greenjeep
Cause it's green, duh!
- Location
- Moab Local!
Category: Press Releases
Date: Mar 22 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SUCCESS! Court Rules in Favor of UFWDA and its Recreation Partners
Against Bluewater Network, Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads, and
other Environmentalists
UFWDA and its recreation partners intervened on behalf of the National
Park
Service (NPS) in a 2005 lawsuit brought by Bluewater Network,
Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads (Wildlands CPR), and National
Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) against the NPS. The purpose of
the suit was to prohibit ORV use in parks across the country.
UFWDA and our recreation partners Cape Hatteras Access Preservation
Alliance (CHAPA), American Sportfishing Association (ASA), Dare and
Hyde Counties, North Carolina, and United Mobile Sportfishermen (UMS)
asked the court to dismiss all 8 issues in the case, arguing that the
environmental groups lacked standing and failed to properly state
their claim. The other intervenors in the case filed similar claims as
UFWDA and included the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA),
the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), and the BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC).
"The case will move forward but is restricted to a very narrow set of
issues", stated Carla Boucher, nationally-recogniz ed attorney for
United Four Wheel Drive Associations. "The court ruled on March 21,
2007 that Bluewater did not have standing on any of the issues and
granted our request to dismiss them from the case entirely. The court
found in our favor on all but 2 of the issues and limited another
issue to just 3 of the 18 park units cited", commented Boucher.
"Recreation will continue to vigilantly protect access in the 3
remaining parks at issue in the case and fulfill our UFWDA mission to
protect, promote, and provide 4x4 recreational access worldwide",
Boucher stated.
# # #
United Four Wheel Drive Associations (UFWDA) is the leading
representative for four wheel drive enthusiasts. UFWDA is a group of
individuals, clubs, state, regional, provincial and national
associations and businesses in the United States and around the world;
our members span the globe from the U.S. and Canada, New Zealand,
Australia, England, Japan, South Africa, and Iceland. If you would
like more information on how you can be a part of this effort contact
United Four Wheel Drive Associations today at 14525 SW Millikan Way
#22622, Beaverton, OR 97005-2343, 1-800-448-3932 or visit www.ufwda.org.
CONTACT Carla Boucher (757) 546-7969 or attorney@ufwda. org
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
6.
Why that court case is so important...
Posted by: "shawn_pagan" thepagan@rockcrawler.com shawn_pagan
Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:34 am (PST)
Here is what Carla sent me / posted on UFWDA's forum. (For those who
don't know Carla Boucher is the Attorney for UFWDA). Feel free to
send this around. And yes it would have affected all travel in places
like Big Bend National Park.
This case has been complicated from the beginning and the court ruling
is complicated and the issues are complicated. I had to prepare a
spreadsheet just to work through exactly what the judge's order said!
So my quick overview is oversimplifying things a lot.
This case is really important for us to be involved in because
Bluewater Network, Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads (Wildlands
CPR), and National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) (all
representing 70 other environmental groups ) are trying to prohibit
all ORV use in the NPS. What's crazy about the way the
environmentalists brought the suit is that their request was really
broad across the board and they didn't really pinpoint what they
thought the problem was.
They even asked for the NPS to prohibit ORV use in parks that already
prohibit ORV use! Their claims were so broad it was hard for us, and
for the court, to tell whether they were talking about all parks, some
parks, just a few of them or what. Left unchecked, I have no doubt the
environmentalists would have liked to have gotten the court to make a
ruling pertaining to every park, even those parks that have
long-standing and public involved ORV management plans.
Judge Lamberth's ruling on March 21st narrowed the suit down from 8
issues to just 3. And 1 of the three issues he narrowed down from 18
parks to just 3 - Canyonlands and Arches National Parks and Amistad
National Recreation Area.
So the suit will continue to move toward trial but only on three issues.
Those issues are:
(1) whether it was lawful for the NPS to refuse to repeal ORV
authorizations in Canyonlands and Arches National Parks and Amistad NRA;
(2) whether it was unlawful for the NPS to refuse to adopt ORV
enforcement procedures and an ORV monitoring program; and
(3) whether the NPS unlawfully reacted to the environmentalists
Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Finally, the ruling only allows the Wildlands CPR and NPCA to be
involved in the suit. Bluewater was dismissed from the case for lack
of standing.
One super important win in this case is that interim closure orders
are not a part of this case anymore. You see, if the court hadn't
dismissed that issue and the environmentalists eventually won the NPS
might have been forced to close the parks to ORV use UNTIL the NPS
finished going through ORV planning. It could have put a halt to all
ORV use for many years while the parks went through the public process
of planning.
