This opinion piece by Vince Brunasso of the ASA was printed today in the Yuma Sun...thought some of you might find it interesting:
This is the whole post from the ASA site:




"I am not sure how much they printed or what version - I sent one out to each newspaper that printed an article about the BO that week - my latest thoughts got added to each one I sent. But here's the final version:Quote:


Recovery my Astragalus (Peirson’s milk vetch)

While your article on is one of the first to actually use the term TEMPORARY when referencing closures that resulted from a negotiated settlement between CBD et al and the BLM at the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA), several other pertinent facts were omitted that your readers may want to know.

The most important fact is that when the CBD settled with the BLM over Peirson's milk-vetch (Astragalus magdalenae var.peirsonii) (PMV) they agreed to the closures as TEMPORARY. Now that all of the stipulations of the settlement have been met and the TEMPORARY closures are due to be re-opened with the implementation of a new Area Management Plan, they are backpedaling as fast as they can grasping at straws to keep the closures in place. It was never their intent that the closures be TEMPORARY. Since the beginning, the CBD has been lying to the public; they have wanted permanent closures all along. I was told this by their attorney when the closures first went up, “institutional momentum”, he said.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) twice, not once, issued biological opinions that declare the new management plan for the ISDRA adequately protects the PMV and the other species that occur in the dunes. This is because most of the closures will stay intact.

33,289 out of the 49,000 TEMPORARILY closed acres will be managed as an Adaptive Management Area (AMA). Only 575 vehicles will be allowed in at any given moment into the area during hours of daylight from October through April. If you look at it from a standpoint of a ratio of "time open" to "time closed", it is closed ¾ or 75% of the year. It is closed 24/7 through the summer and closed at night during the winter – that’s open only ¼ or 25% of the time. If anyone thinks that is a 50/50 deal, it seems they need some math lessons.

Taken one step further, assume an average weekend of 40,000 visitors. Assume average persons per sand vehicle are 1.5 for a total of 26,667 sand vehicles. Out of that, only 525 vehicles, or 1.98% would be allowed in. So stated another way, the AMA is closed to over 98% of sand sport enthusiasts 75% of the time. For a weekend of 100,000, the percentage goes over 99%.

The CBD declares that the TEMPORARY closures have had the desired effect in that a “recovery” has occurred. That’s very interesting since most of the closed areas don’t support life because the sand is moving all the time. The large drifting dunes always were and always will be bare of any vegetation regardless of how many vehicles pass by. It also doesn’t explain how Dr. Art Phillips, III, PhD. just recently counted over 200,000+ plants in areas that are OPEN to motorized recreation. BLM’s estimates go as high as 1,000,000 PMV plants for the whole dune system. “Recovery” did not occur: RAIN did. Let me repeat that: RAIN is the largest influence on the number of plants in the dunes. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that.

Also seldom mentioned is the Imperial Dunes Wilderness Area just across Highway 78 where motorized recreation is not allowed. Wilderness means NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES. Environmentalists moan that they have no dunes to hike or of which to take pictures. That is a ruse – they know that the dunes wilderness is there but want most of what is left too. At over 26,500 acres, this 40 square mile patch of pristine land is off limits to all vehicles and sits waiting for those thousands of footprints that never occur.

Just how big is 40 square miles? Manhattan Island is only 22 square miles. San Francisco is 47 square miles with a population of 750,000. Boston is 44 square miles with a population over 500,000. But this is not enough: they want another 49,000 acres for a total of 118 square miles or an area 2.5 times as large as San Francisco.

Surely is 40 square miles is enough acreage to sustain just about anything: why not a plant that grows even more abundantly in Mexico? That’s right, this dune set continues well into Mexico. No one has the intestinal fortitude to answer the question: “Is that enough to sustain and preserve the species at the Imperial Sand Dunes?”

Let me lead you in the correct direction. All of the following dunes are closed to motorized recreation. It is not a complete list, but many are smaller than 26,500 acres: how is it that these smaller acreages are adequate to protect the species in those areas?
· Black Sands Beach
· Cadiz Dunes
· Eureka
· Guadalupe Dunes
· Humboldt Dunes
· Ibex
· Kelso
· Marina Dunes
· Morro Bay Sand Spit
· Panamint
· Rice Valley
· Saline

The environmental community just cannot have it all. Moreover, they don’t NEED it all. The bottom line at the ISDRA is that anti-access groups want to prohibit access to areas that total 2.5 times the area of San Francisco and more than 5 times the area of Manhattan Island – 5 TIMES!

