Folks,
Michelle brought up White Water/Windy Point, and I thought it deserved its own place for discussion.
I punched the topic into Yahoo and the first two sites I found of use were Michelle's site at:
http://gotdunes.com/sys-tmpl/whitewater12001/
(Michelle's site shows her and her family cruising around the areas and having a good time. It's something I'm sure most of you are familiar with.)
...and the other site was from your friends with the Center for Biological Diversity at:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/g...settlement.html
I know that many of you have computers that spontaneously crash and convulse if they go anywhere near a CBD site, but you might want to take a peak at the site to get their rational for the suit that lead to the closure. The text of the ruling is linked to the site.
These two sites are a good place to start because they go into what is at stake in this issue. Michelle's site shows a family outing and it's pretty straight forward. It's basically a family picnic on wheels. But with the closure, that's no longer a possibility. A lot of people don't want to recognize that something really has been lost in these closures and that becomes clear through the photographs.
The CBD site goes into the details of why this happened. The quick and dirty of it is that the fringe-toad lizard and the milkvetch are in the area and are at risk. All together, just over 1,000 acres were closed.
Though I'm not familiar with this particular area, it seems to be coming down to a habitat issue, and this is a real killer for OHV use. Habitat preservation has become very big in the readings I've done on tortoises and not just the desert tortoise. Basically nothing else works for the preservation of a threatened species in nearly all cases.
OHV people are not killing the species any more than anyone else is. There might be rouge riders out there, but the overall effect of a rider killing a tortoise here or a lizard there is not significant to the long term survival or recovery of a species. It's a matter of how OHV use in the area is affecting the overall health of the habitat of these species.
I do not know of any species that has been at risk and has made a full recovery without having its habitat in very good condition. My sense so far is that the area was hit on those grounds.
I'll be reading more on it though and see if I can learn something about the fringe-toad lizard.
Cheers,
Spider
P.S. Go Giants, Go Barry.
Full Version: White Water/ Windy Point
Hi there Spider. I don't possess a sports gene so Go team,... ya. Welcome to the board BTW too. Let me start by saying, White Water was a VERY popular place for my family as well. Who's done studies on the fringe-toad lizard? What were their numbers in the 1080 acres that were taken away say back in the 50's compared to the numbers in the 60's 70's 80's or 90's? And where in the sand do they lay their eggs? Is it next to rooted vegetation, by a rock where they get their sun, or out in the open where ATV go? How many feet do they travel in a day? Are they there because there is man made habitat there, like a river or canal? If I took you out to White Water could you show me one? When is the next count of these LIZARDS going to take place? I like this next one... Were you aware that White Water is set aside mainly as a catch basin for flood waters? Can these lizards swim? Are there no snakes endangered by OHV use? Snakes & lizards usually habitat the same areas don't they? What about the snakes???? Doesn't anybody care about the snakes? 
I feel without an answer to ANY of these questions the land should be opened back up. Who has the answers?
BTW between you & I the PMV defense is a bunch of crap. I know it, YOU know it, Most everybody on this board knows it, and if you use it, either you look like a fool or think we are fools. And I personally don't like being called a fool.
------------------
[This message has been edited by Mr.Red Elvises (edited 05-16-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Mr.Red Elvises (edited 05-18-2002).]
I feel without an answer to ANY of these questions the land should be opened back up. Who has the answers?
BTW between you & I the PMV defense is a bunch of crap. I know it, YOU know it, Most everybody on this board knows it, and if you use it, either you look like a fool or think we are fools. And I personally don't like being called a fool.
------------------
[This message has been edited by Mr.Red Elvises (edited 05-16-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Mr.Red Elvises (edited 05-18-2002).]
Mr. Red Elvises,
Most of your questions can be answered at this site:
http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/WWW/esis/lists/e151001.htm
It's pretty rough reading though so you might open a beer before diving into it. I did.
The lizard was first listed at threatened on the feds list back in 1980 and they were proposing listing the Coachella Valley as critical habitat back in 1978. So this little guy became an issue soon after the ESA started to kick into overdrive.
No, I was not aware that White Water is a catch basin. I did say that I was not familiar with the area in my orignal message so you gotta cut me some slack there.
I did not see any snakes listed as threatened in the suit and have not heard of any in White Water. Before the CBD is going to take up the cause of a snake in court, it has to be threatened or else have enough money to hire its own lawyer.
And yes, somebody must care about the snakes, somewhere. Snakes are people too, you know. They're just not worth some folks' time until their threatened.
The big issue is not so much about OHVs doing damage to the lizard directly. It's really a habitat issue. OHV use is named as affecting habitat, but so are agriculture, urban sprawl, loss of sand sources, exotic plant invasions, and utility projects. So it's not just OHVs.
And as far as the milkvetch is concerned, I guess you wouldn't buy my argument that milvetches are people too, eh? :P
Spider
Most of your questions can be answered at this site:
http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/WWW/esis/lists/e151001.htm
It's pretty rough reading though so you might open a beer before diving into it. I did.
