Overlandbound's new partner...

[Justinwrites]

After only cursory googling I've learned that Blue Ribbon Coalition acted as a political action committee in the past. It was decidedly partisan, donating 92% of its funds to Republican candidates.

I think it's relevant to know if the BRC or Share Trails is still acting as a political action committee or lobbying for in a partisan sense. I think they should be transparent about what legislature they're encouraging, and have encouraged. I think they should be forthright about the candidates they've supported.

I have a sneaking suspicion that as I keep digging I'm going to learn that they have acted as proxies for resource exploitation industries and not just motor sports enthusiasts.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00369819&cycle=2002

 

[uss]

After only cursory googling I've learned that Blue Ribbon Coalition acted as a political action committee in the past. It was decidedly partisan, donating 92% of its funds to Republican candidates.

I think it's relevant to know if the BRC or Share Trails is still acting as a political action committee or lobbying for in a partisan sense. I think they should be transparent about what legislature they're encouraging, and have encouraged. I think they should be forthright about the candidates they've supported.

I have a sneaking suspicion that as I keep digging I'm going to learn that they have acted as proxies for resource exploitation industries and not just motor sports enthusiasts.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00369819&cycle=2002

As a 501.c.3, we are not allowed to act as a PAC, or ask our members to vote for specific candidates.
The IRS has strict rules around what we can and cannot do these days. We work hard to not violate those rules, and have someone in the office that monitors the rule changes and lets us know.
Some lobbying is allowed, but it is based on a percentage of your annual budget. The formula for how much you can spend on lobbying is not that complicated, but if done based on our current budget, the amount we could spend is not that much. End of the day, it is not worth our time and your money to lobby a specific person or piece of legislation when those costs are way above what we could spend.

I am not sure if the laws changed and that was allowed back then, or why that happened.
We are allowed to let our members know of laws that effect recreation, and ask them to contact their representatives to voice their concern either in support or not of specific legislation.

We as an organization today, are not reaching out to specific representatives and asking them to vote a specific way on bills.
We do and have worked with them on specific language in some of the recent land use bills.
Most have been tossed out in favor of Presidential proclamations for wilderness or monuments.

If the resource exploitation industries you think we are a proxy for, include the oil and gas industries or mining?
We are not. We get no direct contributions from them.
I work for an oil and gas company, and they match my donation to Sharetrails.
They have zero say in how we approach land use decisions.

Years ago, we did get a donation from a small oil and gas company, and if memory serves correct, the owner was a OHV owner and thought we were a good organization to donate to and become a member of.
Their donation had no strings attached, and it was a small donation. I would have to ask our office staff what the amount was, but it was small.
If someone comes to use with a large donation and strings attached, we have and will continue to politely decline.

You can review our 990's on our web page, and it will show you what we spend money on.
Lobbying has to be specifically listed.

Todd

 

[Justinwrites]

You may be a 501c3 now, not that this prevents political activism in practice, but in the past you've acted both as PAC and lobbyist and campaign contributor. Your history is plainly partisan on behalf of GoP candidates whose interests were aligned with the oil and gas industry, as well as logging. Your own professional history creates a blatant bias.

Look, the reason I'm suspicious is that this same game is being played out with mountain biking. The Wilderness Designation prevents vehicular access, as you know. Opening wilderness to vehicle traffic inherently makes it more vulnerable to industrial exploitation. Nevermind the inherent damage vehicles cause in these areas.

The reason mountain biking was coopted in this was to create a political wedge between people who were otherwise aligned on environmental issues.

Only 5% of US public lands are designated as wilderness. That is far more precious to me than any recreation. Any exploitation is a very real degradation of our descendants inheritance. Adventure is necessary, but so are wild spaces.

In your literature you routinely position your group in opposition to environmental groups, rather than seeking compromise. You use obfuscative language to assert agreement on recreation usage, ignoring that not all recreation is prohibited in an area just because a vehicular trail was closed.

Personally, I think it's wrong headed to oppose conservation efforts just so we can play with our toys, especially when the majority of domestic overland adventure is going to occur on forest service roads and well established back country routes.

I get it, you're an activist organisation and your going to sell your position and down play the merits of who you view to be the opposition. But you're plainly partisan, and by partnering with you OB has implicitly endorsed your partisanship without considering the broad spectrum of views held by the OB membership at large.

