SailAway

I'll try to post the flyer later today but yep, it's always on St. Patrick's weekend. Thanks Pete.

Last year we weren't able to provide t-shirts for the cleanup... they aren't cheap and we didn't have enough sponsor money to cover them without having to dip into our own limited funds. It wasn't just that though... we probably could have pushed harder but it's really hard to hit up sponsors for t-shirt money and then turn around and hit them up again for 'real' needs like paying for a lawyer to help fight the potential lizard closures.

But we sure missed them and we'd love to have them back. If anyone is able to help take on the task of gathering sponsorship dollars for this season's cleanup, let me know and we'll work together when the time comes.

Oh, and speaking of cleanup... I posted something in the Glamis section about them removing dumpsters from Glamis. Sure makes me glad we never let them in at Dumont!

Vicki

NEWS from CPSC

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Office of Information and Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20207

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 18, 2008

Release #08-306

Firm's Recall Hotline: (866) 217-7750

CPSC Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772

CPSC Media Contact: (301) 504-7908

Tucker Rocky Recalls Off-Road Motorcycle Clamp Kits; Bolts Can Break Causing Handlebars to Separate During a Crash and Cause Serious Injury

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Name of Product: Pro Taper Clamp Kits Used With Off-Road Motorcycles

Units: About 12,000

Distributor: Tucker Rocky Distributing, of Fort Worth, Texas

Hazard: Some of the bolts included in the clamp kits (or sold separately) if installed incorrectly can break under extreme force such as a crash. This can cause the handlebars to separate posing a risk of serious injury to the rider.

Incidents/Injuries: There have been seven reports of bolts breaking. No injuries have been reported.

Description: The Pro Taper Clamp Kits are aftermarket accessories for off-road motorcycles. The recall involves the following kits and part numbers:

Upper Triple Clamp Kit: 02-2824, 02-2825, 02-2826, 02-2827, 02-2828, 02-2829, 02-2843, 02-2844, 02-2845, 02-2846, 02-2849, 02-2851

Complete Triple Clamp Kit 02-2830: 02-2831, 02-2832, 02-2833, 02-2834, 02-2839, 02-2840, 02-2847, 02-2848, 02-2850, 02-2852, 02-2853, 02-2854, 02-2855

Handlebar Clamp Kit (Universal Solid Mount Kit and Universal Rubber Mount Kit): 02-2821, 02-2822

Replacement Bolt Kit: 02-2855, 02-2886

Sold at: Motorcycle dealerships nationwide from October 2007 through March 2008 and ranged in price from $5 for the Replacement Bolt Kit to $440 for the Complete Triple Clamp Kit.

Manufactured in: Taiwan

Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop riding off-road motorcycles equipped with the recalled kits and contact the firm for free replacement bolts.

Consumer Contact: For further information, call Tucker Rocky Distributing toll-free at (866) 217-7750 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at www.protaper.com

To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including pictures of the recalled products, please go to:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08306.html

it`s always something.but my 3 kids have been riding for years and if they would have stayed on the bikes the laws want them too.they probably wouldnt want to go riding.but i always watch them pretty closely.i think when they come up w/this crap it`s because of kids riding to big of bikes.we were out at glamis a couple of years ago and there was a kid over at olds whoppen our arse`s he could barely even touch the pegs and to sift he had to lean over and thru the whoop`s he would almost crash every time but when the hill got smoothed watch out cause he was coming up fast.that was on a newyears weekend,those people (his parents)are the ones to blame for these new laws on OHV`s.we all feel the effects for those kind of people.thats my 2 cents

BINGO.

And yes, I absolutely believe that is indeed the primary reason these restrictions are being suggested, or at least it is the primary reason behind the folks who are supporting this kind of extreme legislation.

If it really was all about the safety of the children and not a way to target the sport, education would be the focus, not restrictions.

Vicki

so this is just a bill right now? not a law, right?

Yes and no. This is the first stage in making it a law. The legislation has to pass through California Senate and Assembly and then it has to be signed by the Guv and then it becomes law. The timing for this to pass into law would be January 1, 2009.

Vicki

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/s..._introduced.pdf

New legislation currently in the process.

Take a close look. Some of this isn't so bad, but some is.

