Below is a form letter from ORBA to campaign against a major Marine Corp. base expansion in CA (into an OHV area). The first paragraph is kind of confusing. It sounds like the OHV group is agreeing with the Wildlands group, which is extremely rare, to make the area a National Recreation Area (ATVs welcome). Maybe somebody else can clarify what they're trying to say. -Not a very focused letter.

I like the idea of "no net loss". Might we worth working with Sierra Club and Wildlands, etc. and say, OK you can have this, but we want this in return.......then the two get together and petition for it; instead of spending time and money fighting each other. OHV might get more miles of trails and reduce the loss of "OHV Habitat".

Here's the letter from Bakersfield, CA area.


The Honorable Jerry Lewis
U.S. House of Representatives
1150 Brookside Ave. J-5
Redlands, CA 92313

Dear Congressman Lewis:

I am writing to you today because I own/ manage/ or am employed at an off-road related business.
My family also recreates in the Johnson Valley OHV Area, which is located in your district. The
Wildlands Conservancy (TWC) has proposed legislation to Senator Dianne Feinstein that would create
a national monument to protect the area surrounding historic Route 66. In addition they have
recommended that the Johnson Valley OHV Area be designated as a National Recreation Area. This
designation would stop the westward expansion of the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center
(MCAGCC) at Twentynine Palms, California.

Closing this area would negatively impact my business as well as the economy of the Lucerne Valley
and the surrounding counties. The majority of users of this area do not live in Lucerne Valley, but in
the neighboring regions. They purchase their off-road, camping, and associated equipment in the
communities where they reside. My customers, my family and many like them spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars each year to participate in this form of recreation in Johnson Valley.

I also realize that during a time of war the proper training of our troops is of the utmost importance.
If the Marines prove that they actually need a portion of Johnson Valley to properly train our soldiers
for combat, I believe a “no net loss” policy must be adopted with regard to OHV recreation. If one
acre of OHV recreation is lost it should be replaced by an acre of land in a different area but of equal
recreation quality. If the Marines take a portion of Johnson Valley the remaining area needs to be
designated a National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area and the amount lost should be replaced
by an area of similar size and recreation quality. The Twentynine Palms Marine Base should not be
allowed to expand until they have found appropriate replacement areas and funded and completed
the required NEPA analysis to ensure these areas are suitable for OHV use.

In order to protect the diverse types of recreation currently occurring in the California desert we will
need legislation that preserves the rights of all users, including OHV recreationists. Currently there is
no plan in place to preserve and protect the remaining OHV areas. This is why I request that you
support a “no net loss” policy with regard to OHV recreation. Additionally I ask that you request that
Senator Feinstein also designate the Stoddard Valley OHV Area, the Spangler Hills OHV Area, the
Rasor OHV Area and the El Mirage OHV Areas as National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Areas as
part of this legislation. If these areas were included then all of the desert recreationists would have
their interests protected and as a result the desert’s delicate balance would remain intact in perpetuity.

Sincerely,

Name
Address
E-mail address

 

While I have many friends who love Johnson, I do not! It is mostly a whooped out mess, and I would gladly give it to the Marines....IF IT COULD BE REPLACED BY AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF RIDING AREA IN ANOTHER LOCATION, OF SIMILAR OR BETTER QUALITY. That said....not much chance of that happening.

The "national recreation area" thing, is an effort to corral us into designated areas, and keep us out of the rest of the desert, so I don't see how that helps one little bit....

 

What I can get out of the letter is that if it's deemed NRA land, then the USMC could not take it? Maybe I'm not understanding it right though. It's a confusing letter. Seems like the worry is that Marines might take the land and nothing will be provided in return, so better have it designated NRA, then lose everything. No?

Edit: One other thing that might be positive from a NRA standpoint is that they might fix it up if it's trashed. Not sure if there's bathrooms or water available now and maybe improve the trails.....just a thought.

 

This whole issue is back in the news again...