Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1970's

Sierra Club (Continued [rom page 38) observations about the policy, by indicated part and section, for use in understanding and countering extreme viewpoints based on this document. One major problem with Sierra Club rhetoric, especially in its application to the California desen, is that it seems to be aimed at everyone buiSierra Club members. Some club members, as will be seen in another part of this series, say that the club adopted the extreme ORV policy seen here as a beginning bargaining poin t only. However, in Part A, the definition of ORVs, we see reference to H any motoT driven vehicle used for recreation off of regularly maintained roads." Now go talk to a Sierra Clubber. How do they get out into the desert to uexpJore, enjoy, and preserve" it? Why, by 4WD vehicle, that's how. What do they travel over to reach the desert's innards? Old mining roads, traces, and trail. Who "regularly" main tains these paths of travel? Nobody. Combine this part of the Sierra Club ORV policy with Pan C section I, and ask what "competent, impartial investigators" have proven that this, by Sierra Club definition, off road use of Sierra Club 4WD vehicles is not '~detrimentaJ" to the areas' traveled over? If indeed someone asserts that the Sierra Club 4WD vehicles do not scare off the critters and mark the sand, as so many Clubbers abhor, it will be a Sierra Club member. Now how can a Sierra Club member be "impartial" in a controversy concerning the Sierra Club? It all seems a little contradictory. It all boils down to this: If the Sierra Club Off Road Vchicle Policy is uniformly applied to everyone, with no stereotyping or prejudice eJuering into its application, then there can be NO Sierra Clubbers in the desen except on foot, NO impartial investigators in the desert except on foot, NO anybody except on foot. Whether or not this extreme view is accepted and applied on a basic level within the club will be examined later in this series. Moving on within the policy, we find that Part B, section 1 is concerned with excessive noise associated with ORV use. Never argue this point. As Barry Goldwater Jr., pointed out in a recent CN inverview, noise should not even be an issue. Shut up your motorcycle and take away an argument against your ORV recreation time, Honda is a fine example of what a nice companion a motorcyde can be in a wilderness area, in the form of a TL 125. The ONLY good motorcycle, in today's real political world, is a QUIET motorcycle! Part B, section 2 concerns physical damage. No one can really argue that ORVs do not phy.sically damage the stuff they travel over. However, so do horses, humans, critters, and Boy Scouts. While it is admirable to work for less environmental damage, such work should never be, as with anything else, discriminatory . Heavy foot travel on the John Muir trail in the Sierra evadas has caused extreme erosion and hideous damage. Imagine a mossy meadow with a three foot deep trail ground in to its middle by foot trafic in Vibram sole boots (the knobbys of the walking world). Get a reservation a year in advance (no jive) and then, after waiting, hike up Mt. Whitney. In places your "trail" will be CEME T, a regular foot freeway necessary due to extreme hiker usage. Or visit Guitar Lake on the west side of Whitney and watch ten Boy Scouts of Troop 424 smash tiny fro!:s with flat. rocks. Hundred are killed for the "fun" of it. I saw it in 1972. Or hike from Wishon Reservoir to Florence Lake with a bunch of Sierra Clubbers. On the slopes of Mt. Goddard, watch the leaders instruct young members in the proper way to rip the bizarre dead branches off gnarled Bristlecone pines that have lived for thousands of years. They stood beautifully against the snowy slopes for 2,000 years, only to be burned on a camprrre made by Sierra Club members in 1969. So the Sierra Club speaks of "impact on flora", and "destruction of natural features" by ORV users. Portrayal of the 0 RV en th usiast as a destroyer of the Wilderness contains shades of stereotypinll AI a Marlon Brando in "the Wild Ones" and its impact on street rider's image. Coa:ern for the wilds does not contain enough of self examination in the case of Sierra Clubbers. It is time some poin ted that out. The above also applies to Part B, section 3. Part B, section 4 implies that ORV people are more apt to indulge in poaching that say, a horseman. Again, too much stereotyping, too little attention paid to other wilderness users. Part B, section 6 states concern for water poUution in wilderness areas. There is no place an ORV can go that a man on foot cannot go. The streams coming off Mt. Whitney were found to be poUu ted with hut1uln and animal wastes, and unsafe to drin k, over a year ago. There was, at that time, NO ORV use in the area. Again, this section implies that somehow ORV users are inherently dirtier and less sensitive to the wilderness than horsemen or hikers. I t just is not true that if a person uses an ORV he is a slob. Part B, section 7 reflects stereotyping of ORV users in the cast of rough riding hoodlums out to rape the wood nymphs. In another view, horse' droppings, increase incidence of tetanus, and so should be banned for greater human safe ty. , Part B, section 8 implies that since ORV people "can carry more g,ar", they will throw more of it around. Of c04rse, it must be, in the Club view, irrelevant that often the ORVs in question haul out other people's junk, or that horses can top bike carrying