Announcing the Turn the Tide 2012 Tour, by Greg Mumm

Submitted by sharetrails on

I am tired of what is happening to recreational access, so I'm upping the game on what to do about it. I am getting on my dualsport motorcycle and taking a ride around the country to rally recreation's grassroots. It's a long ride "around" the good ol' USA and a big personal investment, but this is not about me—it's more about you and what you have to say. It's about the future of recreation on public lands and waters. Join with me and, with your help, together we will Turn the Tide in 2012.

I am going to meet with as many grassroots recreation enthusiasts, leaders, and organizations as I can. I want to hear all perspectives. At the end of my ride I am going to take the messages and concerns that you provide me to Washington, DC, and deliver them with those who can and should be doing something about them.

I am also providing you the opportunity to tell us what you expect from the BlueRibbon Coalition. This year, the BlueRibbon Coalition is celebrating its 25 year history as a national recreational advocacy organization. What we have accomplished in that quarter of a century has been remarkable. We need to make certain this organization remains relevant in its efforts for the next 25 years. What I hear back from you will help define our mission going forward and ensure we are fulfilling our members' expectations.

I need you to engage with me in this ride, virtually or in person.

If you want to join me on the road for 25, 100, or even for 1000 miles, I encourage you to do so. Whether you ride your bike or drive your car or off-road rig doesn't matter. It isn't about the vehicle, it's about the message. We will be providing an evolving schedule, a tracking map of where I am going, when I'll get there, and who I am meeting with.

IIf not physically, then join me virtually. Track my progress and stay tuned to what I am reporting back here at this site, as well as liking the tour on Facebook and following it on Twitter. Engage with this effort by providing me with the message you would like me to deliver to Washington DC by clicking here. Give your feedback on what you expect from the BlueRibbon Coalition as we move forward by clicking here. Tell your friends and have them tell their friends. That is the point. This needs to be HUGE. We need to reach as many as we can—it is time to grow our political significance. Your input and your participation matters here.

Whether those that I meet with are BRC members or not doesn't matter, although if they aren't I will certainly encourage them to join. Membership is what makes us who we are. It also doesn't matter to me what kind of outdoor recreation they enjoy, the issues we all face are bigger than that. The BlueRibbon Coalition is an umbrella organization that spans the spectrum of outdoor recreation. Together, I still believe we can make a difference for ourselves and for future generations.

I know that millions of Americans share my frustration. It seems like every time we turn around there is some new initiative seeking to take away our access for recreation on public (and even private) lands and waters. Although my focus is on recreation and management of our public lands, we all know these are only part of a greater problem.

The systematic closure of our public lands to the public is an erosion of our rights and privileges as citizens. When our freedom is compromised, this country is compromised. It is time to take a different approach in the fight for our freedoms and privileges. Our issues need to be front and center and our leaders need to understand that.

Outdoor recreation is a $646 billion dollar a year industry that provides jobs and revenue to rural and suburban American communities alike. There are over 50 million Americans who enjoy Off-Highway Vehicle recreation. The truth is that everyone is motorized at some point when they visit our public lands. Closing off access for recreation on our public lands is just one more reason our economy is tanking. People are losing jobs and, contrary to what extremists would have you believe, it is not necessarily helping the environment. Enough is enough. Join with me and help make a difference.

60 Comments

Exaggeration

Submitted by rideon on

Mumm:

This is over the top: "The systematic closure of our public lands to the public is an erosion of our rights and privileges as citizens". Tell me please how and where the public is shut out of public land (except anything military).

Todd.Ockert's picture

Great Idea

Submitted by Todd.Ockert on

Greg, thanks for taking the fight to Washington for those of us that can not physically get there.

This is going to be an adventure for you, and will follow along via here and if you come to Cali, may even get on my bike to follow along for a few miles.

