I just read about what folks in Nevada are involved with. Seems to me they want to control the lands they wish recreate on by getting Congress to Act.

More information is found here

Logic doesn't work in California.

It was outlawed awhile back.

didn't outlaw it, just raised the tax on it's use

So the way i read that...

They want congress to hand over the land to the state of nevada, correct?

If thats true...

And they handed over any land here to the state of CA, this f'd up state would ban off-roading from it IMMIDEATATLY!!!

Thats the last thing I think should happen!!!




Of course i could be reading that completly wrong...

hehe

to me, it's written as the feds give them the land for the express purpose of building an offroad "park".

Perhaps you missed the most important part of the legislation. I'll post for those who didn't read it.

Is that granting permission??

or...

Stating that they MIGHT make it an off-road park???

I'm thinking I'm not making my point clearly understood. Please read this and pay particular attention to the words in bold



Its the concept of a "National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area" that caught my attention.

This concept is now being looked at for the Johnson Valley open area by Senator Feinstein.

I'm completely confused...

Is this going to be run by the feds or the state???

Are their any NATIONAL off-road aeras already???

I'm under the impression that Feinstein is NOT our friend, so how can this be a good thing if she is interested in it???

The sand dune area would be managed by the BLM

I'm not aware of ANY National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area's. This might be a first. This also is what caugh my attention.

In the past, the Senator has not been a friend.

But, politics create strange bed fellows.

Read my signature line and it attempts to explain this process.

we need a big red flag smilie

It very well might.

But the general concept has caught the attention and very initial support of those in our community who are taking the lead on the Johnson Valley issue.

Much more study and interaction with the Senator's staff and the proponents of the much larger legislative proposal is necessary and has been going on for a few weeks.

Looks like this has been going on for awhile...



http://www.lvbusinesspress.com/articles/20...news/news08.txt


Monday, September 11, 2006



Nellis recreation park could cost $32 million
<H3></H3>BY TONY ILLIA

The Nellis Dunes, an 8,522-acre raw, undeveloped property northeast of Las Vegas, could soon become a regional off-road-vehicle haven. Applied Analysis, a Las Vegas advisory firm, recently presented a feasibility study for developing the vacant federal land one-mile north of Nellis Air Force Base. Construction of such a facility could run $32.5 million, not including the land purchase, the study concluded.

"It would allow us to leverage our Southern Nevada Lands Act funds to provide another arrow in our tourism arsenal," said Jeremy Aguero, principal of Applied Analysis. "It would be a public asset that could help support and stimulate the economy."

The Bureau of Land Management currently oversees the property, which was described as rife, in a 1995 federal report, with "garbage dumping; auto-stripping; indiscriminate camping; partying; and firearms shooting."

County plans, meanwhile, call for a three-acre skate park, 40 acres of four-wheel- driving courses, and 22.5 acres for motor-cross. The area could also contain a 100-acre paved parking lot, 150 acres for RV camping, and 15 acres of viewing areas, among things. It would have a 20,000-square-foot, multi-purpose administration and storage building. And there would be staging areas along Interstate-15, with buffer zones near Nellis Air Force Base and Apex mining.

Yet the project would first need $8.7 million in infrastructure improvements as well as a $3.2 million yearly budget for park upkeep and maintenance. The area could charge admission and race fees from $3 up to $80 a day, plus sponsorship, concession, rental and storage fees.

Such surcharges would enable pay-as-you-go financing, although the park will likely qualify for federal funding assistance. The study identifies 34 organizations and groups interested in an off-road park, including the Southern Nevada Land Cruisers, Roughnecks ATV Club and Desert Raiders, among others.

The complex would serve the valley's estimated 348,280 off-highway vehicle riders. The number of enthusiasts has grown by 27,298 people over the last two years. And the number of riders is expected to grow by another 21.8 percent by 2015.

A regional park, as such, could see 208,767 riders per year, according to the study. With the valley's rapid growth, however, there are fewer off-road venues left despite its surging popularity.

"There are relatively few land uses for the area due to Nellis Air Force Base, and motocross is one of the fastest growing sports in the country," Aguero said. "It could be big for Las Vegas, making it a win-win."

PROJECTS

Stonemark Realty is currently building the new $1.6 million, 7,200-square-foot Ann Executive Center, at the northwest corner of Ann Road and Allen Lane in North Las Vegas. RG & Associates is the general contractor. The single-story, 20-suite office building is scheduled to open in December. The center is located inside of Kennedy Commercial's $30 million, 120,000-square-foot Ann Professional Plaza, at 3820 W. Ann Road.