capacity easily. Why aren't horses singled out, and their operators branded wi th the implication of inherent no-goodness? It doesn't fit the consistent Sierra Club stereotypical image of ORV operators. Part B, section 9 is the same thing. Since they ride ORVs, -they naturally must be vandals and hoodlums. Part C~ section 1 invokes a ".g.wty until proven innocent" stand that is inconsis tant with the democratic foundations of this country. The terminology referring to investigators has already been dealt with. The Sierra Club response to an ORV person pointing out the "guilty until proven innocent" stand is either ci rcu m lac u ti on or incoherency. However, in the name of reason, instead of adopting the position that ORVs should be allowed everywhere un ti I proven detrimental by "competent, impartial investigators", it is wise to take a middle ground...say, that certain areas will b, closed pending investigation, and that' closure of one area must be matched by opening of another area, or at least the presentation of alternative riding areas, Part C, section 3 is the best part of this whole policy, as It advocates public hearings, before opening or closure of a given area. ORV interests have already, as seen in alarmed articles in official ierra Club publications, demonstrated t1\af they can draw a bigger crowd together in desert closure hearings than the Sierra Club can. If ORV people can maintain that record that is causing the Sierra Club to sweat, and the Club maintains this position (which it must to maintain credibility). then ORV interest will probably not be unduly harmed. Part C, section 4 sounds fine, except that "scien tific in terest" . includes the entire world. Some scientist somewhere is interested in everything, and human geographers are even in teres ted in gas station location and dumps. Under the wording of this Section, there could be on organized ORV use. Also, Boy Scouts violate every. single provision of this section, and until I see a Sierra Club Policy statement against Boy Scout camp use of the off road wilderness, I cannot supp'port the idea that this is a non -discrimina tory, non-prejudicial proposal. Part C, section 5 can be discounted thusly; I live in the ci,ty of La Mirada, a suburb of Los Angeles with 27,000 people, 185 horses, and about 5,000 motorcycles. Do you know what La Mirada is building to the tune of $1l6,875? A horse complex for the 185 horses! In the past few years, over 2,000 residen ts petitioned for a dirt bike area. The city council, with the leadership of a wealthy horse-owning Councilman and his real estate sidekick Councilman buddy, turned down those 2,000 residents in favor of 185 horses. In the first place, the only good horse is one Fido eats out of a can. Secondly, I almost crashed on a road apple left behind a blind comer by a freak horse. Thirdly, horses and stables attract insects (that go squish on faceshields). and lastly, a $630 city investment per horse is more than they ever spent on people in the city, per person per project. It> Tbe rITst part of Part C, section 6 sounds OK, but the idea of licensing operators is an expensive joke. A friend of mine, who had never ridden a bike before, recently bought a Honda 450. He rode down to the DMV two days later, passed the licensing test, and rode off into the sunset. He has never made a panic stop, never been turned left in fron t of, never hit a loose or slippery surface. He is a novice, and not too competent. The DMV, with a five year head start, still has a motorcycle rider's test that is a joke. An off road vehicle operator test would also be a joke, and a waste of taxpayer's money. Nice idea, maybe, but not too practical. Part C, section 8 would eliminate the din/street use of motorcycles unless there was dual registration and iden tification. An expensive pain in the ass. Thi~ is double taxation, and a no-no. Part C, section 9 is RIGHT ON! The Sierra Club should also apply this one to club vehicles and diesel trucks, but in the bett~r interest of ORVs, especially bikes, this should be supported. Section 10 of Part C might be acceptable if it was not retroactive and if bikes were excluded. 1 have no specific recommendation on this one, and the argument for Section 11 is the same as that applied to section 5. No doubt most dirt riders reading this will find themselves in conflict with the Sierra Club viewpoint. However, the very existance of this hard-line policy paper indi cates that the idea that the Sierra Club wants to eliminate ORV use is incorrect. As it turns out, the Sierra Club viewpoint and position in the land use conflict is not as bad as the worst detractors say, but it is not as good as the strongest supponers say, either, taken from the ORV viewpoint. Just as laws enacted by Congress are nothing until implemented by administrators, 'the Sierra Club official policies are nothing until the upper echelons of the club hierarchy act upon them, suppon them, and disperse them. Wh at is said On paper in any official policy is important. What is more important is what is done with what is said on that paper. In essence, the theory on paper is not as important as the practical politi.c'application. That's why I went to vi,i1 the top levels of leadership of the Sierra Club in San Francisco. When I asked Chuck Clusen, Sierra Club Assistant Conservation Director, what the Sierra Club position on ORV use was, he handed me the policy statemen t you have already seen. Speaking about that policy, Clusen said that "It is our policy nationally. As all our policy normally is, itsrather general, without getting into specific areas or great depth and detail. It does give the basic format of what our beliefs are. We also make many statements, whether it's commen ts on ORV regulations to federal agencies, or whether it's a speech, or whether it's addressing you or your collegues, that will be on this, but this is the basic format." 