Todd

Wisconsin ATV - UTV Association's picture

Looking forward to seeing you

Submitted by Wisconsin ATV -... on

Looking forward to seeing you in Wisconsin at the August 17 & 18 Trail Conference in Antigo, hosted by the Wisconsin ATV Association and Association of Wisconsin Snowmobile Clubs!! Thanks for all that BRC does for the trail communities. Wisconsin riders need to come by and meet Greg while participating in this worthy cause. Get your message heard through BRC and Greg! http://www.trailcon.us

djnmya's picture

Give em change

Submitted by djnmya on

They want change in Washington, lets demand it! How about spending some of the millions of fuel tax dollars that are supposed to support OHV funding on something besides gates that block our access!!! In California where I live they just discovered a 50 million dollar account held by Parks and Rec 30 million of is fuel tax funds from OHV that is supposed to be used exclusively for OHV maintainence and construction of trails. For the past 10 years all they have done is close off more and more access. Its time to expand our trail system and create more access for all of us taxpayers....

access my ass!

Submitted by take the other... on

We are not losing access to anything. Our public land will always be accessible as long as they are public. This is just a front for special intrust groups to rape and pillage more of our open spaces. Governor Herbert (hatU) wants to take back our public lands so that he can sell them of to the highest bidders to take away our access and develop our nation's treasures. Access is going nowhere, get off your lazy asses and go outside. We have so many damn roads and trails, its ridiculous, we need no more, there are plenty that are rarely used. How about preserving something for other than "human uses" (anthropocentric), like clean water, open space and solitude, or are all of you sheep opposed to these values???

re_access my ass!

Submitted by ReconZJ on

Well, well, looks like we've got sierra club activist (or worse) here. The only sheep on this blog is you. BRC does exactly what you ask for - "preserving something for other uses" as well as for those who enjoy motorized recreation; it's not an "either/or" proposition. You might want to check that out before spouting off like you did.

re_access my ass!

Submitted by take the other... on

Well, well, looks like we've got a bubba redneck activist (Or worse) here. I agree, we need a balance, and I feel that our public lands are managed for the greatest good for the greatest #'s. So what is it that BRC is fighting for? More motorized access or less? What access is being taken away? The public will always have access to their lands. I believe BRC is a tool of the industry to further their agenda (oil and gas/more roads=access). But this is just like my opinion man.

re_access my ass!

Submitted by take the other... on

sorry guys, I don't want to sound like a dick, I am all for access, as well as multiple-use. Its a tough balancing act to manage our public lands and I feel that BRC is walking on the right of others in the sense that the are for more development/motorized access, without regard for other forms of access and the multitude of other resources (wildlife, hunters, rock climbers, Mountain bikers, watershed, solitude etc...). I am all for the "preservation of our natural resources" as BRC puts it, but I believe the slogan should be "Utilization of our natural resources FOR our special intrusts", not the public because the public will always have access....anyway, that's just my opinion, I don't want to stir the pot here...

"your feet"

Submitted by Mochamike on

Your comment sound elitist & narrow minded.
I just spent this past weekend wheeling the trail with 30+ other great people/fellow wheelers for Disabled Sports USA.
Many of our 20+ passengers can't move their feet, let alone hike the trail.
Up until 2 years ago, my passenger could hike the trail. A Stroke left the left side if his body almost completely paralyzed.
If people like you had their way, he wouldn't get to enjoy the Great Outdoors.
In the last 5 years, CA has gone from over 3000 miles of OHV accessible trails to less than 800. These are TRAILS that have been used by families for decades.
That's a cold Hard Fact.
Next the extreme anti-access people will go after the Equestrians, Mountain Bikers, & finally the Hikers. Don't believe me? Do some research.... They already have.

I cant believe what you just

Submitted by RTW on

I cant believe what you just said. What this nation is about (or used to be) is about the freedom for me to drive in the woods and you to not if you choose not to. At some point in the last 10 yrs its become 'you think my way or you're wrong'. Wheelers have never tried to lock out hikers, horses etc. But it has been the other way.

Access for all?

Submitted by J. Smith on

I don''t know where you come from, but you have not been honest with yourself if you believe what you are saying. If you have personal knowledge of all these "damn" roads, I'm curious by what mode you gained all that knowledge. If you are just going by what you have heard, you need to come along for a ride with me to learn about what you speak.

I think there is a lot we would find in common as well as some others we won't. That will not mean one of us is totally right or wrong.... just a difference of opinion on some issues. That is often the case with people. But that doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable.

I would like to know if you think there are enough hiking and / or biking trails? I'm betting your answer is "No". Now ask yourself how I would answer the same basic question regarding roads for my Jeep or trails for ATVs.

