How's your blood pressure? This should raise it a notch or two.
Practice your yoga, take a deep breath, have your happy thought handy and read on...
NEWS RELEASE: for immediate release Friday, May 23, 2003
Sec. Norton Ignores Balance and Endangered Species with Plan to Open Dunes Habitat to ORVs
BLM's Final Plan is Even Worse than Bad Draft. Conservationists Will Sue.
ALGODONES DUNES, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA -- With it's latest environmental roll-back, the Bush administration has finalized a plan to remove conservation of 50,000 acres of endangered species habitat on the Algodones Dunes currently protected by a 2000 agreement between the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), off-road groups and the Center, Sierra Club and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. The final plan is even worse than the bad draft. BLM grants new favors to industry by removing protections for the desert tortoise, moving a strategic ranger station, adding new vendor areas, arbitrarily increasing carrying capacity, and removing a requirement that off-roaders would have to pass an ecological awareness test before motoring into sensitive areas.
Under the settlement agreement, over 106 sq. miles are open to unlimited off-roading, while the other roughly half of the dunes are protected for wildlife, and scenic non-motorized recreation. This balance is abandoned and all available lands at the dunes are opened to intensive off-roading.
"Citizens are outraged that they're being ignored by anti-environmental politicians and bureaucrats who are trying to kill balanced dunes management." said Daniel R. Patterson, Desert Ecologist with CBD. "Sec. Norton just made a bad plan worse, and she invites litigation. We will challenge the Bush administration to protect the dunes, and we are confident we'll prevail in court."
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently found that "destruction of plants and modification of habitat associated with off-road vehicle activity is considered the primary threat to Peirson's milkvetch." The BLM plan fails to use the best available science, instead relying heavily on an off-road industry funded report, which lacks scientific credibility and has never been peer-reviewed or published. BLM also ignored thousands of comments from citizens who want the conservation areas maintained to protect endangered species.
The State of California OHV Commission weighed in on the draft plan in December, denying BLM $1.1M in state funding due to repeated failures to protect the dunes and manage for sustainability. The Imperial County-based Quechan Indian Tribe has also opposed BLM's plan.
FWS noted an off-road use increase at the dunes of 111% between 1994 and 1999, and projections to double again by 2012. They also noted BLM's plan would significantly elevate impacts to desert tortoise, and BLM will not be implementing an ORV carrying capacity.
"We'll be looking closely to see if BLM fully adopts the Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations, and if they haven't then we will challenge the plan." said Karen Schambach, California Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
The pro-industry final plan continues a pattern of environmental neglect at the dunes by Bush's Interior Secretary Gale Norton. In January, FWS withdrew a proposal to protect the imperiled flat-tailed horned lizard. FWS has also missed a legal deadline to respond to a CBD petition to list the Andrews' dunes scarab beetle. FWS is under a court order to soon propose critical habitat for the Peirson's milkvetch.
The key legal issue is survival and recovery of endangered species on the dunes, including the Peirson's milkvetch, a rare and attractive plant, and the desert tortoise, both which must be preserved under the federal Endangered Species Act. As indicators of overall dunes ecosystem health, the milkvetch and other rare species including the Andrews' dunes scarab beetle, Algodones Dunes sunflower, Colorado Desert fringe-toed lizard, Flat-tailed horned lizard, Sand food and Giant Spanish needle have been severely harmed by off-roading on the dunes.
The BLM plan to remove the protected areas would be devastating to dozens of rare and endemic species, greatly worsen air pollution, and run off hikers, birdwatchers, photographers, Native Americans and others. In addition to allowing intense environmental harm, opening conservation areas to off-road vehicles will displace non-motorized visitors, costing nearby communities in the Imperial Valley and Yuma at least $3.3 million annually in sustainable recreation related spending.
The conservation areas remain closed for at least another month to allow legal protests to be filed against the BLM plan.
