BLM Announcement on proposed fee increase

ISDRA Fee announcement

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/re...e_proposal.html

What do you all think?

I oppose it.

holy crap, thats a substantial increase

They might as well raise the fee. Glamis will not hold as many peeps next year......
This is not good news.

Sweet!


No wash road- so half the area. No dumpsters unless IC pays again. For $50 more!



Eff them

If that goes through the rangers better stop harassing people and writing tickets for chickendoogie things. I'm not for this. It's just the beginning of more increases.

What have fee dollars accomplished?

* Increased Compliance with existing rules and regulations.
* Prevention / reduction of OHV injuries.
* Trash collection
* Restroom facilities
* Maintained access
* Road maintenance
* Buttercup Ranger Station
* Increased camping areas
* Interpretation / Education
* Increased partnerships
* Returned the Dunes to a family oriented recreation destination

How will the public benefit?

* The Public will not see a decrease in services such as:
o Law Enforcement
o Medical Rescue
o Maintenance of Facilities
o Maintenance of roads
* Potential improvements to the Recreation area

Who are they BSing??

Pay more and get less that sounds like typical government B.S.!

No dumpsters, no wash access and higher fees.

Well with washroad and most of the washes closed that saves them money so why the increase in fees.

looks like they need to make up the revenue now that there will be less people with the wash road closed.

This proposal will be made at the May 13 Recreation Resource Advisory Committee meeting in Vallejo, CA.

can anyone tell me if this is the same Vallejo, Ca. that is in Nor- Cal ? if so this is the town I work in . Also is this something that I could go to ??

We all knew this was coming. The start at $140 and we are happy when they set it at $100 or $120.

If anything it needs to be less than $90.

Are you listening Neil? I am sure you are but doubt you care.

no, it's the beginning of the end....

hey Congress and Obama
how about a BLM bailout so they can manage our public lands and OHV areas ?

oh wait, I was having a dream....

This is bull spit.. It looks like they need to make up for the funds california "borrowed" from the BLM usage fee money.

If this passes and the fees increase, that's it for me. My group of approx 10 motorhomes currently camp outside the fee area but we all still buy a dune pass each year because we feel it is our duty to pay for what we enjoy. But this is the last straw for me, no wash road, no way to get to Boardmanville legally, increased congestion due to closures, etc......I will no longer buy a pass so they can waste my $$$ .

how about lets reopen the dunes across from the store. there is plenty of parking away from the RR.


also whos been to g lately? are the dumpsters gone yet?is the wash road permintly closed yet?

dumpsters were there this morning.
And the truck was emptying empty dumpsters at 6am

I camp in Ogilby we don't have roads or dumpsters or bathrooms and we still have to pay. With this increase that's BS!!!!!!

Loophole?


http://www.nps.gov/fees_passes.html

FYI: Might be old info, but there's a link in the last paragraph to the May 2009 "What's New" on the BLM site. It has 3 alternative plans regarding Wash Road. It also talks about trash disposal location, and site for fee collection area(up to 5 lanes.)

Awesome read
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm...t/EA2009_64.pdf

That's the one. Thanks for posting the link.

Here's the federal register posting for the fee increase:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-9323.htm

This will be decided at the RAC on May 13...That's 12 days from now. There is both an email and snail mail address for the public to send comments either for, or against this fee increase. Or, you can attend this meeting, and there will be a public comment period. I'd be willing to bet that if there are no comments, either in person, or via the mail/email option, this increase will pass.

WHATTHE :hellno:

Here in PHX for the ASA BOD meeting...this was a VERY hot topic tonight.

Comments at the RRAC sound like they're going to be important....BUT....just like the old TRT the RRAC is NOT BINDING. In other words even if the RRAC listens to the public and tells the BLM "no dice" the BLM can still go ahead and do this anyway.


I'm too tired right now to go into full detail but a few points from my notes and in regards to things posted above:

Trash collection IS back in the budget and is part of why they want to raise fees.

The BLM is working with UDG to try and partner in a complex way that will hopefully help cut costs by letting the UDG bid on things instead of the BLM (then the BLM pay the UDG for them) since as a non-government entity the UDG gets much better rates. (Trash is a biggie they're trying to work this way since the quotes the BLM gets are way higher than the quotes the same companies give the UDG!)

