TheThom
Adventurer
Here's a good article about this issue (dated, but Good)
http://www.backpacker.com/august_08_road_warriors/nature/12481
http://www.backpacker.com/august_08_road_warriors/nature/12481
REI, Politics and Public Lands
- Thread starter Woods
- Start date
Like what? They sell lots of gear for car camping. How is that different from "motorized overlanding"? If there are specific products that you/we/the community would like them to carry, I bet they'd be interested in hearing about it.
I can respect that. Personally I have a long list of businesses that don't get my money. But I find it kind of off-putting that you seem to assume that because you and I share a hobby that we also should have the same politics.
Anything like ARB at REI?
I don't see this as a Liberal vs Conservative issue. I'm writing about the specific political issue of motorized vehicles off pavement.
bearman512
Adventurer
None of the above. Annually the Forest Service here in New Mexico comes up with another round of land management which usually includes more road closures due to the the local lobbyists that have been paid for by the Green Party.
Believe it or not in most primative areas there are fewer campers than in the past here in NM due to the road closures.
Been a resident of NM for 30 years and travel to all the remote areas I can as NM does offer up some of the most awsome places in America to visit.
Here is the latest in Lawsuits against these closures.
LAWSUIT UPDATE
April 11, 2012
In December, NMOHVA filed a lawsuit challenging the Santa Fe National Forest's (SFNF) Travel Management decision. What has happened since then?
A fair question and one that NMOHVA will try to answer in a series of "Lawsuit Updates". NMOHVA, its members, and many other supporters have invested a great amount of energy, time, and money into this lawsuit. Its outcome is very important to all of us. We promise to keep you informed during the (seemingly) long process leading to a decision by the judge.
What Has Happened So Far:
November 14, 2012 - NMOHVA retains Karen Budd-Falon of Budd-Falen Law Offices to represent us in challenging the Travel Management Decision. Budd-Falen is a nationally known property rights and federal lands issues attorney based in Cheyenne, Wyoming.
December 10, 2012 - NMOHVA files a lawsuit challenging the Forest Service's decision in federal district court in Albuquerque.
December 17, 2013 - The "Initial Scheduling Order" is filed. This is the court's initial order for our attorney and the FS attorneys to get together and agree to a schedule by a certain date.
February 11, 2013 - The Center for Biological Diversity, Wild Earth Guardians, and the Sierra Club file for intervenor status with the court. In law, intervention is a procedure to allow a 3rd party, called an "intervenor", to join ongoing litigation, at the discretion of the court, without the permission of the original litigants. The basic rationale for intervention is that a judgment in a particular case may affect the rights of nonparties, who ideally should have the right to be heard. We fully expected CBD and their cronies to intervene in this case and they did not disappoint.
February 12, 2013 - NMOHVA and the Forest Service agree to a preliminary schedule for the case which provides a final decision by the judge sometime this fall.
February 15, 2013 - The Forest Service provides the Administrative Record (AR) index to NMOHVA for review. The AR is the entire body of "evidence" that the parties can use in presenting their case and the judge can review to decide the case. The AR is primarily the Project Record the Forest Service compiled during the entire Travel Management Process for the SFNF. The proposed AR list contains nearly 1200 documents. NMOHVA requests copies of the actual documents to make sure they are complete and accurate.
March 12, 2013 - NMOHVA receives electronic copies of the proposed AR totalling 27 gigabytes. Yes, GIGABYTES!
March 22, 2013 - NMOHVA submits the list of documents we want added to the AR.
April 9, 2013 - NMOHVA submits electronic copies of the documents we want added to the FS for review.
Next Steps:
We are currently waiting to see if the FS will agree with the additions or whether we need to file a formal motion with the court to get them added. If the FS agrees to add the documents we requested, the next steps are:
5/6 - NMOHVA files its Opening Brief.
6/21 - The FS files their Response Brief.
7/22 - NMOHVA files its Reply Brief.
Oral arguments, if they take place in this case (at the judge's discretion), would take place in August.
As you can see, a lot goes on in the background before the first brief is even filed. NMOHVA has been very busy, spending literally hundreds of hours, helping our attorney prepare for the case so the attorney doesn't have to charge us legal fees to do it all herself.
The bulk of the work by our legal team has yet to take place. We continue to ask our membership and many others to contribute to NMOHVA's Access Defense Fund to finance this challenge. THANK YOU! We couldn't do this WITHOUT YOU!
We will continue to send out Lawsuit Updates as we pass other significant milestones.
Together, we ARE DOING more!
HELP NMOHVA FUND THE LAWSUIT!
Legal battles are, unfortunately, necessary. NMOHVA is only the third organization to challenge one of the Travel Management decisions in the whole USA. Legal battles are also expensive. While many of our members have given generously, we depend on contributions from friends and other partners to help pay for this lawsuit.
bearman512
Adventurer
Here is an update:
This is a good win for land use!
LAWSUIT UPDATE #4
June 19, 2013
Judge DENIES Intervener Status
to 'Big Green' in the NMOHVA Lawsuit
We have received great news on our lawsuit challenging the Santa Fe National Forest Travel Management decision. The judge has DENIED intervener status to the "Big Green" gang who filed for intervener status in the case. United States District Judge William Paul Johnson denied a request for intervener status, filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, and the Sierra Club (collectively called "the Center" in the judge's decision). While denying intervener status to the green organizations doesn't have any direct bearing on the ultimate outcome of our case, it is still very big news.
