Voice: Is there proof that ‘balanced' dunes management affects Valley business?

Re: Sand dunes management plan takes priority (I.V. Press, Monday)

We wonder where the facts are for alleged business fears that balanced dunes management causes economic harm. Considering that most off-roaders haul everything with them from home, the local economic benefit is likely very overestimated. 

Certainly off-road visitation at the dunes is way up since the 50/50 management took effect November 2000; busy holiday weekend visitation doubled over this time, proving there is still plenty of space for off-roading on the 68,000 acres open to off-road vehicles.

Continuing balanced management at the dunes will benefit the local economy. Based on figures from California state parks and neutral economists, we estimated Imperial County would gain at least $3.3 million annually by keeping the current 50/50 dunes management in place, therefore increasing and diversifying visitation to Imperial County by allowing more non-motorized sustainable recreation. 

Unfortunately, the proposed Bureau of Land Managment plan Lynette Elser says is her priority to finish would end this sustainable economic stimulus by rolling back dunes conservation, which attracts non-motorized recreation to the area.

DANIEL R. PATTERSON

Desert ecologist 

Center for Biological Diversity

Idyllwild

Considering that most off-roaders haul everything with them from home, the local economic benefit is likely very overestimated.

we estimated Imperial County would gain at least $3.3 million annually by keeping the current 50/50 dunes management in place, therefore increasing and diversifying visitation to Imperial County by allowing more non-motorized sustainable recreation. 

Dammit, now I have to write a response  :x 

Vicki

therefore increasing and diversifying visitation to Imperial County by allowing more non-motorized sustainable recreation.  

Dan, did you fall and hit your head?  

The local economy benefit is over-estimated? Why don’t you stop and ask the grocery stores, gas stations, fast food establishments, restaurants, hotels and motels, parts stores, and tire stores how much the duners contribute to the local economy?

Using your amazing logic, now we are to assume that the reason for the increased usage is due to the closures? Really? The increase in OHV popularity and the economy in the mid 90s is responsible for the increase…more disposable income. The crowds were almost that big in “98”.  

Just where does your added 3.3 million annually come from? The sale of backpacks and Birkenstocks? Bird watching? Now there’s a high end user. You already have the north Algodones that virtually no one uses. Now you’re telling us that you are going to flood Glamis with hikers and other forms of  non vehicular traffic?  I have been going out there for over 25 years and have seen anyone hiking in the sand dunes…except for illegals, and they were almost dead from the exertion. Using your “math”, if we close it down completely, the county will now gain 6.6 million annually!  

Your problem is that you can‘t  stand the fact that the PMV is thriving. You have no science other than people like you who will do and say whatever it takes to get what you want. You can’t deal with the fact that fewer and fewer people are listening to you because the story changes constantly, and the truth has  become irrelevant.

If I read it correctly, Center for Biological Diversity spokesman Daniel Patterson's March 7 editorial implies that there would be a net gain of $3.3 million to Imperial County if the temporary OHV closures within the dunes were not rescinded. Apparently Patterson believes (but offers no proof) that the interim closures have resulted in additional recreation opportunities (e.g. hiking) in the Algodones Dunes.

Although he offers no evidence to back up his wild $3.3 million claim, Patterson is calling for \"proof that ‘balanced' dunes management affects Valley business.\" It's classic Patterson: Demand your opponents provide proof of their assertions, and then shamelessly make some unfounded claims of your own.  

As Daniel Patterson, and those who actually visit the dunes routinely know, there is a Congressionally-mandated wilderness area of 32,000 acres within the Algodones Dunes (that's about 50 square miles). Yet in the decades since that area was set aside, virtually nobody has been hiking there. There was one publicly-discussed Algodones hike--but that was not in the wilderness area. It was a CBD publicity stunt, as the resulting propaganda-piece on their website attests.

When the demand for hiking area in the Algodones Dunes exceeds the demand for OHV-use area, closure advocates may have a valid point. In the meantime, focusing on issues outside their hypothetical sphere of expertise (the desert ecosystem) only serves to highlight the fact that the CBD's species-related arguments for dune closures are not very convincing.

I sent this to the IVPress...

we are to assume that the reason for the increased usage is due to the closures (of many other OHV recreational areas)

We have bought, paid for, and are still paying for our land. It's called green sticker funding.

THEY CLOSED CALIFORNIA CITY!!!! Son of a %$#@(&^%$#!!!  California city was a legal riding area wih trails marked by and maps available from the Forrest Service. It was in the middle of no where. I wonder how it got shut

Voice: CBD's new tactics in dunes battle are the old ones

If I read it correctly, Center for Biological Diversity spokesman Daniel Patterson's March 7 letter to the editor implies that there would be a net gain of $3.3 million to Imperial County if the temporary off-highway vehicle closures within the dunes were not rescinded.  

Apparently Patterson believes (but offers no proof) that the interim closures have resulted in additional recreation opportunities (e.g. hiking) in the Algodones Dunes.

Although he offers no evidence to back up his wild $3.3 million claim, Patterson is calling for \"proof that ‘balanced' dunes management affects Valley business.\" It's classic Patterson: Demand your opponents provide proof of their assertions, and then shamelessly make some unfounded claims of your own.  

As Daniel Patterson, and those who actually visit the dunes routinely know, there is a congressionally mandated wilderness area of 32,000 acres within the Algodones Dunes (that's about 50 square miles). Yet in the decades since that area was set aside, virtually nobody has been hiking there. There was one publicly-discussed Algodones hike — but that was not in the wilderness area. It was a CBD publicity stunt, as the resulting propaganda piece on their Website attests.

When the demand for hiking area in the Algodones Dunes exceeds the demand for OHV-use area, closure advocates may have a valid point. In the meantime, focusing on issues outside their hypothetical sphere of expertise (the desert ecosystem) only serves to highlight the fact that the CBD's species-related arguments for dune closures are not very convincing.