The following was recently printed in the San Bernardino County Sun newspaper regarding the plan to impose user fees in certain areas of the California High Desert:
Monday, August 18, 2003 - BARSTOW - Facing strong criticism from off-road vehicle groups, a federal agency is taking another look at a plan to impose use fees at four popular recreation sites in the High Desert.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has shelved an Oct. 1 starting date for the fees, saying it continues to evaluate a plan to charge $20 for a weekly pass or $60 for an annual pass to cover costs of law enforcement, emergency medical aid and site maintenance.
"We have not reached a final decision on fees whether they will be imposed or when," said Stephen Razo , director of external affairs for the bureau's California Desert District, in Riverside.
He said a draft plan establishing potential fees to help recoup a $2.5 million deficit in its recreation program is being reviewed by legislators and off-road vehicle groups.
The bureau's Aug. 5 announcement on the fee program sparked an angry response from off-road vehicle buffs who said green sticker registration fees already pay for bureau services at the recreation sites.
"I told the bureau that I've quit working with them (on off-road issues)," said Ed Waldheim, president of the California Off-Road Vehicle Association. "We don't need these fees since there are grants to help augment their budget.
"(This fee proposal) is a rip-off and a lot of people won't pay it. "They will boycott it ... (or) move into limited-use areas."
Michelle Cassella, vice president of District 37 of the American Motorcyclist Association, said many members of the group intend to fight the proposal the first recreational use fees for off-roaders in this area.
"We're not happy, but we don't want to stir a conflict in the desert," she said. "However, they're screwing us there's no other way to say it." Linda Hansen, the bureau's district manager, said the bureau's Aug. 5 press release about plans to impose the fees Oct. 1 was "intended to inform the public that the BLM remains on track in keeping users of public lands informed as to the progress of these plans."
"The BLM is working with off-highway vehicle interests, government officials and the public concerning final program decisions," she said.
Razo said Congress authorized the bureau to initiate the fee program in 1996 to keep pace with rising costs to manage recreation sites. "Our draft plan is being reviewed by users ... (and) we will hold briefings for members of Congress," Razo explained.
Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands, whose district includes much of the High Desert, favors similar fees by the U.S. Forest Service.
"He conditionally supports the Forest Service's Adventure Pass if 95 percent of the money raised is used within the national forest where it is collected," Lewis spokesman Jim Specht said
.
"Similarly, Rep. Lewis wants a guarantee that money from bureau fees would go for improvements and services within areas where it is collected."
Waldheim expressed delight that the bureau is taking another look at the fees. "They recognize the proposal is premature, and that they need to work with constituents before moving ahead with this," he said.
Fees should not be used for law enforcement at recreation areas, Waldheim said. "Congress needs to up the amount of money for law enforcement," he said. "And we don't need visitor services.
"The BLM has been negligent in doing its job (to benefit visitors) and now wants to cover its inefficiencies and lack of proper management by charging fees."
He and Cassella claim bureau officials promised to seek suggestions from off-road groups before setting a fee, but went ahead without asking for ideas.
Nearly 500,000 off-highway vehicle enthusiasts ride motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles at five High Desert recreation sites yearly, said Mike Ahrens, the bureau's off-road coordinator in Barstow.
After the bureau announced plans to impose the fees, he said, "Nobody wants to have to pay for something they've gotten free before. But we can't provide services for visitors without additional money. We've never had funds to provide adequate services."
The fees would be used only to cover costs, he said.
The four recreation areas where fees are under consideration are:
Dumont Dunes, a 10,000-acre area 30 miles north of Baker. It attracts 120,000 visitors annually.
Johnson Valley, at 188,000 acres, the world's largest area designated for off-road vehicle activities. Forty miles south of Barstow, it draws 90,000 people yearly.
Stoddard Valley, 12 miles south of Barstow, contains 53,000 acres and attracts 80,000 annual visitors.
El Mirage, 15 miles west of Adelanto, is 25,000 acres and is visited by 124,000 people yearly.
No fees would be charged at the 22,000-acre Rasor [riding area].
Glamis is not getting money from the OHMVR any more... those other areas are.
Lots of discussions on this subject...
http://www.glamisdunes.com/phpbb2/viewtopi...pic.php?t=10333
http://www.glamisdunes.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=9596
http://www.glamisdunes.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=9889
http://www.glamisdunes.com/phpbb2/viewtopi...pic.php?t=10480
Lots of discussions on this subject...
http://www.glamisdunes.com/phpbb2/viewtopi...pic.php?t=10333
http://www.glamisdunes.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=9596
http://www.glamisdunes.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=9889
http://www.glamisdunes.com/phpbb2/viewtopi...pic.php?t=10480
Why aren't we getting press like this about our ridiculous fees? Why does it seem like we just lay down and take it? We need to be more vocal and get the press involved. :rant:
Actually, our situation is very different from the new fee areas. We've been cut off from virtually every other funding option, whereas the other areas haven't.
No one is just laying down and taking anything, but no one has been able to come up with another funding source (yet) either, other than cutting back on services. And for every person who requests that, there is at least one other asking for the current services to be maintained.
Vicki
No one is just laying down and taking anything, but no one has been able to come up with another funding source (yet) either, other than cutting back on services. And for every person who requests that, there is at least one other asking for the current services to be maintained.
Vicki
Man all these taxes are crazy, I thaught it was a free country. It our dunes they dont dune they close the dunes, so we go somewhere else and they close there, theres always superstition and Ocotillo. If that fails we can all move to south africa and ride in those huge dunes :shock:
| QUOTE |
| And for every person who requests that, there is at least one other asking for the current services to be maintained. |
I'm still waiting to see proof of this. The BLM has not done an honest survey EVER to determine what visitors want. You yourself have stated as much.