I think that was just due to a lack of research and consideration.

 

[uss]

What is the position of Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, Great Old Broads and a few others that are involved in the conservation fight?
What is their position on OHV trails, mountain bike trails in OUR forest's?

We have a compromise position paper that we have signed with The Wilderness Society on the use of trail hardening as a form of compromise and trail conservation/preservation.

I am not saying that we need to reopen all Wilderness area. We need to make sure the area meets the designation requirements from the original act from 1964.
Some of the latest designations have not met the criteria from the 1964 act.

Do we still have some areas of land that might qualify as Wilderness? I think so.
Wilderness land in general is available for those who are able bodied though!
If you have a major handicap, you are not able to enjoy these areas.
This area then exclusionist to a select few.
Again, not saying that we need to go back and reopen all the Wilderness areas.
Should some of them be reviewed?
I think so, and again, that review might find that most need to remain as Wilderness.

After talking with the folks who run Overland Bound, they will be reaching out to groups like Sierra Club and possibly forming a partnership with them as well.
End of the day, we all want healthy forests and public lands that we can recreate on.

Todd

 

[Kent R]

What is the position of Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, Great Old Broads and a few others that are involved in the conservation fight?
What is their position on OHV trails, mountain bike trails in OUR forest's?

We have a compromise position paper that we have signed with The Wilderness Society on the use of trail hardening as a form of compromise and trail conservation/preservation.

I am not saying that we need to reopen all Wilderness area. We need to make sure the area meets the designation requirements from the original act from 1964.
Some of the latest designations have not met the criteria from the 1964 act.

Do we still have some areas of land that might qualify as Wilderness? I think so.
Wilderness land in general is available for those who are able bodied though!
If you have a major handicap, you are not able to enjoy these areas.
This area then exclusionist to a select few.
Again, not saying that we need to go back and reopen all the Wilderness areas.
Should some of them be reviewed?
I think so, and again, that review might find that most need to remain as Wilderness.

After talking with the folks who run Overland Bound, they will be reaching out to groups like Sierra Club and possibly forming a partnership with them as well.
End of the day, we all want healthy forests and public lands that we can recreate on.

Todd

Not to get in the middle of this debate but, I also would like to make sure everyone knows that Overland Bound is going to make contact with the Sierra Club probably sooner than later.

 

[Del Albright]

BlueRibbon Coalition/Sharetrails.Org supports Wilderness that meets the criteria of the 1964 Wilderness Act. Here is our published Position Statement:
Wilderness

The BlueRibbon Coalition supports the designation of Wilderness in areas that truly meet the characteristics identified in the 1964 Wilderness Act, and where obvious evidence of human development, such as roads, does not exist and has not existed. We also support management of Wilderness areas for the use and enjoyment of the American people as required in the Act.

https://sharetrails.org/policies-positions/

The old "PAC" mentioned here was dissolved long ago and admittedly was not a good course for any organization in the "c.3" status. Today, and for decades, we do not lobby; we are not partisan; and we are the real conservationists who want to respsonsibly use and enjoy our public lands. You can search to your heart's content, but you will not see ST/BRC telling you who to vote for. NOTE: It was in fact, BRC/ST that initiated a huge effort in congress to come up with a new designation, somewhere in between Wilderness and Development; where off-pavement recreation could occur, but not development. It didn't fly -- mostly with those who do not like motorized recreaiton to begin with. And as to the Sierra Club (and a few other groups like them), reading their Corporate Bylaws, Position Statements and Articles of Incorporation would be critical to any support or networking. I'm pushing 35 years of land use experience; and the Club was famous on their website and in their published mission statements to "stop all logging and close all dirt roads" other than Forest Highways.

Naturally that wording today has been buried. At least I couldn't find it with a cursory search. Perhaps we all need to let the hell go of the past?
Del

 

[uss]

Here is Sharetrails working with The Wilderness Society and proposing ideas to BLM.
Link to what the minimization looks like.