The lizard was first listed at threatened on the feds list back in 1980 and they were proposing listing the Coachella Valley as critical habitat back in 1978. So this little guy became an issue soon after the ESA started to kick into overdrive.
No, I was not aware that White Water is a catch basin. I did say that I was not familiar with the area in my orignal message so you gotta cut me some slack there.
I did not see any snakes listed as threatened in the suit and have not heard of any in White Water. Before the CBD is going to take up the cause of a snake in court, it has to be threatened or else have enough money to hire its own lawyer.
And yes, somebody must care about the snakes, somewhere. Snakes are people too, you know. They're just not worth some folks' time until their threatened.
The big issue is not so much about OHVs doing damage to the lizard directly. It's really a habitat issue. OHV use is named as affecting habitat, but so are agriculture, urban sprawl, loss of sand sources, exotic plant invasions, and utility projects. So it's not just OHVs.
And as far as the milkvetch is concerned, I guess you wouldn't buy my argument that milvetches are people too, eh? :P
Spider
Mr. Red Elvises,
I'm guessing you're big on hurling insults and small on reading. You've understood very little of the study.
Cheers,
SPider
I'm guessing you're big on hurling insults and small on reading. You've understood very little of the study.
Cheers,
SPider
Looks like you good at dodging questions. You put up a link to a 6 year old study, say the info I need is in there, and don't answer ANY other questions. I read it, find error with it, point out specific problems and now I didn't read it right?
------------------
------------------
Mr. Red Elvises,
Why do you need to resort to rude language and insults?
The report is actually quite good. It summarizes much of the research over the last 100 years, and, whether you like it or not, the lizard has not changed all that much in that time.
Your ideas about kicking out roadrunners is pretty rediculous. As I said, you really didn't read the report or my original posting. It's not about preditors or even about OHVs killing off the lizard one-by-one. It's about habitat and the report makes that all too clear.
Read this one more time:
Habitat destruction and modification are the primary threats to the long-term existence of Uma inornata. England and Nelson (23) and
England (24) reconstructed the historic range and surveyed the Coachella Valley for suitable habitat. Their results indicate that the original range was about 840 square km (324 square mi) and that the range in 1975 had been reduced to 612 square km (236 square mi), a 27% reduction in range. However, thin the areal extent of the range in 1975 only about 311 square km (120 square mi) or 51% was comprised of suitable aeolian sand habitat. Recreation orienteddevelopment (golf courses and country clubs) and agriculture were responsible for the loss of habitat. England (24) resurveyed the Coachella Valley in August and December 1982 and found only 245.5 square km (94.8 square mi) of habitat west of the Coachella Canal and 14 square km (5.5 square km) east of the canal; a 17% reduction in the total amount of suitable habitat in just 7 years.
You asked questions on who has done studies. That is answered by the report. You can read the references in the back for that information.
You asked about egg-laying. That was answered by the report.
Read this again:
The location of oviposition sites and environmental factors required for successful incubation of the eggs are unknown. However, there are studies of the temperature and moisture requirements of two lizard species that are frequently found in the same habitat as U. inornata. Desert iguana, Dipsosaurus dorsalis, eggs hatch normally between 28 and 38 degrees C at environmental water potentials between-50 and -1500 kPa (40). In the Palm Desert area, egg burrows should be located out of the root zone of perennial plants at a depth of about 22 cm. At this depth the environmental conditions would remain within the tolerance limits of the eggs throughout the incubation period of desert iguana eggs (40). Zebra-tailed lizards, Callisaurus draconoides, are closely related to U. inornata and the eggs of C. draconoides have been successfully hatched when incubated in environmental conditions within the ranges reported for desert iguanas (41). There are no reasons to suppose that the embryonic tolerances of U. inornata should differ greatly from that of other sympatric iguanids. Pending specific studies of the tolerance limits of U. inornata embryos and the edaphic environment of aeolian sand deposits, the results of Muth (40) and Packard et al. (41) can probably be used.
And you asked about studies of population sizes. That was addressed but not answered by the report.
Read this again:
POPULATION BIOLOGY:
The population biology of Uma inornata has not been studied.This is a major gap in the data base of the species and the formulation of management goals could be severely ampered by lack of demographic data.
More recent studies have been undertaken on the population numbers and they do have pretty good counts adding up.
Would you be interested in reading that information?
Why were the OHVs removed from the area? That was addressed in the following paragraphs:
Unrestricted off-road vehicle use is another cause of habitat degradation and loss. Two areas are severely degraded; Flat Top Fountain/Edom Hill and Windy Point. The total area of these sites is about 7.8 square km (3.0 square mi) (24). Off-road activity also occurs at many smaller areas throughout the valley wherever there is a significant accumulation of blow-sand. The cumulative area of the smaller sites is not known.
Yes, we are now all aware that this area is a wash now. Did you know that the wash is necessary for the supplying the sand that the lizards need for their habitat?
And no the lizard can't swim, but he can surf, unlike Elvis.
Spider
Why do you need to resort to rude language and insults?