Full Version: CBD press release
Okay, so let's count the lies:
[quote]With it's latest environmental roll-back, the Bush administration has finalized a plan to remove conservation of 50,000 acres of endangered species habitat on the Algodones Dunes currently protected by a 2000 agreement between the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), off-road groups and the Center, Sierra Club and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.[/quote]
That's number 1. This RAMP has nothing to do with Bush or his policies. This RAMP was actually started during the Clinton regime, as was their lawsuit. If any administration is to blame for the Plan it would be Clinton's.
[quote]The final plan is even worse than the bad draft. BLM grants new favors to industry by removing protections for the desert tortoise, moving a strategic ranger station, adding new vendor areas, arbitrarily increasing carrying capacity, and removing a requirement that off-roaders would have to pass an ecological awareness test before motoring into sensitive areas. [/quote]
Egad, keeping track of these lies is a real challenge. The ranger station is not being moved, there are no new vendor areas being added (in fact some vendor services are being removed), and the "ecological awareness test" still exists... in fact, it's more stringent and will be required by ALL people who want to use the AMA. Dano must be worried about the anti-access crowd not being sharp enough to handle the task. So that's lies numbered 2, 3 and 4 right?
[quote]Under the settlement agreement, over 106 sq. miles are open to unlimited off-roading, while the other roughly half of the dunes are protected for wildlife, and scenic non-motorized recreation. This balance is abandoned and all available lands at the dunes are opened to intensive off-roading.[/quote]
Oh my... this one's so full of holes it's nearly impossible to see where one ends and the other begins. There is no balance, it is not even near "roughly half" and the closures had nothing to do with scenic non-motorized recreation; they had everything to do with BLM procedure. By my count that's 5, 6 and 7 (being generous).
[quote]"Citizens are outraged that they're being ignored by anti-environmental politicians and bureaucrats who are trying to kill balanced dunes management." said Daniel R. Patterson, Desert Ecologist with CBD. "Sec. Norton just made a bad plan worse, and she invites litigation. We will challenge the Bush administration to protect the dunes, and we are confident we'll prevail in court." [/quote]
Geez, talk about your over-acting! What a ham! Must be going for the Oscar. The whole thing is one big fabrication, so we'll just make it easy and call it lie number 8.
[quote]The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently found that "destruction of plants and modification of habitat associated with off-road vehicle activity is considered the primary threat to Peirson's milkvetch." The BLM plan fails to use the best available science, instead relying heavily on an off-road industry funded report, which lacks scientific credibility and has never been peer-reviewed or published. BLM also ignored thousands of comments from citizens who want the conservation areas maintained to protect endangered species.[/quote]
Yikes! The science used WAS the best available (he's just mad because they didn't rely on his wild guess instead), the report was not funded by the off-road industry, it has been peer-reviewed and who cares if it's ever been published (although I think it has)? I lost count, but I think that's lies numbered 9, 10 and 11. Oh, and if they'd actully "relied heavily" on the report the damn closures would be lifted without the AMA so that's lie number 12.
[quote]The State of California OHV Commission weighed in on the draft plan in December, denying BLM $1.1M in state funding due to repeated failures to protect the dunes and manage for sustainability. The Imperial County-based Quechan Indian Tribe has also opposed BLM's plan. [/quote]
Holy crow. Anyone remember the pink elephant scene from Fantasia? That paragraph makes JUST as much sense. But, I guess when you're going for the Oscar, who has time to bother with little things like FACTS or even cohesive thought? The first part is lie number 13, and the second is more than just a little misleading, a little white lie sort of... we'll call it lie number 13.5.
[quote]FWS noted an off-road use increase at the dunes of 111% between 1994 and 1999, and projections to double again by 2012. They also noted BLM's plan would significantly elevate impacts to desert tortoise, and BLM will not be implementing an ORV carrying capacity. [/quote]
Tsk tsk tsk. Another little white lie... only slightly misleading. Worth half a point at least. Number 14.
[quote]"We'll be looking closely to see if BLM fully adopts the Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations, and if they haven't then we will challenge the plan." said Karen Schambach, California Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. [/quote]
THIS is the first whole truth I've seen! Wow Karen, congratulations.
