By LAURA MITCHELL, Staff Writer
Congressional representatives sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton saying recent decisions by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management are a cause for concern or "totally unacceptable."
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, and 18 other congressmen and women sent the letter to Norton earlier this week calling for answers to hotly debated desert management plans, including the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area Management Plan.
The letter states the representatives are concerned U.S. Fish and Wildlife staff may ignore recent studies that show a threatened plant is abundant in the dunes.
The threatened Peirson's milk vetch, a purple-flowered plant that grows in the Imperial Sand Dunes, was the reason for closing almost 50,000 acres of off-road recreation last year.
Off-road vehicle enthusiasts want the closures rolled back and the milk-vetch removed from the Endangered Species List.
Fish and Wildlife is also in the process of evaluating a proposed listing of the flat-tailed horned lizard, which could close additional acres of Southern California desert.
The letter also states environmental studies for two BLM management plans are "totally unacceptable." The Northern and Eastern Colorado and Northern and Eastern Mojave plans also provide for closures and the recovery of the threatened desert tortoise.
Recreation groups hired a herpetologist, a zoologist who studies reptiles and amphibians, to review the information available on the flat-tailed horned lizard. The letter states the herpetologist reported there is no scientific evidence to support the listing.
But the closures are based on "minimal scientific evidence." Even BLM biologists say the plans are based on inaccurate and insufficient data, the letter states.
>> Staff Writer Laura Mitchell can be reached at 337-3452 or lauramitchell9@yahoo.com
Sounds like politics to me!
According to the League of Conservation Voters' website, Duncan Hunter has an environmental score of 0% for 2001.
http://capwiz.com/lcv/dbq/officials/?offse...0First&state=CA
You don't want someone with a reputation like that advocating for the duning community. the rest of us will think that duners are anti-environment!
According to the League of Conservation Voters' website, Duncan Hunter has an environmental score of 0% for 2001.
http://capwiz.com/lcv/dbq/officials/?offse...0First&state=CA
You don't want someone with a reputation like that advocating for the duning community. the rest of us will think that duners are anti-environment!
By LAURA MITCHELL, Staff Writer
Congressional representatives sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton saying recent decisions by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management are a cause for concern or "totally unacceptable."
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, and 18 other congressmen and women sent the letter to Norton earlier this week calling for answers to hotly debated desert management plans, including the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area Management Plan.
_____________________________________________________________________
A quick sampling of the site noted by Bluesky shows that Dem Reps are mostly 50% and better and Republicans are mostly below. I completely discount most rating systems done by groups with specific agendas. How do I come to such a conclusion? Example is Duncan Hunter. His rating starts low because of his party. Then it is stacked even lower due to his proximity to any land that is part of an active dispute. Dem Reps get the opposite treatment. Finally, if he will not take money or receive lobbyists from the Preservationist groups; his rating hits bottom. This is an artificial attempt to keep him out of the game, by saying "well, look at his record!"
A glaring opposite example is Bob Filner. He is rated 100%. Even liberals do not stand too near this frothing socialist. A raving kook who can not ever make a rational statement when taking a position. If I was a preservationist (shudder!), I would hope Hunter would weigh in on a debate rather than Filner. But Filner is actually my supporter. Hunter I can denigrate (because of the trumped-up rating), Filner is hopeless if intended for public consumption (even though he has a perfect record).
Bottom line...The usual stance is any preservationist argument; create a bad example, shine a light on it, and lay the B.S. down thick. Keeping their goofy extremist politicians locked away except for bill sponsorships and floor votes.
Preservationists like to define the game, pick the location, employ the fans, write the rules and then handicap the opposition. Then during the game, they flick the lights on or off, depending on who is in possession, among so many other mind games and contrived situations. If they are STILL LOSING, they replay the game elsewhere, under all new circumstances, such as the courts or in liberal press venues.
MIND GAMES. The Russian Communists called themselves the Bolsheviks during their revolution. It might the LARGE party, the majority, even thought they were a distinctly small organization. The Imperial loyalists ending up as the Mensheviks, the opposing name, the only name left, but this name defined them as the minority. The Russian people, basically uneducated farmers and serfs, thinking that the Communists were large in their numbers, power, and capable of unseating the Imperialists, rioted with the Communists. We know who won.
Preservationists make the animal numbers small, and the people are defined as the hulking insensitive mass of bullies. A tiny helpless fish against millions of fat ugly suburbanites (as in the today's Colorado) or the no-neck belligerent horde of Jar-Heads at Pendleton, laughing hysterically as they run their war machines over the baby least terns.
