Trump Rescinds Ban on OHV use on Public Lands

[rogerthat]

Better read it again and apply some thought. It’s all going to be okay right? Until it’s not

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

2025 was the year of the overflowing FS shitter. 2026 appears to be the year of ATV Thunderdome. Wonder what 2027 will be?

 

[BigHornRam]

2025 was the year of the overflowing FS shitter. 2026 appears to be the year of ATV Thunderdome. Wonder what 2027 will be?

Wilderness sheep tag in Wyoming?

 

[rogerthat]

2025 was the year of the overflowing FS shitter. 2026 appears to be the year of ATV Thunderdome. Wonder what 2027 will be?

It’s going to be the year of some accountability despite your blind short sighted loyalty. I’m here for it

Edit to add this is coming from a conservative ranch kid( yeah one of gods annointed people)

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

It’s going to be the year of some accountability despite your blind short sighted loyalty. I’m here for it

I hope you are right. I think its great when folks are held accountable.

Just so I have an idea what you are talking about, who or what do I have short-sighted loyalty to?

 

[Irrelevant]

2025 was the year of the overflowing FS shitter. 2026 appears to be the year of overflowing shitters and ATV Thunderdome.

Schrier Renews Call For Trump Administration To Address Deteriorating Conditions In The Enchantments

U.S. Rep. Kim Schrier is renewing her call for the Trump administration to address deteriorating conditions in The Enchantments area of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, warning that overcrowding, sanitation problems

www.yoursourceone.com

"She also pointed to ongoing problems with bathroom facilities, saying that more than nine months after she first raised concerns about overflowing facilities, waste tanks remain full..."

 

[Irrelevant]

I think its great when folks are held accountable.

This is a top down directive from people who won't be in office for that much longer, maybe a couple of years at best. How could they be held accountable for impacts in 5 years? The president has made the case that he's personally immune to prosecution while in office and from actions originating from his duties as president (help me if I misconstrue that).

Let's look at his own press release:
Executive Order 11644 and Executive Order 11989 direct agencies to promulgate regulations providing that, where off-road vehicle use is permitted on Federal lands, roads, and trails, such use designations must be made in accordance with ill-defined criteria purportedly intended to minimize resource impacts and conflicts between different users of Federal land. 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.” These vague, subjective criteria often result in barriers to energy and timber production and utility maintenance, permit delays, and de facto bans on hiking and other forms of recreation that require accessing remote areas, all while doing little to benefit multiple use of Federal lands.

1. Do we want to harass and disrupt wildlife? Do we want to make running over predators with snowmobiles legal?
2. As sportmen, and formerly conservationists, do we think that there should be barriers to extraction (note, it doesn't say recreation) when it impacts wildlife or other users? We laud our conservation forefathers and their efforts to protect wildlife and our hunting heritage, but I wonder if we've ever actually read what they said/wrote? Would Teddy agree with the repeal of these EO's?
3. Off-road restrictions are creating de facto hiking bans? What kind of drugs are they on? What kind of Kool-Aid enema do you need to believe that?

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

Schrier Renews Call For Trump Administration To Address Deteriorating Conditions In The Enchantments

U.S. Rep. Kim Schrier is renewing her call for the Trump administration to address deteriorating conditions in The Enchantments area of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, warning that overcrowding, sanitation problems

www.yoursourceone.com

"She also pointed to ongoing problems with bathroom facilities, saying that more than nine months after she first raised concerns about overflowing facilities, waste tanks remain full..."

Yep, it happens. Not the first time someone has encountered a full vault toilet wont be the last. In my experience 2025 was not noticeably different than any other year. Maybe FS and BLM run different in WY and ID than in WA.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

This is a top down directive from people who won't be in office for that much longer, maybe a couple of years at best. How could they be held accountable for impacts in 5 years? The president has made the case that he's personally immune to prosecution while in office and from actions originating from his duties as president (help me if I misconstrue that).

Let's look at his own press release:
Executive Order 11644 and Executive Order 11989 direct agencies to promulgate regulations providing that, where off-road vehicle use is permitted on Federal lands, roads, and trails, such use designations must be made in accordance with ill-defined criteria purportedly intended to minimize resource impacts and conflicts between different users of Federal land. 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.” These vague, subjective criteria often result in barriers to energy and timber production and utility maintenance, permit delays, and de facto bans on hiking and other forms of recreation that require accessing remote areas, all while doing little to benefit multiple use of Federal lands.

1. Do we want to harass and disrupt wildlife? Do we want to make running over predators with snowmobiles legal?
2. As sportmen, and formerly conservationists, do we think that there should be barriers to extraction (note, it doesn't say recreation) when it impacts wildlife or other users? We laud our conservation forefathers and their efforts to protect wildlife and our hunting heritage, but I wonder if we've ever actually read what they said/wrote? Would Teddy agree with the repeal of these EO's?
3. Off-road restrictions are creating de facto hiking bans? What kind of drugs are they on? What kind of Kool-Aid enema do you need to believe that?

