Trump Rescinds Ban on OHV use on Public Lands

[R.K.]

Hope you folks like ATV cross country during hunting season.

“President Trump on Friday rescinded two decades-old executive orders that restricted off-road vehicles on public lands, in a move that could lift prohibitions on their use in most national parks.

The first executive order, signed by President Richard M. Nixon in 1972, established strict criteria for the use of off-road vehicles on federal lands, in an effort to minimize their environmental impact. The second, signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977, authorized the government to immediately shut down off-road driving if it was causing ecological damage.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/29/climate/trump-off-road-vehicles-public-lands.html?smid%3Dnytcore-ios-share

 

[Rack Daniels]

Well, good journalism ain’t free and I don’t pay for things I’m already uncertain of so what’s the skinny?

I can already drive on federal land. Don’t need 2 tracks now?

 

[R.K.]

Well, good journalism ain’t free and I don’t pay for things I’m already uncertain of so what’s the skinny?

I can already drive on federal land. Don’t need 2 tracks now?

Pretty much. The way I understand it, you can now take any vehicle anywhere it can physically go. Probably related to Trump’s desire to push for energy development on public land, but who knows what goes through his head.

 

[bigsky2]

That should really help public land hunting. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by anything at this point.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

From the horse's mouth - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presiden...tive-restrictions-on-access-to-federal-lands/

 

[Wild Bill]

From the jackass's mouth - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presiden...tive-restrictions-on-access-to-federal-lands/

Fixed it for you...

 

[Rack Daniels]

These criteria, which are not required by statute, are difficult for agencies to operationalize due to vagueness, and include “minimiz[ing] harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats,” minimizing “conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses . . . taking into account noise and other factors,” and ensuring that off-road vehicle use in given locations will not “adversely affect [the location’s] natural, aesthetic, or scenic values.”

I don’t like it, but I also don’t know if I’m ready to grab the pitchforks.

If anyone rolls up on you where they typically could not before, call their asses in and use these words above. “They are adversely affecting the natural, aesthetic AND scenic values”…
Per the law, I’d expect they’d have to enforce it.

 

[geetar]

At least they didn't leave us wondering what they were up to. We can't have vague and subjective criteria limiting timber and energy production on public lands can we?

 

[R.K.]

At least they didn't leave us wondering what they were up to. We can't have vague and subjective criteria limiting timber and energy production on public lands can we? View attachment 409465

Especially when we have excess energy (until we build more surveillance centers) and no sawmills to process the available timber.

 

[cgasner1]

This is gonna fix the corner crossing issues. Just gotta build a ramp for my e bike.

 

[nrpate05]

Eh I don't know if this really means anything. All federal land use plans have travel planning that guides what can be done where. Executive orders are pretty flimsy, but plans (RMP's, Forest Plans) have teeth. I don't see how a guy rallying an ATV across Old Faithful doesn't get reprimanded.

 

[brocksw]

Another Blue ribbon coalition initiative.

13K views · 455 reactions | Yesterday, President Trump signed an Executive Order that will completely change the game for restoring and expanding access to our public lands. We've been fighting for this for years, and this is a significant victory fo

Yesterday, President Trump signed an Executive Order that will completely change the game for restoring and expanding access to our public lands. We've been fighting for this for years, and this is a...

www.facebook.com

Eh I don't know if this really means anything. All federal land use plans have travel planning that guides what can be done where. Executive orders are pretty flimsy, but plans (RMP's, Forest Plans) have teeth. I don't see how a guy rallying an ATV across Old Faithful doesn't get reprimanded.

I’m hearing a fairly well substantiated rumor that this admin is targeting the removal of travel planning rules as well. It’s been a discussion with the USFS here in ND since we are trying to push through travel planning on the Little Missouri before any travel planning rules get rescinded.

 

[SAJ-99]

Maybe a cynical take, but there were a lot of people that didn't follow the rules to begin with and now there are less people to enforce the rules, which I am sure will lead to more of the former. The only way to stop this is at the ballot box. If nothing changes I expect more the same but 10x for the next two and a half years.

 

[Nameless Range]

I’m hearing a fairly well substantiated rumor that this admin is targeting the removal of travel planning rules as well. It’s been a discussion with the USFS here in ND since we are trying to push through travel planning on the Little Missouri before any travel planning rules get rescinded.

In Sept the Trump Administration announced its plans to repeal the Travel Management Rule. That rule is from 2005, and there are millions of acres of Montana - in particular the Beaverhead Deerlodge NF - that still don't have Travel Management. Despite, just last year, the county commissioners from every county that the B-D intersects signing on to a letter that they need it.

The priority is timber and fire, and everything else gets a back seat. The amount of $ and effort and public involvement that has gone into generating Travel Management for the forests that have it is significant, and throwing it all away would be a huge disservice to all involved.

 

[Irrelevant]

Defund and decry.
To hell with the rules and restrictions, those for libtards.
#FREEDOM!

 

[brocksw]

In Sept the Trump Administration announced its plans to repeal the Travel Management Rule. That rule is from 2005, and there are millions of acres of Montana - in particular the Beaverhead Deerlodge NF - that still don't have Travel Management. Despite, just last year, the county commissioners from every county that the B-D intersects signing on to a letter that they need it.

The priority is timber and fire, and everything else gets a back seat. The amount of $ and effort and public involvement that has gone into generating Travel Management for the forests that have it is significant, and throwing it all away would be a huge disservice to all involved.

In my opinion, it isn't about timber or fire either. Those things might be the new talking points, but this is about removing federal ownership/management in favor of private (an often foreign) industry, development, or even based on principle.

For instance, ND has been especially litigious around Roadless Areas in the ND Badlands for over 15 years. Lawsuits disputing roads, disputing section lines, attempts to fund those legal efforts through the state legislature, and the federal delegation (specifically Hoeven) has tried slipping in multiple pieces of legislation to basically strip roadless and non motorized designations from the Grasslands. And there's a whole lot more I don't even have the time to share....

 

[Addicting]

I see this tasking to the FS and BLM difficult to implement. They cut the staff and now demand a complete rewrite of travel plans.

Both these agencies will move at snails pace getting these done. Meanwhile, bubba will take this as I can drive anywhere. New trails will be everywhere before the plans are in their infancy.

What once was horse back only country will now be full of ATVs. We will be loving it to death faster than any or thing can catch up.