One of the big problems is the BLM making self-fuffilling surveys designed to give the answers they want. The only survey I've seen didn't ask if people wanted more services with more fees - only what services they'd like if they have to pay the existing fees. But then they turned the results around and used it as an excuse to raise fees by claiming that people want and need those extra services. Which is NOT what they survey was asking.
The BLM needs to work harder to get funding that's already out there in the form of federal tax dollars appropriated to the DOI. But why should they bother when they can just jack up the price to scare off visitors making their job easier.
The BLM's actions the past 4 years speak much louder than their words. They've been systematically trying to make it harder for people to recreate the way visitors have tradionally visited the dunes. And why not - with fewer visitors their job gets a LOT easier and the overall rule of all government jobs is to make your job as easy and profitable as possible.
Meanwhile they feed the duners a line about wanted to create a "world class recreation area" while taking steps to destory the recreation possibilities that already exist and replace them with safe PC options like interpertive displays and paved camping so you don't even have to get dirty.
The BLM's actions are speaking MUCh MUCH louder than their words and it's very disheartening to see some people continue to ignore the BLM's actions and blindly trust their words.
Hate to say it.... But Jason is RIGHT again! :shock:
Sadly very true, Jason. ISDRA already is a world class recreation area just the way it is. LEAVE IT ALONE ! No more fees, no more "improvements". Let the private sector fill the needs of those that want concrete, pavement, water, etc. If enough people want amenities someone will build a campground & charge those that want their services. The BLM should budget (& charge) only what's needed for LEOs, EMTs, & collection of fees. NOTHING ELSE !
Also I still feel there is an element of "divide & conquer" involved here. That is if the state & federal agencies can seperate Dumont, Pismo, Glamis areas with different rules & budget distibution then they can also divide opposition. For example if you're a Dumont guy & there is no fee there then you're much less likely to protest ISDRA fee increases. The sand community must be very careful to avoid this division. We have to stick together.
Also I still feel there is an element of "divide & conquer" involved here. That is if the state & federal agencies can seperate Dumont, Pismo, Glamis areas with different rules & budget distibution then they can also divide opposition. For example if you're a Dumont guy & there is no fee there then you're much less likely to protest ISDRA fee increases. The sand community must be very careful to avoid this division. We have to stick together.
[quote]I'm still waiting to see proof of this. The BLM has not done an honest survey EVER to determine what visitors want. You yourself have stated as much.[/quote]
And I agree, the survey was slanted. We need to build a better survey.
My statement comes from comments I've heard over the last 1.5 months of telephone calls, emails and meetings. Like I said before, I don't have a stake in any decision about services, other than EMS and LEOs. I have a self-contained motorhome with a bathroom and an enclosed trailer for hauling bags of trash all the way back to Corona. I don't need porta-potties or dumpsters so if they took them all away I wouldn't even know it. But I'm continually amazed at how many people have said they want those to continue to be available, along with the EMS and LEOs.
[quote]The BLM needs to work harder to get funding that's already out there in the form of federal tax dollars appropriated to the DOI. [/quote]
You're right, they should work harder to procure other funding sources. This has been and will continue to be driven home to them. Other than constantly hounding them to do the right thing, attend meetings, make phone calls, confirm they've followed through... what else should be done to make this happen?
[quote]The BLM's actions are speaking MUCh MUCH louder than their words and it's very disheartening to see some people continue to ignore the BLM's actions and blindly trust their words.[/quote]
It is very disheartening. Blind trust in any government agency is a foolish thing. During our information meetings we stress over and over that the BLM is only the property manager, that we are the property owners and that we have the obligation of insisting that the property managers do the job we want them to do.
Vicki
And I agree, the survey was slanted. We need to build a better survey.
My statement comes from comments I've heard over the last 1.5 months of telephone calls, emails and meetings. Like I said before, I don't have a stake in any decision about services, other than EMS and LEOs. I have a self-contained motorhome with a bathroom and an enclosed trailer for hauling bags of trash all the way back to Corona. I don't need porta-potties or dumpsters so if they took them all away I wouldn't even know it. But I'm continually amazed at how many people have said they want those to continue to be available, along with the EMS and LEOs.
[quote]The BLM needs to work harder to get funding that's already out there in the form of federal tax dollars appropriated to the DOI. [/quote]
You're right, they should work harder to procure other funding sources. This has been and will continue to be driven home to them. Other than constantly hounding them to do the right thing, attend meetings, make phone calls, confirm they've followed through... what else should be done to make this happen?
[quote]The BLM's actions are speaking MUCh MUCH louder than their words and it's very disheartening to see some people continue to ignore the BLM's actions and blindly trust their words.[/quote]
It is very disheartening. Blind trust in any government agency is a foolish thing. During our information meetings we stress over and over that the BLM is only the property manager, that we are the property owners and that we have the obligation of insisting that the property managers do the job we want them to do.
Vicki
[quote]And I agree, the survey was slanted. We need to build a better survey.[/quote]
Why do we need a better survey? The things that the BLM claim are requested are items that do not belong at Glamis. If a million people demanded a 200mph lane on the freeway, should we give it to them?
And why do WE need to do a survey anyway? Spend OUR money just to figure out the obvious... The HAVES want expensive Fees to pay for ammenities and for law enforcement to keep out the "riff raff" and the HAVENOTS want NO fees, No amenities, and NO MORE LAW ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE THEY ARE TIRED OF BEING TREATED LIKE RIFF-RAFF.