The report is actually quite good. It summarizes much of the research over the last 100 years, and, whether you like it or not, the lizard has not changed all that much in that time.
Your ideas about kicking out roadrunners is pretty rediculous. As I said, you really didn't read the report or my original posting. It's not about preditors or even about OHVs killing off the lizard one-by-one. It's about habitat and the report makes that all too clear.
Read this one more time:
Habitat destruction and modification are the primary threats to the long-term existence of Uma inornata. England and Nelson (23) and
England (24) reconstructed the historic range and surveyed the Coachella Valley for suitable habitat. Their results indicate that the original range was about 840 square km (324 square mi) and that the range in 1975 had been reduced to 612 square km (236 square mi), a 27% reduction in range. However, thin the areal extent of the range in 1975 only about 311 square km (120 square mi) or 51% was comprised of suitable aeolian sand habitat. Recreation orienteddevelopment (golf courses and country clubs) and agriculture were responsible for the loss of habitat. England (24) resurveyed the Coachella Valley in August and December 1982 and found only 245.5 square km (94.8 square mi) of habitat west of the Coachella Canal and 14 square km (5.5 square km) east of the canal; a 17% reduction in the total amount of suitable habitat in just 7 years.
You asked questions on who has done studies. That is answered by the report. You can read the references in the back for that information.
You asked about egg-laying. That was answered by the report.
Read this again:
The location of oviposition sites and environmental factors required for successful incubation of the eggs are unknown. However, there are studies of the temperature and moisture requirements of two lizard species that are frequently found in the same habitat as U. inornata. Desert iguana, Dipsosaurus dorsalis, eggs hatch normally between 28 and 38 degrees C at environmental water potentials between-50 and -1500 kPa (40). In the Palm Desert area, egg burrows should be located out of the root zone of perennial plants at a depth of about 22 cm. At this depth the environmental conditions would remain within the tolerance limits of the eggs throughout the incubation period of desert iguana eggs (40). Zebra-tailed lizards, Callisaurus draconoides, are closely related to U. inornata and the eggs of C. draconoides have been successfully hatched when incubated in environmental conditions within the ranges reported for desert iguanas (41). There are no reasons to suppose that the embryonic tolerances of U. inornata should differ greatly from that of other sympatric iguanids. Pending specific studies of the tolerance limits of U. inornata embryos and the edaphic environment of aeolian sand deposits, the results of Muth (40) and Packard et al. (41) can probably be used.
And you asked about studies of population sizes. That was addressed but not answered by the report.
Read this again:
POPULATION BIOLOGY:
The population biology of Uma inornata has not been studied.This is a major gap in the data base of the species and the formulation of management goals could be severely ampered by lack of demographic data.
More recent studies have been undertaken on the population numbers and they do have pretty good counts adding up.
Would you be interested in reading that information?
Why were the OHVs removed from the area? That was addressed in the following paragraphs:
Unrestricted off-road vehicle use is another cause of habitat degradation and loss. Two areas are severely degraded; Flat Top Fountain/Edom Hill and Windy Point. The total area of these sites is about 7.8 square km (3.0 square mi) (24). Off-road activity also occurs at many smaller areas throughout the valley wherever there is a significant accumulation of blow-sand. The cumulative area of the smaller sites is not known.
Yes, we are now all aware that this area is a wash now. Did you know that the wash is necessary for the supplying the sand that the lizards need for their habitat?
And no the lizard can't swim, but he can surf, unlike Elvis.
Spider
So if the lizards situation hasn't changed much in the past 100 years despite massive changes in the environemt around it....
...then why make changes now?
Sounds like the research just goes to show that there's no need to be shutting the public out of public land.
Again the only mention of OHV use seems to make claims without any data to back them up. Where's the data to show that OHV use has caused habitat degradation and loss that has effected the lizard. All I see is someone saying it does but then not providing the proof.
If OHV use is effecting the lizard they why is it still more or less the same now as it was 100 years ago?
Have you seen Gavin Wright's "Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard Monitoring Report" from April 2002 put out by the BLM's El Centro office yet?
I haven't seen the full thing yet but I did recieve a few excerpts from it this week.
Here's some of what the conclusions of this report found:
So if the numbers of lizards are no different now than they were in 1979 where's the proof that they are in danger of extinction? It sure sounds like their population is stable. It may not be large but not all creates are ment to be found in large numbers.
So even bombing ranges still have high concentrations of these lizards. If something with that much impact on the land hasn't decreased their numbers it's hard to imagine much that would. Sounds like this is a fairly hardy little animal - not surprising since it's evolved to live in a very inhospitable place.
Sounds like the researcher didn't find the data they wanted to so they toss in a bunch of guesses that aren't backed by facts to try and bolster their opinion that vehicles must be evil.
This should have been done starting in 1979 when the lizard was first poposed for ESA status. The only reason I can think of for not having done it already is to try and cover up that the lizard is NOT actually endangered.
Point 6 just talks about when the surveys should be done to find the most lizards such as what the ground temperature should be and what time of year.
