Fat-Assed ATV riders get the BLM Sued.....

[JoseCuervo]

Didn't we have ol' Ten Beers crying because somebody wanted to restrict travel only to the designated roads on the map? And now I read that many fat-assed ATV riders create "miles of haphazard, extensive and random trials, not an inch of which had been evaluated pursuant to the required criteria,”?

BLM ordered to study how vehicles used at Ah-Nei

SHEPHERD – A federal magistrate found on Monday that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management failed to properly study off-road vehicle use on public land in the Ah-Nei area near Shepherd.


The area is a popular site in the Billings area for recreational off-road vehicles and motorcycles.


U.S. Magistrate Richard Anderson also said off-road vehicle use in 640 acres the BLM acquired in 1994, known as the “Thaut property,” should be halted until BLM completes a site-specific analysis of existing trails. Ah-Nei is a total of 1,152 acres.


Anderson’s order of findings and recommendations must be approved by U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull. Parties in the lawsuit have 10 days to file objections to Anderson’s order.


The case was filed in September 2002 by Brian Biggs, who lives on a ranch adjacent to Ah-Nei. Biggs alleged the agency had failed to follow environmental and land management laws by not analyzing the effects of allowing Ah-Nei to become an off-road vehicle playground.


Biggs maintained that off-road vehicles were damaging the land, disrupting wildlife, polluting the environment, causing fire hazards and devaluing his property.


“I would say the court clearly found that BLM had not complied with the law. I’m happy for my client that his position has been vindicated,” said Biggs’ attorney Jack Tuholske of Missoula. “Hopefully this will lead to some better planning and hopefully a better decision.”


Tuholske said the case was about responsible stewardship. “If BLM is going to encourage off-road vehicle use they need to do it according to the law and use a little common sense,” he said.


Biggs’ problems with off-road vehicles mushroomed after the addition of the Thaut property. A parking lot made access easier, and BLM posted a sign with hours of operation. More than 100 off-road vehicles use the site on weekends and users stay well past closing hours, Tuholske said. Biggs documented 81 violations last year.


“BLM has shown a complete, or nearly complete inability to enforce even its own restrictions,” Tuholske said.


Biggs’ suit originally included Ah-Nei’s other 512 acres, but the judge earlier dismissed those and other claims.


Sandy Brooks, BLM’s Billings Field Office manager, said Monday BLM hasn’t had a chance to review the recommendations and would be coordinating with the Department of Justice.


Anderson’s order focuses on the 640-acre Thaut property. Anderson said the Thaut property has been used as an “open” area since being bought by BLM without any formal designation that it was open. An open area is where all types of vehicle use is allowed at all times anywhere in the area.


BLM last year redesignated the entire Ah-Nei area as “limited.” But Anderson said that did not solve the problem.


“The resdesignation as ‘limited’ to ‘existing trails’ only rubber-stamped miles of haphazard, extensive and random trials, not an inch of which had been evaluated pursuant to the required criteria,” the magistrate said.


BLM failed to perform its “plainly prescribed ministerial duty” to consider the criteria in federal regulations and designate the Thaut property as either open, closed or limited for off-road vehicles use at Ah-Nei, Anderson said.


The criteria says that all designations shall be based on the protection of the public lands resources, promotion of safety of all users of public lands and minimization of conflicts among various users. The criteria also says areas and trails shall be located to minimize soil and watershed damage, reduce harassment of wildlife and reduce conflicts between off-road vehicles and other uses.


Although the “limited” designation was not challenged, Anderson said it “purports to legitimize an extensive network of trails that were established without any analysis whatsoever” of mandatory factors in federal regulations.


Anderson said he is requiring BLM to evaluate existing trails on the Thaut property “as though it were being designated for the first time as ‘limited’ (which in reality it is).”


BLM said while it did not strictly apply the designation criteria to the Thaut property, it argued that it was relieved of this mandatory analysis by an automatic designation provision. One of the agency’s arguments was that it properly automatically designated the Thaut property as “open” because its 1984 management plan provided that the southern portion of Ah-Nei would remain “open” and the Thaut property was in the southern portion of the area.