It raises the age for a child to be certified or supervised by a certified adult from 14 to 16. Not a big deal? It also regulates the size of the machine the child can ride and no, that hasn't been a law. There has been an agreement with the manufacturers that they would not sell OHVs directly to minors, but it has not been illegal for a child to ride a size-appropriate bike.

IMHO training and supervision are the keys to off-road safety. I haven't seen any studies indicating that injuries to minors have anything to do with the size of the bikes. Mandating the size of the ride by age makes little sense to me... when it comes to kids, once size does not fit all. Walk into a classroom full of 8 year olds and measure the height and weight differences and then tell me they should all be on the same size bicycle. :bangin: And, existing law already dictates that a child must be able to safely operate the equipment, can reach the brakes, the shifter, etc.

But heck, what do I know. As quietly as this thing is being passed through the system, apparently it's seen as a viable solution, can I hear an amen.

BILL NUMBER: SB 1228 INTRODUCED

BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Senator Maldonado

FEBRUARY 14, 2008

An act to amend Sections 38504, 38504.1, and 38504.2 of the

Vehicle Code, relating to all-terrain vehicles.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 1228, as introduced, Maldonado. All-terrain vehicles: operating

violations.

(1) Existing law prohibits a person under 14 years of age from

operating an all-terrain vehicle on public lands of this state unless

that person satisfies specified safety conditions and, in addition,

is accompanied by, and under direct supervision of, a parent or

guardian, or is accompanied by, and under the direct supervision of,

an adult who is authorized by the parent or guardian. Existing law

prohibits a parent or guardian of a child who is under 14 years of

age or an adult who is authorized by the parent or guardian to

supervise the child, from granting permission to, or knowingly

allowing, that child to operate an all-terrain vehicle in a manner

that violates the above-described prohibition. Existing law makes a

violation of the above an infraction punishable by a specified order

or fine.

This bill would prohibit a person under 16 years of age from

operating an all-terrain vehicle on public lands of this state unless

that person is accompanied by, and under direct supervision of, a

parent or guardian or adult who is authorized by the parent or

guardian and is in possession of a specified safety certificate. The

bill would impose specified size restrictions on all-terrain vehicles

operated by persons under 16 years of age. This bill would also make

conforming changes.

Because this bill would expand the scope of an existing crime, it

would create a state-mandated local program.

(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse

local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the

state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that

reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this

act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 38504 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

38504. No (a) A

person under 14 16 years of age

, on and after January 1, 1990, shall not

operate an all-terrain vehicle on public lands of this state

unless the person satisfies one of the conditions set forth

in Section 38503 and, in addition, is accompanied by and under the

direct supervision of a parent or guardian or is accompanied by and

under the direct supervision of an adult who is authorized by the

parent or guardian. all of the following conditions:

(1) The person is accompanied by, and under the direct supervision

of, a parent or guardian or is accompanied by, and under direct

supervision of, an adult who is authorized by a parent or guardian.

(2) The person is in possession of a safety certificate issued

pursuant to Section 38501 or issued under the authority of another

state.

(B) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a person under 12 years

of age shall not operate an all-terrain vehicle that is of a size

that displaces more than 70 cubic centimeters.

(2) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a person 12 years of age or

older but under 16 years of age shall not operate an all-terrain

vehicle that is of a size that displaces more than 90 cubic

centimeters.

SEC. 2. Section 38504.1 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

38504.1. (a) Neither a A parent or

guardian of a child who is under 14 16

years of age , nor or an adult who is

authorized by the parent or guardian to supervise that child shall

not grant permission to, or knowingly allow, that child to

operate an all-terrain vehicle in a manner that violates Section

38504.

(B) A person convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) is

punishable as follows:

(1) For a first conviction, the court shall either impose a fine

of one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125) or order the person to take

or retake and complete an all-terrain vehicle safety training course

pursuant to Section 38501. If ordered to take or retake and complete

the safety training course, the person shall provide the court a

copy of the all-terrain vehicles safety certificate issued as a

result of that completion.

(2) For a second conviction, a fine of not less than one hundred

twenty-five dollars ($125) nor more than two hundred fifty dollars

($250).

(3) For a third or any subsequent conviction, a fine of not less

than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) nor more than five hundred

dollars ($500).

