This just in from Roy Denner of ORBA...

AT APPROXIMATELY 4:00 P.M. TODAY (PACIFIC TIME), CONGRESSMAN DUNCAN HUNTER PROPOSED TO CONGRESS AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILL STATING THAT FEE DEMO MONEY (CAMPING FEES) SHALL NOT BE USED IN THE FUTURE FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES TO DETERMINE THE STATUS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THE IMPERIAL SAND DUNES RECREATION AREA (ISDRA). HE WAS FOLLOWED BY CONGRESSMAN RICHARD POMBO WHO PROJECTED A PICTURE OF THE SAND CAR THAT WAS PURCHASED WITH FEE DEMO MONEY TO BE USED FOR THE MONITORING EFFORT. BOTH CONGRESSMEN TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS NEVER THE INTENT OF THE FEE DEMO PROGRAM TO USE FEES PAID BY USERS TO FUND SUCH STUDIES – DEMO FEES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN INTENDED TO SUPPORT IMPROVEMENTS AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AT THE ISDRA.

THE MINORITY PARTY LEADER IN CONGRESS THEN QUESTIONED CONGRESSMAN HUNTER ON THE ALMOST 1 MILLION DOLLAR STUDY THAT WAS DONE USING CAMPING FEES AT THE ISDRA. HE PROCEEDED TO COMMENT THAT HE PARTICIPATED WITH CONGRESSMAN REGULA IN DRAFTING THE ORIGINAL FEE DEMO BILL – AND AGREED THAT IT WAS NEVER THE INTENT OF THE BILL TO USE FEE DEMO MONEY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES! HE WAS IN TOTAL SUPPORT OF CONGRESSMAN HUNTER’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

NO OTHER CONGRESSMEN TESTIFIED. THE VOTE WAS TAKEN AND CONGRESSMAN HUNTER’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED WITH AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY!!!

THIS BILL STILL HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE SENATE. WE MUST CONTINUE TO CALL OUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS AND CALL OR WRITE TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN, FROM CALIFORNIA, WHO IS ON THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. THIS WILL BE A MAJOR WIN – NOT ONLY FOR THE OHV COMMUNITY IN CALIFORNIA – BUT FOR ALL FORMS OF RECREATION NATIONWIDE. THIS IS A PRECEDENT-SETTING ACTION!

==============================

For more on this and links to help us keep the heat on...

http://www.glamisdunes.com/invision/index....showtopic=22923

This is why it's so important to keep our lobbing efforts moving full steam ahead in DC

that is VERY GOOD NEWS. .... ....

This came in over night... it seems that we took a big step forward yesterday, but also several steps backward...

***** BRC ALERT ***** BRC ALERT ***** BRC ALERT ***** BRC ALERT *****

INTERIOR APPROPRIATION VOTE SOON DANGEROUS ANTI-ACCESS AMENDMENTS OFFERED PLEASE TAKE ACTION TODAY!

What I have discovered so far is that yesterday's Hunter amendment was, of course, a good thing to support but judging by some of the other amendments that could have also been discussed yesterday but were moved to today, we could have been in trouble. We may still be, if they pass.

The OHV community is being hit from lots of different sides, and a "big picture" approach is sometimes called for. For instance, some of the proposed amendments on this legislation do not effect us as specifically as using fee demo money for monitoring, but they were still worth our attention. But we didn't have that information.

If we did, since many of us were busy calling/faxing/emailing our representatives anyway, we could have been voicing our opinions on the other amendments at the same time.

Thanks to Jon for bringing the amendments to our attention... but even he didn't know about it until just before he posted it.

I've learned a valuable lesson over the last 24 hours (several actually) and today I am working on ways to keep from not knowing about such things in the future. Even this Hunter amendment was brought up almost too late for our support. I'll see what I can do to keep that from happening again.

Vicki

Glad to hear that our efforts to fight the way the fees are used worked! Now onto the next level!

What will become of the sand rail that they bought with our funds? Will they prohibit them from using it for monitoring, and make them use for EMT rescues or ranger patrol? Lets hope so.

