ROADLESS 2.0: WHY A 25 YEAR OLD FIGHT MAY BE READY FOR A DIFFERENT ANSWER

 

 

COMMENTARY

By Don Amador

August 24, 2026

 

Roadless 2.0: Why a 25-Year-Old Fight May Be Ready for a Different Answer

 

NOTE TO READER: This narrative is based on my 30 year-long “Roadless” journey starting with the multi-year run-up to the 2001 Roadless Rule and my ongoing review of the Forest Service 2026 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 2001 Roadless Rule Rescission. It is intended as an educational piece, not as a formal legal interpretation of the proposed rule.

 

For many California OHV riders, the words “Roadless Rule” probably don't mean much. You may have heard them in a club meeting, seen them in another public-land fight, or watched another battle unfold over a trail that seemed perfectly reasonable but somehow became tangled up in federal land-management policy. For those of us who have been involved in public-land recreation for decades, however, the Roadless Rule is a familiar—and sometimes frustrating—part of the landscape.

Now, after 25 years of litigation, policy battles and changing conditions on our national forests, the Forest Service has proposed rescinding the national 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The proposal would remove the nationwide prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction and timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) and return those decisions largely to individual forests through their existing land-management planning processes. For California's OHV community, I think this is something much more interesting than simply another logging issue. It could be an opportunity to reset the way we think about roadless country, forest health and managed motorized recreation. I call that potential reset “Roadless 2.0.”

First, let's clear up one misconception. The 2001 Roadless Rule did not close all the roads and OHV trails inside inventoried roadless areas. The Forest Service's original analysis considered—and rejected—an alternative that would have prohibited motorized recreation in roadless areas. The new 2001 ROADLESS AREA CONSERVATION RULE RESCISSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) makes the distinction even clearer. It identifies approximately 5,200 miles of motorized trails within the potentially affected roadless areas and recognizes that trailheads around the periphery of IRAs can provide motorized trail access into those areas. Existing OHV use on trails designated for motorized use remains governed by the applicable Forest Plan and Travel Management decisions.

How did we get here? The original Roadless Rule was adopted in January 2001 after years of controversy over how the Forest Service should manage the remaining large blocks of relatively undeveloped national forest land. The rule established national restrictions on road construction, road reconstruction and most timber harvesting within inventoried roadless areas. It immediately became controversial. Environmental organizations viewed it as one of the most important conservation protections ever placed on National Forest lands. Many timber, mining, recreation and multiple-use interests viewed it as another example of Washington imposing a broad management prescription on vastly different landscapes. And the litigation began.

California became part of that long-running legal and administrative struggle. For years, questions surrounded how the Roadless Rule interacted with Forest Plans, Travel Management and local decisions. For riders, however, the practical question was usually much simpler: “Can I legally ride on my motorcycle, ATV or UTV on that trail?” That question didn't always have a simple answer.

The world has changed dramatically since 2001. California had already experienced major wildfires, but we had not yet experienced the landscape transformation of the last decade. Since then, California has endured fire seasons that have fundamentally changed portions of our national forests. The Camp Fire, Caldor, Dixie, Mendocino and August Complex Fires, Mosquito, and many others have left landscapes dramatically different from what they were when the original Roadless Rule was created.

2019 Post Fire Trail Survey of 2015 Rt. 1 Complex Fire - Pilot Creek OHV Trail System 

 South Fork Mountain IRA – Six Rivers National Forest

 

In some areas, what was once called an Inventoried Roadless Area could now reasonably be described by riders as an “Inventoried Treeless Area.” That's obviously a little tongue-in-cheek, but there is a serious point behind it. A designation created around the idea of maintaining relatively intact, undeveloped forest landscapes now exists in places where fire, drought, insects, disease and extreme weather have radically altered the landscape. The question shouldn't simply be, “Was this area roadless in 2001?” The better question is, “What is the appropriate management strategy for this landscape today?”

  
        

         Dan East Trail BEFORE 2015 Rt.1 Complex Fire(top) – Dan East Trail AFTER 2015 Rt. 1 Complex Fire (bottom)

                              Pilot Creek OHV Trail System - South Fork Mountain IRA – Six Rivers National Forest

 

This isn't an argument to pave the backcountry. Most OHV riders don't want every mountain road turned into a highway. We don't want every remote forest landscape turned into a subdivision or motocross track. And we don't need to pretend that every roadless area is appropriate for motorized recreation. Some places are genuinely remote, special and appropriate for rugged backcountry non-motorized recreation.

But there is a huge difference between saying that some places should remain undeveloped and saying that a national rule adopted 25 years ago should determine the transportation and management options available on every roadless landscape regardless of what has happened since. That's where I think Roadless 2.0 comes in.

To me, Roadless 2.0 starts with a simple concept: manage the landscape we have—not simply the landscape we mapped in 2001. That means looking at each area based on current conditions, including wildfire history, forest health, fuels, watershed conditions, wildlife, existing roads and trails, historic access, recreation demand, community needs, fire response, post-fire recovery and the potential for sustainable motorized recreation.

