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

[4x4x4doors]

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.

As it turns out, the GAO (Government Accountability Office) published their report on this particular topic, i.e., How Much USDA and DOI agencies were paying out in legal reimbursements about a week after our earlier post. See http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-417R

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.

Recognizing there may be more reliable sources, I read this from an article on FoxNews @ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-studies-show/

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.

[agavelvr]

The other map is a couple years old, I'm sure I could find it, but its a mute point.

I disagree. If you come into a conservation thread and post propaganda rather than fact, I have to wonder what your agenda is.

My agenda is this, I want to be able to visit cool back country places. Unfortunately, doing so creates impact. When enough people impact a sensitive area, it gets closed, sometimes temporarily (which can be a long time when we are talking about desert or highland areas recovering) sometimes permanently. As a responsible public land user, I check with the adminstrator(s) of the lands I travel, secure the necessary permits, practice low impact recreation. Even then, I have been misdirected by the managing agencies. Unfortunately, it only takes a couple of irresponsible users to create a problem.

What is more troubling to me than the CBD suing the federal agencies, is the fact that these agencies can not state how much money they have spent on such litigation. It should also worry us all that these agencies are not funded properly to manage the land they are charged with and/or are not run efficiently to get the most bang for our (taxpayer) buck. When you are underfunded/poorly managed, facing increased impact, closure is the most economical tool available. I worked for the Prescott National Forest back in the 90's. We closed the ENTIRE forest due to extreme fire danger one summer. Lots of people were pissed across all user groups. The City of Prescott was pissed due to the potential impact on tourism. Local outfitters were pissed due to the economical impact to thier businesses. I'm guessing everyone was happy the whole thing didn't go up in smoke though Looking back, I doubt the pissed people have much recollection about the whole thing, since it was just one summer. I remember it well since I was patrolling on mountainbike, interacting with the public, and inspecting conditions.

Sometimes closures are due to entirely different reasons. Here in Phoenix, we have horrible air quality due to population and environment. Lots of our federal funding is tied to hitting air quality standards and/or taking mitigation steps. So, rather than push for lower polluting vehicles or limiting growth, we think about closing popular off highway recreation areas to mitigate dust. That doesn't make sense on an environmental level, but it makes perfect sense to the local government trying to keep their funding by playing games with the fed.

I don't know what the answer is, but passing off missinformation and propaganda does not help the situation. Government reform sounds like a good place to start. Doing our part to be good stewards of the land is certainly important as well.

[ScoutII]

Fact: the 42 route in this thread are closed.

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.

Yep you have it right we need to only ask one question to our elected officials. Whats your stand on OHV.

If they don't have one, no vote from me, if there for wild lands no vote from me

Pretty simple change the laws or forget going on an expedition. Why? Just as you stated driving offroad creates damage over no activity. Out reps in congress are for saving the land and are pushing for the no activity option. Yes you will still be able to hike these areas with a permit, but that's it.

They close the forest here during high fire danger too. Not a big deal, its for a short time, maybe a couple months.

The routes are now closed to do a EIS which will take at least a year. More likely 2 with how the process works.

" My agenda is this, I want to be able to visit cool back country places"

I think that is everyone opinion here too, but the fact remains they closed most all of the back county routes in the Eldorado Nat. forest. So that means we have to hike in to visit these places that are closed.

The problem we face is huge and I'm not sure we can over come it, as like you most people are for protecting the public lands by closing them to use, other then hiking.

[agavelvr]

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.

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.

[lqdchkn]

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/p..._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_...200812_990.pdf
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/p...ualRpt2010.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.

Thank you sir. Just posted to their FB wall.

[FishPOET]

http://nmflc.blogspot.com/2010/08/ac...illing-us.html

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.

The CBD is the biggest enemy of outdoor recreation.

[ScoutII]

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.

I get the link for you later if you can't find it.

[agavelvr]

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.

I get the link for you later if you can't find it.