Investment Equity Development is building an $11 million, 34,000-square-foot office complex at the northwest corner of Lake Sahara South and Lake North Drive. The Lakeview Professional Park will consist of three buildings with units divisible from 2,500 to 14,000 square feet, for lease or sale.

JVC Architects is designing a new $1.4 million, 5,000-square-foot Salvation Army chapel at 37 Owens Street. The project is scheduled to finish in late 2007.

SR Construction recently completed a $600,000, 3,675-square-foot medical office tenant improvement for Ventana Health Association, at 1885 Village Center Circle.

MILLION-DOLLAR DEALS

PCH USA 26 LLC bought 10 acres of land at the northwest corner of Fort Apache Road and Hacienda Avenue for $14.9 million, or $1.49 million per acre, from Warm Springs Holdings 1 LLC. CB Richard Ellis' Keith Spencer, Derek Rafie and Nick Till represented the buyer, and Spencer also represented the seller.

Atrium, Ltd. and Weststate Lane-2 LLC bought a 24,640-square-foot industrial building at 5480 Procyon Street for $3.5 million, or $142 per square foot, from Unisource Worldwide Inc. CB Richard Ellis' Donna Alderson represented the buyer.

CFT-TCC Nellis, LLC bought 3.32 acres of land at the northwest corner of Nellis Boulevard and Walnut Avenue $3.045 million, or $917,168 per acre, from the Wood Family Trust and Garry Hayes. CB Richard Ellis' Keith Spencer represented the seller.

Shirai Land Development bought a 10,730-square-foot medical office building at 4488 S. Pecos Road for $2.95 million, or $274 per square foot, from Allan Arthur. CB Richard Ellis' Jan Hoback and Bruce Follmer represented the seller.

Super 99 Cents Center signed a 10-year, $1.265 million lease for 10,000 square feet or retail space at Owens Avenue and H Street. Grubb & Ellis' Stuart Davidson represented the lessor. Edmond Town Center LLC, and Coldwell Banker Commercial ETN's Sandra and Eddie Naseef represented the tenant. The reported average rent equals $1.05 per square foot.

USAA Savings Bank signed a five-year, $1,038,900 lease for 5,930 square feet of office space at 3773 Howard Hughes Parkway. CB Richard Ellis' Brad Peterson represented the tenant. The reported average rent equals $2.91 per square foot.

i get it now.......................

they want to turn it from an open, un-managed off-road aera, into a totally comercial venture!!!

http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/depts/com...ellisdunes.aspx

Check out the Power Point presention on that site ^^^

No wonder Finestien is interested in it!!!!!!!!!!


I like my off-roading with no fences, thank you very much. But in reality, that is going the way of the dodo...

I'll pass on suporting this bill.

To be clear... I'm not saying that the ISDRA become some sort of fenced opportunity.

What I'm attempting to ask is there any support of the concept of having it declaired a National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area.

Such a designation and what could and could not occur in this area would be open for discussion and debate.

I'm looking at the long term picture here. We have spend untold amount of money, time, and effort since the CBD lawsuit. We have gained and lost very little since the Court made its decision. The upcoming RAMP is likely to be legally challenged along the way. Much more time, energy, and dollars are to be expended for an uncertain result.

I'm not saying we need to abandon the RAMP process. It is very necessary to be involved in that process.

Would it not be reasonable to consider a new tactic to protect what is cherished at the dunes?

We need to cut Mr. Duck some slack here, folks. And no, that doesn’t make him my new best friend, he and I disagree (or agree to disagree) all the time.

Duck’s been pushing just this idea for as long as I can remember, and I think it deserves some real consideration. It’s a highly political process and the challenge has been having the horsepower in Congress to obtain just such a designation for the ISDRA.

I would prefer it to be a NATIONIAL one, rather then deeding it to the state, especially the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia. However, even if it went to the state, it would not necessarily be all bad. By making it either a National or State OHVA, it would improve the chances of better funding, either through federal tax dollars or our state Green Sticker fund that we pay a lot into but get very little back at the ISDRA.

My major concern in relation to the ISDRA is the ESA. Without an exemption from the ESA, we would still be held (potentially) hostage to the enviro’s suing on the PMV and/or listing some other plant or beastie, BUT, having a Congressional mandate that the area be designated as an OHV park should carry some significant weight in court.

We should take some encouragement from this legislation. It means that our message indeed HAS reached some members of Congress and they are recognizing the needs and the demands of the OHV community for areas to legally recreate.

I can support the legislation.

I was under the impression it was already in the works.

Interesting.

Don't make it a personal issue, this has NOTHING to do with duck!!

Glamis National Park? Not in my lifetime will i ever support this!!!