The DEIS recognizes that the current planning system includes both Semi-Primitive Motorized and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized recreation settings. It also identifies approximately 3.1 million acres of potentially affected IRAs as Semi-Primitive Motorized. Motorized recreation is therefore already part of the Forest Service's legitimate recreation planning framework. Roadless does not have to mean nonmotorized.

California is also showing us what managed OHV recreation can look like. OHV recreation itself has changed. We have moved a long way from the old image of “just go ride wherever you want.” Today's legitimate OHV system is increasingly based upon designated routes, MVUMs, trail standards, seasonal restrictions, route signing, resource monitoring, law enforcement, trail maintenance, restoration of damaged routes, user education, clubs and volunteers, and purposefully designed trail systems.

This is where conservation and OHV interests have found more common ground than we sometimes did in the past. A legal, designated trail can be mapped, signed, monitored, maintained, rerouted when necessary, closed seasonally, designed around sensitive resources and enforced. An illegal user-created route has none of those advantages. A carefully planned trail connection can sometimes be a conservation tool by concentrating use onto a durable corridor and keeping riders out of fragile areas. A logical loop or connector can also prevent riders from reaching a dead end and creating their own way around it.

The DEIS recognizes that new transportation infrastructure can provide additional access to dispersed recreation and that some temporary roads could potentially become trails after management activities are completed. That's an important concept for California and for other fire-affected national forests.

The DEIS says the proposed rescission would return decision-making to individual forests and existing land-management plans. That's good. But local decision-making needs to mean multiple-use decision-making where the OHV community gets skin-in-the-game by showing up and participates.

The DEIS identifies road construction needs associated with much more than timber harvesting. It specifically identifies fuels reduction, pre-commercial thinning, watershed restoration, habitat improvement and recreation development as activities that can require transportation access. That is a very different landscape than the Roadless debate of 2001 and leaves room for hybrid fuel reduction/recreation projects that can meet multiple objectives.

And here's something every California rider should understand: the Roadless Rule isn't the only thing that determines whether you can ride. Even if the national Roadless Rule disappears, your Forest Supervisor doesn't simply get to say, “Open it all.” Forest Plans still matter. NEPA still matters. The Travel Management Rule or a revised version still matters. The MVUM still matters. Wilderness designations still matter. Wild and Scenic River protections still matter. Endangered species protections still matter. Private property rights matter. Tribal interests matter. Site-specific environmental analysis still matters. Roadless 2.0 is not a blank check.

What should California OHV riders support? I think the answer is pretty straightforward. We should support an alternative that ends the one-size-fits-all national prohibition, returns appropriate decision-making to individual forests, requires genuine consideration of motorized recreation, recognizes the difference between roads, motorized trails and unmanaged cross-country travel, and encourages strategic and collaborative transportation access planning efforts.

Roadless 2.0 could be an opportunity. But only if the recreation community helps define what that opportunity looks like.

The Forest Service is currently accepting comments on the proposed rescission, with the comment period scheduled to close September 21, 2026.  https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/planning/roadless

# # #

Don Amador is a longtime public lands advocate with over 30 years of experience in recreation policy, trail stewardship, post-wildfire recovery, and collaborative land management and is former Chair of the CA State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission.

ACTION ALERT - SPEAK UP FOR COASTAL ACCESS IN CA

LOSS OF HISTORIC MOTORIZED ACCESS IN KING RANGE

 

SPEAK UP FOR COASTAL RECREATION ACCESS -  According to the CA State Coastal Conservancy,  NOAA will hold two virtual public meetings on Tuesday, August 11 and Wednesday, August 12, 2026, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. PT. NOAA will conduct the virtual public meetings via Adobe Connect. Each person who wants to attend either virtual meeting must electronically register by August 10, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Attendance at each virtual public meeting will be limited to 1,000 individuals; therefore, NOAA requests that individuals attend only one meeting, on either August 11 or 12.

 

NOAA will call on speakers on a first come/first served basis through the raised hand function of Adobe Connect. Each speaker will have three minutes to speak. NOAA will adjourn the meeting at 5 p.m. PT or when all participants have spoken, whichever is earlier. NOAA retains discretion to extend the virtual public meetings if appropriate and feasible. To register for either virtual meeting, use the following link: https://noaabroadcast.adobeconnect.com/e23ewcr5d65q/event/event_info.html

 

NOAA will prepare written transcripts of the in-person and both virtual meetings which will be available via email request to czma.california-evalution@noaa.gov. Written comments may be submitted to NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management by email at czma.california-evaluation@noaa.gov

 Include ‘‘Comments on Performance Evaluation of the California Coastal Management Program’’ in the subject line. Written comments received by 11:59 pm PT on August 22, 2026, will be accepted.

____________________________________________________________________________ 

 

OUTLINE OF AMADOR’S TESTIMONY FOR AUG. 11 NOAA MEETING

  I will be speaking as a CA North Coast Humboldt County native who spent much of his life exploring, documenting, and working on California's coastal public lands.

 

I will highlight that for much of the twentieth century, motorized recreation was one of many accepted ways Californians accessed and experienced the coast—alongside fishing, camping, hiking, horseback riding, surfing, wildlife viewing, and other activities.  But over the past fifty years, those motorized opportunities have steadily diminished.