The BLM's numbers don't add up for visitors and pass compliance. BLM claims 1.2 million visitors and 89% compliance - but only expects to seel 60k passes next year. (down from 79k this year and even more the year before.) ASA's overflight study showing that visitation is probably 40% LESS than BLM estimates in most areas and as much as 80% less than the BLM estimates in the washes.

Correction to the above: Trying to decipher my notes late at night I made a mistake and got things a little backwards on that last bit. According to the ASA's overflight comparison to the BLM's visitation counts there were 20% fewer visitors in the washes than the BLM claimed and 60% fewer on Gecko. In other words the counts from the BLM are higher than what's really happening - and the counts at places like Gecko and Buttercup (where there's more in/out traffic) are more incorrect than the counts in the washes where people tend to stay once they arrive. It's theorized that this is in large part due to the BLM's reliance on axle counters at the entrances but that has not been conclusively proven.


Last year 73% of passes sold were weekly passes with 85% of them being sold on-site. Yet overall 50% of sales were off-site which due to this years two level pricing is one of the reasons the BLM is short this year - they didn't expect to actually get 50% sold off-site and were expecting more of the higher on-site passes to sell...despite previously claiming they felt most visitors already bought off site.

BLM does not have a plan for what to do if they don't get to raise fees or if legislation introduced last week (by Max Baucus (D-MT) and Mike Crapo (R-ID)) to repeal the FLERA moves forward.


BLM justified charging the fees as an entrance fee (even though legally they're not allowed to charge an entrance fee) because "It's easier"


The ASA BOD has not decided yet if they will support this proposed increase or not, tonights meeting was the BLM's chance to put their case in front of the ASA BOD and the BOD will be meeting in private later this weekend to decide how they will respond. Personally based on what I heard tonight I'll be at least somewhat surprised if they do support it. The BOD seems to recognize that there are serious budgetary issues facing the BLM and have looked hard at the numbers - but at the same time they seem to have serious concerns about the BLM's plans and even bigger concerns about the way the fee is being charged. We should know early next week what the ASA BOD decides will be their official stance on this. Anyone attending the meeting at Foddrill tomorrow I would HIGHLY suggest that if at all possible you find a few minutes to track down an ASA BOD member and let them know your concerns.

Now to end on a positive note. The new head ranger seems genuinely interested in correcting a LOT of the issues regarding enforcement in the dunes. He's promised to institute better training, return discretion to officers (no more zero tolerance), and try to focus on public safety issues. It was also said numerous times by both him and in the BLM's presentation about fees that "The dunes have been returned to a family friendly atmosphere". (Their words not mine.) I told him I've heard that before, but if he does follow through on those promises I'd like to be the first in line to shake his hand and thank him. At least he feels the serious issues have been dealt with now which is at least a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately he doesn't see that as any reason to ease off but rather as an opportunity to "focus on things that haven't been enforced in the past" - which to me sounds somewhat at odds with his other promises.

Since these are illegal has an org considered a lawsuit to get it corrected? I know another lawsuit is the last thing we want to see against the BLM but what about our rights that need to be protected?

I think the ASA will make the right choice to back this increase or not.

Can we hear more info on the new head ranger, history, any info?

Where did Neil go?

As I see it the fees are a tax, and we all know what happens. The fees will increase, the state or the feds will rob (borrow) the dollars to use in time of budget shortfalls and never repay the funds taken. They will keep taxing us til they drive people away and those of us who refuse to stop going.... well they are going to tax us even further. Hold on sit down this is not going to be a pleasant ride.
Would I be willing to pay for a new wash road yes, but I am afraid the fee increases will never stop. It is a activity that a lot of people enjoy and an easy way to pick out pockets.

well it was a good 30 years in glamis im done

I had fun at Glamis, I started going in 1993, I have met so many wonderful people. During my last trip in March of this year, something was telling me that would be my last trip to Mother G. I'm also tired of having my pockets sucked dry and getting nothing in return, its like a cancerous growth!!!!

That was mentioned. Some members of the BOD have apparently been talking to the ASA's legal representation about what can be done.