Think Zion. Think Yellowstone. Think Yosemitie.

Reservation systems, full hook up spots, sand camping where ever you want?? Forget that folks, we got designated camping aeras for you!!! Come stay with us in your own spacious spot, quite hours are 8PM to 8AM. Dont forget to pick up a hat at the gift shop on your way out!!!

Not no, but eff* no!!!

Thanks for listening...

ROFLMAO!!!

Well, lessee…..

We are already paying Green Sticker fees that we don’t see at Glamis PLUS we are already paying to camp.

Quiet hours, per existing BLM rules are 10PM to 6 AM. There is even enough LEO’s RIGH NOW out there to enforce it. (And it happens, just call 911 at 10:30PM in Wash 22, they’ll be happy to oblige)

We currently can not only buy hats, but whole outfits, including helmets as well as rent a toy (quad) for the weekend. Buy all our food/eat out, including (2) bars with alcohol. (GBS and Boardmanville) Can have our trailer dropped off (Luv-to-Camp will rent us one and Glamis Storage will set it up your stuff for you as well). We have mobile vendors for all of the above including removing our crap and bringing us fresh water. Gas and propane are readily available at the Glamis Storage Yard. Repairs and spare parts are at Joe Fab, Gilmores and Sweet Maires. When we break our stuff, instead of getting it out ourselves, we can get rescued. Just bring money. The only thing that is not provided is electricity.

Did I miss anything?

Sooooooo….just EXACTLY what is it RIGHT NOW that is all that different then any other National Park? Reservations? What makes you think that just because it is NOT a national or state park that we won’t end up with that anyway? In the mean time, we have to constantly fight the enviro’s to keep the place open.

What I’m after is what we were promised, back when the OHV community, as small as it was, agreed to the Northern Wilderness Area that we didn’t get. A guarantee that all that SOUTH of 78 would remain OPEN from now to eternity.

Go to a national park and you can say goodbye to the vendors and hello to a single concessionaire. Show me one national park where there are still private vendors that haven't been run out in favor of a single giant concessionaire.

You can say goodbye to the washes, garbage flats, and other "open camping". Only reservations and marked spots. There may be a few small "open" areas preserved but no where near enough to satisfy the demand that is currently out there.

Come on Lloyd you've seen the stuff Dr. Haas has presented, you were on the ASA BOD when he presented it! He actually has promoted the idea of getting rid of vendors in favor of a concessionaire, entrance fees, fences, and reserved camping only as "benefits"!


The only possible upside would be if it could somehow get around the ESA. But the are better chances of everything west of the San Andreas falling into the ocean and the feds deciding to just give the rest to AZ than there are of that happening. Especially with the current administration.

Oh yeah...almost forgot:



I don't pay green sticker fees. And neither do any of my neighbors or most of the nation. This is federal land we're talking about not a CA park, and I'd fight tooth and nail against handing it over to a state as messed up politically as CA.

And I've never payed to camp at the dunes and neither has anyone else. If you have then you should be able to get your money back because the BLM isn't allowed to charge for camping!

I do pay to take part in motorized recreation at the dunes, but if I just want to camp out there I can still do so legally without paying anything.

And you reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeely think this is how your gonna get that??????

I'm glad you think this is funny. To me its serious business. Tell ya what, you and duck try it out at johnson valley, or maybe you should join the Nevada peeps in tryin to create the next off-road disney land national park. Let me know how it works out....apparently youre missing a lot!

Really Jason? Where, exactly?

Last I checked, people who came to visit me had to have a parking pass to enter and leave the ‘area’. They were not there to partake in any motorized recreation. They didn’t even spend the night. Naturally, they could have refused to buy a pass, received a ticket and contested it in court. But at what price? Excuse me while I call BS.

I noticed that neither one of you had a direct, detailed response to this:



Do I want a single concessionaire? No, not really. But really, as a visitor who uses/pays for the ‘services’ in any recreational place, does it matter if the money spent goes to several different businesses, (like GBS, Gilmores, etc) or one bucket?

And what I want is not obtainable. I want NO services, NO vendors, NO LEO’s, NO EMT’s, NO toilets, NO trash pick up, and NO fees. I want all of it open for riding.

I’m not gonna get that, because it’s all ready there, and it’s not going away. I will gladly trade the vendors for one concessionaire if I get open riding south of 78, (excluding some PMV CH, which I suspect we are going to lose anyway) that will be there for my great grandchildren without constantly fighting the enviro’s.

Lloyd and I have had many a heated debate over the issues. But over the years, we (I think) have come to respect each other and attempt to understand each other's view.