 

Places where people once legally drove onto beaches and dunes have been closed or substantially restricted. Today, Oceano Dunes remains the only state-managed coastal beach where motorized recreation continues as a principal use, while the BLM's Samoa Dunes provides an important federal example of continued coastal OHV access.

 

While I am not suggesting that every historic riding area should be reopened. I will be asking NOAA to look at the “cumulative trend” and determine whether the full balance envisioned by the Coastal Act is still being achieved.

 

I will point out that California has demonstrated that conservation and recreation do not have to be mutually exclusive.

 

For an illustration, Oceano Dunes and Samoa Dunes provide examples of monitoring, habitat protection, restoration, visitor education, designated use areas, and collaboration being used to manage recreation while protecting resources.

 

Also before permanently eliminating an established recreational opportunity, I believe agencies should fully examine whether measurable environmental objectives can instead be achieved through adaptive management.

 

I will share my experiences and concerns with planning efforts where narrow scopes and predetermined sideboards prevent stakeholders from addressing interconnected problems as I have seen this in recent federal forest planning, where recreation, transportation, and post-fire recovery were difficult to address within narrowly defined planning frameworks.

 

After decades of working with agencies, conservation organizations, recreation interests, and local communities, I have learned that durable solutions come from bringing people together early—before positions harden and before the range of alternatives has been predetermined.

 

Here are my requests to NOAA:

 

Please evaluate not only what California's Coastal Management Program has accomplished, but how it makes decisions.

 

Use a process that is sufficiently broad, collaborative, science-based, transparent, and adaptive to address today's changing conditions?

 

Recognize that conservation, public access, recreation, local communities, tribes, and stewardship continue to have a meaningful place at the table.

 

QWR REPORT 2026-1 - A Policy Review of Recreation, Public Access, Adaptive Management, and the Implementation of the California Coastal Act and Federal Coastal Zone Management Act

https://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/QWR%20Policy%20Report%20No.%202026-1.pdf

 

# ##

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.   

MEDIA AND STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY - QWR SUBMITS COMMENTS AND REPORT ON NOAA REVIEW OF CA COASTAL COMMISSION

MEDIA ADVISORY

 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 August 5, 2026

 

Quiet Warrior Racing Releases New Policy Report for NOAA's Review of California Coastal Management Program

 

NOTE: Public Invited to Submit Comments by August 22 Deadline

 

Cottonwood, California — Quiet Warrior Racing LLC (QWR) announced today that it has formally submitted comments to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as part of the agency's Section 312 Performance Evaluation of the California Coastal Management Program.

 

As part of its submission, QWR transmitted Policy Report No. 2026-1, “California's Coastal Management Program at Fifty: A Policy Review of Recreation, Public Access, Adaptive Management, and the Implementation of the California Coastal Act and Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.”

 

The report examines nearly five decades of California coastal management policy, reviewing the historical evolution of recreation, public access, conservation, adaptive management, and implementation of the California Coastal Act and the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

 

"Our report recognizes California's remarkable conservation accomplishments while asking an important public policy question," said Don Amador, President of Quiet Warrior Racing. "Has implementation of the Coastal Act continued to reflect the Legislature's original vision of balancing environmental stewardship with public access, recreation, coordinated planning, and the social and economic needs of Californians?"

 

Unlike many public comments focused on a single issue, the QWR report provides a broader historical perspective on California's coastal management program. It documents the significant reduction in legal coastal motorized recreation opportunities over the past fifty years while also highlighting successful examples of adaptive management, including Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area and the Bureau of Land Management's Samoa Dunes Recreation Area.

 

OHMVR Commission Meeting

 

The California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission meets August 6 in North Lake Tahoe. While the QWR report is not a formal agenda item, NOAA's ongoing evaluation of California's Coastal Management Program and the future of coastal recreation are expected to be topics of interest during Commission related public testimony and discussions.

 

Public Comment Opportunity

 

NOAA's evaluation provides an opportunity for all Californians—not just organized stakeholder groups—to participate in reviewing the implementation of California's federally approved Coastal Management Program.

 

QWR encourages recreation enthusiasts, local governments, businesses, conservation organizations, Tribal governments, and interested citizens to submit respectful, constructive, and fact-based comments describing their experiences and perspectives.

 

Comments may address topics such as:

 

·         Public access to California's coast.

·         Outdoor recreation opportunities.

·         Adaptive management and collaborative stewardship.

·         Coastal conservation.

·         Local community impacts.

·         Implementation of the California Coastal Act.

 

Public comments must be received by NOAA no later than August 22, 2026.

 

QWR COMMENT LETTER

https://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/QWR%20Report%202026-1%20NOAA%20Comment%20letter%20updated.pdf

 

COPY OF QWR REPORT 2026-1

https://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/QWR%20Policy%20Report%20No.%202026-1.pdf

 

# # #

Quiet Warrior Racing LLC is a California-based public lands consulting and communications firm specializing in off-highway vehicle recreation, sustainable trail management, post-wildfire recovery, forest stewardship, and collaborative public land policy. Through research, education, and stakeholder engagement, QWR works to promote responsible recreation while supporting the long-term conservation of America's public lands.

