Blu your such a hypocrite! Why can't you see that your fighting the wrong cause. We are not out to destroy the wilderness areas that we love so dearly. It's contradictory. Why would we close or even endanger an area which we love so much. Once again you are being ignorant. You wanna know what's going to happen by closing all these area's. Your conserving them for land developers. Once all the off-roaders and outdoorsmen are run of the lands by you, what's to stop owner's from selling out to some developer. After all no one is using the land for anything right. A great example of this is right by my house in Norco, sixth st. exit off the 15 fwy go east make a right on Pedly st. and it dead ends into Pedly field, a field that my friends and I grew up riding our BMX's in. When we got older we road our Dirtbikes out there. When we started to drive we learned how to drive Off road in a safe local environment. That place remained unchanged for at least 15 years. Same trails, same hillclimbs turned green as Ireland in the spring and faded during summer and into fall. What happened is the horse community in norco ,which if you are not familiar Norco has been called the Horse capital of the world, Took up an initiative with the city counsel 2 years ago to close Pedly field to all motor vehicles. They got it passed. They hated us for the same reasons you do. Would you like to know what has happened to that feild. They've started to build Beautiful Track homes on our field. My house which sits on a long half acre is now over run with rabbits, snakes and other creatures who used to have a home but have now been run out by the back hoes, the bull dozers and graders. Animals that up until the development came in had a happy home in their habitat. Our habitat, one that Off roaders like my self and my friends grew up with them in and shared together. Now it's gone for everyone. Except the horse back riders, because all homes in norco have a horsetrail in front of the house so they can still ride there.

Funny how that worked out.

You just show the true coward that you are. Omni presents you with a much more dangerous and powerful opponent, and you turn tail and run like the PU**E that you are. If you really care about the earth and all the natural beauty that is left on her why don't you fight the real problem. The problem is this country is growing too fast and in order to house and feed all our people we must expand and build new homes. Closing the area's to the people that use them is not going to save them. Instead of sueing the BLM maybe CBD and Sierra club should use thier money to actually solve a problem or make legislation that actually adresses the real issue. My question to you is why do you people choose to put your efforts and money into this fight when thier are clearly more pressing battles to be fought? My family has been using the ISDRA for almost 50 years and their are more families like us.

We are a part of the Dune eco system. Glamis has been more crowded lately because of the closure's and the PMV is thriving. Thriving, according to the study done by the Olsen group. After 50+ years of duning and after one of the most crowded seasons in history the PMV is thriving.

LISTEN BLU or should I say YELLOW if your going to quote me use the whole f***ing quote. Read and Understand don't look for what you want to hear. The only reason the place got bulldozed over was because they kicked us off of it. Once it was deemed Illegal for OHV use we stayed off. Two years later it's track homes.

Blu which looks better to you Track Homes or a Field with a coubple of trail and hill climbs on it?

You still haven't answered the question.

Chill Throttlejunkie, Blu isnt into answering questions, he into lies and propaganda! When he is proven wrong he clams up and starts spouting off about evil OHV'ers this, and evil OHV'ers that, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla! He is real good at taking pictures of things that really arnt that bad, (i.e. trails on the side of the road) But have you ever seen a photo of a housing development in the making? Talk about destruction! No he's to busy driving around(wasting gas) and taking those stupid F*****G pictures of the destruction of the Earth by evil OHV'ers! Well I've spouted off enough, I'm on my way to Barstow to do some OFF ROAD RACING! I'll check back in a few days! And remember, LETS JUST RIDE!

LIVE FREE OR DIE!

Well, I never really considered myself an Evil OHVer, but if riding my bike makes me one, then so be it.
Thanks Blu, I guess I'm just gonna have to cry myself to sleep now.