How much more simple can it be?
Anyone here hear about the President earmarking a new, large amount of money that is supposed to go to the "National Parks", as a bit of a pay-off to Environmentalists??? Why aren't we getting OUR share of that?
Tell your congressman that we want our share of that pay off!
Wait, you didn't hear about that? Well, it's true.
Why do we need a better survey? The things that the BLM claim are requested are items that do not belong at Glamis. If a million people demanded a 200mph lane on the freeway, should we give it to them?
And why do WE need to do a survey anyway? Spend OUR money just to figure out the obvious... The HAVES want expensive Fees to pay for ammenities and for law enforcement to keep out the "riff raff" and the HAVENOTS want NO fees, No amenities, and NO MORE LAW ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE THEY ARE TIRED OF BEING TREATED LIKE RIFF-RAFF.
How much more simple can it be?
Anyone here hear about the President earmarking a new, large amount of money that is supposed to go to the "National Parks", as a bit of a pay-off to Environmentalists??? Why aren't we getting OUR share of that?
Tell your congressman that we want our share of that pay off!
Wait, you didn't hear about that? Well, it's true.
[quote]No one is just laying down and taking anything, but no one has been able to come up with another funding source (yet) either, other than cutting back on services. And for every person who requests that, there is at least one other asking for the current services to be maintained.[/quote]
WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER FUNDING SOURCE. I KEEP HEARING... "NO MORE FEES" AND I AM NOT HEARING "CHARGE US MORE". WHERE IN THE WORLD ARE YOU GETTING THIS CRAP ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR "CURRENT SERVICES TO BE MAINTAINED"?
And, for that matter, how does a reservation system at Roadrunner and increases in law enforcement represent "current services"?
I saw the budget for last years "services" ... the Trash cans cost a fortune, the toilets cost way too much... and NONE OF IT DEMANDED AN INCREASE IN THE FEES!!! There's still $300,000 in the bank.
Do I hear Cruz Bustamante in there? "Gotta have TOUGH LOVE". We'll cut spending but... we'll STILL have to raise your taxes!!!
Hey, Glamis isn't $35 BILLION in the hole! End this insanity before it becomes that way.
WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER FUNDING SOURCE. I KEEP HEARING... "NO MORE FEES" AND I AM NOT HEARING "CHARGE US MORE". WHERE IN THE WORLD ARE YOU GETTING THIS CRAP ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR "CURRENT SERVICES TO BE MAINTAINED"?
And, for that matter, how does a reservation system at Roadrunner and increases in law enforcement represent "current services"?
I saw the budget for last years "services" ... the Trash cans cost a fortune, the toilets cost way too much... and NONE OF IT DEMANDED AN INCREASE IN THE FEES!!! There's still $300,000 in the bank.
Do I hear Cruz Bustamante in there? "Gotta have TOUGH LOVE". We'll cut spending but... we'll STILL have to raise your taxes!!!
Hey, Glamis isn't $35 BILLION in the hole! End this insanity before it becomes that way.
[quote]Why do we need a better survey? The things that the BLM claim are requested are items that do not belong at Glamis. If a million people demanded a 200mph lane on the freeway, should we give it to them?[/quote]
I'm so confused. You seem to be promoting only the way you see Glamis, or the way you would like Glamis to stay. Are you saying that the remainder of the visitors should be satisfied with what you want for Glamis?
It's terrific that you have your opinion of how Glamis should be, but there are a lot of other people who visit Glamis besides you and they have their own opinions. Do they not have a right to choose?
Or perhaps we should leave it to the BLM to decide.
[quote]And why do WE need to do a survey anyway? [/quote]
Sorry... I figured people were complaining about the flawed survey and would want to follow up with a better one. Perhaps it was just venting.
The old survey was slanted and bad, and monetary decisions are being made on the slanted survey. So okay, let's leave it at that.
I'm so confused. You seem to be promoting only the way you see Glamis, or the way you would like Glamis to stay. Are you saying that the remainder of the visitors should be satisfied with what you want for Glamis?
It's terrific that you have your opinion of how Glamis should be, but there are a lot of other people who visit Glamis besides you and they have their own opinions. Do they not have a right to choose?
Or perhaps we should leave it to the BLM to decide.
[quote]And why do WE need to do a survey anyway? [/quote]
Sorry... I figured people were complaining about the flawed survey and would want to follow up with a better one. Perhaps it was just venting.
The old survey was slanted and bad, and monetary decisions are being made on the slanted survey. So okay, let's leave it at that.
[quote]WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER FUNDING SOURCE. I KEEP HEARING... "NO MORE FEES" AND I AM NOT HEARING "CHARGE US MORE". WHERE IN THE WORLD ARE YOU GETTING THIS CRAP ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR "CURRENT SERVICES TO BE MAINTAINED"?[/quote]
VOR, many people have posted on both this board and the ASA board that they want EMS services, that they want the porta-potties, that they want the wash road graded, and they want the dumpsters in place. Just because you wish it wasn't so won't make those people change their minds.
[quote]There's still $300,000 in the bank.[/quote]
As clarified before, that money is still there and has been earmarked for those services you do not want but others do.
VOR, many people have posted on both this board and the ASA board that they want EMS services, that they want the porta-potties, that they want the wash road graded, and they want the dumpsters in place. Just because you wish it wasn't so won't make those people change their minds.
[quote]There's still $300,000 in the bank.[/quote]
As clarified before, that money is still there and has been earmarked for those services you do not want but others do.
God I feel like I am banging my head against the wall!!!!!!!!!