 

BEYOND THE CHAINSAW DEBATE: FINDING COMMON GROUND ON STEWARDSHIP OF AMERICA'S WILDERNESS

BEYOND THE CHAINSAW DEBATE: FINDING COMMON GROUND ON STEWARDSHIP OF AMERICA’S WILDERNESS

OPINION

By Don Amador

7/29/26

  

A recent High Country News article titled, “A Ban on Chainsaws in Wilderness is Performative, Not Practical" has sparked renewed discussion about one of the most sensitive issues in public land management. While the article focuses on whether chainsaws should be used to clear trails in designated Wilderness Areas following the unprecedented destruction caused by Western megafires, I believe the larger story is not about chainsaws at all. It is about finding common ground on stewardship of designated Wilderness areas. 

 

For decades, wilderness stewardship has been guided by principles established in the Wilderness Act of 1964, a landmark law that has served our nation well by protecting some of America's most treasured landscapes. At the time, few could have imagined the scale of the ecological changes that would occur during the first quarter of the 21st century. Today, millions of acres of federal forests have experienced repeated high-severity wildfires, widespread insect infestations, prolonged drought, and extensive tree mortality. Across much of the West, trails that once connected visitors to remote landscapes are now buried beneath thousands of fallen trees or surrounded by hazardous stands of dead timber.

 

These conditions have created management challenges unlike anything previous generations of land managers encountered. The question is no longer simply whether trail crews should use crosscut saws or chainsaws. The more important question is whether our current management framework is keeping pace with the realities on the ground.

 

Fortunately, this is not a new challenge for public land management. Throughout my career, I have watched federal and state agencies, conservation organizations, recreation groups, local governments, industry representatives, scientists, and volunteers come together to solve difficult resource issues that once seemed impossible to overcome. Collaborative efforts addressing post-fire recovery, watershed restoration, sustainable trail management, forest health, invasive species, wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation have repeatedly demonstrated that the best solutions rarely emerge from one stakeholder acting alone.

 

That same collaborative model should now be applied to the growing challenge of maintaining access and stewardship within our National Wilderness Preservation System.

 

Unfortunately, much of the current discussion appears to be occurring within isolated circles rather than through an open, transparent collaborative process. Some conversations are taking place within the Forest Service. Others involve wilderness advocacy organizations, outfitters, volunteer trail groups, or local communities. Yet there has been little evidence of a broad national dialogue that intentionally brings together the full range of interests that care deeply about America's wilderness.

 

The Forest Service has not adopted a nationwide policy authorizing chainsaw use in Wilderness, nor should anyone expect such a significant policy question to be resolved through isolated project decisions. Instead, the agency continues to evaluate requests under the long-established "minimum requirements" process authorized by the Wilderness Act. While that approach provides flexibility on a case-by-case basis, it does little to answer the larger question facing land managers across the West: How should wilderness stewardship evolve as our forests continue to change?

 

  

A collaborative forum would allow participants to move beyond the emotionally charged question of "chainsaws versus crosscut saws" and instead examine broader issues such as post-fire forest conditions, trail sustainability, volunteer capacity, workforce limitations, visitor safety, ecological impacts, and long-term stewardship objectives. Rather than debating a single tool, stakeholders could focus on identifying management strategies capable of preserving both wilderness character and meaningful public access for future generations.

 

Decisions developed through open dialogue are far more likely to gain public acceptance than policies developed behind closed doors or through litigation. Even when consensus cannot be achieved, participants gain a better understanding of one another's perspectives and often discover common ground that would otherwise remain hidden.

 

This issue also offers an opportunity for the Forest Service to demonstrate leadership. The agency has decades of experience participating in collaborative partnerships throughout the West. Applying that same collaborative model to wilderness trail management could help establish a thoughtful path forward that respects both the intent of the Wilderness Act and the unprecedented conditions facing today's land managers.

 

None of us knows what the final answer will be. It may involve increased funding for traditional trail crews, expanded volunteer training, improved post-fire restoration strategies, additional research, carefully limited administrative flexibility, or perhaps entirely new approaches that have yet to be considered. Those solutions should emerge from collaboration rather than confrontation.

 

Massive wildfires in the American West have changed many forested lands dramatically over the past fifteen to 20 years. Rather than asking whether chainsaws belong in Wilderness, perhaps the more important question is this: Can we bring together the people who care most about these remarkable places and work collaboratively to ensure they remain healthy, accessible, and resilient for generations to come? - That is a conversation worth having.

 

# # #

 

Don Amador has been in the trail advocacy, post wildfire recovery, and recreation management profession for 35 years.  Don served as Chair of the CA State Parks Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation 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.   

OPINION - USDA SERVICE CENTERS - NEW FACE OF THE FOREST SERVICE?

USDA SERVICE CENTER - REDDING, CA
 

OPINION

By Don Amador

7/23/2026

 

When I recently visited the new USDA Service Center in Redding, California, I found myself reflecting on just how much the U.S. Forest Service has evolved over the past century.

