Court order closes 42+ trails in the El Doradao National Forest (US - Sierra Nevadas)

Shamus30

New member
This my friends is not a good thing at all. This impacts most of the major overland routes across and within the Sierra Nevada Range.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/eldorado/news-events/?cid=STELPRDB5362068

Forest service Press Release 04/04/12

Forty-two off-highway-vehicle routes that cross meadows in the Eldorado National Forest may be closed to motor vehicle travel this recreation season while the Forest Service completes an environmental analysis, announced Eldorado National Forest Supervisor Kathy Hardy.

The potential travel prohibitions are the result of a February 2012 court order by U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton. The order said the Forest Service failed to comply with the National Forest Management Act in 2008 when it designated “open for public motor vehicle use” portions of 42 routes that cross meadows. Judge Karlton ordered the Forest Service to “set aside” the decision that designated these segments as open and to reconsider the decision.

A final court order with further direction to the Forest Service is pending. In the interim, Karlton ordered the 42 routes remain closed to motorized public use. The final order will identify specifically where travel will be prohibited until a new environmental decision is made.

“I know that prohibiting travel on these routes will be a big disappointment to forest visitors, but we have to be responsive to the order.” said Hardy. “I have a team of people lined up to complete a supplemental environmental impact statement as quickly as possible.”

The SEIS is scheduled to begin in April or May 2012 and to be completed by April 2013.

Hardy says many popular high county routes may be affected by the closure. Some of these routes include: Barrett Lake Jeep Trail; Squaw Ridge Four Wheel Drive Trail; Clover Valley/ Deer Valley Trail; Strawberry Four Wheel Drive Trail; Carson Emigrant Trail; Allen’s Camp Motorcycle Trail and the Bucks Pasture Motorcycle Trail. The Rubicon 4wd Trail is not affected by this court order.

Maps and a complete list of the routes affected by the court order will be posted on the Eldorado National Forest website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/eldorado. These maps will be modified to reflect the final court order once it is received. A free-of-charge motor vehicle use map that shows the routes that are open to wheeled motor vehicle use will be available at all Eldorado National Forest offices in June 2012 reflecting the final order.

“I intend to close the routes where it makes sense to do so if the final order prohibits travel on routes that cross meadows,” said Hardy. “A route may be closed near a meadow or some distance away depending on how difficult it is to turn a vehicle around.”

Some routes will also be closed indirectly because they branch off closed routes and will not be accessible.
 

haven

Expedition Leader
"Money flows mightily to this organization...these $$$$$ grubbers"

xtatic, you clearly have more information about this than the rest of us. Can you provide any source to support your claims?

The Forest Service and BLM have the responsibility to maintain the health of the lands they manage, and meadows are vulnerable to vehicular traffic. Let them study the situation and propose some solutions (if needed) before condemning the process.
 

4x4x4doors

Explorer
And what part of those legal fees were in the form of reimbursements from the Federal government? Recall that many suits under the umbrella of Government failure to comply allow/require that the prevailing non-Government entity have their allowable expenses reimbursed.
 

xtatik

Explorer
And what part of those legal fees were in the form of reimbursements from the Federal government? Recall that many suits under the umbrella of Government failure to comply allow/require that the prevailing non-Government entity have their allowable expenses reimbursed.

I don't believe those numbers reflect either rewards or recovery of legal expenses. In most cases, I'd guess that the CBD would be a petitioner with the government a respondent. It's not likely the petitioner can sue additionally for litigation costs when they bring the suit in the first place. In nearly all cases the CBD is the acting aggressor. Those numbers reflect the moneys earned from clients in representing their wants/wishes. In many cases, this money is paid in addition to whatever donations they have made as well. An example might be the Sierra Club. They might be a large donor to the "Center's" general fund and they might also hire them to address a specific legal project.
 
Last edited:

cnynrat

Expedition Leader
As for the $$$$$, here is the best I could derive from public records: /snip/

Some great and very thought provoking info here - thanks.

For some time I've believed that the Endangered Species Act and other similar laws have primarily become tools for achieving the narrow interests of various groups such as the Sierra Club. The description of the Sierra Club as a 'hiking club' is apt. At times they seem to exist primarily to support the 'chosen' outdoor recreational activities of their membership.

