BLM press release : http://www.ca.blm.gov/news/2003/10/nr/CDDn...nes-season.html

For Release: October 22, 2003
Contact: Neil Hamada (760) 337-4451, Stephen Razo (909) 697-5217
CA-CDD-04-04


New Dunes Season sees "Zero Tolerance" and Expanded Fee Area

With the approaching Halloween weekend kicking off the 2003-2004 Imperial Sand Dunes season, Dunes recreation enthusiasts will see a continuation of the "Zero Tolerance"law enforcement policy, interim lawsuit closures temporarily remaining in effect and an expanded fee area.

Over the 2002 and 2003 season, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) enjoyed support for law enforcement efforts in the Dunes. In order to maintain a family atmosphere and a safe off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation environment, the BLM plans to continue the "Zero Tolerance" policy throughout the upcoming visitation season in cooperation with State and local law enforcement agencies.

Furthermore, to prevent injuries and reduce threats to visitors, the Safety Ordinance passed by the Imperial County Supervisors in 2002 for the Imperial Dunes will continue through the upcoming season. The ordinance directs that Competition Hill be closed on holiday weekends to all recreationists one half hour before sunset until one half hour after sunrise. According to the ordinance, violations of the closure will be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $500, imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or both. A coalition of State and Federal law enforcement officers will be enforcing the ordinance as well as all other rules and regulation in the Dunes.

In addition, interim lawsuit closures will temporarily continue due to procedures still in progress associated with the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA) Management Plan. A Record of Decision (ROD) is still pending on the plan and until a ROD is signed, the interim closures will remain in effect in compliance with a court-approved legal settlement.

Of special interest is that after extensive consultation with visitors, vendors and OHV groups who enjoy the ISDRA, the BLM has set new fees for the 2003-2004 season to allow the agency to recover the costs of managing the popular area. On October 1, 2003, Dunes recreation visitors saw a permit fee increase to $25 per week or $90 for a season pass for each primary vehicle (a primary vehicle is a vehicle that is driven to the Dunes).

In addition, starting on October 24, 2003, the fee area will increase in size and encompass the entire ISDRA recreation and planning area. Visitors camping in the North Algodones Dunes Wilderness, Mammoth Wash Open Area, and the area within one mile of the ISDRA boundary will also be required to purchase a week or season pass. A map of the ISDRA planning area can be seen at -- http://www.ca.blm.gov/pdfs/elcentro_pdfs/m...hvpplanarea.pdf. For further information, contact Neil Hamada, BLM El Centro Field Office, 760-337-4451.

Yea, zero for zero punks, have any of you looked around lately? No punks, or very few, but plenty of families with lots of money to pay for all those poor written cites with little or no pc to begin with. We know many will never dispute the cite to begin with, why? Not because they are always guilty, mostly becasue it would cost more to fight than just pay for it. And besides who is gonna drive five hours to fight a 35 dollar ticket? Keep fooling yourselves. Take a long hard look who is "pressing hard three copies" it ain't the punks. Many that I see are flying the almighty checkered flags! The punks have moved on, they aren't as dumb as you think, and besides with a 90.00 pass looming over there head why bother? Yes, I've been bitch'n about them poaching off the families for years, seen it more and more, get used to it! We are the sheep now, and will continue to be! The stats aren't gonna come out of thin air. It takes food to feed the monster. >:< F the Gestasapo for inviting this into our playground, they should have kept focused on the weed,and not cried for help that we didn't really need. They did some great damage control and cover up, but some remember everything that took place, and many won't forget, ever! :x

If you don't break the law, you won't have to worry.

I've been going to the dunes, 30+ days a year, for over 12 years and have NEVER been stopped by a ranger.

Of course, I don't draw attention to myself by acting like an idiot either....

I agree with azsandrider. I have been duning at Glamis for most of my life. I have NEVER been pulled over by a Ranger. I dont see a problem with this. If you are not breaking the law what could you possibly be worried about? Furthermore the punks are still around. You can bet they will be out Halloween weekend, lets hope they get eveything they have coming.

Yea you guys are right, all is well in the ok'corral! :roll:

I've never been bothered by a ranger either, but other law-abiding citizens have.

I think the problem is, sometimes the contracted law enforcement officers haven't necessarily focused only on those that are obviously breaking the law. There have been incidents of unnecessary roughness and misjudgment by the LEOs.