[quote]The pro-industry final plan continues a pattern of environmental neglect at the dunes by Bush's Interior Secretary Gale Norton. In January, FWS withdrew a proposal to protect the imperiled flat-tailed horned lizard. FWS has also missed a legal deadline to respond to a CBD petition to list the Andrews' dunes scarab beetle. FWS is under a court order to soon propose critical habitat for the Peirson's milkvetch. [/quote]
Uh oh, the reign of truth was short-lived. Let's see... it's not a pro-industry plan (lie number 15), Bush hasn't been in charge long enough to take the blame for this (lie number 16). The rest is sadly true, and we need to be paying attention to the Beetle issue and the critical habitat issue. Our meetings cover those issues, so watch for the next one.
[quote]The key legal issue is survival and recovery of endangered species on the dunes, including the Peirson's milkvetch, a rare and attractive plant, and the desert tortoise, both which must be preserved under the federal Endangered Species Act.[/quote]
No, the key legal issue, when they filed the lawsuit, was monitoring. That has been done, so which is the lie? The lawsuit or this statement? Lie number 17.
[quote]As indicators of overall dunes ecosystem health, the milkvetch and other rare species including the Andrews' dunes scarab beetle, Algodones Dunes sunflower, Colorado Desert fringe-toed lizard, Flat-tailed horned lizard, Sand food and Giant Spanish needle have been severely harmed by off-roading on the dunes. [/quote]
Big words thrown out without any proof of severe harm. Lie number 18.
[quote]The BLM plan to remove the protected areas would be devastating to dozens of rare and endemic species, greatly worsen air pollution, and run off hikers, birdwatchers, photographers, Native Americans and others.[/quote]
Sheesh. Number 19. At least.
[quote] In addition to allowing intense environmental harm, opening conservation areas to off-road vehicles will displace non-motorized visitors, costing nearby communities in the Imperial Valley and Yuma at least $3.3 million annually in sustainable recreation related spending.[/quote]
The only conservation area in the dunes is the wilderness area you ninny and this plan leaves that alone entirely. Lie number 20.
The next next one is a whopper Dano... someone should wash your mouth out. Really. We're back to a scene from Fantasia... what an imagination. $3.3 million my a$$ That's a biggun and counts for at least 3 points. That would be lies numbered 21, 22, 23.
[quote]The conservation areas remain closed for at least another month to allow legal protests to be filed against the BLM plan. [/quote]
Woooooo hooooooo that means the wilderness area is opening after the protest period??? NO, it's not, and since that's the ONLY congressionally recognized conservation area, they've ended their little flight of fancy with yet another lie. That makes a grand total of 24 lies. 658 words, and a rough guess would be maybe 75 of those words were truthful. Quite a nasty little track record.
Momma must be proud.
Vicki
[quote]With it's latest environmental roll-back, the Bush administration has finalized a plan to remove conservation of 50,000 acres of endangered species habitat on the Algodones Dunes currently protected by a 2000 agreement between the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), off-road groups and the Center, Sierra Club and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.[/quote]
That's number 1. This RAMP has nothing to do with Bush or his policies. This RAMP was actually started during the Clinton regime, as was their lawsuit. If any administration is to blame for the Plan it would be Clinton's.
[quote]The final plan is even worse than the bad draft. BLM grants new favors to industry by removing protections for the desert tortoise, moving a strategic ranger station, adding new vendor areas, arbitrarily increasing carrying capacity, and removing a requirement that off-roaders would have to pass an ecological awareness test before motoring into sensitive areas. [/quote]
Egad, keeping track of these lies is a real challenge. The ranger station is not being moved, there are no new vendor areas being added (in fact some vendor services are being removed), and the "ecological awareness test" still exists... in fact, it's more stringent and will be required by ALL people who want to use the AMA. Dano must be worried about the anti-access crowd not being sharp enough to handle the task. So that's lies numbered 2, 3 and 4 right?
