California serves as home to an abundance of endangered species, whether real or (unfortunately, in some cases) imagined. Unlike certain "Endangered species" which exist by circumstantial evidence alone, the existence of the "California OHV Enthusiast" has been well documented at a variety of locations statewide. Whereas once the "OHV" thrived across the state, it has been displaced into increasingly smaller areas by the actions of "environmental groups" exerting pressure on state and federal government, and pushed to the brink of extinction. The current state of the "OHV" population presents a clear and present danger to the continued actions of these "environmental groups, because like any other species, when cornered, and fearing for it's very survival, the OHV Enthusiast will fight back.

While none would argue that certain areas are not compatible with OHV use, the line determining what areas need protection and what areas are compatible with responsible OHV usage has not been crossed by "environmental" groups, it has been erased completely. One does not need a college degree in environmental engineering to realize that sweeping closures like S-21 result in more "protection" of areas which are not endangered, than of areas that actually qualify as such. In short, they are nothing but "land grabs" made in the name of "protecting the environment". A prime example of one such land grab is the threatened closure of Black Sands Beach in California's King Range Conservation Area, a 3.5 mile section of OHV accessible coastline, about 2 hrs. south of Eureka.

Of California's 1100 miles of coastline, only 1.3% (14.3 miles) are currently open to use by OHV's.

Lets break this down... figures based on an approximately 1100 mile coastline

• 1100 miles of California coastline

• 1085.7 miles of California Coastline is currently "off limits" to OHV usage

• 98.7% of California Coastline is currently "off limits" to OHV usage

• 14.3 miles of California Coastline is currently useable by OHV's

• 1.3% of California Coastline is currently useable by OHV's

• 3.5 miles of California Coastline will be lost to OHV usage if Black Sands Beach is closed

• 10.8 miles of California Coastline would remain useable by OHV's

• Less than 1% of California Coastline would remain useable by OHV's

When considering that only 14.3 miles of the coastline is OHV accessible to begin with, of the closure of Black Sands Beach would result in the loss of over 25% of OHV useable coastline! This is utterly unacceptable to the OHV community, both in California, and across the nation. It is unacceptable in California, because the state has already lost too many riding areas to the efforts of misguided "environmentalism". It is unacceptable for the rest of the nation, because public access to these coastal areas are important to OHV users in states without any coastline of their own.

The "protection" of 98.7% of California's coastal lands is quite enough thank you, and we
"Just Say No" to any more.

On behalf of outdoor recreationalists across the country, Don Amador, California State Representative of the Blue Ribbon Coalition is taking the fight for Black Sands Beach one step further.

"My message to Congress and others is simple, we need to change the debate from if we are going to lose 3.5 miles of beach to -- getting back the 20 miles of beach from Shelter Cove to the Mouth of Mattole River. As we speak, I have talked with Congressional Staff about looking into reclaiming the Lost Coast for the general public -- staff supports it!"

Were their some compelling reason to include Black Sands Beach in 1085 miles of closed, or otherwise "protected" coastline, the OHV community would likely see things differently. The fact of the matter however, is that there is no such compelling need. There are no endangered species, plant or animal, being threatened. Although cited in the Federal Register notice, there are no archeological sites in jeopardy (the documentation simply isn't there). Cultural and natural resource protection are not an issue, as vehicular access is limited to the waveslope, away from vegetation etc.

For many locals and tourists alike, Black Sands Beach has long served as a central attraction and cultural meeting ground. A nationally known destination, the beach and surrounding areas were covered in a Feb. 1996 article by the prestigious Four Wheeler Magazine in an article entitled "Getting There", complete with maps of the roads and trails in the area.The area is rich in it's history of multiple use and OHV access, with the documentation to back it up. Local resident and businessman Craig Lehman recalls a chance encounter between his group (in OHV's) and a pair of hikers from England who met at an old cabin which was a popular site (torn down by the BLM some years ago) where visitors to the area would often spend the night.

"My friends and I had spent a couple days at the cabin, when a couple hikers stopped in for the night. We got to talking and whatnot, when one of the Englishmen pulled out a "Cribbage board". We had no idea what cribbage was, but we sat down and learned the game. We spent the rest of the night playing and had a great time

The old Smith Family Cabin was another popular spot with local recreationalists.

There was a large amount of paper in the cabin, and it became tradition for whoever stayed there to write a little bit about themselves, their stay there and so forth. The Smith family has those original papers, and photocopied them, placing them in chronological order. There has been a wide diversity of use at Black Sands Beach going back several decades, and we have access to the paperwork to prove it.".