Located in what many longtime Northern California residents still think of as the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Supervisor's Office, the building today serves a much broader purpose. Along with the headquarters for the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, it houses the Pacific Southwest Research Station, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Farm Service Agency (FSA), Rural Development, and other USDA programs under one roof.

Rather than serving as the headquarters of a single National Forest, these facilities function as integrated USDA campuses where multiple agencies work side by side. The emphasis is less on organizational boundaries and more on delivering a range of services to rural communities, landowners, agricultural producers, conservation partners, researchers, and public land users.

It is a noticeable evolution from an agency structure rooted in the 1930s toward a model that better reflects twenty-first century technology, community engagement, and collaboration.

 

Forest health projects today rarely involve just one agency. Restoring watersheds, reducing hazardous fuels, improving wildlife habitat, supporting grazing operations, and expanding recreation opportunities often require expertise from several USDA agencies working together with state agencies, timber companies, counties, tribes, local governments, conservation organizations, and recreation groups.

 

For recreation organizations, Fire Safe Councils, Resource Conservation Districts, and county governments, having multiple decision-makers available in one location can simplify coordination on projects that benefit both public lands and surrounding communities.

 

For someone seeking information on conservation programs, grazing permits, forest management, recreation opportunities, or wildfire recovery, having several USDA agencies under one roof can eliminate multiple trips across town.

 

Older Forest Service Supervisor's Offices often possessed a distinct personality. Visitors walked into buildings that reflected the history and character of a particular National Forest. Large wall maps, timber displays, historic photographs, Smokey Bear exhibits, and recreation information reminded visitors they were entering the headquarters of a specific forest.

 

As someone who has spent much of my career working alongside Forest Service professionals, I believe one challenge deserves continued attention.

 

Outdoor recreation—including hiking, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, and off-highway vehicle recreation—is now one of the largest and fastest-growing uses of our National Forest System. Service Centers should continue evolving to reflect that reality.

 

Imagine visitor lobbies featuring interactive recreation maps, trail condition displays, wildfire recovery information, volunteer opportunities, America the Beautiful pass information, and exhibits celebrating the many ways people enjoy their National Forests.

 

As these Service Centers continue to develop across the country, the opportunity will be to preserve the proud heritage and local identity of our National Forests while embracing a more modern, collaborative way of serving the American public.

 

For those of us in the outdoor recreation community, that's an evolution worth supporting—and helping to shape.

 

# # #

 

Don Amador has been in the trail advocacy, recreation management, and wildfire recovery profession for 35 years and served as chairman of the CA State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission.    

BEARS EARS NATIONAL MONUMENT - BEYOND THE HEADLINES

 

OPINION

By Don Amador

July 15, 2026

 *Permission is hereby granted to repost

 

BEARS EARS NATIONAL MONUMENT – BEYOND THE HEADLINES 

 

President Trump's recent Executive Order modifying the boundaries of the Bears Ears National Monument has reignited a familiar debate across the West. Depending on which headlines or social media posts you read, the action is either being celebrated as a major victory for public access or condemned as an unprecedented attack on conservation and Tribal interests. As is often the case with public land issues, the reality is considerably more complex.

 

After reviewing the Executive Order, the recently approved Bears Ears Resource Management Plan, and the initial reactions from recreation, conservation, and Tribal organizations, I believe there is value in stepping back from the political rhetoric to look at what the Order actually does—and just as importantly—what it does not do.

 

For the off-highway vehicle community, the Executive Order does not immediately reopen trails or create new riding opportunities. It reduces the monument boundaries and restores those lands to traditional Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service multiple-use management. Existing travel management decisions, designated route systems, and resource management plans generally remain in place until they are modified through future planning processes. In other words, this is not an "opening" of public lands. It is the beginning of another planning process.

 

That distinction is important. Future decisions regarding motorized recreation will still require compliance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other applicable federal laws. Public involvement, environmental analysis, and collaboration among stakeholders will remain essential components of any future travel management decisions.

 

For those of us who have spent decades working on travel management plans throughout the West, this is familiar territory. Executive Orders can establish policy direction, but they do not replace the detailed work of inventorying routes, evaluating resource conditions, balancing competing uses, and engaging the public in developing sustainable travel management plans.

 

Ironically, one fact that received relatively little attention during the previous Bears Ears planning effort was that the Bureau of Land Management estimated that approximately 98 percent of previously designated motorized routes would remain available for public use, even under the recently approved monument management plan.  While many in the OHV community understandably focused on the proposed closures, the broader story was that the vast majority of designated routes remained open. That illustrates how public perception and the actual details of land management decisions are not always the same.

 

From my perspective, however, the most significant issue is not the number of miles that may eventually open or close. It is the continuing instability in public land management.

 

Bears Ears has now experienced multiple major policy reversals under successive presidential administrations. Each change has required agencies to begin new planning efforts, redirect limited staff resources, revisit previous decisions, and prepare for the inevitable legal challenges. Local communities, Tribes, counties, recreation groups, conservation organizations, and agency personnel are once again left wondering what the next administration may decide.

 

Throughout my career, I have learned that durable public land management is rarely achieved through political victories alone. It is built through collaboration.