There is also quite a variety of inconsistency. Some LEOs listen and understand you're carrying your broken whip under your arm while heading back to camp because, well, while you were out on a ride it broke and you have to get back to camp to fix it. Other LEOs will not be so understanding and you'll get a ticket. Is the second LEO technically right? Sure she is... but perhaps a little common sense is called for and certainly would go a long way to improve public image.

Many people were tired of the rave parties, the fire pits, the fights at the bottom of comp, but it's extremely unlikely that the guy limping back to camp with a broken whip is the one who did those things the night before.

In order to clean up one aspect, we're facing the other.

Vicki

Well said, I agree to a certain point. I think its worse than many are willing to admit, or even realize. I worry about being "jacked-up" by the cops more, than any problem with the punks. As a matter of fact other than locking my toys from theft the punks were never a concern to me or my family. But ever sense the closures I have seen and been around many cases of over-enforcement actions by under trained and over zealous officers. Sad but true. I still respect the badge just not all the men and women who wear it!

QUOTE

If you don't break the law, you won't have to worry.

Try telling that to the guy who had to buy a second $90, (under threat of a $1000 fine) for his towed in Jeep.

Da Pastor

It's sad to see such a great place go to hell in such a short time...I value my trips to Glamis, maybe 2 year - I live in Sacto..It takes a while to prep for sucha big trip...the punks have ruined alot..I love the Hill at night what an experience!!!I've been duning Glamis since 96'...my opinion the best place to ridein the world..Now the night hill has been taken away from me some people just dont get it... if you dont belong, you dont belong..keep your pavement pounders at home in the city...and leave the duners the dunes One day (in my dreams) we will all be able to enjoy Comp. at night like we used to....For now I guess I'll stick to the big fat bowls were the punks cant follow

as long as law enforceent is out i the dunes yo can kiss your hill good-bye

Well, we had a visit by a Sheriff last weekend. He busted one of the kids in camp for no whip. Did we get a ticket? No. Sheriff McCoy saw that we were trying to rectify the problem, and he was cool with that...because everyone else in camp had a whip. He was up on all the regs, asked us if we were all in compliance, and then said "Don't answer. Just be prepared for the next trip" He happened to be the same LEO that assisted in helping one of our camp kids that had a bad spill at wash 12 on Saturday morning. Don't paint all the LEOs with the same brush.

Tip#1...carry a copy of your registration in a ziploc bag on your vehicle....in your toolbox or air filter box. They will be checking from time to time.

The reason the guy in the jeep was asked for his pass was because he was driving it on the road. If he had been in the sand he never would have been hastled. Wouldn't I get a ticket for driving my offroad vehicle on the road?

Must be the ASA side of your brain thinking.... :roll:

If you drove your GREEN STICKER vehicle on the road you would most definantly get a ticket.
On the other hand, this Jeep was a street legal vehicle which was not his "primary" vehicle, since he towed it in. The Pass clearly states that it is required for your "primary" vehicle only.
What the pass DOESN'T say, (or any press releases or anywhere else for that matter) is that the BLM decided that once a street legal OHV hits the street they "deem" it primary, whether it is or not.
A clear case of someone doing what he thought was the right thing... (he bought his pass for his primary vehcile) and then was forced to spend another $90 because of this unwritten interpretation of the law.

Da Pastor

What are the exact boundries of the ISDRA? If your driven with in these then you should be OK right???

QUOTE

What are the exact boundries of the ISDRA? If your driven with in these then you should be OK right???

That's an interesting concept. But then the issue of just what is a "primary" vehicle would really come in to play. They'd probably have to do something like they do in other places, and that is "allow" a certain number of vehicles per pass, with each vehicle over that number requiring additionall passes. If everything inside the boundary is encompassed under that system, the individual toys would be counted too. In our family that could get really costly!

But it has been suggested... something like an additional sticker issued by the BLM for each toy/vehicle.

Vicki

The point was, though, that if you don't do anything wrong then you should have no worries about the excessive LEO presence. This case shows that that is really not true.
The Jeep owner was doing nothing wrong, yet he was forced to comply with an unwritten interpretation of the rules.

Just one example. As time goes by these cases will become more and more numerous.

Da Pastor

You're right Brian, and we have to push for clarification of the "primary" vehicle rule or this abuse will just keep happening.