Craig also talked about local life and multiple use on Black Sands Beach.

"I've been going there since the 60's. Before I was old enough to drive or afford a 4X4 or buggy, my friends and I would hike that beach all the time. I still do every so often. People have been using ORV's here for years. For the most part there were never any problems. There used to be a couple groups of dune buggies that came up here a couple times a year before the BLM closed the other end down. I don't know where all these complaints about "user conflict" are coming from. I certainly haven't seen any documentation on this supposed "increase" in complaints".

"For years and years on the 4'th of July, the community would get together and celebrate on Black Sands Beach, that is until the BLM came in and put a damper on everything. They had brought Rangers up to police the area on the fourth and made it a real hassle to even get there. They checked all the vehicles for green stickers, and other paprework. They asked us all about fireworks etc.. After a couple years, all the locals got fed up with the harassment and moved the festivities to private land in the area".

"The locals had always has a cleanup at the beach every day on the 5'th (of July) at the beach, leaving it spotless. A couple years after we moved on, the out of towners still used the area on the 4'th, and the 5'th(of july) resulted in garbage. One of the officers commented to us as we pulled up in our jeep that "some locals used to clean this mess up". I told him "That's right, and there's 4 of them right here". No matter how you look at it, the beach has played a big part in all our lives."

"User Conflict"

In the Federal Register notice, the BLM also cites these "user conflicts" and "difficulties in enforcement because of the remoteness of this area" as a basis for closure. One look at the undocumented, and patently false claims of the Sierra Club's

will quickly determine the "root cause" of such conflicts...

• "USER CONFLICTS"
  
  Most nonmotorized forms of outdoor recreation are disrupted or hurt by the operation of ORVs nearby. In a 1988 survey 75.1% of those surveyed wanted more protection of ecology. Fifty-three percent wanted less areas open for off-road vehicles (or to eliminate them entirely) while only 16.9% wanted more areas open for ORVs. Seventeen and seven-tenths percent wanted more roads for 4-wheel drive use, while 44.1% wanted less roads or to eliminate them. Fifty-eight and two-tenths percent wanted more wilderness. This statewide California survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2%.
  
  ORV use, if unregulated, becomes an infringement on other people's right to recreation."

Further....

• "ORV use, even under the most stringent regulations, carefully and meticulously enforced, causes irreversible impacts on the nation's resources. The premise that local, state, or federal governments are obligated to provide public lands and the services of public employees for a use that is consumptive of resources and that conflicts with virtually every other use cannot be defended and sets a poor precedent."

Further....

• FOREST VISITORS / USER CONFLICTS
  
  Motorized and non-motorized recreation does not mix. The noisy motorized recreation preempts and drives out the quiter, more contemplative forms of recreation. See the survey results attached to this handbook.

And finally....

• Go forth with your camera. Snap a photo of the ugly hill- climb scars, the eroding streambanks, the crushed alpine tundra, and the wheel-rut mazes through moist meadows. Send a copy of the photo with a letter which details the location of the resource damage and uses the phrase, "Please immediately close this area to ORMVs as required under 36 CFR 295.5." Send the letter
  to the Forest Supervisor and the District Ranger in charge.
  
  The CFRs give citizens the right to "monitor" and their input can and will "indicate that considerable adverse effects are occurring." Remember, one adverse effect is "user conflict." We are advising a wonderful, legal tactic. Next time you're on a hike and a dirt bike roars by, get 40 friends to all call or write to the Forest Supervisor and say,"We demand immediate closure of the trail to dirt bikes because user conflicts indicate that considerable adverse effects are occurring." The effect is to publicize the "user conflict" aspect of ORMV use on public lands, which the regulations stipulate shall trigger action from the managing agency.
  
  We must restrain ourselves, choose our most threatened and most cherished areas, and save them first. Good luck! Have somequiet fun.-

These "wonderful, legal tactic's" and moments of "quiet fun" are what is happening at Black Sands Beach today, although these are not adequate reasons for closure. In fact, the very "Mission Statement" of the BLM located at the Bureau of Land Management website, http://www.blm.gov/nhp/facts/mission.html, puts a direct lie to the words of the Sierra Club, as quoted above.

"It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations".

