What's new
Forums
Members
Resources
Whopper Club
Politics
Pics
Videos
Fishing Reports
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Members
Resources
Whopper Club
Politics
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General
Vehicle Discussion
TRUMP allows ATV's!!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lycanthrope" data-source="post: 489980" data-attributes="member: 562"><p>Yes, the core claims in this post are accurate, based on recent events and reporting. It reflects a real policy action with the expected partisan framing (celebratory on access/multiple-use, critical from environmental groups). </p><p></p><p>whitehouse.gov +1</p><p>Key Facts That Check Out</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">On May 29, 2026, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Removing Unnecessary and Counterproductive Restrictions on Access to Federal Lands.” It explicitly rescinds Nixon’s EO 11644 (1972) and Carter’s EO 11989 (1977). These directed federal agencies (BLM, USFS, etc.) to manage off-road vehicles (ORVs—including ATVs, dirt bikes, snowmobiles) by designating routes/areas while minimizing damage to resources, wildlife harassment, user conflicts, and other impacts. <br /> <br /> whitehouse.gov</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The orders formed the basis for decades of travel management plans that restricted motorized use in many areas to protect habitats, reduce conflicts with hikers/hunters/etc., and limit environmental damage. The new order directs agencies to revise or rescind implementing regulations, aiming for more access and “multiple-use” management. <br /> <br /> themeateater.com +1</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">This applies to federal lands (BLM, National Forests, etc.). Effects on National Parks are noted in coverage as potentially opening more areas, though implementation will take time via agency rulemaking—not an immediate free-for-all. <br /> <br /> nytimes.com</li> </ul><p>Quotes and Reactions</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Sweetwater County Commissioner Taylor Jones and Jason Harris of Lyman (dirt bike enthusiast) — Their positive comments match the article nearly verbatim, including Jones on balance/public access and Harris on minimal impact from lighter bikes and less federal control. <br /> <br /> cowboystatedaily.com</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Sierra Club’s Nick Gevock called it a “terrible” idea, citing risks like pushing wildlife onto private land, weed spread, habitat damage, and favoring off-roaders. <br /> <br /> cowboystatedaily.com</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Amber Travsky (avid hiker/mountain biker from Laramie) expressed similar worries about too much freedom for off-roaders, existing designated areas sufficing, noise, and landscape damage. <br /> <br /> cowboystatedaily.com</li> </ul><p>The post’s source is essentially a Cowboy State Daily article (June 4, 2026) titled something very similar (“ATV Riders Cheer Trump Opening Access To Federal Lands, Critics Expect Disaster”), which the social media version adapts with enthusiastic pro-access commentary. </p><p></p><p>cowboystatedaily.com</p><p>Important Context and Nuance</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Not a total “lockout” reversal yet: The EO removes the old mandates but agencies must still follow existing laws (e.g., FLPMA, NEPA) and update travel plans. Concentrated use in limited areas has indeed caused issues (erosion, conflicts), as supporters note. Critics highlight real risks: soil compaction, invasive species, wildlife disturbance, sediment in streams, and conflicts with non-motorized users. Both sides have evidence from studies on ORV impacts. <br /> <br /> winterwildlands.org</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Public lands are taxpayer-owned and managed for multiple uses (recreation, grazing, mining, conservation), but “multiple use” has long been debated—environmental laws and court cases have shaped restrictions over decades.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Environmental groups (Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, etc.) strongly oppose it as weakening protections. Motorized advocacy groups (e.g., BlueRibbon Coalition) support it as restoring access. <br /> <br /> defenders.org</li> </ul><p>Bottom line: The post accurately reports the EO, timing, historical context, local quotes, and polarized reactions. The interpretive spin (“restoring public access after government lockout,” “radicals treated them like private preserves,” etc.) is opinionated pro-recreation advocacy, but the underlying events and statements are factual. Implementation details will play out over time through agency processes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lycanthrope, post: 489980, member: 562"] Yes, the core claims in this post are accurate, based on recent events and reporting. It reflects a real policy action with the expected partisan