Blue that vacant land area wasn't vacant until they made it illegal for us to ride there. Up until two years ago it was legal for us to ride there. Once it was only available for people on foot and horseback is when it got bulldozed. The people on horseback wanted it for themselves and now it's gone. Why because people don't really notice horses walking through a field but if a land developer drives by that same feild and can see quads and dirt bikes being ridden that field it is less likely to be developed because of the fact that people are using it.
Now I'm not saying that our use of the land would have been enough weight to save it from development but the weight of another 40% of our town haveing a stake in that land sure would have helped the cause.
The fact that the horseback community was able to push us out paved the way for the developers to push the horse's out. Which is exactly what will happen if you take away all the area's to ride. You will lose them completly. Instead of having to look at trails and hill climbs you'll have to look at tractors, framers, concrete trucks and other pillars of urban development.

Yes I would Deny that permit, because I don't view the land as being torn up. I veiw OHV use as a valid use of public land. However the people on that planning commission are politicians and are influenced by two things. money and votes. Unfortunately the money from permit costs and future revenue's such as sales tax and other permits that will be needed for the strip mall and Alberson's that is going in far outwieghed the votes that they lost by developing those lands. Add the votes from the large OHV community and those politicians would have had a much tougher decision on their hands.

I am not familiar with the Blue Ribbon Coalition or their financial activities.

You are incorrect. There is no way an OHV deos as much damage as a bulldozer. Get serious. Neighbors as in me were the ones riding there.
Forgive me I said public I meant private.

Here read it again maybe you missed it the first time.


. However the people on that planning commission are politicians and are influenced by two things. money and votes. Unfortunately the money from permit costs and future revenue's such as sales tax and other permits that will be needed for the strip mall and Alberson's that is going in far outwieghed the votes that they lost by developing those lands. Add the votes from the large OHV community and those politicians would have had a much tougher decision on their hands.
Now I'm not saying that our use of the land would have been enough weight to save it from development but the weight of another 40% of our town haveing a stake in that land sure would have helped the cause.

No they are not. The large tractor equipment used to grade land for buildings weigh upwards of 20 to 30 thousand pounds and they completely uproot, repack and reshape the land to an unnatural form. What OHV is capable of this type of land movement.

None

When we were riding in that field we never had a problem with insects rabbits, snakes or anything else comming into our yard. Why because they weren't looking for a home. OHV use did not run them out of their homes. When the bulldozers came we had all kinds of animals at our place looking for a new place to live. How much you wanna bet they make a home on my half acre were I burn 110 octane leaded race gas and ride my bike.

Explain that.

A quick Bluesky follow-up:

Bluesky: "when you look at the impact OHVs have on the environment, you conclude that this small population segment is taking much more than their fair share of our limited natural areas".

Response: The way the population is growing, someday our fair share will be a postcard depicting some long gone natural wonder, bulldozed for the very houses in which that very population is sitting. Accessing open space retards development. In upstate New York, I have actually witnessed a forest bulldozed and burned to build Shaker Heights near Albany. Disgusting. No OHV trails, just woods. Now asphalt and crackerbox suburbs. No dominoe effect starting with OHV activity, just growth.

Yes, the resources are limited, but manageable use; such as recreation is not only fair, but a wise use of such land. Killing something is much harder to do in a public place. Hiding the land, fencing it off, dooms nature to a quick death. Behind some locked gate, far away from the prying eyes of the recreational user, the preservationist holds the victim while growth pulls the trigger.

Quietly thank your titular gods that "we" all don't take our fair share. Imaging 285 million hikers in the Sierra? 285 million people decide to visit Yosemite, all at once? Why not, it's their fair share? Our 100 years from now, when there is 1.2 billion people? Imagine how the porta-potties will smell! (all the way to Visalia).

Bluesky: "who benefits from the cheap labor? Why don't you get the Republican party to address the border situation?--the reason would be that the main beneficiaries of cheap labor influx are big growers and maufacturers that resist paying union scale to American workers--they are also the main contributors to the Republican agenda".

Response: Both political parties, in fact practically all politicians, are at fault for population growth and unchecked immigration. As well, institutions on both ends of the spectrum, such as big business and big labor encourage growth. The original article's focus is not on cheap labor, but on replacement labor to support the Social Security system and keep the rate of population growth at that of the baby boomers, so that new taxpayers can keep up the entitlement programs' cost, offered by short sighted politicians, who act like perverts with a pocketful of candy in front of the voters, when they should be leaders and statesmen.

