Lot's of Flak going around about Glamis and the OHMVRD, however very littel
basic information.

Is the BLM going to have a grant open house this year, if not allready done so?

Is the BLM even going to put in for an OHMVRD O&M grant for next year?

Here is their number, how about calling them for us and finding out??? Thanks.

1-760-337-4400

Then you can post their reply here for all to see.

They have had one and are required to have more. I'll make some inquiries also and we'll meet back here with the information.

Vicki

Just got off the phone with the California Desert District office and at this point in time there are no plans for an additional open house on these grants.

They are allegedly available electronically and if so, I'll have a copy today or tomorrow. That would be ideal because then if anyone has questions during Woozy Wednesday we will have answers.

The grants are due into the OHMVR Commission by mid-May so we're once again under the gun but also once again we do have time to make a difference.

It is my understanding that the El Centro Field Office is requesting funds for law enforcement but not equipment. I will be speaking with the El Centro Field Office next to determine if that is fact and if so, we have to get that changed. There is absolutely NO reason the dune users should have paid $53,000 last year for BLM equipment when there is grant money available for those expenditures. Last year they didn't even try; this year we need to ensure that the BLM at least attempts to get some of our large expenses out of the money that we've already paid instead of out of our fee demo money.

Vicki

I got to have a talk with the Le centro Field office and they tell me that they had their
open house in Riverside on April 14th. For the most part it sounds
like their (canned)Grant from last year, and it's mostly Law enforcement.
They stated the same old song and dance about how the soil monitoring
needs under O&M would make any funds they receive under O&M a moot
point as the cost of monitoring (SAND) that goes as the wind goes would
be economically unfeasible. I will check into this further.

If this turns out to be true then lets take another look at AB2666 and think
of any amendments that could be added to it, like SAND thats so loose it just
don't make any sense to monitor is NOT Soil. Also some other things could
just be lined out like any reference to CVC38020, which if you think about it
could they even impound your vehicle as it's not registered? any many other
things.

If they have a canned O&M grant for even small things like Vicky pointed out
thats easy to justify it would be cool to put Spitler to the test, and see how
he reacts to and O&M grant from Glamis. I drove all the way to Sacramento
this year to see him in an Orange CORVA jacket and talk the talk, now
I very much want to see his as much as anyone if he is going to WALK the WALK.

Also they could do another Grant open house and get some of the
energy harnessed and put it to good use in the from of some
support letters. At the same time if some of the rhetoric would
cool down for at least now that may
work too, lets at least try.

They did hold an open house but from what I understand (we had a steadfast and hardworking representative in attendance), many of the "grants" were just blank forms with the mumbled excuse that they aren't complete yet.

I received assurance today that I would be receiving the completed grants electronically in the next couple of days.

Another grant meeting was going to take place during a scheduled OHV leadership meeting this week, but that meeting has been cancelled.

These public meetings are mandatory so naturally the question arises... has the mandatory requirement been fulfilled when the grants are blank?

Oh, by the way... no word on any equipment grant.

Vicki

TJ has a brilliant plan to address the complexities of the Soil Testing proceedures needed in order to obtain O&M..

I have made a few calls to our network to obtain info. So, far, everyone has said, "What a good question! That, might work for you guys. Excellent!"

I will call UC Riverside today, and (naturally) leave a message. I have been guided to a few other leads including networkers from CSP & CWN.

I beleive that "we" can learn to start utilizing grant allocations by supervising, and commenting on how to get through the loop holes via our agencies.

Just because they havn't done it this way in the past. Doesn't mean it can't be done this way in the future. And, visa versa! Let's see how deep the "precidence" goo really is? This is a good test!

Like I said Lets see, and if any one has heard anything new as to
what Spitler has said THIS YEAR I would like to hear about it.
I would like to keep this a Flak free zone and keep on track and
try to get something done.

The commission meeting on may 7th would be a good place to start off with this issue of soil monitoring.
Still however not much info as of yet about just where and even the time of day or the agenda, we need
To find someone with some soil credentials that is familiar with the soil monitoring the (hard pack folks)
Have been able to practice and just what it’s intended purpose is. Also why it is both impossible and
Without purpose to require it at places such as Glamis, Dumont Dunes etc, and the recommendations the
OHMVRD should be making to Assemblyman Maldonado for amendments to AB2666. If this is going
Into Law there is much to look at, and Maldonado is a Republican who should be more than understanding
Of this concern. Commissioner Waldheim is closely connected to the offroad community and at the same
Time seems to communicate well with Spitler. If there is a better way to do this Ed Waldheim would be
The one who would know best, so let’s try to get a proposal of to Waldheim in time for the May 7th
Meeting , if indeed this is what he feels would be the best approach.

Mr. Jeeps...a few questions and comments...no flak intended.

Have you read Spitlers "Off Road to ruin"?