SEC. 3. Section 38504.2 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

38504.2. If a person under 14 16

years of age was not properly supervised or accompanied in accordance

with Section 38504, and the parent or guardian of that child or the

adult who was authorized by the parent or guardian to supervise or

accompany that child is in violation of Section 38504.1, upon a

conviction pursuant to Section 38504, the court may order that child

to attend and complete the all-terrain vehicle safety training course

accompanied by the person who violated Section 38504.1. If so

ordered, the child under 14 16 years of

age shall provide the court a copy of the all-terrain vehicles

safety certificate issued as a result of that completion.

SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to

Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because

the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school

district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or

infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty

for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the

Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the

meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California

Constitution.

Vicki

HELLLLOOOOOO yes, I'm still around.

Busy as, well, busy as all of those sayings people use to describe someone who's busy... that's how busy I am! A new job and lots of other changes and I'm spending all my time catching my breath.

But the cleanup... well, that is the priority and it's on and ready to roll and will be bigger and better than ever before.

Registration begins at 8:00 so all of the fabulous helpers... if you could be there no later than 7:30, that would be fantastic. I will be there before 7:00 *yawn*.

See you all there!!!

Oh and yes, the BAGS will be there on time this year.

Vicki

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...ty.SenateReport

This is a lengthy article, full of useful links and excellent information. I'll post some of it here but strongly suggest following the link to get the full story.

[Contact: Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.GOV -- Matthew Dempsey - Matthew_Dempsey@EPW.Senate.gov - U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)]

Click here to bypass introduction and go to the report.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Report Released on December 20, 2007

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)

UPDATE: Former Vice President Al Gore responds to Senate report within hours of release. (LINK)

UPDATE 1/29/08: Senate report impacting climate debate. Sampling of international coverage of report: UK Telegraph; Boston Herald; Canada’s National Post; New York Times; Fox News; CNNMoney.com; Human Events; Croatia’s Javno; The Cincinnati Enquirer; WorldNetDaily.com; United Press International (UPI); Spero News; New Zealand Herald; CNSNews.com; Real Clear Politics; PA’s Morning Call; Investor's Business Daily; Philippine’s Manila Standard; Colorado Springs Gazette; Canada Free Press; Newsmax.com; CA’s Orange County Register; Nashua Telegraph; Yahoo News; & Australia’s Herald Sun;

UPDATE: IMPACT: Scientist ponders reconsidering his view of man-made climate fears after Senate report of 400 scientists (LINK)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]

Happy reading!

Vicki

Vicki, thanks for the welcome. However, I stand by my wording. The endangered species act specifically states that all decisions on whether to list a species as endangered, or whether a population is distinct enough to be protected as a "distinct population segment", must be based on the "best available science." Currently, the best available science strongly suggests that the Amargosa River clade is distinct - seperated from other populations for roughly half a million years. Granted, that study is based on only one gene, but it is the best available science. No one even suspected that the Amargosa River population was distinct until 2006, when that research was published.

Andy, a strong suggestion is a far cry from a proven fact and no such decision has been made on this. It may well be that the final word will be that it is considered distinct but that has not been determined yet and we are a long way from reaching that conclusion. I do not want the casual reader to believe that this fight is over before it begins.

It is also important for everyone to keep in mind that even if it is determined that the lizard is a distinct population segment, such a determination does not equal closure.

And neither does "protection" of the species.

Vicki

The Amargosa River distinct population segment of the Mojave fringe-toed lizard only occurs at Dumont Dunes, Coyote Holes, and Ibex Dunes (Death Valley). It is genetically distinct from all other fringe-toed lizards, such as those commonly found at other sites in the southern Mojave. The species in question is a California/Arizona native, not from Africa; the common name "fringe-toed lizard" is also applied to many lizards worldwide which have independently evolved fringed toes to run on fine sand.

I believe it is possible for this isolated lizard population to coexist with ORVs at the Dumont Dunes, but it means that certain dune areas, particularly those that still have vegetation, probably need to be protected. Also, illegal ORV use at Ibex Dunes does not help lizards or riders; it gives authorities more reason to regulate.

Welcome to the board UmaGuy.

I would ask that you please be careful in how you phrase things. To state "The Amargosa River distinct population segment of the Mojave fringe-toed lizard only occurs at Dumont Dunes..." is not accurate. It has not yet been determined whether it deserves a finding as a distinct population segment and I sure don't like to see anyone jumping the gun and misleading the readers of this message board.

By the way, I too believe that it is possible for the lizard to coexist with ORVs at Dumont and Friends of Dumont Dunes is working hard to make sure there will never be a need for Fish & Wildlife to intervene on behalf of the lizard.