One: Services cost money
Two: For SOME UNKNOWN REASON the Federal Government refuses to fund Glamis.
Three: Glamis is, has, and always should be a "primitive" area.
Four: To make Glamis anything other then "primitive" will require LOTS OF MONEY.
Five: Glamis is PUBLIC LAND, supposidly "Open to the Public".
Six: Punitive fees "closes" the land to members of the public.
Seven: SOME users at Glamis PREFER the land to be closed to some OTHER members of the public, The so-called "Riff-Raff"... (That's us, folks)
Eight: THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.
Nine: I will fight FOREVER to get these punitive, unnecessisary, rediculous taxes repealed.
One: Services cost money
Two: For SOME UNKNOWN REASON the Federal Government refuses to fund Glamis.
Three: Glamis is, has, and always should be a "primitive" area.
Four: To make Glamis anything other then "primitive" will require LOTS OF MONEY.
Five: Glamis is PUBLIC LAND, supposidly "Open to the Public".
Six: Punitive fees "closes" the land to members of the public.
Seven: SOME users at Glamis PREFER the land to be closed to some OTHER members of the public, The so-called "Riff-Raff"... (That's us, folks)
Eight: THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.
Nine: I will fight FOREVER to get these punitive, unnecessisary, rediculous taxes repealed.
[quote]Nine: I will fight FOREVER to get these punitive, unnecessisary, rediculous taxes repealed.[/quote]
Excellent! You are standing up for what you believe in. That's what everyone should do.
And those that want the things you do not will be fighting for what they believe in. I personally don't want the wash road graded, but if the majority of the people do, I hope they are successful in getting it done.
If the majority of the people who visit Glamis decide they don't want LEOs or EMS or dumpsters or bathrooms or grading or paving or any of the other services mentioned, I hope they stand up with you and fight for what they want and are successful.
Vive la difference!
Excellent! You are standing up for what you believe in. That's what everyone should do.
And those that want the things you do not will be fighting for what they believe in. I personally don't want the wash road graded, but if the majority of the people do, I hope they are successful in getting it done.
If the majority of the people who visit Glamis decide they don't want LEOs or EMS or dumpsters or bathrooms or grading or paving or any of the other services mentioned, I hope they stand up with you and fight for what they want and are successful.
Vive la difference!
I've been saying it for over four years and I'll keep saying it until someone can convice me it's a bad idea.
If some visitors want a "more than primitive" experience at Glamis....fine. But they should be the ones who pay for it and primitive areas at minimal or no cost should still be allowed as well.
Build a real "campground" with all those things people are asking for - toilets, increased LEO patrols, dumpsters, electrical hookups, dump station, paved parking......and then put a fence around it and charge for use.
But leave the primitive areas primitive and don't expect those who use the primitive areas to pay for your "campground".
I also still question the validity of people asking for more. Most of them that I've spoken with change their tune quickly when increased fees are brought into the equation. It goes back to the BLM's misrepresentation again - they ask what you want from the current fees - and then use that to justify increasing fees to provide "what people asked for". But they didn't ask for it - they said "Ok, if you have to charge me $30 a year then these things would be nice to have." Not "I want toilets and dumpsters and will gladly pay more for them."
I've heard people ask for things like more toilets and LEOs - but not many of them stick to those requests when they find out it will cost them more out of their own pocket.
GIGO - (Garbage In Garbage Out) the BLM is making decisions with no baseline to go off of because they've done such a poor job of management for the entirety of their existance. They should have been building the information needed to make these decisions for dozens of years - but they have actively worked against compiling that info.
One example - the weather monitoring stations. They were offered several years ago before the PMV was even listed as threatened. And the BLM's own staff biologist said "thanks but no thanks" thereby preventing the BLM from collecting crucial climate data needed to make their decisions. And thanks to that lack of data bad decisions regarding management were made.
What we really truely need is a congressional investigation of how the BLM has mismanaged public lands - but our leaders are too scared to ask for this because the enviros have done such a good job of buying their way into the publics grace. Facts and truth no longer matter but who has the most $$$$ and we don't have postcards with lots of cute fuzzy animals on them to raise that $$$$ to be able to win the fight. We do have lots of people with plenty of money who won't spend a dime to protect their chosen form of recreation...and I still for the life of me can't begin to fathom why.
If some visitors want a "more than primitive" experience at Glamis....fine. But they should be the ones who pay for it and primitive areas at minimal or no cost should still be allowed as well.
Build a real "campground" with all those things people are asking for - toilets, increased LEO patrols, dumpsters, electrical hookups, dump station, paved parking......and then put a fence around it and charge for use.
But leave the primitive areas primitive and don't expect those who use the primitive areas to pay for your "campground".
I also still question the validity of people asking for more. Most of them that I've spoken with change their tune quickly when increased fees are brought into the equation. It goes back to the BLM's misrepresentation again - they ask what you want from the current fees - and then use that to justify increasing fees to provide "what people asked for". But they didn't ask for it - they said "Ok, if you have to charge me $30 a year then these things would be nice to have." Not "I want toilets and dumpsters and will gladly pay more for them."
I've heard people ask for things like more toilets and LEOs - but not many of them stick to those requests when they find out it will cost them more out of their own pocket.
GIGO - (Garbage In Garbage Out) the BLM is making decisions with no baseline to go off of because they've done such a poor job of management for the entirety of their existance. They should have been building the information needed to make these decisions for dozens of years - but they have actively worked against compiling that info.
