Muddy Waters MX

Omnibus Land Act of 2008 - your government at work

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:44:37 GMT

Whatever else you may think about the recent election, one thing is certainly going to change — public policy about the public's right to use public lands. Specifically, our right to ride and responsibly use public trails and land will be under even greater assault.

The latest major assault on our rights as American off-road enthusiasts is the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2008. Please visit the AMA Rapid Response Center or Save the Trails to let your representatives know you want them to kill this bill.

This bill is bad by it's very nature. There are more than 140 separate parts in it, and you can bet your last dollar that no one voting on it knows what they all are. Any bill in Congress with the word omnibus in its title is bad. Period. No exceptions.

The word omnibus means dealing with many items at once, and it's the straight path to hell for decent legislation. Omnibus bills are expressly designed to obfuscate their contents, create hidy-holes for pet projects, and get things passed that would never pass on their own if they had to survive the harsh light of open debate. They are a favorite tool of corrupt, lazy politicians and special interests, who use them to hide things for which there is no public support. Half the time there are no, or very few, specifics in the bill at all when it is passed. Most of the specifics get written later by useless bureaucrats. Great, huh?

The only sure thing about this bill is that, as off-road enthusiasts, we will be worse off if it passes. It's possible (but very difficult) to get good land use legislation. But it requires open debate, consideration, participation by the public, and lots of hard work. The Omnibus Bill got none of those things. It's a shortcut, half-ass, slap-and-go, piece of lame duck legislation. Let your Representative know that we've had enough of their stupid legislating and they should just go home.

FIM vs DMG - the battle for world domination

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:16:39 GMT

Two things of note this past week in the world of motocross (three, I guess, but I'm not all that interested in who hired Chad Reed — it was obvious someone would) – Youthstream opens U.S. office in southern California, and CycleNews publishes an interview with FIM president Vito Ippolito confirming the FIM's intentions to grow a Supercross World championship (Cycle News Issue #32, Aug. 13, 2008, pg 7.)

Neither of these things is unexpected, but together they are an important warning — nature abhors a vacuum, particularly the vacuum created when the AMA sold off professional racing.

Under the AMA pro racing in every discipline except road race and SX was a goat rodeo and a national embarrassment. Getting out of the racing business was overwhelmingly the right thing to do. Selling most everything to Daytona Motorsports Group was the right choice. But that doesn't mean we didn't get some new and different problems in the bargain.

One problem is that Supercross is a sort of bastard stepchild, grandfathered under a very nearly perpetual contract to LiveNation, a company whose business is live event promotion. LiveNation produces nearly 30,000 events each year, ranging from monster trucks to rock concerts. The AMA still has significant interest in, and rules-making rights for, SX under this contract. Although there have been rumors that these rights might be sold off as well, it's not clear that they will be. This has split the US motocross scene in two, with the AMA/LiveNation on one side and the new AMA Pro Racing's MX Nationals on the other. There's currently a big disconnect between the worlds of MX and SX, and there is no longer a single entity to represent the US in international discussions. The moves by Youthstream and Ippolito are opening volleys in the war to fill the gap in this new world.

In the same issue of Cycle News Henny Ray Abrams' "Chicanery" column lays out a doomsday scenario. Abrams is a firebrand, a muckraker, a hyperbolic prophet of doom who is unhappy no matter what the AMA does. He's excoriated Rob Dingman since he took the helm of the AMA. In spite of this, or maybe because of it, I like to read his stuff. In Abrams' vision LiveNation/AMA/FIM expand the SX World Championship to the point it sucks so many dollars, riders, and dates from the US Nationals the series collapses. The relevant quote from Ippolito is this:

The FIM is interested in having events outside of North America. If we have a World Championship, it must be a real World Championship. We have to push in this direction, and LiveNation agrees that this is important. They understand and are very interested to help have rounds outside of North America.