[quote]Under the settlement agreement, over 106 sq. miles are open to unlimited off-roading, while the other roughly half of the dunes are protected for wildlife, and scenic non-motorized recreation. This balance is abandoned and all available lands at the dunes are opened to intensive off-roading.[/quote]
Oh my... this one's so full of holes it's nearly impossible to see where one ends and the other begins. There is no balance, it is not even near "roughly half" and the closures had nothing to do with scenic non-motorized recreation; they had everything to do with BLM procedure. By my count that's 5, 6 and 7 (being generous).
[quote]"Citizens are outraged that they're being ignored by anti-environmental politicians and bureaucrats who are trying to kill balanced dunes management." said Daniel R. Patterson, Desert Ecologist with CBD. "Sec. Norton just made a bad plan worse, and she invites litigation. We will challenge the Bush administration to protect the dunes, and we are confident we'll prevail in court." [/quote]
Geez, talk about your over-acting! What a ham! Must be going for the Oscar. The whole thing is one big fabrication, so we'll just make it easy and call it lie number 8.
[quote]The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently found that "destruction of plants and modification of habitat associated with off-road vehicle activity is considered the primary threat to Peirson's milkvetch." The BLM plan fails to use the best available science, instead relying heavily on an off-road industry funded report, which lacks scientific credibility and has never been peer-reviewed or published. BLM also ignored thousands of comments from citizens who want the conservation areas maintained to protect endangered species.[/quote]
Yikes! The science used WAS the best available (he's just mad because they didn't rely on his wild guess instead), the report was not funded by the off-road industry, it has been peer-reviewed and who cares if it's ever been published (although I think it has)? I lost count, but I think that's lies numbered 9, 10 and 11. Oh, and if they'd actully "relied heavily" on the report the damn closures would be lifted without the AMA so that's lie number 12.
[quote]The State of California OHV Commission weighed in on the draft plan in December, denying BLM $1.1M in state funding due to repeated failures to protect the dunes and manage for sustainability. The Imperial County-based Quechan Indian Tribe has also opposed BLM's plan. [/quote]
Holy crow. Anyone remember the pink elephant scene from Fantasia? That paragraph makes JUST as much sense. But, I guess when you're going for the Oscar, who has time to bother with little things like FACTS or even cohesive thought? The first part is lie number 13, and the second is more than just a little misleading, a little white lie sort of... we'll call it lie number 13.5.
[quote]FWS noted an off-road use increase at the dunes of 111% between 1994 and 1999, and projections to double again by 2012. They also noted BLM's plan would significantly elevate impacts to desert tortoise, and BLM will not be implementing an ORV carrying capacity. [/quote]
Tsk tsk tsk. Another little white lie... only slightly misleading. Worth half a point at least. Number 14.
[quote]"We'll be looking closely to see if BLM fully adopts the Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations, and if they haven't then we will challenge the plan." said Karen Schambach, California Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. [/quote]
THIS is the first whole truth I've seen! Wow Karen, congratulations.
[quote]The pro-industry final plan continues a pattern of environmental neglect at the dunes by Bush's Interior Secretary Gale Norton. In January, FWS withdrew a proposal to protect the imperiled flat-tailed horned lizard. FWS has also missed a legal deadline to respond to a CBD petition to list the Andrews' dunes scarab beetle. FWS is under a court order to soon propose critical habitat for the Peirson's milkvetch. [/quote]
Uh oh, the reign of truth was short-lived. Let's see... it's not a pro-industry plan (lie number 15), Bush hasn't been in charge long enough to take the blame for this (lie number 16). The rest is sadly true, and we need to be paying attention to the Beetle issue and the critical habitat issue. Our meetings cover those issues, so watch for the next one.
[quote]The key legal issue is survival and recovery of endangered species on the dunes, including the Peirson's milkvetch, a rare and attractive plant, and the desert tortoise, both which must be preserved under the federal Endangered Species Act.[/quote]
No, the key legal issue, when they filed the lawsuit, was monitoring. That has been done, so which is the lie? The lawsuit or this statement? Lie number 17.