The thing to keep in mind though is that they're not talking about eliminating the fees. Thanks to congress refusing to fund the BLM and expecting them to be self-supporting (thank you Clinton and I wouldn't expect it to be any better under the current DC leadership) users have to pay to support the area. Which means if there is a lawsuit the goal would not be to eliminate the fees but to get the BLM to stop charging them as an entrance fee. Which realistically means two scenarios are likely. Either a fee being assessed per-person for motorized recreation (like a fishing license) or being assessed per-vehicle (like green stickers.)




I hope so as well. The BLM's presentation was frankly almost insulting to me with the number of false assumptions, bad numbers and twisted claims it made. Add in the current state of the economy and other factors and it just does not seem well thought out.

But at the same time there's the reality that congress is not willing to fund the BLM - so money has to come from somewhere.

The big sticking point seemed to be the BLMs unwillingness to even begin to consider discussing the possibility of reducing LEO/EMS staffing levels despite their admission that the dunes have been returned to a family friendly area, and that while visitation is down citations are still going up.


One other thing to mention. The BLM is including a free period from June through September in their new fee request. However it seemed to be poorly thought out as they are offering that because "We have minimal services and staffing during that time anyway." and does not address the very real safety concerns of people going out to the dunes in the dead of summer. It's my opinion that a free period would encourage visitation and if they're going to encourage visitation then I believe they need to address the safety aspect. When asked why they didn't just do a free week or weekend during the season like many people have requested they said it was because they didn't want to create a new holiday that they couldn't afford to staff.

At that point I suggested they consider making MLK weekend the free weekend. It's already a holiday so they're would not be creating a new holiday just welcoming visitors on an existing one. And coinciding with the cleanup it would make it easier for more volunteers to take part in the cleanup since they would not have to buy a pass to come out just one day to help clean the dunes. The response seemed to be that the BLM hadn't considered this possibility at all.




Neil is still there, he was unable to attend last night since he's on vacation this week. He's the Dune Manager not the head Ranger, he oversees the entire dune operation while the head ranger is the chief of enforcement. Vicki Wood filled in for him. But Neil is not the head LEO, I forget the name of the previous head LEO.

I only got to speak to the new head ranger a little bit and he did seem sincere about wanting to improve relations. The new feedback page at the BLM website was his first step towards opening communication and looking into the source of the problems. He seemed to feel that "Zero Tolerance" was a bad move in general and helped create an us vs. them mindset. He says he's already making plans to add additional time for briefing and introduction to the area for the extra LEO's brought in on big weekends. He seemed to feel very strongly that officer discretion needs to be brought back. He sounded like he was very much in favor of issuing warnings instead of outright citations over minor issues and when starting to enforce things that have been on the books for years but never been enforced in the past.

Prior to the meeting there was some discussion between him and Lee Banning about Ted Kipf and the actions taken by the BLM in enforcing things in that area over Presidents weekend. He claimed that he was there for the weekend and that most LEO contacts on Ted Kipf resulted in warnings and not citations - but was unwilling to back up his claims. He first told me it would take a FOIA request to get information on citations (even though this information has always been released through the TRT in the past without needed a FOIA) then later said they don't track warnings so there's no way he could justify his claims since there's no record of how many warnings were actually given compared to citations.

According to his introduction at the meeting he's been with the BLM for quite some time in law enforcement both as a ranger and as a manager. Most of his time with the BLM has apparently been spent in Humboldt county eradicating marijuana farms on BLM property.


BTW - Lee Banning is a name I hadn't heard until this weekend, apparently if I followed off road racing more I probably would have since he apparently won rookie of the year for 2008 and has built quite an impressive fabrication and race team. He's very concerned about what's going on with the dunes and is getting quite involved in our fight. He wants to reach out to other desert users and help get them involved in our fight as well. Like many of us he wants to see the BLM learn to make a budget they can afford and stick to it instead of the constant spending that they've been doing. He had a lot of very valuable feedback for the BLM and I have a feeling that he's going to become a major player in our fight. And I'm damn glad he's on our side since I sure wouldn't want to have him fighting against me!

(The comments that follow are my personal opinion and observations alone, not to be considered as anything more than that)

Jason, thank you for the meeting recap. I think you covered it very well. I can say that I was more than a little upset with what was presented. This morning, as I look back, in a bit calmer fashion, while I still am personally against their arguments, I can put it into a little bit better perspective than I did last night.