Back in the early days of the mountain bike, the Sierra Club actively worked to exclude mountain bike access from many areas based on their concern about trail erosion. During this time they were actively running pack mule trips in the Sierras where stock use is the primary cause of trail erosion.
 

4x4x4doors

Explorer
I don't believe those numbers reflect either rewards or recovery of legal expenses. In most cases, I'd guess that the CBD would be a complainant with the government a respondent. It's not likely the complainant can sue additionally for litigation costs when they bring the suit in the first place. In nearly all cases the CBD is the acting aggressor. Those numbers reflect the moneys earned from clients in representing their wants/wishes. In many cases, this money is paid in addition to whatever donations they have made as well. An example might be the Sierra Club. They might be a large donor to the "Center's" general fund and they might also hire them to address a specific legal project.

Who Pays for the Lawyer?

In the United States, the loser in a lawsuit does not have to pay the winner's attorney's fees unless obligated to do so by a contract or a law specifically authorizing such an award. Many federal statutes do exactly that, authorizing a court to allow fees to a prevailing party in a proceeding in which the government agency, whether involved in the litigation as a plaintiff or a defendant, is found to have violated the federal laws and regulations. The Equal Access to Justice Act, which is the focus of Budd-Falen's work, was passed by Congress to give citizens a tool to lessen the risk of challenging the power of the federal government by allowing them to recoup attorneys' fees when they prevail– and also meet several other requirements that federal judges have broad discretion to apply.
http://www.newwest.net/topic/articl..._using_taxpayer_money_for_legal_fees/C37/L37/

State environmental statutes have their own provisions that may provide for the award of
counsel fees, and contractual provisions between litigants can also serve to shift the potential fee burden.
http://www.mgkflaw.com/articles2012/Green_Fees_in_Environmental_Litigation_032012.pdf

I am aware of specific cases where "environmental" groups (in the case in memory, it was Audobon and Defenders of Wildlife represented by SELC) had attorney fees reimbursed by the Government is the reason I asked. This specific instance doesn't bolster nor dispute your posted information, just adds data to the discussion.
 

HMR

Rendezvous Conspiracy
During this time they were actively running pack mule trips in the Sierras where stock use is the primary cause of trail erosion.
Funny you should mention that. The pack animal operations are now under attack:

"In January, federal District Court Judge Richard Seeborg ruled that the National Parks’ General Management Plan violated the 1964 Wilderness Act because it didn’t specify how much commercial-stock use is “necessary” in the wilderness. His ruling came after the Lake Tahoe-based High Sierra Hikers Association sued the federal agency in 2009."

More here.
 
A

agavelvr

Guest
And, how ridiculous their ideas are regarding what is or isn't damage.

This was a pretty funny thread to read thru. Personally, I find the greater OHV community's idea of what is and is not environmental damage is pretty ridiculous personally. The only loss in temporarily closing an area is personal recreation, which does not rank very high in the heirarchy of needs IMHO. If the closure is done justly in the name of watershed, wildlife, or soil conservation...I'm okay with that. I don't mind parking my truck or motorcycle in favor of keeping areas protected for the greater good and long term ecosystem health. Yeah, I realize this is not a popular opinion to have on this site :)

I am glad the CBD is out there fighting for things that most people don't have a clue about. I just wish they would spend more effort on the impact of low quality development in cities. Poorly constructed buildings and urban sprawl are far bigger threats to our ecosystem than some trails in the wilderness. I have more confidence in the environmental ethics of the USFS and BLM than most of the municipal planning departments I have to deal with in my line of work.

Anyhow, the writing style and language in your posts makes it hard to take any of what you say too seriously. Suprised you didn't throw a couple of enviro-nazis in there for good measure :)
 

ScoutII

Adventurer
This was a pretty funny thread to read thru. Personally, I find the greater OHV community's idea of what is and is not environmental damage is pretty ridiculous personally. The only loss in temporarily closing an area is personal recreation, which does not rank very high in the heirarchy of needs IMHO. If the closure is done justly in the name of watershed, wildlife, or soil conservation...I'm okay with that. I don't mind parking my truck or motorcycle in favor of keeping areas protected for the greater good and long term ecosystem health. Yeah, I realize this is not a popular opinion to have on this site :)

I am glad the CBD is out there fighting for things that most people don't have a clue about. I just wish they would spend more effort on the impact of low quality development in cities. Poorly constructed buildings and urban sprawl are far bigger threats to our ecosystem than some trails in the wilderness. I have more confidence in the environmental ethics of the USFS and BLM than most of the municipal planning departments I have to deal with in my line of work.

