Jump to content
Double G

Word Is That Fws Has Issued Bo

Recommended Posts

So if the current riding closure is 49,000 acres, and the AMA is 33,000 acres, that would mean that we would get back about 16,000 riding acres immediately upon implementation of the RAMP? icon_smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully something can be done to help take pressure off the limited area in the dunes and save some lives.

Ok, Ill bite on this. Yes we do have limited space and a lot less space than we did a few years ago. But dont mis-direct the causes of MOST of our fatalities this year. It sounds like a great arguement aginst the closures but truth be told, it has very very little if any effect on the accidents.

Im not saying that we should try to re-open the closures as a safty concern, but I dont want to take anything away from the real cause of MOST of the accidents.

Carelessness is the prevailing cause. The accidents are not happening in crowded dunes. For the most part they are happening in camping areas and it involves people driving to fast for the conditions.

Sorry to say that more open dunes will not rid us of stupid people.

I just have to say that the "open dunes save lifes" battle cry is about as hollow as most of the battle cries the other side is using. It simply doesnt hold water. And they know it as well as we do.

OK....Attack Tom for speaking the truth time...... ph34r.gif25chatter.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall, weren't we in this position awhile back? I will agree, it would be cool to go to The Wall again. However, as most of us know, there are a lot of steps before we get there. But if we get to that point, I am not real excited about the permit system. If only 525 people are allowed in, and one permit per 7 people, we are only looking at 75 passes. And if they allow 1/2 of them to be purchased on line, and the other half at the ranger station, it will most likely be very hard to get one. Will only off-roaders get them on line? Or can anybody? If I was with the Sierra Club, I would have a thousand of us get on line at all times and try to get them. And if they are only available at the Ranger Station, do the wash people have to stop by the Ranger Station in hopes that there will be a couple left of the 37 that will be there? Building and implementing a sufficient permit plan is where there will be trouble. IMO, almost impossible.

Don't get me wrong, any closures coming down does get me excited, but I know that there are a few more species of animals waiting in line that the CBD hasn't used yet. If we start with 75 passes, it will most likely be the maximum, and only get smaller. To monitor the AMA and have a true report, the permit system shouldn't be used. This is probably a dumb question, but is there a possibility for a no permit system? Or is there just no way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is probably a dumb question, but is there a possibility for a no permit system? Or is there just no way?

It's not a dumb question and yes, there is a possibility.

The term "Adaptive Management Area" (AMA) should mean that it adapts to the current conditions and can change. Also, the Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) is supposed to be a "living" document that can also be altered as conditions change. And because Glamis is a recreation area, recreation will be considered highly in the management of the area.

Something that needs to also be remembered is the AMA, even though it isn't official yet, has played a role in several species issues, such as considering the ESA listing of the flat-tailed horned lizard. We expect it to also play a vital role in considering whether to list the Andrews Dune Scarab Beetle.

Now... as to the concern that the permit system can be violated by the anti-access people, well, that is a very valid concern. Word is Oceano has experienced exactly what you describe, where anti-access groups gobble up the permit/use passes and then don't use them.

In this case it would be pretty stupid of them to do that. Not that fear of stupidity has ever stopped them from doing something blink.gif

The AMA was designed to more closely monitor the species in that area. The number of permits is small but the deal was, the number of permits would increase in conjunction with the health of the species.

By eliminating night riding and limiting the number of vehicles allowed per day, allegedly the thought was it would be easier to monitor the effect of the vehicles on those species, while presuming that OHV use has a negative impact on the species. So..... let's say the bad guys snap up the permits and very few actual vehicles get to ride there. When the species are monitored and there is no negative impact, we win and the number of permits will be increased... in part, thanks to the bad guys who snapped up the permits.

But I have to say, we're confident that the monitoring of the species will indicate that vehicle use has no impact, no matter how many vehicles wander through there. The species weren't impacted before the lawsuit closures and they sure as heck won't be impacted now. This "permit system" was meant to be a treat for the anti-access people... an attempt to keep them happy (yeah, like that will ever work).

The sad fact is, the health of the species is not their primary concern... it's just a weapon used to close riding areas.

If they were truly concerned with accurately monitoring the species, perhaps they would have still pushed for a permit system of some sort (to help get an idea of just how many vehicles actually recreate there), but the number of permits would have been unlimited until a "baseline" was established. Arbitrarily establishing a baseline is bad science.

Bottom line here... is the AMA a good thing? No, not for anyone concerned. Not for the species, not for the users, not for science.

Can we fight it? Sure. But not until it is in place. We can't argue to lift something that doesn't yet exist.

Vicki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can the 'bad guys' purchase those permits?

Let me ask the dumb question:

Permits for use in the AMA should only be issued to people who:

1. Have already purchased a weekend/season pass

2. Are legitmately operating a sand car or ATV/Motorcycle capable of operation n the AMA (i.e. no SUVs or street cars)

3. Have a vehicle (buggy/ATV/Motorcycle) that is legitmately registered (stinker there)

Aren't the above part of the abiding guideleines that will be enforced?

If that's true, then the 'bad guys' shouldn't be able to snatch up the permits.

Maybe we need to have a special set for just the CBD, that doesn't take away from our quota.

Edited by Desertdogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You bring up an interesting point.

But resource use is resource use, right? Whether on foot or via vehicle.

I have personally tracked the impact of foot versus quad versus bike versus buggy and know that footprints last a whole lot longer than any tire prints. So, I would be really upset if somehow non-motorized users were left outside the system.

But what I don't know right this very minute is if "hikers" in the AMA will be ignored and only OHVs monitored. What I mean is, the entire system has been (so far) designed around OHV use. The flags, the test, the permit itself.

Where does that leave those million hikers we've heard so much about (you know... the ones who will support Imperial Valley economy with their use). Will their use be unlimited?

I object.

Vicki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can the 'bad guys' purchase those permits?

Let me ask the dumb question:

Permits for use in the AMA should only be issued to people who:

1. Have already purchased a weekend/season pass

2. Are legitmately operating a sand car or ATV/Motorcycle capable of operation n the AMA (i.e. no SUVs or street cars)

3. Have a vehicle (buggy/ATV/Motorcycle) that is legitmately registered (stinker there)

Aren't the above part of the abiding guideleines that will be enforced?

If that's true, then the 'bad guys' shouldn't be able to snatch up the permits.

Maybe we need to have a special set for just the CBD, that doesn't take away from our quota.

All those are good points and #1 is really going to stick in their craw since as you saw (was it last weekend?) these people believe they are outside the law when it comes to purchasing a pass angryfire.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insisting on #1 being part of the permit system would solve a lot of problems.

Vicki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good posts on the AMA, Vicki. icon_wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the AMA controls the number of people allowed within it's boundries rather the number of vehicles instead. Case in point, if the School bus duner could fill his bus up to the gills with riders and were to venture out to the AMA, his is still only one vehicle.

I would agree with Vicki that if the green side were to gobble up the permits, it would only help with our cause to increase the number of permits available.

I also am concerned about the "purchase" word. Are these permits going to be charged for? angryfire.gif

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also am concerned about the "purchase" word. Are these permits going to be charged for? angryfire.gif

Bill

That's undecided right now... there has been talk of charging and even talk of a "lottery" type of thing... who knows at this point.

I believe the reason a fee came up was not just to make more money, but also as a deterrent against the passes just being taken up without being used.

Vicki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know how many people go to China Wall on a busy weekend? Couldnt that be a bench mark to be used as the possible number of people who would ACTUALLY out to those areas..

What if 500 people dont even go that far out on a busy weekend.. then its pointless..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if 500 people dont even go that far out on a busy weekend.. then its pointless..

Exactly. That's why it was so ridiculous to even name a number in the first place. Sure, one could "guess" how many people actually visit China Wall but what's the point? Even those who visit China Wall might never go to the center of that large closure.

Believe me, we pursued this angle over and over and over again, from a user standpoint and a conservation standpoint.

Vicki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if 500 people dont even go that far out on a busy weekend.. then its pointless..