There are already more acres of sand dunes PERMANENTLY CLOSED to motorized recreation than there are open to it.

Enough is enough. According to the experts in 2 biological opinions, the dunes’ biosphere is adequately protected. We’re not asking for all that much in comparison to total acreage of dunes in America – most of which are already off limits to us.

Vince Brunasso
American Sand Association
Co-founder and Legal Chairman
909-596-3147
c 714-307-3904

_________________


Great job Vince

I can't wait to see any responses to this....

Vince omitted the fact that the green community wanted the central closures as far back as about 1975. During congressional committee sessions, I'm told the greens showed the initial maps of what they felt needed protection in the California desert.

Then, in about 1976, these maps became more available to the public as they were presented to BLM during its "Interim Critical Management Plan" process as a "wish list" from the greens.

The greens howled loudly in about 1980-1981 when they didn't get the central dune closures as part of the Congressionally required Desert Plan.

I'm aware that this "loss" by the greens in that time was part of the plan introduced in 1986 for Wilderness in the California desert. But then again in 1994, Congress failed to designate the central dunes as Wilderness.

And as we all know by now, the newest tactic is that of litigation. But, once again, the long-term goal of central dune closure has not yet been met.

Vince,

Great job!

Duck,

The Interim Critical Management Plan did close down Kelso in about 1976, so they did win quite a bit.....

Ah, but it is effectively closed. The BLM won't lift the closure stakes without a permit plan (which could have been designed over the last three years but wasn't).

And then there's the Andrew's Dune Scarab Beetle... not yet listed as an endangered species, but is in litigation and then the AMA will be targeted again.

And the attorneys grow richer.

Vicki

Recovery my Astragalus (Peirson’s milk vetch)

While your article on is one of the first to actually use the term TEMPORARY when referencing closures that resulted from a negotiated settlement between CBD et al and the BLM at the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA), several other pertinent facts were omitted that your readers may want to know.

The most important fact is that when the CBD settled with the BLM over Peirson's milk-vetch (Astragalus magdalenae var.peirsonii) (PMV) they agreed to the closures as TEMPORARY. Now that all of the stipulations of the settlement have been met and the TEMPORARY closures are due to be re-opened with the implementation of a new Area Management Plan, they are backpedaling as fast as they can grasping at straws to keep the closures in place. It was never their intent that the closures be TEMPORARY. Since the beginning, the CBD has been lying to the public; they have wanted permanent closures all along. I was told this by their attorney when the closures first went up, “institutional momentum”, he said.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) twice, not once, issued biological opinions that declare the new management plan for the ISDRA adequately protects the PMV and the other species that occur in the dunes. This is because most of the closures will stay intact.

33,289 out of the 49,000 TEMPORARILY closed acres will be managed as an Adaptive Management Area (AMA). Only 575 vehicles will be allowed in at any given moment into the area during hours of daylight from October through April. If you look at it from a standpoint of a ratio of "time open" to "time closed", it is closed ¾ or 75% of the year. It is closed 24/7 through the summer and closed at night during the winter – that’s open only ¼ or 25% of the time. If anyone thinks that is a 50/50 deal, it seems they need some math lessons.

Taken one step further, assume an average weekend of 40,000 visitors. Assume average persons per sand vehicle are 1.5 for a total of 26,667 sand vehicles. Out of that, only 525 vehicles, or 1.98% would be allowed in. So stated another way, the AMA is closed to over 98% of sand sport enthusiasts 75% of the time. For a weekend of 100,000, the percentage goes over 99%.

The CBD declares that the TEMPORARY closures have had the desired effect in that a “recovery” has occurred. That’s very interesting since most of the closed areas don’t support life because the sand is moving all the time. The large drifting dunes always were and always will be bare of any vegetation regardless of how many vehicles pass by. It also doesn’t explain how Dr. Art Phillips, III, PhD. just recently counted over 200,000+ plants in areas that are OPEN to motorized recreation. BLM’s estimates go as high as 1,000,000 PMV plants for the whole dune system. “Recovery” did not occur: RAIN did. Let me repeat that: RAIN is the largest influence on the number of plants in the dunes. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that.

