California Wildfires vs. OHV

Clovis Independent 4 Wheelers is a California based club who volunteer with the SNF (U.S. Forest Service - Sierra National Forest) under their Adopt-A-Trail Agreement. Our club members are long time members of two of California Land Use Advocacy group. Cal4Wheel (California Four Wheel Drive Association) and CORVA (California Off Road Vehicle Association). Both groups advocate, fight to protect our OHV Access for everyone. Our South Fork Tamarack OHV trails were ABSOLUTELY destroyed by the Creek Fire in September 2020. Over the past 35+ years, our club have been volunteering for the Forest Service and have seen so many changes which have led to why these wildfires have become extremely dangerous and catastrophic.

Let begin with why? There are a few contributing factors as to why these wildfires are so catastrophic. Some argue that Climate Change is the main reason; which has led to years of drought. Many areas across the state have been starved for water. Then the bark beetle invaded and wipe out acres and acres all by themselves. The lack of long cold winters has allowed the beetles to survive in the trees and thrive. The lack of water has restricted the lack of sap which would push the beetles out in a healthy tree. The pure density of too many tree per acre have contributed to a competition of the survival of the fittest. Over the past 10-20 years, us volunteers have seen a steady decline in the health of our beloved Forest. We clear and maintain the OHV trails for Bald Mountain OHV above Shaver Lake, CA.

How? What are the sources of ignition? We, humans have been irresponsible, unintentionally or attentionally have ignited the fires. Down powerlines, lawn mowers, dragging chains on your trailer or someone leaving a camp fire unattended to even a gender reveal party. Mother Nature with her lightning strikes. Many reason as to how wildfires start.

Regardless of why and how; we have to push back on false ideology of the “Hands Off” approach. The so-called 10 am policy is a failed policy. This is not Forest Management. Forest Fire Suppression is not management. An “Environmentalist” is by definition supposed to be a person who is concerned with or advocates the protection of the environment. This person is supposed to be a conservationist, preservationist, ecologist and nature lover. How can a person love the Forest and sit idle by and watch one wildfire be followed by another wildfire, so on and so on. I am not going to list all the State of California wildfires, just search for the list. It’s absolutely unacceptable. Over the past 100 or so years, the “Environmentalist” have created layers of polices, protections and bureaucracy to stop and prevent proper Forest Management. The staff and volunteers of the Forest Service, BLM (Bureau of Land Management), State Parks are the true Environmentalist. Not the people living in the big cities and along the California Coast. The true Environmentalist are the ones who are collaborating and volunteering with the land managers, not working against them and threatening law suits every time we turn around.

This latest wildfire to hit our Sierra National Forest, the Creek Fire. So sad to see, actually breaks my heart knowing how beautiful our trails once were in the destroyed areas. Totally prevented, but the ignorance of these so called “Environmentalist” are responsible. They actually say in public forums that thick, un-maintained Forest are more resilient to fires. Just unacceptable! All wildfires, regardless of why or how could have all turned out differently if proper Forest Management had been (#1) Allowed / Approved (#2) Funded and (#3) Executed!!

We all need to advocate and promote PROACTIVE Forest Management! This REACTIVE approach must end! Being reactive IS NOT Forest Management.

A long time, Forest veteran of 40 years explained to me that trees now only know two things. They grow, then they burn. He explained that the local Native Americans were the best environmentalists. They would use fire to clear their land for crops and pastures. They would light fires behind them in late November- December as they moved down to the warmer foothills. Once the weather heated up in late Spring, they would move back up to the Forests. Catastrophic wildfires were never the case back when they properly managed the land. Their “cultural burning” promoted the health of vegetation and provided food to the animals, clothing to the people. Fires served many other purposes as well. In 1911, following the largest wildfire in current history at the time, the US Forest Service was pressured by the environmentalist at the time into 100% fire suppression. Prescribed / control burning was outlawed and abandoned.

