Interior abandoning dunes compromise
By Daniel R. Patterson Karen Schambach and Terry Weiner
January 5, 2003
"Stretching northwest more than 40 miles from the Mexican border to the east side of the Salton Sea is a scenic wonderland known as the Algodones Dunes, a.k.a. Imperial Dunes. America's largest sea of sand is a unique place that harbors horned lizards that look like mini-dinosaurs, ancient ironwood woodlands, 8-foot-tall sunflowers, sand food, scarab beetles, and other endangered wildlife - including many species found nowhere else on earth."
I like the mini-dinosaur analogy. Buy the kids' votes with that. "Mommmmmy, the evil OHVer's are killing baby dinosaurs!!!"
Maybe these species are found no where else because this is the last stop on their way out of the inventory? But NOOO, we can not let Mother Nature do any housecleaning, we know better then her about value, survival, and who gets to keep on keeping-on.
"But the dunes are endangered by off-road vehicles that are killing our natural heritage and draining land management resources. The Bush administration should be conserving resources, but instead is rolling back environmental protection despite wildlife concerns, violent off-road crowds, and demands on limited staff and budgets."
These resources are paid for by the OHV dune community. This is a B.S. Issue. The violent off-road crowds??? Much, much, much less violence than an NFL game. Should we stop all large scale public venues? Killing our heritage? It seems to be hanging in there, with the vast closure areas. But who knows? The environmentalists do not really care about nature anyway. It's about power.
"Two years ago, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, conservationists, and off-roaders agreed to ban ORVs from 49,000 acres of the dunes to protect wildlife. This compromise leaves open nearly 70,000 acres to ORVs - more than 106 square miles, an area twice the size of San Francisco - creating a 50/50 balance in off-road vs. conservation areas.
This balanced approach has proven to be workable and effective. Vegetation and endangered species have started to recover in the absence of vehicles. Keeping popular riding areas open maintains ORV opportunity while protecting wildlife, air quality, and non-motorized recreation. Even with the new protected areas crowds have skyrocketed to more than 240,000 some weekends, escalating violence that gained notice in the 1990s."
The violence mantra is just liberal rhetoric to get sympathy from their cow-like followers. Hey Mr. Patterson, if you make the space smaller, it gets more crowded! How about a little intelligent commentary on why this form of recreation is growing, rather than implying it's just to be violent.
"Although the compromise is working, Interior Secretary Gale Norton is ignoring peer-reviewed science, agency limitations and the national interest for conservation by pushing to open conservation areas to ORVs; leaving only a congressionally designated 25,800-acre wilderness protected - an area that represents only 15 percent of the dunes - not enough to ensure the survival of endangered species or offer a remote experience. "
More B.S., 26,000 acres can't provide a remote experience? Give me a break. most of the people, who visit Yosemite Valley, do not stray from the asphalt. So how much space do these (“designated” endangered vs. reality) species need? Heck, all of it!
"Disturbingly, Norton avoids a solution to the violence and related staffing demands by failing to set a carrying capacity or restrict alcohol use. Conservation groups representing millions of citizens and the Quechan Indian Nation oppose this failure to protect natural and cultural resources.
Crowds must be limited to protect resources and allow a reasonable emergency response. This is a common management tool at other popular spots and is needed at the dunes. Current excessive crowds harm wildlife and air quality, and contribute to the violent mob mentality that pulls law enforcement resources from distant parks, forests and other lands, leaving millions of acres without protection.
According to BLM rangers, conditions are not getting better. Rampant alcohol abuse still fuels violence. Rangers are still being assaulted and near-riot conditions persist. Crowd control and emergency response still take precedent over resource protection, which is virtually non-existent.
BLM spent more than $710,000 on law enforcement at the dunes this past Thanksgiving weekend and is planning to spend more than $4.5 million this season. Increased off-roading fees on holiday weekends would not only reduce unmanageable crowds, but also would help recover true costs and discourage troublemakers. "
Three guys on their quads stop for a break and a stretch. "Near riot conditions" screams the CBD web site!!!! These last four paragraphs do deserve analysis. A LOAD OF HORSE MANURE. That was easy. Give us all a break. The "crowding" issues happen what, three or four weekends a year? Then it's darn near Tranquility Base out there. Mr. Patterson and his cohorts want one thing, no one going to the dunes, ever again. Period.
So if I buy a Sierra Club calendar, does that means I want severe restrictions in Glamis? Millions of Americans can not even read at the fourth grade level, why should I care what they think if all they are doing is buying a calendar so the enviros can count them as supporters?