I really wish we ALL could back to the way it was 10 years ago and just dune! But I wish I was 6'5", 215#s, and a millionare too. Neither one is going to happen.

We have to deal with the reality of working with the BLM and Federal Governement, and it is real hard not to "but", if you know what I mean...


I DO NOT LIKE THE FEES!!!

I pay for two passes a year ($180), as I go for a week each time and need my pickup to go into town for parts and supplies. I am a municipal empolyee, which means I'm not rich...

BUT , if it comes down to paying fees or getting MORE rstrictions at the dunes, I'll pick the fees...

If that is YOUR only choice, what would pick?

I work in government and understand, somewhat, how it works.

If the BLM loses the funding from the fees, Washigton DC WILL NOT immediately make up the difference. It will take years to get the support to get the BLM funding stream changed to adequately fund the NECCESSARY services at the ISDRA.

Like it or not, that is the way the Federal Government works. You have to think in terms of YEARS, even DECADES, when dealing with the governement and trying to get laws passsed. (It takes an average 14 years to get a law passed in Washington DC.)

So, while the local BLM loses their funding, and with the increased pressure from the eco-wackos, the media, and OHV organizations, the BLM MUST provide basic services like EMS, Law Enforcement, and maintainance in reference to the amount of visitation at the ISDRA.

The eco-wackos will sue the BLM for anything to get us out of the dunes. Lack of EMS, danger to the public if there is not enough LEO', danger to LEOs if they don't have enough backup, trash, trash, trash, and speieces of concern witll be some of the reasons for them to sue. If you don't believe, watch that anti-OHV PEER video about the dunes.

If the BLM does not have the money, some things won't get done. That leaves the BLM potentialy liable, therefore the BLM will have to do something. Well, when you run out of money, you cut services. When you are already at the minimum, you have to restrict the visitation. At the ISDRA, the only practical way to restrict the number of visitors is to close off ertain camping areas, Like Buttercup, Gordons Well, and / or Olgiby while putting up entry gates at Gecko and the Wash Road. (I hope that I never see this, but we have to face this as a possible reality.)

The local BLM simply can't get an extra million or two from Washington DC overnight, or in a year. The Federal appropiation system just does not work that way. It is a slow, ponderous system. (Much like the Titanic with a full head of steam, it just can't turn fast enough to avoid the approaching iceberg )

That is why I write the posts the way I do. I'm not out to discredit anyone, or group. I just want people to think about ALL sides of the issues.

Some people (me included) are very passionate about the dunes and some people's passion for an issue blinds them to the potential results. This is like a chess game, you have to look at ALL the potential opponent moves before you more, or you might lose your "queen".

I dearly hope VOR is successful, and I hope that Washington DC makes up the difference if the fees go away from appropiated funds. The ISDRA should have ALWAYS been funded by appropiated funds for the amount of visitation at the time as we already paid for it with our taxes!

BUT , that has not happened, nor are we likely to see that in the near future.

What happens if the BLM does not get the proper funding in a timely fashion? I foresee some camping areas closed (like Gordon's / Ogilby area) as the BLM would not be able to provide basic services to all areas.

If you think we have problems now with the fees, what if that happened?

Sometime, you have to be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

Idealogically I agree with VOR a lot and he makes good points, BUT we need answers to these hard questions, or at least explore the possibilities.

I am somewhat suprised to see one of my dune organization's president seems to have definate stance on the fees and has no idea, or specific opinion, on the fees, monitoring, or the possibilities. I hope I'm wrong, BUT since one person is always suggesting we hold our leaders accountable, I think I'll ask.

VICKI, as my DUNERs President, what is DUNERs official, specific stance on the fees? What is DUNERs stance / opinion on the possible problems to the ISDRA if the BLM loses the funding from the fees?

I agree with most all of what you have stated here Tim. However, it is my contention that ALL sand groups start at the local level of BLM in the immediate future to get BLM to ask for appropriate funding of the dunes. Of course, we need to follow this at the District, State, and DC level.

