Posted on Thursday, June 24 @ 15:46:14 PST
Plan for desert upsets environmentalists

Submitted by CYW92328
County aims to 'restore' access to land through 1866 mining law, group says

By Andrew Silva

SAN BERNARDINO - The long-running philosophical battle over the future of the desert erupted again Tuesday at the county Board of Supervisors meeting, this time over something as arcane and usually boring as the vision statement for the county general plan.

About a dozen environmentalists argued the vision statement makes it the county's policy to seek reopening desert lands that have been closed to certain activities, such as mining and off-roading.

"I've been to a bunch of community meetings (on the general plan) and this is not what the people want,' Joshua Tree resident Valerie Davis said after the meeting.

The vision statement, which was approved unanimously, is the overarching guide to drafting a new 20-year general plan, which is the blueprint for growth and development in the county.

The vision statement was created by a 15-member committee of citizens after 24 community meetings throughout the county to seek input.

Board members came down squarely on the side of those looking to restore access to areas of the desert that were lost with the passage of the California Desert Protection Act in 1994 and other legislation.

The act created the Mojave National Preserve as the nation's newest national park, and upgraded Joshua Tree and Death Valley national monuments to national park status.

At issue is the part of the two-page vision statement that reads: "Our vision for the future of the county includes ... recovery and maintenance of multi-use access to public lands, including regional parks, national parks, national forests, state parks and Bureau of Land Management areas.' "We say 'restore' because we've had rights taken away from us by the federal government, all of us,' said First District Supervisor Bill Postmus, who represents most of the desert area, and has been a staunch advocate of reopening certain desert lands.

Environmentalists tried to argue that spending money on attempts to restore access takes away from other important projects, while violating the sanctity of the national parks.

"What is the county hoping to recover in national parks like Death Valley, Mojave National Preserve and Joshua Tree?' said Howard Gross, a Joshua Tree resident and representative of the National Parks Conservation Association, an environmental group not affiliated with the National Park Service.

Several environmentalists referred to the county's efforts to gain control of roads on federal lands under an outdated mining law from 1866 called Revised Statute 2477, which has become one of the hot-button issues in the West in the past few years.

Postmus and board Chairman Dennis Hansberger said environmentalists have been deliberately inflaming people by saying the county is looking to pave new roads through national parks.

"That's absolutely not true,' he said. He called the publicity campaigns by environmentalists "malicious,' and agreed with Postmus that the county should try to protect its people when the federal government goes too far.

Environmentalists countered that citizens also have the right to quiet enjoyment of their public lands.

"I'm offended two supervisors said they were trying to protect the rights of citizens,' said Melinda Hedley of Joshua Tree.

The final version of the statement did delete a reference to continued off-highway vehicle opportunities.

Copyright © 2004 San Bernardino County Sun

If Postmus is your supervisor, please send him an email telling him how much you support multiple use access to public lands, including mining, grazing and off-road vehicle use.

Here's a list of his communities.

And here is his email address: SupervisorPostmus@sbcounty.gov

Vicki

I'd have to think aligning ourselves with mining interests is not going to help make our cause palatable to the middle ground, people who have had the evils of any kind of mineral extraction pounded into their heads for years. Mining is probably a lot more harmful to the environment than OHV use...jmho.

Dave

PSD, personally I don't really think our cause is ever going to be palatable no matter who we align with. And I'm actually surprised when any other access organization is willing to align with an OHV group because of how controversial we are compared to, let's say, a group of mountain bikers or horsemen. Even mining, which can be anything from recreational gold panning on the weekends to all out dredging, is less offensive to John Q. Public than our loud machines and attitude as presented by the bad guys.

But in this case, supporting Postmus would not really be considered aligning ourselves with the miners since the "mining law" that is referred to is just that, the law and not the activity. That mining law is also considered by many to be our last, best hope at retaining access to millions of trails and dirt roads across our nation, roads that are used for public land access from hauling a horse trailer up to a trailhead, to hiking the back country of our deserts (as recounted by the Desert Advisory Council environmental representative during one meeting). The fact that the pro-access regulation is under a "mining" law is coincidental.

Just as the anti-access organizations are using the fine print in the Endangered Species Act to slowly choke off access to our public lands, there are many pro-access organizations pursuing the fine print in RS 2477 to fight for continued access to our public lands.

Vicki