Our club’s hardest hit OHV trail connects Tamarack Rock Creek Rd to the Red Mountain Trail system. We have been working with SNF OHV Crew and CI4W Volunteers! The timber along these OHV trails consisted of 80-90 percent tree mortality for the bark beetle which unfortunately provided all the fuel this fire needed to blow up as it did! When done, the Creek Fire destroyed 379,895 acres. It took 3.5 months before 100% contained.

Pro-Active proper forest management is key to stopping catastrophic wildfires. We will never stop wildfires. Fire is necessary for a healthy forest. Forests cover almost 30% of the earth land area. Mother Nature has been tending to and caring for her Forest long before we, humans thought we could do it better. Mother Nature DOES NOT need us and she will always prevail. Healthy Forests are absolutely critical and provide an abundance of ecological resources to our earth. Without writing a book here, the Forests worldwide are all extremely valuable and the earth needs them to be healthy! Close to 5 million acres have been scorched in California. Fire suppression isn’t the long-term answer.

Pro-Active Proper Forest Management: A forest management plan is extremely comprehensive, huge and takes multiple layers of expertise to fully develop. Here is my short list from the perspective of an OHV Environmentalist who loves the forest and who wants his children and grand children to enjoy for generations to come. Pro-active items within the plan can and need to maintain wildlife management practices; follow BMP (Best Management Practices); comply with Federal/State regulations, such as the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and other laws to ensure resources are protected:

Weeding / cleaning forest floor of fuel loads.
Timber harvests / sale. Keep trees separated by 6-8 feet.
Timber thinning. A healthy forest has approx. 30 trees per acre.
Reduce Fuel Loads / Prescribed and controlled burns.
OHV Trails / Firebreaks
Timber re-growth and re-planting practices.
Forest fertilization.
Drainage control / alterations. ie: water bars / turnouts / dips
Pesticide applications.
Agroforesty. ie: Silvopasture / Alley Cropping / Forest Farming

The US Forests are estimated at about 120 million acres with 33 million being in California. Some of which is privately owned. It is estimated that our forest has 165 – 170 trees per acre. Some forests are recorded as to having upwards of 260 trees per acre. This is just too many! Experts explain that when trees are too close together, the lack of air circulation can lead to mold and mildew to form on the trees. Too many trees shut out the important sunlight; which prevents all the native plants to grow that the local wildlife are looking for. Too many trees also lead to skinny, slow growing trees. When trees are packed and crowded, they are all competing for survival. Our OHV area has the Ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine and Red Fur. These are all big beautiful trees when healthy! As soon as the tree mortality hit and the bark beetle were found, then steps should have immediately ensued. According to the U.S. Forest Service, the bark beetles along with drought have affected over 30 million trees. The bark beetle is the size of a piece of cooked rice. They tunnel under the bark, cutting off the tree’s supply of food and water. It take a little as 2-4 weeks for bark beetles to kill a tree. Every dead tree must be removed! All trees can be dangerous, but the bark beetle infested trees can be the worst. They are unsafe to climb and very difficult to predict where it will land once it falls.

What can we do once the above steps are being executed? Open more Biomass facilities next to the saw mills. All the left over organic material can be put to use. Wood chips make fuel for biomass facilities to produce heat and energy. When done correctly, experts say that it’s cleaner than natural gas. “Environmentalist” claim that that biomass facilities increase carbon emissions, yet they turn a blind eye to the PyroCu ( pyro-cumulonimbus cloud) as it mushroomed up from fire tornadoes straight upward into our atmosphere. Don’t even try and argue the carbon emission from these wildfires are the better alternative for the environment.

My goals as an active and engaged OHV volunteer is to advocate for the proper forest management as listed. I will collaborate and work with the Forest Service to aid in following a effective management plan. We’ll follow and implement the said goals and objectives. We’ll always follow all resource mediation efforts and inventory the implementation of objectives. We’ll always consult the SNF specialist in all ground operations. We’ll develop and execute a schedule for conducting best management practices. We’ll keep accurate records and evaluation of our efforts and outcomes. OHV volunteers are vital to the Forest Service. The staff cannot do this work by themselves. I will continue to be the true Environmentalist.