[quote]As indicators of overall dunes ecosystem health, the milkvetch and other rare species including the Andrews' dunes scarab beetle, Algodones Dunes sunflower, Colorado Desert fringe-toed lizard, Flat-tailed horned lizard, Sand food and Giant Spanish needle have been severely harmed by off-roading on the dunes. [/quote]
Big words thrown out without any proof of severe harm. Lie number 18.
[quote]The BLM plan to remove the protected areas would be devastating to dozens of rare and endemic species, greatly worsen air pollution, and run off hikers, birdwatchers, photographers, Native Americans and others.[/quote]
Sheesh. Number 19. At least.
[quote] In addition to allowing intense environmental harm, opening conservation areas to off-road vehicles will displace non-motorized visitors, costing nearby communities in the Imperial Valley and Yuma at least $3.3 million annually in sustainable recreation related spending.[/quote]
The only conservation area in the dunes is the wilderness area you ninny and this plan leaves that alone entirely. Lie number 20.
The next next one is a whopper Dano... someone should wash your mouth out. Really. We're back to a scene from Fantasia... what an imagination. $3.3 million my a$$ That's a biggun and counts for at least 3 points. That would be lies numbered 21, 22, 23.
[quote]The conservation areas remain closed for at least another month to allow legal protests to be filed against the BLM plan. [/quote]
Woooooo hooooooo that means the wilderness area is opening after the protest period??? NO, it's not, and since that's the ONLY congressionally recognized conservation area, they've ended their little flight of fancy with yet another lie. That makes a grand total of 24 lies. 658 words, and a rough guess would be maybe 75 of those words were truthful. Quite a nasty little track record.
Momma must be proud.
Vicki
Classic enviro babble! But we knew it was coming. Vicki, you should email your post from above to every paper that prints Dano quotes. Not that they would print it, but it would be worth it just to mess with them.
Thanks Doug. I might be able to find a way to do that so they DO print it. 8)
I'll clean up some of the :rant: rant first...
Vicki
I'll clean up some of the :rant: rant first...
Vicki
I knew there would be mention of the Desert Tortoise, which the CBD consistently trots out in search of the sympathy factor. Does anyone really believe that OHV use in the dunes has ANY IMPACT ON THE TORTOISE?
Anyone ever see a toytle in the dunes???
Few points when you clean it up.
While I'm all for pointing out Dano and the CBD's lies let's make sure that the ones we point out really ARE lies:
[quote]
The ranger station is not being moved, there are no new vendor areas being added (in fact some vendor services are being removed), and the "ecological awareness test" still exists... in fact, it's more stringent and will be required by ALL people who want to use the AMA.
[/quote]
The existing ranger station is not being moved - but the proposed new station is. So Dano's comment is technically correct even if it is misleading.
And while vendor services are being removed and limited by this plan there are new vendor areas in the south dunes that are finally being made official in this plan - so again Dano's comments are misleading but technically correct.
And the test is gone - you still have to take an environmental orientation but it's no a test any longer. So again while Dano's comments are misleading they are not technically wrong or lies.
[quote]
"Citizens are outraged that they're being ignored by anti-environmental politicians and bureaucrats who are trying to kill balanced dunes management."
[/quote]
I also disagree that this is a lie. I'm a citizen and I'm outraged that the BLM is continuing it's anti-environmental policies of forcing more people into a smaller place which will increase the dammage instead of allowing it enough room to be naturally repaired by mother nature and her rain and wind. Drama, yes. Misrepresentation, yes. Lie....not really.
There are some real outright lies in this piece however:
[quote]
Under the settlement agreement, over 106 sq. miles are open to unlimited off-roading, while the other roughly half of the dunes are protected for wildlife, and scenic non-motorized recreation. This balance is abandoned and all available lands at the dunes are opened to intensive off-roading.
[/quote]
Hmmm....someone seems to be forgetting the existing wilderness area! Or does Dano not consider that to be part of the dunes?
