It has been known for quite some time that the way that the BLM/Sheriff enforce the FLERA is absolutely out of whack with what the FLERA allows and is also, confusing, unfair, biased, arbitrairy and in short, wouldn't last 30 seconds in a court of law on all of these grounds.



The BLM is not authorized to simply charge willy-nilly however and whatever they wish for access to the dunes.



Before we continue with this discussion, Please listen to this MP3 which is about 6 minutes or so.

I hope I can get Glen to let us know who the people talking are.

This is a discussion between the TRT and some BLM people concerning the access to the dunes from private land...

Click here to download



Now, as I understand the FLERA (I'm going to look up the actual wording), the BLM are authorized to charge for "special use" of undeveloped/underdeveloped BLM land. In our case that "special use" is off-road riding. NOT camping or parking.

Yet, the BLM charge a fee for entrance into Glamis, regardless of the reason. Their justification is, as I understand it, there is no other way to enforce the Fee without installing fences and gates and checking each vehicle, which would be cost prohibitive.

The problem is that they end up double charging some, and not charging others as duners learn the loop-holes or get caught in the confusing trap.

Here are two examples:

A person tows a street legal Jeep or Manx into the washes. Since it's being towed it does not require a pass. The vehicle towing it does require a pass. This person then unloads his Jeep/Manx and drives to the store, never entering onto so called "Public roads", other than the Wash road, which the BLM allows to be used by OHV's. When this driver attempts to go back to his camp he is forced to purchass a pass because his vehicle is now a "primary vehicle". This method of enforcement is grossly unfair to those who ride street legal vehicles in Glamis. I could do the exact same thing on my quad and I would not be required to buy a second pass.

Example #2:

A person is camped in a private campground adjacent to Glamis. (there are several near the Store, and several in the south dunes) These people are on private land and so are not subject to purchassing a pass. The BLM does not have jurisdiction. You are perfectly capable of riding an OHV from your private camp into the ISDRA and use ALL of the services yet are not required to purchass a pass. Again, grossly unfair and not within the spirit of the FLERA.



Another issue came up while I listened to the above conversation. I don't know who was who in the conversation but I think it was the BLM representative who said that anyone entering the ISDRA in a "primary vehicle", including those who live and work in the area are required to have a pass. This is not allowed by the FLERA. The BLM cannot charge you simply for entering the ISDRA. Tim Gantz (GlamisPilot) lives at the store and has numerous legitamate reasons to enter the ISDRA that has absolutely nothing to do with riding Off-road. Yet, he says in the above conversation that he is asked numerous times to display his pass. Now, he may feel that purchassing one just to give money to the BLM is a good thing, and that's fine, but it is by no means required to do so any more than it would be required for a tow truck operator to have a pass in order to pull someone out of the sand.



The bottom line is that the BLM do not enforce the FLERA correctly or fairly and people are starting to see the flaws in their system and use it to their advantage while others who are less informed are being unfairly double taxed and since they don't want to be bothered with having to defend themselves simply pay it.



I want the fees to go away. I think they cost far too much to administer and enforce already. At least 30% of every pass is spent simply to collect your money from you. In some cases it's even more. The BLM have decided on this enforcement method because any other method would cost them even more money to administer and enforce. The FLERA only allows for 30% and no more.

At the very least the BLM need to come up with a system that is fair to those using the ISDRA for ohv use AND for those who are using the ISDRA for other purposes. At least stay within the confines of the FLERA.

If you tow a street legal vehicle to G and it's not your primary vehicle, remove the license plate and put a flag on it, then it is obviously not your primary vehicle.

The "official" guy at the beginning is Neal Hamada. Lobuck is in a good portion of the conversation regarding jeeps, he's easy to hear and somewhat scratchy voice. Mark from WW piped in a few times later and was the guy leaving the meeting ~6 minutes into it. You can also hear Larry Jowdy and Jerry Seaver.

Go to ~2:30 into it... the guy with the deep voice seeking clarification is me. Sorry... I'm not that easy to hear, the bass in my voice must drown out the mic BTW, this was not the entirity of the pass/fee issue. I personally beat the issue up for at least 10 minutes later on... this section of the TRT audio solely deals with the jeep exemtion deal.

My point during this part of the conversation was to clarify that they are going to get around the trailered in jeep issue by issuing a exemption... yes, they are exempting a OHV from the OHV "special recreation" fee ...yes, it's not right for the jeepers to buy 2 passes simply because they trailer their jeep in.... but at the same time, how do you exempt a OHV from a OHV use fee ...it's simply a case of the means justifying the end ...it works for the jeepers in the long run but on paper it just isn't logical.

