Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1970's

o '" g. 11. ,... N '" m.o.r.e. from file ca~ilol" '" By Russ Sanford (J) This, the fourth article of a serie.s pertaining to President Nixon's Executive Order 11644, was originally Intended to be the final article of the series. However. the recent BLM actions with respect to payment for QRV use of the public lands mandates at least one additional article in the series . N c. " ~ w Z W ...J U EDITOR'S NOTE, > U - ... ... PART IV Mr. Ron Sloan and I are both members of the BLM's Off Road Vehicle Advisory Council (ORVAC) which has been meeting for nearly three years to determine and establish equitable and fair regulations for ORV use of those public lands in California which are under the BLM's jurisdiction.. With minor exception, this means those public lands which are generally classified as desert. Ron represents the American Motorcycle Association and I represent the motorcyclists in g~neral, at the ORVAC meetings. Naturally, Ron and I work closely together and have our work cut out for us because the other members represent such groups as the Sierra Club, the Desert Protective League, the Cattleman's Association, and a bost of others connected with the desert areas. If you have been following this series on Executive Order 11644, you will recall that I am in receipt of a letter from the White House, signed by Mr. John C. Whitaker, Deputy Assistant to the President. In essence, that letter states that the objectionable portion of Executive Order 11644 applies only to "formally designated National Parks, Natural Are.aS; Wildlife Refuges, and Game Ranges". You can imagine then, Ron's and my concern during the last (May 1972) mee ting of 0 R VAC, to find that most of the entire session was devoted to implementation of the Executive Order on California's BLM-administered desert lands. The outcome of the discussions was the decision to attempt to useJl" ORVAC's prior findings, which were acceptable to ORV-enthusiasts, to the people in Washington, D.C. who were responsible for the drafting of regulations covering use of the desert. This, in itself, was totally acceptable. A portion of the ORVAC meeting dealt with proposed regulations for the conducting of organized competition events upon BLM-administered public lands, including permits, advance notices, fees, etc. Most of that portion of the discussions concerned the number of days prior notice that had to be given. Both Ron and I pointed out that AMA e.ven t sanctions are given out at an annual meeting. Further, that a club which was given a sanction for tbe month foJlowing that meeting, would be unable to comply wi th a proposed requirement for 90 days advance notice. The BLM countered with the fact that they would need at least 90 days to get their people lined-up and surveys made, and all of the other reguired tasks. Again, Ron and I pointed out that clubs had been holding competJtJon events on public lands for years without any help from the public land-usc agencies and we couldn't s"ee what It was that they.now had to do that would 'require' 90 days to do. To this, the BLM countered that "times had changed". The discussion ended in a sort of Mexican stand-off with everyone agreeing that these differenc~s of opinion would have· to be worked out. On July 24th, I receIved a letter fr?m Mr. J .R. Penny, California BLM Chlef, which read: A ttached for your review is a draft instruction memorandum outlining new proc~dures f~r off-road vehicle permIts. As thIS is a draft proposal, I would appreciate you treating it in a confidential manner". The proposed regulations were sen t to me as a member of ORVAC, and upon checking, I found that .each of the other ORVAC memhers received a copy for com men ts, as well as each of the BLM's District Offices. A copy of that original proposal appeared in its entirety in the August 22 issue of Cycle News· on Page 3 I. Because it was merely a proposal and because Mr. Penny. had asked us to treat the proposal ill a confidential manner, we made no attempt publicize its contents. 1 respondedlthat same day to Mr. Penny's request for comments with the following letter: rP "Dear Mr. Penny: Thanks for the oppprtunity to review the draft copy of your instruction memorandum outlinillg the new procedures for off-road vehicle event permits. These are my comme.nts: . 