Date: Mar 22 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SUCCESS! Court Rules in Favor of UFWDA and its Recreation Partners
Against Bluewater Network, Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads, and
other Environmentalists
UFWDA and its recreation partners intervened on behalf of the National
Park
Service (NPS) in a 2005 lawsuit brought by Bluewater Network,
Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads (Wildlands CPR), and National
Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) against the NPS. The purpose of
the suit was to prohibit ORV use in parks across the country.
UFWDA and our recreation partners Cape Hatteras Access Preservation
Alliance (CHAPA), American Sportfishing Association (ASA), Dare and
Hyde Counties, North Carolina, and United Mobile Sportfishermen (UMS)
asked the court to dismiss all 8 issues in the case, arguing that the
environmental groups lacked standing and failed to properly state
their claim. The other intervenors in the case filed similar claims as
UFWDA and included the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA),
the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), and the BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC).
"The case will move forward but is restricted to a very narrow set of
issues", stated Carla Boucher, nationally-recogniz ed attorney for
United Four Wheel Drive Associations. "The court ruled on March 21,
2007 that Bluewater did not have standing on any of the issues and
granted our request to dismiss them from the case entirely. The court
found in our favor on all but 2 of the issues and limited another
issue to just 3 of the 18 park units cited", commented Boucher.
"Recreation will continue to vigilantly protect access in the 3
remaining parks at issue in the case and fulfill our UFWDA mission to
protect, promote, and provide 4x4 recreational access worldwide",
Boucher stated.
# # #
United Four Wheel Drive Associations (UFWDA) is the leading
representative for four wheel drive enthusiasts. UFWDA is a group of
individuals, clubs, state, regional, provincial and national
associations and businesses in the United States and around the world;
our members span the globe from the U.S. and Canada, New Zealand,
Australia, England, Japan, South Africa, and Iceland. If you would
like more information on how you can be a part of this effort contact
United Four Wheel Drive Associations today at 14525 SW Millikan Way
#22622, Beaverton, OR 97005-2343, 1-800-448-3932 or visit www.ufwda.org.
CONTACT Carla Boucher (757) 546-7969 or attorney@ufwda. org
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
6.
Why that court case is so important...
Posted by: "shawn_pagan" thepagan@rockcrawler.com shawn_pagan
Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:34 am (PST)
Here is what Carla sent me / posted on UFWDA's forum. (For those who
don't know Carla Boucher is the Attorney for UFWDA). Feel free to
send this around. And yes it would have affected all travel in places
like Big Bend National Park.
This case has been complicated from the beginning and the court ruling
is complicated and the issues are complicated. I had to prepare a
spreadsheet just to work through exactly what the judge's order said!
So my quick overview is oversimplifying things a lot.
This case is really important for us to be involved in because
Bluewater Network, Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads (Wildlands
CPR), and National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) (all
representing 70 other environmental groups ) are trying to prohibit
all ORV use in the NPS. What's crazy about the way the
environmentalists brought the suit is that their request was really
broad across the board and they didn't really pinpoint what they
thought the problem was.
They even asked for the NPS to prohibit ORV use in parks that already
prohibit ORV use! Their claims were so broad it was hard for us, and
for the court, to tell whether they were talking about all parks, some
parks, just a few of them or what. Left unchecked, I have no doubt the
environmentalists would have liked to have gotten the court to make a
ruling pertaining to every park, even those parks that have
long-standing and public involved ORV management plans.
Judge Lamberth's ruling on March 21st narrowed the suit down from 8
issues to just 3. And 1 of the three issues he narrowed down from 18
parks to just 3 - Canyonlands and Arches National Parks and Amistad
National Recreation Area.
So the suit will continue to move toward trial but only on three issues.
Those issues are:
(1) whether it was lawful for the NPS to refuse to repeal ORV
authorizations in Canyonlands and Arches National Parks and Amistad NRA;
(2) whether it was unlawful for the NPS to refuse to adopt ORV
enforcement procedures and an ORV monitoring program; and
(3) whether the NPS unlawfully reacted to the environmentalists
Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Finally, the ruling only allows the Wildlands CPR and NPCA to be
involved in the suit. Bluewater was dismissed from the case for lack
of standing.
One super important win in this case is that interim closure orders
are not a part of this case anymore. You see, if the court hadn't
dismissed that issue and the environmentalists eventually won the NPS
might have been forced to close the parks to ORV use UNTIL the NPS
finished going through ORV planning. It could have put a halt to all
ORV use for many years while the parks went through the public process
of planning.