SailAway

The Kelso Dune system is part of the Mojave National Preserve so yeah, it would take an act of Congress to get it reopened to motorized use. Impossible? Nothing is impossible. Unlikely, improbable and daunting... absolutely. But not impossible. I wonder what it would take to change a National Preserve into a National Recreation Area. More time and money than most people have, I would imagine. VW

I know what you mean... it's hard to get the time off for the week-day meetings. And thank you for your patience Sincity... we're still working on some website upgrades so we've been reluctant to get you started, then stop, then start, then stop... but you are definitely in the loop and you'll be the first to know when we're ready to roll. Thanks for understanding. Vicki

You're terrific! Looks like the content is being talked about in another thread. This is going to be GREAT. Vicki W

I do too! The brochures are nice but usually they get tucked away and "I'll take a look at that later." But a flyer gives immediate satisfaction. So... any artistic types out there want to give it a whirl? What do you want it to have on it? A quick list of rules? Dune ettiquette? BLM contact information? My personal favorite is a strong push for PACK IT IN PACK IT OUT but what else? Vicki W.

I'm sure it would be considered a 'supplemental rule' and the procedure Terry outlined above is correct, and perfectly legal. As for whether they get enforced and picking and choosing when they get enforced, that's actually how the process is supposed to work. There is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. For instance, at Glamis there is a supplemental rule prohibiting the use of gasoline on a fire. The spirit of the law was aimed primarily at keeping the fools at the bottom of competition hill from digging trenches, filling them with gas and lighting them on fire when someone drives through. The letter of the law doesn't read that way and so many people have been cited and/or warned at Glamis when caught putting a cap full of gasoline on the wood to get the campfire going. Do we want zero tolerance? Think long and hard about that before you answer. Vicki

The next DAC meeting is set for June 22-23 in Riverside, California. The 22nd is a Friday and they usually do a tour of a nearby BLM area. The "meat" of the meeting, including public comment opportunities, takes place on Saturday. Vicki

Somewhere in my fuzzy brain (sorry, but I'm heading to Idaho in a week and am almost on vacation mode already) I seem to recall that this TRT is somewhat "below" the California Desert District Advisory Council (DAC). I could be wrong on the actual food chain, but at the very least since Dumont is in the California Desert District, the DAC has the power to make suggestions to the Barstow BLM. My point is... petition the DAC to get the Barstow BLM to set a TRT meeting up for a Saturday and maybe the added pressure would get it done. My suggestion would be to have it be the TRT meeting that takes place just prior to the start of the season since attendance would drop after the season begins. Vicki

Here is the agenda for the June 5th TRT meeting: Agenda for June 5, 2007 Barstow Field Office 10:00 am. Call To Order Pledge Introductions Approval of the Agenda Approval of the Minutes from the April 7, 2007 meeting Lunch decision – pizza or sandwiches (Bring $8.00 cash)? Discussion Items: Funding short fall for Dumont Dunes Fee increase structure - Projected income/Projected expenses Vendor Location at the Dumont Dunes Supplemental Rules – Camping areas defined? Updates: Dumont Dunes Road (Roxie) Community Discussions about the Dunes (Roxie) Members Items Adjournment We will work through lunch.

Many of you have probably already heard mention of a California Senate Bill that is working its way through the legislative system right not. It's a terrible piece of legislation that could, all drama aside, truly hurt OHV use in the State of California and since Dumont is in California, Dumont users need to get involved. This legislation will effect OHV registration fees, state vehicle recreation area (like Pismo) fees, disappearing grant monies (the root of our increased Dumont fees) and much more. It was introduced by a democrat, Senator Steinberg, and first I'd like to stop and explain how the process started and how it works. Everyone at one time or another has said "there oughta be a law..." and, well, that's how it starts. Let's say I believe that all fire hydrants should be painted black and I want a law to be passed making it so. My next step is to start fishing for a legislative representative to put it out there... I talk to my senator and ask them to help me pass this law and they write the legislation and then we all start working on support. It goes through a several committees and then it lands on the senate floor for a vote and if it is approved, it goes into law. SB742 was started by anti-access people and the main "carrot" of this legislation is that it will extend the life of the Off Highway Motor Vehicle Division. It's a very attractive carrot for us, I'm afraid, and they know it. Now... I'll post again in a minute and explain why that's such an attractive carrot and share more information on this legislation. For now I have to finish a project though... shouldn't take me long and I'm sorry to cut this short. Vicki W