A disinterested observer would chuckle over this bad theater performed by the opposition. Too bad the season ticket holders, the gutless hangers-on, fawning psychophants, and slobbering eco-groupies that applaud this garbage as meaningful social commentary, go back to Sacramento and Washington and write bad laws and shout lies on the floor of places meant to witness only truth and fairness. But worse is the bulk of this horde has never "been there" and have no desire to ever "be there". In fact, these "sheeple" have a distaste for places where the dirt gets on your Armanis or where the wildlife may actually give you a run for your money. They take delight in ruining wholesome fun and hopefully forcing the outdoors recreationists to live among them, where our visible struggle to be free of their pitiful environment would allow them to feel smug.
Yes, they should get a life. We did.
Congressional representatives sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton saying recent decisions by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management are a cause for concern or "totally unacceptable."
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, and 18 other congressmen and women sent the letter to Norton earlier this week calling for answers to hotly debated desert management plans, including the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area Management Plan.
_____________________________________________________________________
A quick sampling of the site noted by Bluesky shows that Dem Reps are mostly 50% and better and Republicans are mostly below. I completely discount most rating systems done by groups with specific agendas. How do I come to such a conclusion? Example is Duncan Hunter. His rating starts low because of his party. Then it is stacked even lower due to his proximity to any land that is part of an active dispute. Dem Reps get the opposite treatment. Finally, if he will not take money or receive lobbyists from the Preservationist groups; his rating hits bottom. This is an artificial attempt to keep him out of the game, by saying "well, look at his record!"
A glaring opposite example is Bob Filner. He is rated 100%. Even liberals do not stand too near this frothing socialist. A raving kook who can not ever make a rational statement when taking a position. If I was a preservationist (shudder!), I would hope Hunter would weigh in on a debate rather than Filner. But Filner is actually my supporter. Hunter I can denigrate (because of the trumped-up rating), Filner is hopeless if intended for public consumption (even though he has a perfect record).
Bottom line...The usual stance is any preservationist argument; create a bad example, shine a light on it, and lay the B.S. down thick. Keeping their goofy extremist politicians locked away except for bill sponsorships and floor votes.
Preservationists like to define the game, pick the location, employ the fans, write the rules and then handicap the opposition. Then during the game, they flick the lights on or off, depending on who is in possession, among so many other mind games and contrived situations. If they are STILL LOSING, they replay the game elsewhere, under all new circumstances, such as the courts or in liberal press venues.
MIND GAMES. The Russian Communists called themselves the Bolsheviks during their revolution. It might the LARGE party, the majority, even thought they were a distinctly small organization. The Imperial loyalists ending up as the Mensheviks, the opposing name, the only name left, but this name defined them as the minority. The Russian people, basically uneducated farmers and serfs, thinking that the Communists were large in their numbers, power, and capable of unseating the Imperialists, rioted with the Communists. We know who won.
Preservationists make the animal numbers small, and the people are defined as the hulking insensitive mass of bullies. A tiny helpless fish against millions of fat ugly suburbanites (as in the today's Colorado) or the no-neck belligerent horde of Jar-Heads at Pendleton, laughing hysterically as they run their war machines over the baby least terns.
A disinterested observer would chuckle over this bad theater performed by the opposition. Too bad the season ticket holders, the gutless hangers-on, fawning psychophants, and slobbering eco-groupies that applaud this garbage as meaningful social commentary, go back to Sacramento and Washington and write bad laws and shout lies on the floor of places meant to witness only truth and fairness. But worse is the bulk of this horde has never "been there" and have no desire to ever "be there". In fact, these "sheeple" have a distaste for places where the dirt gets on your Armanis or where the wildlife may actually give you a run for your money. They take delight in ruining wholesome fun and hopefully forcing the outdoors recreationists to live among them, where our visible struggle to be free of their pitiful environment would allow them to feel smug.
Yes, they should get a life. We did.
quote:Imagine that, A pro-eco loby gives Duncan Hunter a score of 0% for 2001! Hey dork, Why dont you see what kind of score a pro-recreationalist, or pro-access loby gives him! Unfortunately do to re-districting, he will no longer be able to represent me in my district. My vote will be for Bonnie Garcia!
According to the League of Conservation Voters' website, Duncan Hunter has an environmental score of 0% for 2001.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
quote:Oh, you mean LIES AND PROPAGANDA! I'm sorry, I though the eco-nazi's might try the truth and commen sence! What was I thinking?
Preservationists make the animal numbers small, and the people are defined as the hulking insensitive mass of bullies. A tiny helpless fish against millions of fat ugly suburbanites (as in the today's Colorado) or the no-neck belligerent horde of Jar-Heads at Pendleton, laughing hysterically as they run their war machines over the baby least terns.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.