Also, your point about illegal off road use is a valid one. If we do not regulate ourselves, the authorities have no choice but to step in and do it for us and that's not good for us or them.

Vicki

This year it's going really slow getting sponsorship money from people. Product donations, no problem. But major sponsors are slow to spend their dollars this year.

Seems the consumer crunch has trickled down to a vendor crunch.

BUT... don't be alarmed... I'm encouraged by the movement in the last week and actually I haven't been concerned even before that. Just surprised at the pace, although when I look at past year movement, we're right on track. I think people are being frugal (sounds so much better than stingy) but when it comes right down to it (and I start emphasizing the deadline), they're willing to pony up.

None of the donations and/or sponsors really start heating up until much closer to the cleanup so give it a little time and you'll see lots of action.

Vicki

I hope it's not too soon to start talking this up. We've been working on sponsors and details for the cleanup and it's getting pretty exciting and I realized that we haven't even posted this year's flyer yet and then I looked at the calendar and realized that we only just now on the verge of February.

Phew!

Okay, everyone mark their calendars for this year's cleanup and remind your camping group how much fun you've had at the previous cleanups and let's get our participation numbers WAY UP.

I'll attach a copy of the flyer here so people can start printing it out for their own camp groups but also it would be dandy if a few people could volunteer to take them to their local off-road shops for their sales counters and windows.

Wooooo hooooo it's only 45 days to go!

Vicki

08_Dumont_Cleanup_flyer.pdf

We probably won't see an official agenda until 7-10 days (or less) prior to the meeting.

This group listens and responds to the Dumont dune users, so...

What would you like to have discussed at the meeting?

Vicki

Yes, that would be the ideal situation. And there's a good (but not great) chance that would happen.

To really save our a$$es we cannot sit back and simply hope for the best though. The smarter move would be to react as if the lizard is found to be a distinct population segment and work toward keeping it from listed. Fish & Wildlife doesn't want to have to step in on behalf of this lizard... if we can help them take a hand's off approach, we'd be golden.

Our very best defense against a listing is keeping people out of the closed areas because, well, that's where the foliage is that the lizard eats. The only time this lizard really goes anywhere near the actual dunes is when it's time for romance and by that time of year it's too hot for us to be riding the dunes.

Friends of Dumont Dunes has been in contact with Fish & Wildlife over this and we will continue to work closely with FWS and the BLM to work this to our best advantage.

Vicki

Here is the 'official' news release from the Fish & Wildlife Service...

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

2493 Portola Road, Suite B

Ventura, California 93003

Phone: 805/644-1766

Fax: 805/644-3958

http://www.fws.gov/ventura/

January 10, 2008

Contact: Lois Grunwald, 805/644-1766, ext 332

SERVICE TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE AMARGOSA RIVER POPULATION OF THE MOJAVE FRINGE-TOED LIZARD SHOULD BE LISTED

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced that it has reviewed a petition to list the Amargosa River population of the Mojave fringe-toed lizard (Uma scoparia) and concluded the petition contains substantial information to indicate that listing may be warranted. This particular population of Mojave fringe-toed lizard occurs in the Amargosa River area of San Benardino County.

The Service also found that the petition’s assertion that the Amargosa River population is a distinct and separate population of the Mojave fringe-toed lizard species may be warranted.

The finding does not mean that the Service has decided to list the Amargosa population of the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. Rather, the Service will now conduct an in-depth review – called a 12-month finding – of all the biological information available on the species to determine whether the Amargosa population of the Mojave fringe-toed lizard is a “distinct population” and subsequently decide whether it warrants listing as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

If the lizard is found to be a “distinct” population, the Service will determine whether listing is “not warranted,” “warranted,” or “warranted but precluded” based on other higher priority species.

Today’s decision, commonly called a 90-day finding, is based on scientific information about the species provided in a petition submitted to the Service in May 2006 by the Center for Biological Diversity and a private citizen. The Service also considered information on the Mojave fringe-toed lizard that it had available in its files.

To ensure the status review is comprehensive, the Service is soliciting scientific and commercial information about the Amargosa population of the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, including information related to its biology and habitat needs.

