Our Opinion: Ramping up

Wednesday, May 28, 2003 2:46 PM PDT

Neither the environmental nor the off-road community is overjoyed with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Recreation Area Management Plan for the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area released last week, which means it probably is a good compromise.

We in Imperial County should be happy because the final version of the plan allows more visitors to the dunes, meaning more money for our local economy from those stopping to buy gas, food and other supplies. The final version increased visitor limitations in the dunes area to 80,444, up from 55,403 in the draft plan, and that could mean a big difference in our economy.

We do think too much of the information used to measure the impacts on area economies is anecdotal; a statement from a store manager here, some information from a chamber of commerce there. The federal government or some other entity needs to do a scientific study to come up with some real, quantifiable numbers.

The rollback of court-ordered environmental closures of areas in the 40 miles of dunes also will mean a more comfortable experience, and therefore a more appealing experience, for many dunes enthusiasts.

Some say overcrowding in the dunes in recent years has led to big trouble, including fatal violence. We are not sure that is the truth as much as troublemakers looking for trouble. Still, a little more space may mean a little more peace.

There are other items in the RAMP that will just have to be worked out between the parties involved, such as setting up long-term and short-term vending areas. Input from those involved is the key.

That is one thing environmentalists might learn from this process. If this plan is slightly slanted to the side of off-roaders and some of that can be attributed to the environmental politics of the Bush administration, a lot of it can be attributed to off-roaders being more willing to work with BLM officials than environmentalists.

Last summer the BLM hosted a tour of the sand dunes for the public and state Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Commissioners, who were in town for a meeting. All the commissioners attended the tour except Paul Spitler, the most outspoken environmentalist on the commission, even though he was in town for the meeting.

As far as we know, Spitler has never been to the Imperial Sand Dunes, turning down every opportunity from the BLM to tour the dunes but taking every opportunity to criticize the bureau for policies at the dunes.

Whereas off-roaders give the BLM input, environmentalists give the BLM grief, threatening lawsuits against the government at every perceived wrong. Such a confrontational attitude is anti-productive, particularly when the BLM is seeking input as it was with the RAMP plan.

What we have seen of the plan seems fair and reasonable. If environmentalists and off-roaders are not completely happy with it, that's OK because they never are.

I had to read that twice to make sure. I see it there but I am shocked at the lack of anti ohv bias in that.

You made that up to make us feel better didn't you?

Am I the only one who didn't really like it?

Granted, it is more favorable to our side and shows the Enviro's in a more fair light but there are some glaring discrepencies in there.

[quote]We in Imperial County should be happy because the final version of the plan allows more visitors to the dunes, meaning more money for our local economy from those stopping to buy gas, food and other supplies. The final version increased visitor limitations in the dunes area to 80,444, up from 55,403 in the draft plan, and that could mean a big difference in our economy.[/quote]
This is entirely wrong...
CURRENTLY there are ZERO limitations... by placing an 80,000 limit or a 50,000 limit or even a 100,000 limit it is STILL a limit. This can only HURT the IV economy. Not to mention SEVERELY limiting future growth.


[quote]The rollback of court-ordered environmental closures of areas in the 40 miles of dunes also will mean a more comfortable experience, and therefore a more appealing experience, for many dunes enthusiasts.[/quote]
ROLLBACK? There is no ROLLBACK... the Adaptive Management Area will be as bad as the closure ever was. You will STILL not be able to dune to the central dunes. And I have absolutely no idea how it would make things more "comfortable"...

[quote]What we have seen of the plan seems fair and reasonable. If environmentalists and off-roaders are not completely happy with it, that's OK because they never are.[/quote]
And this is just plain condecending. We're not happy because our land is being STOLEN.. Quit stealing our land and we'll be the happiest camper on the block.

Fair and reasonable?
That's like if someone came in and stole half of your backyard and then agreed to give half of what he stole BACK to you as a compromise... I wonder just how FAIR and reasonable that would seem to you.

Vor

I thought it was pretty reasonable, too, but I knew there would be some negative response to it as well.

[quote]Am I the only one who didn't really like it?