Since you haven't heard Spitler say anything THIS year and he has been seen wearing a CORVA jacket, AND has been seen hanging out with Ed, are you suggesting that he may have changed his mind about removing OHV's from the face of the Earth?

Have you seen or heard about a falling out between Karen and Paul? This would have to happen if by some miracle Paul (and the green majority) has changed his mind and is now willing to issue grants without conditions (closures...that kind of stuff) attached.

I would also like to keep on track and get something done, but I also realize that until lightning strikes someone (or five) on the head and miraculously forces a change of heart with regard to the OHV community, we should be prepared for more of the same...

Maybe he (they) will stick it to us with a smile this year so we can all feel better...

Maybe I just don't see the "big picture"...

BUT, I applaud your efforts to solve the problem...

Well what I do know for sure is that if no one puts in for a grant they wont get it.
Also something to think about, if Paul has come around how do you think
some of the "green's" as we call them feel about it. Do they really want to see us and Paul get along? What kind of "tricks" do you think they would pull, that I don't think many of us would put past them?

I agree that if no grants are applied for, none can be received. Grants should be applied for...this will give the green majority an opportunity to grant them with no strings attached. I will then willingly acknowledge that the "Paul and Ed connection+ has born fruit...

Since I doubt that Paul has seen the error of his ways, the second and third sentences do not apply at this point in time.

Tricks....well, if you are alluding to the "if you don't close everything down in spite of what the RAMP suggests, we will not fund your grant, and so on..."

I suppose that if the OHV community were in the majority, and had political connections to support them, we could fund all things OHV and to hell with the green requests...but I would hate to see that happen. There is a place for legitimate environmental concerns, and they should always be addressed.

You know what? I hope I'm wrong...I hope my skepticism is ill founded. My glass is always half full...but time and time again, the greens have knocked over the glass...I'm tired of filling it back up...

Many of us on both sides are starting to find common ground, but not
everyone (on both sides),likes the idea. As you have seen

I think that while Frankie has valid concerns, the proof is indeed in the pudding.

One thing I can tell you is that the public bashing of both Commissioners mentioned here does not bode well for allowing this to happen.

The primary thing this community has to understand is how to count votes. This is politics 101. At this moment, reality suggests that the "greens" are in the majority on the Commission. So a movement by a political veteran such as Commissioner Waldheim to get Chairperson Spitler to come more our way could not hurt our cause.

I think if the Dune community wants more OHV Fund monies, they might direct some significant effort in resolving Commissioner Waldheim's concerns about accountability of the management of the ISDRA.

I'll be off line until Monday to tend to my duties as the California Speedway. We have a race to win

Just to be clear about one important thing.

I for one want less or no dirty CA money for the dunes. I'd rather not see the BLM do anything that gives some liberal CA group any power over the dunes at all. It's federal land deal with it at a federal level and lobby Congress to pony up the dough for the things they're requiring.

If the BLM had done their job in the first place they wouldn't be in such a money bind over enforcement. It's only because they let it get that bad that it became a big enough issue to require such drastic (and expensive) measures to fix. They caused it - they should pay for it.

If congress wants the BLM to monitor plants, animals, soil, phases of the moon or anything else then they also need to appropriate the appropriate funds to do so.

Leave the OHMVR money for the State parks and don't give the corrupt CA politians an in to get controll over federal land.

I speek for no one but myself but speaking for myself I feel the best damn thing the BLM could do is not apply for any grants.

In the part of the real world where people have to be accountable for their actions, or the lack thereof, the quickest way to resolve the issue is to stand up and be accountable. Show me what you've got.

About bashing the people in question...I don't buy it. Why is it that any time someone asks a legitimate question about someone else's actions it becomes "bashing". The folks in question are public figures in the OHV world, and they are simply being asked why they are, or are not, doing certain things that will have a negative impact toward the OHV community. I haven't read a single thing about Paul Spitler that is not true. Besides sometimes questioning his judgement, I haven't read a single thing that is demeaning toward Ed Waldhiem. People are just looking for answers. This comes with the territory.

I agree with the lack of accountability from the BLM regarding the ISDRA being a problem...that hurts us all.

Hi Vicki I wont go there

(note I deleted the post Vicki Quoted ,just to be fair)


This thread is getting of track , Spark plug is going to get
ticked off at me

Can we get back on track? Not, flack? Isn't that the reason we left the party atmosphere? To get some work done, over here?

I unearthed some ammo from another BLM "science" dude and OHV Coordinator in regards to "soil testing and monitoring" We discussed ST&M in detail for well over an hour.

'Shooting for O & M allocations is a lot of baggage! It's more complex than just ST&M. There's wildlife habitat protection plans, sequa species, aeolian species, etc. It's just not worth it! To expensive and eats up agency..........It would be good if we could drop one of the bags."