Abrams is right about a lot of things. Add 4 or 5 dates to the SX series, throw in the extra travel time to Asia and Australia, and you could have a real conflict with current MX National dates. At the very least you create a really long season. Now consider the Youthstream move, which has the following stated goal:

Youthstream USA has been formed to expand Youthstream's worldwide operations and bring world-class events to the USA and other markets. This includes future Motocross and SuperMoto Grand Prix events and the prestigious Red Bull Motocross of Nations.

Do we not have world-class events here already? Do we not have the fastest motocross and Supercross riders in the world? How many former World Champions come here to test their metal after winning the FIM's European "World" Championship? Again, from Ippolito:

In the Supercross World Championship we have 90-percent American riders, and in the Motocross World Championship we have 90-percent European riders. The problem is, Where are the American riders in the World Motocross Championship? Where are the European riders in the World Supercross Championship? Are these World Championships, or not? In MotoGP and World Superbike it is more universal.

And that is the problem. There's no incentive for American riders to go to Europe, especially since the world's largest, fastest motocross market (that would be us for those of you keeping score) is not included. Bringing 1 or 2 GP rounds to North America is not likely to solve this problem. We're Americans. We don't like eating a different ethnic food every week. We don't like dealing with customs and passports for a bunch of little countries when over here we would just call them states and be done with it. It's all quite fun as a vacation, but as a lifestyle, or as a way to make a living, it grows tiresome.

To get a handle on this the FIM and Youthstream need a piece of the US market. They need a way to change the perception of the MX Nationals in the US and the World, and to bring the MX Nationals underneath the "World Championships" in a way that is palatable to US fans. That's why they bid on the MX Nationals series. And that's why it's a good thing Rob Dingman didn't sell it to them.

We are looking at the opening rounds of a battle for world domination. The old status quo, where both sides muddled around in their own way, is falling. The US is the battleground — LiveNation/AMA/FIM on one side, AMA Pro Racing/MXSports on the other. My guess is that a truce will be formed. If the FIM push too far they will lose. There is no historical evidence that a European-based motorsports championship can dominate an American market. AMA Pro Racing/MXSports know this. But it would also be very cool to have some GP rounds and big international races here. Both side know this, too.

What is likely is a growing chasm between SX and MX, with more and more riders choosing one or the other. Arenacross is an attempt to create a grassroots version of SX, and there is a lot of territory in the US where small, indoor facilities are very popular for large parts of the year. Lots of little mini riders are growing up practicing on small SX tracks. Sooner or later motocross will be forced to abandon its younger American sibling and go head-to-head for riders and fans. If it is to survive it must have dedicated resources across the business spectrum - not merely become a stepchild of larger, Supercross-focused organizations.

To this end, Dingman's decision may ultimately prove to be the right one, but we're likely to see a lot of bloodshed in the meantime.

Smart money says new AMA Pro Racing will get it right

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:54:43 GMT

The entire professional road racing community has been up in arms since DMG (now officially AMA Pro Racing) began making their presence felt. The complaints have been long, loud, and many. A person less magnanimous than me might even call it incessant whining. But I won't do that. I understand what all the furor is about. The road racers were, more or less, happy with the status quo, and DMG have begun shaking that up — not always in a positive direction.

DMG may have misjudged some things. They will undoubtedly make mistakes. But they will learn — and learn fast. They will learn fast for one simple reason — they are in a market-driven situation. The new AMA Pro racing is a business and they are accountable to shareholders. The amount of money they return to shareholders is an unambiguous measuring stick of their success, and to succeed they must please two very important constituencies — the race fans and the manufacturers who support racing (at some level they have to please the racers as well, but not so much as the other two.)

This is a huge difference from the old AMA. In The Non-Profit Professional I wrote about the problems and inherent conflicts the old AMA business model presented to professional racing. The old AMA was a non-profit. They were answerable to no one, really. They ended up serving the whims of the manufacturers like a cheap hooker. The fans had no influence. The racers had no influence. They vacillated, prevaricated, and obfuscated. Flat track racing was dead. Outdoor MX was dying. And there was no one to hold the old AMA accountable.