 

One of the reasons I publicly supported the expansion of California's Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument was because the process brought together Tribes, conservation organizations, local governments, and the OHV community in meaningful discussions about the future of those public lands. Designated motorized recreation remained part of the conversation, not because everyone agreed on every issue, but because participants were willing to work toward practical solutions that balanced conservation with public access. 

 

My impression has been that the Bears Ears process never achieved that same level of trust among all interested stakeholders. Whether that perception is entirely accurate is almost beside the point; rebuilding trust should now become a priority regardless of one's position on the Executive Order.

 

The motorized recreation community also has an opportunity to demonstrate leadership. Rather than viewing this Executive Order solely as a political victory, we should continue advocating for what has consistently produced successful outcomes across the West: sustainable recreation on designated routes, protection of archaeological and cultural resources, respect for Tribal history and traditions, science-based travel management, and meaningful collaboration with other public land interests.

 

Likewise, the conservation community has an opportunity to recognize that many responsible OHV organizations have spent decades promoting route designation, resource protection, volunteer stewardship, restoration projects, wildfire recovery, and partnerships with public land managers. Managed motorized recreation and conservation are not mutually exclusive. In many places across the West, they have become complementary objectives supported by strong local partnerships.

 

The greatest challenge facing public lands today is not simply deciding where people can ride, hike, hunt, mountain bike, or camp. It is developing management strategies that can endure beyond the next election cycle. Constant policy reversals consume agency resources, discourage stakeholder investment, and make it increasingly difficult to build the trust necessary for successful long-term stewardship.

 

Whether one supports or opposes President Trump's Executive Order, we should all recognize that the future of Bears Ears—and countless other public lands—will ultimately be determined not by headlines or executive actions alone, but by the quality of the planning and collaboration that follows.

 

For those of us who care deeply about America's public lands, that should remain the common ground.

 

# # #

 

Don Amador is a longtime public lands advocate with over 34 years of experience in recreation policy, trail stewardship, and collaborative land management and former Chair of the CA State Parks OHMVR Commission

SPIRIT OF 1776 - THE POWER OF THE SPOKEN WORD

 SPIRIT OF 1776 - The Power of the Spoken Word

By Don Amador

July 6, 2026

 

A few weeks ago, a noted political historian in Sacramento encouraged me to do something I had never considered before. On the morning of July 4, he suggested that I stand on the front porch of our ranch home, nestled among the oak woodlands west of Cottonwood, California, and read the Declaration of Independence aloud—in a strong, clear voice—to anyone gathered to hear it.

 

In my case, the audience consisted of my wife, Ellen, and our faithful dog, Sadie.

 

He also suggested that, in some small way, I might be joining what he hoped would become a nationwide "town crier" tradition as part of America's 250th anniversary celebration.

 

Having read the Declaration of Independence many times over the years—but never aloud—I thought it was an excellent idea. As Independence Day approached, I practiced reading it throughout the house. With each rehearsal, I found myself increasingly moved by its language and sensed that this would be more than simply reading a historic document.

 

Still, nothing prepared me for what happened when I stepped onto the porch and began speaking those words.

 

Almost immediately, I was struck by the monumental weight of the Declaration. Reading it aloud gave new life to its carefully crafted arguments and the long list of legitimate grievances against the tyranny and injustices imposed by the British Crown. The words no longer felt like history preserved on a page. They became a living testimony to courage, conviction, sacrifice, and an unyielding belief that liberty was worth every risk.

 

I also found myself overwhelmed with admiration for the fifty-six men who pledged "their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor" by signing that remarkable document. They fully understood the consequences of their actions, yet they signed anyway, believing future generations deserved the opportunity to live in freedom.

 

As someone who has spent much of my life speaking before audiences, I was genuinely surprised by my emotional reaction. Speaking the Declaration aloud gave me a far deeper appreciation for its gravity, its timeless message, and its enduring influence—not only on the birth of the United States, but on the cause of liberty around the world.

 

From this day forward, I intend to read the Declaration of Independence aloud every Fourth of July. It is my personal way of honoring our Founders, their families, and the generations of American service members who have sacrificed over the past 250 years to preserve the freedoms we enjoy today.

 

Perhaps more importantly, it serves as a reminder that freedom is never self-sustaining. Every generation has a responsibility to understand it, defend it, and pass it on.

 

This Independence Day, I encourage others to try the same simple exercise. Gather your family, your friends, or even just yourself. Stand on your porch, in your backyard, or in a local park, and read the Declaration of Independence out loud.  You may discover, as I did, that some words are meant not only to be read—but to be heard.

 

## #

 

Don Amador is a longtime public lands advocate with over 34 years of experience in recreation policy, trail stewardship, and collaborative land management and former Chair of the CA State Parks OHMVR Commission

QWR - Happy 250th Birthday, America!

 

Happy 250th Birthday, America!

As our nation celebrates 250 years of freedom, all of us at Quiet Warrior Racing (QWR) are reminded just how fortunate we are to live in a country blessed with extraordinary public lands and the freedom to explore them.