So even though there's no evidence of vehicles impacting the lizards (See point 4) the author still wants to try and stop this activity since it must be happening since we all know that OHV users love riding over helpless animals and will do so given any opportunity.
Seems to fly in the face of some of what you're saying Spider. But since I'm already fairly convinced this most recent report has no better science behind it than the listing of the PMV I'm willing to put the burdon of blame on this new report and say "Duh, it's already a serious problem!"
I guess if you find too many things other than vehicles that could be causing problems for a species it makes it harder to blame the vehicles and gives people more ammo to fight with when you close down their land.
Again it MUST be the vehicles even though this same report also lists:
Military activities, mining, Tamarisk infestation, immigration, border patrols, highway maintenance, power line construction, and predation by shrikes, round-tailed ground squirrels and snakes as threats. Oh and even habitat fragmentation caused by things such as "the colorado river".
But none of them are mentioned in the conclusion as needing monitoring or action (well the Tamarisk almost is) only vehicles.
So what we have is a report that starts out saying there are LOTS of things that affect this lizard. But then concludes apparantly they don't have enough of an impact to affect it's numbers - but we should still start limiting vehicles since it's been repeated so many times that vehicles are evil that it simply must be true.
The scientific community has an old saying "Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof". Claming that a species which has seen no significat changes in it's population as long as we've been studying it is in danger of extinction is about as extrodinary of a claim as I can imagine - it's right up there with perpetual motion and cold fusion. But the only proof we're given is riddled with "Possibly" and "assuming" and "probably" which are hardly the kind of words used when presenting extrodinary proof.
...then why make changes now?
Sounds like the research just goes to show that there's no need to be shutting the public out of public land.
Again the only mention of OHV use seems to make claims without any data to back them up. Where's the data to show that OHV use has caused habitat degradation and loss that has effected the lizard. All I see is someone saying it does but then not providing the proof.
If OHV use is effecting the lizard they why is it still more or less the same now as it was 100 years ago?
Have you seen Gavin Wright's "Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard Monitoring Report" from April 2002 put out by the BLM's El Centro office yet?
I haven't seen the full thing yet but I did recieve a few excerpts from it this week.
Here's some of what the conclusions of this report found:
quote:
1)Lizard detection rates in 2001 were not significantly different from those in 1979 and no significant trend was detected in the rate that lizards were detected between these years. Assuming lizard detection rates are an indicator of relative abundance, the lizard population in 2001 was probably not dramatically different from that in 1979. However, the insensitive methodology may have prevented teh detection of a real population change.
So if the numbers of lizards are no different now than they were in 1979 where's the proof that they are in danger of extinction? It sure sounds like their population is stable. It may not be large but not all creates are ment to be found in large numbers.
quote:
2) West Mesa and the Eastern Yuha are more impacted by vehicles than southern East Mesa
quote:
3) Assuming lizard sighting rates are corelated wtih lizard density, the Limited Use and Navy lands of West Mesa are apparently the densest lizard areas.
So even bombing ranges still have high concentrations of these lizards. If something with that much impact on the land hasn't decreased their numbers it's hard to imagine much that would. Sounds like this is a fairly hardy little animal - not surprising since it's evolved to live in a very inhospitable place.
quote:
4) No consistent association between vehicle impacts and lizards was found. This inconsistency may be due to the confounding effects of weather, habitat quality and other human impacts or to the small sample size and insensitive methodology.
Sounds like the researcher didn't find the data they wanted to so they toss in a bunch of guesses that aren't backed by facts to try and bolster their opinion that vehicles must be evil.
quote:
5) Monitoring in the future should include mark-recapture studies to generate an actual population figure for the three Management Areas and other areas, if feasible.
This should have been done starting in 1979 when the lizard was first poposed for ESA status. The only reason I can think of for not having done it already is to try and cover up that the lizard is NOT actually endangered.
Point 6 just talks about when the surveys should be done to find the most lizards such as what the ground temperature should be and what time of year.
quote:
7)Increased patrols, route rehabilitation, signs and education are needed to reduce vehicle impacts in the MAs.
So even though there's no evidence of vehicles impacting the lizards (See point 4) the author still wants to try and stop this activity since it must be happening since we all know that OHV users love riding over helpless animals and will do so given any opportunity.
quote:
8) Athyll tamarisk and salt-cedar should be reduced in the MA's before they become a serious problem.
Seems to fly in the face of some of what you're saying Spider. But since I'm already fairly convinced this most recent report has no better science behind it than the listing of the PMV I'm willing to put the burdon of blame on this new report and say "Duh, it's already a serious problem!"
I guess if you find too many things other than vehicles that could be causing problems for a species it makes it harder to blame the vehicles and gives people more ammo to fight with when you close down their land.
quote:
9)Impact transects should be repeated every 3 to 5 years to assess changes in vehicular impacts.
Again it MUST be the vehicles even though this same report also lists:
Military activities, mining, Tamarisk infestation, immigration, border patrols, highway maintenance, power line construction, and predation by shrikes, round-tailed ground squirrels and snakes as threats. Oh and even habitat fragmentation caused by things such as "the colorado river".