"BLM and local communities are missing an opportunity to diversify visitation to the dunes. Surveys by California State Parks and neutral economists indicate people love low-impact outdoor recreation: 58 percent of Californians say they enjoy hiking; 54 percent enjoy nature study; wilderness camping and hiking increased 42 percent from 1990-1998. There were 24 million visitor-days of backpacking and 64 million visitor-days of hiking in California wilderness in 1998. Non-motorized visitors add $44 per acre per year to adjacent communities. By keeping the 50/50 management in place and inviting sustainable uses, local economies of Imperial County would gain $3.3 million per year from non-motorized visitors.
The dunes are rich in natural, cultural and historic treasures. In 1968, the dunes were designated as a National Natural Landmark. The dunes should be a destination for everyone, not just off-roaders. BLM should lead educational walks in the dunes. Educational opportunities should be created to encourage people to take in the scenery, walk and learn about the wildlife and history in the dunes. For citizens who would like to experience the wildness of the dunes, the BLM should establish primitive campsites distant from ORV use areas. But none of this is proposed. "
Yeah right, 58 percent of Californians enjoy hiking and the same 58% are obese and dying from some disease that needs a celebrity spokesperson or a telethon. Welcome to reality. Hiking anywhere outside of Glamis is COMPLETELY different then hiking in the dunes. I would bet that there are more hikers on the Mt. Whitney Trail, in a day, than there is in the ISDRA all year. No water, no trails, no landmarks, no camp sites, no shade, no destinations, and try pitching a tent. What a joke, yeah, they would all come running to Glamis if only those pesky OHVers would be gone. This is junk math and junk science to create whopping lies.
"Though the dunes belong to all Americans, the Bush directive is single-use management to benefit a minority special interest. BLM spends millions of dollars every year promoting and managing these beautiful dunes solely as an ORV area, with little attention to natural values that appeal to most people. The dominating nature of loud and polluting off-roading effectively shuts out all other visitors and their families. By failing to diversify dunes use through conservation, BLM dismisses other visitors' enjoyment and spending in local communities. "
If it belongs to everyone, tell them to come on out there. Face it, sure they all own it, but most don't give a damn about a bunch of sand unless it has a beach front condo and plenty of bikinis. I have never heard of the denied-access community clamoring for a right to experience Glamis. This is created fiction, courtesy of the authors. Besides, what about all the closed areas? No one is showing up.
"Until Norton tackles these troublesome issues head-on, she'll have trouble convincing anyone that the Bush administration is not simply offering political favors to the off-road industry at the expense of natural resources, the public, and her own employees."
Yeah right, political favors are when the other guy gets the decision his way. When it comes your way, it's sound judgment based on in-depth analysis backed up by strong data.
At the expense of natural resources (what, is some sand missing?), the public (sitting in front of the TV 40 hours a week, fat, dumb and dying), and her own employees (actually, they are my employees. I pay their salaries. Again, and again, and again.....)still do not do what I tell them. Somebody please tell the rangers that I fired them all and to go home.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Patterson is a desert ecologist with the Center for Biological Diversity in Idyllwild. Schambach is California director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility in Sacramento. Weiner is conservation coordinator for the Desert Protective Council in San Diego.
You would think a Desert Biologist would be located in, ah, gee, maybe, I don’t know…THE DESERT???
Full Version: Lies, Bigger Lies and Enviro Logic
"Though the dunes belong to all Americans, the Bush directive is single-use management to benefit a minority special interest."
What about hiking trails? How come I can't take my dirt bike on hiking trails? Sure seems like "single-use" management to me.
What about hiking trails? How come I can't take my dirt bike on hiking trails? Sure seems like "single-use" management to me.
quote:"resources" means the native wildlife and habitat in BLM lingo. OHV community has not psid for these.
The Bush administration should be conserving resources
These resources are paid for by the OHV dune community.
quote:Is that your response to a critical issue? "maybe"?
Maybe these species are found no where else because this is the last stop on their way out of the inventory?
quote:Notice the quote said "ensure survival of species". this cannot be done on such a small piece of land.
Although the compromise is working, Interior Secretary Gale Norton is ignoring peer-reviewed science, agency limitations and the national interest for conservation by pushing to open conservation areas to ORVs; leaving only a congressionally designated 25,800-acre wilderness protected - an area that represents only 15 percent of the dunes - not enough to ensure the survival of endangered species or offer a remote experience. "
More B.S., 26,000 acres can't provide a remote experience?
quote:so in the Omnivore world conservation supporters can't read at the fourth grade level?
Millions of Americans can not even read at the fourth grade level, why should I care what they think if all they are doing is buying a calendar so the enviros can count them as supporters?
quote:Omnivore is obviously a misanthrope looking for an audience. What does he think about the OHV community? Can they read above the 4th grade level? Are they fat? watch TV etc?
the public (sitting in front of the TV 40 hours a week, fat, dumb and dying),
quote:Is that a rebuttal? Gee, Idyllwild is located adjacent to the desert. Does this disqualify the residents from caring and having legitimate opinions about the desert?
