Cycle News - Archive Issues - 2000's

By DON AMAOOR/BLUE RIBBON COALITION 30 YEARS AGO••• FEBRUARY 16, 1971 The factory Harley-Davidson XR750 of Mert Lawwill stood proud on the cover of Issue 115. Inside we covered the seasonopening Ascot half mile, which Tom Rockwood (Tri) won, with Keith Mashbum (Yam), Dave Aldana (BSA) and Paul Bostrom (Tri) rounding out the top four ... Gary Bailey held an open house upon delivery of his custom 27-foot "home/garage/headquarters on wheels" trailer, which he wouid use to tour the country on his one-man motocross mission to teach motocross to the masses... At a motocross event in Houston, Texas, John DeSoto (C-Z) stunned the locals with a runaway victory over Tim Hart (C-Z) and number-one plate holder Dick Burleson (Hus)... Evel Knievel posed with Grand National Champion Gene Romero after presenting Romero with a ticket to watch him attempt to "jump" the Snake River Canyon on his rocket-powered motorcycle... Malcolm Smith and Ed Shinault (Hus) won the first Laguna Salada 200, in Mexicali, Mexico. The team of Earl and Larry Roeseler (H-D) finished fourth overall, first 125cc. 20 YEARS AGO••• FEBRUARY 11, 1981 Another dirt track motorcycle stood proud on the cover of Issue 115; this one was Team Honda's watercooled short-tracker, which was scheduled to be ridden by Freddie Spencer at the Houston TI ... The AMA Supercross Series kicked off in Anaheim, California's AnaheIm Stadium and Kent Howerton (Suz) won a thriller ahead of Mark Barnett (Suz) and defending champion Mike Bell (Yam) ... Danny Chandler (Yam) won the 125cc Pro class at round five of the sevenround CMC Golden State Nationals. The 250 and 500cc Pro classes were won by Broc Glover (Yam) and Eric McKenna (Mai), respectively ... Some top Pros showed up at a CRC Saddleback motocross event and Jim Gibson (Han) raced Hondas to both the 125- and 250cc Pro-class wins. Mark Barnett and Warren Reid finished second and third on the 250s. The second 250cc Intermediate mota was won with room to spare by Steve Piattoni (Kaw) ... We rode the new 1981 Triumph 750 Bonneville, and our only real complaint, outside of the vibration, was that you first had to remove the exhausts to remove the rear wheel. 10 YEARS AGO••• FEBRUARY 13. 1991 Team Honda's Jean-Michel Bayle stood front and center on the podium for the cover of Issue #5 after winning the Seattle Sup~cross. Damon Bradshaw raced to second, while Jeff Stanton passed hometown boy Larry Ward in the last tum for third. Team Peak Honda's Jeremy McGrath and Steve Lamson raced to first and second place for the second week in a row in the 125cc main event. Team Yamaha's Jeff Emig rounded out the podium... Larry Roeseler and Ted Hunnicutt (Kaw) took the overall in tbe SCORE Parker 400 in Parker, Arizona, by one minute and 17 seconds over the team of Garth Sweetland and Paul Krause... Eighteen-year-old Danny Hamel won round one of the AMA National Championship Hare & Hound series aboard his KTM. Paul Ostbo (Kaw) chased him home in second. Of the race, Hamel said, "I got hung up on a rock on the first hairpin curve of that last downhill and ended up falling down it. Apart from that and running out of gas at the alternate, I had a flawless ride." s many recreationists have questions regarding the recent settlement decision in the COCA lawsuit, I want to give you a brief general overview of the BRC legal effort and a specific explanation of the COCA settlement agreement. Almost five years ago, the BRC voted to establish a BRC legal Defense Team. It was formed to counter unreasonable attempts by preservationist groups and the federal land agencies to dose public lands to multiple-use recreation. In those five years, we have won some important cases such as preventing an A immediate closure of snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park in 1998, keeping continued OHV access to Wilderness Study Areas in Montana since the filing of a suit in 1996 by the Montana Wilderness Association, and repelling the Sierra Club and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance from dosing millions of acres in Utah to ATVs, Jeeps, and OHVs in 2000. I believe our attorneys and the BRC Legal Review Committee understand that the fight for recreation access to public lands is a long-term effort and must be supported by a strategy that considers a variety of factors in this long-range view, such as: fiscal resources, agency/administration direction and policy that can change at every election, legal strength of anti-access advocates, political and legal realities, best management practices, and user support. While it is often easier to take the position of "I'd rather fall on my sword" or "preach from my soapbox" or "let 'em close it all down" (heck, sometimes I even feel like that myself), the harder position is one of pragmatism salted with a healthy dose of reality. We have certainly developed taste for a good fight over time, but would prefer to fight winnable battles instead of fighting for the sake of the fight. Although the new administration may be more supportive of access to public lands. the COCA lawsuit occurred in a less-favorable setting. When the suit was filed in March 2000, I received phone calls from some of our members in Southem California asking the BRC to take a look at the case. Seeing how no club or organization was stepping forward to fight this closure in April, the BRC legal review committee voted to become involved in the battle if there was a commitment by local interests to support the legal effort. After communicating with most organized multiple-use recreation groups in Southern California between April and June, four organizations came forward to join the effort: the San Diego Off-Road Coalition, the California Association of 4WD Clubs, the Desert Vipers, and the High Desert Multiple Use Coalition. Along with these four groups, BRC moved to intervene on June 20, 2000, and we obtained intervention in the remedy phase of the lawsuit on August 7, 2000. Since that time, four other groups, including grazing, mining, and other recreational interests, have unsuccessfully tried to attain intervener status. While our intervention was being GUEST EDITORIAL approved by the