But none of them are mentioned in the conclusion as needing monitoring or action (well the Tamarisk almost is) only vehicles.
quote:
10) Habitat suitability assesments based on a single substrate type are an unreliable means of determining the likelihood of the lizard's presence in these areas.
So what we have is a report that starts out saying there are LOTS of things that affect this lizard. But then concludes apparantly they don't have enough of an impact to affect it's numbers - but we should still start limiting vehicles since it's been repeated so many times that vehicles are evil that it simply must be true.
The scientific community has an old saying "Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof". Claming that a species which has seen no significat changes in it's population as long as we've been studying it is in danger of extinction is about as extrodinary of a claim as I can imagine - it's right up there with perpetual motion and cold fusion. But the only proof we're given is riddled with "Possibly" and "assuming" and "probably" which are hardly the kind of words used when presenting extrodinary proof.
Quote....
Why do you need to resort to rude language and insults?
Why are you so easily offended?
Quote.....
Your ideas about kicking out roadrunners is pretty rediculous. As I said, you really didn't read the report or my original posting. It's not about preditors or even about OHVs killing off the lizard one-by-one. It's about habitat and the report makes that all too clear.
I like my ideas about the Road runners. AND lets not forget the badgers, shrike, sparrow hawk, western whiptail, glossy snake,sidewinder,ground squirrels, and Kangaroo rats who are all enemies of this lizard.My point is if your gonna play God why not go the full nine yards instead of stopping with humans?
Quote......
Yes, we are now all aware that this area is a wash now. Did you know that the wash is necessary for the supplying the sand that the lizards need for their habitat?
But wouldn't the next flood bring sand BUT, kill off the lizards, or at least wash them elsewhere?
I could go on with other points that were brought up in the "study" but Jason has done a wonderful job, And I think you'll have your hands full with that for a while.
Quote.....
And no the lizard can't swim, but he can surf, unlike Elvis.
Um I'd like to see a surfing Uma. True Elvis can't surf. He's dead BUT, the RED ELVISES can.
------------------
Why do you need to resort to rude language and insults?
Why are you so easily offended?
Quote.....
Your ideas about kicking out roadrunners is pretty rediculous. As I said, you really didn't read the report or my original posting. It's not about preditors or even about OHVs killing off the lizard one-by-one. It's about habitat and the report makes that all too clear.
I like my ideas about the Road runners. AND lets not forget the badgers, shrike, sparrow hawk, western whiptail, glossy snake,sidewinder,ground squirrels, and Kangaroo rats who are all enemies of this lizard.My point is if your gonna play God why not go the full nine yards instead of stopping with humans?
Quote......
Yes, we are now all aware that this area is a wash now. Did you know that the wash is necessary for the supplying the sand that the lizards need for their habitat?
But wouldn't the next flood bring sand BUT, kill off the lizards, or at least wash them elsewhere?
I could go on with other points that were brought up in the "study" but Jason has done a wonderful job, And I think you'll have your hands full with that for a while.
Quote.....
And no the lizard can't swim, but he can surf, unlike Elvis.
Um I'd like to see a surfing Uma. True Elvis can't surf. He's dead BUT, the RED ELVISES can.
------------------
Elvis' Big Brother (a.k.a. jhitesma),
This is good. You've done some reading unlike your little brother.
I'm reading over some demographic stuff right now by Allan Muth and Mark Fisher. I'll be back to share that with you when I have some time to write something that's detailed.
One thing that should be quickly clarified is that I never said the situtation has not changed in the past 100 years. The situation is drastically different, but the lizard is not. So before you prove me wrong, read what I've said.
How did you find Gavin Wright's stuff. I'm not doubting what you've found. I'd just like to read it too. What I've gotten through so far shows that population densities fluctuate wildly depending on food resources and habitat availability.
Again, I'll be back with more detailed stuff when I have a little more time.
And as for Elvis, I'm asking you to keep the posts clean here. It's one thing to argue about points; its another to throw around four-lettered words and insults. My understanding from Slappy is that such language shouldn't be used at all. I'm quite willing to leave the posts alone in general and not delete or edit them. (The dune troll gets them in most cases anyway). The real issue is that using such language quickly kills discussions and turns them into flame wars. I personally think Jason's post is excellent, and I'll have a hell of a time responding. That's what the board is supposed to be about.
Surf's up,
Spider
This is good. You've done some reading unlike your little brother.
I'm reading over some demographic stuff right now by Allan Muth and Mark Fisher. I'll be back to share that with you when I have some time to write something that's detailed.
One thing that should be quickly clarified is that I never said the situtation has not changed in the past 100 years. The situation is drastically different, but the lizard is not. So before you prove me wrong, read what I've said.
How did you find Gavin Wright's stuff. I'm not doubting what you've found. I'd just like to read it too. What I've gotten through so far shows that population densities fluctuate wildly depending on food resources and habitat availability.