You would think a Desert Biologist would be located in, ah, gee, maybe, I don’t know…THE DESERT???
My own take is that this piece is an appeal to the public. for me the main issues are protecting the rare species in the dunes. If it weren't for the danger of losing these plants and animals I would be on the duners' side. No one else is bothered by the sound of OHVs there. the wind obliterates the tracks ever so often. the trash issue can be dealt with. the truth as far as I see it is there's plenty of area for hikers in the historically closed areas.
Maybe BLM could promote dunes hiking--maybe someone could invent a dunes hiking shoe like a snow shoe and special tent stakes that would grip the sand. I can't forsee a time when there will be so many dunes hikers that they will spill out of the wilderness area.
the real issue is the survival of precious unique plants and animals. For that we need to restrict OHVs to areas that are already barren and have no habitat value.
[ 01-07-2003, 05:52 AM: Message edited by: Bluesky ]
"Two years ago, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, conservationists, and off-roaders agreed to ban ORVs from 49,000 acres of the dunes to protect wildlife."
"Two years ago, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, conservationists, and off-roaders agreed to ban ORVs from 49,000 acres of the dunes to protect wildlife. "
"Two years ago, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, conservationists, and off-roaders agreed to ban ORVs from 49,000 acres of the dunes to protect wildlife. "
It doesn't matter how many times this appears in print, it is still a lie.
[ 01-07-2003, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Doorlord ]
"Two years ago, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, conservationists, and off-roaders agreed to ban ORVs from 49,000 acres of the dunes to protect wildlife. "
"Two years ago, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, conservationists, and off-roaders agreed to ban ORVs from 49,000 acres of the dunes to protect wildlife. "
It doesn't matter how many times this appears in print, it is still a lie.
[ 01-07-2003, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Doorlord ]
By Blu, (the real issue is the survival of precious unique plants and animals. For that we need to restrict OHVs to areas that are already barren and have no habitat value.)
Ok Blu, where is the proof you are talking about????????? What little plants and animals you talking about???????????
Show us your science to prove your enviro lies. Like the growing vistor number to 240,000. What a Crock. Where is all these hikers ????????????
It is all like you a bunch of B.S.
Ok Blu, where is the proof you are talking about????????? What little plants and animals you talking about???????????
Show us your science to prove your enviro lies. Like the growing vistor number to 240,000. What a Crock. Where is all these hikers ????????????
It is all like you a bunch of B.S.
Oh Blu/L.P, you really should have know we would jump on this quote...
Let me ask you a direct question if I can, If the ASA paid for a study, accually went to the dunes, counted the PMV one by one, logged them, mapped them, took pictures of them, plotted them in a gps and a computer, how can you now discount the numbers?
Now remember, the gps co-ords are there, anybody at anytime can get those numbers and walk the dunes to confirm the findings. Then confirm or compair there findings with those in the pictures.
OK, now please answer my question if you can.
quote:You know as well as we do that there is NO scientific evidence to show that theses plants or animals are being threatened. There is only junk science and estimats about there numbers. The only numbers that can be CONFIRMED are those presented by the ASA regarding the PMV. They HAVE been counted. Its not about the plants and animals, its about closing the dunes and you know it as well as we do.
If it weren't for the danger of losing these plants and animals I would be on the duners' side.
Let me ask you a direct question if I can, If the ASA paid for a study, accually went to the dunes, counted the PMV one by one, logged them, mapped them, took pictures of them, plotted them in a gps and a computer, how can you now discount the numbers?
Now remember, the gps co-ords are there, anybody at anytime can get those numbers and walk the dunes to confirm the findings. Then confirm or compair there findings with those in the pictures.
quote:I must say L.P, this quote does give you a slight bit of credibilty. Its nice to see you can admit there is plenty of room for the 2-3 people that will hike the dunes this year.
No one else is bothered by the sound of OHVs there. the wind obliterates the tracks ever so often. the trash issue can be dealt with. the truth as far as I see it is there's plenty of area for hikers in the historically closed areas.
quote:Blu, you could invent those shoes. If there was a tent stake that could grab the sand,we would be using it on our rear tires.(little joke there)Wouldn't that stake possibly kill a scarab bettle?
Maybe BLM could promote dunes hiking--maybe someone could invent a dunes hiking shoe like a snow shoe and special tent stakes that would grip the sand.
quote:I cant forsee a time when there will be so many hikers in the dunes that they would spill out of a Volkswagen much less 26,000 acres.
I can't forsee a time when there will be so many dunes hikers that they will spill out of the wilderness area.
OK, now please answer my question if you can.
