Re: Improving Off-road Compliance

Likewise, Mojavegreen. I advocate for laws remaining as they were before 3973, except that enforcement be more effective, sting operations being conducted, Code Enforcement being given the authority to enforce trespassing (PC 602) as well as noise and dust ordinances, and that citizen patrols (possibly including OHV enthusiasts who are sick and tired of losing legal riding opportunities). I am loathe to see the rights of anyone violated, including those of radical environmentalists, OHV users, casual hikers and picnickers, rockhounds, equestrian enthusiasts, and mountain bikers. I think there were far better ways to approach the problems that were not being explored and given a chance to work. For that, I'm called an extremist.

I insist on honesty and opennness, have admitted that I likely ride on unposted and unfenced private property without knowing it, have shared far too much of my personal background on DUSA in an attempt to elicit honesty and forthrightness over there, and insist that punishment be borne by those in violation of the law, not legal OHV owners. For that, I am attacked personally in a vicious and unrelenting manner. For that I am considered an extremist by some.

I have always advocated that private property owners have a right not to live in constant annoyance, noise, dust, and trespassing from illegal and ignorant OHV riders. I have advocated that private property owners have a right to defend themselves, even with deadly force, if necessary. For that, I am considered an extremist.

Because I strongly feel that 3973 goes too far in its application of punishment, is unfairly discriminatory in its application, and feel that only the OHV users that are already prone to obey the law will heed its requirements, I am labeled an extremist.

Conversely, people who don't tell the truth are the ones who blame me for illegal riding in Juniper Flats and elsewhere. They expose my personal information on DUSA and laugh about it when I take issue. They advocate wholesale public land closures as sound governmental policy for the few who violate the rules. They seek to spread false rumors about my friends, my club, and false statements that I'm nothing more than a paid hit man for District 37 and Corva (two organizations of which I am not a member, and haven't been for about 30 years). These are people who claim that I should be personally held liable for the actions of illegal OHV riders, but that he should not be held liable for the actions of eco-terrorists. These are people who say one thing, but their actions betray just the opposite agenda. They claim they are not radical environmentalists, yet they belong to and support some of the most radical anti-OHV environmental groups that exist. These are the people who label me an extremist.

I don't expect you to address or do anything about my problems, mojavegreen. In some ways, that's just the point. I don't expect anything of you. But what is consistently expected of me is that I will give up my advocacy that OHV users have a right to recreate without losing more available legal lands for the actions of other people. I'm expected to pay the price for your frustration. The attitude is "by God, someone's going to pay, and since we CAN identify legal and lawful OHV users, let's beat THEM over the head!".

I am consistently challenged about what I am going to do about illegal OHV use. I can't solve your problems, I have plenty of my own. For some reason, some people believe that we don't have problems here in the OC. We do, they are just different problems.

This has become such an "us vs them" mentality, that I'm very afraid middle ground will never be found. We first have to be realistic about who is moderate and who is an extremist. Then we have to have completely honest dialogue. Without these two things, there can be no agreement, and there will be constant war. That's in no way a threat, that's just reality. When rights conflict, it requires extraordinary effort on BOTH sides, not simply one side. We are sick and tired of being pushed around. Keep in mind that we are the public. There are 1.9 million OHV users in the State of California. Developments such as 3973 may sound good to someone whose local problem is being solved. But when the implications reach countywide, and other counties attempt to take up the torch, it suddenly affects all 1.9 million, not just the several hundred or so illegal riders you seek to change.

We have visitors here in the OC from outside the county. They have a right to travel here and recreate here, within the law. The ones who don't, are prosecuted. Some still don't, and they aren't always caught. Recreationists have the right to travel to other counties and recreate within the law. If laws such as 3973 only affected the illegal riders, you would not see any backlash whatsoever. The fact that it affects legal OHV use as well is part of the problem. As Dave is so fond of saying, "if there wasn't a problem, there wouldn't be an issue".

Here's a question: if illegal riding in your neighborhood and on your property could be dealt with effectively without such a law, would you have supported it?