OPINION - AB 1613 - PROCESS MATTERS AS MUCH AS THE PRODUCT

 

OPINION

 By Don Amador, President

Quiet Warrior Racing LLC

August 7, 2026

 

AB 1613 - Why Process Matters as Much as the Product

 

Over the past 35 years, I have been fortunate to participate in numerous collaborative efforts involving recreation organizations, conservation groups, industry representatives, local governments, state and federal agencies, tribal governments, and elected officials. Some of those efforts have produced lasting successes, while others have struggled to achieve their intended goals. Throughout that journey, I have learned one lesson that continues to shape my view of public policy: people are generally willing to support difficult decisions—even decisions they may not completely agree with—if they believe the process was fair, transparent, and respectful of everyone's contributions.

 

That lesson has been on my mind as California continued its discussion of Assembly Bill 1613, the proposal to establish a statewide Off-Highway Vehicle Safety and Stewardship Program, at the August 6 OHMVR Commission meeting at Kings Beach, CA.

 

CALSPAN VIDEO OF COMMISSION MEETING

https://cal-span.org/meeting/ohmvr_20260806/

 

Before anyone misunderstands my perspective, let me be perfectly clear. I support improving OHV safety. I support rider education. I support responsible recreation and stewardship. In fact, I have spent much of my professional career working toward those very goals. The question before us has never been whether California should improve safety. The real question is whether the process used to reach that goal honors the collaborative work that made the idea possible in the first place.

 

For four years, California State Parks convened annual OHV Safety Summits that brought together an impressive cross-section of the OHV community. Recreation organizations, conservation interests, law enforcement, federal land managers, OHMVR commissioners, volunteer non-profits, local governments, rider training providers, and State Parks staff all came to the table. Many of us invested hundreds of hours discussing safety trends, identifying emerging challenges, and searching for practical solutions that could improve rider safety while preserving recreational opportunities. Those meetings were not always easy. There were disagreements, spirited debates, and difficult compromises. But that is precisely what meaningful collaboration looks like.

 

Over time, common ground began to emerge. We were not simply concepts of creating an online OHV safety education program; we were building relationships and developing trust. That trust became every bit as valuable as the recommendations themselves.

 

Today, much of the frustration expressed at the commission meeting concerning AB 1613 does not appear to stem from opposition to safety education. Rather, it comes from the perception among many participants that the collaboratively developed work product was not fully reflected in the legislation that ultimately advanced through the Capitol. Whether everyone agrees with that perception is almost beside the point. The perception itself has become a significant issue because collaboration depends as much on confidence in the process as it does on the final outcome.

 

One irony has not been lost on many stakeholders. The current version of AB 1613 calls for the creation of yet another stakeholder process to develop the details of the new safety program. That raises an understandable question. If participants believe the recommendations from one four-year collaborative effort were not fully carried forward, what confidence will they have that a future stakeholder process will produce a different result? That question extends well beyond this bill. It speaks to the credibility of other state-led collaborative governance model.

 

My perspective on this issue has also been shaped by experiences where collaboration worked exceptionally well. One of the best examples is FireScape Mendocino, where I have served as a Co-Founder and Core Team member. FireScape brought together the U.S. Forest Service, CAL FIRE, conservation organizations, county governments, private landowners, scientists, and community leaders to address forest health and wildfire resilience. We certainly did not agree on every issue, but participants trusted the process. Ideas were openly debated, recommendations were refined together, and everyone understood that their contributions mattered. That trust allowed FireScape Mendocino to become a nationally recognized example of collaborative conservation.

 

Yesterday's California OHMVR Commission meeting illustrated why this issue deserves careful consideration. The public testimony reflected genuine concern from several long-time OHV leaders regarding the current direction of AB 1613. Interestingly, none of the speakers argued against improving OHV safety. Instead, the discussion focused on stakeholder engagement, legislative intent, governance, implementation, and preserving the integrity of the collaborative process that had taken place over the previous four years. The Commission recognized that these concerns warranted additional discussion and requested that State Parks provide a future report to help clarify the issues. That was an encouraging step because healthy organizations ask difficult questions, and effective collaborative programs welcome those conversations.

 

One concern that particularly resonates with me is the potential long-term effect this experience could have on future stakeholder processes. California increasingly relies on collaborative groups to address complex issues involving recreation, forest management, wildfire resilience, watershed restoration, wildlife conservation, and public land management. These collaborations succeed because people often volunteer their time with the expectation that their knowledge, experience, and recommendations will receive meaningful consideration. If participants begin to believe that years of collaborative work can simply be set aside without explanation, it becomes much harder to convince experienced stakeholders to invest their time in future public processes.

 

I remain optimistic that California can develop an outstanding Off-Highway Vehicle Safety and Stewardship Program. The objective is worthwhile, and I believe there is broad agreement within the OHV community that education and stewardship should continue to be strengthened. But I also believe we have an opportunity—and perhaps an obligation—to ensure that the final legislation reflects the collaborative spirit that originally inspired the effort.

 

As someone who has spent much of his career working around collaborative tables, I hope California chooses the path that strengthens, rather than weakens, confidence in stakeholder engagement. Good public policy is rarely built by the loudest voices or the quickest victories. It is built through respectful dialogue, careful listening, thoughtful compromise, and mutual trust.

 

In the end, the true measure of a successful collaborative process is not simply the policy or legislation it produces. It is whether the people who devoted countless hours to building consensus are willing to return to the table the next time they are invited.

 

That may ultimately be the most important lesson of all.

 

# # #

Don Amador has been in the trail advocacy, post wildfire recovery and recreation management profession for 35 years.  Don is Past President/CEO and current board member of the Post Wildfire OHV Recovery Alliance.  Don is a Co-Founder of FireScape Mendocino, a forest health collaborative that is part of the National Fire Learning Network.  Don served as Chairman of the CA State Parks Off-Highway Vehicle Commission (circa 1994-2000). Don served as an AD Driver for the Forest Service North Zone Fire Cache during the 2022, 2023, and 2024 Fire Seasons.