Editorial

Environmental laws stacked against users

Published on: March 17, 2006

The ongoing battle over the Imperial Sand Dunes took another turn this week with the ruling of a federal judge that 49,000 acres of closed areas could not be reopened to off-roaders, even though the federal agency that manages the recreational area had deemed it appropriate.

It really comes as no surprise to those who are familiar with federal laws governing environmental protections. These laws are stacked against rational use of public lands that encompasses fully diversified interests and takes economic concerns into account instead of purely environmental ones.

The 49,000 acres near Yuma were closed more than four years ago due to a lawsuit by environmentalists, who claim that off-roading endangers the Peirson’s milk vetch plant and the desert tortoise.

The Bureau of Land Management intended the closure to be temporary while a management plan was developed, which has now been done. That is why the agency wanted the closed areas reopened. It is that reopening that was rejected at the urging of environmentalists. The judge found there were inadequate protections in place.
The ruling was called a "huge win for wildlife and people who care about the dunes" by Daniel Patterson of the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, which has been at the forefront of the efforts to keep off-roaders out of the closed areas.

The reality, of course, is that it is not only the environmentalists who care about the dunes. The much larger number of people who use the dunes for recreational purposes such as off-roading care equally as much about the dunes. They are also trying to protect something, and that is their ability to freely use the dunes that they love.

Unfortunately, it will be difficult for them to achieve that goal as long as this nation’s environmental laws continue to be slanted in favor of the protectionists instead of recognizing the wide spectrum of public users and interests.

The only hope for change is a swing in public opinion in that direction.




© Copyright 2006 YumaSun.com