MEDIA RELEASE

CONSERVATION AND MOTORIZED RECREATION ORGANIZATIONS ISSUE JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS

DATE: March 1, 2017
Contact: Phil Hanceford 303-225-4636
Don Amador 925-625-6287
Paul Turcke 208-331-1800

WASHINGTON, D.C. - National Conservation and Recreation groups today unveiled innovative joint recommendations in support of sustainable recreation management practices across nearly 250 million acres of national public lands. Recognizing their shared values and commitment to the collaborative process, The Wilderness Society (TWS) and BlueRibbon Coalition/Sharetrails.org (BRC) are encouraging and supporting the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in its efforts to conduct and complete comprehensive travel and transportation management planning for all of its units.

The organizations believe that travel planning is a critical tool to promote high-quality, sustainable recreation for all public land users and to protect and conserve our shared public lands and their myriad uses and benefits for current and future generations. Some recent agency travel plans, generated by both BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, have been subject to criticism and found lacking by the courts.

The TWS/BRC recommendations encourage BLM to prioritize travel and transportation management planning and to work collaboratively with stakeholders to ensure transparency and identify positive outcomes, while complying with governing laws and policies.

Phil Hanceford, Assistant Director of the TWS BLM Action Center, states, "This effort reflects a new focus on collaboration between diverse interest groups that have many shared values when it comes to use and enjoyment of federal lands."

Recognizing that compliance with the "minimization criteria" articulated in Executive Order 11644 has been a significant stumbling block in some travel management decisions, the groups have identified a number of management concepts that they contend will aid BLM in complying with the law while fulfilling its mission to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

Don Amador, Western Representative for the BRC, states, "Having worked across the aisle with conservation groups in California for the last decade on recreation issues, I am proud of this effort at the national level to try and find common ground in support of managed recreation on public lands. Finding common ground and respecting shared values is far better than hashing out those differences in the court room."

An Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) report states that outdoor recreation is big business in this country, to the tune of: 6.1 million direct American jobs, $646 billion in direct consumer spending each year, $39.9 billion in federal tax revenue, $39.7 billion in state/local tax revenue.

The TWS/BRC recommendations come as key positions at BLM are still being filled with the incoming Administration. The groups hope their recommendations will be noticed as new leadership works alongside career BLM employees who have been updating BLM guidance in preparation for this important round of BLM travel and transportation planning.



###

The Wilderness Society is a national non-profit organization with 700,000 members and supporters nationwide whose mission is to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care for our wild places. Since its founding in 1935, TWS has worked to provide scientific, legal, and policy guidance to land managers, communities, local groups, state and federal decision-makers, and diverse interests who care about our American public lands. www.wilderness.org

Sharetrails/BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC) is a national non-profit organization that champions responsible recreation and encourages a strong conservation ethic and individual stewardship, while providing leadership in efforts to keep outdoor recreation alive and well — all sports; all trails. With members in all 50 states, Sharetrails/BRC is focused on building enthusiast involvement with organizational efforts through membership, outreach, education and collaboration among recreationists. – http://sharetrails.org.

 

[slomatt]

Personally, I think it's wrong headed to oppose conservation efforts just so we can play with our toys, especially when the majority of domestic overland adventure is going to occur on forest service roads and well established back country routes.

These are exactly the types of trails that are at risk of closure in many areas. In California we have lost hundreds of miles of dirt routes over the last several decades, and I applaud any group that helps to keep the existing trails open and accessible.

Instead of focusing on BRC's actions from over a decade ago I think it would be more valuable to consider how they currently operate. Yes, it is entirely possible that BRC has a more conservative position that you are comfortable with. On the other hand, given that you are a member of an overland website I would highly suspect that you would be even less comfortable with the position of groups like the Sierra Club and The Center For Biological Diversity. As with politics this is not a black and white issue and we all have to determine which side more closely aligns with our own goals and beliefs.

 

[Jeff Knoll]

I can from experience support the statements above in regard to lobbying. I previously worked for an organization that did make lobbying on behalf of the motorized recreation industry a priority and found myself at times at odds with the positions of BRC leadership. It takes little effort to dig up dirt on almost any, not for profit organization and spin it into a personal agenda. IMHO BRC is focused mostly on proactive education, less (if any) on the bidding of any greedy corporate overlords. That being said, leadership can always change at a nonprofit and mission statements and agenda along with them, much like the Sierra Club and its position on motorized access to our amazing backcountry landscape. Best to be an active player in shaping that message when given the opportunity.

Disclaimer: At times I have been a supporter of BRC in various ways. I am not currently a member or providing support.

 

[Justinwrites]

Two points. The BRCs activities did not necessarily end. Just the very easy to Google portion is limited, but indicative of the character which seems to have less so do with trail stewardship and more to do with conservative politics. No matter your political preference money in politics is the problem, that and lack of transparency.

Secondly, I'm not sure that loss of access is that terrible. If we consider the reasons we want access is basically to play with our oversized tonka toys. It's about priorities. Sure, some of us might lose vehicle access, but our descendants might have a healthier planet. So the assumption that the SC and environmentalist groups are the enemy is plain wrong headed and a product of the us vs them mentality politicians thrive on.

 

[Jeff Knoll]

Two points. The BRCs activities did not necessarily end. Just the very easy to Google portion is limited but indicative of the character which seems to have less so do with trail stewardship and more to do with conservative politics. No matter your political preference money in politics is the problem, that and lack of transparency.

Secondly, I'm not sure that loss of access is that terrible. If we consider the reasons we want to access is basically to play with our oversized tonka toys. It's about priorities. Sure, some of us might lose vehicle access, but our descendants might have a healthier planet. So the assumption that the SC and environmentalist groups are the enemy is plain wrong-headed and a product of us vs them mentality politicians thrive on.

I don't believe Del, or Todd makes a habit of getting into debates on the interweb, so you may not get a response. That being said, I am not acting as a proxy for BRC. I simply hope to clarify my personal experience with BRC that goes back many years. I respect both men regardless of at times disagreeing with their position on subjects. I feel compelled to speak up in this regard because I have engaged in heated debates with BRC over their unwillingness to support the very activity you believe they participate in. You may have a point that many members of BRC are conservative, I recall a time when hanging that label on a person was synonyms with the conservation of public lands. I may not be able to convince you otherwise, but I hope people reading this will give the benefit of formulating their own opinions on the subject. A quick Google search will yield BRC tax filings in so far as transparency.
To your second point, we could very well engage in a long respectful debate on the subject of wilderness areas. Sadly these types of debates seldom stay productive and often digress into personal attacks, letters to employers, or seem used as ammunition to harm people. I am not interested in trading a debate with strangers on the web in exchange for the risk that comes along. Been there done that.

In my experience man always interjects his personal agenda into any activity. Be that politics, business, or love.

There is so much information available on the topic of land management, a person could fill anytime they might spend enjoying the outdoors, simply studying how man has argued over how it should be utilized. Best to get outside and experience it first hand.

 

[uss]

Jeff is correct, in that @Del Albright or I are not going to debate this subject around lobbying.
We don't do it, period!
Research the expenditure test for lobbying on the IRS's web page and see if you can figure out how much we can spend on lobbying?
I would say it is not a complicated formula, but you have to have exempt budget funds to then figure out the dollar amount you can spend on lobbying.
If you miss your budget, and you over spent on your lobbying, the penalties are sever along with possible loss of your non-profit status.

If you think that BRC is still lobbying, then we will agree to disagree.

Management by closure is not the answer!

Todd

 

[Jeff Knoll]

I have to share this somewhat funny story. I just went back and looked at the link provided regarding the BRC PAC from 2002. I notice Wayne Allard was a top recipient of BRC funding. The picture I use for my Avitar was taken by Wayne Allard. While BRC may have had a PAC in 2002,(under different leadership) I was not able to squeeze money out of them 10 years later for a lobbying effort to maintain access to the Largest OHV recreation area in The USA due to concerns over maintenance of their nonprofit status. I doubt Overland Bound members who don't like conservative politicians should be worried about a political connection. I maintain they are not what this thread suggests.

 

[Kevin108]

Management by closure is not the answer!

That's the most significant line in this thread.

It's a big picture concept, but closing stuff down prevents nothing. People will still pursue the same activities, they just go elsewhere. This has the effect of increasing impact on other areas. The way to correct this is two fold: open far more land to dilute the impact in any one location and educate as many people as you can in Tread Lightly principles and other aspects of outdoor stewardship.

 

[slomatt]

Secondly, I'm not sure that loss of access is that terrible. If we consider the reasons we want access is basically to play with our oversized tonka toys.

I have to admit that I'm now really confused about why you are a member of a forum focused on overlanding, and yet you are seemingly advocating for a loss of motorized trail access? Am I missing something?

 

[Kevin108]