Simrak
just counting the plants one time doesn't reveal whether the population is stable, is falling, or is rising. How can our land managers or anyone else make a decision to risk the health of dunes-endemic populations of rare plants and animals without this critical info?
Count them a few more times using the same methods and compare your data across time.
just counting the plants one time doesn't reveal whether the population is stable, is falling, or is rising. How can our land managers or anyone else make a decision to risk the health of dunes-endemic populations of rare plants and animals without this critical info?
Count them a few more times using the same methods and compare your data across time.
It's a desert BS, get used to things being rare in it.
quote:Using that logic, lets look back. The blm or fws or whoever concocted the method of counting(guessing) before, guessed once, then guessed again. That was science and CBD used that against us. We counted and compaired that to the latest guess and thats not good enough?
just counting the plants one time doesn't reveal whether the population is stable, is falling, or is rising. How can our land managers or anyone else make a decision to risk the health of dunes-endemic populations of rare plants and animals without this critical info?
Count them a few more times using the same methods and compare your data across time.
If thier guess was considered accurate, should it not then be considered accurate when used with our accual count?
Anyone who knows the life cycle of the PMV knows how it reacts to rain and other weather. Just because it is there this week does not mean it will be there in three months, or at least not above grouond. It reallies on rain as does everything else out there. When there is no rain it becomes dormant. The plant and its seeds can be dormant for years. So to count or even guess the number after a dry spell would certainly show less plants than when there has been rain. Oh heck Lo...oppps I almost spelled your name, You know this stuff, but you wont admit it. It would work against you...
[ 01-07-2003, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Tom Simrak ]
quote:Very True.
Originally posted by Tom Simrak:
I cant forsee a time when there will be so many hikers in the dunes that they would spill out of a Volkswagen much less 26,000 acres.
LMAO!!
[ 01-07-2003, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: LoBuck ]
quote:So when are you and the CBD going to PAY for the next study??? And when that one shows the same results??? Count again??? And again until you get the answer you are looking for??? Mean time it needs to remain closed right???
just counting the plants one time doesn't reveal whether the population is stable, is falling, or is rising. How can our land managers or anyone else make a decision to risk the health of dunes-endemic populations of rare plants and animals without this critical inf
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
Remember Joe the BLM's own studies failed to show any decrease in plant numbers in open areas. They did show a decrease in the closed areas north of 78 but they also showed an increase in the open areas around Gecko!
But those figures where known to be faulty as the survey method was not well designed and left out vast portions of the dunes resulting in dramatically lower numbers than what is actually out there. But that was enough for the CBD.
A big problem is that groups like the CBD are using highly specialized species that simply don't have large numbers to push their agenda. You can stop all the human activity in the dunes that you want and it's not going to result in more PMV because the PMV simply won't grow anywhere other than where it already does. But they operate under the assumption that OHV use must be evil so since it occurs in the same spot it must be OHV's that make the plant exist in such limited numbers. Never mind the fact that the plant is only capable of living in dune areas and already is prevelant in those areas.
BS is also assuming that the TOA study was simply a plant count which simply is not true. That was the first part of the study the following year they performed followup counts and a seed bed survey. It's the seed bed survey that in the case of this plant is most telling since it's not a long lived plant and it dosen't have signifigant germination events every year.
In english that means the plant only lives for a few months even with perfect conditions. It's not like a tree or a shrub but more like a wildflower - the same plant seldom lives through multiple seasons but relies on it's seeds to carry on the species. And being a highly developed desert plant those seeds are smart enough not to sprout unless there is enough rainfall in a given year to see them through to maturity so they can grow their own seeds to carry on the species.
And what the seed bed study found was that the plant is in no danger what so ever even if it goes years without a major germination event. The seeds are even more prevelant than the plant which as most duners have noticed is not in any kind of short supply.
But those figures where known to be faulty as the survey method was not well designed and left out vast portions of the dunes resulting in dramatically lower numbers than what is actually out there. But that was enough for the CBD.
A big problem is that groups like the CBD are using highly specialized species that simply don't have large numbers to push their agenda. You can stop all the human activity in the dunes that you want and it's not going to result in more PMV because the PMV simply won't grow anywhere other than where it already does. But they operate under the assumption that OHV use must be evil so since it occurs in the same spot it must be OHV's that make the plant exist in such limited numbers. Never mind the fact that the plant is only capable of living in dune areas and already is prevelant in those areas.
BS is also assuming that the TOA study was simply a plant count which simply is not true. That was the first part of the study the following year they performed followup counts and a seed bed survey. It's the seed bed survey that in the case of this plant is most telling since it's not a long lived plant and it dosen't have signifigant germination events every year.
In english that means the plant only lives for a few months even with perfect conditions. It's not like a tree or a shrub but more like a wildflower - the same plant seldom lives through multiple seasons but relies on it's seeds to carry on the species. And being a highly developed desert plant those seeds are smart enough not to sprout unless there is enough rainfall in a given year to see them through to maturity so they can grow their own seeds to carry on the species.