In lawsuits such as ours, intervention allows a third party, called an "intervener", to join ongoing litigation. This is at the discretion of the court and is done without the permission of the original parties (NMOHVA and the Forest Service) in the lawsuit. The rationale for intervention is that a judgment in a particular case may affect the rights of nonparties, whose interests are not adequately represented by the original parties in the suit. The intervener can submit their own legal arguments to influence the judge's decision.
The judge's denial of the intervener status indicates that the judge is not favorably biased towards our opposition. It would have been very easy to grant the motion. The granting of intervener status to the environmental organizations is so common that we didn't even bother to challenge it. But the Big Green litigation machine and its horde of lawyers didn't convince the judge.
Even more interesting is the reason why the judge denied the intervener status. He essentially said that the Forest Service is already representing the green's anti-OHV viewpoint and he didn't need them cluttering up the case. Here's an excerpt from what the judge wrote:
"However, the Center also argues that the Forest Service will not adequately represent its interests, either-and this does not make sense to the Court. In designing and attempting to implement a Travel Plan which intends to curb the use of OHV on forest land, the Forest Service appears to be taking the position of environmental groups (such as the Center) voicing a concern for the environmental effect of OHV use on national forest land."
The judge goes on to explain that, "The Court is confident that the Forest Service will provide the Court with ample information and legal authority to support its position in this matter, and finds that additional briefing would not be helpful and perhaps may even distract from the issues at the center of this litigation." You can read the judge's entire Order Denying the Motion to Intervene at NMOHVA's website (www.nmohva.org).
This means that ONLY NMOHVA and the Forest Service are allowed to present their arguments in this case. The judge will base his decision on the administrative record and the arguments made by only these two parties. This is one case where Big Green will be sitting on the sidelines.
THANKS FROM NMOHVA!
So far, with your help, we are two for two! The Forest Service tried hard to keep some of the pertinent documents out of the Administrative Record. NMOHVA kept up the pressure and eventually every single document we requested was added. Now the judge has denied intervener status to the big and VERY well-funded green organizations. We still have a very long ways to go but we have made a great start. We don't have a huge war chest from big money foundations. We don't have a lawsuit-factory law firm at our disposal. NMOHVA is doing all this with only the grassroots support of our members and friends.
What does this have to do with REI?
Looking at the groups that REI supports I don't see many that I object to (and I don't see the Green Party in there or here):
http://www.rei.com/stewardship/community/non-profit-partnerships-and-grants.html
Looking at the groups that REI supports I don't see many that I object to (and I don't see the Green Party in there or here):
http://www.rei.com/stewardship/community/non-profit-partnerships-and-grants.html
I would guess that he's showing where REI's money gets spent. I'm not sure about the Center for Biological Diversity, but REI gives money to the Sierra Club and Wild Earth Guardians. Neither are listed on the link that you posted. I wonder why REI does not list the Sierra Club as a beneficiary?
Except the claims that REI supports the green party (with 5% of their profits no less!) are dubious at best. Firstly because there is no record of this either from REI, the Green Party or from the FEC. Secondly it is extremely dubious as the Green Party specifically does not accept corporate donations! The only thing associated with the Sierra Club that REI at least used to support (but not any more by the looks of it) is Inner City Outings which took inner city kids out into the wilds (pretty evil huh?). The whole claim that REI is somehow anti-motorized recreation seems to be largely based on claims on internet fora. Even if they do support one or two organizations that happen to run counter to your beliefs, it is a very small part of a long list of organizations that they support that look after the great outdoors that we all love.
I'm sure you're right, that bearman512 is lying. Please post as if people are sitting around a campfire.
I am not sure how their marketing slogan makes them anti anything, it is a statement of what their market is. They don't sell motorbikes or washing machines, but I don't see them as anti laundry. I am certainly not accusing anyone of lying or being impolite, just questioning a claim that doesn't make sense to me. I really don't see where people get the idea that REI is evil (besides on forums such as these) and I am wondering what is behind this idea.
I don't see where anybody posted that REI is evil. I don't agree with them giving money to political groups that want to close trails to motor vehicles.
You posted that REI only gives money to the Sierra Club to support outings for inner city kids. Can you prove that's the only monies that they've given to SC? REI doesn't publish a complete list of beneficiaries. Just as they do not publish executive salaries, but that's a completely different issue. One I don't have a problem with but a lot of people do.
You posted that REI only gives money to the Sierra Club to support outings for inner city kids. Can you prove that's the only monies that they've given to SC? REI doesn't publish a complete list of beneficiaries. Just as they do not publish executive salaries, but that's a completely different issue. One I don't have a problem with but a lot of people do.
Maybe evil is too strong a word, but I still don't understand the angst towards REI.
Again not to seem argumentative, but REI does publish both executive salaries and a complete list of to whom and how much they donated. It does seem like a lot of the allegations against REI are based on hearsay.
Donations
Executive compensation
Again not to seem argumentative, but REI does publish both executive salaries and a complete list of to whom and how much they donated. It does seem like a lot of the allegations against REI are based on hearsay.
Donations
Executive compensation