One example - the weather monitoring stations. They were offered several years ago before the PMV was even listed as threatened. And the BLM's own staff biologist said "thanks but no thanks" thereby preventing the BLM from collecting crucial climate data needed to make their decisions. And thanks to that lack of data bad decisions regarding management were made.
What we really truely need is a congressional investigation of how the BLM has mismanaged public lands - but our leaders are too scared to ask for this because the enviros have done such a good job of buying their way into the publics grace. Facts and truth no longer matter but who has the most $$$$ and we don't have postcards with lots of cute fuzzy animals on them to raise that $$$$ to be able to win the fight. We do have lots of people with plenty of money who won't spend a dime to protect their chosen form of recreation...and I still for the life of me can't begin to fathom why.
[quote]I've been saying it for over four years and I'll keep saying it until someone can convice me it's a bad idea.
If some visitors want a "more than primitive" experience at Glamis....fine. But they should be the ones who pay for it and primitive areas at minimal or no cost should still be allowed as well.[/quote]
This is what was pushed for, but we were told it's impractical for Glamis because the resources that are being used are not just camping space. Someone from the "more than primitive" area may well decide to visit someone in the "less than primitive" area, using a porta-potty along the way... yet they paid the "more than primitive" price. Or they get hurt while duning all over the dunes and EMS is called... do they verify what a person actually paid before administering aid?
[quote]I've heard people ask for things like more toilets and LEOs - but not many of them stick to those requests when they find out it will cost them more out of their own pocket. [/quote]
I've gotten the same reaction. On the other end of the spectrum, I've actually had people say they would pay the fees if they were $500 a year if it would help keep the riff-raff out! And I had a vendor tell me that in a way they support the outrageous vendor fee hike because it will increase their customers by weeding out the small-time businesses.
[quote]GIGO - (Garbage In Garbage Out) the BLM is making decisions with no baseline to go off of because they've done such a poor job of management for the entirety of their existance. They should have been building the information needed to make these decisions for dozens of years - but they have actively worked against compiling that info. [/quote]
Absolutely. It's the same way with their species monitoring.
[quote]What we really truely need is a congressional investigation of how the BLM has mismanaged public lands - but our leaders are too scared to ask for this because the enviros have done such a good job of buying their way into the publics grace.[/quote]
Not all leaders, Jason, but a few. What baffles me is how they can still believe they are getting any "grace" from anyone.
[quote] Facts and truth no longer matter but who has the most $$$$ and we don't have postcards with lots of cute fuzzy animals on them to raise that $$$$ to be able to win the fight. We do have lots of people with plenty of money who won't spend a dime to protect their chosen form of recreation...and I still for the life of me can't begin to fathom why.[/quote]
This is sad, but very true. We have the passion, they have the cash.
Vicki
If some visitors want a "more than primitive" experience at Glamis....fine. But they should be the ones who pay for it and primitive areas at minimal or no cost should still be allowed as well.[/quote]
This is what was pushed for, but we were told it's impractical for Glamis because the resources that are being used are not just camping space. Someone from the "more than primitive" area may well decide to visit someone in the "less than primitive" area, using a porta-potty along the way... yet they paid the "more than primitive" price. Or they get hurt while duning all over the dunes and EMS is called... do they verify what a person actually paid before administering aid?
[quote]I've heard people ask for things like more toilets and LEOs - but not many of them stick to those requests when they find out it will cost them more out of their own pocket. [/quote]
I've gotten the same reaction. On the other end of the spectrum, I've actually had people say they would pay the fees if they were $500 a year if it would help keep the riff-raff out! And I had a vendor tell me that in a way they support the outrageous vendor fee hike because it will increase their customers by weeding out the small-time businesses.
[quote]GIGO - (Garbage In Garbage Out) the BLM is making decisions with no baseline to go off of because they've done such a poor job of management for the entirety of their existance. They should have been building the information needed to make these decisions for dozens of years - but they have actively worked against compiling that info. [/quote]
Absolutely. It's the same way with their species monitoring.
[quote]What we really truely need is a congressional investigation of how the BLM has mismanaged public lands - but our leaders are too scared to ask for this because the enviros have done such a good job of buying their way into the publics grace.[/quote]
Not all leaders, Jason, but a few. What baffles me is how they can still believe they are getting any "grace" from anyone.
[quote] Facts and truth no longer matter but who has the most $$$$ and we don't have postcards with lots of cute fuzzy animals on them to raise that $$$$ to be able to win the fight. We do have lots of people with plenty of money who won't spend a dime to protect their chosen form of recreation...and I still for the life of me can't begin to fathom why.[/quote]
This is sad, but very true. We have the passion, they have the cash.
Vicki
[quote][quote]I've been saying it for over four years and I'll keep saying it until someone can convice me it's a bad idea.
If some visitors want a "more than primitive" experience at Glamis....fine. But they should be the ones who pay for it and primitive areas at minimal or no cost should still be allowed as well.[/quote]
This is what was pushed for, but we were told it's impractical for Glamis because the resources that are being used are not just camping space. Someone from the "more than primitive" area may well decide to visit someone in the "less than primitive" area, using a porta-potty along the way... yet they paid the "more than primitive" price. Or they get hurt while duning all over the dunes and EMS is called... do they verify what a person actually paid before administering aid?
[/quote]
But those are nothing more than excuses which can be solved with proper managment. We don't need to repeat them for the BLM we need to educate the BLM on how to solve the problems instead of giving up at the first sign of difficulity (Need I bring up the port-a-pottie handicap situation again as an example?)
I already said put a fence around the "less than primitive campground" with limited entry points. With the fees the campground people pay it should be no big deal to hire 24 hour security at the entrances to make sure you have a pass showing you paid for access to that area.