And what the seed bed study found was that the plant is in no danger what so ever even if it goes years without a major germination event. The seeds are even more prevelant than the plant which as most duners have noticed is not in any kind of short supply.
And Jason, correct me if I'm wrong, But contrary to what blueballs says, hasn't the TOA study been peer reviewed?
I know that it's been submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal but I have not heard yet about wether or not it has been fully reviewed.
From what I understand it has stood to informal peer reviews but I have not yet heard about it's progress through the full formal peer review and publication process.
From what I understand it has stood to informal peer reviews but I have not yet heard about it's progress through the full formal peer review and publication process.
quote:TOA could have used the same methods as the previous counts and then we all could have seen the results. By abandoning the previous methods based on transects and just counting every plant in sight negates the validity of any comparison with the previous studies.
The blm or fws or whoever concocted the method of counting(guessing) before, guessed once, then guessed again. That was science and CBD used that against us. We counted and compaired that to the latest guess and thats not good enough?
quote:you're comparing apples to oranges
If thier guess was considered accurate, should it not then be considered accurate when used with our accual count?
For those who may not already know it, Blu is not a reliable source of information, no matter what manner of speech he employs. Once again as much as I am against responding to him (please see previous posts regarding Internet Trolls), when he (intentionally?) misleads people I have to step in.
As regards the PMV, page 2 of the Thomas Olsen & Associates study shows that there were several variations of previous studies, which used different methods each and every time. The studies were so varied, in fact, that no single one could be relied upon as a baseline. Blue's statement that TOA should have used the same methods indicates he either did not read the study (and therefore should not attempt to address it) or he is, as I suspect, intentionally disregarding facts he is aware of. Either choice is bad.
Of course, depending on where "they" want their argument to be heard, "they" have relied on the various studies, quoting from or discounting each of them at separate times to suit a variety of agendas, what a surprise.
Again, I am sorry for responding to this Troll, but I cannot allow him to so blatantly mislead the readers of this fine forum.
Vicki
As regards the PMV, page 2 of the Thomas Olsen & Associates study shows that there were several variations of previous studies, which used different methods each and every time. The studies were so varied, in fact, that no single one could be relied upon as a baseline. Blue's statement that TOA should have used the same methods indicates he either did not read the study (and therefore should not attempt to address it) or he is, as I suspect, intentionally disregarding facts he is aware of. Either choice is bad.
Of course, depending on where "they" want their argument to be heard, "they" have relied on the various studies, quoting from or discounting each of them at separate times to suit a variety of agendas, what a surprise.
Again, I am sorry for responding to this Troll, but I cannot allow him to so blatantly mislead the readers of this fine forum.
Vicki
go here and read it yourself
http://www.glamisonline.org/downloads/TOAreport.doc
Previous Studies
The initial survey of rare plants in the Algodones Dunes was carried out by WESTEC Services, Inc., under contract with the BLM in 1977. They surveyed for eight Special Status plants, of which seven were found, and originated the current method used by the BLM. WESTEC surveyed 66 west-east randomly selected parallel transects traversing the dunes, each segmented into cells 0.45 miles per side, to determine species abundance (WESTEC 1977). No further attempts to monitor special status plants in the dunes were made by the BLM until 1990, when ECOS, Inc. was contracted to perform a habitat characterization and sensitive species analysis, and design long-term monitoring plan (ECOS 1990). These studies did not count the total number of plants; instead, they analyzed population fitness by scoring a set of variables for each species.
Monitoring efforts were revived by the BLM in 1998. In consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Native Plant Society, a decision was made to resume monitoring plants in the Algodones Dunes, taking advantage of an above-average precipitation year to implement the program. Design flaws with the ECOS protocol caused it to be passed over in favor of the original 1977 survey by WESTEC. The dunes were divided into four geographic strata, 34 of the original 66 transects were randomly selected from those strata, divided into cells, and six special status plants (listed in the introduction of this report) were selected for monitoring. Numbers of plants found are then recorded within 10-50 m. of fixed parallel transects in each of the cells, and abundance classes are assigned for each species in each cell (BLM 2000). The BLM monitoring program was repeated in 2000 and 2001; results of the 2000 reading were presented in the BLM report for that year (BLM 2001). Results of the 2001 monitoring were not yet available at the time of this writing.
the way I read it is if TOA had followed the same methods as WESTEC and the later BLM studies approved by both CNPS and CDFG, there would be simple results to compare.
I wonder why TOA decided to introduce a third method of surveying?