AND, AS USUAL, when someone has his or her back to the wall and is being overpowered by the rising smell of fresh paint: comes the personal attack:

Bluesky: "If you want to do something about population growth, get a vasectomy".

Response: I having been a long time member of Zero Population Growth, ZPG, and have successfully kept my human output to less than my own immediate numbers and have been successful in convincing the next immediate related generation to do the same. I wonder why I bothered.

But I do believe you are a softy for a preservationist, most would have told me to commit suicide.

why bother even debating?
The discussion is whether Bluesky has a job or not? with out this discussion?? there is no funding?
Their entire budget is contrived from Lawsuits and Committees? its a complete fraud !!! that is how these so called enviro nazis have succeeded in their endeavors? how do you think they got the dunes closed? with out funding? and the lawyers they wouldn't stand a chance!!

[ 09-20-2002, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: WFO WR500 ]

Bluesky responds: "just doesn't quite add up does it? wilderness is not hiding the land. You can go there on your horse, mule, burro, camel, ox, yak, elephant, dog sled, sedan chair, or feet. To accuse conservationists of being in league with developers is plainly desperate. My hypothesis is more likely: that OHV impacts begets development".

Response: I know you meant "preservationists" not "conservationists".

Closure of forest roads, trail permit restrictions, increased taxation on related equipment,licenses, fees, higher camping charges, AND the land being purchased by preservationists that is just plain locked up; all contributes to closure in one form or another.

Sure the preservationists are in league with the developers. But I never said it was a conscious and intelligent relationship. Their naivete is from edge to edge. The growth-mongers do not see the sense of confronting preservationist ideals. Especially when they play so elegantly into the plans for growth. Meanwhile, recreation practitioners (who would much rather be doing something else)are assaulted by preservationists, growth marches on unabated.

Time for a bit of theater as an example.

Nature is a woman. OHVer is a fellow sweet on her. They date, they flirt, they have fun, IT'S INNOCENT. Preservationist is the introvert living across the street from her. He is jealous of the relationship, because he can not figure out a way to demonstrate and act out his similar feelings to Nature. He lives under an extreme and restricted definition of how to relate to Nature. He is frustrated.

One evening OHVer is out of town. Nature comes home late and is ASSAULTED by GROWTH on the darkened street. Preservationist witnesses the horror from his window, but does nothing. Preservationist thinks: Growth is too big and bad and besides; Nature deserves the abuse for her flirtations with OHVer. Maybe now she will be reluctant toward any relationships and submit to isolation; like all good wild land should.

Preservationists consciously and deliberately in league with Growth? No, but looking away each time the crime happens? Sure.

they are non sensical??
just self preservationist! free money hounds!

Not wanting to land in the middle of this.. because attempting to convince blue is like moving a phat ass away from a buffet line.

I do however want to point out that builders are not the guilty ones here. Sourthern CA already makes it litterally impossible to obtain permits without political ties. Avg permit fees for a 2200 sqft house in Santee is 45K and that is before you move any dirt.
The soaring cost of housing is due to a shortage of housing. Simple supply and demand shows that.
So before we go pointing fingers at builders, remember that without them you would not have a roof over your head.

Just wanted to point that part out.. OK. carry on attempting to convince blue.

Chummin:

Certainly Builders are not the problem. But they are closer to the core of it and are serving it's purpose. The Leadership's attitude that GROWTH is a positive thing, that communities pride themselves on their size and smirk when they pass a nearby place in the population race. That quantity means quality.

If growth and it's expanding need for space, not only for the people, but the pork barrel projects such as roads; could go into suspension for a few years, we could take a breath and sort out our priorities. But the last thing the government wants to do is attempt to control growth. More voters, larger government with more districts, more taxes, more entitlement programs, etc. It's a politician's dream come true. There's a lot of one-term politicians that would be laying on the dung heap we would call "responsible leadership".