If you don't have a pass you can't enter. It's that simple and I've seen plenty of other campgrounds that were that way. Back in Ohio it was common for me to visit a certian beach with an adjacent trailer park where some friends had a trailer. If we wanted to visit their trailer we had to be escorted by them and they were only allowed a limited number of visitors at any time...and on some weekends no visitors were allowed.
So what if those paying higher fees use things made available for those with lower fees. It's a hierarchy and things can certinaly trickle down. The higher fee would start with the base fee and then go up from there for extra services. So the "cheap seats" porta-potties would be open for even those in the "Campground" since their fee already includes the same base fee that the "primitives" pay.
And something like EMS is already provided with the base $30 a year fee - and was provided before that fee even existed. EMS is a basic level service that has been available since before there was a fee but now suddenly they're saying a fee is needed but they won't provide financial info going back far enough to show how it was paid for before. This is just more BS excuses from the BLM that we need to stop accepting and start fighting.
If some visitors want a "more than primitive" experience at Glamis....fine. But they should be the ones who pay for it and primitive areas at minimal or no cost should still be allowed as well.[/quote]
This is what was pushed for, but we were told it's impractical for Glamis because the resources that are being used are not just camping space. Someone from the "more than primitive" area may well decide to visit someone in the "less than primitive" area, using a porta-potty along the way... yet they paid the "more than primitive" price. Or they get hurt while duning all over the dunes and EMS is called... do they verify what a person actually paid before administering aid?
[/quote]
But those are nothing more than excuses which can be solved with proper managment. We don't need to repeat them for the BLM we need to educate the BLM on how to solve the problems instead of giving up at the first sign of difficulity (Need I bring up the port-a-pottie handicap situation again as an example?)
I already said put a fence around the "less than primitive campground" with limited entry points. With the fees the campground people pay it should be no big deal to hire 24 hour security at the entrances to make sure you have a pass showing you paid for access to that area.
If you don't have a pass you can't enter. It's that simple and I've seen plenty of other campgrounds that were that way. Back in Ohio it was common for me to visit a certian beach with an adjacent trailer park where some friends had a trailer. If we wanted to visit their trailer we had to be escorted by them and they were only allowed a limited number of visitors at any time...and on some weekends no visitors were allowed.
So what if those paying higher fees use things made available for those with lower fees. It's a hierarchy and things can certinaly trickle down. The higher fee would start with the base fee and then go up from there for extra services. So the "cheap seats" porta-potties would be open for even those in the "Campground" since their fee already includes the same base fee that the "primitives" pay.
And something like EMS is already provided with the base $30 a year fee - and was provided before that fee even existed. EMS is a basic level service that has been available since before there was a fee but now suddenly they're saying a fee is needed but they won't provide financial info going back far enough to show how it was paid for before. This is just more BS excuses from the BLM that we need to stop accepting and start fighting.
[quote]This is just more BS excuses from the BLM that we need to stop accepting and start fighting. [/quote]
http://www.ca.blm.gov/elcentro/directory.html
http://www.ca.blm.gov/elcentro/directory.html
OPEN areas should be free. Otherwise you have riders making new tracks in the LIMITED USE areas.
As far as fees--I don't see anyone questioning Congressman Pombo about his plan to introduce legislation to make the fee demo program PERMANENT.
As far as fees--I don't see anyone questioning Congressman Pombo about his plan to introduce legislation to make the fee demo program PERMANENT.
Well, this is all just wasted time anyway. The new-and-improved business plan is out (revised draft) and, well, so far I don't see anything to be excited about. In fact, I see a lot to be downright depressed about.
But it was endorsed by the TRT... Neil Hamada said so and it's been confirmed... so I guess we can rest easy.
And Jason, I thought you were suggesting eliminating fees altogether, not sticking with a $30 a year base to cover the services like EMS and law enforcement. I'm sorry I missed that point.
For the record, I absolutely think different areas should cost a different amount. But it also feels like my head will explode when I try to figure out how that could possibly be managed. Not giving excuses, just realizing that it would be a nightmare... much like the AMA will be a nightmare.
Vicki
But it was endorsed by the TRT... Neil Hamada said so and it's been confirmed... so I guess we can rest easy.
And Jason, I thought you were suggesting eliminating fees altogether, not sticking with a $30 a year base to cover the services like EMS and law enforcement. I'm sorry I missed that point.
For the record, I absolutely think different areas should cost a different amount. But it also feels like my head will explode when I try to figure out how that could possibly be managed. Not giving excuses, just realizing that it would be a nightmare... much like the AMA will be a nightmare.
Vicki
Bluesky is an Internet Troll.
http://www.intwg.com/trolls.htm
[quote]The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored.[/quote]
http://www.intwg.com/trolls.htm
[quote]The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored.[/quote]
[quote]
But it was fully endorsed by the TRT... Neil Hamada said so and it's been confirmed... so I guess we can rest easy.
[/quote]
As usual it sounds like Neil is feeing different people different stories. Considering that the president of the TRT hasn't even had time to read the plan yet and the TRT has not had any meetings to discuss it it's hard to believe that it's "Fully endorsed". Not to mention the TRT contacts I've spoken with this afternoon denied endorsing this plan and sound just as upset about it as we are.
[quote]
And Jason, I thought you were suggesting eliminating fees altogether, not sticking with a $30 a year base to cover the services like EMS and law enforcement. I'm sorry I missed that point.
[/quote]
I'm only in favor of abolishing fees if they cannot be handled reasonably - in light of this new plan I'm starting to lean more and more towards abolishing fees.