I think that was even mentioned at one point... the rub there is that it's illegal to remove the plates off of a registered vehicle.

Long story short... there's 2 entirely different regulatory documents that give the BLM certain authorities and responsibilities.

One is the FLREA, this is public law and gives federal agencies the authority to charge certain structured fees for recreation.

The other (forgot it, see JHitesma's sig) is the document that allows the BLM to put certain management style restrictions on the users... THIS is what allows the BLM to require a pass/permit to enter the fee area... THIS does not allow them to charge $90.... or any amount for that matter though, merely have a pass/permit.

Combine the two and you get a "special recreation" fee that is enforced as a "entrance/camping" pass.

Check for the audio later on when I'm taking this up with the ICSO Lt., Neal Hamada, and others... I should have a lot of tape time in there. You'll hear the ICSO Lt. admit that they enforce it that way simply because it's easier (I've never disagreed with that).

It may be illegal while it is being operated on roads. I don't think there's any requirement to have the plates mounted while it's off road. My golf cart is licensed with plates, but they aren't mounted on it.

Can somebody Edumacate me here on something. Our local lakes are ran by the BLM they require a pass for every viechle that enters the area they also require that every water craft entering same area buy's a seperate pass allthough now they are just making it a everythying on your trailer pass, But if you have a Ski in the back of your truck better have that extra pass. Now here's my ? what is the differance leagely speaking ? Why can they collect fee's ther and not get any complaints about how it's illeagle to collect a fee for this or that are boaters just not a bright or is there some loophole that there useing.

Just telling ya what I heard. Someone would have to check the law to be certain.

What happens to the folks in the south dunes or camping on the other side of the tracks/78 that need to cross a highway to get to where they are going? They wouldn't be "off-road" at that point.

Would you need a green sticker then?

Mike, check out the FLREA if ya want all the specifics. Basically though, they are allowed to charge for specific things, launch ramps being one of them. Entrance to certain areas such as those lakes may fall well within the intent of the FLREA and justify a legal entrance fee.

Nutshell... those lakes likely meet the minimum requirements for an entrance and/or camping fee. The ISDRA does not.

Might just make them push non-licensed viecles across public Highways or recive a ticket, Unless you have a pass

Yup

I've actually looked this one up at the DMV...

It is illegal to modify any street licensed vehicle which renders it illegal for the street regardless of where you drive it.
This covers license plates, windshields on Manx's, bypasses for mufflers, off-road tires... in short, it is illegal to drive a street licensed vehicle that does not meet the requirements of it's license, no matter where you drive it.
And yes, you would be required to have a green sticker, which you cannot get on a street licensed vehicle.

As for the crossing of the road thing... an OHV is allowed to cross a road at a 90* angle only.

Heck, a street legal vehicle is required to display the plate and current tags at all times and all places. Even in your garage, your back yard, anywhere. Unless you have a non-operational sticker.

Since the link in my sig (it was only in my ASA sig...but I just added it here as well) is needed I figured I'd chime in

The BLM all purpose answer generator as I refer to it is pretty much what the BLM will reply to any question they don't have an answer for with.

Want to know why you can't mount seats and seat belts in the back of a Ranger/Rino and be legal for example...they'll just say "8365.1-6". The problem is that's not an answer! But most people asking hear a cite and assume it's a law that covers what they were asking about. The catch is 8365.1-6 is just a law allowing the BLM to make localized management rules. The real answer is that they passed a supplementary rule under 8365.1-6 saying "No person shall ride in the bed of a pick up truck or any part of a motor vehicle not designed for passengers on or off road."

The problem is there is not comprehensive list of these rules and the full text of them. The closest is the BLM's webpage summarizing them here:
http://www.blm.gov/ca/elcentro/ImperialSan...rules_regs.html

But in many cases the actual text of the rule does not exactly match what the BLM lists on that page. But the only way to find the text of the rules is to search the Federal Register where they're required to be published when they go into effect. Even the BLM often can't provide the original text of the rules without several days of research!


In this case what it comes down to is the BLM is only authorized to charge for OHV use in the dunes. They're not allowed to charge for entrance, they're not allowed to charge for camping, hiking, photography, driving through, having a fire, or anything else.

Plus the law that authorizes them to charge for OHV use was designed to cover things like organized races and events that result in management needs above and beyond what an area would normally see. The wording on it makes it quite obvious that congress did not intend for it to be used as an all purpose fee like the BLM is treating it...but rather a fee to be used in limited circumstances when large events put an extra strain on the manging agency.

Now the BLM says it's all good. They've run it past their lawyers and were told it's on the up and up so it's legal.

