Contact: Roy Denner
President, Off-Road Business Association
(619) 449-0778


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ANTI-ACCESS GROUP USES FLAWED SCIENCE IN ATTEMPT TO
LIST DUNE BEETLE AT IMPERIAL SAND DUNES RECREATION AREA

CBD Listing is Little More Than a Shrill Attack on OHV Enthusiasts

SAN DIEGO (Sep. 12, 2003) - With a recent U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service announcement that the threatened Peirson's milk-vetch plant
may be removed from Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection at the
Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area, the Center for Biological
Diversity (CBD) is now focusing its attention on a 10-year-old,
flawed study to list the Andrews Dune Scarab Beetle.

According to Roy Denner, president of the San Diego-based
Off-Road Business Association, the CBD Scarab Beetle listing is
"little more than a shrill attack on off-highway vehicle users and
has little to do with the actual population dynamics of the species
in question."

In a U.S. Dept. of Interior (DOI) letter dated Jan. 13, 1992 to
Fred Andrews, author of the Andrews Dune Scarab Beetle study, DOI
contracting officer Anne Ferrie said, "the report does not indicate
an attempt to evaluate the effects of OHV's on the beetle
quantitatively."

Denner said that the CBD petition, using the Andrews study,
fails to include basic information regarding the number of beetles
residing in the dunes and does not discuss population trends at all.

"In short, the petition does not indicate how many beetles exist
or whether their numbers are growing or declining," said Denner.
"Further, the petition provides no evidence that off-highway vehicles
affect population trends one way or the other."

In a follow-up letter to Andrews dated Feb. 24, 1992, Ferrie
said, "your original technical proposal did not address the contract
requirement for evaluation of the effects of OHV use on the beetle
population in each of the four multiple use classes and you were
given an opportunity to correct this deficiency. It is not certain
how the impact of ORV (off road vehicles) can be estimated in the
short period of this study."

"The American Sand Association's (ASA) legal and biological
teams are currently reviewing the CBD's petition," said Grant George,
ASA president. "We have found this petition is based on the same
flawed science as the Peirson's milk-vetch petition and we are
prepared to also take this one to court, if necessary. The Center's
efforts are just another attempt at forcing the permanent closure of
49,000 acres of the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area, one of the
most popular sand riding areas in the nation."

George said that his organization feels strongly that the CBD
knows that they will lose the Peirson's milk-vetch issue because its
peer-reviewed studies prove the plant is flourishing in the open
areas, proving there is no need for the closed areas.

"Since 1974, special interest groups, including the CBD, have
been slowly closing millions of acres of California, Arizona and New
Mexico public lands to motorized access using this tactic," said
Denner. "It's time to make them stop and use valid science, not
ancient or nonexistent data and quit wasting taxpayers' money for
frivolous lawsuits."

Denner said that out of the approximately 25 million acres of
public land in the California Desert Conservation Area, only about
two million acres are open for motorized recreation, according to the
Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Environmental Impact Statement for
the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area.
###

QUOTE

According to Roy Denner, president of the San Diego-based   Off-Road Business Association, the CBD Scarab Beetle listing is   \"little more than a shrill attack on off-highway vehicle users and   has little to do with the actual population dynamics of the species   in question.\"

sounds like Roy is a scientist in addition to a lobbyist and successful business owner. Important issues like these should be dealt with by a trained specialist, not a political mouthpiece.

QUOTE

\"In short, the petition does not indicate how many beetles exist   or whether their numbers are growing or declining,\" said Denner.   \"Further, the petition provides no evidence that off-highway vehicles   affect population trends one way or the other.\"

time to call "ecobuster" Phillips in for another emergency count.

QUOTE

George said that his organization feels strongly that the CBD   knows that they will lose the Peirson's milk-vetch issue because its   peer-reviewed studies prove the plant is flourishing in the open   areas, proving there is no need for the closed areas.

I wonder of George knows what "peer reviewed" means. It means an article about the study was pubished in a scientific journal and read by the the scientist's "peers" who then write "reviews" on the plausibility of this study.

Where and when was the Phillips study published in a journal? I'd like to read the reviews.

QUOTE

quit wasting taxpayers' money for   frivolous lawsuits.\"

to most people, the chance of losing an entire species to extinction merits concern. Extinction of an integral part of the desert ecosystem is not "Frivolous".

QUOTE

, only about   two million acres are open for motorized recreation,

it behooves the off-roading community to monitor their effects on the sensitive lands before they cause an extinction.

Ah, true to the schedule and as consistent as ever, our resident Internet Troll is back.

Please don't feed the Troll.

