scoutabout
None
Definitely not doing that. That won't work either.
If you read everything I wrote for U4WDA and USA-ALL, you'll see some of my ideas.
In general, I think:
1. Terms like "tree hugger", "environazi", and "anti-access" hurt more than help. Promoting the idea that our problems are the result of some other group or some outside action which we cannot affect is a crutch that prevents us from truly protecting motorized access on public lands. This mindset is not your fault. It is the fault of the pro-access professionals who forward this skewed thinking as a fundraising tool that rallies the base and keeps them employed*. I liken it to what Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do to black people. They keep themselves relevant by convincing other black people that their problems are caused by the system and not their own personal actions.
2. Which leads to this: The OHV community needs to take responsibility for the loss of access we're faced with and work proactively on solutions to prevent closures.
3. The OHV community needs to admit that the percentage of "bad apples" causing resource damage is more like 70% instead of 1-2% as usually promoted. Where do I get this number? Sit trailside on a busy Saturday and watch what happens.
4. The OHV community needs to target a larger share of resources towards converting the 70% of irresponsible users into land stewards instead of wasting money on symbolic lawsuits, lobbying without effect and reactionary defenses instituted at the tail end of the closure process. Lobbying, lawsuits and last minute attempts to stop closure can be effective when you have the influence and resources necessary to accomplish these tasks. These things are certainly not wasted, but in the current state of our movement, resources allocated to these efforts are wasted. It's like dropping a single drop of red food coloring into an olympic sized pool and expecting all of the water to turn red. It takes buckets, not drops. We're no where close to that. So, let's put our resources where they can have an impact and then build on that success and expand our influence. Researching the history of the NRA is a good model. The NRA didn't start by opening a lobbying office in DC.
5. Understand that land management agencies do not exist to provide us with recreation opportunities. First and foremost, they are in business to protect the resources under their care for the benefit of the country now and in the future. When that mission is threatened, other activities such as energy extraction, timber production, livestock grazing AND recreation are off the table completely.
6. Fill the "management gap", which is something I've written about a lot. Given #5, who is more vested in keeping recreation opportunities open? The land managers or the users? The users. We need to be much more active in helping underfunded and undermotivated land managers do their jobs. That's peer enforcement, volunteer projects, constant and active interaction with land managers, user education, and public/private fundraising partnerships. Look at what MFFW and RR4W do in Moab. Look at what CC4x4 does in Kanab. Look at what FOTR does for the Rubicon. These user groups are filling the management gap and protecting existing routes while gaining opportunities to create new ones. These are models to follow.
Comments in this thread have pointed out what rallies have gotten us. Spun media coverage and opportunities for other groups to attack motorized recreation instead of an opportunity for us to defend it. We cannot rely on someone else to preserve our access. Motorized recreation is not a ballot item that influences politicians. We've got to take the responsibility ourselves, work together and seek proactive solutions years before problems arise.
That's just a quickly written part of my overall opinion. I don't represent any group. Parse it and pick it apart, or just read it for the jist and think about some of the points.
...
Footnote added via Edit at 11:54PM:
*I did not and do not mean to suggest that ALL pro-access professionals are at fault for promoting a skewed view of the issue for their own gain. This view has come about due to the progression of the overall motorized recreation access movement and as an effective method for raising funds.
Again, just my opinion.
Last edited:
