Dumont Dunes Fence

[SailAway]

Read the following links: The first is the effort to get the butterfly listed under the ESA. The second is the closure in March of 2007. The third, May 2007, is the finding by the US Fish and Wildlife stating the listing in not warranted. Whether recognized or not, this was a win for pro-access.

http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/uncommon-groun...mountain-b.html

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660206255,00.html

http://www.fws.gov/nevada/highlights/news_..._050207_smb.pdf

Yeah, I read a lot of that when it was first released.

The court settlement/agreement between the BLM and the anti-access guys was not a win for us, and no amount of posturing by CBD associates will change that.

As for the listing, of course the petition was denied... only after the BLM had rolled over on everything else.

Protecting the butterfly... listing it... was never the issue. Off-road vehicle restrictions (without supporting data) was the goal and it was achieved in spades.

You want to talk about chipping away at an area, Sand Mountain is a perfect example.

And I predict here and now it won't be the last. Next time it won't be the butterfly, it will be something else, and the BLM in charge of Sand Mountain will negotiate and surrender an acre at a time once again.

VickiW

[SailAway]

Another link. Not necessarily a win yet, however with a unanimous vote by the county board of supervisors, it gives me hope and the notion that reversing prior closures is not impossible, maybe even probable.

http://kxoradio.com/local-news/county-peti...rom-list-2.html

Except that even if the PMV is delisted, those court-ordered closures will remain in effect, more so considering the recent decision on the critical habitat.

But I am glad to see such a public display of support from the Imperial County Board of Supervisors.

VickiW

[SailAway]

My concerns over this revised proposed critical habitat are shared by many in the off-road community. Yes, the overall acreage was reduced. However, additional "management recommendations" were included and, well, we all know what will happen if those recommendations aren't followed.

Now... if the PMV is somehow delisted from the Federal Endangered Species act, critical habitat would become a moot point. To an extent.

Let's not forget that the PMV is only listed as "threatened" under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

It is listed as "endangered" under the California act, and delisting from one does not automatically delist it from the other.

And although Glamis is on Federal land, it is located in the State of California and therefore governed by California regulations as well as Federal regulations. In fact, the El Centro BLM relies heavily upon the California Native Plant Society when making decisions regarding various species in the dunes.

Critical habitat aside, delisted from the ESA or not, the PMV is not leaving the radar for a very long time.

VickiW

Final out come not known, but encouraging, Date of report 7-27-07

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01...007/07-3674.htm

Summary:

Summary of Changes From Previously Designated Critical Habitat

The areas identified in this proposed rule constitute a proposed

revision of the areas we proposed to designate as critical habitat for

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii on August 5, 2003 (68 FR 46143),

and designated on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47330). The main differences

include the following:

1. This proposed revision includes 16,108 ac (6,519 ha) of land in

Imperial County, California, a reduction of 36,672 acre (14,840 ha)

from the 2003 proposed rule (68 FR 46143) and 5,728 ac (2,329 ha) from

the 2004 final critical habitat rule (69 FR 47330). The differences in

data and selection criteria between the currently designated critical

habitat and this proposed revision are described further below.

2. The reduction in total acreage from the 2003 proposed critical

habitat designation is primarily the result of a revised methodology to

delineate critical habitat.

The public hearing was held Sept. 25, 2007. As far as I can tell, they have not published their final decision. I don't expect anything soon as the plan itself has to be reviewed and then the legal challenges must be ruled on. Could be months or years before final outcome. Still leads me to have hope that things can be reversed.

[SandBox_Kid]

I would like to reiterate what rpost said:

I appreciate your passion. It must get very frustrating being a 'lightning rod' and having to take the brunt of most of the complaints.

....as it takes a special person to be able to read through the mountains of legal jargon that you guys do, as well as taking the unecessary reactions from some angry duners when they hear the news that you folks deliver.

I would like to ask rpost one question without it being taken as an attack.....concerning the following statement:

I have been silent for a long time because I felt it necessary not to rock the boat for business purposes.

Am I reading into that wrong, or is that an unethical statement? Money should never take precedence over moral principles and values. ......just wondering.

[SandBlasted]

I'm making comments on the BLM Barstow field offices grant proposal. This funding would come from our Green Sticker fund and I don't really see the need, do you?

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/p...view_packet.pdf

If approved, funded and completed, can you guess where the money will come from in the future to keep it maintained?

I'm making comments on the BLM Barstow field offices grant proposal. This funding would come from our Green Sticker fund and I don't really see the need, do you?

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/p...view_packet.pdf

If approved, funded and completed, can you guess where the money will come from in the future to keep it maintained?

The 1st time I went to Dumont I was on my sportsman 700. I had seen maps I knedw there was a wilderness area somewhere around there.

Anyway I was down in the wash riding and went thru the washed out road into the wilderness area. no signs no nothing. I was not in very far and noticed a lack of trails and other riders and decided I better get out of there.

I took a road to the top of the other side of the road and a ranger was driving up. While I was there 20 or 30 min getting my 100.00 ticket, he asked if anyone else was back there. I said no as when I was there no one else was there.

As I was getting my ticket, about 5 other people popped up 1 or 2 at a time to get their ticket from the same location.

I was pissed and told the ranger we are not all criminals. I explained there were no signs but that was like talking to a rock.

I came back later and took pictures. No signs, broken signs, and confusing signs that on one end of the road said no OHV's and on the other said open to OHV's.

I took this to the head ranger and and showed him the photos. He informed me that by law they are only required to have a sign at 3 mile intervals.

I said if it is worth protecting, then protect it. Right now it seems like your more interested in making money from tickets than preserving the land. He got pissed about my accusation.

I explained right or wrong that is what the appearance is. If you are really interested in protecting it in a high interface area you would protect it. As far as I'm concerned you just want the money from the fines.

Well I paid the ticket as it would cost more to fight it, but the next time I came out and looked the signs were fixed.

Many OHV riders tear down the signs. We have a BLM guy here around our town, we call him the turtle cop, and he says as fast as he puts them up they tear them down. The rule here is if there is not a sign, then it is closed.

IMHO they need a fence or they need good signage.

[eli]

Bob, That is where you are VERY WRONG. While you may not agree with what the BLM does, the Barstow Field Office does listen to us. When was the last time you talked to them? :mc_smiley:

That would be about 2002.

I invited Barstow BLM to speak at a Railroad History Symposium I organized.

They told us all about all the plans they had for Sperry including a trail head, toilets, parking area, and historical signage. Later they invited me to present on the T&T Railroad at Dumont Public Lands Day. Later that day I drove up to Sperry to find it posted as wilderness. On my way up there I ran into the guy that was then the head of the Barstow office. He asked me where I could find one of his crews building a fence. HE DIDN'T KNOW! Surprise Surprise one of the head Tree Huggers was sitting in the seat next to him.

I returned and asked the BLM WTF. They said Sperry was wilderness. When I pointed out the wilderness was on the east side of the railroad grade not the west. They said they were protecting the remains of the adobe section house which was nothing but a pile of white mud at the time.

Anybody ever b*tch about the Tecopa ACEC that moved three miles to the south? They claimed that they had to turn traffic up Western Talac and built another of their famous fences. So now if you want to hike the canyon add three miles to that hike unless you are that tree hugger then you just have to ask head of the Barstow BLM to give you a ride.

I'll be there Thankgiving weekend and intend to follow as much of the grade as possible. Provided I don't have to take the moron that intends to shoot east of the dunes back to the leo's. He'll be the one tied to my hitch and either running to keep up or dragging.

Eli