Bluesky,

HAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAA AHAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAA

HAAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAAA

very interesting...

i am sure that no dune loving person that holds any life valuable, will knowingly and purposefully destroy an eco-system. we as duners who respect wildlife are interested in truth, and preserving species in their natural enviroments.

a flawed study to simply keep OHV's off of public is frivolous. a proper study would take years and require extensive studies of the beetle habits.

by peer-reviewed, i am sure he is not speaking of the textbook definition of the word, but that of the fact that we like proof. when we do independant studies, and present our finding to the courts, that would be peer-reviewed.

i personally love the desert and i take in stride everything that it has to offer. i want it to be around for when my son is old enough to enjoy it, and his children. i will help in any ways possible to keep the desert open, and will personally not stand for a joke of a study, put on by some eco-terrorist to close the desert to OHV's.

lets drop off a group of hikers at china wall to study the beetle as they try to find their way back the road. then they can hit up the GBS for some overpriced water and food. enjoy boys. then we will see how much you would like an OHV.

love,
the duners

Scientific Study For Your Review:

Scarab Beetle Study

August 29, 2003 – Buttercup, Algodones Sand Dunes

Scope – Locate, verify, and quantify existence of Scarab beetle in the Algodones Sand Dunes

Equipment Used – 1 Jeep CJ5; 1 Manx Sand Buggy; 1 Motorcycle; 2 Quad ATV’s; 1 probe thermometer; 1 digital camera; 1 pair of Vans Sneakers (size 9.5)

Synopsis – During the late evening hours of August 29, 2003 a scientific study was conducted on behalf of YumaDuners, grass-roots sand enthusiasts group based in Yuma, AZ. After discussing the project over a Carne Asada BBQ, the group arrived at the designated study location in the area known as Buttercup Comp Hill. The time was approximately 11:00pm. The sand temperature was 102 F (documented in the photo below). As a vital part of the study, all of the vehicles mentioned in the ‘Equipment Used’ list drove over the study area and eventually parked perpendicular to the sand hill. As a best effort to provide accurate data, the final study area was selected where the motorcycle and 2 quads had driven across just moments previous.

Using an excavation method known as Skimdigging*, a section of sand measuring approximately 18” x 18” was displaced to a depth of approximately 16” to 18”. At the point where the Sand Dimple**, was at 14” to 16” depth, a Scarab Beetle was sighted. The beetle was only observed for a very short time before it dug back under the sand where it lives, submerged. However, a digital photograph (see below) was obtained to document the temperature of the sand and the Scarab Beetle’s presence and obviously hardy existence.

Conclusion – As demonstrated by the location, verification, and quantification of the Scarab Beetle in the 18” x 18” study area, in relation to the 160,00 acres of Algodones sand dunes, the Scarab Beetle is a thriving species. The quantities of Scarab Beetles existing in the Buttercup Area has been scientifically and accurately calculated to be a S--- Load***. In addition, this study confirms that OHV use does not impact the Scarab Beetle, as the Study Area was repeatedly driven over by multiple OHV’s immediately prior to the Skimdigging*.

The authors of this document wish to thank the participants in this study; LoBuck, atm, jhitsma, ISBB, Kimmee2000, and Dave.
The authors also welcome peer review of this study by the members of this BBS.
Readers of this study are advised to have their tongues placed firmly in cheek.

Definitions of scientific terms used in this document:
* Skimdigging - The action of a Vans Sneaker being skimmed across the sand with a downward digging motion.
**Sand Dimple - The depression left by displaced sand through Skimdigging.
***S--- Load – In excess of a Gazillion.

[img]http://yumaduners.com/albums/album17/bugvisit.sized.jpg[/img]

QUOTE

i am sure that no dune loving person that holds any life valuable, will knowingly and purposefully destroy an eco-system. we as duners who respect wildlife are interested in truth, and preserving species in their natural enviroments.

I believe there is a significant number of duners who fit your description.

However, there is a powerful movement afoot to cover up any reports of damage to the dunes ecosystem.

this movement is fomented by those who have an economic interest in the continued degradation of the dunes wildlife--the buggy manufacturers, tire sales stores, vehicle aftermarket sales people and related industries.

These people have banded together under the apt name of "Off Road Business Ass'n", (ORBA) which is headed up by Denner.

Is it in their interest to protect the dunes wildlife?

Is it in your interest to believe them?

LOWBUCK... you're the man! Your study is a helluva lot more accurate than anything coming from CBD. You gotta have a sense of humor to survive in this world.

Peer Review: I have read LoBucks report on the scarab beetle and concur with it's validity. I also recognize the care taken to protect the subject of the study as a vans sneaker (Size 9.5) was used instead of the more efficient 16 inch wide paddle tire available to him. Thank you for sharing your recent findings Glen, it has been enlightening.

"Best available science" has never been sweeter

Eeeewwwwwwwwwwwwww...what's that smell? :? :? :?

It must be the odor left behind when "you know who" crapped his pants when he read about the F&W about to consider de-listing the PMV because it is, in fact, thriving... :shock: :shock: :shock:

Best available science, peer reviewed and soon to be published...choke on that, crybaby.

[quote]peer reviewed and soon to be published[/quote]

if it hasn't been published, how could it have been peer reviewed?

I know...don't feed the fo...I mean troll...but I've been gone so long that I forgot!!

From a post by Dr. Phillips on the ASA board...