Having seen the BRC in action on the web, I do not consider them a moderate or rational voice. I did read this last night though....

http://www.boone-crockett.org/images/editor/ND_EAJA.pdf

While written by a clearly biased organization, they make excellent points on the issues with the use of EAJA by non-profits acting in the public interest. Of particular interest is the history and importance of the EAJA. If all of what they wrote is accurate, I think it is the most significant call for reform I've seen. I can see past the mild bias, it is a call for reform afterall, and concentrate on the very valid points. While it appears to be about 70 pages long, a lot of that is footnotes and such, so it didnt' take too long to read and highlight the following sections...

pg 30(pdf page 32) paragraph 2 - Non-profit exception
pg 35(pdf page 37) Emerging Problems with EAJA
pg 43(pdf page 45) paragraph 2 - EAJA reimbursement tracking
pg 48(pdf page 50) The Growing Costs of EAJA-read the whole section (especially pg 51(pdf page 53))

As a person interested in environmental protection, recreation, and the little guy's access to justice, I have to wonder why non profits were not subject to the net worth limits. As a small business owner, I'm a little jealous of all the benefits and protections extended to non-profits. There has been a proliferation of non-profits with questionable purposes, used as a shell to generate salaries for their staff rather than take action on behalf of the public. I also wonder how many of the 4x4/sportsman/grazing organizations have used this law to get reimbursed for suing the government.

Clearly, something needs to be done about the EAJA. I don't blame the environmental groups for successfully using a legal means to pursue their goals though. There are very valid reasons for suing federal agencies...they screw up all the time. I blame congress for dropping the ball on this one, they wrote and rewrote the law...they can rewrite it again to fix it.

[HillbillyfromAL]

Funny how all these so called environmentalist think shutting down areas to public use is going to help anything. All it does is ensure that future generations won't care about plowing it down for the next planned community. All these people wanting to close systems because they don't like the way someone else uses them are self absorbed idiots. They would be much better served if they would pull there heads out of they're *$$'s and do something that really shows they cared about preserving those lands for future generations to use. That's why 4x4 clubs do trail clean ups, volunteer to help maintain the trails. How many of these environmentalist groups go and spend all day cleaning up someone else's trash? The only thing I've seen environmentalist do is protest, take pictures of trash, and leave their protest signs in a heap pouring out of a trash can that was meant for all there crap. They get other people to donate money to them by telling them how much they want to protect nature and showing them little baby animals that need their help. Stock animals, mud runoff from trucks, and the like do not cause animals or plants to become extinct. Nature causes that more than almost anything man has done in history. Man didn't kill off the dinosaurs yet they went extinct. Species that were poached to near extinction now flourish because we have realized as a species that we are capable of fixing our mistakes. If we all took and looked at our time upon the earth as the Cherokee we would all be better off, they viewed the Earth not as inherited from our parents, but rather borrowed from our children. It is our responsibility to look after it and teach them to do the same. It's kinda hard to appreciate something that you don't know exists, it'd even harder when you know it's there but can't enjoy it. A good example is the species of frog mentioned earlier assuming it doesn't go extinct on its own how long before we forget it's there? When a town decides to pop up near it what incentive are they going to have not to clear cut it? Look at it this way if a NF gets 5,000 visitors a year but 40,000 want it closed who's gonna win out in the end.
It's not enough to just teach your own kids these days. Asking other people out on the trail not to litter, go on an obstacle that's not part of the trail system, or not to have a fire may not be popular but it's sometimes necessary. A lot of the same can be said for hikers, bird watchers, or anyone else. I've seen hikers take their mountain house packaging and toss it over in the bushes and they didn't like it when asked them to go pick it up. It was resolved and I gave them a big zip lock to put all their trash in. I really think the problem is people want to get out and explore, but they don't know what to do when there's not facilities around.
Here's some of the rules I was taught as a boy and many places have used them as slogans.
Pack it in, pack it out
Drive as slow as possible, as fast as necessary
Only you can prevent forest fires
Leave it like you found it, or better
Don't leave trash even if it's not yours
Police your buddy
If you see something that's wrong it's your responsibility to do something about it

[isaac]

Meet the culprits. The CBD or "Center for Biocratic Dishonesty".
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/a...aff/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.

Randy, you sound like a crazy person.

Isaac