[quote]
The BLM plan fails to use the best available science, instead relying heavily on an off-road industry funded report, which lacks scientific credibility and has never been peer-reviewed or published. BLM also ignored thousands of comments from citizens who want the conservation areas maintained to protect endangered species.
[/quote]
The study has been peer-reviews and published. It just hasn't been peer-reviewed and published in the journals that Dano wants it to be reviewed and published in - and that simply isn't going to happen because the journals he wants it in won't accept that kind of study and report. TOA would have better luck getting it published in "Bridal Monthly" than the biased journals Dano is only willing to accept as "reviewed and published".
The "Lacks scientific credibility" comment also comes very close to libel if not outright libel and I would not be surprised if TOA files suit against the CBD because of that kind of comment.
Yes there are a lot of misrepresentation and outright lies in this piece - but let's not overreact and destory our own credibility in the process. Let's stick to addressing the outright unquestionable lies and calling attention to the truth behind the misrepresentations. We have science facts and truth no our side and don't need to stoop to Danos level to win if we can get a fair and impartial version of the story out to the public.
While I'm all for pointing out Dano and the CBD's lies let's make sure that the ones we point out really ARE lies:
[quote]
The ranger station is not being moved, there are no new vendor areas being added (in fact some vendor services are being removed), and the "ecological awareness test" still exists... in fact, it's more stringent and will be required by ALL people who want to use the AMA.
[/quote]
The existing ranger station is not being moved - but the proposed new station is. So Dano's comment is technically correct even if it is misleading.
And while vendor services are being removed and limited by this plan there are new vendor areas in the south dunes that are finally being made official in this plan - so again Dano's comments are misleading but technically correct.
And the test is gone - you still have to take an environmental orientation but it's no a test any longer. So again while Dano's comments are misleading they are not technically wrong or lies.
[quote]
"Citizens are outraged that they're being ignored by anti-environmental politicians and bureaucrats who are trying to kill balanced dunes management."
[/quote]
I also disagree that this is a lie. I'm a citizen and I'm outraged that the BLM is continuing it's anti-environmental policies of forcing more people into a smaller place which will increase the dammage instead of allowing it enough room to be naturally repaired by mother nature and her rain and wind. Drama, yes. Misrepresentation, yes. Lie....not really.
There are some real outright lies in this piece however:
[quote]
Under the settlement agreement, over 106 sq. miles are open to unlimited off-roading, while the other roughly half of the dunes are protected for wildlife, and scenic non-motorized recreation. This balance is abandoned and all available lands at the dunes are opened to intensive off-roading.
[/quote]
Hmmm....someone seems to be forgetting the existing wilderness area! Or does Dano not consider that to be part of the dunes?
[quote]
The BLM plan fails to use the best available science, instead relying heavily on an off-road industry funded report, which lacks scientific credibility and has never been peer-reviewed or published. BLM also ignored thousands of comments from citizens who want the conservation areas maintained to protect endangered species.
[/quote]
The study has been peer-reviews and published. It just hasn't been peer-reviewed and published in the journals that Dano wants it to be reviewed and published in - and that simply isn't going to happen because the journals he wants it in won't accept that kind of study and report. TOA would have better luck getting it published in "Bridal Monthly" than the biased journals Dano is only willing to accept as "reviewed and published".
The "Lacks scientific credibility" comment also comes very close to libel if not outright libel and I would not be surprised if TOA files suit against the CBD because of that kind of comment.
Yes there are a lot of misrepresentation and outright lies in this piece - but let's not overreact and destory our own credibility in the process. Let's stick to addressing the outright unquestionable lies and calling attention to the truth behind the misrepresentations. We have science facts and truth no our side and don't need to stoop to Danos level to win if we can get a fair and impartial version of the story out to the public.
[quote]Few points when you clean it up.
The existing ranger station is not being moved - but the proposed new station is. So Dano's comment is technically correct even if it is misleading.