Anderson rejected the BLM’s arguments regarding automatic designations. He said BLM did not cite any evidence to show that the automatic designation actually occurred.

 

[Ithaca 37]

A rancher sues the BLM for not enforcing regulations! Now there's a novel idea! If Jon Marvel ever had that much nerve the SI wackos would be outraged!

 

[JoseCuervo]

I can't wait to see who's side some of these guys will choose. Will they choose the Fat-Assed ATV riders or will they choose for the Rancher?

Remember, the Rancher is the "backbone" of the West, and without him, we might as well all move back to Europe.

And we know how important "multiple use" is, and if the Fat-Assed ATV riders can't tear the land up, then we are not mazimizing its' "multiple use".

Rancher vs. Fat-Assed ATV rider..... Let the games begin....

 

[Bambistew]

Hey gunner aren't you a rancher???

 

[JoseCuervo]

Bambistew,

The funny thing is, we use ATV's to move cattle....

 

[Bambistew]

I'm confused... You bash ranchers and are one, your bash ATV's and use them... So what side of the fence are you really on?

 

[Ithaca 37]

Bambi, The way I see it, he bashes WELFARE ranchers and he uses an ATV on his private land.

 

[Muledeer4me]

"I'm confused... You bash ranchers and are one, your bash ATV's and use them... So what side of the fence are you really on? "

No need to be confused,it's the side of the fence that state's
(DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO.)
(THIS LAND IS MY LAND ,ALL OTHERS KEEP OUT!!!!)
(IF YOU DONT WALK LIKE ME ,TALK LKE ME ,OR HUNT LIKE ME YOUR NOTHING)


elkgunner.
I think alot of those ATV rider's need to join The Blus Ribbon Colition ,or some type of club that promote's ethics.
I don't know of anyone on this site that would promote tearing up the land,either by rancher's or off road use.

We do promote mulitple use in a ethical manner.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Well said Deb!!!
One thing for Gunner and Buzz both is that they are very consistant.!!!

 

[1_pointer]

I think the only complaining that EG does against ranchers and ATV pertains to their use of public lands. I've never heard/read where he admonished the use on private lands.

 

[JoseCuervo]

1_Ptr, Dawg, you got my backside.....

Bambistew,

It is easy to tell what side of the fence I am on. If I am on an ATV, or standing next to a cow that I own, then I am on the DEEDED side of the fence. The only place a cow should EVER eat is on private property.

And I really don't care how much damage ATVs do to PRIVATE land, as that is the rights of the property owners to ruin their own land. (Exceptions being sediment into rivers flowing thru their land, among others.)

 

[Bambistew]

I can't wait to see who's side some of these guys will choose. Will they choose the Fat-Assed ATV riders or will they choose for the Rancher?

Remember, the Rancher is the "backbone" of the West, and without him, we might as well all move back to Europe.

And we know how important "multiple use" is, and if the Fat-Assed ATV riders can't tear the land up, then we are not mazimizing its' "multiple use".

Rancher vs. Fat-Assed ATV rider..... Let the games begin....

I think I know where you stand on ATV's... Are you incinuating that you wouldn't take the ranchers side? What about this post on the wolf biologist trespassers...

This ain't about trespassing, it is about Wolves, and therefore, this ain't about a rancher, it is about a Welfare Rancher .

What??? Welfare rancher??? Where did it say that???

So since you make all these assumptions I'm going to just start calling you a welfare rancher, you claim to be a rancher so IT should lable you a welfare rancher as well. He does everyone else...

So if you hate ranchers, why do you claim to be one? Are you independantly wealthy and just do it for a hobby. I can't understand why someone would cut themselves and livelyhood down... do I need to call suicide intervention?

 

[Ithaca 37]

Bambi, I don't assume every rancher is a welfare rancher and I'm very willing to be corrected if I call someone a welfare rancher and they are not. I've been around them enough, though, to be able to smell one a mile away, and it's usually real easy to tell by their comments and attitude. That's how I knew the one making a mountain out of a molehill was a welfare rancher. There were other clues in the wolf trespassing article, too. Also, if I remember right, Buzz offered to place a bet on whether or not the rancher was on welfare. Want to take him up on it?