Anyhow, the writing style and language in your posts makes it hard to take any of what you say too seriously. Suprised you didn't throw a couple of enviro-nazis in there for good measure :)

Maybe you need to check out there web site. They have a map where the goal is to keep people off of about 2/3 of the United States. The enemy is humans. They are good at getting groups to fight amongst themselves too. There are worry they did not take care of the earth and will go to hell over it. But since they don't believe in Jesus, but more like an idle statues they are still lost and will not find peace.
 
A

agavelvr

Guest
Maybe you need to check out there web site. They have a map where the goal is to keep people off of about 2/3 of the United States. The enemy is humans. They are good at getting groups to fight amongst themselves too. There are worry they did not take care of the earth and will go to hell over it. But since they don't believe in Jesus, but more like an idle statues they are still lost and will not find peace.

I have been on their website, long before reading this thread. Where is this ellusive map you reference? Where is the manifesto outlining their plans to wage war against humans and thier religious beliefs?

The one thing that troubles me about these kinds of issues is that litigation costs money, which would be better spent on taking care of the environment and creating interpretive opportunities. But, it is a catch-22. The government organizations charged with taking care of the land are not always the most efficient at doing their job or have to deal with political pressure in doing it. Organizations like the CBD use the tools available to address the problems. It seems that thier efforts are in line with their mission and done in accordance with the law. I have no issue with their salaries, funding, or non-profit status...they are appropriate, especially when compared to like organizations.

If the greater overland community was truely concerned about protecting access to the places and the environment that draws us there, why don't we have our own special interest group looking out for us? Oh, that's right...there is one that is trying to protect motorized access, but they don't really pay attention to the environment, science, or the values of non-motorized trail users. Everyone of these groups uses lobbyist and lawyers to advance their agendas, because in this country, that is the way business is done. I can make a difference with my vote, but that has very limited effect in such a complicated system. Kind of makes me sad, but I keep voting.
 

cnynrat

Expedition Leader
This was a pretty funny thread to read thru. Personally, I find the greater OHV community's idea of what is and is not environmental damage is pretty ridiculous personally. The only loss in temporarily closing an area is personal recreation, which does not rank very high in the heirarchy of needs IMHO. If the closure is done justly in the name of watershed, wildlife, or soil conservation...I'm okay with that. I don't mind parking my truck or motorcycle in favor of keeping areas protected for the greater good and long term ecosystem health. Yeah, I realize this is not a popular opinion to have on this site :)

I have a few problems with this point of view. For one, these closures are frequently temporary in name only. Here's a link to a notice of extension of a "temporary" closure in the Angeles National Forest. This closure has been in effect since 2005, supposedly to protect "critical" yellow legged frog habitat. It represents the total closure of 1000 acres, about 1.6 square miles. There is no human access allowed in this area. So, point one, temporary isn't always what it appears.

My second problem is that I don't see any effort to analyze the issue from a balanced perspective. I understand that we may at times want to take actions to protect certain species. But, where is the tradeoff against the value of allowing humans to continue to access one of the prime hiking areas in the San Gabriel mountains? Does that have no value? Where is the tradeoff that shows that a total closure is the right action, as opposed to simply limiting access to existing trails? How do we trade that off against the value of protecting a species that has no known value save for it's mere existence?

Species become extinct every day. They will continue to do so with or without our efforts to control that process, and in fact if all humans vanished from the Earth tomorrow species would continue to become extinct.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I believe the Endangered Species Act and many other environmental laws have become tools to accomplish other objectives. Science is not perfect. Statistics can be mistaken, misunderstood, and yes, even manipulated to create a desired outcome. If you can manage to have a court declare the yellow legged frog endangered, you can close an area altogether. That this area was known to be a place where certain Forest users complained about the nuisance created by rock climbers on Williamson Rock may or may not be a coincidence.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,543
Messages
2,875,690
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top