And while vendor services are being removed and limited by this plan there are new vendor areas in the south dunes that are finally being made official in this plan - so again Dano's comments are misleading but technically correct.[/quote]
On these two issues I see your point and will, of course, amend any writing of MY opinion to more accurately reflect that he's only a little bit of a liar and not a great big liar as regards to his statements on vendors and ranger stations.
[quote]And the test is gone - you still have to take an environmental orientation but it's no a test any longer. So again while Dano's comments are misleading they are not technically wrong or lies.[/quote]
Jason, I don't know for a fact that the test is gone. The whole AMA permitting process is so ambiguous right now that no one really seems to know for sure what will be done. I've heard from someone at the BLM that the "class" will still include a "test" after all. But, if it will make you feel better, I'll try to choose my words more carefully.
[quote]"Citizens are outraged that they're being ignored by anti-environmental politicians and bureaucrats who are trying to kill balanced dunes management." said Daniel R. Patterson, Desert Ecologist with CBD. "Sec. Norton just made a bad plan worse, and she invites litigation. We will challenge the Bush administration to protect the dunes, and we are confident we'll prevail in court." [/quote]
[quote]I also disagree that this is a lie. I'm a citizen and I'm outraged that the BLM is continuing it's anti-environmental policies of forcing more people into a smaller place which will increase the dammage instead of allowing it enough room to be naturally repaired by mother nature and her rain and wind. Drama, yes. Misrepresentation, yes. Lie....not really.[/quote]
Then perhaps you are the citizen he was speaking about... I really have no idea. However, while I respect your opinion, my opinion that this paragraph is fabrication has not changed.
You are, of course, entitled to your own considered opinion, as I am entitled to mine.
Thanks for the critique.
Vicki
The existing ranger station is not being moved - but the proposed new station is. So Dano's comment is technically correct even if it is misleading.
And while vendor services are being removed and limited by this plan there are new vendor areas in the south dunes that are finally being made official in this plan - so again Dano's comments are misleading but technically correct.[/quote]
On these two issues I see your point and will, of course, amend any writing of MY opinion to more accurately reflect that he's only a little bit of a liar and not a great big liar as regards to his statements on vendors and ranger stations.
[quote]And the test is gone - you still have to take an environmental orientation but it's no a test any longer. So again while Dano's comments are misleading they are not technically wrong or lies.[/quote]
Jason, I don't know for a fact that the test is gone. The whole AMA permitting process is so ambiguous right now that no one really seems to know for sure what will be done. I've heard from someone at the BLM that the "class" will still include a "test" after all. But, if it will make you feel better, I'll try to choose my words more carefully.
[quote]"Citizens are outraged that they're being ignored by anti-environmental politicians and bureaucrats who are trying to kill balanced dunes management." said Daniel R. Patterson, Desert Ecologist with CBD. "Sec. Norton just made a bad plan worse, and she invites litigation. We will challenge the Bush administration to protect the dunes, and we are confident we'll prevail in court." [/quote]
[quote]I also disagree that this is a lie. I'm a citizen and I'm outraged that the BLM is continuing it's anti-environmental policies of forcing more people into a smaller place which will increase the dammage instead of allowing it enough room to be naturally repaired by mother nature and her rain and wind. Drama, yes. Misrepresentation, yes. Lie....not really.[/quote]
Then perhaps you are the citizen he was speaking about... I really have no idea. However, while I respect your opinion, my opinion that this paragraph is fabrication has not changed.
You are, of course, entitled to your own considered opinion, as I am entitled to mine.
Thanks for the critique.
Vicki
That didn't raise my blood pressure one bit!! That piece just puts a huge grin on my face. You know Danny boy is pushed, if not into a corner, atleast against the wall when he sends out such releases. While the release is for all intents and purposes, ridiculous, it shows how well the different organizations are doing in the fight. I have a warm fuzzy feeling in my heart right now. :mrgreen:
[quote][quote]
Under the settlement agreement, over 106 sq. miles are open to unlimited off-roading, while the other roughly half of the dunes are protected for wildlife, and scenic non-motorized recreation. This balance is abandoned and all available lands at the dunes are opened to intensive off-roading.[/quote]
Hmmm....someone seems to be forgetting the existing wilderness area! Or does Dano not consider that to be part of the dunes?[/quote]
You missed the qualifyer, Jason...
