Pacific Northwest Four Wheel Drive Association

Pacific Northwest Four Wheel Drive Association (
-   Land Matters Discussion Area (
-   -   BRC/Reiter (

jim putman 03-13-2010 11:43 AM

Grumpy (dave w) I swiped this off of The PP site since I couldnt repl to it there and this is a real hot button topic for me.

Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:43 pm Post subject: BRC and Reiter!


DNR has closed Reiter, if and when it re-opens the DNR plans to make it much smallerMarch 9th, 2010


Dear BRC members, supporters and action alert subscribers,

Our partners over at the Northwest Motorcycle Association (NMA) sent us word that the Washington State Department of Natural Resources has released its Draft Reiter Foothills Forest Recreation Plan.

You can read NMA's alert here:

BRC is asking our members and supporters in Washington to contact Washington DNR Commissioner of Public Lands, Peter Goldmark, telling him the DNR should prioritize motorized recreation at Reiter.

We've put together another one of our INSANELY EASY 3-Step action items below.

Please take action today, and please forward this to friends and family who could help.

Thanks in advance,
Ric Foster
Public Lands Department Manager
BlueRibbon Coalition
ext 107



The Washington State Department of Natural Resources has released its Draft Reiter Foothills Forest Recreation Plan, and there are serious concerns about the current plan. The new DNR plan proposes limiting ORV use to only 1,100 acres. That is 72.5% less land for ORV use than what has historically been available.

The DNR admits that 1,100 acres is inadequate to accommodate existing ORV use, and their own research has identified additional area suitable for ORV use. Still they refuse to increase the area available to ORVs.

Please write to Washington DNR Commissioner of Public Lands, Peter Goldmark, telling him what you think of this plan, and asking him for a detailed reply on how he plans to solve the problem.


NOTE: Please Remember - be polite. If possible, make your comments as personal as you can.

STEP 1: Open your email program and start a draft email. Address the email to Put "Draft Reiter Foothills Forest Recreation Plan"
in the Subject Line.

STEP 2: Use the comments below as a guideline for comments in your email.
Cut and paste is okay, but try to make your comment letter as personal as possible.

STEP 3: Take just a minute to add a bit about where you live, where you like to ride
and how much trail-based recreation means to you. Be certain to include your
name and address. A return email address is NOT sufficient! ("anonymous" emails
are often discarded).

EXTRA CREDIT: If you can add any personal testimony about your experiences enjoying this spectacular area, please take a minute to add that to your email.

Then click "Send" and you're done!


The area the proposed Reiter Foothill plan allocates for motorized recreation is significantly inadequate to facilitate the current recreational usage. This shortcoming is addressable as noted below.
In addition to the proposed ORV area, additional suitable area should be allocated for lightweight, single-track motorized recreation.

It is important that the DNR recognize that different types of ORV use have different impacts on the landscape. Just because the largest ORV may be inappropriate in a specific area, that should not preclude allowing lightweight two wheeled ORV access.

Prioritizing motorized recreation at Reiter is consistent with the DNR's Statewide Recreation Program Vision and Management Goals. "DNR envisions a future in which the lands it manages offer distinct and diverse outdoor recreation opportunities within the overall fabric of recreation in Washington."

The overall fabric of recreation in Washington includes prohibitions on motorized trail recreation in all National Parks, all Wilderness Areas, all Natural Resource Conservation Areas, all State Parks (except the 600 acre Riverside facility near Spokane), the Mt Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest, and the vast majority of county and city parks. At a statewide level, motorized trail use is prohibited on over 80 percent of the trail mileage. In the areas adjacent to the Reiter Foothills, that prohibition is 100 percent.

When considering the overall recreation fabric, it is reasonable for all areas within the Reiter study area that are found to be suitable for motorized recreation to be incorporated in the plan as areas where some form of motorized trail recreation is allowed.

The Reiter Foothills Forest Recreation Plan shows that the offroad motorcyclists are the largest user group, their recreational needs should be a priority.