I think I share a similar view to the majority of gd.com members...that the government should be fully funding the largest non-national park recreational area in the country. But, they aren't, and we are stuck with fees. And if so, I want to see those fees at the absolute lowest possible level. That's the easy part, and honestly a statement that if we didn't have to go any further, most would agree with. Of course the devil is in the details...just what is actually needed, and what is the "minimum". That's where this discussion get's hot, heavy, and with few "good" answers.

One thing sticks in my mind from last night...and like Jason already said, the BLM is referencing that Glamis has now returned to a "family friendly" atmosphere. I think that's a very important bit of information, and certainly something that we've been trying to get acknowledged for some time. Now the key how to keep it that way, for I believe many in the management arena believe that should this revert back to what they define as "lawlessness and unruly", we'd lose our access to the dunes forever. So in that sense there is at some point, a "minimum threshold" level of effort that is needed to keep the dunes open. My prediction is that we'll find that point when everyone is unhappy with the result...us the user, the BLM, and the others.

As far as the RAC decisions not being binding. This is true, however, realize that politically, there is a lot of pressure to respect their recommendations, so I believe that positive, well written comments supporting your position on the proposal are appropriate. This is going to happen quick, so please stay tuned for more info as it becomes available.

I'm thinking its time BLM consider requesting California OHV funding again.

We saw this year that because we didn't ask, we lost $ 90 million to the General Fund.

If we start pushing now, we might just have supplemental funding funding necessary to ease the fee pinch.

Frankly Bob, BLM really needs to be more open with its books and make a promise (legally binding) to keep its books open for audit and review. That was the primary reason the OHV Commission/Division was not too open to Grants to the ISDRA in the past. BLM was unable/unwilling to provide how they spent the grants they received.

There is another idea of funding via RTP that might have potential to get appropriated funds from Congress.

Finally, there is the concept of the "not-for-profit" funding in "partnership" with BLM within the process established via the California OHV fund.

We need to explore all the options and not let BLM hold our faite in their hands alone.

This issue of grants was raised several times last night. The BLM did apply for several this year and continues to plan on applying for others. But as far as the discussion of the budget goes they're somewhat off topic since grant money is not guaranteed until you know if you got the grant or not...and that happens on a yearly cycle. This current attempt to balance the BLM's budget for the ISDRA is taking a long view and looking at creating a plan that will last for at least 5 years. Since grants vary from year to year they're considered bonus above and beyond and are not being relied upon for funding of essential operations.

And I think that's a VERY responsible attitude from the BLM. Grant's are never a sure thing so when planning for the future you can't really use them to balance the budget. They're great for fulfilling non-essential projects and improvements. But right now the bottom line is creating a bottom line budget to allow the ISDRA to operate.

What happens if they build a grant into part of that and then in two years things change at a state level and the grant no longer gets approved? Suddenly there's a big hole in the budget.

Grant's are nice, they're being applied for. But they're not the answer to the underlaying problem which is funding the day to day operations of the ISDRA.




How could that happen? This years grant applications are already done, and next years are almost a year away still. This is an immediate issue with the BLM going in front of the RRAC in 14 days asking for this increase. Even if there were a way to apply for a grant today there's now way it would be approved in time to solve this current budget issue. And all that stuff I just typed above.




BLM IS being very open right now. In fact I along with several others are firmly convinced that Dick Holiday (Doc) from the ASA has now spent more time going over the BLM's budget than anyone at the BLM ever has. This has not been easy to achieve and it's the ASA's long term commitment to working with the BLM that has resulted in this level of cooperation which is very refreshing to see.

The BLM has cut quite a bit out of their budget. They've made changes in how their vehicles and maintenance are dealt with (some internal classification change that's really more than I can explain here as I didn't 100% understand it) which is saving quite a bit was one example that comes immediately to mind. I don't have actual numbers in front of me right now but I understand that the presentations the BLM and Doc both used will be made available in the next few days with the full details.


Speaking of numbers - one correction to what I said above about the ASA's flyover counts compared to the BLM's own visitation numbers. I got it a little backwards as Doc explained to me today. Visitors counts in the washes were 20% lower than the BLM claims and 60% lower at Gecko. Chalk that one up to me posting late at night after a long day. I'll correct my post above as well.





