I read this on ORBA's web site a few days ago and got a newsletter that contained the same information.:

"June, 2005

26,000 acres of California desert reopened!
By Roy Denner

During an OHV meeting with Congressman Duncan Hunter in March in Washington, DC, the Congressman asked how we might acquire more camping opportunities at the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (aka: Glamis). ORBA President Denner suggested that he might help reopen the 26,000 acres closed to camping east of the dunes.

During an ISDRA TRT meeting in El Centro in June the BLM announced that the 26,000 acres previously closed to camping is now open.

Could these two events possibly be related???? "

I'm sorry I can't seem to let this go but something has been nagging at me. Reading from public information and especially the Statement of Reasons filed by ORBA attorney Dave Hubbard for the IBLA Appeal back in 2001 it states: "In or about August 2000, BLM and CBD decided to settle their lawsuit and devised a series of “stipulations” under which BLM agreed to take certain actions in exchange for CBD’s dismissal of the litigation. One of these stipulations, executed on January 17, 2001, required that BLM close certain OHV recreation areas in the NECO pending the Section 7 consultation with USFWS over the effects of the California Desert Conservation Area Plan on the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus aggassizii), a State and federally listed “threatened” species." (Emphasis added)

If indeed memory serves, both the draft and final NECO EIS provided this area be open for camping. And, since the NECO Record of Decision has been signed and the consultation with the USFWS has been undertaken, I would have thought BLM re-opened the 25600 acre "camping closure" because they complied with the Stipulations.

Does anyone have any idea what part Congressman Duncan Hunter or OBRA could have played in this NECO decision?

Um, just guessing but it looks like;
they asked for something to be done
that was already getting done,
then came back and said, we asked for that.

technically, they appear to be right.

Robbie, I don't understand your response. Its my understanding that this was going to happen with or without ORBA involvement. How can they be "technically, they appear to be right."?

Duck, I think I understand what is puzzling you... the ORBA piece is worded kinda funky. It makes it appear that the closures were lifted because ORBA got help from Hunter, and that's not what happened.

The camping closure got lifted the same way the riding closures will get lifted... with the completion of the "conditions" of the stipulated settlement of the CBD/PEER/Sierra Club lawsuit.

We're not getting "more camping opportunities"... we're getting some back that should never have been closed, that would have been re-opened with or without outside assistance.

"More camping opportunities" would be something like building more pads and/or extending Gecko Road.

Vicki

[edited for clarification]

Vicki, I think you may be correct here but I'd like someone from ORBA (like Roy Denner) to explain to the GD.com users what he was attempting to say.

I've recently attempted to contact Roy about another issue ORBA has involved themselves in and the appropriateness in getting OHV access organizations involved in industry workers' compensation legislation. To date, Roy refuses to respond to my mail.

Now, I read of what could be considered an inaccurate statement/question and don’t understand how this type of “error” or poor wording could have happened.

I think you've illustrated it well enough!

Thisis very misleading.

It's also printed in the SDOR new letter.

It's plan to me. ORBA is trying to make it look like the 26,000 acres were reopened because of there efforts and the help of Congressman Duncan Hunter.

When in fact it was reopen because we met the requirements of the settlement with the CBD's and other orgs lawsuit.

Shame on you ORBA...

Sure seems like there is more energy spent on this board bashing different orgs than there is trying to reopen our dunes.

Are all of these orgs perfect? Not hardly. Is ORBA stretching the truth a bit? Likely. Is it hurting anyone? I don't think so.

For the most part, fighting environmental wackos is a thankless job with little or no compensation and not many folks willing to help. Just a lot of people on the sidelines griping about how things are being done. If you don't like something, get involved, or get out of the way and STFU.

Rant off. Flame away.

Jon, your phones ringing...go away....


Just kiddin

I am on Monday - . Going to DC to fight for access to our dunes. I have meetings set up with Congressman Gibbons (R-NV) and Congressman Doolittle (R-CA) and I'm still waiting to hear from Senator Ensign (R-NV). I will be addressing ESA reform (and specifically subspecies protection that really hits sand dunes) and Wilderness Study Area release (Coral Pink, St. Anthony, Christmas Valley - OR, Killpecker - WY).

I'm sorry, but I believe you're wrong, Jon. If this is truly what it appears to be, I think it does hurt others.

When an anti-access group gains attention, money, support, etc., through lies and unethical behavior, how do we view them? How do we view their brethren?

We have for years said that the only reason the anti-access groups can get support is through unethical means.

I think some people still believe the pro-access supporters are supposed to be better than that.

Vicki

[edited for clarification]

Jon, I usually right there with you on most subjects, but this time is different.

ORBA was formed to provide funding for the OHV access organizations and in turn, allow them to have the financial resources to fight the good fight. Now things are different in that they have folks on who get a paycheck from ORBA. And, for the record, I see nothing wrong with that.

In this case, they are - in my opinion - utilizing this statement to garner more OHV industry membership. But if you’re going to boast about you accomplishments, at least be accurate in your statements.

And as to bashing orgs and doing little to help, I hope this wasn't directed to me.
I think you know my credentials and history of involvement as a volunteer to the OHV community.

Some might consider this a lie. I think the other side prides itself in lies.

Nope. Just a general observation. Not aimed at anyone in particular.

Right back at you John, your alright

Isn't Roy of ORBA (founder/president) on the asa's Executive Committee or the Legislative Committee?

Nope.

Correct. He may be thinking of the Legal Affairs Committee.

I stand corrected.

thanks to both of you, just knew it was something in the asa.

Like any good politician, Hunter is taking credit for the sun rising in the east. Accept it for what it is, take it with a grain of salt, and don't let the greenies take any more areas away from us on false pretexts.

I think I see the point. What's the harm, right? As long as "we" win in the end?

Where I work, one of the main rules to follow when writing a legal document is to keep the language within the "technicalities," which was done in ORBA's blurb.

My point earlier was that the anti-access groups use that very same tactic and we hang them for it. Or used to, anyway. Kinda reminds me of that old commercial... if you can't beat them, join them. Since everyone else is doing it...

It's a means to an end, so to speak, and there are many people who believe in the "end justifies the means" philosophy, and that's fine for them. I don't personally support that philosophy nor do many others... and that was actually one of the reasons DUNERS was formed... to provide an activist outlet for those who do not want to resort to "technicalities."

To each their own... just be careful that the "end" being pursued on your behalf is the same end you are seeking, inside or outside the technicalities.

Vicki
[edited for stupid spelling errors]

Been a lot of the "bashing" going on lately... but is looking more and more like it is warranted