1. I believe that your IIlstructton should specifically, and accurately, define an 'event'. As stated, it could be mis-interpreted or th.e .interp~etation could differ between Dlstnct Of6ces. 2. T6 me, the instruction comes across somewhat negative in places. For example, subparagraph 1.0. could just as easily read: "D. Off-road vehicle events conducted upon public lands under Permit are to be encouraged and permittees are to be assisted to the extent possible. However, rejection of applications may be considered for instance, because of: 1. Incomplete information 2. Etc. 3. Etc. 3. My final two points, although separate, are so intertwined that they must be discussed jointly. They deal with the charging of fees for the use of public lands by- the-..public. Althou~h tliis has become a common practtce tn the park systems where extensive development and the need for maintenance is prevalent, it still sticks in the' craw of the outdoor recreationist. Especially when he is using the same undeveloped, non-maintained land that he has used for the past seventy-five years. I t won't be the fee that bothers him as much as "knowing" that he is being discriminated against. Or, do you propose similar permits for eque~t:ian competition, sailplane competltlOn, footraces, etc.. and all of the other forms of outdoor recreation? While the OR V enthusiasts may be willing to pay a fee for use of the public land in order to stage their events and consequently enhance their club treasuries, that fee should be reasonable. Personally. I don't believe that 10% of the gross, or S2 per rider event, is either equitable or fair. I don't know how you arrived at these figures but they don't reflect mrch * 600 ACRES OF CYCLE TRAILS * REST ROOMS and HOT SHOWERS * 152 CAMPER HOOK-UPS * OVERNIGHT CAMPSITE•••$3.50 (Includes all passengers & 1 bike) * DAY ViSiTORS.•••.........•50 * DAY RIDERS.••..........•.. $1.00 * 25 MI. NO. of SAN BERNARDINO on INTERSTATE 15 (take Oak Hill Rd. Exit) * FOR INFORMATION CALL (714) 244-2422 * OPEN EVERY DAY 4,000 ft. elevation insight or forethought. A. As it is, the net profit for most events is less than 10% of the gross receipts. B. Even if the admission fee for participants was raised by $2 to cover the "permit fees", the sponsor would still be subjected to the "10% of the gross" factor, because it would be greater. C. A fair and equitable fee, provided that a fee is deemed necessary, would be $I per rider or 10% of the net profit, at the sponsoring activities discretion. Otherwise, you will be driving the price of a ten-cent hot dog which sells for forty cents right up to 75 or 80 cents. 4. Your instruction infers that it would apply to all "competitive events", however, with. the inclusion of the section dealing with fees, there might be some doubt with respect to scope. For example, could a club conduct a competitive event, with or without, a permit if there were no participation fees, spectator fees, concessionaires, etc.? I f so, could the club 'accept "donations" for trophies and other incidental costs? Mr. Penny, it may sound as though I am nit-picking but that is not my intent. Neither am I looking for loopholes. 1 just know from experien,ce that man y of these events clear very little profit, if any at aU. Removing the profit motive coupled with all of the other red tape of obtaining a permit (bonds, in~urance, etc.) may deny a large number of outdoor recreatiqnist their rightful use of the public lands. In other words, your attelTjpt at control and regulation may be self-defeating in itself. And, one last thought, however you pursue this matter, there should be some form of established exemptions from the fee. I am thinking now of those organizations which sponsor events for charitab Ie purposes. Thanks again for the opportunity to 'Comment on the draft of. your instruction. I hope that my comments will be of assitance to you. Respect fu lly, Russ Sanford President & Legislative Advocate Motorcycle Owners, Riders, & Enthusiasts (M.O.R.E.)" During the next week, my office. was flooded with telephone calls from Irate club represen tatives and private promoters. I t seems that inadverten tly, some of the BLM's personnel in at least two of the District Offices had seen copies of the draft proposal and thought that it was to be placed m effect immediately. One promoter who had been staging races every unday and oblaining a new permil each week, was told that he could not hold his race the following Sunday because the new regulations required 80 days advance notice. As each complain t was registered, I relayed the in formation to Mr. Penny's office. Upon obtaining his assurance that a mix-up had occurred, that information was passed back to ti,e persons who had con tacted me. In several instances, members