This isn't true for the new AMA Pro Racing. It's a business. With profit targets and hard measures and clear goals and objectives. That's how businesses are run. That's how pro racing should always be run. Yes, you have to love a sport — you can't set the same profit targets for flat track racing that you do for mega-million-dollar rock concerts. You can't treat it like selling laundry detergent to soccer moms. You have to understand the needs and preferences of the fan base, and you have to deliver the marketing vehicle that manufacturers want.

The new AMA Pro racing has the experience of running the most successful motorsports franchise in the world. They know what it takes. They just need time to get acclimated to the new environment. But they will do it. At least that's where I'm placing my bets.

Mike Kidd chosen to lead AMA Pro Flat Track

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:13:46 GMT

AMA Pro Racing (the new AMA Pro Racing) announced Thursday that long-time, old school flat track racer, former AMA Grand National Champion, race promoter, Motorcycle Hall of Fame member, and Texan Mike Kidd has been chosen to head the redevelopment of the national flat track program. This is good news. Kidd has been around the block more than once and knows the flat track business. He's also seen the ups and downs of race promoting, being one of the first to bring racing to the small arenas in the mid-'80s.

I love flat track — watching those big Harley XR750s pitched completely sideways at 100mph in a mile race is awesome. The old AMA's apathy toward flat track was exceeded only by their apathy toward outdoor MX. Flat track is a genuinely American form of competition and deserves much better. I've read that AMA Pro Racing's Roger Edmondson is a big flat track fan, and this move to bring in Kidd is encouraging.

Kidd has done some very innovative things in his promotional career, but it seemed he never really had the big bucks behind him that he needed - even though he had the backing of Clear Channel for a while. It just didn't work. But now that he's got the backing of a group with both money and a love of the sport things could be very different. I hope so.

Long live the two-stroke Part Deux: FUD in the marketplace

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:24:26 GMT

Editor's note: You may want to read Long live the two-stroke: Part 1 and FIM to put 2-strokes on even footing in 2010 for more background.

Recently a vintage racing/CZ friend posted the following query here:

Hey Terry, Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not totally sure, but hasn't Calif banned 2 stroke sales there or is planning on doing so?

Now this friend is pretty active in the vintage scene and has been around motorcycles for a long time, so while I thought he was incorrect I took his query seriously. A quick Google search turned up all sorts of claims, questions, wild assertions, and misinformation with very little real truth. I located a California government site, the California Department of Boating and Waterways, which had clear language dispelling the myth (see my original response for details), but the CDBW is all about boats, not motorcycles or ATVs. So clearly a more diligent search was called for.

I spent the time to find and read the actual California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations concerning Off Highway Recreational Vehicles — meaning all motorcycles and ATVs. What I found was what I thought I would find, which I will discuss below. But aside from merely satisfying my own curiosity and answering my friend's question, I was really concerned with how widely gross mischaracterizations of the law are spread across the internet and taken as common knowledge. After all, if this impression exists among long-time enthusiasts, it's clear we have a disconnect between "common knowledge" and fact. The past, present and future of two-stroke technology seems mired in Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD).

So let's start with the facts, at least as I have been able to identify them. The following is a direct quote from the CARB OHRV regulations page:

The history of developing regulations for OHVs
To improve air quality in California, ARB saw clear and compelling reasons to adopt the off-highway recreational vehicle regulations. When the regulations were adopted in 1994, the Board concluded that with three years lead-time, manufacturers would be able to produce and sell in California a full range of OHVs meeting the new emission standards. It was anticipated that at first manufacturers would produce OHVs powered by cleaner four-stroke engines (this was the case in the 1980s with on-highway motorcycles) and that modified, cleaner two-stroke engines would later come into use. At the 1994 Board meeting, industry was, for the most part, in agreement with ARB's proposal. Industry and trade organization testimony centered on requests for a time extension for OHVs with engines 90cc and under, which the Board approved.

After the regulations were passed, however, OHV user groups and dealers began meeting with ARB staff and asking for more flexible regulations. These requests were made at a time when it was becoming apparent that OHV manufacturers were not providing a wide range and number of emission-compliant dirt bikes. Initially, there were less than 10 emission-compliant dirt bike models available, which resulted in potentially fewer sales and economic hardships for many dealers; particularly those dealers selling brands that had no compliant models. To address this problem, the Board approved amendments to the regulations that provided relief but still retained emission reductions.