I asked what they would like to see happen with AB 2666 in regards to ST&M, before it is set in concrete?

A: 'Make sure that ST&M does not apply to Open Areas with no Trail Systems! And, also include a refference to Cross Country Travel. (As it's allowed in our OHV Area.) ST&M is countering to our Planning objectives.'

What he ment by "countering to our Planning objective" is:

'There are sensitive areas in the desert. (We all acknowlege and understand this issue?) The Planning objective is to allow open areas available for the recreationalist to have a place to ride that will have minimal impact on that area. This way there is no resource damage to the sensitive areas in other parts of the desert. You guys are right! It does need some looking into.'

These guys are definately one of us (riders) and became very interested on the subject matter.

I also, spoke to another BLM science dude. He is getting me a better definition of "dunes" other than the, "It's like an Etch-a-Sketch", My definition.

Both of the districts that I interviewed agreed that, there can be something done about this. And, one of them recalled in the TRT teleconference this morning with the commission that there defineatley is talk about AB 2666. And, will get me some concrete data on the subject matter of "dunes".

Right now, we will be using words such as: SAND = Degrated Para-Material, Futile Terra Firma, Micro-Biotic Crust, and, Direct result of erosion resulting in a pheonominon end result of a pile of erosion. Oh, ya, Fluid Dirt. FUTILE, INDEED!

Finally, some scientific verbage to build on! I'll add more information as the investigation continues.

Vicki, I'm going to call you tonigt. I had a long conversation with the attorney from the Dept. of Industrial Relations this afternoon in response to my questions about volunteers and prevailing wages/ AB 2690. I believe you'll be interested enough in what I've gethered and how it may effect us. Your advice please!?

TJ, you are right. I tried in dire effort, to explain this: How their comments would 'pan out' and still not be answers.

The first question that I kept posing to them was, "Why?" "Why?" and "Why?" "In a court of law, you need to have a foundation to back this statement up with. Evidence? Why, would your statement be enough to redo the current law? Need a clear difinition about the difficulties with the ST&M in regards to dunes."

I'll get this from the other guy, and visually give them something tangible to jointly apply, again at this situation and topic.

We can also discuss this in person, this Sat. (With another ST&M, OHV professional)
I'll add this to our workshop. Everyone's invited! Bring your dirt toys. NOON!

Directions to the Wildomar OHV= My Webpage

As you can see this thread has split into two issues, which is one try to
Remove some of the baggage from O&M grant applications, and two
Try to get some accountability for what little O&M funds we have.

Pushing the latter only aggravates the first issue, so we need to do both
And I would like to keep this thread focused on the first. Reading Spark-
Plugs last post and APHANTOMDUCK chiming in with his main theme
Which is accountability, gives me a grim picture of what the BLM seems
To be telling us. Which is Give us the money, Don’t ask where it went and
What you expect us to Work?

I am driving for three main goals, Efficiency, Transparency and Accountability.
The best way to achieve this is though more involvement with the process,
(Transparency) like grant open houses, OK that’s easy but Accountability boy
that can get tricky, and if you’re a Volunteer then not only are you just adding to
the baggage. Your risking them turning away from a very rare and Valuable
resource, which deducts from my main point (Efficiency).

I hear A Duck say Constant pressure Endlessly Applied. Which for many of us
Means just staying vigilant not vigilante, and always ask questions in a clam
Civil way. Not busting the door down after the process is over demanding that
Something be done, then endlessly slamming someone who has no control over
What happened, and could help you in other ways.

I've gone underground with this issue trying to obtain scientific data. You wouldn't believe where I've been, and who I have proactivly talked to. Virgin data is on the way!

We will be holding a Work Shop this Sat. 5/1/04 at the Wildomar OHV Area at noon.

Not only, will we be discussing AB 2690 and LC 1720.4 we will be conducting a roundtable training seminar on AB 2666. This will be an OHV networking and practice session. Our OHV Manager will keep us in order.

Next Tues. is our 1/4 OHV meeting. These two bills will be discussed with members of other organizations to assist us with our situation. And, to prevent them from going down the tubes as well. Concern is everywhere! As other groups are afraid of the precedence that can be set and are scared that, "they too can become INFECTED!"

Directions to the Workshop My Webpage

At this point (till we hook up with a group that is working with an attorney on this) I'm calling this "Stone Soup". We've all got to pitch-in for recreation.

I just got word from CJ on a broken cell phone call, she was leaving the Barstow
Field office and it seems they may be doing an O&M grant after all, hummm
after all ED Waldeim was at the meeting, looks like anything can happen.

CJ should be on any time with an update, the general feelin I got is that
he was force feeding it to them at least the O&M part. Will just wait for
CJ IT"S going to B an "E" ticket for sure.

