Comment by Jeff Thompson

April 21, 2008 @ 1:47 pm

There are many times more miles of roads on our public lands than in the interstate highway system. This is coupled with irresponsible use by the motorized recreation community. Many studies have shown that motorized use impacts wildlife health, stream water quality, weed proliferation, air quality, and noise levels. The world needs less motorized access and more thought to ecosystem health.

Comment by Mark Wright

April 22, 2008 @ 2:41 am

Perhaps the Feds do not realize that they Are the public too, besides working for the public.

Public Roads on Public Lands. Not a real tough concept IF one understands the English language and the true meaning of the words thereof.

To prevent the public from using their roads and their lands happens to infringe some Federal Laws too.

Malfeasance of Office, Color of Law, and Misprision of a Felon, ALL come to mind.

Granted the afore may not go anywhere, but on a good day it could.

America is a rather interesting place now times:

On a bad day an individual can get up in the morning having never done anything illegal and be jailed for something supposedly illegal by dark ( even for socks that don’t match ).

And the biggest dope dealer in the area can get up the same day, move a ton or so of coke or meth and it’s just another day.

Whole deal on the afore examples just depends on the goals of the supposed “powers that be ” in the community, and State.

The Feds Btw, on the afore examples definitely favor the later, not the former.

That said, it’s not exactly rocket science what other business the Feds are in wanting vast areas of remote with ALL the public vacated.

Comment by Ken Bee

April 23, 2008 @ 7:11 am

I agree with Mark, in that the Feds seem to have forgotten that they are employees of the PEOPLE, and not some holier-than-thou, above the law separate entity in this country. However…

It shouldn’t matter who closes the road. It may be a matter of technicality as to whether or not it is the county or the Feds that can close the road: A closed road is a closed road!

In most states, if a public road is closed by the authorities for whatever reason and someone choses to drive on it, they are subject to being ticketed or arrested.PERIOD!

Unfortunately, too many ATVers think that they have the right to go wherever they feel their vehicle can take them, be it public or private property.

In Missouri, off-road abuse runs rampant. Too many areas of public and private lands have been trashed by ATVers that, although they have miles of open, accessible roads to use, insist that they must go where the roads are closed, or even worse, create “new” roads. I wouldn’t doubt that there are also miles of open roads available to ATVers in Washington County Utah.

I only hope that in the Jessop case above, that the should the courts decide in favor of county control over the road, the county will have the wisdom to declare the road closed and keep keep ATV zealots at bay.

Comment by Mark Wright

April 23, 2008 @ 8:43 pm

The Feds perhaps overstepped on this.
A COUNTY Road is a County road. Not a BLM or Fed road, THAT simple.

In the USA we are supposed to operate under a system of responsible “Home Rule.”

What that means is the govts of the villages and towns have the say, in said. Not the County.

What that means in a county is the county has the say there, not the State.

The State has the say in the State, AFTER the locals and the counties in said areas.

Theoretically in this case, the BLM can shut down a road anywhere once they have closed a few county roads.

Even downtown Colorado Springs main street if they want to.

Comment by Ken Bee

April 24, 2008 @ 8:47 am

Touche!
A county road is a county road, IF owned by the county.
The courts, not an ATVer or ATV group needs to determine ownership.

As for Home Rule, unfortunately, this really hasn’t existed since the Civil War, when Federal rights usurped State rights.
Prior to the establishment of most western states and counties (and after it was taken from the Native Americans),
the Government Land Bureau (now BLM) owned the land. The creation of states and counties did not necessarily give the same ownership or complete control over those lands. Laws set into place then have precedence over local juristictions, unless the power was ceded to the local governments. Does the 1872 Mining Law ring a bell?? It establishes the rights under Federal law for persons to do what local laws either cannot, or have a helluva time undoing.

The States are allowed rights not specifically covered by the US Constitution, but an established the pecking order in which the Feds, those farthest removed from the local environment, usually have the final say so, tends to be the case.

If Home Rule did exist, then there would be nothing to keep Jackson Hole, Wyoming from annexing Teton National Park and opening it up for development.

Unless it’s changed since I’ve seen it, Main Street Colorado Spriings couldn’t fair much worse under Federal control.

Comment by Mark Wright

April 25, 2008 @ 3:29 am

Disagree Ken.
Lot’s of areas of the country practice home rule.

Home means home….so your thesis on Jackson Hole has the “hot button” sounds, but no real juice.

The only State that got things right was Texas. No, or very little Fed land there.

The rest of em in the West…yes the Feds try to supposedly manage it. An awfull lot of dirt though ( MOST of the land in the W usa is Fed lands ).

Right at HALF of the total land area in the USA is Federal Lands ( most of that is Alaska and the Western States ).

Kinda like a spare soveriegn country with no citizens within. But plenty of space for em.

Comment by Ken Bee

April 25, 2008 @ 6:40 am

Great comments Mark!
Lots of areas DO practice home rule, but that doesn’t mean they’re always doing it right. Back East, the Jackson Hole annexation idea is very real and happening every day. Look at the Supreme Court ruling allowing eminent domain for private developers to supercede any landowner rights as long as the region can collect taxes for “the benefit of the greater public”. Here, it’s not the Feds, but cities and counties stealing properties. The only reason the idea hasn’t caught on out West is that the land is more difficult to develop and the population and resouces to support them just aren’t there.

Texas may have gotten it right, in some ways, but I won’t digress.

Why do we feel we need to inhabit every square inch of the planet anyway? The Feds are some of the worst land stewards there’s ever been, but part of what makes this country as successful as it has been is the fact that we had the wisdom to put a lid on uncontrolled development in areas with the most resources that can always, and be assured that at some point, they will, be developed. In that case, I’d put my faith in the Feds over any Georgia-Pacific, Peabody Coal, Arco or Walton family entity any day.

Comment by Mark Wright

April 25, 2008 @ 10:37 pm

Great comments Ken.
Most certainly we agree on alot of issues.

Don’t know about you, but I sure could use a rain out here…it’s been dam near a year since one on some of it.

Worried I’ll end up being the only darn Jeremiah Johnson left so to speak, in this part of the S West.

Comment by Ken Bee

April 28, 2008 @ 7:28 am

I’m in SE Mo and we’ve had plenty of rain. Wish I could send some out your way. Spring’s been a bit cool, wet, but totally great. Usually we jump right into summer. Morel hunting is great and the spring colors are fantastic.

Don’t confuse me with a typical tree hugging environmentalist though. I’ve got land holdings around Mo and Colorado. I’ve just seen too much damage done by timber, mining and cattle industry here and out West. Now that the mining has fallen back, it seems like the new issues are from timber, cattle ranchers and particularly those that seek recreation and have no respect for others properties, be it government, private individuals or corporations.

In Missouri, larger parcels of land are divided up into couple acre camping lots that are owner-financed. The sellers offer “miles of off-road recreation, horseback riding, hunting, caving, fishing” etc., the only problem is they don’t tell the buyers that all the “fun” is on other peoples’ private properties.

I’ve found people to be more respectful out West and more aware of the consequences of their actions, which is good. Damage done to desert and alpine land can take centuries to recover, unlike here where a few decades can erase a lot of abuse.

Keep up the talk! Land stewardship is a complex issue and too many people have no idea what the total impact of their decisions or actions can cause to land, whether it thru using, abusing or trying to preserve it.