[quote]
Of the three reports we have prepared on PMV for ASA, the second one (2002) was peer reviewed. This was the seed bank study. Since the ASA board was not familiar with biologists who might be qualified and willing to review the manuscript, I provided a list of 8 people, and all were contacted and sent a hard copy of the report. Several replied, and Deb Kennedy and I revised the report in accordance with the reviews. BTW, most of the comments were asking for clarifications and further information, and were not critical of the methods, results, or conclusions.
[/quote]

Any Questions? Get over it. The study was undertaken with the full knowledge that it could go the other way. We needed the truth, one way or the other. This is a concept you obviousy cannot accept. You do, however seem willing to accept whatever propaganda, however dated and already proven to be either untrue or misleading if it comes from the "noted" desert ecologist "Denial" Patterson. Do you ever get embarressed?

Its back !!! . Think i'm gonna BARF!!!

The peer-review process varies somewhat from journal to journal, but in general manuscripts are submitted to an editor, who then sends them to reviewers-recognized experts in the manuscript author's field-for evaluation. Reviewers evaluate the articles for accuracy, clear and concise writing, appropriate references, and contribution to the field. Publishing articles in peer-review journals is important for recognition within a discipline, and a résumé-builder for academics seeking tenure.

Achieving recognition
Well-known peer-review journals include The New England Journal of Medicine, Science, and the Journal of the American Medical Association, and their contents often gain national media attention. http://www.uiowa.edu/~fyi/oldfyi/issues97-98/020599web/peer_020599.html



The peer-review process is applied to a
number of scholars’ activities, but the para-digm
is in the publication of scholarly jour-nal
articles. Other areas where peer review is
applied include submission of proposed
papers to conferences, the publication of
scholarly monographs, and importantly the
award of research grants and contracts. This
report will concentrate on the peer-review
process as applied to scholarly journals,
because there is a fuller literature about peer
review in this application. The process has
recently been well described by Meadows
(1998, pp. 177–94). When a submitted re-port
first arrives at the editorial office of a
journal, it is first vetted by the editor, who
may reject it out of hand, either because it is
‘out of scope’ (not dealing with the right
subject matter for that journal) or because it
is manifestly of such low quality that it
cannot be considered at all. Papers that pass
this first hurdle are then sent to experts in
the field of the paper, usually two, who are
generally asked to classify the paper as
publishable immediately, publishable with
amendments and improvements, or not
publishable. The middle decision is the com-monest,
and in that case the referees suggest
the nature of the improvements that they
consider to be required. It is widely agreed
that this improving function by referees is of
value in maintaining the overall quality of
the scholarly literature; as many as 80% of
published papers receive some revision
(Lock, 1985).


http://rudolfo.ingentaselect.com/vl=421665...3/v15n4/s2/p247

That's it.

Bluesky, I deleted your last post and you are standing on my last nerve.

You do none of your own research, you speak only in half-truths, you misquote even the conservationist viewpoint.

I will not allow such an Internet Troll, ignorant and devoid of common sense, to continue bad-mouthing Dr. Phillips. He has stood more often on the side of environmental protections than he has against and he is beyond reproach.

Do not continue this behavior.

I remember the discussions that went on prior to the study. There was a lot of concern that the study could end up going against the OHV community. But it was decided that we needed to know either way and if OHVs were truly hurting the PMV then the closures could be accepted as valid. Dr. Phillips was chosen because his of his integrity. The study was too public to have been suppressed if it had turned out negative and I can guarantee that if it had, the anti access groups would have embraced it lovingly.

peer review-

seems like a logical and simple enough method. well documented, tested, and witnessed. i think we have a winner folks! the beetle is just fine

Vicki, since I made some unflattering (but accurate!)remarks about Patterson, perhaps this is his justfication for whatever he said about Dr. Phillips.

If it is, he should keep in mind that compared to Dr. Phillips, Patterson has NO credentials, is in print spewing half truths, and outright fabrications, stages publicity events attended by his hand selected audience, and to my knowledge has NEVER conducted an environmental study of any kind.

Neener, neener!

[quote]Vicki, since I made some unflattering (but accurate!)remarks about Patterson, perhaps this is his justfication for whatever he said about Dr. Phillips. [/quote]

Frankie, that would only be true if The Troll actually put some thought behind his intrusions.

But he does not.

He's not here because he actually gives a damn. He's only here because disturbing the peace is what he does. He's been kicked off of other message boards for his muckraking and he knows he's blessed to still be here.

This is what he does for kicks. This is not something he does because he believes.

Vicki

The study completed by Mr. Lobuck and his science team is a excellent satirical view of the kind of "science" that the environmentalist are employing. This kind of study can produce results that "prove" anything the people employing it want it to. Great job Lobuck! I wonder if the CBD will accept it!

[quote] I wonder if the CBD will accept it! [/quote]
You know, if it was written just a little bit different and said that this proves we could only find ONE, the CBD would jump all over it. :roll:

[quote]if it was written just a little bit different and said that this proves we could only find ONE, the CBD would jump all over it.[/quote]

EXACTLY ! >:< :rant: :roll: