Crash_AF
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Colorado Springs, CO
Category: Press Releases
Date: Mar 22 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SUCCESS! Court Rules in Favor of UFWDA and its Recreation Partners Against Bluewater Network, Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads, and other Environmentalists
UFWDA and its recreation partners intervened on behalf of the National Park
Service (NPS) in a 2005 lawsuit brought by Bluewater Network, Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads (Wildlands CPR), and National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) against the NPS. The purpose of the suit was to prohibit ORV use in parks across the country.
UFWDA and our recreation partners Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance (CHAPA), American Sportfishing Association (ASA), Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina, and United Mobile Sportfishermen (UMS) asked the court to dismiss all 8 issues in the case, arguing that the environmental groups lacked standing and failed to properly state their claim. The other intervenors in the case filed similar claims as UFWDA and included the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA), the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), and the BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC).
“The case will move forward but is restricted to a very narrow set of issues”, stated Carla Boucher, nationally-recognized attorney for United Four Wheel Drive Associations. “The court ruled on March 21, 2007 that Bluewater did not have standing on any of the issues and granted our request to dismiss them from the case entirely. The court found in our favor on all but 2 of the issues and limited another issue to just 3 of the 18 park units cited”, commented Boucher.
“Recreation will continue to vigilantly protect access in the 3 remaining parks at issue in the case and fulfill our UFWDA mission to protect, promote, and provide 4x4 recreational access worldwide”, Boucher stated.
# # #
United Four Wheel Drive Associations (UFWDA) is the leading representative for four wheel drive enthusiasts. UFWDA is a group of individuals, clubs, state, regional, provincial and national associations and businesses in the United States and around the world; our members span the globe from the U.S. and Canada, New Zealand, Australia, England, Japan, South Africa, and Iceland. If you would like more information on how you can be a part of this effort contact United Four Wheel Drive Associations today at 7135 S. PR Royal Springs Dr., Shelbyville, IN 46176, 1-800-448-3932 or visit www.ufwda.org.
CONTACT Carla Boucher (757) 546-7969 or [email protected]
--------------------------------------
Further information from Carla:
This case has been complicated from the beginning and the court ruling is complicated and the issues are complicated. I had to prepare a spreadsheet just to work through exactly what the judge's order said! So my quick overview is oversimplifying things a lot.
This case is really important for us to be involved in because Bluewater Network, Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads (Wildlands CPR), and National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) (all representing 70 other environmental groups ) are trying to prohibit all ORV use in the NPS. What's crazy about the way the environmentalists brought the suit is that their request was really broad across the board and they didn't really pinpoint what they thought the problem was.
They even asked for the NPS to prohibit ORV use in parks that already prohibit ORV use! Their claims were so broad it was hard for us, and for the court, to tell whether they were talking about all parks, some parks, just a few of them or what. Left unchecked, I have no doubt the environmentalists would have liked to have gotten the court to make a ruling pertaining to every park, even those parks that have long-standing and public involved ORV management plans.
Judge Lamberth's ruling on March 21st narrowed the suit down from 8 issues to just 3. And 1 of the three issues he narrowed down from 18 parks to just 3 - Canyonlands and Arches National Parks and Amistad National Recreation Area.
So the suit will continue to move toward trial but only on three issues.
Those issues are:
(1) whether it was lawful for the NPS to refuse to repeal ORV authorizations in Canyonlands and Arches National Parks and Amistad NRA;
(2) whether it was unlawful for the NPS to refuse to adopt ORV enforcement procedures and an ORV monitoring program; and
(3) whether the NPS unlawfully reacted to the environmentalists Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Finally, the ruling only allows the Wildlands CPR and NPCA to be involved in the suit. Bluewater was dismissed from the case for lack of standing.
One super important win in this case is that interim closure orders are not a part of this case anymore. You see, if the court hadn't dismissed that issue and the environmentalists eventually won the NPS might have been forced to close the parks to ORV use UNTIL the NPS finished going through ORV planning. It could have put a halt to all ORV use for many years while the parks went through the public process of planning.
----------------------------------------
If you have any questions, you can ask Carla directly.. there is a discussion about this here:
http://www.ufwda.org/smf/index.php?board=13.0
*Cross posted from CO4x4*
Later,
Joe
Date: Mar 22 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SUCCESS! Court Rules in Favor of UFWDA and its Recreation Partners Against Bluewater Network, Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads, and other Environmentalists
UFWDA and its recreation partners intervened on behalf of the National Park
Service (NPS) in a 2005 lawsuit brought by Bluewater Network, Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads (Wildlands CPR), and National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) against the NPS. The purpose of the suit was to prohibit ORV use in parks across the country.
UFWDA and our recreation partners Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance (CHAPA), American Sportfishing Association (ASA), Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina, and United Mobile Sportfishermen (UMS) asked the court to dismiss all 8 issues in the case, arguing that the environmental groups lacked standing and failed to properly state their claim. The other intervenors in the case filed similar claims as UFWDA and included the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA), the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), and the BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC).
“The case will move forward but is restricted to a very narrow set of issues”, stated Carla Boucher, nationally-recognized attorney for United Four Wheel Drive Associations. “The court ruled on March 21, 2007 that Bluewater did not have standing on any of the issues and granted our request to dismiss them from the case entirely. The court found in our favor on all but 2 of the issues and limited another issue to just 3 of the 18 park units cited”, commented Boucher.
“Recreation will continue to vigilantly protect access in the 3 remaining parks at issue in the case and fulfill our UFWDA mission to protect, promote, and provide 4x4 recreational access worldwide”, Boucher stated.
# # #
United Four Wheel Drive Associations (UFWDA) is the leading representative for four wheel drive enthusiasts. UFWDA is a group of individuals, clubs, state, regional, provincial and national associations and businesses in the United States and around the world; our members span the globe from the U.S. and Canada, New Zealand, Australia, England, Japan, South Africa, and Iceland. If you would like more information on how you can be a part of this effort contact United Four Wheel Drive Associations today at 7135 S. PR Royal Springs Dr., Shelbyville, IN 46176, 1-800-448-3932 or visit www.ufwda.org.
CONTACT Carla Boucher (757) 546-7969 or [email protected]
--------------------------------------
Further information from Carla:
This case has been complicated from the beginning and the court ruling is complicated and the issues are complicated. I had to prepare a spreadsheet just to work through exactly what the judge's order said! So my quick overview is oversimplifying things a lot.
This case is really important for us to be involved in because Bluewater Network, Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads (Wildlands CPR), and National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) (all representing 70 other environmental groups ) are trying to prohibit all ORV use in the NPS. What's crazy about the way the environmentalists brought the suit is that their request was really broad across the board and they didn't really pinpoint what they thought the problem was.
They even asked for the NPS to prohibit ORV use in parks that already prohibit ORV use! Their claims were so broad it was hard for us, and for the court, to tell whether they were talking about all parks, some parks, just a few of them or what. Left unchecked, I have no doubt the environmentalists would have liked to have gotten the court to make a ruling pertaining to every park, even those parks that have long-standing and public involved ORV management plans.
Judge Lamberth's ruling on March 21st narrowed the suit down from 8 issues to just 3. And 1 of the three issues he narrowed down from 18 parks to just 3 - Canyonlands and Arches National Parks and Amistad National Recreation Area.
So the suit will continue to move toward trial but only on three issues.
Those issues are:
(1) whether it was lawful for the NPS to refuse to repeal ORV authorizations in Canyonlands and Arches National Parks and Amistad NRA;
(2) whether it was unlawful for the NPS to refuse to adopt ORV enforcement procedures and an ORV monitoring program; and
(3) whether the NPS unlawfully reacted to the environmentalists Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Finally, the ruling only allows the Wildlands CPR and NPCA to be involved in the suit. Bluewater was dismissed from the case for lack of standing.
One super important win in this case is that interim closure orders are not a part of this case anymore. You see, if the court hadn't dismissed that issue and the environmentalists eventually won the NPS might have been forced to close the parks to ORV use UNTIL the NPS finished going through ORV planning. It could have put a halt to all ORV use for many years while the parks went through the public process of planning.
----------------------------------------
If you have any questions, you can ask Carla directly.. there is a discussion about this here:
http://www.ufwda.org/smf/index.php?board=13.0
*Cross posted from CO4x4*
Later,
Joe