Todays meeting at the Barstow Discovery Center was strickly a "focus workshop" for the BLM and Friends of Dumont Dunes on the FY2005 Grant proposal for Dumont Dunes.

Ed did a very heartfelt job of maintaining focus amongst the BLM and FOD on what each person would like to see for the future of the DD recreation area.

From my observation it was Ed's goal to personally assist the OHV Coordinator and FOD in identifying the proper account, (to request the allocations under,) on the Break-even Analysis.

Without getting into too much detail, I will share this. Upon the time that I left the meeting, 1:30 pm. (I could tell that this would probably last till 5:00 pm.) $145,797 had been listed/suggested under O&M. There was still, lot's more work to do. And, I cannot say what happened after I left.

The meeting was very focused on the Grant. It wasn't appropriate to bring up the ST&M issue at this time. (As, one of the Stakeholders told me yesterday, "I believe that dunes are exempt from ST&M. I'll double check on that, and meet with you on Tuesday.") This move to introduce a "specific topic" would have introduced chaos to the meeting, and taken time away from Ed's assistance with "the mess" we were all working on as a team.

One thing was made clear at this meeting. "Dumont Dunes" is receiving more and more use, as many families are leaving Glamis in search of a more desirable atmosphere.

I'm extreamly busy getting ready for tommorows meeting, and helping another group with an event.

TJ, I'll send you what I get sent, and let you take over from there.

It appears Ed Waldeims main concern is that the proper grants process
is being followed, from what sparkplug said he is even willing to help
them follow the process. Still no official word on the soil Vs sand
monitoring issue, everyone I talked to said I think Sand areas will be
exempt (they think) I am betting it’s going to be good news.

I feel better about this as I was beginning to think the Le Centro field
Office just flat out lied to me, as it’s so easy to just say we can’t get
O&M it’s Spitlers agenda still at work. Then just take the easy way
and collect the user fees. I think it’s safe to assume the BLM was not
aware of this change in policy as we still await official word, however
It appears Ed Waldeim is forging ahead with O&M grants.

Sparkplug referred to the Barstow meeting as a public grants workshop,
Where all the cards where on the table. Ed Waldeim showed up to help
Get all the mud out of the water, as to how to deal with our ever changing
OHMVR . This is what I was hoping for with the Le Centro field office, as
It would be much more constructive then all the finger pointing.

As for the user fees it would be nice to see some accountability for it, however
Personally I would just leave it be till the OHMVRD money stabilizes. That
Would be a good thing to air out with the users, with the BLM showing some
Transparency with ALL it’s funding sources at this meeting. I just don’t know
If this can still be done with Glamis, I for one very much want to see Glamis
back on the O&M broad.

I Have the Dumont dunes Excel file from their Grants Work shop
which was open to the public. I can't upload it so, if you want to
see the Draft copy spelling errors and all. Email me at:
TomJeeps@aol.com

High lights of Dumont Dunes Budget

Total Expense $979,291
O&M $145,797
C&E $803.434 (includes $355,500 for LEO Holiday pay)
Development $30,000 (entry road Harding)

Total income (est)
Appropriated $228,645
Other $0 (Demo fees, no data as of yet)
OHV $182,000 (est ED entered, more on this later)

Difference - $568,646

2nd sheet states that they intend to make up the shortfall
by (adjusting user fees as needed) which in my book means
if they did not apply for the O&M grant they would just do
more (adjusting) of the user fees.

Whatever the reason for not wanting to apply I have received
word from Jim Mc Garvie today is that Soil monitoring in sand
is Not one of them. Division did however warn him the this issue
may be addressed in the future, if this happens he assured me
he would be on top of it as a Stakeholder. No repeat of AB2666.

I reveived the Glamis spread sheet today, not much to talk about.
Just Law enforcement total grant $897,000.00 with $150,000.00
matching. No breakdown of Appropriated or user fees.

Looks like the only item on the table is who's cops will be on the
Dunes, Last year $265,000.00 went to Le Centro BLM for Law
enforcement. $450,000.00 went to County Sheriffs. Total last
year $715,000.00 went to Glamis so $897K looks reasonable,
it's a matter of how much goes to the BLM. I bet the County
sheriffs are asking for there own grant of about the same.

Transparency and Accountability may be the key on the BLMs
part .

I talked to Neil Hamada today he stated he his also going to apply for
some Conservation money, and for whatever reason they are not going
to apply for O&M. My main issue with him is that I just will not except
anyone stating in public that it's Spitler's agenda still at work, that is
just bogus. All the junk flying around on the BBS is one thing I just don't
expect to hear it from someone like Neil who is a manager, this only adds
to the problem for no reason.

Bottom line here is if he don't want the money fine, thats between him
and the local users, but when it comes to public bashing of Spitler, Ed
Waldheim or anyone on the OHMVR or OHMVRD it's everyones problem.