In accordance with this Mission Statement, the BLM should educate the backcountry users of the King Range to expect vehicles on this stretch of beach and to emphasize that the remaining beach (in fact, the remaining 1,000+ miles of beach) is reserved for their exclusive use and enjoyment. As outdoor recreation is as diverse as the people who take part in it, the BLM should educate and advocate that backcountry users learn to share this beautiful area and to tolerate other recreationalists who by choice or necessity use vehicles to access the backcountry.

From Ron Shiller, Chairman of the High Desert Multiple Use Coalition....

"The Federal Register Notice is very vague and does not appear to clearly indicate a reason that necessitates banning vehicle-based family oriented recreational activities. The Federal Register Notice states, "The purpose of the closure is to protect natural and cultural resource values and prevent conflicts between vehicular and non-vehicular recreation uses." Unfortunately, the Federal Register Notice includes no indication of what natural or cultural resources are being degraded. Furthermore, the Federal Register Notice cites "user conflicts" but the nature or significance of the so-called conflicts is not provided".

On the subject of "difficulty of enforcement due to remoteness of area"...

The Federal Register Notice indicates that your agency has encountered difficulties in monitoring and enforcing a closure in a backcountry location lacking natural barriers to vehicle access. We do not believe that law abiding families should suffer the brunt of your agency's shortcomings in managing public lands. What actions has your office taken to correct the problem? Has the California Department of Parks and Recreation Off-Highway Motorized Vehicle Division been approached to request additional funding for increased monitoring, public education, ranger patrols, or other management enhancements?

In the last paragraph of the Federal Register notice, the BLM has apparently taken a page from the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance "book of misinformation", as it refers to the King Range as one of "California?s last primitive un-roaded areas". This description is wholly untrue, misleading the reader into believing that this currently "roaded" area is "roadless". Historically, vehicular access to this area included the entire coastline from Telegraph Creek to the Matolle River. Further, the King Range includes a nationally recognized "four-wheel drive" road (Smith-Etter) which has been written about in popular recreation magazines, as well as numerous other roads accessing the interior and western slopes. The beach (Matolle River to Black Sands Beach) hardly qualifies as one of California?s last un-roaded areas. Instead, Black Sands Beach should be more accurately described as "one of California?s last remaining beaches with vehicular access".

To boil this proposal down to a sentence; It is a discriminatory action whereby one user group (who believe they have the moral high ground) are selfishly attempting to lock out another user group. If hikers have a conflict with vehicles, perhaps the BLM should consider closing the beach to hiking access or rerouting hiking trails, rather than following the all too familiar route of locking out the OHV. As previously stated, Hikers have over 1000 miles of coastline to enjoy their activities "OHV Free". The OHV community has far fewer options. Black Sands Beach is a rugged and remote beach where families, their children, senior citizens, the handicapped, and those unable, or who choose not to hike can have the same experience sought by backpackers. As a disabled person, I can speak with firsthand knowledge about issues pertaining to access and the disabled. While having the use of my legs, I personally cannot hike the tens of thousands of "OHV Free" miles available to the more able bodied. I personally cannot experience the areas many hikers are familiar with because my only means of accessing these areas is prohibited. There are literally millions of people in this position, and the fact of the matter is this. Land closure relegates the elderly and disabled to the status of "second class citizens", by denying us the same rights of the able bodied. By law, Government (and all public) buildings must be accessible to the disabled. Public lands should be no different.

Craig Lehman added a couple points on the subject from a local perspective

"A good number of locals using the beach are elderly. They have enjoyed the beach for years both on foot, and with OHV's. For some, it's the only way they can continue doing so. Is it right to take such a big part of their lives away from them? One local resident is a disabled combat veteran. Do you think it's right that he be denied access to the very land he gave a piece of himself of serving"?

That man is not alone. In near by Garberville, a disabled veterans group fed up with being denied access to public lands is stepping up to defend their rights. Disabled veterans groups in the Southwest were quick to respond as well, and are pursuing several avenue's of action in a show of solidarity with their northern counterparts.

The attempt to close Black Sands Beach is an act of discrimination on many fronts. It is BLM?s job to provide for multiple access to the able bodied as well as the elderly and disabled. To do otherwise is counter to their Mission Statement, and a violation of the public trust.

Environmental Impact Studies, and other documentation

The OHV community has called upon the BLM to provide the following information, and / or documentation....