He says "All AVAILABLE" lands... and we all know that the wilderness is not AVAILABLE!
This guy musta learned from Slick Willie himself!
Under the settlement agreement, over 106 sq. miles are open to unlimited off-roading, while the other roughly half of the dunes are protected for wildlife, and scenic non-motorized recreation. This balance is abandoned and all available lands at the dunes are opened to intensive off-roading.[/quote]
Hmmm....someone seems to be forgetting the existing wilderness area! Or does Dano not consider that to be part of the dunes?[/quote]
You missed the qualifyer, Jason...
He says "All AVAILABLE" lands... and we all know that the wilderness is not AVAILABLE!
This guy musta learned from Slick Willie himself!
I would like more info about the publication and reviews of the Phillips study and count of the PMV.
Has this study been published in ANY journal?
Has ANY scientist read and reviewed the study?
Has this study been published in ANY journal?
Has ANY scientist read and reviewed the study?
it's baaaaa-aaaaaaack :shock:
Please don't feed the troll :dis:
Please don't feed the troll :dis:
Why not ask that the BLM make these so called hikers , birdwatchers , and photographers sign in and out so they get a good count on the number that shows up. Also when they don't come back , maybe send rescue for them.
Also Sailaway you should add in your comments how they staged the peer vido to false info as well as photo's. Like when Danny boy couldn't get anyone to ride around the closer he did it hiself to make it look like the rules were being broke. The tortise from highway 58 in Mojavie that got run over.
Make Danny boy prove his 3.3 million in losses.SHOW ME THE MONEY.
The whole thing about his response is this will prove and show how these fools lie to get what they want. They should have to show facts on their claims like they want the good guys to show proof on everything.
The one thing Danny boy seems to forget is that nature controls what survies and what don't. I just have to over look B.P. BULL SSSSSS just like B.S BULL SSSSSS
Also Sailaway you should add in your comments how they staged the peer vido to false info as well as photo's. Like when Danny boy couldn't get anyone to ride around the closer he did it hiself to make it look like the rules were being broke. The tortise from highway 58 in Mojavie that got run over.
Make Danny boy prove his 3.3 million in losses.SHOW ME THE MONEY.
The whole thing about his response is this will prove and show how these fools lie to get what they want. They should have to show facts on their claims like they want the good guys to show proof on everything.
The one thing Danny boy seems to forget is that nature controls what survies and what don't. I just have to over look B.P. BULL SSSSSS just like B.S BULL SSSSSS
Anyone got a full rebutal to that PR? I want to forward it to the OC register.
That's a good question. There's been a mixture of fluff coming out of the anti-access camps lately but this particular little gem was sent only to people on the CBD mailing list. That means it's not a particular piece in a particular paper that can be targeted with comment(s).
Still, I am working on a way to respond to this nonsense in a general way so that we hit it all at once.
Dano is heading for Sand Mountain right now and it sure would be nice to get some anti-rhetoric going so those people up there know what kind of wolf has entered the sheep pen.
Vicki
Still, I am working on a way to respond to this nonsense in a general way so that we hit it all at once.
Dano is heading for Sand Mountain right now and it sure would be nice to get some anti-rhetoric going so those people up there know what kind of wolf has entered the sheep pen.
Vicki
[quote]I would like more info about the publication and reviews of the Phillips study and count of the PMV.
Has this study been published in ANY journal?
Has ANY scientist read and reviewed the study?[/quote]
RAOFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[b][size=24]CAN YOU SAY BULLSHIAT!!!
Has this study been published in ANY journal?
Has ANY scientist read and reviewed the study?[/quote]
RAOFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[b][size=24]CAN YOU SAY BULLSHIAT!!!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.