Granted, it is more favorable to our side and shows the Enviro's in a more fair light but there are some glaring discrepencies in there.

[quote]We in Imperial County should be happy because the final version of the plan allows more visitors to the dunes, meaning more money for our local economy from those stopping to buy gas, food and other supplies. The final version increased visitor limitations in the dunes area to 80,444, up from 55,403 in the draft plan, and that could mean a big difference in our economy.[/quote]
This is entirely wrong...
CURRENTLY there are ZERO limitations... by placing an 80,000 limit or a 50,000 limit or even a 100,000 limit it is STILL a limit. This can only HURT the IV economy. Not to mention SEVERELY limiting future growth.


[quote]The rollback of court-ordered environmental closures of areas in the 40 miles of dunes also will mean a more comfortable experience, and therefore a more appealing experience, for many dunes enthusiasts.[/quote]
ROLLBACK? There is no ROLLBACK... the Adaptive Management Area will be as bad as the closure ever was. You will STILL not be able to dune to the central dunes. And I have absolutely no idea how it would make things more "comfortable"...

[quote]What we have seen of the plan seems fair and reasonable. If environmentalists and off-roaders are not completely happy with it, that's OK because they never are.[/quote]
And this is just plain condecending. We're not happy because our land is being STOLEN.. Quit stealing our land and we'll be the happiest camper on the block.

Fair and reasonable?
That's like if someone came in and stole half of your backyard and then agreed to give half of what he stole BACK to you as a compromise... I wonder just how FAIR and reasonable that would seem to you.

Vor[/quote]

Brian,
I understand your anger and agree with most of it, but there are many ways to look at a situation. Keep in mind the 80,000 limit is a season average, not just a limit per weekend. There is no way the ISDRA will exceed 80,000 as an average of all seasonal weekends. Do I like it? NO! But will it affect us? I highly doubt it.

As for the closures and the rollback. I agree the adaptive management area is total BS, but there will be a rollback on the rest of the smaller closures, and we WILL be able to dune in the AMA with permits. Sure, the AMA permits SUCK!!!, but we will be able to dune that whole area once again.

And to the comment about the plan being fair and reasonable. I disagree that it is fair or reasonable (at least, parts of it), but you had to expect that coming from the BLM who is trying to avoid lawsuits.

I guess my glass is half full. IF we get stuck with the RAMP as it is now, it is 1000% better than what we currently have. And once we have that we can fight for removal of the AMA altogether.

I agree with Doug. This may not be want we want, but it is better than what we have NOW. I posted this on a different topic on the ASA bbs, but it fits here as well:

[quote]Jerry Seaver and I have been communicating with e-mails the last couple of days. I don't think he would mind me sharing something he reminded me of. This is a major point in all of this and we should all keep bringing it to the forefront.

[quote]Don't forget that the CBD, Sierra Club, and Peer agreed in the settlement of their lawsuit against the BLM that the 49,000 acres was to be temporary closed until the BLM consulted with the USFWS on a new RAMP. So the opening of the Temporary Closed areas is something they all agreed to.
[/quote]

Whether the RAMP is all of want we would like it to be, will hopefully be settled within the 30-day comment period, and if not, what will follow after it. In the grander scheme of things, remember that this RAMP at least takes the steps their (read CBD, Sierra Club, and Peer) lawsuit settlement demanded.

Now we're ready for the next step..[/quote]

I was just amazed that we weren't portrayed as marauding cretins. I think Brian is right though. Getting excited because we are only losing about 3/4 of what we originally lost just doesn't make sense to me.

Getting rid of the AMA isn't going to be easy. We are in the position of having to prove a negative.

[quote]I was just amazed that we weren't portrayed as marauding cretins. I think Brian is right though. Getting excited because we are only losing about 3/4 of what we originally lost just doesn't make sense to me. [/quote]

True...but getting excited about a generally-positive portrayal of the off-roading community--and a generally-negative portrayal of the GAGs--is understandable.

We can expect a sharp retort from Patterson.