However I still fee that fees which are affordable to all, reasonable and which are put to good use by accountable management are not a "bad thing". What I'm seeing from the BLM however is not affordable, reasonable or being handled responsibly due to a lack of accountability and that does change the playing field considerably.
[quote]
For the record, I absolutely think different areas should cost a different amount. But it also feels like my head will explode when I try to figure out how that could possibly be managed. Not giving excuses, just realizing that it would be a nightmare... much like the AMA will be a nightmare.
[/quote]
No one ever tried to claim that good management was easy. But the BLM has gotten by without doing any management for so long they're not used to actually doing an real work or dealing with any real issues. Considering what they get paid they're still getting off easy compared to working in the "real world" if they did do their job fully and properly.
But it was fully endorsed by the TRT... Neil Hamada said so and it's been confirmed... so I guess we can rest easy.
[/quote]
As usual it sounds like Neil is feeing different people different stories. Considering that the president of the TRT hasn't even had time to read the plan yet and the TRT has not had any meetings to discuss it it's hard to believe that it's "Fully endorsed". Not to mention the TRT contacts I've spoken with this afternoon denied endorsing this plan and sound just as upset about it as we are.
[quote]
And Jason, I thought you were suggesting eliminating fees altogether, not sticking with a $30 a year base to cover the services like EMS and law enforcement. I'm sorry I missed that point.
[/quote]
I'm only in favor of abolishing fees if they cannot be handled reasonably - in light of this new plan I'm starting to lean more and more towards abolishing fees.
However I still fee that fees which are affordable to all, reasonable and which are put to good use by accountable management are not a "bad thing". What I'm seeing from the BLM however is not affordable, reasonable or being handled responsibly due to a lack of accountability and that does change the playing field considerably.
[quote]
For the record, I absolutely think different areas should cost a different amount. But it also feels like my head will explode when I try to figure out how that could possibly be managed. Not giving excuses, just realizing that it would be a nightmare... much like the AMA will be a nightmare.
[/quote]
No one ever tried to claim that good management was easy. But the BLM has gotten by without doing any management for so long they're not used to actually doing an real work or dealing with any real issues. Considering what they get paid they're still getting off easy compared to working in the "real world" if they did do their job fully and properly.
[quote]As usual it sounds like Neil is feeing different people different stories. Considering that the president of the TRT hasn't even had time to read the plan yet and the TRT has not had any meetings to discuss it it's hard to believe that it's "Fully endorsed". Not to mention the TRT contacts I've spoken with this afternoon denied endorsing this plan and sound just as upset about it as we are.[/quote]
Oh, please... surely you wouldn't think I'd have just taken Neil's word for it :shock:
I called Roy Denner, who confirmed what was said at the "emergency" TRT conference call today and this is from an email conversation with one of the other TRT members (I haven't gotten his permission yet to post his name):
[quote]TRT recommendations
> The TRT recommended to Support the revised plan with the stipulation the the
> weekly fee be no more than $25.00 per week and that the annual pass remain
> under $100.00
> It was also stipulated that the BLM use out side vendors to make the passes
> easier for people to get them to the users as we felt this would help to up
> our compliance. It was also stipulated that the fee be reviewed annually and
> if revenues were up fee prices would come down.
> And As time is of the essence we emphasized that the BLM move on this ASAP.
> Please send me DUNERS recommendations and I will pass them on to the BLM I
> will be seeing Neil tonight.
> the fee's are now cost recovery fee's[/quote]
Oh, please... surely you wouldn't think I'd have just taken Neil's word for it :shock:
I called Roy Denner, who confirmed what was said at the "emergency" TRT conference call today and this is from an email conversation with one of the other TRT members (I haven't gotten his permission yet to post his name):
[quote]TRT recommendations
> The TRT recommended to Support the revised plan with the stipulation the the
> weekly fee be no more than $25.00 per week and that the annual pass remain
> under $100.00
> It was also stipulated that the BLM use out side vendors to make the passes
> easier for people to get them to the users as we felt this would help to up
> our compliance. It was also stipulated that the fee be reviewed annually and
> if revenues were up fee prices would come down.
> And As time is of the essence we emphasized that the BLM move on this ASAP.
> Please send me DUNERS recommendations and I will pass them on to the BLM I
> will be seeing Neil tonight.
> the fee's are now cost recovery fee's[/quote]
Here's a link to the newest version of the Business Plan
Supporting the plan that was posted and supporting a plan with a $25/$100 fee are TWO very different things.
Your original post says that the plan is "fully endorsed" by the TRT and the plan in question shows $30/$60 weekly passes and $180 yearly passes.
That is NOT what you are now saying the TRT is endorsing which would be the plan with a <$100 yearly pass and $25 weekly pass.
Let's try to keep our facts straight on these things - otherwise it only creates more misunderstandings without acomplishing anything even remotely positive.
Your original post says that the plan is "fully endorsed" by the TRT and the plan in question shows $30/$60 weekly passes and $180 yearly passes.
That is NOT what you are now saying the TRT is endorsing which would be the plan with a <$100 yearly pass and $25 weekly pass.
Let's try to keep our facts straight on these things - otherwise it only creates more misunderstandings without acomplishing anything even remotely positive.
Is noone else having a problem reading the pdf file? Every time I get it open and then start trying to read it, I get to the end of the index page and get an error report and it shuts down 
Julie
Julie
Julie, I had to do the same thing I had to do with the last one where I had to save it to my local drive before I could open it.
[quote]Supporting the plan that was posted and supporting a plan with a $25/$100 fee are TWO very different things.