The population of Mojave fringe-toed lizards that resides near the Amargosa River occurs at Dumont Dunes, which is located on Bureau of Land Management land about 30 miles north of the city of Baker, Ibex Dunes, which is within Death Valley National Park, and Coyote Holes, a sand blowout area located a few miles south of the eastern end of Dumont Dunes. The Mojave fringe-toed lizard species is native to southern California deserts and a small area of western Arizona. It is widespread geographically across this region in Inyo, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Riverside counties. In Arizona, the species occurs in La Paz County.

The petitioners cite extensive off-highway vehicle traffic at Dumont Dunes, and to a lesser extent Ibex Dunes and Coyote Holes, as posing a substantial threat to the Amargosa River population of the Mojave fringe-toed lizard.

The Mojave fringe-toed lizard is in the family of North American spiny lizards. It is distinguished from other fringe-toed lizards by crescent-shaped markings on the sides of its throat and a conspicuous dark black spot on the sides of its belly. The lizards are believed to live out their entire lives in sand dunes or other sandy areas. During breeding periods, the bellies of the adults are yellow-green and their sides are pink. At other times, the lizards’ color mimics the sand dunes, rendering them nearly invisible to predators.

The lizard feeds on insects, seeds and flowers. Annual plant species provide important forage in the spring. It derives most of its water from eating insects and plants.

Written comments and information on the proposed rule must be submitted by March 10, 2008, to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: RIN-1018-AV02; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA, 22203 or at the Federal eRulemaking Portal by following instructions for submitting comments at http://regulations.gov.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 95-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System which encompasses 544 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 69 national fish hatcheries, 63 fishery resource offices and 81

ecological services field stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to State fish and wildlife agencies.

-FWS-

I'm not in his area but I am on his email list and I just received this from Senator Ashburn's office...

FORECLOSURE PREVENTION

The State and Consumer Services Agency and Business, Transportation and Housing Agency are pleased to present a series of consumer workshops focusing on preventing foreclosures.

Credit counselors, loan servicers and lenders will offer on-site assistance and information on options available to help keep you in your home.

FREE CONSUMER WORKSHOP

Hosted by Senator Roy Ashburn

Thursday, January 24th

6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

Kern County Superintendent of Schools

Board Rooms 1-A and 1-B

1300 17th Street

Bakersfield, CA 93301

Consumer Workshops:

Carrington Mortgage Servicing, Countrywide, GMAC, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Washington Mutual, Wells Fargo and Wilshire Credit

Please bring your loan documents and other relevant financial information to the event.

CONTACT EMAIL: Senator.Ashburn@sen.ca.gov

Capitol Office: Bakersfield Office:

State Capitol, Room 3063 5001 California Ave., Room 105

Sacramento, CA 95814 Bakersfield, CA 93309

Phone: 916-651-4018 Phone: 661-323-0443

I completely understand the confusion and the knee-jerk reaction of "they need HOW much????"

Our (legal) riding areas have all gone from free to some kind of fee in one form or another, whether at the state level (green sticker fees) or admittance into the park.

There are people fighting these fees. They aren't winning the battle, but they are trying.

And in the meantime we're having to face these fees and some are facing it with complete shock.

At first glance it looks like an awfully lot of money. People start figuring it in their heads and cannot believe that an area which was free to ride in five years ago now costs so much just for a weekend of fun.

It's not easy coming to terms with.

And in their state of confusion most people don't take the time to research the issue... instead the "what the hell?" comes out through their fingertips and their frustration at not understanding meets our frustration at having to once again spell it out.

But... there is no other option. Every time there's a chance to educate, that's what we have to do. And for every frustrated "I don't understand" that starts here, ends with that same person explaining what they've learned to their close circle of friends.

Education is the key to absolutely everything at Dumont.

And Dumont Dune Riders has been positively fabulous on that front. :shoot:

Vicki

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but would you please enlighten me as to what the growing concern with dust is ? Not to be sarcastic, but doesn't dust go without saying when you choose to drive 30 miles from the nearest town to camp in the middle of the desert ?

It's not a duning community problem. That is to say, no one from the duning community has complained about dust.

The environmental protection agency is being asked to do something about the amount of dust that is being kicked up by off-road vehicles (and building construction).

It has become yet another tool used by the anti-access zealots in their obsession to shut down open riding areas.

And it's an effective tool. Many counties have been sued along with the EPA over the issue of dust. I haven't checked on the outcome yet, but about 4 years ago Ocotillo Wells was involved in one... with one proposed solution being (you'll love this) to pave the trails to reduce the dust.