I see this as a perfect opportunity to form a "partnership" with BLM, OHV groups, local Congressional folks, etc. to get this to happen in Fiscal Year 2006. The opportunity is great in that at this time, we have friendly folks to our cause in powerful positions in DC. Heck, Congressperson Bill Thomas (R CA) is the Chair of the House Appropriations Committee. He is a friend and understands our issues.

You are correct that this takes time and this approach will not effect this upcoming season, but the following season could likely see significant improvement if this approach is instituted

What a great way for the dune related groups to work together without expending significant financial resources with attorneys. Instead, this might be a great “grass-roots” venture, with a bit of help of the existing DC legislative advocates retained by the sand groups.

I’m now starting to understand why some people around here are for the ISDRA fee program

Thank you Mike330R for the question
Thank you GRANT@FUNCO for the answer

And I haven't seen ANYONE around here that is FOR the "fee program". To me "FOR" would mean not opposing or accepting it. I haven't seen that from anyone.

When the ASA pushes for fee compliance I call that “for fees”
I can’t see the BLM giving a vehicle contract paid with fee money to a business/company that does not support fees.
This has the same smell as the TRT members receiving free passes in return for support of fees
How can the TRT be against the fee when the fee created the TRT?

The ASA (and others) "push" for compliance because they feel that as a national organization trying to make a difference with lawmakers and our (offroaders') "image" with the public, it is the ONLY way to be able to have any credibility. If the orgs were to go around condoning breaking what is now the law, we would be no better than any other "extremist" group that advocates using any means possible to show they are unhappy (think ELF here). The important thing here is to look at what the orgs are trying to change in a LEGAL manner. Of the orgs I have some knowledge of (not many-mostly the ASA and DUNERS) I have never once seen them promote that they agree with the fee itself, only the compliance with the fee until it can be changed. Does that mean that they are going to be the group to get it changed? Probably not, the ASA has its' hands full already fighting the milkvetch. But look at the ASA's response to the RAMP-it OPPOSES new laws, fees, AMA's etc.-all there in black and white. Those changes don't happen overnight-in the meantime advocating going outside the law because we are unhappy with it doesn't help us in this fight either.

One other thing, are we speaking of the same buggy that is used in the rescue operations? Or does the BLM now have 2 Funcos? Grant?

Either way, I will say this, if you think Grant George would sell out to the BLM and support fees just to make whatever his profit is on ONE buggy(or even 2 or 10), I have to laugh and assume you have never really had any dealings with the man. I have never seen Grant try to "sell" a buggy to anyone, no less compromise himself or the people he represents as the president of the ASA just to make a dollar

And this has been mentioned many, many times before about the TRT-it's a $90 pass that these guys spend hundreds of dollars of their own money and tons of their time to "earn". Do you really think they join the TRT to get a free $90 pass??? And yes, I have seen TRT members "oppose" the idea of fee demo, but I sure would rather that we have a group of duners involved to try and give some input as to where that money is going to go (you know, the money that is going to be collected no matter who opposes the idea of the ISDRA fee program in the first place). It amazes me that there is anyone out there that thinks that these guys would "support" a program cuz they get a "free" pass

You can be in opposition of the fees and laws, but you still have to abide by them!

If the ASA, or DUNERs, advocated for its members to not pay the fees, we would lose all credibility with the government. We would just be another "extreme" group and we would be justifying the anti-acces groups claim when they say OHV owners are lawbreakers.

Just because the ASA reccomends that people comply with the laws and fees, does not mean the ASA agrees with the fees. Also, the BLM uses the data from the fees to help justify there needs and counts the number of users. This data helps the BLM get more in Washington.

Remember, the fees came from laws / rules passed in Washington during the Clinton era. Way before the ASA was formed. This is a law we have to comply with until the law is changed. There are groups working on that as we speak.