of the BLM staff directly contacted the persons whom had registered _the complaint. As the dust began to settle, it was agreed that the BLM should hold a meeting with those concerned. That meeting was held on August 17th, and although I could not attend due to pnor commitments, the motorcyclists were well represented. In subsequen t meetings and discussions with the BLM Headquarters, I learned that the major complaints were those outlined in my July 241etter to Mr. Penny. . As stated previously, there had been many discussions of the BLM proposal by many concerned persons. It was my understanding that nothing had yet been settled. But on September 7th, the BLM issued the fo]]owing press release: "Comprehensive guidelines for management of organized. off-road vehicle events on pub"c lands administered ~y the U.S. Bureau of Land Managem"'nt in California were issued today by BLM State Director J_R. Penny. The new proceaures, which will Ii become effective Monday, September 18 are the result of more than three ye~s of work by the BLM, the Off-Road Vehicle Advisory Councli (ORVAC) and other . ~terested organizations, groups and mdlVlduals. They will require that all organized off-road levents in which more than 25 vehicles compete on a defined course ob tain a special land use permi t. THEY'RE CUTTING THROATS, SMILING OUR President Richard M. Nixon, on February 8, 1972, issued Executive Order 11644 directing the Departments of Interior Agriculture and Defense and the Tenn;ssee Valley Authority to establish guidelines for the use of recreational vehicles on public lands. In response, the American Motorcycle Association launched its "Alert" campaign designed to advise the 'ixon Administration of the political impact of the more than 5,000,000 American families affected by the Executive Order. The Alert Campaign, began in conjunction with the AMA-Motorcycle Industry Council Combined Committee on Land Use, included posters, petitions, leaflets and letters to the White House. The campaign's tenor was one of reasonableness. It stressed the wiIlingness of motorcyclists to share public lands with other user groups as reasonable and responsible sportsmen. The culmination of the Alert Campaign came on September 12, 1972, when the gates of the White House swung open for three motorcycles ridden by Les White, chairman the AMA-MIC Combined Committee of Land Use, John Yaw, editor of the AMA News and Gene Wirwahn, AMA Legislative Director. After removing the boxes of petitions containing over 150 000 signatures from the side-ear atta~hed to one of the machines, White and Wirwahn presented the petitions to Howard Cohen, Executive Assistant to the President, on behalf of the AMA, the MIC, and concerned motorcyclists throughout the United States. Mr. Cohen received the \petitions on beh~f of President Nixon and expressed hIS personal gratitude for. the reasonable attitude of) motorcyclists concernmg Executive Order 11644. In a letter to Russell March, Executive Director of the AMA on August 17, 1972, President Nixon personally thanked the AMA, the MIC and motorcycle enthusiasts throughout the country for their expressed concern for the environment. President Nixon assured motorcyclists that his administration would work with them to prepare guidelines for the use of public lands. 0' Motorcycles to Ride Up White House Driveway The unusual sight of motorcycles coming up the White House driveway will be witnessed on Tuesday, Sep tember 12, as represen tatives of motorcyclists across the nation come to pledge their support for Presiden t i\ ixon 's Execu tive Order on use of off-road veh icles on public lands. Subsequent to the issue of Executive Order 11644 in February, a joint Land Use Committee was formed between the American IVlotorcycle Associatio.n, which represents competitive events and riders, and the Motorcycle Industry Council, the spokesman for manufacturers, distributors and dealers. The joint committee undertook a. petition campaign among the country's motorcycle enthusiasts and received 150,000 responses telling the President, "We trust that your farsighted and equitable attitude will be reflected in the establishment of reasonable policies which will provide for us our fair shar~ of these public lands." Representatives of AMA and MIC ~ well as the Chairman of the joint committee, Les White of American Honda Motor Co., wi]] arrive at the White House on motorcycles in order to present the signed petitions to Mr. Howard A. Cohen, Staff Assistant to President Nixon. NOISE: The sound that kills the sight.

• Cover