I'm not sure exactly what RTP is but I'd like to hear more. The not-for-profit funding is something the BLM IS looking at very strongly and that's one of the things they're doing with the UDG as I tried to explain earlier.

At this point any and all options are being explored and if you know some that aren't please contact Dick Holiday and let him know as he's been working on this VERY hard and like I said probably has a better idea of the BLM's budget than the BLM does right now.

The BLM is being far more open and cooperative than I've seen them be in the past 10 years right now. They want help solving this problem and are working with us to explore every option we can bring to the table. Which IMHO is a very refreshing and much called for change. That doesn't mean the BLM is smelling like roses...but at least they're starting to wash off a bit after rolling around in the feed lot like they did in the past.

Just an update...The ASA board made a decision to not support the BLM's proposed fee increase tonight. This was a very "lively" discussion, but it all came down to the fact that the BLM has simply not given the community enough time or information to digest their proposal and give input. The ASA will send a letter to the RRAC asking them to not approve the BLM's request.

Now however, this does not mean that YOU should not also send the RAC a letter with your comments. If you read this page:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/passes/rrac/meetin...ay2009/blm6.php

it is almost word for word the presentation the BLM gave the ASA BOD last night, and it was my impression (maybe wrong) that this is what they will be presenting the RAC in 12 days or so when they ask for this fee increase. If you choose to comment, either for or against this proposed increase, it will be best if you address the reasoning that the proposal is based upon, rather than simply relying on the emotion of this ill timed proposal (IMHO of course).

I would also say that if you are against this proposal it would be a good idea to make a comment, as I believe that the RAC will support the BLM's request unless there is a significant grass roots response that can not be ignored or categorized as simply a fringe response to the issue.

Thanks for all the links everyone. Looks like we have LOTS to read....

I don't get it... They want to increase the fee's but yet still not address the trash collection issue?

FYI, Buttercup is already using an entrance fee.


Thank you guys for all the information, it seems we just keep paying more for less. If our new head ranger wants to have better support from us, police around camps. I hate pit racers............

I already sent me email against the increase in fees. (Thank you Beachhead for the address)

What I got in return...

Yes, thanks Bob and Jason for all the great info. Thanks for all of your time.

I got the same reply.

Is the actual new budget posted somewhere? I'd like to see how they have laid it all out.

I know the 08/09 is posted somewhere as well. Can anyone put up the links to these two budgets so we can look at em side by side?

Thank you so much for the help!

Trash collection IS included in the proposed budget. And they're working on minimizing the cost of it in two big ways:

1) They're trying to make the contract vary based on the number of times the dumpsters need to be emptied instead of a fixed flat rate that stays high even as usage goes down like they're dealing with now.

2) The BLM is looking at contracting the UDG to handle trash service since when BLM and UDG both go to the same company for the same quote the UDG gets a much better rate due to not being a government agency and having less red tape to deal with. So the UDG will actually get the trash contract and then the BLM will just pay the UDG actual costs.

It's worth noting that the contract for pumping the pit toilets already works like #1 above. The BLM pays per dump on those not a fixed rate. So just remember the next time you see someone dumping their RV tanks or a portable tank they filled from their RV into a pit toilet that they're costing all of us money by doing that.

Eff sending emails, they dont read them. We all need to show up to where ever that meeting is. Voice's are much stronger then email.

Or they are just getting there moneys worth. I have never used a pit toilet in Glamis so if anyone needs to dump there tanks use my share too.....

Anyone???

Do people with RV's get a discount since they dont use the crappers?

They get the same Discount the "Tenters" get for not using the PADs on Gecko.

So those of us that bring our RV's and don't camp on the pads get a double discount?? The pit toilets and pads are not the issue. It's ridiculous that we are paying more so that they can keep oversaturating the area with law enforcement. Numbers are down, reduce the LEO numbers.

sooooo pay more cuz less peeps are going to glamis???

I've sent my email to them. I wont go anymore if they do increase it. Thats a HUGE increase. I'd rather drive to the dunes in Nevada then pay 60 bux on site for a 3 day stay.

What i find funny is that one of the reasons to justify the increase as stated is "due to a decline in permit sales".....WTF!?!?!

I've said it since the fees started it.

The fees are primarily used to create employment.