Also seldom mentioned is the Imperial Dunes Wilderness Area just across Highway 78 where motorized recreation is not allowed. Wilderness means NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES. Environmentalists moan that they have no dunes to hike or of which to take pictures. That is a ruse – they know that the dunes wilderness is there but want most of what is left too. At over 26,500 acres, this 40 square mile patch of pristine land is off limits to all vehicles and sits waiting for those thousands of footprints that never occur.

Just how big is 40 square miles? Manhattan Island is only 22 square miles. San Francisco is 47 square miles with a population of 750,000. Boston is 44 square miles with a population over 500,000. But this is not enough: they want another 49,000 acres for a total of 118 square miles or an area 2.5 times as large as San Francisco.

Surely is 40 square miles is enough acreage to sustain just about anything: why not a plant that grows even more abundantly in Mexico? That’s right, this dune set continues well into Mexico. No one has the intestinal fortitude to answer the question: “Is that enough to sustain and preserve the species at the Imperial Sand Dunes?”

Let me lead you in the correct direction. All of the following dunes are closed to motorized recreation. It is not a complete list, but many are smaller than 26,500 acres: how is it that these smaller acreages are adequate to protect the species in those areas?
· Black Sands Beach
· Cadiz Dunes
· Eureka
· Guadalupe Dunes
· Humboldt Dunes
· Ibex
· Kelso
· Marina Dunes
· Morro Bay Sand Spit
· Panamint
· Rice Valley
· Saline

The environmental community just cannot have it all. Moreover, they don’t NEED it all. The bottom line at the ISDRA is that anti-access groups want to prohibit access to areas that total 2.5 times the area of San Francisco and more than 5 times the area of Manhattan Island – 5 TIMES!

There are already more acres of sand dunes PERMANENTLY CLOSED to motorized recreation than there are open to it.

Enough is enough. According to the experts in 2 biological opinions, the dunes’ biosphere is adequately protected. We’re not asking for all that much in comparison to total acreage of dunes in America – most of which are already off limits to us.


"Nice article. "

Well written, nice job. Thanks for posting it. Perhaps there's hope after all.

I should have prefaced my history lesson showing that I was referring to the ISDRA. You are right John, Kelso was closed and what a shame that was.

And Vicki, you too are correct. While there has been some positive movement with regard to the ISDRA, the attorneys are the only ones "winning".

We need to find a more permanent solution. I've offered my solution in the past, but it’s been rejected by those who visit this board. I don't have an answer at this moment, but would like to see a discussion of other ideas.

I'm just amazed they printed it...

Thanks Vince for ALL the work you do so the tens of thousands that recreate at the dunes (ISDRA) each year can hope to see the END to any future closures (temp. or perm.) now that we are AWAKE!!!

Are you a member yet???

ASA free
CORVA
SDORC
DUNERS
BRC

Way to go Vince !!!.

Vickie you also have a good point. But one could ask why would the BLM waste time on any permit plan when everything regarding the matter is tied up in court with no end in sight ( untill now ) that is !,,,,,I hope . assuming on sept 30th the court / judge you know who, rules in our favor !.

We'll see, come October, just what was and what was not planned for during the (much too long) time it took to get the biological opinion blessed.

The cynical side of my brain says that the BLM will pick and choose the action items that suit them best.

Cooperating with the Glamis Beach Store, for instance, in eliminating mid-week vending at the ISDRA, seems to have taken a high priority. And even though that particular RAMP condition requires a plan of action too, manpower expended, long talks, strategy, etc., I have no doubt it is already designed and the restrictions will be implemented post-haste. Why? Most likely because they think that cooperating with the private business owners will keep them out of litigation (once again underestimating the solidarity of the mid-week vendors and ire of the duning community).

Why haven't they come up with a plan for the AMA yet? Perhaps they believe that keeping the large central closure in place as long as possible under the guise of no plan of action lends an air of cooperation with the anti-access folks... to "us" they hope it appears "hey, we're moving as fast as we can, give us a break" and to "them" they hope it appears "don't get your shorts in a bunch, no one's riding there until we say they can." Action through inaction, so to speak.

Just my cynical opinion, of course.

Vicki

?????????????.

Is there any way one of the Dune Org's could press the BLM for progress reports on there "PLAN " of action ??. ( and get an answer ).

There is an honest to goodness tear in my eye right now...
I luv ya, man!

To the extent that we can,ASA will keep the public informed.

There is a thread on the ASA boards dealing with this issue now.


VJB, you are my hero.

Could someone post what was actually "printed" in the paper?

The Yuma Sun did not post the article on the website. They printed it in the newspaper only.