Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1970's

The Latest fro. J.R. PHI' &Co. ......By Ron Schneiders Fingers in the Dike Approximately one month ago the Bureau of Land Management issued a IIIlries of regulations designed to control the use of off~oad vehicles on BLM land. It took no imagination to _ that if those' regulations were enfon:ed in that fonn that organiZed vehicular activity on BLM land was finished. Kaput. Dead. The reaction was immediate and strong. Editorials were written, events were cancelled and even normally compacent District 37 was visibly shaken. To meet this threat, Ron Sloan, a member of the District 37 Board of Directors and of the ORVAC committee. set up a meeting between the BLM and representatives of the various groups who were threatened by immediate extinction. The meeting took place Thursday, August 24, in Sacramento at the BLM headquarters. The group that assembled in the BLM's moderately large meetingroom was quite impressive. Representing the BLM were Director Russell Penny, Solicitor Burt Stanley, Bakersfield District Manager Louis Boll, Riverside District Manager Del Vail and several staff people from the State office. Representing the vehicle users were Ron Sloan, District 37; Mike Hinshaw, AMA National office; Don Link. District 36; Mark Stevens, District 38; Ed Pearlman, NORRA; Hildamae Vought, CORL; Lee Olase and Bob Dressler, ARVRA; Jack Edwards, Calif. Assn. of 4·wheel drive Clubs; and several others The group was decidedly uncomfortable. The seriousness of the situation was reflected in the faces of both the veh icle representatives and the B,LM people. You could gauge the depth of each !lroup's concern by whether the representative looked merely very worried or scared to death. The AMA people, with the most to lose, were very glum, with complete despair registered on some faces. notably that of Mark Stevens whose small District would be completely wiped out if the Bureau regulations are enforced. Don Link sat throughout the meeting looking like a man who has been condemned to death and is now being asked to joing in a spirited discussion of his means of execution. NOR RA's chief Ed Pearlman had the air of a man in a high stakes poker game who has folded his thirty-second consecutive hand. Ron Sloan had adopted the confidence of the professional negotiator - Somehow as long as we're talking to one another we'll work this thing out - but even he occasionally lapsed into nervous confusion when presented with seemingly unreconcilable differences. Contrary to my expectations, the BLM people seemed genuinely concerned and anxious, for the most part, to find some solutions. Ryss Penny was the most obviously upset. He nervously twisted in his chair, played with pencils and ashtrays, and forced a cheerfulness that he obviously didn't feel. As the meeting progressed his face when through a series of changes that would have done credit to Marcel Marceau. A few times the negotiators accepted things that he didn't expect and he registered a happy glow; when things went against his wishes and he glowered, pouted and looked a few times as though he were taking it as a personal affront. He seemed to have a decidedly difficult time understanding the essentially small·time nature of recreationists. Although there was no doubt, at least in my mind, that he wished to cooperate and find at least enoUlti answers to avoid killing the sport, his obvious lack of sincerity at times was disconcerting, to say the least. When someone would bring up an example of how the Forest Service handled a problem, he would register surprise and say something like, ~'Do they do that?" He knows the Forest Service operation almost as well as he does his own and has been studying this problem for months, if not years.. A top administrator, his memory is undoubtedly acute. but he kept "forgetting" an agreed upon figure. The BLM's solicitor (lawyer) Burt Stevens was the only one of the group that was fairly cheerful. Urbane, slightly cynical, extremely competent and confident of his competence, he tried to convey an air of sympathetic understanding, but he would rather be playing a legal chess game. You could almost see him reminding himself that these are real people with real problems. One of the most likable of the group, he could be a real help to us, depend ing upon whether he decides to play the white pieces, the black pieces or the referee. Penny started the meeting by explaining his position. It boiled down to a simple situlltion. He was fon:ed to put organized activity under the Special Use Permit system, a system in his organization which was similar to but not identical to, the Special Use Permit system under which the Forest Service has been permitting organized activity for several years. The regulations were the simple logical outgrowth of this Special Use Permit system. Althou9l legal considerations were the primary reason for this change. he conveyed the impression that he had been directed to do this by h'is superiors as well. From the outset there was never any question of whether or not we would be put under the special use permit system. The only question was whether the regulations could be so modified as to permit the sport to survive while meeting the conditions of the system. We were meeting to propose changes to the regulations. Any changes that we recommended that were not contrary to iaw or existing Bureau regulation would be incorporated in the final draft of the regulations. The original draft of the regulations was published in Cycle News Issue No. 32 and for those whose interest in this matter is more than casual, it would be well to obtain a copy of that paper to follow the action more carefully. The opening paragraph stated that the following procedure would apply to organized/off-road vehicle activity. Several people wanted to include all organized recreational activites in that paragraph, but the chairman squelched that discussion as leading nowhere. Mostly what followed was applicable only to vehicles. The remainder of the first page dealt with Bureau procedures and was accepted almost unchanged. Page 2 was also accepted as is. It provided for inspections, for obtaining injunctions against repeated offenders, and for filing reports after the event. The first two items on Page 3 were accepted. These dealt with forms and the method of collecting fees. The next'item; II A, was modified. This item set the timetable for actions by both the appl icant and Bureau, setting a minimum of 80 days for all action with the Bureau not required to give final notice of rejection or approval until 30 days before the event. This was