Again, I'll be back with more detailed stuff when I have a little more time.
And as for Elvis, I'm asking you to keep the posts clean here. It's one thing to argue about points; its another to throw around four-lettered words and insults. My understanding from Slappy is that such language shouldn't be used at all. I'm quite willing to leave the posts alone in general and not delete or edit them. (The dune troll gets them in most cases anyway). The real issue is that using such language quickly kills discussions and turns them into flame wars. I personally think Jason's post is excellent, and I'll have a hell of a time responding. That's what the board is supposed to be about.
Surf's up,
Spider
There Blue number two, I took care of it. Stop your whining & stick to the point.
[This message has been edited by Mr.Red Elvises (edited 05-17-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Mr.Red Elvises (edited 05-17-2002).]
Folks,
Here's a good site for understanding the plan for White Water:
www.co.riverside.ca.us/cvag/mshcp/sp_06.htm
It does not fully respond to Jason's points, but it explains how the populations fluctuate greatly within the available habitat depending upon available food sources.
Cheers,
Spider
Here's a good site for understanding the plan for White Water:
www.co.riverside.ca.us/cvag/mshcp/sp_06.htm
It does not fully respond to Jason's points, but it explains how the populations fluctuate greatly within the available habitat depending upon available food sources.
Cheers,
Spider
First off let me say that I have not read any detailed study on the lizards of White Water. But I have read every word in this string. I make this judgement on apure common sense analysis.
After doing this I would have to disagree Spider.
You state that the reason for the population flux is do to food availability and habitat availability. WELL DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Any living species is affected by this. The floods, sand conditions, and temps in the area control this mostly. SO HOW ARE YOU GOING TO STOP THOSE? Tell me Spider, are you yourself going to flood the basen so that the population explode? His closing the area going to affect the temperature or frequency of floods?
I just dont get your reasoning. That is because it is unreasonable. The studies show that there is no proven affect of the OHV. And you claim that the area was shut down for habitat. Habitat or not, it was shut down to eliminate the OHV. Your claim holds NO value.
Again I am looking at this with PURE COMMON SENSE. Reread what has been said, if you cant see it, then I feel pity for you that your vision and thought has been so twisted.
By the way, it seems to me that YOU, spider, resort to more personal attacks than red elvis'. ALL hypocrites need not be branded as some on their freaking FOREHEAD!!!!!
PS. I will be doing some reaserch on this subject after this.
------------------
Wile E. Coyote survived flying off a 300 FT. sand dune.....
[This message has been edited by OCBC (edited 05-21-2002).]
After doing this I would have to disagree Spider.
You state that the reason for the population flux is do to food availability and habitat availability. WELL DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Any living species is affected by this. The floods, sand conditions, and temps in the area control this mostly. SO HOW ARE YOU GOING TO STOP THOSE? Tell me Spider, are you yourself going to flood the basen so that the population explode? His closing the area going to affect the temperature or frequency of floods?
I just dont get your reasoning. That is because it is unreasonable. The studies show that there is no proven affect of the OHV. And you claim that the area was shut down for habitat. Habitat or not, it was shut down to eliminate the OHV. Your claim holds NO value.
Again I am looking at this with PURE COMMON SENSE. Reread what has been said, if you cant see it, then I feel pity for you that your vision and thought has been so twisted.
By the way, it seems to me that YOU, spider, resort to more personal attacks than red elvis'. ALL hypocrites need not be branded as some on their freaking FOREHEAD!!!!!
PS. I will be doing some reaserch on this subject after this.
------------------
Wile E. Coyote survived flying off a 300 FT. sand dune.....
[This message has been edited by OCBC (edited 05-21-2002).]
OCBC,
Here are your words and my replies:
"You state that the reason for the population flux is do to food availability and habitat availability. WELL DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"Any living species is affected by this. The floods, sand conditions, and temps in the area control this mostly. SO HOW ARE YOU GOING TO STOP THOSE? Tell me Spider, are you yourself going to flood the basen so that the population explode? His closing the area going to affect the temperature or frequency of floods?"
Actually it's not such an obvious point. Food availability is due mostly to weather patterns. When rains are low, food is not so available. That should be pretty clear.
But habitat availability is not so clear. Floods and sand conditions have almost nothing to do with the availability of habitat. The studies you haven't read yet make it clear that encroachment and development in the area have dramatically reduced the available habitat for the lizard.
I have not seen any mention of flooding, temperatures or naturally occuring sand conditions reducing habitat. Where did you hear that these affect population? In fact the flooding is necessary for the maintenance of the lizard's habitat. This lizard has adapted in a phenominal way to the sand conditions and can survive even when the surface temperatures can reach over 150 degrees.
"By the way, it seems to me that YOU, spider, resort to more personal attacks than red elvis'. ALL hypocrites need not be branded as some on their freaking FOREHEAD!!!!!"
O.k. but you should know that Red Elvis took down some of his more aggressive posts so you may not have seen what I was referring to in my posts. I did not touch his posts and did not request that he take them down. I do not consider it a personal attack to request that people refrain from insults and four-lettered words. We'll just have to disagree there. And Spiders don't have foreheads.