<duplicate post deleted>

Looks like VOR and I agree :shock:

I posted my response in the duplicate thread over on the Glamis Dunes Issues forum.

Vicki

I think many, if not most, of us could fill a page with things we may not like about the RAMP. The excitement for me is that the temp closures are coming down and another step in the right direction has occurred. I for one am not ready to take a step forward and then a step back to where we were. Accept all or nothing (no change from now)? Not me, I'm going to grin a little. And if along the way the anti-access groups get some worst press coverage and we get some better press coverage, I'm going to smile.

[quote]I for one am not ready to take a step forward and then a step back to where we were. Accept all or nothing (no change from now)?[/quote]

Never has been my style. But I've never rolled over without a fight either, not if it's something I believe strongly in.

And I can't praise something in public but fight it in private... that seems counterproductive and phony... so what you see is what you get.

I'm not telling anyone to stop rolling over, just that I refuse to do it.

Vicki

Just so everyone understands, I'm not talking about rolling over here. What I am saying is to take advantage to what we have at the time. The release of this RAMP, even with its bad points, has been benificial. We have 30-days to comment and try to change what we don't like, and continue after that if it doesn't become what we want. This version of the RAMP ends the temp closures, and I think that IS something to be excited about.

I believe something can be praised while it is being addressed, as long as you identify what you're praising and what you're addressing. I do it with my kids and employees everyday to one extent or another.

[quote]Just so everyone understands, I'm not talking about rolling over here. What I am saying is to take advantage to what we have at the time. The release of this RAMP, even with its bad points, has been benificial. We have 30-days to comment and try to change what we don't like, and continue after that if it doesn't become what we want. This version of the RAMP ends the temp closures, and I think that IS something to be excited about.

I believe something can be praised while it is being addressed, as long as you identify what you're praising and what you're addressing. I do it with my kids and employees everyday to one extent or another.[/quote]

I completely agree :mrgreen:

Fight what we can, accept what we must and it ain't over till it's over :cheese:

Vicki

I disagree with many here. I do not think that this RAMP opens the temporary closures. But, it does a great job of convincing you that it does.

A limit that does not affect us now, WILL affect us in the future, or why have a limit at all?
Hearing people say that "we will never reach that 80,000 limit" reminds me of Bill Gates saying how we would never need more than 256k of memory.

Don't get me wrong. The TONE of the article is great and makes me feel like the last couple of years have been productive, but... This RAMP is bad on so many levels. I just can't get behind it. I'm sorry.

Vor

Vor,

No reason to be sorry... I think the Ramp is terrible and agree with every point you made. I just don't understand were they cam e up with some of the BS they put in there. >:<

Currently the closures are "Temporary"...
If this RAMP goes through, the AMA becomes virtually PERMANANT, although there are provisions for it to change, it will be FAR from "temporary".

From all that I've read, the ASA's biologist, the BLM the Fish and Wildlife and here on these boards I've seen nothing but opinions stating that "Off-roading is not contributing to the decline of the PMV and the fact that the PMV is declining at all is very much in question." In other words, WE AIN'T HURTIN THE PLANTS!

This AMA compromise is a slap in the face.

If it passes I am already working on plans to demonstrate against the AMA, Boycott and picket the Store, (because of the vendor limits), and other, mean and nasty things. The BLM better think long and hard about this AMA business.

Vor

Well, here's a bit of information that you should have... sit down a minute...

But first, let me get something right out into the open. I strongly disagree with the need for a permit system for riding anywhere in Glamis, or any closed areas. I am not in support of any such thing. Okay, now read on...

There were pretty much four steps to getting those closure markers removed: We had to receive a "no jeopardy" opinion on the RAMP in order for the RAMP to be released, which would satisfy the court order, meaning the stakes could be pulled.

It was virtually impossible to get a "no jeopardy" opinion handed down from the Fish & Wildelife Service without some kind of adaptive management/conservation plan for the Imperial Sand Dunes. Why? Lots of reasons. The ISDRA is on the radar screen of the Department of the Interior and pretty much all anti-access groups, for one thing. Who knows. It's too late to worry about "why" anyway. The fact is, without a "no jeopardy" opinion, the RAMP would not have been issued and without the RAMP being issued, the court order could not be fulfilled and the closures would never be lifted.