We like to be told what we are going to get less of and pay more for that less in the bargain. But population control is never even seriously mentioned by our leadership. Every American generation living is now somewhat to largely dependent on a larger generation following. I shudder when I read that the Ogallala aquifer could be gone in less than 50 years. The dust bowl of the 1930's would look like a kid's sandbox in comparison.

The subject of Growth is an example of how Preservationists have picked the easy battles to wage. No politician will take a check to tackle growth, no amount is that big and besides, it takes tough leadership to define and control growth. But a modest contribution to wag their finger at OHVers? No sweat.

Nature is our mother. Beautiful and bountiful, but unpredictable and dangerous. We all try to understand her. Developers want to control her and make money off her bounty and power. OHVers want to make a mess of her, invading like buzzing aliens, turning nature into a temporary urban environment and leaving barren landscapes dotted with windblown trash. Conservationists want to learn about her, but need to convince the gov't to erect protections around her so that the other two groups don't decimate her before her secrets can be studied.

Omni, I agree that overpopulation is the trigger that sets off these battles between groups. I further think that it's the fat cats who want more population so they can lower the demand for labor to work their profit-making enterprises. Of course, it's these same fat cats who make the biggest contributions to our leaders and hold most sway over them.

However, the Democrats seem to be less controlled by the developers than the Republicans are. Democrats seem to be the ones protecting the good of the poor. Medicare, Social Security, Public Education, Civil Rights, Minimum Wage Laws--these are all Democratic projects.

The Republicans seem to be more worried about taxes. They're rich, so they pay more taxes. They say--"We don't need more tax-supported cops--let everyone have a gun and protect their own properties" Then they build a wall around their communities and hire minimum wage guards to watch the gate. They are the ones behind ALL THE WARS we have gotten into in the past 50 years, because they want to have free access to make profits off of other country's resources-- access supported by our Armed Forces and your and my lives!

Hypocrisy runs rampant when Republicans shout down aid to the poor as "entitlements", but aid to bail out industry is in the interest of the country.

Sorry for the rant--but Omnivore is deep and got me to thinking out loud!

you're absolutely right JET about the Democrats being just as willing to go to war as Republicans. I was shooting from the hip and not checking my history.

My feeling, however, remains the same: that fat cat Republicans are behind aggressive wars to secure American hegemony over foreign nations' resources--paid for by American lives and taxes.

While the Korean conflict on the surface seems like an honorable conflict in which over 2 dozen UN nations cooperated to contain Communist China's aggessive takeover of Korea--I don't know the whole story.

The Cuban missile crisis--????I've read about this and Kennedy was taking advise only from Pentagon hawks. Thank God no missiles were fired!

Vietnam--histories are still being written about the US involvement here.

Kosovo/Bosnia--????We will someday read about how these leaders came to power in the first place--

Let's not forget US involvement in the CIA assassination of Salvador Allende--on Sept 11, 1973!

Guatemala's President Arbenz was also done in by the CIA.

El Salvador, Nicaragua--US involvement to protect interests of US based businesses that hired locals as low-paid serfs and supported armies to wipe out indigenous peoples' economies.

Now when it comes to our participaction in a war in the Middle East--who stands to benefit? Who stands to pay for it? Who stands to make the ultimate sacrifice?

Bluesky says:
"Nature is our mother. Beautiful and bountiful, but unpredictable and dangerous. We all try to understand her. Developers want to control her and make money off her bounty and power. OHVers want to make a mess of her, invading like buzzing aliens, turning nature into a temporary urban environment and leaving barren landscapes dotted with windblown trash. Conservationists want to learn about her, but need to convince the gov't to erect protections around her so that the other two groups don't decimate her before her secrets can be studied."

____________________________________________________________________________

On one occasion, I remember looking down at trail camp from the Mt. Whitney switchbacks at the national park boundary on the crest. The scene was as if refugees had settled there. Tents, wash hanging, pots steaming, people milling, and, yes, the smell of the overused solar toilets. I've seen trash, scarred trails, noise, and overcrowded campsites among the heralded self-appointed saints of the environments, we backpackers. I do not believe we wanted to make a mess and in most cases, we cleaned up and tried to leave nature as we found it, although in that most delicate of environments, we were not perfect.

Sure, OHVers buzz like aliens on a holiday weekend night and it does appear to be an invasion. However, the many camps do not appear urban, but very transitory. Again, refugees if you will allow. Self-proclaimed visitors with every intent to leave the dunes in a state that will allow the campers to return for perpetuity.

I attended the Sand Sports Super Show today. My purpose was to visit the educational organizations and I have to say that there is a significant attempt at keeping the Glamis area clean. Large scale clean-ups are already scheduled and volunteers were/are signing up. The season has not begun and the strategy to help ensure the next season is already in motion. Very impressive.

All groups, including the recreational users, want continuing study of the dune environment. I believe, both from personal observation and from conversation, that the bulk of the OHV community has the best intent for Glamis. Few are so callous as to not appreciate the environment there. As to the minority? Self policing, growing awareness, and self-funded agency coverage are making differences. Too bad such change is not appreciated at the levels that produce the draconian policies regarding use. I am in awe of "leaders" that make laws without “seeing” the issues. Maybe congressional junkets to Paris regarding trade should be substituted for a delegation to Glamis. I am sure that volunteer hosts and guides could be produced.

___________________________________________________________________

Bluesky says:
"Omni, I agree that overpopulation is the trigger that sets off these battles between groups. I further think that it's the fat cats who want more population so they can lower the demand for labor to work their profit-making enterprises. Of course, it's these same fat cats who make the biggest contributions to our leaders and hold most sway over them.

However, the Democrats seem to be less controlled by the developers than the Republicans are. Democrats seem to be the ones protecting the good of the poor. Medicare, Social Security, Public Education, Civil Rights, Minimum Wage Laws--these are all Democratic projects".

The Republicans seem to be more worried about taxes. They're rich, so they pay more taxes. They say--"We don't need more tax-supported cops--let everyone have a gun and protect their own properties" Then they build a wall around their communities and hire minimum wage guards to watch the gate. They are the ones behind ALL THE WARS we have gotten into in the past 50 years, because they want to have free access to make profits off of other country's resources-- access supported by our Armed Forces and your and my lives!

Hypocrisy runs rampant when Republicans shout down aid to the poor as "entitlements", but aid to bail out industry is in the interest of the country".

_______________________________________________________________________________

The connection between both parties and development are fairly close with their levels of complicity regarding environmental policy. For the Democrats, it's Labor. For the Republicans, it's business. But for all politicians: it's Growth. To go into who causes what, as fair as politics, is the subject of endless posts on endless sites. But politicians are not self-stimulating. Any ability to think on their own ended the day lobbyists showed up and polls were created. In that understanding comes the problems of OHVers and maybe the solutions.

We should work on political influence and what can be done during the off-season. Too often recreational users are caught flat-footed by new restrictions to their pursuits. Backpackers and OHVers alike. Maybe because so much time is spent thinking about being out there, preparing to be out there and working to scrap together time and money to afford to be out there. Meanwhile, the preservationists devote much less time to being out there (the view that no contact is better than (in their restricted views)questionable contact) and so can devote so much more time and money to influencing the policy makers. The recreational user needs to do at least the same level and more.

As to how politicians get stimulated. I will close with a true story.

Daylight Savings Time. One of the most unnatural acts foisted on the American public. Most believe it exists for the farmers (although all farm equipment now has headlights and I often see farm operations through the night) or for the school children (most of whom attend their first class well after any dawn, unnatural or otherwise). Years ago, the State of Idaho was going to stay with standard time throughout the year. As legislation was moving along, it suddenly died in committee. Not on the part of legislators doing their homework or debate. But by the influence of a powerful business lobby who’s members benefit from the extra summer daylight. In the case of Idaho, MacDonalds reminded the legislators and Governor that the national restaurants sell a great deal more french fries because of the extra daylight, when families go out to eat after work. The Famous Potatoes State caved in. This lobby exists today and is capable of crushing most intelligent debate by sending checks and quoting economic benefit.

I like sausages and do not mind knowing how they are made. But the inner workings of politics are truly nauseating.

Very well written and cogent post--sausages indeed! LOL

yes, backpackers can leave a mess and of course impact our environment. But a motorcycle impacts at 100x that level. Notice I'm not saying restrict all human recreation...just that which is obviously impacting more than its fair share of our dwindling resources in the face of massive increase in our numbers.

FYI the biologists and other observers who have written the studies upon which the Glamis closures were based have been out to the dunes every year since the 1960s. Try reading "Effects of ORVs on Arid Environments" by Webb and Wilshire published in l983 now out of print but available through your local library.

Arizona managed to avoid Daylight Savings Time.

I've got a question for you. What should be the trigger (if any) for restricting access to the dunes? how much of the natural landscape there and the wildlife it supports be ridden bare before restictions are imposed? How would you solve this problem?

Bluesky:
“yes, backpackers can leave a mess and of course impact our environment. But a motorcycle impacts at 100x that level. Notice I'm not saying restrict all human recreation...just that which is obviously impacting more than its fair share of our dwindling resources in the face of massive increase in our numbers”.

Response:
True, the impact is greater, but in the Sierra backcountry, such use would be compounded by ground moisture, switchbacks and other unique zone characteristics. To a backpacker, a horse camp site is an ugly place. The mountains were meant to be walked. But the ISDRA is not the Sierra and the vehicle impact is manageable, by being different and necessitated in order to have the experience. I guess more than anything else, the ISDRA was destined to be driven and there is not the natural support structure to encourage human-powered use.

Bluesky:
“FYI the biologists and other observers who have written the studies upon which the Glamis closures were based have been out to the dunes every year since the 1960s. Try reading "Effects of ORVs on Arid Environments" by Webb and Wilshire published in l983 now out of print but available through your local library.”

Response:
Thanks for the tip on the book. Your comment answers part of my last response.

Bluesky:
“Arizona managed to avoid Daylight Savings Time”.

Response:
God Bless Arizona and all the stubborn people that dwell there. I have always felt that their state motto should be, ”we were going to consider your proposal, but you got pushy”.

Bluesky:
I've got a question for you. What should be the trigger (if any) for restricting access to the dunes? how much of the natural landscape there and the wildlife it supports be ridden bare before restrictions are imposed? How would you solve this problem?

Response:
Of course, the restrictions are already there in the form of the closures. The OHV community knows that the closure is partly punitive since all the studies are done. That was a serious wake-up call and it has had it's effect. The ISDRA is not the no-man’s-land of the ‘60s. To the Glamis Riding Community: “you’ve come a long way baby!”. If I can reach with an example: I’ve notice that there is rarely someone giving away puppies and kittens at the local shopping malls. It’s been awhile since I’ve seen this event with any regularity. To who goes the credit? I believe the persistent public education of program’s such as “Spay and Neuter” as well as vet counseling have finally sunk in.

Education is changing the OHV community as well. But they deserve the time to accept and exercise new behavior patterns that will lessen impact on the dunes. Sometimes this time will be generational in its span. Essentially bred-in. But awareness is showing. Avoiding vegetation and formation that hold animal life. New vehicle designs for capacity and impact. One car carrying four instead of 4 vehicles for four. 12 less tires on the track. Families involved so that safety becomes a concern and speed not the issue.

My solution: Education, asking that anyone and everyone who considers themselves as being an good example; to display that behavior, and promoting alternatives that lessen impact. Sites such as this one. The original backpackers were a hardy lot and they did their damage. I have regular found square nails driven in lodgepole pine to hold tent and wash lines. These must date back a century. Huge fireplaces that have cooked the granite backdrop to pieces. The attitudes changed, the equipment industry changed with the attitudes and, in some cases, drove the changes. It’s happening in the ISDRA and I believe that the changes are coming quickly enough for a balance with the wildlife.