1 asked CI usen if the Sierra Club would really like to see ORV use severely limi ted to even ou t1awed in the United States. After outlining the Sierra Club concerns of enviromen tal damage and conflict with other users because of the noise factor, he continued, "No, we are not advocating nor do we privately really wan t to have all off-road vehicles banned or outlawed or something of that sort. We feel basically that because there are these problems of degrading the resource and creating conflicts between other users, that the burden should be on the off-road vehicle user to show that the resOurces wiIJ not be substantially degraded and that the great conflicts with other users will be avoided or somehow decreased. This policy goes on to say that we recommend that special areas be set up for ORV use, on public as well as private land. We feel that especially with' vehicles like motorcycles, the setting up of areas for what is basically a recreational pursuit is really the best way to go." I asked Clusen what would be the Sierra Club position if ORV enthusiasts could not prove, in deference to the Sierra Club position, that use of their vehicles did' not degrade resources and/or create conflicts. In that case, where were the bikers to ride? Were they just to stop riding? "I'm not talking in absolutes," answered Clusen, "that any resource damage of any any degree is in tolerable. Basically all forms of recreation have some kind of damage, even backpacking, when there are too many of them. A better word to modify it is substantial. We would bring up the variables first of the number of users, secondly, what the resource is, third, how the vehicle is operated." I asked Clusen how the Club would view a situation where representatives of ORV groups, governmental agencies, and conservation groups were brought together in a kind of round table discussion to work on the land use conflict compromise. How would the Club feel if ORV groups said in essence, we know there is damage, but there are 1.9 million of us in California alone, and there must be a place for 0 RV use? What about the idea that if the conservationists get an area dosed off because of extraodinary value, then an alternative riding area was suppled to ORV interests? What would be the reaction of the Club to a "you call't ride here, but can ride here instead" compromise? "['m not sure in general," stated the man from MiJJs Tower, "whe ther that is really a compromise. We are political realists. We also are realists about what any public official, elected or administrative, has to do. He has to respond at least to some degree to all the pressures that are put upon him. The decision makers, in this case the Bureau of Land Management, really have to be responsive to all users as well as all interests. They do, have to make a balancing decision. The BLM has greatly increased its public input, and its openness, to let people know what it is doing·, and all that in general is good." Clusen continued, "Dealing with a specific amount of public land, that if environmentalists and off road vehicle users can reach some arrangemen t or agreement, that's just really great. It could be submitted to the BLM as an agreed upon plan. Certainly I think the BLM would welcome that." Further discussion of official Sierra Club policy reveals one basic source of discontent with ORV presence in areas used by other people. It is so simple, so old, so stupid, yet it exists. It is noise. If ORV enthusiasts, especially bikers, are going to ever coexist with conservation group, . the NOISE MUST BE STOPPED. There is no good excuse for noisy motorcycles. Well, you say, I get more power. What good is another horsepower if you must keep your bike in your garage? Some people object to and question the constitutionality issue of a minority (the Sierra Club) forcing its will on the majority (ORV enthusiasts) if they have more political punch than ORV people. Well, all the Sierra Club official moves are legal, and if it's legal it's fair. Chuck Clusen is fairly typical of the Sierra Club leaders ... reasonable, realist , and concerned with wl)at he sees -as right. The ORV enthusiasts of California, and indeed the entire United States, are going to have to de'jl with Chuck Clusen and the Sierra Club, and are going to bave to respect' their viewpoin t if they wan t consideration of their own. It is reassuring to talk to a Sierra Club leader like Clusen, anrl hear him say "1 think the conflicts can be eased. I t is possible to rma common ground, and it is the responsibility of managing agencies to find that common ground. We probably won't get all the wilderness we want nor the ORV people all the land they want." It is essential to understand official Club policy, its strengths and weaknesses, and the upper echelon men who use it day to day, In the next article in this series, we look at the,at times. very difficult interpretation of what the Sierra Club is all about by Angeles Chapter Desen Conservation Subcommittee Chairman Bill Holden, a mid echelon Sierra Club leader. ---"- --- i M lj; .; ~ :> ..., en ~ w Z w ~ u > u

• Cover