( Can we lean a mite heavier in favor of 4x4's, and then kick to help with NOVA?! I feel a nastygram coming on...DW)
'98 F150 4x4 S/C...NOT A SCOUT, Dammit

This is exactly why I don't support Blue-ribbon anymore. The idea of a large blanket Org. that supports us all is a great idea but time and time again all I see from Blue-ribbon is action supporting snowmobiles and motorcycle. in every alert I have seen from them in recent years 4x4 use is conspicuously absent:( And to add to the cake where was blue ribbon with the NOVA funding theft ? Where is blue ribbon at with their "Backcountry" designation ? With all of the wilderness grabs going on this should be their absolute highest priority but nothing has happened with it since it was introduced years ago. It still just remains as a idea on the table. I supported Blue-ribbon for years when it was new and if they ever open their eyes and start supporting ALL of us I will again. Until then I will donate my time and money to the ORGs that actually support OUR use as 4x4s. Jim

Grumpy 03-13-2010 03:43 PM

Jim, if you see anything over there that isn't over here, you're more than welcome to "steal" it:thumbup: And I agree whole heartedly with your comments! As of this time, I don't see them as big support, and my comments to them go unanswered. I alerted them to the legal action on Sled Springs, up at Enterprise. Got a note back about interest, then nothing. This has come up with the club several times, and we feel pretty much the same.

CJ3BWILLYS 03-14-2010 12:51 AM


bjeepin3 03-15-2010 07:39 AM

While I undersdtand the sentiments towards BRC, I think that we need to also look at who bankrolls them...

In some ways, I view BRC as earnest money put down for buying a house. The amount of money put down shows bank or buyer how seriuos you are about buying the house. In this case, how much money has PNW4WDA as an Association, our regions or our member clubs put into the coffers of BRC to show them that we are serious contenders in the event of a lawsuit on behalf of 4x4 enthusiasts? My guess would be very little at this point.

When you compare the money given to BRC by the snowmobilers and the ATV/cycle groups and then what we have been willing to do, I bet that they outstrip our donations by 5 to 1. Unfortunately, money talks and you are going to serve the ones that give it to you.

In talking to BRC, they have had no problem helping or guiding responses to appeals or how a process works. They are selective in what they are willing to fight legally because of money issues. In the case of Sled Springs, they were willing to fight the issue legally because the laws had been followed in regards to process. The quad folks in the area (who basically were the ones involved in the process and development of said OHV area) have anted up $5k for legal costs estimated to be $15-50K by the time they get done.

So, I guess what I am saying is, that we as an Association are going to get back from BRC what we put into it. Just like some of our members feel about our own association. My other thought is that we as a subgroup of recreationists involved in BRC, have not been good at being involved in BRC in recent years and have allowed the snowmobilers and ATV groups to take over, if you will. But it is all water under the bridge at this point as we have too many in our fold who hold grudges about what BRC has or has not done for us and not willing to try and improve the relationship or ask how to get out of them what we want...

just duckie 03-15-2010 12:06 PM

BRCís origins were for motorcycles, quads and snowmobiles and they have been effctive
Region 6 has donated way over 25 thousand dollars to BRC since the late 80’s. When we contacted them for strategy over the Christmas Valley Sand Dunes closures they refused to look at our works.

Santiam, Pine Mountain, Cline Falls TM Plans; when we asked for advice of BRC we never even got a phone call in return from them.

Region 6 then began investing in ourselves by banking our events proceeds into a trails-legal fund thereby taking charge of our own legal actions and defense of our own backyard, Region 6.

Deschutes County was a class II Mecca of trails in the 60’s. Motorcycles came along and demanded separate trails from class II rigs. A large amount of our trails went away, designated to single track and 50 inch limits, then horseback riders and so on started demanding exclusive trails until we are now the minority in an area that use to be named jeep trails on agency maps.

