Environmental Groups Lose Case Over off-Road Vehicles

Associated Press ^ | Jun 14, 2004 | Debbie Hummel

[Pharmboy]

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a lawsuit that accused the federal government of doing too little to protect undeveloped Western land from off-road vehicles. The court, on a 9-0 vote, said environmental groups cannot use courts to force the federal Bureau of Land Management to more aggressively safeguard about 2 million acres of potential wilderness in Utah.

Justices had been asked to clarify when a federal agency can be sued for failing to follow a congressional mandate - in this case, to preserve the pristine quality of lands being considered for wilderness designation.

Tina Kreisher, an Interior Department spokeswoman, praised the decision, saying it allows federal resource managers to "use their expertise to make day-to-day management decisions without unnecessary litigation."

Environmentalists said the lawsuit nonetheless drew attention to the damage done by off-road vehicles.

"It is not going away and neither are we," said Heidi McIntosh, a staff attorney for Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

The environmental group sued the BLM to force land managers to be more aggressive in protecting lands adjacent to a state all-terrain vehicle park.

The case centered on 14,830 acres of forested high desert land abutting Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park that are being considered for wilderness designation. The park, located about 250 miles south of Salt Lake City near the Utah-Arizona border, is a popular destination for off-road vehicle users.

Monday's decision overturns a federal appeals court ruling.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, said that Congress never envisioned "pervasive oversight by federal courts over the manner and pace of agency compliance."

Scalia said the land management agency has discretion to oversee lands being considered for wilderness designation, including allowing off-road vehicles there.

He noted, however, that the off-road vehicles have had negative consequences, "including soil disruption and compaction, harassment of animals and annoyance of wilderness lovers."

But he wrote that the agency is doing what it can with "scarce resources and congressional silence with respect to wilderness designation."

---

[Pharmboy]

Environmentalists said the lawsuit nonetheless drew attention to the damage done by off-road vehicles.

"See? We really won ..."

[goldstategop]

Yeah really. The enviro wackos wanted to prevent others from being able to have the lawful enjoyment of public land. I'm glad they lost.

[microgood]

This is great news. Maybe the BLM can spend their resources on something like resource management rather than lawyers for a change.

[lizma]

Seems like SCOTUS is throwing us into "The Twilight Zone" lately.

They're actually making sense.

[Pharmboy]

I though the same thing--two reasonable unanimous decisions in a row...wassup wi' dat?

[CindyDawg]

Too bad there isn't a loser pays.

[Nephi]

I though the same thing--two reasonable unanimous decisions in a row...wassup wi' dat?

Really? You agree with the courts' unanimous ruling that a divorced father doesn't have legal standing?

[dcwusmc]

The father was never married to the girl's mother that I ever heard, in fact just the opposite. With that and no custody of any sort, he has no standing to file that suit. Maybe to him, the mother was just a sperm dump and the child an unwelcome byproduct... who could be used for some dumbsh!t stunt like this when he wanted to acknowledge her.

[TexasCowboy]

BILLIONS WASTED ON THE "GREEN AGENDA"!

[FrankR]

"He noted, however, that the off-road vehicles have had negative consequences, "including soil disruption and compaction, harassment of animals and annoyance of wilderness lovers." "

I remember riding dirt bikes [motorcycle type] in the mountains of North Georgia back in the 70s', and reading articles in "Dirt Bike" magazine about the "Sierra Club" trying to stop this stuff back then.

This Utah club sounds like an extension of "Sierra", which is nothing more than a bunch of tree-huggers who want the land for themselves. They spend very little of their millions in dues to protect the environment, but mostly to set up hiking trips and publish propaganda, er, newsletters.

The "soil disruptions" they talk about are usually on already-established "fire roads"; the harassment of animals [which they would like to believe is a civil rights issue] is probably not as "harassing" as thunder, forest fires, or a hawk scoping out its prey.

And "annoyance of nature lovers"...well, that's self-serving hogwash.

Off roaders aren't usually interested in the types of settings that "nature lovers" are interested in anyway. Animals don't hang out in mud holes, old strip mines, and steep hills...and dirt bikes and SUV's usually can't get into heavily forested areas where "nature lovers" hang out.

It's just a turf battle...the nature freaks want it all for themselves, and that's the bottom line.

[Axenolith]

Don't forget, they're still being considered for an elitest zone...

[SendShaqtoIraq]

He isn't a divorced dad. They were never married, therefore he has NO rights that the mother doesn't give him. Thank God, as she and her daughter are Christians, and he's an IDIOT.

[Pharmboy]

Nope--I was referring to the "God" in the Pledge...

[Nephi]

If Newdow was never married to the mother, then the SC ruling wasn't a blow to father's rights as I thought. Thanks.

[Pharmboy]

Excellent comments...the only "annoyance" factor operating here is THEM.

[AAABEST]

You know I've agreed with nearly everything you've written for 6 years now.

I was Army, so you it's quite a compliment when one of us considers a Marine "smart". </ smirk>

[hedgetrimmer]

Thanks for posting this article.

[bad company]

On a 9-0 vote no less. WOW!