Those are the same lawyers who completely failed to defend the BLM in the lastest lawsuit against the closures and knew almost nothing about the facts of the case when they showed up in court.

Those are the same lawyers who said the BLM's ramp was good to go but it issues that made it a slam dump for the CBD to get the closures in the first place.

Those are the same DOI lawyers who didn't even try to defend the BLM against the CBD and went straight to settlement causing the closures.

In other words the BLM's assessment of whether or not something is legal is probably less accurate than the average joe on the street. They're just keeping their fingers crossed that their position of authority is enough for people to accept their explanations (and far too often that's exactly what happens...even with orgs that should know better) and let the BS flow.

The problem is what's needed to resolve it is for someone to go to court over it. And that's not likely IMHO since the people who can afford that kind of legal battle see $90 as so little money they'd have no problems with paying it for each person in their vehicle...afterall "I spent more than that on gas to get here." While the people who are most affected by being overcharged (and indirectly by others being undercharged) can barely afford the $90 let alone the cost of a legal team willing to take on a federal lawsuit.

Without a financial backer who is willing to put principals in front of convienance things are unlikely to change.

Exception. The BLM and DOT came up with an agreement to make the bridge over I-8 in the south dunes joint use legal for OHV's and street legal vehicles.

A situation which makes the trailered in street legal vehicle/pass issue even more confusing since it's legal for a trailered in OHV to cross without a pass...but a street legal vehicle suddenly and magically becomes a "Primary vehicle" as soonas it crosses even though it was also towed in.

Nevermind the logical impossibility of having more than one "primary" vehicle.

Amazingly, this whole problem could be solved by not requiring off-road, street licensed vehicles to have a pass...

After all, a vehicle which is incapable of traveling in the sand should not be required to have a pass anyway. It is only the assumption that the person in the vehicle is going to ride off road which allows them to charge.

Example... A Sedan drives down the road with zero off-road vehicles in tow. Should not need a pass... no off-roading will occur.
A pickup with no off-road vehicle in the bed should not require a pass... No assumption of off-road activity can be made.
A Baja bug is driven into the ISDRA... the BLM charge this person... and say that the reason they charge in the other two instances is to keep the law clear.
It seems to me that it would be much easier to simply exempt the Baja's and Jeeps rather than incorrectly charge the sedans and pickups.

Is that logical?

The MP3 runs just under 9 minutes. Unfortunately, we didn't do a good job of identifying ourselves in this segment. This is a pretty new concept for most of us and we tend to act like we always have and ignore the microphone. This was the 2nd or 3rd agenda item. We do get better later in the the meeting and it will show when I can get all of the recordings up.

Listed below are the names of who is talking and approximate point in time in relation to the recording.

00:00 Jerry Seaver, TRT Chairman
00:01 Glenn Montgomery, TRT Rep - Yuma County
00:04 Neil Hamada, BLM ISDRA Manager
00:30 Tim Gantz, GBS
00:59 Neil Hamada, BLM ISDRA Manager
01:40 Glenn Montgomery, TRT Rep - Yuma County
01:48 Neil Hamada, BLM ISDRA Manager
01:53 Glenn Montgomery, TRT Rep - Yuma County
02:26 Jerry Seaver, TRT Chairman
02:27 Brian Craine, Dune User (Hozay)
03:13 Jerry Seaver, TRT Chairman
03:15 Glenn Montgomery, TRT Rep - Yuma County
03:49 Neil Hamada, BLM ISDRA Manager
04:02 Glenn Montgomery, TRT Rep - Yuma County
04:05 Neil Hamada, BLM ISDRA Manager
04:06 Glenn Montgomery, TRT Rep - Yuma County
04:13 Jerry Seaver, TRT Chairman
04:16 Joe Asciutto, TRT Rep, CA OHV
04:46 Glenn Montgomery, TRT Rep - Yuma County
04:51 Mark Warmoth, Weekend Warrior
05:26 Glenn Montgomery, TRT Rep - Yuma County
05:32 Mark Warmoth, Weekend Warrior
05:36 Glenn Montgomery, TRT Rep - Yuma County
05:48 Jerry Seaver, TRT Chairman
05:51 Mark Warmoth, Weekend Warrior
06:24 Chris Seaver, ASA
07:25 Glenn Montgomery, TRT Rep - Yuma County
07:51 Chris Seaver, ASA
08:10 Glenn Montgomery, TRT Rep - Yuma County
08:24 Larry Jowdy, TRT Vice-Chairman
08:45 Jerry Seaver, TRT Chairman

Hope that helps.

Geez, what a pain figuring out and typing all of that.

Don't get use to it cause I ain't doing it to any of the others.

We will do a better job identifying ourselves in the future.