That is, at least, until someone takes it to court and a judge gets to decide.

Vicki

This is but one rule that happened to get some attention.

The statement "If you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about." simply does not apply any more.

Time will tell, this year. And I'm willing to wait and see... but the Law Enforcement branch of the BLM have made it very clear that they will enforce any and all rules/laws whether you know about them or not and they will interpret them to benifit them not you. In my opinion this will make for a very confrontational year this year.
Maybe when more and more so-called "law abiding citizenz" have to deal with being harrassed and hassled we can get something done.

Saying "If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about." Implies that those who are worried must have done something wrong. I resent this remark because I do nothing wrong yet am very worried because of incidences like the jeep one mentioned.

DaPastor

One more story about the LEOs....on my way to Olds from China, I went down..down hard :x :x breaking my flag, so i picked it up, broke the flag in 3rds stuck in my back pack and continued on my way.......Got to OLDs, and as I was pulling up to the hill.......here comes johnny in the nice buggy and blam right into the front of my bike...what theEFFF :evil: where's your flag??? In my back pack...stay here another occifer is on the way tell him what happened....OK LEO #2 shows up....show him the broken flag..he asked where it happened I said on the way here from China.......his response was...Im writing you a ticket for a safety violation!!!! (:? I said :? ) you should have gone straight back to camp or to the nearest vendor to repair/replace your flag.... :roll: :roll: whatever....it gets better.....after he finishes writing the ticket he tells me I can stay and ride until the group heads back to camp....if you get stopped again show the LEO your ticket :? :? When Where and who will draw the line??? I contested the ticket, and still had to pay Did I do wrong??? :cry: :beer: AHHHHHH now I feel well maybe a few more :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: better :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: ::

QUOTE

whatever....it gets better.....after he finishes writing the ticket he tells me I can stay and ride until the group heads back to camp....if you get stopped again show the LEO your ticket

So having the ticket in your pocket must have made you visable again :roll:

QUOTE

after he finishes writing the ticket he tells me I can stay and ride until the group heads back to camp....

What's interesting to me is that here he seems to acknowledge the stupidity of riding back to camp alone and yet he wrote the ticket because you didn't either head straight back to camp or to a vendor. Alone.

Sheesh.

Vicki

Is is some people's OPINION that the jeep was not a primary vehicle. Other people's OPINION is that the jeep became a primary vehicle when driven out of the ISDRA onto highway 78 and he needed a pass.

The LEO's interpretation of the rule is that he needed a pass. Since he needed a pass, he was doing something wrong and was stopped. If he had stayed in the ISDRA as a "toy" he would not have had a problem.

ALL LEOs interpret laws!!! If you think the LEO's interpretation was incorrect, there is a way to rectify the situation. You have a right to go to court, present your defense, and let an independant, impartial judge decide what the correct interpretation of the law is.

The guy in the jeep could have refused to buy a pass and asked for a citation so he could go to court to present his case. The guy chose to buy a pass instead.

QUOTE

You have a right to go to court, present your defense, and let an independant, impartial judge decide what the correct interpretation of the law is.

How often have you seen a judge take the "accused's" word over the officers? :roll:

QUOTE

Is is some people's OPINION that the jeep was not a primary vehicle. Other people's OPINION is that the jeep became a primary vehicle when driven out of the ISDRA onto highway 78 and he needed a pass.   The LEO's interpretation of the rule is that he needed a  pass. Since he needed a pass, he was doing something wrong and was stopped. If he had stayed in the ISDRA as a \"toy\" he would not have had a problem.

Tim you're jumping to some conclusions here. According to Larry Jowdy our TRT Vice-Chair even driving down Gecko which is entirely within the ISDRA would be enough to suddenly require an extra pass. And since the ISDRA exists on both sides of the 78 I'd say it's hard to claim that using that stretch of 78 counts as leaving the ISDRA. I've always thought that 78 was inside the ISDRA for that stretch based ont he lines on the BLM's maps.

It's not a matter of leaving the ISDRA according to Larry (who for the record says he's just passing along what the BLM has said) it's a matter of driving on pavement while in the ISDRA that will suddenly change a vehicle from being considered there for recreational use to being a primary vehicle.

I still say simple semantics make it impossible for one person to have more than one primary vehicle by definition - if the BLM wants to make people buy more than one pass they had better change the definitions.