You are not seeing the whole picture. We have older folks and physically impaired who would like to take a drive in the forests or deserts. Would you deny them access?

This last weekend I spent time Jeeping in the Flat Tops in Colorado. We also hiked into where we could view Crater Lake in the Flat Tops Wilderness. I equally enjoyed the walk as well as the drive. I believe you would have as well.

Our Jeep club does things like desert clean-up days every year. Picking up other people's trash isn't fun and we decry them doing what they do. I wonder what you do as your part of support for public land use?

"Preserving" public land in the quantities you of the "Preservationist" persuasion seems pretty selfish from my perspective. I see people at trail heads ready to go hiking or biking and think that's great that they can do what they choose on our public lands. Never have I ever heard of that sediment coming from the other side.

Last, have you ever considered that you or I may walk nearly anywhere we choose on most public land? Can you say the same for the motorized recreationist? Give that some serious thought before you reply. I venture you may agree more than you don't.

Access my ass, You must be

Submitted by jeepin john on

Access my ass, You must be living with blinders on. Everywhere you turn they (our government ) is closing all these damn roads you are talking about so you can't access areas I have been camping in all my life. My guess would be you are a card holding member of SUWA that would stop access to everything. "human uses" I am not asking for new roads, just quit closing existing roads and turning millions of new acres into wilderness that cannot be used for anything. Blocking access to our public lands is not the answer.

Access my ass, You must be

Submitted by rideon on

Repeat this mantra every time you turn the ignition key on your OHV: "I have access. I have access. I have access." Sometimes though its access without your motor. Just leave your motor home sometimes and walk. Some places are great for motors; some places best for walking.

Access my ass, You must be

Submitted by rideon on

Repeat this mantra every time you turn the ignition key on your OHV: "I have access. I have access. I have access." Sometimes though its access without your motor. Just leave your motor home sometimes and walk. Some places are great for motors; some places best for walking.

Todd.Ockert's picture

Re: Access my ass, You must be

Submitted by Todd.Ockert on

So, what if my fee don't work like they use to? What than?
Do I loose my rights of access to public lands?
Not saying that we need trails to every hill, backcountry lake either. But if the place use to have trails into it, they should be maintained for access, and maintained as such for responsibile recreation!

re-access my ass

Submitted by jeepinjp on

Comments from a typical anti access critter.Critter like you all spout the same nonsense, you won`t find anyone here wanting to sell public lands. And lazy were not we are the ones out there actually preserving our public lands and not behind a keyboard spewing the anti-access talking points.

You already have it all

Submitted by rideon on

Motorheads want it all! The possibility of losing a double track, single track, cowpath or even a scuff mark gets their engines revved beyond redline. Fact is, the US is strangled by roads and motor paths already. We need fewer motors out there, not more. Worried about access? Good thing then you have governor Herbert of Utah on your side who is willing to spend millions on a quixotic (look it up) legal journey into a box canyon.

haha, right on rideon....I

Submitted by take the other... on

haha, right on rideon....I completely agree with you, I am into motorized recreation, though I feel that the us is strangled with roads. If there was a real threat to loosing access, my engine would definitely be redlining....

Turn the Tide Tour Agenda?

Submitted by J. Smith on

Have you set any kind of agenda for the tour yet? When will you be starting and a rough idea of what direction or what cities you expect to go through would make it easier for us to plan a meeting with you as you pass through.

Turn the Tide Tour Agenda?

Submitted by Greg Mumm on

Stay tuned. We are making calls and working on the agenda and hope to have the initial route and schedule up yet this week. Kind of lays out in a progressive linear fashion and proves a bit challenging. Do me a favor and click the "Contact" link at the top of this page and send me an email where you are and I will get in touch with you about meeting on the way. Thanks--Greg