court, the BLM was signing a document admitting that they had failed to adequately consult under the Endangered Species Act on the ongoing programmatic effects of the COCA Plan on listed species and their critical habitat. Some cases provide more legal options than others, but the ESA provides limited options when the agency has admitted it violated the law. Regardless of BLM's motives or honorable intentions in stipulating to liability, we were in a difficult position of trying to defend BlM's actions when BlM itself was not willing to do so. At this stage in the game, we had to decide whether to participate in settlement discussions or remain on the outside of these discussions and object to the settlement achieved between BlM and the Center for Biodiversity. Important to this analysis was the fact that past BLM OHV management in the COCA probably does not embody a standard of excellence, and the legal reality that courts have very limited review of settlement agreements and will fail to adopt agreements only when they are illegal or blatantly unbalanced. We had determined that the "legal ship" (i.e. Center for biodiversity v. BLM) was coming into port and that it would be beneficial for access interests to up on the bridge helping to steer the ship from crashing into the dock. Sure it would have been easier for us to speed around the ship in rubber rafts hurling insults and objections at the captain (BLM) in a vain effort to help avoid a crash. However, we chose to try and help the captain steer the ship and avoid a direct impact with the dock. As a result, a series of stipulations were ultimately achieved, some of which affect OHV interests in the COCA. Our group participated in the negotiations and ultimately signed the final stipulations addressing OHV issues in the Alogodones Dunes and other areas in the COCA. The legal issues and practical dynamics of this situation are extremely complex. Like many complex issues, it is far easier to express outrage about the result than it is to understand it. Regardless of the spin some folks are receiving, I feel that the facts of the case show the following: 1) The BLM would have agreed to many more closures than if we had not intervened - period. 2) Had we somehow convinced the BLM to "walk away" from the bargaining table, Center would have likely filed an injunction targeting activities, induding OHV use, which, according to U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, "may affect" listed species or their critical habitat. A likely first candidate on their list would have been all OHV "open" areas, as well as dirt-road motorized access in desert tortoise critical habitat throughout the West Mojave bioregion. Similar motions have been routinely granted in ESA cases in the 9th Circuit. 3) "ESA" type suits filed against resource interests can often not be mitigated at all. 4) While the agreement does close a number of areas that were going to suffer an immediate closure anyway ... it keeps open a Coming up in CycleRews loarger or equal number of areas that would have been closed without our legal presence. 5) Much of what the Center is spinning as "closures" in the agreement are not closures at all, but restate existing law (i.e. can't ride in Wilderness) or recognize existing processes that have been moving to completion. For instance, West Mojave route designation has been coming for a long time, and while the agreement accelerates the process for 5 of 22 subregion "polygons," each will be available for 90 days of public comment prior to any "closure" decision. The agreement acknowledges and provides for public input on most OHV-related issues. 6) The agreement contains interim relief, to be superceded by decisions in broader BLM decision-making processes. These decisions will include public participation and will be subject to administrative protest and judicial review opportunities. 7) The agreement contains substantial "wiggle room" for all parties. For instance, the agreement specifically notes that the interveners do not acknowledge a factual basis for any emergency closure and reserve the right to file challenges to future BLM decisions, including those flowing from the agreement, under existing law. 8) We did not agree to, and took no position on, controversial provisions addressing interests other than OHV use because we are not allowed under the Court's ruling on our intervention to do so. We did not support restrictions on grazing, mining, maintenance of pipeline/utility rights-of-way, and private water rights. In fact, our legal counsel provided testimony to the grazing interests in their appeal to the Court's order denying their intervention explaining we were only authorized to represent OHV/access concerns and are not authorized to speak on behalf of the numerous other interests affected by this suit. 9) We were much better off to have been part of the suit, then to try and file objections or a separate suit (post facto) against the dosures once the court had made a decision - post decision suits against ESA decisions do not have a good track record. Although some access interests have and will continue to object to the way in which this case was handled - and I respect those objections - I contend that the access community is better served, in the long-term, by our decision to settle under the final terms negotiated in this case. If, in the next several years, you ride anywhere on a dirt road in the West Mojave bioregion or participate in a competitive OHV event anywhere in the COCA, it may be as a result of our participation in this case. While some access advocates will stand and protest our decision, I believe that we made the right call based on all of the legal and political variables of this case. Most importantly, recognize that this process-oriented agreement gives us all a chance to "step up to the plate" to influence a new series of BLM management decisions. The louder and more unified our voice in these processes, the more desirable their outcomes from our perspective. eN • Anaheim Supercfflss III • Kyalaml World Superllike Test • Interview: Harley-Dallldson Road-Race Team Manager John Baker cue I e n e _ s FEBRUARY 7, 2001 71

• Cover