The adaptive management area does not just affect the PMV. Other species of concern in the Imperal Sand Dunes are believed to benefit from the AMA. One particular species, the Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard, almost made it to the endangered species list. It was denied, in part, because of certain management plans (read the FWS release completely) and certain suggested management plans, not the least of which were the management actions contained in the preferred alternative of the draft RAMP. The implication is, of course, that without an AMA the Flait-Tailed Horned Lizard would have been listed and we'd have to worry about critical habitat. Too late to be listed now you say? No. Several anti-access groups just filed a lawsuit because they disagree with the non-listing. FTHL doesn't effect Glamis? Oh my, yes it does.

Now, consider the placement of the AMA. Could have been worse... could have been right where the 2000 acre closure is, only 30,000 acres worth.

Again, please don't misunderstand me. Anyone who knows me knows I don't tolerate closures. But I don't think anyone objects to targeting specific areas for species monitoring and we all need to know the facts before we can find a way to fight.

My thought was and is, by all means, monitor the species inside the adaptive management area. And to properly monitor the results of OHV use on these species, some sort of study has to be done on those too. Can't afford to have someone sit out there 24-hours a day counting whips, so what to do?

One solution may be to require a permit to ride inside the AMA, but don't charge for the permit and don't limit the number of permits granted. That way no riders are limited, the number of OHVs are monitored and more importantly, it is virtually fraud resistant.

One of my biggest beefs with the permitting system as it stands now is it's too easy to cheat. What's to keep the bad guys from reserving all the permits? I haven't seen anything that says they're going to charge for it, which only makes it worse. If Dano had to pay to cheat us out of our ride maybe it would at least sting a little.

By requiring a permit but making it unlimited, the number of vehicles is still monitored and the year-end study will indicate whether that number of vehicles has actually had a effect on the native species, which we all know they won't. It's impossible to cheat an open system like that so we are assured that true duners will be duning in the AMA.

My head hurts. Is it margarita time yet?

Vicki

Yikes! That post is longer than any of Jason's! hehehe

Sorry about that... I was typing as I was talking to Laura Mitchell and one thing bled into the other.

Vicki

running.....low..... (cough) .... on..... energy....
Must go ................ to ..............GLAMIS...

How can we, as a public, accept the idea that something (the FTHL) ~might~ become listed if certain actions aren't taken?

Isn't that kind of putting the cart before the horse?

I mean, couldn't you pretty much say that about all species?
What are the provisions of the EPA for?

After reading a few other comments I discovered... (jeesh, I can't wait until I can read the thing myself)... I discovered that this AMA is different in different areas...
Example, there are Adaptive Management Areas that prohibit night time riding.

A compromise is a compromise. We are LOOSING with this RAMP. LOOSING big time.

Vor

You're right Vicki, I have been slacking lately

Too busy digesting things and trying to get my words in line to make any of my usual posts

My feeling is that we need to do waht we can durring the current protest period - but not because I think it will actually make any kind of difference. Go read Appendix A of the FEIS that came with the RAMP and it's more than clear that the BLM won't even bother to try and respond to OHVer comments, there were quite a few valid issues brought up by various organizations and individuals that were simply not responded to - while almost every comment from enviros was responded to. The slight silver lining to this is that the BLM treated their comments about the way I expected them to at least treat ours - with responses that basically say "We're going to do what we're going to do and you can suck eggs if you don't like it" I had expected that we would at least receieve equal treatment.

I don't know whether to be happy they didn't insult our inteligence with the kind of replyies they did give or if I should be upset that they didn't even bother to reply to most of our comments.

I also think it's imperitive that the OHV groups start lining up the lawyers to stop this thing if the protest period goes as I expect it to. The RAMP as it currently stands is groundless and arbitrary not to mention outright contradictory in many ways. Their stated goals and their means of achieving them are completely incompatible. But I also think that needs to be somthing worked up in the back while we continue to "Play the game" instead of the saber rattling that we see coming from the CBD at this time. That's all part of playing the public which is something that I think everyone agrees is VERY important.

We've gotten the short end of the stick from the press and public at large due to a lot of unfounded accusations and outright lies over the past 20+ years. The tide is starting to turn and the pro-access folks are starting to get more fair treatment from the press and hopefully as a result the public. In that respect I say this editorial is a MAJOR step forward.

It's a sign that we're starting to attack the body of the hydra instead of flailing at the heads like we have been for 20+ years. The news about growing support for fixing the ESA, this kind of editorial and some of the other things I've heard about happening with our side talking to the press are all very good signs.

Delisting the PMV is a great step - but it's just fighting a head. There will always be another animal or plant thanks to the way the ESA is written and they bad science going into identifing species by some people. Getting the ESA fixed is going after the body and fixes the cause of the problem instead of just bandaging the symptom.

There's still a prevailing attitude by ohvers that we just need to win this fight and then we can relax. Sorry but that's never going to happen. This is a fight that will never end - espically if we keep fighting the symptoms of the problem instead of going after the source.

It's time to start exposing the CBD in public for the hucksters they are to cut off their main source of funding. It's time to get the ESA rewritten to reply on good science and stop the abuses it's currently creating.

And finally it's time to start building national support for getting the BLM out of recreational areas and bringing in an agency solely dedicated to supporting recreationalists. Let the BLM and FWS have their wilderness, that's what they're good at. And give us a new agency dedicated to promoting and managing recreation areas for recreational and not preservational use.

But even then - the fight would not be over. And that's something everyone needs to accept before more progress can be made. I sucks I know. But it's the truth and we need to dig our heads out of the sand and accept it once and for all.

[quote]running.....low..... (cough) .... on..... energy....
Must go ................ to ..............GLAMIS... [/quote]

hehehehe I don't blame you. Poor me, my fingers are worn down to nubs!

[quote]How can we, as a public, accept the idea that something (the FTHL) ~might~ become listed if certain actions aren't taken?

Isn't that kind of putting the cart before the horse?

I mean, couldn't you pretty much say that about all species?
What are the provisions of the EPA for?[/quote]

Actually, it happens all the time in all situations. Like a pet. Let's say the conditions that help an emu survive are food, water, attention and a yard with a tallllll fence. I can provide that all that and I count on those conditions when I decide to adopt an emu. If suddenly I move to an apartment though, everything changes and the emu loses. Would I adopt the emu if I knew I'd be moving? No. The FWS counted on certain conditions when they made their decision on the FTHL. If those conditions change...

[quote]A compromise is a compromise.[/quote]

I never once said I'd compromise.

[quote]We are LOOSING with this RAMP. LOOSING big time.[/quote]

Losing? Not yet, not while we still have room to fight.

Vicki

jhitesma, that piece is going directly into the McScrappbook. Very well said...

Awww, ya can thank Vicki for that one. She gave me the inspiration to finally put my thoughts on this whole mess down with that jab about her post being as long as one of mine

Yea, SailAway be very good at what she do, she brings da best out of us...

And don't you worry jhitesma, NOBODY IN DA WHOLE WORLD can write longer posts than you...

So when you gots time, Slap needs info on colored film: speeds, set up and differences. ..HEY, Slap's just messin, so don't even think about it... :wink:

While I see VOR's point, I have to think that the RAMP is a victory for the OHV community. A very small and restricted victory mind you, but still a victory. It at the very least gives a place to start in terms of getting some sort of groundwork established that will, if not stop, at least slow the impact that the GAG's are having on Glamis. And I agree with Jason! It's time to get the lawyers online and ready to fight this thing if it starts to go the wrong way. Unfortunately, this fight isn't anywhere near over.

As much as I would like to see the flowing garments and the finely weaved threads, I can't. The emperor is naked and he has a small unit to boot.





[quote]It at the very least gives a place to start in terms of getting some sort of groundwork established that will, if not stop, at least slow the impact that the GAG's are having on Glamis.[/quote]

Lack of defeat is not a victory...