"PS. I will be doing some reaserch on this subject after this."
[/B][/QUOTE]
I would like to see what you find. It would be fun to discuss things here
Cheers,
Spider
[This message has been edited by Spider (edited 05-21-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Spider (edited 05-21-2002).]
Here are your words and my replies:
"You state that the reason for the population flux is do to food availability and habitat availability. WELL DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"Any living species is affected by this. The floods, sand conditions, and temps in the area control this mostly. SO HOW ARE YOU GOING TO STOP THOSE? Tell me Spider, are you yourself going to flood the basen so that the population explode? His closing the area going to affect the temperature or frequency of floods?"
Actually it's not such an obvious point. Food availability is due mostly to weather patterns. When rains are low, food is not so available. That should be pretty clear.
But habitat availability is not so clear. Floods and sand conditions have almost nothing to do with the availability of habitat. The studies you haven't read yet make it clear that encroachment and development in the area have dramatically reduced the available habitat for the lizard.
I have not seen any mention of flooding, temperatures or naturally occuring sand conditions reducing habitat. Where did you hear that these affect population? In fact the flooding is necessary for the maintenance of the lizard's habitat. This lizard has adapted in a phenominal way to the sand conditions and can survive even when the surface temperatures can reach over 150 degrees.
"By the way, it seems to me that YOU, spider, resort to more personal attacks than red elvis'. ALL hypocrites need not be branded as some on their freaking FOREHEAD!!!!!"
O.k. but you should know that Red Elvis took down some of his more aggressive posts so you may not have seen what I was referring to in my posts. I did not touch his posts and did not request that he take them down. I do not consider it a personal attack to request that people refrain from insults and four-lettered words. We'll just have to disagree there. And Spiders don't have foreheads.
"PS. I will be doing some reaserch on this subject after this."
[/B][/QUOTE]
I would like to see what you find. It would be fun to discuss things here
Cheers,
Spider
[This message has been edited by Spider (edited 05-21-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Spider (edited 05-21-2002).]
Spider states "I have not seen any mention of flooding, temperatures or naturally occuring sand conditions reducing habitat. Where did you hear that these affect population? In fact the flooding is necessary for the maintenance of the lizard's habitat."
Doesnt this statement in effect answer itself?
If the floods are neccessary for maintenance, then can one say that if the fllods do not occur, the lizards habitat is reduced? Then if the floods do occur, then one can say that the habitat increase?
If this line of reasoning is any way unlogical please correct me. With this consideration my previous statement would stand true.
------------------
Wile E. Coyote survived flying off a 300 FT. sand dune.....
Doesnt this statement in effect answer itself?
If the floods are neccessary for maintenance, then can one say that if the fllods do not occur, the lizards habitat is reduced? Then if the floods do occur, then one can say that the habitat increase?
If this line of reasoning is any way unlogical please correct me. With this consideration my previous statement would stand true.
------------------
Wile E. Coyote survived flying off a 300 FT. sand dune.....
OCBC,
I guess this is a semantic disagreement and I think we're both pretty reasonable.
I've taken "reduce" to mean that the land area available is smaller. It's a simple matter of size and size does matter when it comes to population maintenance.
The flooding of the area maintains the supply of sand to already existing habitat. I wouldn't say it increases it. I'd say maintains. But if the floods are stopped, then I would agree that the habitat has been reduced because it has been diminished to a point that it cannot be used by the lizard in the long term.
You made a number of points in your post so I'm not sure which one you consider to still stand true. I am not trying to be petty. I'm trying to be clear on this.
As a side note I would add that there was a plan to create a dam and more wind breaks and this was discussed in one of the reports I posted links to.
The report says:
"The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is considering a flood-control project on the Whitewater River. Depending upon the alternative plan selected, the facility may be designed to prevent new sands from entering the Coachella Valley. If constructed, the dam(s) would act as a giant windbreak, causing substantial adverse impacts on the remaining CVFTL habitat."
When they say "substantial adverse impacts", I'm thinking habitat reduction through long term degradation.
Spider
I guess this is a semantic disagreement and I think we're both pretty reasonable.
I've taken "reduce" to mean that the land area available is smaller. It's a simple matter of size and size does matter when it comes to population maintenance.
The flooding of the area maintains the supply of sand to already existing habitat. I wouldn't say it increases it. I'd say maintains. But if the floods are stopped, then I would agree that the habitat has been reduced because it has been diminished to a point that it cannot be used by the lizard in the long term.
You made a number of points in your post so I'm not sure which one you consider to still stand true. I am not trying to be petty. I'm trying to be clear on this.
As a side note I would add that there was a plan to create a dam and more wind breaks and this was discussed in one of the reports I posted links to.
The report says:
"The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is considering a flood-control project on the Whitewater River. Depending upon the alternative plan selected, the facility may be designed to prevent new sands from entering the Coachella Valley. If constructed, the dam(s) would act as a giant windbreak, causing substantial adverse impacts on the remaining CVFTL habitat."