1) I think the issue, just spit balling here as I didn't write the EO, is with the wording "minimize". The EO points to vagueness as the issue with the prior EO's. How to define minimize seems like it might be the sticking point. Kind of a leap to get that this EO will make running over critters with a snowmobile legal but that's exactly the type of hyperbole I'm talking about.
2) Absolutely there should be barriers to extraction. And there are. Many. Regardless of the status of the prior two EO's. To think that the latest EO is the removal of the last hurdle and from here on out its "mine/log it all" is ridiculous. Don't know how Teddy would feel. After he got done shooting the shit out of every critter he saw as he worked his way across the West he may very well be pissed off about the removal of those two EO's.
3) This one confused me as well. No idea what they are getting at with that line.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Im not choosing any sides here, but i dont see this changing anything. Every year for the last 10 years I watch people drive on prohibited land while im hunting. Never seen anything enforced. Those people will continue to do that the same as before. The people who obeyed the "law" will continue to not do it because they dont think we should drive in those places whether law says we can or not.

Rage on!

 

[Treeshark]

“She also pointed to ongoing problems with bathroom facilities, saying that more than nine months after she first raised concerns about overflowing facilities, waste tanks remain full..."

If it bleeds, it leads… but if it smells, it sells!

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

And in 3 years it will be rescinded back the other way. And 30 years from now we can all tell our grandchildren we lived thru the OHV assault of the 2020s. Let's just hope the PTSD that will follow isnt to bad.

 

[Rack Daniels]

30 years from now we can all tell our grandchildren we lived thru the OHV assault of the 2020s. Let's just hope the PTSD that will follow isnt to bad.

Still recovering from the Great Toilet Paper Shortage of 2021!!

 

[bigsky2]

Im not choosing any sides here, but i dont see this changing anything. Every year for the last 10 years I watch people drive on prohibited land while im hunting. Never seen anything enforced. Those people will continue to do that the same as before. The people who obeyed the "law" will continue to not do it because they dont think we should drive in those places whether law says we can or not.

Rage on!

I disagree that people that don’t think we should drive in those places will continue not to if it becomes legal. People don’t want to miss out or be at a disadvantage. “That person drove right up to their elk or deer, why should I pack mine out a mile on my back?”

 

[BigHornRam]

WSF Chapters Unite to Combat Cheatgrass Threat in Wyoming Bighorn Sheep Range - The Outdoor Wire | The Outdoor Wire

The Wild Sheep Foundation and its chapters pledged $213,500 at their summit to combat cheatgrass invasion in Wyoming's Mullen Fire burn scar, protecting the Douglas Creek bighorn sheep herd. The funding supports habitat restoration efforts targeting approximately 12,000 acres through 2028, with...

www.theoutdoorwire.com

"The next phase of treatment, currently underway and continuing through 2028, will target approximately 12,000 additional acres within the burn scar. Importantly, the U.S. Forest Service approved a wilderness exemption request allowing helicopter application of herbicide treatments within designated wilderness areas — a significant milestone in large-scale wilderness habitat restoration efforts."

Good project on public land funded by Wild Sheep NGO’S. Removing some of the red tape helps these restoration efforts move forward, and the dollars go a lot farther, getting positive work done.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

I disagree that people that don’t think we should drive in those places will continue not to if it becomes legal. People don’t want to miss out or be at a disadvantage. “That person drove right up to their elk or deer, why should I pack mine out a mile on my back?”

Yea, probably a little naive of me to think others wont take advantage.

 

[Big Fin]

Holy hell! Has anyone actually read the EO? The EO has done absolutly nothing to change current road or trail status. It changed nothing on what types of vehicles are allowed where and on what roads/trails. It rescinded two prior EO's issued in the 70"s that had language on the criteria to be used to determine where, when and what roads and trails where to be allowed and what types of vehicles would be allowed to travel on those roads. This Admin felt that the language in those EO's had vague and subjective language and that the aganecies already had the statutory authority and guidance needed to manage road and vehicle use without these EO's.

The Congress has enacted or amended a comprehensive set of statutory authorities to establish Federal land policy, including the National Historic Preservation Act, Public Law 89‑665, 80 Stat. 915 (1966) (codified as amended at 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act, Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (1970) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act, Public Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884 (1973) (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Public Law 94-579, 90 Stat. 2743 (1976) (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). I have determined that those statutory authorities, together with executive department and agency (agency) specific land management authorities, provide the appropriate framework for managing off-road vehicle use on Federal lands without retaining the additional specific designation criteria imposed by Executive Order 11644 and Executive Order 11989. I have further determined that technological, operational, and land-management developments since the issuance of Executive Order 11644 and Executive Order 11989 support replacing those specific criteria with a framework grounded in applicable statutory authorities.

It's entirely possible that rescinding these EO's may result in changes to road, trail and vehicle use restrictions from the agencies and those are actual things to be concerned about but this EO isn't that. You still can't drive that rzr 7 miles further for your mnt goat hunt.

Yeah, I've read the EO and the prior EOs. Those saying it does nothing, which in its wording, I agree with you, it does nothing. Yet, what it allows for is significant. That is what "does something" and should get people paying attention, given the track record of how the Congressional Review Act has been used to repeal BLM RMPs, to over ride other policy, to rescind the Public Land Rule, to lower wildlife concerns when permitting, and the list goes on.

For those telling me this is "much ado about nothing" reminds me of those who told me that I was overly concerned about the public land provisions of Project 2025. My concerns turned out to be well-founded.

If these travel management plans end up being pulled, which is the long-term interest of those pushing for this, it will be a terrible outcome for public land elk hunting. Shorter seasons, limited entry units over general units, choose your weapon, and displacement of elk from public lands to private lands. None of that is good for public land elk hunters.

So yeah, I agree, this EO does not repeal the travel management plans as some who have not read the document have decried. But it causes the reasonable person to ask, "Why would they do this if not for the intent to repeal a lot of travel management restrictions?" Surely not for the hell of it.