No one here is saying the ISDRA is going to come into the Park Service management. What is being proposed in Vegas and quietly in Johnson Valley is BLM management in a Congressionally designated area.

[Edited because I didn't look at what I wrote before posting it - too busy at work]

Now you are speaking MY language!!!!

As for a detailed response...

I only camp out at wash 22. 99% of the time, when i am out there, there is no one else there but the people that are camping with me. I dont need any of those rules under those conditions, so they are of no consaquence (sp?) to me. You see, I still have the choice to camp where I want, when I want, and next to the people I want to be with. That will all go away with a "National Park" status, and I'm not ready to give that up yet.

And for me to belive that if we DID get a status like that, there would be a guarentee that Glamis would always be there, well, you need to prove that one to me first...and if Feinstien is involved...fat chance of that guarentee!!!

oh and...

ive never spent a dime at vendors.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the BLM is not following the rules doesn't mean that the rules don't exist.

There is no camping or parking fee. Period. End of discussion, it simply doesn't exist. The only fee the BLM has is a Special Recreation Permit for motorized recreation. Just because they're extorting payment of it out of visitors who aren't taking part in motorized recreation does not mean it's a parking fee. Some of us feel VERY strongly that this is wrong and needs to be dealt with. Sadly it seem no one in a leadership position in ANY OHV organization is willing to speak up about the wrongs being committed by the BLM in this case. But that doesn't make them any less wrong.

FWIW - I HAVE visited the dunes several times without a pass including going through a pass checkpoint with no issues whatsoever. When I take out of town visitors to see the plank road I drive out in a street car. When I get to the pass check I tell them "I'm not here to ride I'm here to show people the plank road" and have never once had a problem.




Then why do you comment on my response:




Ok, I'll admit I didn't mention quiet time. But frankly that's one that doesn't matter to me as I've never seen it well enforced ANYWHERE in any park be it state, national or local.

But getting rid of vendors and bringing in a single concessionaire DOES take away what you're saying.

No more Joe Fab Repair shop. No more Gilmores. No more KD. No More Sweet Maries. Some may be able to continue to operate on private property...but when a concessionaire comes in up go the gates. So if you want to get your buggy over to Joe Fab's on private property you'll have to load it up on a trailer, leave the park, deal with things, then come back.

The selection of services and goods available would be SEVERELY compromised and sanitized. Only shirts and hats that the concessionaire makes and approves will be available. Anything else...you'll have to get it off the property and even then there's the possibility of the concessionaire coming after them for copyright infringement.

Food? No more tacos, BBQ Pork sandwiches, corn dogs and the other variety of locally and deliciously prepared options. Just the standard Sysco foodservice fare you find at every national park across the country.


Is that detailed enough for you?




And I agree. Less is what's needed not more. So why ask for a "solution" (concessionaire) that will result in more fees, fewer choices and worse service than already available through the private sector?

Personally I would be happy to see no vendors, no concessionaire, and all the other NO's you have listed. But you go asking for a "national OHV Park" and that's the exact opposite of what you'll get.

Read the article about what they're planning for Nellis if it goes through. It's Yosemite with dirt bikes. It doesn't make anything better, it just brings in more and more overhead and fewer and fewer options for those who want to recreate on their own terms.

Duck, I know your VERY involved in the JV situation, my hats off to you for that. But, if turns out anything like what is being proposed in Nelis Dunes aera, I think that would suck big time.

A new tactic would be a great idea, but this is not one I support. Good luck to you out in JV.

I have two points I'd like to comment on here Jason

This is not a National Park managed proposal at Nellis

The legislation specifically provides for BLM management.

SEC. 3. Special designation of the Nellis Dunes National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area in Clark County, Nevada.

(a) In general.—The area commonly known and managed as Nellis Dunes in the Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plan shall be designated the “Nellis Dunes National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area”.

And....



Amen Jason.

I've seen this when it comes to a host of issues (especially when it comes to OHV Division and California budget issues) we face here in California.

I'm not saying looking for other solutions is a bad thing by any means. I think it's important and I do think that looking for a way to officially designate off road areas in a way that protects them as much as wilderness areas are protected is vital.

But I don't believe that <i>this</i> is that other solution.




Doesn't matter who manages it. It's how it's managed that matters. And whether it's BLM or NPS what they're describing in the article about this proposal is more NPS style than what we've come to expect from BLM:




That's 62.5 acres for OHV use to 250 acres of paved parking! There's more land being used for non-OHV use in this proposal than there is for OHV use by a LARGE measure. There's also no mention of primitive camping or other opportunities for self-sufficient visitors who don't want or need more pavement.

Honestly to me that sounds like a net loss of OHV opportunities if the whole area is currently being used as it stands now.