And the following paragraph from the CDMV's OHRV Guidelines PDF:

Green Sticker
Year round use at all California OHRV riding areas.

Green stickers are issued to OHRVs certified by their manufacturer to meet the California OHRV emission standards (anti-pollution) and ALL 2002 model year and older OHRVs. OHRVs certified to meet emissions standards are identified by a label attached to the vehicle frame by the manufacturer.

Note that the only line that mentions two-stroke is the following, "...and that modified, cleaner two-stroke engines would later come into use." Assuming that CARB's representation of its history and regulations is accurate we can assume the following: California did not attempt to ban two-stroke technology in 1994, hasn't since, and is not now planning to ban two-stroke technology. In fact, you can still ride your old two-stroke anywhere you want. What you can't do is ride a new (2003 or later), non-compliant two-stroke anywhere you want.

This is not an endorsement of the CARB regulations. It's not any kind of statement about the regulations at all. This is not about whether the CARB rules were, are, or will be good, bad, or indifferent. It's a simple observation of fact in the face of a lot of misinformation. CARB's goal was to reduce emissions into the land, air, and water. Two-strokes of the era were — for the most part — dirty, oily, nasty, high-emissions engines. Those engines could not pass the new standards. But that is nowhere near a ban on the fundamental technology. So much for the facts of the matter. Now let's get to what may have happened.

Let me tell you all a story 'bout a man named Fud...

The following story is based on research, industry observations, and conversations with industry personnel – including an engineer and a motorcycle company president. Let's assume that a large, multi-national corporation (for simplicity we'll use a fictitious entity called Company H) manufactures everything from inexpensive lawn mowers and power generators to motorcycles and $40,000 SUVs. Every item in their massive product line is powered by a four-stroke motor. Every item, that is, except a small group of dirt bikes. The company has enormous investments and intellectual property in the development, marketing, and sales of four-stroke-driven products.

Company H is aware that certain proprietary methods, techniques, or technologies for lowering two-stroke emissions are either available or under development, some by their primary competitors. But Company H doesn't own any of the intellectual property (patents) associated with this improvement. Further, two-stroke engines do not fit the company's financial model — costing extra for development (since they can't leverage their vast institutional knowledge of four-strokes) — while generating lower margins in sales and service parts.

Company H is not alone. It is part of an oligopoly - a situation where there is only a small group of sellers for a product or service. According to Oligopoly Watch:

Oligopolies have been around as long as commerce has. The term denotes a situation where there are few sellers for a product or service. The members of an oligopoly change the nature of a free market. While they can't dictate price and availability like a monopoly can, they often turn into friendly competitors, since it is in all the members' interest to maintain a stable market and profitable prices.

The new oligopoly is made up of multinational corporations that have chosen specific product or service categories to dominate. In each category, over time, only two to four major players prosper. Starting a new company in that market segment is difficult, and the few that do succeed are often gobbled up or run out of business by the oligopolies.

We know from watching the actions of numerous oligopolies — in agriculture, mining, media, pharmaceuticals, book publishing, banking, defense, etc. — that they have common behavior patterns. Key (for this story) among those patterns is this: Oligopolies try to master three basic forces: shelf life, shelf space, and mind space.

Let's play company CEO

Assume that you are CEO of Company H. Your name is Mr. Fud-san. You don't want to make two-stroke motors. You have no economic incentive to make them. While they may be cheaper to operate and maintain for your customers, they generate less revenue for you. It's not in the best interest of your shareholders to spend money making two-stroke products. You already have everything you need to make very profitable (much more profitable than two-stroke) products using your own technology. From your perspective two-stroke motors are an unnecessary, low-margin nuisance. As CEO of Company H you are in a very good position. You are Number 1 in the motorcycle market. Another key principle of oligopolies is "Being #1 is great, being #2 is good, being #3 is difficult, being #4 or higher is a losing game." As Numero Uno you have the unique opportunity to quietly influence Nos. 2, 3, and 4. These folks know that if you put your mind to developing four-stroke race motors you will succeed, and they do not want to be unprepared. They know that, as No. 1, your marketing has great influence over the market and taking you on head-to-head just causes problems for everyone.