 

[Ten Bears]

Well said BS.

This ain't about trespassing, it is about Wolves, and therefore, this ain't about a rancher, it is about a Welfare Rancher .

It is easy to tell what side of the fence I am on. If I am on an ATV, or standing next to a cow that I own, then I am on the DEEDED side of the fence. The only place a cow should EVER eat is on private property.

EG or IT, can you show yet that the wolves were not placed on DEEDED land?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Bambi,

A bit of definitions are required.
Rancher- One who owns beef cows.
Welfare Rancher - One who grazes cows or sheep (or goats) on MY Public Lands.

ATV Rider - One who rides an ATV
Fat-Assed ATV Rider - One who rides an ATV while hunting or rides an ATV off of designated roads/trails.

Does that help you understand the terminology?

On the initial post on this topic, I would take the Rancher's side, as it appears that his concern is BLM ground adjacent to his deeded land, with no mention of any grazing leases he may or may not have. He is a Rancher, until he mentions the leases.

On the Wolf thread, it was obvious by the call for the "Congressional Investigation", that the guy was just being a pain, and at that point, I would likely have jumped to the assumption, perhaps incorrectly, that he was a Welfare Rancher.

The US FWS has been pretty quick to remove problem wolves on deeded lands. But, in areas like the Sawtooth NRA, the judge has said that grazing MUST take a back seat to Wolves, and no longer do they kill the wolves snacking on cows on public lands.

Hope that helps.

Ten, can you prove the wolves were not RELEASED onto Public Lands? They were just resting, while sedated, on the private lands.

 

[Ten Bears]

EG, you need to show your foundation for your past claims.

So they flew to the nearest flat spot - the LU Ranch Road west of WYO 120. The handlers moved the four wolves down the bank while the pilot left to refuel....... Collared wolves - four darted and one net-gunned and released - tend to leave an area after they are handled.

I don't see anywheres there that they claim to have loaded the wolves back up and released them on public land.....

Please feel free to prove otherwise.

A bit of definitions are required.
Rancher- One who owns beef cows.
Welfare Rancher - One who grazes cows or sheep (or goats) on MY Public Lands.

Are you saying that all sheep and goat farmers are WELFARE Ranchers???? You did say that to be a RANCHER you must be a cow farmer, but you said nothing about sheep or goats.....

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten,

I really don't care where the wolves were released, 'cuz they ain't there today. They moved, and no, I don't have "foundation", I have common sense.

And Ten, please tell me how ANY sheep grower is not a Welfare recipient. Go do some research on Wool......

And people who raise goats? I don't know any that do it on a large scale, but if they turn them out on Public Lands, they are Welfare Ranchers. If they keep them on their private lands, they are just likely White Trash......

 

[Muledeer4me]

Elkgunners definition.
("A bit of definitions are required.
Rancher- One who owns beef cows.
Welfare Rancher - One who grazes cows or sheep (or goats) on MY Public Lands.

The issue is deeper then that as it is also MY public land, I have no problem with rancher's paying to lease grazing right's, many other don't care and have good things to say about ranchers's
That is why elkgunner & Ithaca get so testy about this issue-----not everyone agrees with there definiation of Welfare or there feelings about ranchers.


("ATV Rider - One who rides an ATV
Fat-Assed ATV Rider - One who rides an ATV while hunting or rides an ATV off of designated roads/trails.")


("Does that help you understand the terminology?")


Elkgunner,what is clarifies is that you place judgment on people before you know for a fact that they have done wrong!!!
Riding an ATV while GOING to a hunting spot does not make anyone anything other then a hunter using another form of transportation.

Reading elkgunners definitions are alot like those that those agenda driven groups would post when asked to give there definition of a Hunter or Firearm owner.

 

[JoseCuervo]

MD,

The key is "GOING" to a hunting spot vs. "HUNTING" while going.....

If the ATV is used for transportation on designated trails/roads, these issues would never have came up. But too many Fat-Assed ATV riders chose to put a tag in their pocket, 3 shells in their magazine (and likely one in the chamber) and continually be "GOING" to their hunting spots....

 

[1_pointer]

WORD yo! I always get my peep's back!