From the rugged mountain trails of our National Forests to the wide-open deserts managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and from world-class State Vehicular Recreation Areas to countless state parks across America, we enjoy some of the finest off-highway vehicle recreation opportunities anywhere in the world. These places don't exist by accident. They are the result of generations of dedicated public servants, land managers, volunteers, recreation advocates, and responsible riders working together to conserve access while protecting the natural resources we all cherish.

As we celebrate America's 250th birthday, we also pause to remember that the freedoms we enjoy today were envisioned by our Founding Fathers and have been preserved through the courage and sacrifice of the men and women of our Armed Forces. Their service has protected not only our nation, but also the liberties that allow us to gather with family and friends, explore the outdoors, and pass our love of recreation on to future generations.

This Independence Day, whether you're riding a favorite trail, camping beneath the stars, or spending time with those you love, take a moment to appreciate the incredible privilege of living in this great nation.

From all of us at Quiet Warrior Racing, thank you for doing your part to ride responsibly, care for our public lands, and support the partnerships that keep quality OHV recreation available across America.

Happy 250th Birthday, America! God bless our public lands, our Armed Forces, and the United States of America.

# ## 

NEWS RELEASE - PSA ON WILDFIRE PREVENTION FOR 2026 NATIONAL OHV SAFETY WEEK

 

NEWS    RELEASE

 

 PSA ON WILDFIRE PREVENTION FOR 2026 NATIONAL OHV SAFETY WEEK

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                    

June 8, 2026

 Contact: Don Amador, Quiet Warrior Racing LLC

 damador@quietwarriorracing.com

 

 

DONSQUATCH SAYS HELP PREVENT WILDFIRES ON FOREST ROADS AND TRAILS 

 

*NOTE TO EDITOR: Donsquatch is the official OHV wildfire prevention and post-fire recovery mascot for Quiet Warrior Racing LLC.  His message is designed to remind the motorized recreation community to help prevent wildfires from destroying natural, cultural, and recreation resources as part of his support for the 2026 National OHV Safety Week that runs from June 13 – 21.

 

 

REDDING, CA - As summer temperatures rise across the West and fire danger increases on our public lands, Donsquatch wants to remind riders that protecting our forests, trails, and riding opportunities starts with each of us. Wildfires are no longer isolated seasonal events. Across California and the Pacific Northwest, repeated megafires have damaged trail systems, destroyed recreation infrastructure, impacted wildlife habitat, and stretched the capacity of firefighters and land managers to keep up with recovery efforts. The good news is that the OHV community can play an important role in preventing human-caused fires and helping keep our public lands open for future generations.

 

 

One of the most important wildfire prevention tools for OHV users is ensuring your motorcycle, ATV, UTV, Jeep, or 4x4 is equipped with a properly functioning spark arrestor. The USDA Forest Service specifically requires spark arrestors that meet Forest Service standards for OHV operations in fire-prone environments because hot carbon particles expelled from exhaust systems can ignite dry vegetation under the right conditions. The Forest Service Wildland Fire OHV Standard repeatedly identifies spark arrestors as mandatory safety equipment for wildfire operations and public land vehicle use.   

 

Donsquatch also reminds riders to inspect vehicles before every ride. Dry grass and pine needles can accumulate near exhaust systems, skid plates, brakes, and engine compartments where heat can create ignition risks. Carrying a small fire extinguisher, shovel, and basic emergency gear is becoming increasingly important during peak fire season. Riders should also avoid parking vehicles in tall dry grass and should never idle vehicles unnecessarily during extreme heat events.

 

  

Responsible riding behavior matters too. Stay on designated routes, obey seasonal closures, and respect emergency fire restrictions. Land managers often implement temporary closures not to punish recreation users, but to reduce ignition risks and allow firefighters safe access during critical fire conditions. Ignoring closures or driving around barriers not only damages natural resources but can jeopardize future access for everyone.

 

Another growing concern involves overloaded or improperly modified OHVs operating in rugged terrain during extreme summer conditions. The Forest Service OHV safety guidance emphasizes the importance of proper vehicle maintenance, safe modifications, adequate cooling systems, and compliance with manufacturer recommendations to reduce breakdowns and operational hazards in wildfire environments.   Many riders take pride in customizing their rigs, but safety and reliability should always come first when operating on public lands during fire season.

 

Donsquatch also encourages the OHV community to support local volunteer trail crews, post-fire recovery projects, and stewardship partnerships with agencies and nonprofits. Across the West, volunteers and recreation groups are helping reopen trails, repair damaged infrastructure, remove hazard trees, restore watersheds, and educate the public about sustainable recreation. Those partnerships are becoming increasingly important as agencies struggle with staffing shortages, deferred maintenance, and the growing pace and scale of wildfire impacts.

 

The bottom line is simple: every rider has a role to play in protecting the lands we love. Responsible OHV use, proper equipment, wildfire awareness, and good stewardship are no longer optional—they are essential to keeping trails open and helping forests recover.

 

Donsquatch likes to say: “We Ride. We Care. We Restore.”  And together, we help protect our forests, our trails, and the future of responsible OHV recreation.

