Rising Sun Member Forums  

Go Back   Rising Sun Member Forums > Toyota 4x4 > Land Use

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 06-21-2007, 11:38 AM
Red_Chili's Avatar
Red_Chili Red_Chili is offline
Hard Core 4+
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Littleton CO
Posts: 8,409
Default And I was hoping Udall was a moderate...

This could get ugly. One of the most serious threats to our sport you could imagine:
_______________________________________________________
BRC LAND USE ADVISORY: COLORADO CONGRESSMAN SEEKING TO BAR BLM'S ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE VALID EXISTING RIGHTS-OF-WAY (R.S. 2477)
Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) has announced he intends to offer an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill that would essentially preclude any Interior agency from recognizing any R.S. 2477 right-of-way. If adopted as law, such a provision would undermine years of negotiation between Western counties and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) addressing county ownership of some of the thousands of roads crossing public lands, commonly known as R.S. 2477 roads.
Federal agency treatment of R.S. 2477 has long been a controversial and heavily politicized issue. Under current policy, counties can seek Interior and BLM recognition of qualifying R.S. 2477 rights-of-way via a "Recordable Disclaimer" as well as a "non-binding determination." The Udall amendment would attempt to reverse existing policy, requiring counties or other claimants to initiate costly litigation to have the status of every route resolved through the courts.
The Udall amendment is supported by well-funded Wilderness activist groups, such as the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), who have promised through their lawyers to declare "trench warfare" against any county hoping to defend public rights of access along R.S. 2477 rights-of-way.
BlueRibbon is concerned that the Udall amendment will stall evolution of a reasonable dialogue between federal, state and local governments and private interests on the status and management of R.S. 2477 routes. "By definition, many of these routes have been in existence for a century or more and provide access for all to our treasured public lands," noted Brian Hawthorne, BlueRibbon's Public Lands Policy Director.

"The status of these roads requires creative solutions forged by collaborative dialogue, not a last-minute amendment to a catch-all spending bill or other heavy-handed edicts designed to stall progress or bankrupt rural western counties," Hawthorne concluded.

# # #
The BlueRibbon Coalition is a national recreation group that champions responsible use of public and private lands, and encourages individual environmental stewardship. It represents over 10,000 individual members and 1,200 organization and business members, for a combined total of over 600,000 recreationists nationwide. 1-800-258-3742. http://www.sharetrails.org

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Udall Draft Amendment
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PL/UDALL_Folder/Udall_Draft_Amendment.pdf
A LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION?
Some in Congress realize that SUWA's brand of "trench warfare" gives the advantage to well-funded anti-access extremists and disadvantages rural communities and the American people.

New Mexico Representative Steve Pearce has introduced legislation in Congress designed to begin the dialogue and perhaps remove the cloud over title to these public access rights, once and for all. Although Congressman Pearce has cautioned us to keep in mind that the legislation will not be the conclusive end this controversy, we believe his legislation will lead to a comprehensive solution and eventually a victory for all who value access to and protection of our public lands.
Pearce's bill (now HR 308) would acknowledge and recognize a valid right-of-way for each road that appears as a public road in an official federal, state, or local governmental map published before October 21, 1976, or that appears as a public road in an official federal state or local governmental map published between October 21, 1976 and October 21, 1986, provided it also appears in a government aerial photograph taken on or before October 21, 1976.
For more information see:
RS-2477 RIGHTS OF WAY
http://www.sharetrails.org/index.cfm?page=42&story=919
A Brief Explanation of RS 2477
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PL/UDALL_Folder/EXPLANATION%20OF%20RS%202477_FINAL.pdf

BRC ARTICLE ON KEY 10TH CIRCUIT COURT RULING ON R.S. 2477:
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PL/UDALL_Folder/RS2477_The%20Legal%20Battle%20Continues.pdf
__________________
-Bill Morgan
Heb Dduw, heb ddim; Duw a digon
Abnormally aspirated
KDěRCH
Bio Page
I'm that gun-totin', farm-raised, evangelical, pro-environment, OHV ridin'/drivin', Southern civil rights pro-labor Liberal yo' momma told you couldn't possibly exist.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-21-2007, 12:30 PM
MDH33's Avatar
MDH33 MDH33 is offline
Rising Sun Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of Corn
Posts: 5,798
Default

I've been following some of the RS2477 debate and there are a lot of aspects that are not being mentioned. It's not so much a Wilderness Advocate vs OHV user/public access argument like Blue Ribbon Co. is painting a picture of. The RS2477 laws are being abused by extraction industries to access land that they have been unable to previously due to protections, Federal regulations and a process which includes environmental impact studies and public input. To bypass all this, they are trying to use RS2477 to give local governments control. Consider the local officials who could be (are) owned by these corporations and who would use local jurrisdiction to over-ride Federal regulations to "pave the way" for mining, logging, oil and gas to start extracting in National Forests, National Parks, Wilderness areas, etc. This is all happening behind the front of "denied public access".



I need to do more research on this...
__________________
--Martin

'85 FJ60
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-21-2007, 02:38 PM
Red_Chili's Avatar
Red_Chili Red_Chili is offline
Hard Core 4+
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Littleton CO
Posts: 8,409
Default

If this succeeds you can kiss much of Moab good-bye (not to mention much of Colorado, OHV-wise). Hence, SUWA's interest in it.

I would venture to say that to characterize it that local officials could be (are) owned by these corporations and that RS2477 is primarily abused by extraction industries to be pretty sweeping pejoratives. You can't extract on the basis of RS2477, you can only keep an historic road open to vehicular access, which may or may not aid extraction but certainly will not make it happen. The local officials of Grand County in Utah (Moab and surrounds) see the economic benefit of 4x4, ATV and motorcycle recreation on Moab routes that SUWA wants to see closed, and have exercised RS2477 much to the enragement of SUWA in order to do an end-run around their lawsuits and endless challenges.

SUWA characterizes that as local officials being 'owned' by corporations - the local Moab economy. I would say they are doing what they were elected to do. Who is SUWA 'owned' by?

"A special interest is somebody else's interest. My interests are those of the public." And so it goes.

That is what this is about. Local control of local issues, versus centralized control by large and dispersed groups with good funding, through the medium of federal control taking routes that predate the BLM/USFS.
__________________
-Bill Morgan
Heb Dduw, heb ddim; Duw a digon
Abnormally aspirated
KDěRCH
Bio Page
I'm that gun-totin', farm-raised, evangelical, pro-environment, OHV ridin'/drivin', Southern civil rights pro-labor Liberal yo' momma told you couldn't possibly exist.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.