I'm getting the impression that all of a sudden the business plan is okay, simply because the price might drop from $180 to $100.

I can't believe that's true. I see flaws that actually outweigh the drastic fee hike. But am I the only one?

What else is wrong with the plan? If the fee is lowered is everything else okay?

Vicki

absolutly NOT......

QUOTE

absolutly NOT......

Phew! I was beginning to think I was the only one not focused on the fees.

What else do you object to?

Vicki

OK, I'll bite...

I personally think the whole thing is garbage.

So, the question now is what do we do?

Call our TRT rep, call the BLM, write letters???

Will any of this really work?

Vicki I was readiong one of your other post's about some conversations you have had and you stated the upper BLM Mang said they would not rush into anything, do you by chance have any of this in writing?

QUOTE

OK, I'll bite... I personally think the whole thing is garbage. So, the question now is what do we do? Call our TRT rep, call the BLM, write letters???   Will any of this really work? Vicki I was readiong one of your other post's about some conversations you have had and you stated the upper BLM Mang said they would not rush into anything, do you by chance have any of this in writing?

I'll look through my emails to see if it's there... I think it is. But better than that, several of the Glamis vendors have received that assurance, in writing, from the State Director's office and above

The strongest assurance I have received was via telephone from Linda Hansen's office (CA desert district manager), who was responding to the panic in my voice that the season is upon us. She assured me that the process has been slowed down in order to do it right. Of course, that was prior to the TRT and others voicing their support of the plan and worse, requesting that the BLM speed things up so it's in place ASAP.

And oh yes, this is being seen at a federal level. But unless the leaders of user groups stop saying they support the plan and instead begin to publicly deny support, the powers that be will stop working for us.

But maybe I'm not seeing this right. Maybe the majority of the duning community agree with the TRT and other supporters of this plan... maybe DUNERS is off-base entirely.

Vicki

That report could of been summed up in about 5 pages if it were written proerly and concisely. This raises SERIOUS issues. This report was written by who and with how much factual info? When you use BLM info, such as the number of visitors, which we know is wrong, then how can the number of compliant pass holders be accurate? And the rest of the INACCURACIES pile on top of that misinformtion.With a report that poorly written, this leave the door wide open for interpretation. Personally the fees are bogus. This will only hld tre what we already know the honest law abiding people wil be stuck holding the bag for the people who choose not to pay. We have all seen what happensin the desert. Blm only enforcing a few rules, in a few areas. If they were out in full force handing out littering tix at $1500 a pop this alone would solve most problems. This will not happen. The fee being aised is just away to get more money and will not require any additional work from any law enforcement out there. The American people are constantly being dooped and lied to by law makers. The fact is politicians are there for themselves, WE THE PEPLE HAVE NO REPRESENTATION. The founding FATHERS never intended people to make a career out of politics. They intended for people to serve as a duty to country and when the terms were over they would go back to there lives. Bottom line I dont know if letter writingis gong to be enough,,, Am I wrong?

Haven't other org's generally gone with the flow of what the BLM says is going to happen but they do so 'in protest'?

I don't think DUNERS is off base in NOT supporting this at all.

QUOTE

Haven't other org's generally gone with the flow of what the BLM says is going to happen but they do so 'in protest'? I don't think DUNERS is off base in NOT supporting this at all.

This is the official stance by one of the organizations... but it only addresses the fees, as far as I can tell:

QUOTE

AMERICAN SAND ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER PURPOSE: To develop a common basis for BOD involvement in discussions and public statements relating to recreation user fees at the ISDRA. BACKGROUND: The BLM California Desert District is evaluating a fee program for several recreation sites. The ISDRA RAMP requires that a formal Business Plan be developed which considers user fees. A recreation fee program has been in place at the ISDRA since January 1999. As proposed, the new business plan provides for user fees on a \"cost recovery\" basis. POSITION STATEMENT: The ASA does not endorse user fees at any recreation area; however if they are implemented the following must be considered: · BLM agrees to continue to seek all other available funding options (federal appropriations, state grants, etc.) and these resources must be utilized before user fees are implemented. · If substantial other funding sources are received and/or if the cost of providing minimal services is reduced, there must be a corresponding decrease in user fees. · Cost estimates must be published, highly visible, defendable and subject to public review to assure fee creditability and to encourage a high level of compliance. · The fees must be limited to cost recovery based on minimal services at minimal costs. Actual costs and income must be audited annually and available for public review. Fees must be adjusted relative to this information. · Before visitor services are expanded above the minimal level, a high level of fee compliance must be attained. · Expanded services must be prioritized by taking into account visitor surveys, OHV user group and vendor input. · The ISDRA TRT must oversee accountability and formally support the recommended BLM Business Plan and fee schedule. · A public outreach program must utilize OHV user group resources to communicate with area visitors.

As for support under protest... I haven't seen that change anything yet.

Vicki

So if the fees are lowered to the TRT's recommended $25/week $100/season, is this plan okay?

Are there no other complaints about this plan besides the fee?

Vicki