[ 01-08-2003, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Bluesky ]
http://www.glamisonline.org/downloads/TOAreport.doc
Previous Studies
The initial survey of rare plants in the Algodones Dunes was carried out by WESTEC Services, Inc., under contract with the BLM in 1977. They surveyed for eight Special Status plants, of which seven were found, and originated the current method used by the BLM. WESTEC surveyed 66 west-east randomly selected parallel transects traversing the dunes, each segmented into cells 0.45 miles per side, to determine species abundance (WESTEC 1977). No further attempts to monitor special status plants in the dunes were made by the BLM until 1990, when ECOS, Inc. was contracted to perform a habitat characterization and sensitive species analysis, and design long-term monitoring plan (ECOS 1990). These studies did not count the total number of plants; instead, they analyzed population fitness by scoring a set of variables for each species.
Monitoring efforts were revived by the BLM in 1998. In consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Native Plant Society, a decision was made to resume monitoring plants in the Algodones Dunes, taking advantage of an above-average precipitation year to implement the program. Design flaws with the ECOS protocol caused it to be passed over in favor of the original 1977 survey by WESTEC. The dunes were divided into four geographic strata, 34 of the original 66 transects were randomly selected from those strata, divided into cells, and six special status plants (listed in the introduction of this report) were selected for monitoring. Numbers of plants found are then recorded within 10-50 m. of fixed parallel transects in each of the cells, and abundance classes are assigned for each species in each cell (BLM 2000). The BLM monitoring program was repeated in 2000 and 2001; results of the 2000 reading were presented in the BLM report for that year (BLM 2001). Results of the 2001 monitoring were not yet available at the time of this writing.
the way I read it is if TOA had followed the same methods as WESTEC and the later BLM studies approved by both CNPS and CDFG, there would be simple results to compare.
I wonder why TOA decided to introduce a third method of surveying?
[ 01-08-2003, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Bluesky ]
![[Angry Fire]](graemlins/angryfire.gif)
TROLL! LIVE FREE OR DIE!
quote:You're right and I'm done backsliding! Never again, even when I know he's blowing smoke. I'm sure by now everyone reading here knows what he's made of and if they don't, they'll figure it out quick enough.
Originally posted by dezfan1:
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
Thanks Dezfan
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Vicki
quote:Its o.k. Vicki, I do it all the time.
You're right and I'm done backsliding! Never again, even when I know he's blowing smoke
![[Disturbed]](graemlins/disturbed.gif)
Blu just has a way of making you want to strangle something! ![[Grenade]](graemlins/grenade.gif)
I was just reminding everyone that Blu is a TROLL! LIVE FREE OR DIE!
I almost hate calling him bluesky, I so much want to call him by his real name...but I wont... yet.
The troll asked..
It's that simple.
The official reason that is listed in the report(if you would read the entire report) was,
[ 01-08-2003, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Tom Simrak ]
The troll asked..
quote:Your not that stupid are you? It's simple... because the methods used by T.O.A are accurate and verifiable
I wonder why TOA decided to introduce a third method of surveying?
It's that simple.
The official reason that is listed in the report(if you would read the entire report) was,
quote:Further "
This investigation was designed to conduct and record a complete census of occurrences of Peirson’s milkvetch and other Special Status plants. The methodology was not constrained by predetermined points or lines, allowing for the systematic inclusion of as much of the suitable habitat as possible.
quote:Vicki, dont get upset at yourself for responding to this...person. Nobody takes him serious but, those of us with the real knowledge still need to do what we can to keep people informed. Thats what your doing. He's like that little child that keeps peeing his pants, you want to smack him but you cant. As much as it hurts, its the right thing and you ARE winning the battle.
A multi-stage non-probabilistic survey of the Algodones Dunes was conducted by TOA biologists on seven separate occasions between early March and mid-May 2001. Redman (1974) and Schiffer and House (1977) have argued that a multi-stage research design is most effective for resource management, and that “[w]ithout multi-stage capability, … studies cannot meet their research and management goals efficiently” (Schiffer and House 1977: 45). Sampling methodology was not included in this survey design, since the purpose of the investigation was to locate as many occurrences of the subject plants as possible, and to completely census every area in which they were discovered."
[ 01-08-2003, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Tom Simrak ]
quote:so we're right back to where I told you,
"This investigation was designed to conduct and record a complete census of occurrences of Peirson’s milkvetch and other Special Status plants. The methodology was not constrained by predetermined points or lines, allowing for the systematic inclusion of as much of the suitable habitat as possible."
quote:my question remains:
TOA could have used the same methods as the previous counts and then we all could have seen the results. By abandoning the previous methods based on transects and just counting every plant in sight negates the validity of any comparison with the previous studies.
Why do you think TOA chose to introduce a third method of surveying?
My guess is they wanted to know how many PMV were there and how the seed bed was doing.
What is your guess?