Exactly. That's why it was so ridiculous to even name a number in the first place. Sure, one could "guess" how many people actually visit China Wall but what's the point? Even those who visit China Wall might never go to the center of that large closure.

Believe me, we pursued this angle over and over and over again, from a user standpoint and a conservation standpoint.

Vicki

Go take a look at the UNITED DESERT GATEWAY Communities Task Order #2.

This is exactly the kind of data we expect to get from it. We are all guessing and speculating what happens on the sand ,with respect to visitor use and patterns.

We need to be way more educated than the next guy when this battle is fought.

The best defense is offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm going to get shi* from Grant, and I don’t mean to minimize this step But.....

It still seems to be a long ways away for the real victory of "actually setting a tire onto the closed areas" icon_mad.gif

What can we now do proactively, do we need a letter campaign to the BLM, or maybe even to the Judge. What can we file, If we need more money for layers, than say so.

I'm dumbfounded, and just can't believe that administration guidelines for the AMA haven’t been worked out yet. Why not get one or two steps ahead of the game. What has the BLM been waiting for? Any why

It’s we, the OFF Road vehicles, that’s paying the dune fees, doing the clean-ups, working with BLM on safety issues, getting out the word on closer incursions, WTF is this crap that there not ready to publish in the register, after the BO. I don’t understand this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All Parties had 48 hrs to reply back to the court after the release of the BO. Here is a summary of those conversations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the required conference call, CBD declared they would not file a motion for preliminary injunction against the RAMP but, not surprisingly, go straight to challenging the new BO. They feel it is unnecessary to file, because it is so late in the dune season.

Instead, the parties have agreed to file cross-motions for summary judgment. In simple terms, this is where each party makes their case in writing and the judge makes the final decision. Since this is the second and a much stronger BO that arrives at the same opinion, Dave feels the chances of CBD winning summary judgment are small. This will be done on an expedited basis, provided the judge agrees to our briefing schedule. The goal is to have the matter decided by the next duning season with enough time for the BLM to begin implementation of the RAMP.

There will be some delay while the administrative record is prepared; but once that's done, the matter should move pretty quickly; perhaps 4 to 5 months. However, we have been told similar things in the past and progress seems always to be much slower than anticipated.

If CBD is successful and obtains the decision they seek, we will be looking to appeal in the 9th Circuit Court. If we are successful, the CBD will likely request a stay of the implementation of the RAMP: an unlikely and extraordinary occurrence according to Dave. They too will have to file in the 9th Circuit. Either way, it seems, we will be in the 9th Circuit Court.

_________________

Edited by GRANT@FUNCO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Either way, it seems, we will be in the 9th Circuit Court.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's exactly a wonderful place for the "good guys"...the 9th circuit is the most liberal bunch of wacko's in the country. Perhaps the Supreme Court will be able to stop the eco nazi assult. Can you discuss what the lawyers feel which way the 9th circuit might lean on this issue??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to know what day to sch a stake pulling party

Say 4-2-05 icon_biggrin.gif ok maybe thats too soon blink.gif

Should be by 10-22-05, angryfire.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we are successful, the CBD will likely request a stay of the implementation of the RAMP: an unlikely and extraordinary occurrence according to Dave. They too will have to file in the 9th Circuit. Either way, it seems, we will be in the 9th Circuit Court.

_________________

Rather ironic seeing as how this all started due to a lack of a new RAMP. Now it looks like they are doing everything they can to stop what they sued in court to make happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jet..that's only because the RAMP doesn't say what they want it to. You know, those poor wittle environazi baby's just gotta have it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we are successful, the CBD will likely request a stay of the implementation of the RAMP: an unlikely and extraordinary occurrence according to Dave. They too will have to file in the 9th Circuit. Either way, it seems, we will be in the 9th Circuit Court.

_________________

Rather ironic seeing as how this all started due to a lack of a new RAMP. Now it looks like they are doing everything they can to stop what they sued in court to make happen.

Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Preview Post

More Links

©2001 GlamisDunes.com.
All rights reserved.

×
×
  • Create New...