Make no mistake. This is a tool that has been used and will continue to be used and I am pleased as heck that it didn't get to the point of closure to make the BLM take action at Dumont.

Vicki

[edited for clarification]

Thats different from the material that they had to purchase prior to the recycled asphalt.

The contract for ground asphalt base material was for the very large and growing concern of dust control and it did just that. It wasn't for road maintenance.

Exactly.

This was not done to improve the road.

This was done in a proactive move against a growing problem, one that has and will continue to shut down other open riding areas.

One other thing that seems to be missed... the hike in fees was not for any improvements. The fees we pay are only enough to cover the basics that are already in place, primarily emergency services, bathrooms, law enforcement.

Vicki

I responded to a post on the GlamisDunes message board about this and I hope no one minds me copying that response to here. I know the questions may not have been posted but the information is still valid.

I'm sure Ecologic is aware of the issue... both ASA and CORVA have offered assistance to Friends of Dumont Dunes on this.

I had a lengthy conversation with Fish & Wildlife about this yesterday and got some very good information. He also confirmed what I'd been told already and that is, this is an inevitable first step and unless the CBD had completely screwed up their petition, there was no other conclusion.

Granting this petition was not and is not the end of the line here, but it will take a lot of work and community input to keep the situation from growing worse.

What this will all turn on is, management of the species.

This lizard, 'distinct population segment' or not, does not live on the dunes. Yes it lives in loose sand, but characteristically it does not wander far from low lying brush. There are no bushes on the dunes of Dumont.

But... there are plenty surrounding the dunes of Dumont. For those who may not know, the open riding area of Dumont is virtually surrounded by closures of various types... wilderness, archeological, etc. And guess what's inside those closures... prime lizard habitat. The information I'm getting is in this case, those current closures may actually work for us in a small way. The downside is that many of those closures have been breached by riders and unless we can get that under control, we haven't got a chance in Hell.

Fish & Wildlife has the responsibility of maintaining the health of our species. If the Dumont species are healthy enough and look to stay that way, the Service won't step in. What the Dumont community needs to do is make sure that happens. From what I've been told, that is not only the best scenario for us, but it is also very likely, especially in the case of this current petition.

The care and feeding of the PMV was left to BLM and Fish & Wildlife and we all see where that got us. The Dumont community is working closely with the BLM and Fish & Wildlife to take a proactive role in the care and feeding of the lizard. Leaving a management plan to the imagination of either BLM or Fish & Wildlife would be foolish... the Dumont recreation area is our playground... we'll take responsibility for it.

VickiW

Hey now, we're a long ways away from critical habitat for this lizard.

Right now all that has been decided is that Fish & Wildlife will take a closer look.

Aside from that... please read the federal register notice and I'll see if I can't scare up the original petition for the truly strong at heart. Being fully informed is the only chance we have in this.

Whether or not this lizard lives on the moon really doesn't make a difference here. Actually, if it lived on the moon and at Dumont it would strengthen the CBD's stance because they are claiming that even though there are millions of these things:

The petitioners also assert that the Amargosa River population of Mojave

fringe-toed lizards of Coyote Holes and Dumont and Ibex Dunes are isolated and discrete from other dunes and other populations by the presence of intervening, unsuitable habitat, due to the fact that Mojave fringe-toed lizards are not known to disperse across long distances of unsuitable habitat (Norris 1958, p. 257).

So you see... although it is possible Fish & Wildlife will decide it is not a distinct population segment, we can't sit back and hope for that conclusion. We have to act as if they have already decided that it is a DPS and help find a way to management the health of the species in a way that our recreation also remains healthy.

Vicki

Several things came across during my talk with Fish & Wildlife and one was, the lizard does not live where we do our primary riding.

Trouble spots that I see ahead are the outlying areas. Any area with small brush amid the sand is going to be lizard habitat.

Now... the three ways this thing can go are:

1) After reviewing the species Fish & Wildlife determines it is fine and the current management plan in place for the species (HINT: there is none right now) is good enough to maintain the species as is; or

2) The species is indeed a distinct population segment and should be protected but Fish & Wildlife is unable to purse that (for various reasons, funding being one of them). It then becomes a "candidate" and waits for further action at a later date; or

3) The species is a distinct population segment and current management plans are not good enough to protect it so it must be listed and critical habitat must be determined.