What is your guess?
my guess is that if they used the same methods previously established, that it would show that the PMV was in decline.
quote:Well L.P, troll, appearantly you didnt read my post. I answered your question completly. Since you seem to have all the facts and links, Could you give me a link to the accual number of plants counted by the 1977 study, the following study and or the CBD study. I want to know what the total number of plants was in 1977.
Why do you think TOA chose to introduce a third method of surveying?
quote:I get the idea you're trying hard not to understand.
Could you give me a link to the accual number of plants counted by the 1977 study, the following study and or the CBD study. I want to know what the total number of plants was in 1977.
The previous studies were paid for by the gov't. they tried to hold the cost down. they didn't have the man power to count every plant in the ISDRA so they walked the transects as described by TOA above. this established the methodology for future studies to use in order to get a valid comparison of plant growth or decline over time. If TOA had wanted to make a meaningful contribution to the record, they would have used the same methods in order to get an up-to-the-minute reading of PMV health.
But they didn't. they had $ to burn and plenty of volunteers so they did their own methodology of counting every visible plant.
Now in order to make a comparison of PMV health over time, more studies using the TOA method will have to be conducted.
So L.P, what your saying is NOBODY has counted the number of plants before. Therefore it would be impossable to know if the plant was thirving or not based on their estimates. I dont think the purpose of the TOA study was to show if the numbers were increasing or decreasing but rather to show the number of plants in existance. Plain and simple. But unless you can show number from 1977, you cannot say the number are decreasing. I dont think anyone with the ASA or TOA has said the numbers are increasing, only that there are over 72,000 plants counted and that does not constatute endangered based on Calif guildlines.
So your logic as usual, is flawed and a waste of our time. Nuf said on this subject.
You simply CANNOT show any numbers period, end of story. We can. Goodbye Mr P.
[ 01-08-2003, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Tom Simrak ]
So your logic as usual, is flawed and a waste of our time. Nuf said on this subject.
You simply CANNOT show any numbers period, end of story. We can. Goodbye Mr P.
[ 01-08-2003, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Tom Simrak ]
quote:So TOA raised the bar a bit, you guys (CBD, LP, SC) should step up to the plate and fund the next study using TOA's method, then BLM can pick up the next one, and then the pro-access community can fund another.
Originally posted by Bluesky:
Now in order to make a comparison of PMV health over time, more studies using the TOA method will have to be conducted.
Meanwhile, the TEMPORARY closures would be OPEN unless future monitoring shows otherwise.
Please excuse me if I don't engage in name calling as a dunner I find the challenge of debate a worthwhile endeavor, So...
OK Blu, in you opinion which of the 3 studies conducted is the most accurate? Please no cut & paste links, I asked for YOUR opinion.
And, if none of the 3 can be used in conjunction with each other, for direct analytical modeling. Then how would you establish a base line?, again your opinion please.
next, if only one study (Presumably the most accurate)is to be used as base line, how do we establish whether the species in threaten? (I'll answer this one: WE CAN'T)
so, until another study is conducted, it would be irrational to discriminate, and deprive the public (You know we dunners are part of the public) from the pursuit of happiness in our public Land.
Sorry Vicky, Dezfan,
OK Blu, in you opinion which of the 3 studies conducted is the most accurate? Please no cut & paste links, I asked for YOUR opinion.
And, if none of the 3 can be used in conjunction with each other, for direct analytical modeling. Then how would you establish a base line?, again your opinion please.
next, if only one study (Presumably the most accurate)is to be used as base line, how do we establish whether the species in threaten? (I'll answer this one: WE CAN'T)
so, until another study is conducted, it would be irrational to discriminate, and deprive the public (You know we dunners are part of the public) from the pursuit of happiness in our public Land.
Sorry Vicky, Dezfan,
quote:here's your answer.
, if none of the 3 can be used in conjunction with each other, for direct analytical modeling. Then how would you establish a base line?,
quote:
The initial survey of rare plants in the Algodones Dunes was carried out by WESTEC Services, Inc., under contract with the BLM in 1977. They surveyed for eight Special Status plants, of which seven were found, and originated the current method used by the BLM.
quote:
Design flaws with the ECOS protocol caused it to be passed over in favor of the original 1977 survey by WESTEC.
quote:the original WESTEC survey method can and has been used with the BLM surveys in 1998, 2000 and 2001. (according to the TOA report cited above)
The BLM monitoring program was repeated in 2000 and 2001;
Mr.P. Answer the question as it was asked
Now Mr.P, please try to answer the questions as asked to you.