The other question is why does that legislation hand the land over to the state and still expect BLM to manage it?

Jason...

This proposal might indeed not be correct for the ISDRA. But, it very well might be a starting point to discuss and debate. We all (who have participated in this topic) have been doing an excellent job vetting out the concept and providing what is important to them and sharing with all.

Just a quick correction here.

The National Park Service has a mission of preservation.

BLM has a mission of multiple use.

This is the HUGE difference between management objectives that sets each other apart from our perspective.

Park Service management would be a disaster.

Thank you!!! I'm glad we finally agree!!

But as usual, I'm still confused on this issue...

SEC. 3. Special designation of the Nellis Dunes National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area in Clark County, Nevada.

(a) In general.—The area commonly known and managed as Nellis Dunes in the Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plan shall be designated the “Nellis Dunes National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area”.

What is the point of this then ^^^



And before you answer...

Did you watch that Power Point presention about how they invision it??? I see it the same way Jason does, it looks like an off-road Disney Land.

I was talkin to one of my co-workers, who goes to JV a lot (ive never been there myself), and when i told him bout this plan, and how Feinsten is interested in it, his first thought was...

"If she is interested in it, she is gonna wanna make 2 or 3 National off-road parks, and close everything else down!"

Anyone gonna answer my question up there ^^^???

Well Joe, your co-worker may be correct but this is not what we are hearing from the Senator's staff.

Well duh! Your on the wrong side of the fence to be privy to that information. They would never tell us what their "big picture" is, but boy, I'm sure they have one. Like someone else said, Feinstin being involved is a HUGE red flag. I would be very leary of this.

That plan would fit right in with my other question up there that no one wants to address.

The Partnership for Johnson Valley has, among its leadership, folks who have directly worked with the Senator and her staff since about the time she became a Senator. We have not been mislead by the same, but indeed have been told straight-up what was going to happend and when.

We don't often agree with the Senator's proposals, but we have a good working relationship with her and her staff.

Finally, we are fully aware of the "big picture" and the Johnson Valley proposal is just a very small part of the same.

And yet still no answer to my question...

Spys i tell, keeing there eye on you!!

I say that tongue in cheek for the most part, but damm, what if its true?? Good luck to you on this one. It might be the only way to save JV.

What is the question your looking for an answer to?

In Red. What exactly would be the reason to create a National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation aera?

My answer to your question is that we need to start looking at the big picture when it comes to protecting the areas we care about (motorized recreation) and if written correctly by Congress, keeps these areas open for our use and stops all the stupid legal challenges we have seen in the past 10 years or so ago.

I'd liken this to an "end game".

Understood. And the way the game is being played, it would appear to be the logical way to do this. And really, it might be the only way to do it!

I have a whole lot of fears though, that as my co-worker suggested, once they get a few places set-up, they will close all the other smaller aeras down. (in other words, "here look what we gave you! you dont need anything else!)

They WILL run it like a national park system, with all the same rules and restrictions in place.

And it will end up being a circus/disney land kind of set-up. No more open camping or riding allowed.

And to hope something is written correctly by congress, well, i doubt that any of those peeps are off-roaders, and that they would have our best interests at heart.

*sigh*

I think I'd rather fight than switch...

Legislative proposals are often written by special interest groups (we are one too) and are called " bill sponsor". The sponsor comes to a member of Congress with a proposal (usually the precise words the sponsors want) and then it goes to staff.

There is a interaction between staff and the sponsor. The work product then goes to the legislator, they agree or disagree to introduce it as the "author".

The process for the sponsor of the bill then turns to getting "co-author's". Often, if the legislator (author) feels stong about the proposal, they work with the sponsor to get "co-author's"

The next step is to send the proposal to a "legislative counsel", the attorney of the legislative body to make sure all the legal details are worked out.

Finally, when all agree that this is what they want, the bill gets introduced.

The above process is how we get the wording we want introduced.

Cool, thanks for the explanation!

Question...

But sometime durring this process, arent other things usually added into the bill ?

ie: if you want x, then you need to put y and z into the bill, before we can finalize it.

Nothing actually ever makes it into law, exactly the way it was written originally, correct?

<--- (trying to learn how this all works)

That possibility exists. But depending upon the author and the realtionship the bill sponsor has with the same, the author has the control of what can and will be amended in the legislation. At any time, the author has the right to withdraw the legislation if he/she is not comfortable with amendments.

Gotcha.

So that bill for the Nellis Dune aera, is that the first version we are looking at there? Or has it be ammened at all?

What was posted was the introduced bill. I've not checked lately for any Committee hearings or amendments.

is there a way to check? id like to watch this one closely....