685,981.00
That's $ 3,257,659.00 earned over three years while attacking the NFS, NPS, BLM, EPA, etc. on these same types of issues.
Now, here come the Contributions:
$ 1,423,127.00 received as foundation grants in 2009
$ 1,876,800.00 received as foundation grants in 2010.
Memberships and donations totaled 4,795,424.00 in 2009
In 2010 they totaled $ 5,389,003.00
Grand totals for 2008 were $7,392,068.00.
In 2010 they were $ 7,951,784.00.
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/850/850420285/850420285_200812_990.pdf
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/reports/AnnualRpt2010.pdf
Appears to be a nice little business concern if you ask me.
Haven, I'm not one to BS and I'm certainly not one to condemn without having my facts in order. Seems in this case, you could stand to make yourself better aware of how the game is played between special interest groups that are essentially hiking/backpacking clubs (Sierra Club) or birding clubs (Audubon) and the like and agencies we entrust to steward our lands for all users and "the greater good". Everyone wants their own "private Idaho" and reserving these areas exlusively for the enjoyment of those interested in only bipedal pursuits is not the greater good. These organizations have lost proper focus and view the issue through a very fine lens. Ultimately, they serve a special interest and by the time the CBD is hired an organism or threat has been selected or fronted and a fight plan is in formulation. But, the true end game is that a particular special interest group will gain their true wishes....exclusive use/access.
Richard Pollock said:Without any oversight, accounting, or transparency, environmental activist groups have surreptitiously received at least $37 million from the federal government for questionable “attorney fees.” The lawsuits they received compensation for had nothing to do with environmental protection or improvement.
I probably shouldn't say this, but...
No, I won't forget the map. You can't just come in posting a bunch of trash talk without backing it up and expect to be taken seriously. If the CBD published some kind of anti-human, anti-OHV map, I suspect it would be all over the internet, regardless if "they" removed it from "thier" site. I try to see both sides of an argument and try to be unbiased. If you posted something legitimate rather than slinging mud, I would take an honest look at it. It's much more interesting to consider a well spoken argument than to nit pick over misinformation IMHO.
That is the fundamental problem within the OHV community. When organizations or individuals representing us start the crazy talk, we all lose. Just like when a tiny minority of OHV users trash a place, we all lose. It makes it easy to close places, because only some people lose in that situation. Like it our not, our recreation is not necessary, causes significant impact, and conflicts with a lot of other uses. So when removing the user group causing the most impact per user is on the table as a possible solution, it's a no brainer. I don't like it, but that's the reality.
It's important to voice concerns about losing access. But here's one thing I can tell you as a former insider....the crazy talk does not help the argument. At best, it gives the decison makers something fun to talk about around the water cooler...at worst it ruins what could be a valid point.
I'm waiting for an organization with a moderate voice, significant financial backing, and the support of numerous western states to step up.
I'm not holding my breath on that one though.
OK I would recommend you read the link posted. The forest service web site and read. You will see the Blue Ribbon Coalition has been involved and are listed in the law suit. So get out your check book and become a life member.:ylsmoke:
I get the link for you later if you can't find it.
Meet the culprits. The CBD or "Center for Biocratic Dishonesty".
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/about/staff/index.html
Unfortunately, for groups like the CBD, if they aren't fighting and winning battles their paychecks dry up. Don't confuse things.....this is their primary concern$$$$$. The enviro class has grown to become its own self-serving monster. So much so, it has grown until it is forced to eat its own in order to keep itself nourished$$$$$$$.
Fun to think about how far it could be taken using groups like the Center for Biocratic Dishonesty and gaining the support of a predominantly ignorant and suburb-anchored public.