framing (celebratory on access/multiple-use, critical from environmental groups). whitehouse.gov +1 Key Facts That Check Out [LIST] [*]On May 29, 2026, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Removing Unnecessary and Counterproductive Restrictions on Access to Federal Lands.” It explicitly rescinds Nixon’s EO 11644 (1972) and Carter’s EO 11989 (1977). These directed federal agencies (BLM, USFS, etc.) to manage off-road vehicles (ORVs—including ATVs, dirt bikes, snowmobiles) by designating routes/areas while minimizing damage to resources, wildlife harassment, user conflicts, and other impacts. whitehouse.gov [*]The orders formed the basis for decades of travel management plans that restricted motorized use in many areas to protect habitats, reduce conflicts with hikers/hunters/etc., and limit environmental damage. The new order directs agencies to revise or rescind implementing regulations, aiming for more access and “multiple-use” management. themeateater.com +1 [*]This applies to federal lands (BLM, National Forests, etc.). Effects on National Parks are noted in coverage as potentially opening more areas, though implementation will take time via agency rulemaking—not an immediate free-for-all. nytimes.com [/LIST] Quotes and Reactions [LIST] [*]Sweetwater County Commissioner Taylor Jones and Jason Harris of Lyman (dirt bike enthusiast) — Their positive comments match the article nearly verbatim, including Jones on balance/public access and Harris on minimal impact from lighter bikes and less federal control. cowboystatedaily.com [*]Sierra Club’s Nick Gevock called it a “terrible” idea, citing risks like pushing wildlife onto private land, weed spread, habitat damage, and favoring off-roaders. cowboystatedaily.com [*]Amber Travsky (avid hiker/mountain biker from Laramie) expressed similar worries about too much freedom for off-roaders, existing designated areas sufficing, noise, and landscape damage. cowboystatedaily.com [/LIST] The post’s source is essentially a Cowboy State Daily article (June 4, 2026) titled something very similar (“ATV Riders Cheer Trump Opening Access To Federal Lands, Critics Expect Disaster”), which the social media version adapts with enthusiastic pro-access commentary. cowboystatedaily.com Important Context and Nuance [LIST] [*]Not a total “lockout” reversal yet: The EO removes the old mandates but agencies must still follow existing laws (e.g., FLPMA, NEPA) and update travel plans. Concentrated use in limited areas has indeed caused issues (erosion, conflicts), as supporters note. Critics highlight real risks: soil compaction, invasive species, wildlife disturbance, sediment in streams, and conflicts with non-motorized users. Both sides have evidence from studies on ORV impacts. winterwildlands.org [*]Public lands are taxpayer-owned and managed for multiple uses (recreation, grazing, mining, conservation), but “multiple use” has long been debated—environmental laws and court cases have shaped restrictions over decades. [*]Environmental groups (Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, etc.) strongly oppose it as weakening protections. Motorized advocacy groups (e.g., BlueRibbon Coalition) support it as restoring access. defenders.org [/LIST] Bottom line: The post accurately reports the EO, timing, historical context, local quotes, and polarized reactions. The interpretive spin (“restoring public access after government lockout,” “radicals treated them like private preserves,” etc.) is opinionated pro-recreation advocacy, but the underlying events and statements are factual. Implementation details will play out over time through agency processes. [/QUOTE]
Verification
What is the most common fish caught on this site?
Post reply
Recent Posts
Scientists?
Latest: Allen
11 minutes ago
TRUMP allows ATV's!!!
Latest: Walleye Slayer
12 minutes ago
Teachers
Latest: Lycanthrope
Today at 10:54 AM
WTB pigeons
Latest: 1lessdog
Today at 10:40 AM
Camping and Fishing
Latest: 1lessdog
Today at 10:15 AM
W
Oahe 26
Latest: WALLEYESLAMMER
Today at 8:39 AM
T
Found Fishing Rod - East Park
Latest: Tymurrey
Today at 7:09 AM
A
Rain totals?
Latest: Auggie
Yesterday at 8:42 PM
R
Property taxes
Latest: riverview
Yesterday at 3:11 PM
I
Favorite Sunrise/Sunset Pics
Latest: Iwhackwheat
Yesterday at 10:36 AM
What are you listening to these days?
Latest: Zogman
Yesterday at 10:14 AM
T
Colorado Elk - Rifle
Latest: Tymurrey
Yesterday at 8:07 AM
C
`/*%$ taxes
Latest: camper
Yesterday at 7:38 AM
P
Food porn
Latest: Prairie Doggin'
Wednesday at 4:46 PM
Not just pheasants in Pembina
Latest: lunkerslayer
Wednesday at 12:26 PM
R
Smoked lake trout yt
Latest: Retired-Guy
Wednesday at 12:08 PM
T
Poor Sportsmanship
Latest: thriller1
Wednesday at 9:24 AM
Insanity in Oregon
Latest: Kurtr
Wednesday at 8:56 AM
RR
Red River 6-3-26
Latest: Captainbrad
Wednesday at 7:59 AM
Cool new Gadgets
Latest: lunkerslayer
Tuesday at 8:11 PM
Question for motorcycle enthus
Latest: Jiffy
Tuesday at 6:29 PM
Friends of NDA
Forums
General
Vehicle Discussion
TRUMP allows ATV's!!!
Top
Bottom