This scenario went throughout the west. BRC had for the majority of their efforts been creating single track and quad riding areas. The addition to BRC of other “users” has been an afterthought on their part. I would venture to guess necessity being the mother of invention. Meaning financing makes strange bedfellows. Sure bets are also I feel a calling card for BRC. Sure bets and media coverage; if the challenge is a high profile case they seem to address it.

Region 6 is still giving BRC monies however; we are working with them by giving BRC another 3000 dollars in the fight at 6 Rivers. This is money they requested of us. They say they have a basically open and shut case and approached several associations in our area for monies; Region 6 was just one they asked money from.

We won't get a house, we may get to keep a trail but there are no guarantees for the Class II users. BRC chooses their fight by their own stipulations. If BRC wins at 6 Rivers and their legal cost monies are returned by the win we will not get a refund.

PNW membership should not depend on BRC. PNW should find a lands lawyer who can stand up and defend our liberties in the public land arena. Enough monies are made by events within our organization to defend our own backyards. This is not pro PNW or anti BRC it is just an opinion, in today’s climate 4wheeling means being political if you want to keep what you have, and if you are going to be political you must have the tools.

Members of clubs who belong to two organizations and ask monies from one for the other organization cause emotions to win over common sense and character. Right now PNW’s code of ethics doesn’t say we will fight to the last man standing for our legal right to trails. I think it should. BRC is an effective organization it does what it was created to do. PNW is a great 4x4 organization it must evolve to do what its creators knew and had forethought to prepare for, we must as its current members take up the banner, charge and enter the arena prepared, lawyer or document or legislator in hand for our freedom to wheel as we wish be it in sand, dirt, mountain trail, snow, mud or rock.

No person, no organization nor any association is a better advocate for the 4x4 enthusiast, a Class II user, than The Pacific Northwest 4 Wheel Drive Association.

JUST JACK 03-15-2010 01:16 PM

Hopefully being able to help BRC with Six Rivers Forest, Region 6 will start a better working relationship. And maybe they will remember us next time we ask for help. Or does 3000 on the 25 thousand even buy a porch light?

CJ3BWILLYS 03-15-2010 09:58 PM

I'm not trying to "Bash" Blue Ribbon. I'm a member, and supporter of BRC. I do find it very ironic that a group that claims to represent all forms of outdoor recreation would throw Class II users under the bus, while claiming "2 wheeled ORV's" do less damage to the environment. The motorcycle enthusiast that wrote that press release, is helping the environmental extremists win, by dividing us, as motorized recreationalists.
Instead the author should have described how we could unite, and keep the area open for Class I,II, and III OHV's. :thumbup: :)

Art Waugh 03-16-2010 08:27 AM

As an FYI for everyone else, Christmas valley was past the appeal time frame and would require a lawsuit to get anything back. Since BLM instituted the closure to protect fossils in the hardpan as the sand moves east, that type of a suit is a non-winner from the get-go. A 2 gram fossil will outweigh a 4000 lb rig every time in the court system.

And as I also recollect, a letter from BRC helped out back a few years ago with McGrew.

Not trying to stir the pot, just stating things as I remember it.

Hope that BRC would at least take a hard look at the issue at Reiter and hopefully get invloved.

JUST JACK 03-16-2010 08:58 AM

Christmas Valley was let go past the appeal because the people on our committee dropped the ball and everyone knows it. There is always options, but we had none because we rolled over and played dead and watched the time elapse.
Now someone woke up the sleeping dog on the McGrew and we can start that all over again!

just duckie 03-16-2010 09:13 AM


Originally Posted by JUST JACK (Post 12045)
Christmas Valley was let go past the appeal because the people on our committee dropped the ball and everyone knows it. There is always options, but we had none because we rolled over and played dead and watched the time elapse.
Now someone woke up the sleeping dog on the McGrew and we can start that all over again!

The BRC representative that belonged to Region 6 (who was our committee) held the Appeal and the decision in his hands telling us he had all in control until way past time we could do anything. Then BRC said,"we are helping you." Thanks for the help.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.