Manic's picture

re_access my ass

Submitted by Manic on

To "take the other side" & "ride on"; I consider myself something of an environmentalist, I drive a Prius, have a 5 KW solar system on my house and do all I can to protect the environment! But I do enjoy riding my offroad bikes also. Seems to me the two of you are trying to come on here and try and sabotage the effort because of your own selfish agenda1 "Ride on", you are a, let me guess, "mountain biker" who's basically hijacked an ohv trail so you can do your thing? And "take the other side". You obviously don't care about sharing anything, if you did, then you'd know that we have in fact lost thousands of trails already! We are not asking to get more land, only protect what we have. So why don't you go back to the sierra club or wherever you came from and join their blog and stop being assholes! And before you go off and call me a redneck or some other name. I was taught when I was a kid that it's a good thing to share, and I do, with anyone who's willing to return the favor, but people like you are exactly the opposite. You're greedy little piggies that think everything is about you! If you didn't drive a car on paved roads; use electricity; like hot water; and computers; and supermarkets; and every other little convenience, I'd say you have the right to bitch, but you don't! You pollute and cause environmental damage everyday, but oh, sorry, that's okay cause it serves you! And just so you know, I'm straight and have a beautiful wife and 15 year old daughter who both ride. But I'm also pro gay marriage, voted for Obama and work for a consumer's rights organization. So I feel I walk the walk! Can you say the same! Unlike you, I know there's more than enough to go around if we all act responsibly and as we try to teach our children, SHARE!

Go Greg! & Thank you!
Might have to join you for a stretch on my black Uber Tenere!

Reply to Manic

Submitted by rideon on

The idea of sharing requires a bit of scrutiny. The way I see it, sharing to the motor types is like sharing a cigarette in a confined space or sharing some rap music with the laity at church. Or back to public land use, sharing is allowing foot traffic to use a motorized trail. The motor types don't understand or if they do understand won't give weight to the notion that the presence of motors diminishes and sometimes eliminates the reasons we quiet types get outside. There can be no sharing on certain trails. To make things fair, there needs to be closure of motor trails or, and I guess this is a type of sharing, some temporal or spatial separation.

And Manic, I understand that you don't want to lose any more trails. But you have way more than your share already. Seems kinda greedy to want to be able to ride over every stick, rock and sagebrush; almost piggie-ish to me.

Todd.Ockert's picture

Reply to Manic

Submitted by Todd.Ockert on

As a disabled American Veteran that can no longer hike like I use to, I need the motorized recreation to get to my favorite places in the outdoors. So, would you take that ability away from me by closing more motorized trails? If your answer is yes, then we will disagree on a lot of suggestions here then. I fought and was willing to die for my country so we have the ability to speak our minds, and discuss items like this. But I feel it is my right to have access to the places that I have had access for years. I am not asking that we open every hiking trail to motorized access, as I know that would never happen. I ask that we do not close any more trails because of some little frog or tortise lives in this area. They will adopt as part of their evolution has taught them to evolve.
As a former hiker, I know how to give space to fellow hikers on the motorized trails that we can share. For me, sharing the beauty of the outdoors is what it really is all about. Do not discriminate aganst those that do not have the ability to hike into places though, and now we choose to use a motor to get us to our favorite fishing hole, or quiet place on the mountain.
So, it really is not being piggie-ish to me...

slippery

Submitted by rideon on

If you demand access to places because of disability, you open up a can of worms. Where does it end? You may want to climb Denali but can't in a wheelchair. Should the NPS construct and maintain a ramp? How much of the redrock country should we Americans give up so you can ride or wheelchair there? Seem like you want it all!. Very piggie-ish if you ask me.

Todd.Ockert's picture

Re: Slippery

Submitted by Todd.Ockert on

I am not asking for OHV trails to be added to places that they do not already exist, but maintain the ones that we currently have. Closure is not management of our forests and deserts!
Taking backcountry areas that have OHV trails and making it wilderness because a special interest group (green) will support your campaign is not proper management of our countries great backcountry. Lands like this does not fit the original 1964 Wilderness act, and should not be made wilderness!
Currently most OHV trails that are created by the forest service and BLM do not have to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act, Why, the cost would be to great to try and comply. But if I can access he area in my Jeep on these backcountry trails, then in my definition, that is access!
As an American Veteran, I fought for all freedoms.

Todd.Ockert's picture

Veterans Rights

Submitted by Todd.Ockert on

Rideon
I don't think I have any more rights than the next person in this country. I fought for those rights, and was willing to die for those rights. Some people think that they should have more rights than others though, and that includes closing public access to our public lands.
When they say that the public lands are still open to me, they are not lying, but only if I am able to hike into these areas! What if I am not able to hike the 5 miles into that great fishing lake in the Sierra's that I use to be able to drive to 3 years ago? Why take away my ability to do what those that have the ability to hike only because I want to use my Jeep to get to the lake or camping area? In this instance, I feel my rights are being infringed on!
As mentioned above though, I do not want new trails made to the top of Half Dome because I am not able to hike it that would allow me to use my jeep to get there. I don't think they ever had a 4x4 trail to the top, and would not want one built now.
I fully advocate responsible recreation, pack it in, pack it out! Leave no trace of your travel through the area other than foot prints or tire tracks on existing trails!
Is that asking too much? I don't think so, but other people think it is?
So, back to you Mr. Rideon: Do I have more or less rights?

Todd

Todd: We're on the same page

Submitted by rideon on

Todd: We're on the same page as far as rights go. You and I have equal -not more not less - say in determining which areas should be open to feet and which open to motors. One of the core concepts in this discussion is this: when motors are allowed in an area, it is effectively closed to the non-motor types. We won't fulfill our recreation expectations in that area. So we don't go. Others have responded to that concept by focusing on the notion of choice that the non-motor types are making. Its our choice to not go into a motor area and we quiet types are certainly welcome to enjoy the motor area. But that recognition doesn't pan out in reality any more than its your choice to pitch a tent on the freeway or try to study for an exam at a rap concert. Both are choices open to you but those choices do not satisfy the goal, the expectation.

I think the only way to satisfy both sides is by separation - either by time or by place. There are currently tons more motorized areas than non-motorized. That's why I am an advocate for more places open only to feet.

Todd.Ockert's picture

Rideon: Same page

Submitted by Todd.Ockert on

Rideon: I think we will agree to disagree.
I would argue that there is more area closed to motorized recreation than open. Excluding all the highways, city streets and such, there is less land available for motorized recreation than for. Currently there are over 109 million acres of Wilderness. When is enough, enough?

I also go out to the forests and deserts for peace and quiet just like you.
I would not camp next to a trail in Johnson Valley for my peace and quiet though. Too many rigs with big motors trying to see who has the most horse power. But I could crawl my jeep past you on a forest trail and you would probably never know I came through.
So, I think we do agree on some of the same things, like peace and quiet in the forests and deserts near our camping areas, but we disagree on where it needs to be.
There needs to be a good mix of the number of trails per acre in a forest compared to no trails in the forest. I think we can maintain tha seperation you speak of if forest management is done correctly! I don't know the magic number here, but I think with enough discussion, it could be found. A trail going across an acre of forest or desert only uses a small percentage of the land. The trail is usually only about 20 to 30 feet wide, and depending on how it crosses that square acre will determine the percentage of land that is used for trat trail.
Do, doing some simple math, and an acre is 43,560 square feet, or 208.7 feet on each side. With a trail being on average of 20 feet wide, if it runs straight across from one side to the other, it will use about 4174 sf of land. That equal about 9 percent of that acre. But not every acre of land in the forest has a trail on it. In the end, I am sure the forest ends up with less than one percent of the forest acres used for trails.

Todd

Hey Todd:

Submitted by rideon on

Hey Todd:

Yep, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. At least we are civil and educated and motivated to continue a reasonable discourse. And apparently we have some desires in common like peace and quiet and all that.

I take you to task on the calculations. Measuring the impact of motorized users by way of acreage physically impacted is like measuring obesity by the percentage of cushion failure in a couch. Somewhat relevant, but doesn't capture all the ramifications.

I think you advanced the discussion with "When is enough, enough?". That's the crucial question and there enters politics. I intend to fight for more WIlderness (capital W wilderness) using the usual and sometimes exasperatingly ineffective tools available to us. And I'll bet you'll do the same. I'll be championing my favorite conservation group - Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) (they are even in my will!). And you I suppose will champion the Blue Ribbon Coalition which is quite good at informing and activating members (and trolls like me).

rideon

Todd.Ockert's picture

Cushion failure

Submitted by Todd.Ockert on

Rideon
I had to laugh at the analogy that you use in the comparison, but in a good way.

It is nice that we have been civil here in discussing our views. Many times it gets into name calling, and out of control.

You are right in that we both will continue to fight for our respective sides.

I think we both can agree that we both want an exceptional experience in the outdoors.