When they say "substantial adverse impacts", I'm thinking habitat reduction through long term degradation.
Spider
i have a question. is white water the only area where that lizard lives. i drive past it 3 times a week and since the shut it down to ohv's they have added more windmills to the area and now there is a huge factory of some sort. oh ya and there are big metal tubes laying all around the area like they are gona build something else. so whats the deal???
HMMM SOME DEVELOPMENT IN THE WORKS THERE HUH? IF THATS FACT, THEN WHAT HAVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS SAID ABOUT THAT?
the place looks huge so im sure they have the money to buy off them enviro's..
Developers (residential, commercial, utility, government, etc.) have various options available to mitigate negative impacts their development may have on the environment. There are many, many ways that developers are able to play the game to push their projects through such as pollution credits, banking, off-site mitigation areas, and plain old cash deposits.
The bottom line? In my opinion, developers are able to argue the economic benefits to justify significant impacts to the environment. If you can show that the city, county, or area tax base will be increased, or would create jobs (more tax revenue) your project has a better chance of approval. Thats NOT to say that all economic based developments are approved cart blanc. However, I conclude (from my 15 years in the development industry) that those developments that "add to the public coffers" are rarely required to fully mitigate their impacts.
As far as white water is concerned, timing may have something to do with the further expansion of the wind mills (remember last summer's electric fiasco....thanks Gov. Davis). Anyway, development DOES impact the environment. The CEQA and NEPA processes, along with the various local, state, and other specific planning commisions (CA Coastal Commission, etc.) are tasked with minimizing (mitigating) their impacts.
My point? Well, its this. Although certain developments may cause significant impacts to the environment, should they also increase the "quality of life" in the area, chances are that the developer will be able to negotiate a compromise with the planners to mitigate his impacts in a way that will allow for the full use of his property at a cost to the site-specific environment. For example, a large housing development in southwest riverside county was able to fully develop 160 acres of Stephans Kangaroo Rat habitat. How? By brokering a deal with the county to purchase undeveloped habitat near his development. He is now allowed to fully develop his property while providing a permanent home to the local rodent population.
The bottom line? In my opinion, developers are able to argue the economic benefits to justify significant impacts to the environment. If you can show that the city, county, or area tax base will be increased, or would create jobs (more tax revenue) your project has a better chance of approval. Thats NOT to say that all economic based developments are approved cart blanc. However, I conclude (from my 15 years in the development industry) that those developments that "add to the public coffers" are rarely required to fully mitigate their impacts.
As far as white water is concerned, timing may have something to do with the further expansion of the wind mills (remember last summer's electric fiasco....thanks Gov. Davis). Anyway, development DOES impact the environment. The CEQA and NEPA processes, along with the various local, state, and other specific planning commisions (CA Coastal Commission, etc.) are tasked with minimizing (mitigating) their impacts.
My point? Well, its this. Although certain developments may cause significant impacts to the environment, should they also increase the "quality of life" in the area, chances are that the developer will be able to negotiate a compromise with the planners to mitigate his impacts in a way that will allow for the full use of his property at a cost to the site-specific environment. For example, a large housing development in southwest riverside county was able to fully develop 160 acres of Stephans Kangaroo Rat habitat. How? By brokering a deal with the county to purchase undeveloped habitat near his development. He is now allowed to fully develop his property while providing a permanent home to the local rodent population.
Dunetamer--
as a person obviously knowledgable in development practices, could you answer a question?
Is it easier for a developer to build on land that has already been impacted (like with dirt bike trails and bowls)than on land that is undisturbed?
as a person obviously knowledgable in development practices, could you answer a question?
Is it easier for a developer to build on land that has already been impacted (like with dirt bike trails and bowls)than on land that is undisturbed?
Bluesky… Remember me? I ask you a few questions on another post, and you throw me a challenge. I step up to the plate, and you tuck tail and ran.
By now, you are aware that I do have a scientific background. I know with my years of experience that it takes time to study any theory before stating a conclusion. I read countless posts from many others making reference to you, using assorted names and descriptions throughout this board.
I have come to one conclusion. You are a coward, psss ant that writes stupid, ignorant statement, without the balls to step up to a challenge. I must praise the moderators of this board for not deleting everything you post. I will always take the time to listen when someone will at least attempt to learn something about a topic before making statements. You should thank God that you live in the USA. There are countries that would just eliminate you from exhistance for being so stupid!
By now, you are aware that I do have a scientific background. I know with my years of experience that it takes time to study any theory before stating a conclusion. I read countless posts from many others making reference to you, using assorted names and descriptions throughout this board.
I have come to one conclusion. You are a coward, psss ant that writes stupid, ignorant statement, without the balls to step up to a challenge. I must praise the moderators of this board for not deleting everything you post. I will always take the time to listen when someone will at least attempt to learn something about a topic before making statements. You should thank God that you live in the USA. There are countries that would just eliminate you from exhistance for being so stupid!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.