As for fighting it in court - it would be great if we could all afford justice. Unfortunatly our courts have become so warped that it's almost impossible for the average joe to get justice while the rich get away with murder (literally sometimes) becuase they can buy sufficient representation.

With a thread of 1 year in prison and 1,000 dollars it's hard for someone who can barely afford a $90 pass in the first place to risk court even if what they were doing WAS completely legal and the officer WAS incorrect to cite (no matter what the case).

:bandit:

Jason:

I would assume that the court would have to decide what is considered inside the ISDRA and what is not. I would think that Rt. 78 is outside the ISDRA since it is a state road and the ISDRA would be on both sides of the road.

As for what Larry has said, that is only conjecture and maybe the way LEOs will be intructed to enforce the law, NOT a legal ruling from a court. Until this issue is decided in court, we really don't know.

As for being in court and a judge taking ones word over the others:

Both sides start out even and the relevant evidence introduced by both sides is considered by the judge, who renders a decision based on the evidence.

In a civil case, like most traffic tickets, the burden of proof is 51% likely the person may have done what the person is accused of.

In criminal proceedings, the prosecution must show a reasonable likehood that the accused met the conditions of the crime, basically 99% sure the accused committed the violation.

The ASA side of my brain says... Gecko Rd. is not in the ISDRA, so yeah you do need to by another pass. >:<

QUOTE

In a civil case, like most traffic tickets, the burden of proof is 51% likely the person may have done what the person is accused of.

Where did you get this statistic? This is not in an way an attack Tim... I am truly curious.

As for both sides starting out even, I'm afraid I'll have to solidly disagree in civil and criminal cases. A jury in either case, in their very human nature, quite often perceive guilt if the case has reached the point of trial ("they wouldn't charge him if they weren't certain").

It has been my experience through many trials that in front of a judge, if you have joe duner on one side with no representation and the officer giving his account on the other side, the officer's testimony is given more weight.

These aren't good things, but they are most often true things.

In the case of the ISDRA, with so many visitors living away from the area I'm sure there's a very high percentage who just pay the fine instead of actually showing up for their day in court and yes, I believe this is something that is counted on.

Vicki

I truly believe (and from talking with Anaheim P.D. officers) that when a leo issues a ticket for anything at all, that people find it is much less expensive to just pay the fine than to fight it. :x
A leo is paid to be in court. We're not. If we don't have vacation days (or call in sick) to cover us while in court, we're out money there. Then, to be in court and lose, out more money. Just easier, and less expensive, to pay the fine.

[I amended my post due to pre-coffee mixup of highs and lows :mrgreen:]

You're right Brian and from what I've heard, statistically the chances are really low that "tourists" will return to a "tourist-y" area to have their day in court.

It would be interesting to see how many citations would be dropped if the accused told his/her side of the story.

Vicki

Both sides start out even and the relevant evidence introduced by both sides is considered by the judge, who renders a decision based on the evidence. (this should be in quotes, i'm too retarded to figure all this posting nonsense out)

if only this utopian world existed. i read an interview with a traffice court judge in s.d. a while back and he straight out said that if it's a citizens word against a cops, with no other proof, he would always believe the cop over the citizen. he said that the cop is a trained observer and had no personal incentive to lie, unlike the citizen who wants to get out of a ticket and fine. while may be true in some cases, it's pretty screwed to make that blanket assumption and this guy has no business being a judge with that attitude.

Vicki, the "51%" is a description, not a statistic, about the required burden of proof in a civil traffic case, i.e. preponderence of the evidence.

If the judge always took the LEOs word, then there would be no point in even wasting money for the government to have a court. I have lost cases in court as I did not articulate my case well (we don't have prosecutors in civil traffic cases), or Idid not have enough evidence to convince a judge.

My zero tolerence: Get on your rig and ride the dunes. Peace

Lets try this...Since the motorhome is now "Parked" like a travel Trailer you should carry the "Pass" in your "Dingy"--Jeep. Trucks display the pass on their mirror and they dont display them in their trailers so can someone tell me waht is the difference???

Are we penalized for having a tow behind a motorhome for having a motorhome? BLM does not require a seperate pass for truck and trailers why Motorhomes and a pull behind Dingy?

This is all jsut getting pretty stupid!!! I would contest it in court!

BOYCOTT the Beach Store!