Your original post says that the plan is "fully endorsed" by the TRT and the plan in question shows $30/$60 weekly passes and $180 yearly passes.
That is NOT what you are now saying the TRT is endorsing which would be the plan with a <$100 yearly pass and $25 weekly pass.
Let's try to keep our facts straight on these things - otherwise it only creates more misunderstandings without acomplishing anything even remotely positive.[/quote]
Point taken, although I disagree that they are very different things. The money is not the only issue on the table, at least in my opinion, or in the opinion of the working group (comprised of members and non-DUNERS members).
That said, you're right... it was not "fully" endorsed. I was using Neil's words. I've corrected my original post and removed the word "fully".
By the way, when I reiterated the TRT's fee recommendation to Neil, his response was "That is a recommendation; anyone can make a recommendation; we will decide what to do."
Vicki
Your original post says that the plan is "fully endorsed" by the TRT and the plan in question shows $30/$60 weekly passes and $180 yearly passes.
That is NOT what you are now saying the TRT is endorsing which would be the plan with a <$100 yearly pass and $25 weekly pass.
Let's try to keep our facts straight on these things - otherwise it only creates more misunderstandings without acomplishing anything even remotely positive.[/quote]
Point taken, although I disagree that they are very different things. The money is not the only issue on the table, at least in my opinion, or in the opinion of the working group (comprised of members and non-DUNERS members).
That said, you're right... it was not "fully" endorsed. I was using Neil's words. I've corrected my original post and removed the word "fully".
By the way, when I reiterated the TRT's fee recommendation to Neil, his response was "That is a recommendation; anyone can make a recommendation; we will decide what to do."
Vicki
So how do I do that Jason?
Julie
Julie
Julie just "right click" on it and sellect "Save Link Target As...." or whatever the similar command is in your browser maybe "Save Target As...".
Vicki, thank you for the clarification. As for making recomendations...after this I wonder if we should all shut the hell up and let our lawyers do the talking.....it seems the BLM took the suggestions it was presented with and did the exact opposite >:<
Vicki, thank you for the clarification. As for making recomendations...after this I wonder if we should all shut the hell up and let our lawyers do the talking.....it seems the BLM took the suggestions it was presented with and did the exact opposite >:<
[quote]So how do I do that Jason?
Julie[/quote]
Hi Julie,
Right click on the link, and click on "save target as."
Save it to somewhere on your comp that you can find and you're in business (i.e. in your documents folder or whatever).
Tyson
Edit: Sorry Jason....I was posting the same time you were. Didn't mean to double up!
Julie[/quote]
Hi Julie,
Right click on the link, and click on "save target as."
Save it to somewhere on your comp that you can find and you're in business (i.e. in your documents folder or whatever).
Tyson
Edit: Sorry Jason....I was posting the same time you were. Didn't mean to double up!
Thanks guys-and at the same time I was trying to post I had already figured it out, but couldn't get my post to go through! 
I did it a different way though by using the icons along the top...
Some niiiiiice comments about the "ISDRA clientele" in there, huh?
And am I mistaken or wasn't this when we were supposed to also find out how much the passes are going to be for the AMA? Or did I just miss it?
Julie
I did it a different way though by using the icons along the top...
Some niiiiiice comments about the "ISDRA clientele" in there, huh?
And am I mistaken or wasn't this when we were supposed to also find out how much the passes are going to be for the AMA? Or did I just miss it?
Julie
The AMA, ASA, ASF, DUNERS, CORVA, AKEGAI, AJGALDO, MVOCOEW, MSDCOEEHAS....take your pick. We're all feeling it. Noone gets special treatment from this sh!!t.
I tried to find that too Julie but couldn't. I plan on sitting down with some strong coffee in the morning and really reading it thoroughly... maybe something will appear that I missed just scanning through.
That is if I can keep my breakfast down.
Or sleep tonight.
Vicki
That is if I can keep my breakfast down.
Or sleep tonight.
Vicki
Tyson,
AMA=Adaptive Management Area
The area of the closures that is no longer "closed", but will be restricted to no more than 75 groups with up to 7 vehicles per group, AND that you'll need a permit to get in. That permit is going to also cost money and I could swear that this business plan was when they were supposed to disclose how much that permit will be.
Julie
AMA=Adaptive Management Area
The area of the closures that is no longer "closed", but will be restricted to no more than 75 groups with up to 7 vehicles per group, AND that you'll need a permit to get in. That permit is going to also cost money and I could swear that this business plan was when they were supposed to disclose how much that permit will be.
Julie
The whole thing sounds a little fishy to me! I agree with Jason and VOR!
Well it seems some people were right (hold off on the "I told you so" [img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/brdflick.gif[/img])
Tried to give them the benefit of the doubt and chance to show they had changed their usual MO. Not an effing thing has changed. Same ole BS from the BLM. [img]http://www.stopstart.btinternet.co.uk/sm/moon.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.glamisdunes.com/phpbb2/files/cpoblm.jpg[/img]
Tried to give them the benefit of the doubt and chance to show they had changed their usual MO. Not an effing thing has changed. Same ole BS from the BLM. [img]http://www.stopstart.btinternet.co.uk/sm/moon.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.glamisdunes.com/phpbb2/files/cpoblm.jpg[/img]
what about asking the large corporations (i.e. honda, yamaha, kawasaki) for a contribution or something towards this issue that we face. wouldn't they lose money if us duners don't have a place to ride? i don't know if that is a good idea or not, but it would be an idea. they might say yes and they might say no, or the might chicken out and say they don't want any part of it.............just thought i would throw that out there :idea:
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.