Even if they have new two-stroke technologies in the works you know they will follow No. 1, because another rule of oligopolies is "Members of oligopolies tend to converge." Whoever leads the market sets the tone for product, marketing and message for everyone else. It's all in their best interest. Now you have to start making some moves. You have to signal your friendly enemies and begin working on the mindspace of your market.

What should you do?

The 1994 CARB regulations have given you a fantastic launching point. You can leverage this to position your company as the "green" leader for years to come. How about creating uncertainty about the future of the two-stroke by announcing that you plan to completely phase out two-stroke motor production? That generates a lot of publicity and leads to obvious questions about why. You can now legitimately create doubt that two-strokes can meet emissions standards by pointing out how dirty they are. You can also answer that you have great, compliant four-stroke technology either on the market or under development. You can promote your four-stroke engines as cleaner and better for the environment. The fact that there are equally efficient, compliant two-stroke technologies available or under development is irrelevant. These products are not in your plans. They won't be on the market for a year or two, and you have a window of opportunity, the power, and the tools to erase them from the public consciousness.

Your marketing department goes to work pitching the "massive power" and ridability of these new four-strokes. Fear that two-strokes have no future becomes your ally. You put your copious money where your mouth is. You begin to pressure motorcycle governing bodies and rules committees to support you in this important, environmentally-friendly (and oh, by the way, very profitable) move. The rules and regulations and class structures grow more friendly to your technology every year. The tracks themselves begin to change as your preferred products overwhelm all others. You know you have to move quickly, because some of those two-stroke technologies might work out, and you don't control them. So you need to get control of the market's mindspace. You need to get products (yours and your friendly competitors') on the market so you can control shelf space, and you need to establish them early enough to control shelf life. This is important, because "Oligopolies watch their flanks, fearing disruption."

The last thing you want is for someone to disrupt your plan by selling an efficient, compliant, two-stroke. Soon the two-stroke disappears from race tracks. Race commentators drone on about how fast and powerful these "450Fs" are. It becomes "common knowledge" that two-strokes can't compete. It becomes common knowledge that two-strokes can't pass emissions standards. And it becomes common knowledge (at least outside California) that California has banned two-strokes. Even though each and every one of these things is 100% false.

Problem solved for Mr. Fud-san. R&D expenses are down, margins are up, shareholders are happy. Wall Street (and the Nikkei) are happy. Isn't it great to be the CEO of a multi-national corporation and No. 1 in your market? Everybody is happy except a small percentage of riders who pay attention and realize they've just been screwed. But the rest go blithely on their way buying your new four-stroke products. None of this is illegal, or even unethical (if you believe that multinational corporations have ethics.) It's all just part of how big businesses work. And how oligopolies work.

What's the moral of the story?

This story is fictional, but it is informed by research that I've done and conversations I've had with people in the industry who are in a position to know. The motorcycle industry in general, and MX in particular, is an oligopoly. This matters. The natural behavior of any and every oligopoly is to control the market, competition, and disruption. This is not the same thing as making money. Making money can be done in a free market. Oligopolies warp the free market. They maneuver and manipulate what we hear and think and "know" in their best interest. If there is one lesson I want to get across here it is that this is not a story of aberrant behavior. It is a story of predictable, observable, natural behavior. Which is why we must be constantly vigilant and skeptical anytime a market leader claims to be doing the "right thing". There is always an underlying motivation, and that always supercedes our best interest. In the end it always leads to less competition, increased prices, and less choice. Which is exactly what we've had in MX for the past 20 years.

I am not against four-strokes. I do not favor two-strokes. I just don't like having my choices reduced simply because it's in the best interests of some big corporation. I favor choice, competition, and variety, but these things are the bane of an oligopoly.