As you commented on, my comment about "When is enough, enough?"
I wish I had the answer for this one, as well as you. But I won't put words into this discussion for you.
I think there are still areas that could be considered wilderness, but at the same time, areas have been made into wilderness do not really qualify as being wilderness, as it was trammeled by man prior to the designation. I would like to see some of these areas returned to responsible receational management.
I am willing to give up some in exchange for some.

Thanks for the civil discussion.

Todd

Todd.Ockert's picture

Re: Maybe see you on the trails!

Submitted by Todd.Ockert on

Rideon

Since you are affiliated with SUWA, I will make the assumption that you are in Utah?
I have only passed through Utah on some travels and never had the time to check out the trails.
Would love to sometime.
I know my wife and I have talked of attending the Jeep event in Moab next year possibly.
If we can make it, it would be nice to have lunch or something and discuss our ideas.

I am sure we will have more discussions on this blog as Greg makes his travels around the country.

Todd

Hey Todd:

Submitted by rideon on

Hey Todd:

Grew up in Utah in SLC and the redrock of SE Utah. Now in Alaska. Could happen that we meet for lunch - who knows. I sometimes get down to Utah in the spring.

Ride on

Submitted by J. Smith on

This will no doubt fall on deaf ears, but here goes anyway.
I suggest you look at some USFS maps showing all the Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Roadless Areas, Wildlife refuges, Conservation Areas, etc. You will find that way over half of "public" land is under one or more designations. Then there are the proposed Wilderness additions put up annually to Congress that wouldn't meet the cut on any of the Roadless studies. The Wilderness Act and nearly all recently added Wilderness are nothing but bastard step children to what Wilderness is described as in the Act. You and your ilk have watered it down to the point of having only limiting the motorized recreationist out of existence. You wish to exclude us... and only because you are a selfish, petty individual.
"Preserving" it has more to do with the wildfires than any beetle or drought. Using a renewable resource correctly makes more sense than burning it down. The burning pollutes the air more than all the motorized traffic can create. The burned areas create more water pollution for years than all the motorized use can.
You say you're an "Environmentalist". You are no such thing. Facts don't support your arguements.

ROVERRIDESALOTLESSNOWTHATITSCLOSEDkidstooo.'s picture

public lands and motor access......

Submitted by ROVERRIDESALOTL... on

It is getting harder and harder every day to go where we used too, not bothering anyone because no one was ever there before, now that bicycles have had a hard time, they want to adopt and take alot away from us responsible recreationalists that use a motor and keep us from traveling across to other lands of allowed motorized access. the private groups need to be able to coincide with out bitching; *hikers have wildernest!- go there and don't bitch about a motorized area next to your neighborhood that has been there for centuries and try to close it! *Mtn bikers, deal with it; motorcycles started your trails you ride, let us help you maitain and educate all users, get along.... *horses, please excuse the idiot that didn't shut his motor off for you, stop him and educate him if you can, we always have to self educate *4 wheelers, full size;we have to use the jeep roads to get to the minimal single track left -give us some room when you hear us coming, and finally- ATV/UTV a texans right to get out and recreate, wear a helmet and stay off the singletrack, just because you think you can make it doesn't give you the right to wreck it for us!
Quality of experience! that is all we all want, 2 motorized wheels need an area more expanse than a 4 wheel drive full size and a quad may need the same but easier routes, bicycles need to have the expanse area also if your an animal, but generally less for the majority, and horses, you have it all; wilderness and motorzed, go get 'em, now the hiker........like I stated earlier; go hike the wilderness, there is more and more every day for you to drive to and strap on your backpack with whatever you want to bring and go get it, walk a mile or a 100 miles you will not encounter a motor if you plan it right.....now;
ALL go out and recreate with the idea we all have our favorite way to do so and respect each other!

You are the man mr. Mummm! go get us some property back and keep what we have to ride that gives US (2 wheel motorizers) our QUALITY EXPERIENCE, I ride as much as I can with my 3 kids under 10; 2 boys and a little girl that gives me the biggest smile when she rides a trail that she couldn't the last time, what a day to see something as such!!! ride as always......ONTHEGAS!!!!

Stats

Submitted by rideon on

Hey brbrian: To be accurate about land use restrictions, we need to look at ALL land, not just federally managed. Look at the whole state of Utah for example and you see a lot of land open to motors.

Pages