[ 01-09-2003, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Tom Simrak ]
quote:Then try again to answer my last question
OK Blu, in you opinion which of the 3 studies conducted is the most accurate? Please no cut & paste links, I asked for YOUR opinion.
quote:Your, as usual, not answereing our questions. You also seem to forget, the purpose of the TOA study was not to show declining or increasing numbers but rather show the accual accuarate count of plants.
what was the total number of plants in 1977
quote:Correct, but what are the numbers of plants counted? In all four surveys.What numbers are they compairing? Unless that can be anwered exactly, it is flawed as is Mr.P and is a completly useless survey. This is why the plant IS being de-listed. Flawed science, if you can call it science.
the original WESTEC survey method can and has been used with the BLM surveys in 1998, 2000 and 2001. (according to the TOA report cited above)
Now Mr.P, please try to answer the questions as asked to you.
[ 01-09-2003, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Tom Simrak ]
Mr.P. Answer the question as it was asked
quote:Your, as usual, not answereing our questions. You also seem to forget, the purpose of the TOA study was not to show declining or increasing numbers but rather show the accual accuarate count of plants.
OK Blu, in you opinion which of the 3 studies conducted is the most accurate? Please no cut & paste links, I asked for YOUR opinion.
quote:the above is listed under the "purpose" page of the TOA study.
The investigation did not entail monitoring, and was a one-time census of plants which, while it can be easily replicated using the mapped geo-coordinates, was not intended to be repeated in future years. The study reported here is intended to stand on its own merits, not duplicate the efforts of the BLM.
Does it make sense to do a one-time count? how does that stand on its own merits? The health of an ecosystem is reflected by year-to-year monitoring over time. There is a lack of information about special species plants and animals. How can we make informed decisions about their management if we don't do studies that reveal their numbers over time?
If he's not going to answer the question just ignore the troll. Ya all got hooks dug so deep in your cheeks right now from him you're blind to the pain.
quote:I agree. I'm on the wagon.
Originally posted by jhitesma:
If he's not going to answer the question just ignore the troll. Ya all got hooks dug so deep in your cheeks right now from him you're blind to the pain.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Open the dunes back up...
How can we make informed decisions about their management if we don't do studies that reveal their numbers over time?
Come back in ten years...
If the plant is still there, then there isn't a problem..
If it's gone... it's gone..
Study done!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Vor
quote:Your absolutly right Jason. He's not going to answer the question because he can't. Nobody has numbers to show how the plant is doing except the TOA study. Until Mr.P********n(anyone want to buy a vowel?) supplies us with the accual number of plants in 1977, this topic is now mute. He simply cannot dispute our numbers or make the claim that numers are declining if he has no numbers to base his argument on. So until Mr.P********n gives that number, I will not speak to this issue again.
If he's not going to answer the question just ignore the troll. Ya all got hooks dug so deep in your cheeks right now from him you're blind to the pain.
[ 01-09-2003, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Tom Simrak ]
quote:Sounds good to me!
Open the dunes back up...
Come back in ten years...
If the plant is still there, then there isn't a problem..
If it's gone... it's gone..
Study done!
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
By the way, nice way to answer the question Blu...I mean Mr. P********n. TROLL!
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
TROLL! LIVE FREE OR DIE!
OK, I'm still on the hook
Lets try again!
Lets try again!
quote:I Belive This is where we are today:
OK Blu, in you opinion which of the 3 studies conducted is the most accurate? Please no cut & paste links, I asked for YOUR opinion.
quote:.
so, until another study is conducted, it would be irrational to discriminate, and deprive the public (You know we dunners are part of the public) from the pursuit of happiness in our public Land
FYI, a certain troll just posted reference to this thread on DesertUSA:
http://www.desertusa.com/cgi-bin/mb/messag...hread=10582.msg
[ 01-10-2003, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Poiks ]
http://www.desertusa.com/cgi-bin/mb/messag...hread=10582.msg
quote:
Here is a comment from a prominent voice in the Off-roader community. The comment was regarding the biological studies necessary to determine if special status plants and animals are being affected by indiscriminate off-road use.
" Open the dunes back up...
Come back in ten years...
If the plant is still there, then there isn't a problem..
If it's gone... it's gone..
Study done!"
go here to read the whole unbelievable thread.
[ 01-10-2003, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Poiks ]
is that like "being John malkopoiks?"
[ 01-11-2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Bluesky ]
[ 01-11-2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Bluesky ]
Huh?
quote:Not to worry. Now that he knows I won't respond to him, he's trying to toy with me.
Originally posted by Tom Simrak:
Huh?
Tom, check out this book I found on Amazon. Cool, huh?
Environmental Ursus?
That reminds me Poiks. I've been meaning to ask you, What was that guys name that played the Dad on Bonanza?
I'm not really sure. He was another Greene, though, wasn't he?
Yeah.. thats right it was Greene. Landon?
Oh you guys are good. I cant wait to play.
quote:http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm
Originally posted by Bluesky:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.