If you think that the fees are the worst problem we are facing at the ISDRA, you are probably posting on the wrong forum. I'm sure there are websites devoted to that issue. For me, I don't like the fees, but they are are minor issue compared to the ongoing fight with OHV area access and the twisting of the ESA by the eco-wackos.

schraderrl: You have been perusing these BBSs for a long time and know this to be true. It is wrong to post "coy" messages alluding to some type of wrong doing by someone or group. This only creates contention and may foster mistrust by some of the less informed readers. If you got an opinion or facts, state them, otherwise, keep the veiled references to yourself!

I'm getting tired of seeing certain people constantly posting inuendos, half truths, or personal attacks. This does nothing to further our cause.

Vicki-
Are you speaking about taking a stance on the opposition or support of fees or taking a stance on fee compliance, if the fee continues to remain in effect? As I stated above, I have never seen DUNERS advocate breaking the law and tell duners not to pay the fee, and I do believe I am correct in my statement that DUNERS (along with the ASA) advocates fee compliance unless and until the law is changed. Just want to make sure I am correct in thinking this. Or is this one of the issues you will be trying to come up with a stance on with your membership?
Julie

One more thing, and maybe this doesn't even matter because it will be your personal opinion, do you feel that advocating fee compliance while the law is in effect is actually being supportive of the law itself (basically like Schraderrl is saying)?

I agree

And I did believe that even though that may not be DUNERS official stance, that the general feeling was as long as it is "the law" we (the orgs) can't harm ourselves by advocating breaking it.

My issue is with how Schraderrl is insinuating that by advocating fee compliance an org is "supporting" the fee itself. I feel like you stated on the previous page-that they are 2 distinct and very seperate issues.

Thank you for the answers-
Julie

Hmmmm...

I have mixed feelings about this subject. While I sympathize with those who feel the fees infringe on their "rights", I do not share that view. I have always believed that lots of things we take for granted are, in fact, a privilege...not a "right". It's just my opinion, and I ain't gonna argue with anyone about it.

I do not necessarily have an issue with "fees"...I DO have a problem with how they are being used. I would like to see an advisory committee with some real legal clout set in place by the feds to insure that the fees were being used to inhance the ISDRA "experience" instead of being subverted and spent to cover their a$$.

It would be great if by some miracle the feds decided to properly fund the ISDRA so that fees would be unnecessary...

just don't hold your breath until it happens.

Oh, yeah...it's nice to see another thread being treated with respect.

I agree with everything you have stated above Frankie-especially this part "I would like to see an advisory committee with some real legal clout set in place by the feds to insure that the fees were being used to inhance the ISDRA "experience" instead of being subverted and spent to cover their a$$."

Though I appreciate the hard work, time and money put into the dunes by the TRT members, I don't really feel they have the "clout" to ensure "OUR" money is being spent the way we would wish, or even allowing for NO money to go towards "improvements or services" and just leaving the dunes alone, if that is the wish of the majority of dune users.-, i.e. VOR's wishes-no services so no need for fees. Basically, I feel like they have as much "clout" as a union in a "right to work" state

One thing I do know for sure though-without doing any polls, surveys, etc of dune users: WE do not want "OUR" money spent in any way, shape or form on monitoring a supposedly "endangered" species that the GAGs will then use against us!

Thanks, but I doubt if my outlook on fees, ect, will be very popular...!!!

I figure that Jeff and Brian are gonna crucify me after reading my post!! That's ok...I still respect their point of view

I should have said this...

I meant no disrespect toward the TRT...in fact, given the power to affect change and inforce the rules, the TRT could be effective, since they are already familiar with the system. Besides, I don't want Glenn to come lookin' for me...!!!

I surely didn't take it as being "disrespectful" and I don't think they would either-many times they have been the ones to point out how limited they really are in "making" anyone follow their recommendations. I've always seen it as the TRT members already know that, it is others who expect them to be able to "demand" that things change.