1. Copies of letters or reports which document the number of user conflicts.
2. Specifically, what efforts has BLM taken to resolve these conflicts?
3. What programs has BLM undertaken to educate users of the need to share public lands with other user groups?
4. If this beach is closed how will BLM provide a similar backcountry experience to handicapped persons, senior citizens, and physically unfit persons.
5. Document the number of tickets issued to trespassing users.
6. How much is the average fine for trespassing?
7. What efforts has BLM undertaken to resolve trespass issues?
8. We understand there is a vandalism problem in the King Range area. Why is BLM not proposing to close areas prone to vandalism?
9. What percentage of time is there a BLM staff person (with ticket writing authority) assigned to Black Sands Beach.
10. What is the number of motorized recreation visitors this area receives per year and document the increase cited in the Federal Register notice.
11. What natural resources exist in the waveslope area?
12. Copies of studies proving motorized vehicle access to the waveslope threaten natural resources.
13. Short of closure, what steps has BLM taken to mitigate or eliminate the alleged threat to natural resources?
14. What cultural sites have been identified in the waveslope area?
15. Copies of studies or documentation that vehicular access to the waveslope threaten the alleged cultural resources.
16. Short of closure, what steps has BLM taken to mitigate or eliminate the alleged threat to cultural resources.

Due to the amount of controversy this decision will create we are requesting BLM prepare an Environmental Impact Study to justify this decision. The study should include consideration of offsite impacts and of the economic and social impacts the proposed closure will create. This process will allow for more public input and a more thorough and reasoned consideration of the issues surrounding this decision.

The High Desert Multiple use Coalition has additionally called on the BLM to include the following in their Environmental Assessment (EA)...

1. An analysis of the social impacts of the loss of a unique and rare opportunity for vehicle based family recreation in a California beach setting and the adverse effects it will have upon disabled Americans and families with very young children and elderly family members
2. Information regarding the occurrence of similar opportunities available in California and the proximity to the management area
3. An analysis of potential adverse impacts to the local economy
4. An analysis of the adverse effects that this proposal would have on local custom, culture, and traditional historic family activities
5. An indication of the specific natural and cultural resources that are at risk and their significance, their uniqueness, why they werent addressed in the original closure implemented in 1974, and why they cannot be mitigated
6. Several examples of documented conflicts and any communications between your agency and the complainant

Ron Shiller, Chairman of the High Desert Multiple Use Coalition, in his letter of opposition to the BLM, sums up the feelings of OHV users everywhere when he says...

"In conclusion, this proposal appears to be just another unjustified example of the ingrained belief that motorized access is inherently unacceptable and must be eliminated. For far too long, the very wealthy environmentally extreme organizations have their way with the Federal agencies charged with managing public land. We believe that the time has come for all organizations that promote reasonable and environmentally responsible natural resource and land management policies to stand together and JUST SAY NO to examples of unreasonable extremism".

Currently, the BLM has been receiving feedback on Black Sands Beach running 3 to 1 AGAINST it's closure. and is suprised to discover that many letters have come from outside California.This battle is far from won however, and rather than resting on the laurels of an early success, we urge you to address your comments and concerns about the proposed closure of Black Sands Beach to ...

Act now!
Take 5 minuets and "Just say NO" to the closure of Black Sands Beach.

Use the Black Sands Beach Letter generator

http://www.humboldt1.com/~jwboyett/blaksand.htm

Governmental Representatives

Local Media

Links to Relavent Sites

The Lost Coast 4X4 Black Sands Beach Page http://www.humboldt1.com/jwboyett/blaksand.htm

The Sierra Club http://sierraclub.org/

The Bureau of Land Management http://www.blm.gov

The Landuse Network http://www.off-road.com/landuse/landuse.htm

High Desert Multiple Use Coalition http://www1.ridgecrest.ca.us/~coop/homepage.htm

The Blue Ribbon Coalition http://www.sharetrails.org

The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance http://www.suwa.org

Materials for this article provided by Patric Lassiter, and Don Amador-Blue Ribbon Coalition
Via the Landuse Network - landuse@off-road.com

lenhart@off-road.com

Copyright 1997 Norm Lenhart , Off-Road.com, and all contributors to this article.
The article and any part thereof, is free for use by any agency, and in any medium with the following restrictions..

Any agency, group, individual working toward the restriction, reduction, or elimination of OHV usage, or other forms of outdoor recreation on public lands must agree to pay
$100 per word used, to the Blue Ribbon Coalition., before any publication of said words.This includes, but is not limited to The Sierra Club, Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance, Earth First!, PETA, their supporters, or members. Usage of this article or any part thereof, constitutes legal acceptance of these terms.