 

 Additional National OHV Safety Week Resources

 

AMERICAN TRAILS

https://www.americantrails.org/resources/promoting-responsible-recreation

 

 

RIDEOHV.COM

https://rideohv.com/ohv-safety-week/

 

 

# # #

 

Don Amador is a longtime public lands advocate with over 30 years of experience in recreation policy, trail stewardship, OHV safety training, post-wildfire recovery, and collaborative land management. Don is also former Chair of the CA State Parks Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Commission.

 

OPINION - THE FUTURE OF THIS TRAIL SYSTEM DEPENDS ON US!

 

OPINION

 May 26, 2026

By Don Amador

 

The Future of This Trail System Depends on US

 

 

As the 2026 wildfire season ramps up across California and much of the West, I recently returned to the  Mendocino National Forest to survey natural resources and recreation infrastructure impacted by the 2018 Ranch Fire. Like many who have spent decades working, volunteering, or recreating on public lands, these visits are both inspiring and sobering at the same time.

 

There is still immense beauty, resilience, and purpose found in these landscapes. Agency employees, volunteers, collaborative groups, and local partners continue to work tirelessly to restore trails, reopen campgrounds, stabilize roads, reduce fuels, and protect watersheds. But after nearly a decade of repeated megafires and now emerging “gigafire” conditions across the West, the scale of cumulative impacts is becoming impossible to ignore.

Trail 36 Post 2018 Ranch Fire Recovery

Stonyford OHV Area - Mendocino NF

While portions of the Mendocino trail system and several recreation sites have been restored through years of hard work and partnership investment, many trails are difficult to access or remain functionally closed due to fire damage, erosion, fallen timber, brush encroachment, and washed-out roads. Scenic ridgelines once covered by dense conifer forests now overlook large expanses of standing dead trees and severely altered landscapes. Trails once shaded by mature pine and Douglas fir are now lined with thick brush fields that continue to reclaim historic recreation corridors.

Post 2018 Ranch Fire Ridge Top OHV Route

Stonyford OHV Area - Mendocino NF

 

Yet the larger story extends beyond any single forest or fire. Across the West, agency staff and partners are confronting a new operational reality where wildfire impacts are no longer isolated emergency events, but long-term institutional challenges affecting workforce capacity, fiscal sustainability, recreation management, and landscape recovery.

 

Recent agency assessments and partner discussions increasingly acknowledge that the cumulative impacts of extended fire seasons, repeated large incidents, staffing shortages, and deferred maintenance are placing unprecedented strain on the ability of land managers to keep pace with restoration needs. Firefighters, line officers, recreation staff, biologists, engineers, trail crews, and collaborative partners are being asked to simultaneously respond to emergencies while also restoring landscapes at scales never before experienced in modern forest management.

 

At the same time, suppression demands continue to consume significant operational bandwidth even as Congress has increased investments in fuels reduction and restoration through recent infrastructure and resilience legislation. The result is an ongoing balancing act where agencies must prioritize community protection, critical infrastructure, watershed recovery, and strategic treatment areas while still trying to maintain recreation access and broader stewardship responsibilities across millions of acres.

 

Toward the end of my field visit, I stopped at the Wolf Creek OHV Information Center where a long-standing trail management sign reads: “THE FUTURE OF THIS TRAIL SYSTEM DEPENDS ON YOU! — STAY ON DESIGNATED ROUTES!”

 

I sat there for several minutes reflecting on my long history with the Mendocino National Forest — beginning with my first rides there in the 1970s, family OHV campouts, enduros, promoting use of sound-compliant exhaust systems and spark arrestors, volunteering on post-fire recovery projects after the 2002 Trough Fire, and later becoming involved in the FireScape Mendocino collaborative and helping co-found the Post Wildfire OHV Recovery Alliance following the 2018 Ranch Fire and 2020 August Complex Fire.

 

It was during that reflection that the message on the sign took on broader meaning. The future of our trail systems, forests, watersheds, and public lands does not depend solely on agency staff, firefighters, or land managers. Nor does it rest entirely on volunteers, user groups, counties, or conservation organizations. The future of these landscapes increasingly depends on all of us working together — agencies, partners, local communities, tribes, recreationists, industry, elected officials, and the public.

 

The reality is that no single agency or organization has the staffing, funding, or institutional capacity to fully recover every landscape impacted by the pace and scale of wildfire now occurring across the West. That is not a reflection of a lack of commitment. It is a reflection of the immense complexity and magnitude of the challenge itself.

 

But despite those challenges, there is still reason for optimism. Over the past decade, collaborative groups, stewardship organizations, volunteers, counties, and recreation partners have increasingly stepped forward to help fill critical gaps in restoration, trail maintenance, post-fire recovery, education, and sustainable recreation management. Those partnerships are no longer supplemental to the mission — they are becoming essential to it.

 

Because moving forward, meaningful recovery and long-term stewardship of our public lands will require not only continued agency leadership and congressional support, but also a shared commitment by all who value these places and understand what is at stake if we fail to act together. 

 

 

# # #

 

Don Amador is a longtime public lands advocate with over 30 years of experience in recreation policy, trail stewardship, and collaborative land management and former Chair of the CA State Parks OHMVR Commission.