changed in effect to allow the Bureau 50 days from the date of application to complete its work and notify the applicant of the decision. This means that if a club must have a decision 60 days before the event, it must notify the Bureau 110 days before. In no case, though, will a permit be granted with less than an 80-day lead time. This change will be helpful to clubs throwing enduros and large races who cannot cancel events on 30 days' notice. Another phrase in the same paragraph was held in abeyance pending discussion of a later section. The balance of Page 3 was accepted as containing nothing of paramount concern to users. Page 4 was a new form to be filled. out by applicants and was accepted with only insignificant changes. Page 5 was a continuation of the form and' was accepted. . Page 6 started with the controversial bond regulation, whereby a bond in the amount of $1000 per 100 entrants would be required., Objections stemmed from two sources. First it was generally agreed that the bond would be unobtainable for many organizations. As an example, it was noted that one club which has recently obtained a bond had to put up collateral for the face value of the bond and produce three guarantors (co-signers) and the cost even with all this security was very high - 3%%. It was noted that the Forest Service requires a much lower amount generally and is willing to accept either a bond or other surety, usually in the form of a personal check for $300 that is held until conditions are met. The BLM agreed that it could live with a system of this sort and the regulation was modified to read "bond or other surety." A minimum of $300 was set and this remains at the manager's discretion, over some objections. The sentence stating that a rule of thumb would be $100 per 100 riders was stricken. The possibility was left open that for clubs with a good performance record the surety could be simply a promise, but it appears that this will not be included. The remainder of the page dealt with the insurance requirement and this is the most serious problem of the entire set of regulations. While insurance can be obtained for some forms of sport, namely trials and enduros. it would appear to be virtually unobtainable at any cost for racing events. NORRA rep. Ed Pearlm.... stated that the motorcycle portion of the Baja is covwed but only because it is a part of the auto race; were it solely a motorcycle race he could not obtain coverage. Olairman Harris noted the extreme difficulties that he has had obtaining coverage for his p.-k. Some alternatives were presented, notably by Ron Sloan, but they would appear to be inadequate to meet existing law. The solicitor was quite adament that the United States must be protected from suit arising from actions by a Special Use Permit holder. At the present time the situation appears to be stalemate. The BLM cannot relinquish the insurance requirement and the' clubs cannot obtain insurance. To explore other possibilities and gain some time, . Ron Sloan proposed an investigation into the possibility of obtaining insurance with the results to go to Director Penny. Meanwhile other avenues of meeting the .requirement of the law will be explored. Pending results of the investigation the insurance requirement will not be enforced. The section regarding the insurance was agreed to be unacceptable but no changes were proposed at ·this time. Page 7 started with physical conditions to be met by the permitee. These included spectator control, flagmen. toilets, trash recpticles, first aid and so 'on. Minor changes were made to this section. The next section concerned the fees to be paid, stipulating a use fee of 10% of the gross or $2 per head, which ever was greater. Many arguments were presented. Itwas ncited that no fee is ever collected for the recreational use of public land but only for the use of improved facilities. The BLM countered with some example of permit fees (all commercial) and stated that the law required tham not only to charge a fee, but,to charge a fee which is comensurate with the "market value" of the land as used for that purpose, It was in line with this concept that they came up with the $2.00 per head figure. They surveyed the motorcycle parks and took 'the lowest entry fee. It was noted that this fee was discrimatory, that a ricer not entered in the event 'could ride exactly the same course and pay no fee. The 8ureau countered with the distinction that it was charging the promoter a fee, not the individual entrant. The recreationists were singularly unimpressed by this Aristotilian distinction. It was propsed that a distinction be made between profit and non·profit organizations with either different fee schedules or a fee related to the net profit rather than to the gross. (No profit, no fee). The bureau was unreceptive to this idea as was NORRA chief Ed Pearlman who countered that the market value of the land was not changed by the fact that a different organization ran the !!Wnt. It was noted that the Forest Service charges only a nominal fee to cover the extra cost of administration ($25 generally). A point was made that cycl ists were going to be charged an add itional fee from which they would accrue no value whatsoever. The money from the fee would not even remain in the District, but would go directly into the U.S. Treasury. • It soon became apparent that no agreement could be reached and the section was left as unacceptable but with no resolution for change. The last significant section contained the requirement for written permission from adjacent landowners. It was noted that while permission is often relatively easy to obtain, that written permission is usually impossible due to the landowner~ fear of liability implications. It was noted that the Forest Service would accept an assurance that permissions had been obtained and a list of landowners contacted which they would then spot-check. The BLM agreed that they could legally live with this system and the regulation was modified to be so read. The phrase "written permission" was stricken. After the meeting was adjourned I spoke privately to Russ Penny. I asked him if the fee schedule would be reviewed. He said it would. I asked him if I could quote him to the effect that he felt it would be revised substantially downwards. His answer was a flat no. He expressed disappointment that the body had not come up with an appropriate fee suggestion and resolution. Quite obviously the group did not feel that any fee approaching the magnitude of what he had in mind was in order. necessary or desirable. The necessity to charge a fee for a Special Use (Please turn to pg. 22)

• Cover