Thank you Tim for pointing out and reminding me that we have covered this ground before.
Looking back I see I fell into the same sand trap last year and it is interesting to note the same players in almost the same order
http://www.americansandassociation.org/php...=asc&highlight=

Now to clear up 3 things
#1- I think the BLM could use an ethics training class
#2- I never advocated breaking the law
Just don’t be so pro active and try to sell the idea of “turning in your neighbor” or tell people that with more compliance will come lower fees
“Obey all laws in the dunes” is all that has to be said, is my opinion
#3- I’m sure it is a great honor to be picked by the BLM for the TRT and all I am saying is the TRT was formed to support the fee program

Hmmm, sorry it took me so long to see this thread.

Just to throw an opinion out there:

I stand opposed to Fees...
I also stand opposed to the pushing of "Fee Compliance".
This does not mean that I advocate breaking the law, although there IS a method for NOT paying Demo Fee WITHOUT breaking the law! (it's a questionable method... If your interested ask me)
Anyway, What I really do not like is the constant pushing for "fee compliance" as if that will make it so. For a while there every other post at ASA was about this.
I actually saw people berated for simply stating that they planned on not paying as a form of protest. This is their right and they should at the very least be supported, if not encouraged to do what they felt was right.
People were made to feel as if they weren't true duners if they avoided paying the fee. This was completely uncalled for.

I do not openly or publicly advocate the breaking of the law. I WILL NOT, howver, make it my public stance that "Fee Compliance" MUST be encouraged.

PastorVor

VICKI:

Thanks for answering my question. As my DUNERs president, I am only interested in DUNERs' offcial opinion. I understand that your opion may may be different at times with DUNERs official stance, just like mine does at times with DUNERs and the ASA. A person can not always agree with everything their group does.

As to your opinion, it is just as valid as mine, but it is up to you to decide whether or not to share it with us. I would like to suggest that when you speak your OWN opinion you clearly post it as such, and, of course when you are posting as DUNERs president, you clearly mark that as well. You post a lot and it sometimes can get confusing which entity you are speaking for.

As for DUNERs official stance on the fees, which is none except they system is messed up (doh - we ARE dealing with the government) I would like to assist with helping shape the official stance and would like to provide input to the DUNERs BOD, as I probably will not be able to travel to CA. for the DUNERs meeting. Could you please e-mail me the DUNERs BOD list and their e-mail addresses, or post them for others to contact them too.

Thanks


VOR:

As for encouraging fee compliance by organizations. There is a valid law in effect and the fee cost is based on compliance. The LAW ABIDING folks who pay the fees are paying for the "deadbeats" who don't!

I don't like paying $180 a season for two passes, but I really get steamed when I pay my share per the laws in place and others don't. This is wrong, and for any legitimate, official group to state otherwise is irresponsible and that organization will lose credibility. I doubt even the anti-fee groups publicaly state to ignore the law.

schraderrl:

Ill state my opinion on the demo fees. They told us fees where needed to hire more officers and control big weekends. They told us fees where needed to improve restrooms and camping facilities. Then they say $30 dollars isnt enough we need more to continue with our plan, so they jack up the fee to $90 a season.

Then we find out the BLM bastards are using the fee money to pay for an un needed Biological Study that the offroad groups already did that was Peer reviewed but ignored. Why dont we just all donate $90 a year to the CBD so they can close down the dunes.

So heres my opinion.
THEY CAN STICK THEIR FEES WHERE THE SUN DONT SHINE!

anybody need a clarification on my stance?

Well Flash... according to Tim you are a deadbeat...
I had to take a few deep breaths to keep from blowing my top on that one, Tim.

If you knew ANYTHING about the Demo Fee program AT ALL you would know that it was ORIGINALLY designed to offer up areas which were pay and areas which were not. It was the people like YOU which got the free areas removed with your crying and whining!
You would also know that as Demo Fee is written is is VOLUNTAIRY, not mandatory and those who choose to not purchass a pass are effectivly casting their vote AGAINST Demo Fee. Again, because of whiners like yourself the BLM has resorted to strong arm tactics, guilt trips and even brutality to ensure that everyone pays their fair share... Because we all know that IF TIM has to pay, then everyone better be paying, even if they believe the damn thing to be ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL and a complete and utter FAILURE!

AND, by the way...

PastorVor