scoutabout
None
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700126708/The-debate-over-land-use.html?pg=1
Should the Department of Interior expect motorized recreationists to obey its land use plans? More to the point, should DOI expect motorized recreationists to continue to obey its land use plans when DOI acts to subvert its own plans?
A bureaucracy's legitimacy is linked to the moral justification of its legal authority. A bureaucracy such as DOI, though duly created by Congress, may nevertheless lose legitimacy if a governed class concludes that the bureaucracy is inherently unjust. Without moral authority the bureaucracy will lose the voluntary obedience necessary for its operation.
OHV riders and the public that relies upon motorized vehicles to access recreation destinations have experienced wave after wave of road closures. They have been progressively excluded from routes and destinations now only available to backpackers. Yet, at the urging of DOI and other agencies, throughout the 2000s motorized recreationists vigorously participated in numerous federal land use plan revisions. They were told that the planning processes would result in travel plans that would govern 15 to 20 years into the future.
For their active participation, motorized recreationists suffered yet more road closures, but, at least the final plans did not close all of the roads demanded by so-called environmentalists. Under the plans DOI could count on long term cooperation by motorized recreationists, who, in turn, could count on specific long-term open route designations. Stated otherwise, DOI had supposedly established objective rules under which recreationists would credit legitimacy to DOI.
Unfortunately, DOI bureaucrats promptly conspired with environmentalists to have President Obama declare national monuments directly over areas governed by the new land use plans. This strategy was shelved after a Department of Interior memorandum was leaked in February 2010. Instead, in December 2010, the Secretary of Interior announced that DOI would override its newly adopted land use plans by performing new reviews of lands arbitrarily labeled as "Wild Lands."
Recreationists never heard the words "Wild Lands" when they participated in seven years of land use planning. But now, roads to be left open long-term under the land use plans may be closed as inconsistent with DOI's nouveau "Wild Lands" mantra. As always, DOI will invite recreationists to "participate" and "comment," but the inevitable result will be more closed roads.
DOI may, within or without the legal parameters of its regulations, endlessly scheme to close roads. However, DOI's endless scheming comes at the expense of its legitimacy. Why should recreationists feel any moral duty to obey road closures under land use plans when DOI itself immediately forswears such land use plans? Why should recreationists stay off closed roads when there is no evidence that DOI will ever cease hatching new schemes to close roads? Why should recreationists obey a bureaucracy that manipulates in favor of certain groups?
One currently favored group, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), has just petitioned DOI, via the Bureau of Land Management, to subvert its new land use plans by another tactic. SUWA has demanded that BLM immediately close over a thousand miles of roads open under the land use plans until new environmental analyses demanded by SUWA can be completed. Yet DOI has just completed extensive environmental impact statements as part of the land use planning processes that determined that these roads should be left open to motorized use.
Ironically, SUWA's petition cites a 2009 GAO study in which a retired Forest Service bureaucrat stated, "We are suffering from a major breakdown in attitude from sadly a high percentage of off-roaders." However, major breakdowns in attitude directly correlate to never-ending road closures by bureaucracies that give environmental groups never-ending bites of the apple. SUWA's petition itself ensures a major breakdown in attitude, if and when bureaucrats act upon it.
Voluntary obedience is critical for cash-strapped agencies governing millions of acres of lands. Agency law enforcement actions could never substitute for lost voluntary compliance, should motorized recreationists disregard DOI's land use plans as ephemeral hoaxes.
Paul Mortensen
(Note: For those who don't know Paul is USA-ALL's one-time part-time lawyer)
Should the Department of Interior expect motorized recreationists to obey its land use plans? More to the point, should DOI expect motorized recreationists to continue to obey its land use plans when DOI acts to subvert its own plans?
A bureaucracy's legitimacy is linked to the moral justification of its legal authority. A bureaucracy such as DOI, though duly created by Congress, may nevertheless lose legitimacy if a governed class concludes that the bureaucracy is inherently unjust. Without moral authority the bureaucracy will lose the voluntary obedience necessary for its operation.
OHV riders and the public that relies upon motorized vehicles to access recreation destinations have experienced wave after wave of road closures. They have been progressively excluded from routes and destinations now only available to backpackers. Yet, at the urging of DOI and other agencies, throughout the 2000s motorized recreationists vigorously participated in numerous federal land use plan revisions. They were told that the planning processes would result in travel plans that would govern 15 to 20 years into the future.
For their active participation, motorized recreationists suffered yet more road closures, but, at least the final plans did not close all of the roads demanded by so-called environmentalists. Under the plans DOI could count on long term cooperation by motorized recreationists, who, in turn, could count on specific long-term open route designations. Stated otherwise, DOI had supposedly established objective rules under which recreationists would credit legitimacy to DOI.
Unfortunately, DOI bureaucrats promptly conspired with environmentalists to have President Obama declare national monuments directly over areas governed by the new land use plans. This strategy was shelved after a Department of Interior memorandum was leaked in February 2010. Instead, in December 2010, the Secretary of Interior announced that DOI would override its newly adopted land use plans by performing new reviews of lands arbitrarily labeled as "Wild Lands."
Recreationists never heard the words "Wild Lands" when they participated in seven years of land use planning. But now, roads to be left open long-term under the land use plans may be closed as inconsistent with DOI's nouveau "Wild Lands" mantra. As always, DOI will invite recreationists to "participate" and "comment," but the inevitable result will be more closed roads.
DOI may, within or without the legal parameters of its regulations, endlessly scheme to close roads. However, DOI's endless scheming comes at the expense of its legitimacy. Why should recreationists feel any moral duty to obey road closures under land use plans when DOI itself immediately forswears such land use plans? Why should recreationists stay off closed roads when there is no evidence that DOI will ever cease hatching new schemes to close roads? Why should recreationists obey a bureaucracy that manipulates in favor of certain groups?
One currently favored group, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), has just petitioned DOI, via the Bureau of Land Management, to subvert its new land use plans by another tactic. SUWA has demanded that BLM immediately close over a thousand miles of roads open under the land use plans until new environmental analyses demanded by SUWA can be completed. Yet DOI has just completed extensive environmental impact statements as part of the land use planning processes that determined that these roads should be left open to motorized use.
Ironically, SUWA's petition cites a 2009 GAO study in which a retired Forest Service bureaucrat stated, "We are suffering from a major breakdown in attitude from sadly a high percentage of off-roaders." However, major breakdowns in attitude directly correlate to never-ending road closures by bureaucracies that give environmental groups never-ending bites of the apple. SUWA's petition itself ensures a major breakdown in attitude, if and when bureaucrats act upon it.
Voluntary obedience is critical for cash-strapped agencies governing millions of acres of lands. Agency law enforcement actions could never substitute for lost voluntary compliance, should motorized recreationists disregard DOI's land use plans as ephemeral hoaxes.
Paul Mortensen
(Note: For those who don't know Paul is USA-ALL's one-time part-time lawyer)