What might have prevented this little story? If, back in 1994, we had a riders' organization that actually protected and promoted the future of motorcycling, rather than the future of motorcycle manufacturers, things might have been different. If we were not so myopic in our own view of what matters, but rather looked at motorcycling as a whole and understood that we are both affected by and affect what happens in the broader motorcycling world, things might have been different. If we had been willing, as a group, to be more skeptical and less accepting of bold new graphics as a bribe, things might have been different.

But things were not different, and for the past 14 years we have willingly wallowed in this corporate mind game. It's been long in coming but, thankfully, we are beginning to see the fruits of a backlash against this myopic approach, and the FIM seems to have grown a pair of balls with their 2010 rules. I say full speed ahead and let's hope the US follows suit.

AMA approves sale to Daytona Motorsports Group

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:42:52 GMT

Here's the press release from the AMA regarding final approval of the Pro Racing/DMG deal. I'm sure the road race community is up in arms over this, and I feel for them. The changes underway there have created a lot of friction with the riders, factories, and race track owners. There's a lot of bluster going on now between all sides. As Dave Despain said in his Wind Tunnel editorial a couple of Sundays ago, a lot of this is posturing for negotiation, so let's get to negotiating guys and get it worked out. Davey Coombs of RacerX Illustrated made the same point — time to move forward — in a recent editorial I can't find right now.

But the NPG have been busting their butts in a way that has not been seen since... well, I don't know when. They are really working hard and professional MX seems to be rocking and rolling. More changes are to come, but we can hope that DMG will stick with the horse that brought them and let NPG do what they know how to do better than anyone.

In the end, this is the right thing to do for motorcycling and professional motorcycle racing. It may get worse in some quarters before it gets better. But it will get better. And there is no use in carping about it. It's done. Let's all move on now and make it the best we can.

Residents and Greenies fight new track in Seattle

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Fri, 30 May 2008 23:07:27 GMT

This Seattle Times news story tells the tale of another local battle to prevent legal riding areas. MXGP of Kirkland, WA have a 467-acre tract in rural Washington state, about an hour from Seattle. The promoters want to use 75 acres to build a multi-track MX facility and have gone to great lengths to address noise and environmental issues. Of course, there is no such thing as addressing all the issues where EcoNazis are concerned.

No doubt, this is the future all all riding facilities - new or old - and we had better get our act together on the federal, state, and local levels and begin a coordinated effort across the country to keep our right to ride intact. [Found via Blogandt]

Finally! D.C. says we'll get our answer this week.

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Mon, 26 May 2008 03:02:17 GMT

In this week's Racer Head Davey Coombs said the Big News we've all been waiting for - what's going to happen to the AMA Toyota Motocross Championshps - will likely be announced before Hangtown next weekend. To quote DC:

Needless to say, there are going to be a few confused people out there, but the vast majority of motocross fans and industry folks will just be glad to put this all behind them and start focusing on the racing and the future.

How's that for intrigue? Will we see the one-moto format announced for 2009? We'll definitely lose the stupid "Lites" moniker for the 250s and go with the much better MX2 designation.

But will we see the beginning of the exodus of factory teams? Joe Gibbs Racing is the model for future big-time MX race teams. There's no way around it. If the sport is going to grow significantly, the professionalism of the teams - not just in equipment but in rider training, preparation, communication skills, etc - has to rise to meet the challenge. Having a bunch of 20-year-olds making $300,000/year and doing their own thing is not going to cut it.

Before the meathead brigade goes all cockeyed and starts calling me names over this little tidbit just hear me out. Many very large, successful motorsports franchises run this way. The factories are very, very involved, but they provide mainly technology to a variety of privately-managed teams. This is a much more cohesive and productive arrangement. Factories are in the business or making and selling technology. They are not in the business of running race teams. Race teams are a marketing expense, or sometimes an R&D expense. But mostly marketing. It makes far more sense for factories to provide technology to privately managed, for-profit businesses that are geared specifically to running race teams. We're already seeing this. But JGR is a whole new level. And for the first time it's a team that can truly out-perform the factories in the way they run the business of racing.

What else will we see? I don't know. But, in the words of Ross Perot, "I'm all ears."

Dan Kleen, President of NOHVCC on PitPass Radio

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:50:25 GMT

Tonight's PitPass Radio featured Dan Kleen, president of NOHVCC - the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council. Dan did a good job of explaining some of the organization's functions. Specifically, he was on to discuss a legislative victory in Iowa that got the State to return ATV fees that the legislature had confiscated for the past six years. It's a good segment. It's a small victory but an important one that shows we can be successful if we just organize ourselves and take the time to be heard. He's the first guest starting at about the 15-minute mark.

Washington State Gov Vetoes New Trail Ban

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:03:36 GMT

According to this press release from the AMA Washington State governor Christine Gregoire vetoed a portion of the state's annual budget that included a last-minute rider to ban all new ORV trail construction until 2009.

The AMA today praised Washington State Gov. Christine Gregoire's line-item veto of a measure that would have banned all construction of new trails or facilities for off-road motorized recreation for at least a year.

The measure, which had been inserted in the state budget in a last-minute maneuver, without the opportunity for public debate, would have prohibited the state’s Department of Natural Resources from building or expanding trails or facilities for off-road recreational vehicles until July, 2009. It was one of seven sections of the proposed capital budget that Gov. Gregoire vetoed.

The AMA attributes the veto to activist participation, and credits the 500 members who used the AMA's Rapid Response Center with having an impact on the outcome.

Maybe so. But 500 people - just 500 people - using this simple, easy tool from the AMA is pathetic. There are thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of off-road motorcyclists in Washington State. And only 500 used the system. This is wrong on so many levels. It speaks to the incredibly poor job the AMA has done in serving the off road community. It speaks to the weak nature of the AMA's media reach. And it speaks to a certain amount of apathy on the part of off road riders in Washington.

No doubt many riders used some other method for contacting their state representatives, or the bill would not have been defeated. Then again, maybe it was the snowmobilers and 4x4 guys who did all the work. I don't know. But in any case you would think the AMA should muster more than a measly 500. Maybe it's just me, but we have to do better than this if we're ever going to have a prayer of beating the eco-Nazis at their own game.

Know Your Enemy - PEER's Off Road Wreckreation

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 04:48:14 GMT

I got to looking around for some new MX news sources tonight while listening to the excellent Jason Weigandt/Jim Holley call of the Minneapolis SX event. I came across MXNewsFeed.com, which spiders the net all day looking for MX news and sends it out via private news feed plus a free RSS feed for regular folks like you and me. After checking that out I decided to google "off road access news" to see what's available for tracking our fight to have access to our public lands. I found some scary stuff.

The first group I found is PEER - Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility:

As a service organization assisting federal & state public employees, PEER allows public servants to work as "anonymous activists" so that agencies must confront the message, rather than the messenger.

Public servants, my ass. This is an organization of self-serving bureaucrats. Not one of them has a real job. To a person they suck the government tit for their sustenance. They don't add one single dollar to US GDP. All combined they don't add a single decimal point to our productivity. They do nothing but suck the life from hard-working Americans like you and me in their mealy-mouthed government jobs but they have the gall to proclaim themselves protectors of the planet.

One of PEER's top objectives is to end what they call Off Road Wreckreation. This list of news releases is filled with the sort of factless hyperbole and screeching histrionics that litter the environmental-wacko-loon approach to news. But it's the sort of thing we need to be aware of. This is a bunch of people whose salaries we pay, whose livelihood depends on our taxes, and they are dead set on ending our favorite form of recreation.

PEER is also all about Under Cover Activism, seeing as how most right-thinking Americans would resent the hell out of their "public servants" running around screeching about their religious beliefs. You're free to protest if you have your own money and your own time. But you aren't free to protest me if I'm paying your salary. But the eco-jihadis are self-loathing religious nuts. After reading a little of their shrill, overwrought news I got nauseous and had to stop. But I'm going to keep tracking this as well as look for other 2nd- and 3rd-tier groups (e.g. not the Sierra Club, Green Peace, etc that most of us already recognize as loons). Stay tuned as I learn more. This battle is serious, and we need to know our enemy.