Obviously #1 would be the greatest response for us. However, because the lizard has not been specifically managed by the BLM, it will take work to get there and this is where we will have to get the BLM to focus on the lizard and we (as in all of us, not just five leaders of FoDD) will have to work closely with the BLM to find a solution that works for us. If we leave it in their hands, we will not be happy with the result.

Vicki

I just finished up a lengthy phone call with Fish & Wildlife and confirmed some information and received new information.

What I want to stress here, and what was stressed to me is, that this initial finding is precisely that... an initial finding. It is a first step in a very long and very involved process, a very necessary step and, well, an inevitable step.

What I'm trying to say is, while we need to respect this decision and start making a (more) concerted effort to protect ourselves, this decision does not spell doom and gloom for us.

Unless a petition is presented that is a complete farce, something totally filled with fantasy and completely beyond reason, the decision could not have been any different.

Fish & Wildlife is not saying the lizard should or will be listed... they are only saying that the petition's paperwork was in proper order and commands them to take a closer look.

That said...

What we as a community need to do now is, we need to focus on this petition and take a proactive approach to the situation. Fish & Wildlife is charged with protecting species, all species. If they only have on faction telling them how to do that, they will have no choice but to believe them.

We need to step up and step in. We need to work with the BLM and Fish & Wildlife and prove that there is no reason for federal protection and that this species is and will remain healthy without any intervention from Fish & Wildlife.

Okay, so how do we do that? Well, the first step is to submit comments within the next 60 days. Scientifically based comments would be dandy but all comments are welcome and helpful. For instance, someone who has been riding in Dumont for 30 years could write in and tell them where and when they've seen these lizards.

Now... there is a statement in this Federal Register Notice that reads:

Please note that comments merely stating support or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination.[/i]

What that means is, sending a nasty note saying we hate what they're doing is a waste of everyone's time.

But... according to what I was just told by Fish & Wildlife, a well-thought out letter detailing years of dune use, responsible recreation and devotion to the Dumont Dunes (and maintaining dune species) would not be a waste of anyone's time.

Okay, that's enough for this post. Next post I'll point out the three possible conclusions and what we can do to take charge of our future.

Vicki

The Fish & Wildlife's response to the Center for Biological Diversity's fringe toed lizard petition was posted in today's Federal Register. I've only had time to read it once quickly and I see good news and bad news in it, but overall nothing that should send us all running for cover. On the other hand, we cannot and must not take it lightly either.

Here's the link to the finding. Please read it and post questions here.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01...8/pdf/E8-28.pdf

For some reason I'm having trouble cutting and pasting the portions that really need attention and I'm out of time right this minute. I will address this as soon as possible this morning though and will start posting items I think we need to note immediately.

The more eyes on this the better, of course, so please read this on your own and post as many comments and questions as possible.

Vicki

I don't know about being a celebrity, but I sure was pleased to see it turn out to be a decent piece for the good guys.

V.

My mommy and daddy havnt financially supported me since my mid TEENS and im 26. If you guys think I dont have a right to b*tch just because I have not made it to a TRT meeting, eat $hit. I dont have to go to a meeting to prove I know what im talking about. I have all the info i need on the net and its much closer then BARSTOW.

Pete, the reason I didnt make the last one, since you ask, I was out of town for my girls B-day so my "mommy and daddy" took our car to save gas. Just to make you happy ill do my best to make the next one.

For the record, we were at the clean-up weekend, anyone remember the 6 wheel drive army jeep thing?? We pick up more then our own trash and pull our weight with everyting else appropriate and related to Dumont. So if I cant b*tch without going to a TRT meeting, then I dont want to hear a WORD from anyone who hasnt made a cleanup weekend.

I loved that army jeep thing! I'm glad you're able to make it to the cleanups.

I think what people are trying to say to you about going to the TRT meetings is yes, there is information out on the Internet but it is incomplete more often than not and downright wrong much of the time. If you truly want the answers you say you want, the very best way to get them is straight from the horse's mouth and not through some third-party source.

It's not enough to be informed... the information must be correct and as many are learning here, attending a TRT meeting opens a whole new world of information. For both sides, actually... the BLM learns about us more every time we make a showing, while we're learning more about what it actually takes to sustain our riding area. Win-win.

VickiW