If you want to make a difference and volunteer, come join our club. Join a Land Advocacy group. Become part of the solution and push back on failed policy by the people who have a failed track record. We need everyone involved in advocating for OHV here in California!

Why are the Wild Fires specifically in California always a MEGA Wild Fire?

California-based (or California-active) organizations that have, at times, opposed specific forest management projects (typically commercial thinning, large fuel breaks, or post-fire salvage logging), based on well-documented positions and cases up to mid-2024. “Opposed” here includes litigation, formal objections/comments, or administrative appeals—not blanket opposition to all management.

California groups frequently documented opposing certain projects

Sierra Club (CA chapters) – Has opposed some commercial thinning/salvage projects they judged harmful to habitat/old growth; often supports prescribed fire.

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) – Frequent litigant/commenter against post-fire logging and certain large mechanical thinning projects.

John Muir Project (Earth Island Institute) – Prominent opponent of post-fire salvage logging; critical of logging-centric fuels treatments.

EPIC – Environmental Protection Information Center – Northern CA; has challenged Klamath/Six Rivers/Shasta-Trinity projects (thinning/salvage).

Sequoia ForestKeeper – Opposed/ litigated logging and some fuels projects in Sequoia NF.

Los Padres ForestWatch – Opposed large linear fuel breaks and some mastication in chaparral/Los Padres NF.

California Chaparral Institute – Opposed broad mechanical thinning in chaparral; advocates fire-appropriate strategies for shrublands.

Conservation Congress – Northern CA; litigated multiple USFS thinning/salvage projects (Mendocino/Plumas/Shasta-Trinity).

Sierra Forest Legacy – Has opposed elements of projects perceived as increasing commercial logging; supports prescribed fire/ecological thinning in other contexts.

CSERC – Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center – Commented/ objected to aspects of Sierra Nevada projects (Stanislaus region).

Klamath Forest Alliance – Opposed some Klamath NF logging/salvage and road projects.

Friends of the Inyo – Opposed portions of Inyo NF projects with habitat concerns.

Friends of the River – At times opposed logging components tied to watershed impacts.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS) – Project-specific objections where rare plants/habitat affected by mechanical treatments.

Defenders of Wildlife – Opposed project elements when species impacts (e.g., fisher, owl) implicated.

Earthjustice (law firm for NGOs) – Counsel on many CA suits opposing specific logging/salvage; not itself an NGO opponent but key to campaigns.

WildEarth Guardians (multi-state, active in CA) – Periodically opposed USFS logging/fuels projects affecting wildlife.

Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation – Opposed some Eldorado NF projects.

Foothill Conservancy – Project-level opposition where watershed/habitat risks identified.

Los Angeles/San Bernardino-area Audubon chapters – Project-specific objections tied to bird habitat (varies by chapter and project).

Typical issue patterns they’ve opposed

Post-fire salvage logging (snag habitat, erosion, spotted owl/fisher impacts).

Large mechanical thinning/commercial logging framed as “fuels reduction” in mixed-conifer forests.

Expansive fuel breaks/mastication in chaparral ecosystems (arguing ecological mismatch and spread of invasives).

Road building/temporary roads connected to timber removal.

CE/EA shortcuts (NEPA/CEQA adequacy, cumulative impacts, ESA consultations).

Important context

Many of these groups support prescribed and cultural burning, small-diameter ecological thinning near communities, and WUI-focused treatments; their opposition is usually project-specific (methods, scale, location, analysis quality).

Out of ~3,800–3,835 environmental orgs in CA, this “opposition cohort” is a small fraction—likely dozens, not hundreds.

Court dockets: Search 2010–2025 CA federal district cases for “USDA Forest Service” + “salvage”/“thinning” and note plaintiffs.

USFS project objection/appeal records: Klamath, Sequoia, Sierra, Inyo, Los Padres, Eldorado NFs.

CEQAnet (CA): Filter CEQA comment letters and petitions for CAL FIRE VTP/vegetation treatments and county projects.

Lobbying disclosures: CA Cal-Access + IRS 990 Schedule C to isolate orgs that actually lobby on forest bills/projects.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse