15000 acres were opened on Fri

Good, now we'll get G.W. Bush to tell the Greenies that he is gonna open the other 34,000 by this summer!!!

Not true unfortunatly. What happened on friday is the BLM released their draft RAMP (Recreation Area Management Plan) for the ISDRA which includes the possibility of reopening 15k of the 50k acres that were improperly and illegally closed.

(Yes the closures were illegal when implemented - that is why the BLM had to backtrack and reclose them in response to the ASA's lawsuit to reopen them.)

The RAMP however is not yet official and is only in planning stages. Giving us back 15k of 50k acres that were improperly taken is completely unacceptable. To make matters worse this same draft plan includes such things as:

Banning alcohol from everywhere except camp.

Closing Comp, Olds, Patton and Test at night.

Limiting the number of users in some of the proposed to be re-opened areas.

Limits on the number of total users of the dunes if visitors increase...and possibly even if they stay the same.

All of these things listed above appear in every single possible outcome from the RAMP at this time. The RAMP lists several possible management plans and if you think the things listed above are bad you should see some of what is listed in the more negative alternatives.

Don't fall for the lies the CBD has persuaded the news media to spew - even though this RAMP is a BIG win for them they are *****ing and moaning about it because more is never enough for groups like them.

Please visit the BLM or ASA websites and download the full text of the Draft RAMP foryourself and make your own decisions - don't just take the hype from the news agencies and fall for it. Or we will continue to loose access to public lands and have only ourselves to blame for listening only to what we want to hear and not the truth.

Well we were at g this weekend and everyone was talkin about being able to ride on Fri and Sat in an area previously closed

Just because signs are missing and or blown over does not mean areas are open. Haven't you ever noticed how quick some duners are to latch onto rumor and innuendo instead of checking facts?

Even a few months ago I met people in the dunes who didn't believe me when I told them over 50,000 acres of the dunes had been closed.

It's one of the MOST frustrating things about this fight. Someone hears a story on the radio that 15,000 acres may be reopened and interperts it as the closures are gone - he tells his friends - they tell their friends - and suddenly everyone thinks they know the full story and dosen't bother to check with any kind of official source anymore. Afterall if you've already got the good news why double check - you may find out it's wrong and we all know ignorance is cool.

Please - everyone. Don't rely on rumor for your news about what is happening. If you're on this site you can easily type in www.ca.blm.gov and get the official story right from the agency in charge. Apparently this is just a little too hard for some people though and they'd rather take their good news and go home than get the truth.

(I'm not trying to attack you personally with this Zim's. It's just that I've spent the past two years of my life fighting to get good honest information out to people and the sheer number of them who would rather listen to rumor because it's better news is distressing. With that kind of attitude permeating our fellow duners it's no wonder the CBD was able to take 50,000 acres away with barely even a fight.)

Jason

I heard recently that the ASA-sponsored PMV count was not peer-reviewed and that CBD and others have asked for it to be submitted for review. Can you shed light on this?

blu

DAMN THE ****** *******S!!THEY CAN CLOSE ALL THE HOT SPOTS AT NIGHT!!! THEY JUST ****IN CANT THATS ****IN STUPID!!!!!

[This message has been edited by DuneTroll (edited 04-02-2002).]

While the study has not yet been peer reviewed the company that performed the study is more than confident that it will stand to peer review.

To use the study in the delisting petition without being confident it will stand to peer review would be downright idiotic since the FWS will put it though peer review in the process.

TOA (Thomas Olsen and Associates) who performed the study is no stranger to ESA listings and is in fact responsible for more than a couple of them here in AZ.

However as their study and recent quotes by the CBD in news articles show the ONLY reason the PMV can be considered endangered is because it has a very limited range (Namely the ISDRA - although even that has been called into question since the plant is also located in Mexico and according to some researchers [and the Sierra Club] parts of San Diego county)

Which again raises the question. If a plant is naturally limited in range should it be considered endangered? Even if studies have shown that human use of that habitat does not harm the plant and may in fact benefit the plant by helping to spread it's seeds.

I say no - there are more than enough individual plants and they are genetically diverse with a strong enough seed bed to support the species survival. Just because the species has evolved to survive only in a very physically limited area and may lay dormant for years before sprouting does not mean it should be listed as endangered....unless you have other reasons for wanting that listing so you can sue the government to lock the citizens of this country off of their land and fill your pockets with the taxpayers money at the same time.

"the study has not yet been peer reviewed "

Jason, I could swear you were the one who kept posting over at DUSA that your study was peer-reviewed. Not you huh?

Blue I don't think I ever said that the study HAD been peer reviews - you meerely assumed that part. I only said that the study would stand to peer review. The ECOS study that you cling to so strongly which appears in the book you got from the CNPS and in the BLM reports is the only other study done on the PMV and it failed to stand to peer review when the FWS looked at it.

We are still waiting for the FWS to look at the TAO study however the credentials of TAO stand on their own and no credible researcher would make cliams such as they have without knowing they've got the experience and qualifications to back them.

DOES THIS MEAN THAT THEY WILL REOPEN WHITE WATER OR AKA WINDY POINT???????????????

My guess is no, but I don't know that much about it. Wasn't whitewater closed because of something else altogether... something headed by Bono?

Blu and everyone,
The study hasn't been submitted for publication yet, so it hasn't been peer reviewed. Reports aren't just "peer reviewed" for the fun of it, it's done when an article is sent to a journal for consideration. Besides, the report isn't done. They still have to write the section that covers the seed-bank survey that was just completed.

The report itself has been available for public review on our website for months. Nobody has written a valid, factual, scientific rebuttal to it because it is a good report. There is no rebuttal that can be made.

DP better be careful, he came close to slander in his quote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stacy:
My guess is no, but I don't know that much about it. Wasn't whitewater closed because of something else altogether... something headed by Bono?

---

NO IT WAS CLOSED AFTER BONO DIED, JAN 31 2002, DUE TO A LIZARD.

Lady got-dunes,

I could be totally wrong, but I meant Bono's wife. I thought she was also involved in politics.

I knew it had something to do with a lizard but I thought it was also part of some national monument that was being created there, the name has slipped my mind right now.

I am gonna see if I can dig up some old info about it.

This is what I found out from an old post.

"My understanding was that Whitewater was lost to the new Santa Rosa National Monument." (That's where I remember it from)

but then I found this:

"The closure in question is outlined in the 4th or 5th group of stipulations in the same lawsuit which resulted in the temporary closures we are currently suffering with at Glamis. "

I too would like to know if they will be included in the proposed re-opened areas.

[This message has been edited by Stacy (edited 04-02-2002).]

If you all take the time you'll see that the TOA report has been reviewed and quoted extensivly in the EIS for the RAMP. It has been reviewed by the USFWS and the BLM. The only ones that really matter. Guess what, this plant does not need protection from the OHV's. Say's so right in the Draft Environmental Impact Statment for the IDSRA.

Read it. You'll smile.

------------------
Ron Scott
Weekend Concepts
ASA Endowment Committee
rscott@weekendconcepts.com
www.americansandassociation.org

[This message has been edited by Ron @ Lazer Star (edited 04-09-2002).]

Stacy,

No. Whitewater was discussed at the DAC meeting in Desert Hot Springs. It was one of the proposed OHV areas in the Draft RMP for the Coachella Valley. I'm not sure but I believe the comment period for that plan has elapsed. Interesting to find out which area got re-opened...

------------------
Ron Scott
Weekend Concepts
ASA Endowment Committee
rscott@weekendconcepts.com
www.americansandassociation.org