Absolutely. If we need to defeat this, we have the numbers to get it done. That's what I am preparing for, just in case. And the anti-access folks know it and are reacting to the threat. You see... when they first came out with this, it was presented as almost an "eat crap and like it" piece of legislation, that's how strong they thought their position was. They counted on closed-door meetings to keep the OHV side subdued and cooperative. They did not expect the OHV side to push back, and we have. Vicki

Thanks for posting this here! Senate Bill 742 is a really nasty piece of legislation. It was raised and authored by liberal, anti-access minded people. About the nicest thing I can call it is, legislative extortion. The good news is, the Bill is still being negotiated and we are only about half-way through the entire process... still plenty of time to get some good amendments. The bad news is, "our" side is used to settling for so little that we may end up completely screwed on this if we, the members of the off-road community, don't watch our organization leaders VERY closely. One other thing to keep in mind... there is a "wildcard" factor to these negotiations, and that is, the Will Of The People. If this legislation passes, there is no way it is going to be perfect for us or the other side. But the condition it is in now is deplorable so unless there is MAJOR improvement, it will be too harmful to allow passage. That's when the Will Of The People will come into play. Vicki Cossey, another duner, and myself are closely monitoring this legislation and we are setting up the necessary connections to get this thing shot down if it looks like that's going happen. This is not over by a long shot, and it is something that needs to be watched extremely closely. Vicki

Yeah, well, one of the owners of Sand Addiction sits on the board of directors of the American Sand Association, so it's disappointing but not surprising. Great to see DDR mentioned though... very cool. Vicki

Funny you should ask that! The OHVMR Commissioner that we met with last night asked the very same thing. Unfortunately, the response wasn't what she was hoping for. Are the big manufacturers stepping up and helping with the process? Yes, to a minor degree. They throw some sponsor money or raffle prizes out every now and then... maybe sell a raffle vehicle to an organization at a substantial savings, that kind of thing. But actually funding the areas where the users play while using their product? Nope. And why not? I've heard a variety of answers. The most often used one is "the issue is too hot." They don't want to bring the anti-access lobby down on themselves by supporting us too much. But the other answer is the one that really intrigues me... I've been told the manufacturers don't feel it's their responsibility to fund the riding areas, any more than any other provider of product should be spending their profit for open areas. Like ski resorts for instance... are any of the ones on public land subsidized by ski equipment manufacturers? I'll tell you what I'd like to see... I'd like to see a coalition of industry providers pool their money to buy up some land for our use. Heck, they can pass the management of the riding area over to a private company for all I care, as long as they own the land outright allowing us to use it. Oh well, we can dream. Vicki

Well, they don't show any exclusions or conditions so I sure hope they do accept it! The applicant certainly has to jump through enough hoops to get it. Please keep us posted. Vicki

Great suggestions. I'll pass them on, for sure. Last night's meeting had very low attendance but that actually worked to our advantage. We had a small dedicated group who spent the entire three hours working and stayed on track and I think we really made some headway. So we can all understand why this process is important, here's a little background info... When the Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division was first created within California State Parks & Recreation, it was more or less a pilot program. The legislation that created it even put in what is called a "sunset" date so that if the whole thing didn't work out it could just naturally die off without needing new legislation to end it. The program was designed to help maintain and create OHV opportunities, provide funding for education, trail maintenance, etc. A Commission was created to help decide how to dole out the money that was coming in from a special tax and OHV registration fees. This all worked great for a while. Then the Commission, who really holds the purse strings, started being taken over by anti-access people. How did this happen? Simple... we didn't pay attention. As a community, at least in the past, we have been very passive. Many were and some still are of the mindframe that "someone else will take care of it" and because no one really was, the fox got into the henhouse. However it happened is not really important any more... the sad fact is, we're stuck with a lopsided Commission who is hell-bent on removing OHVs from the picture altogether. Okay, so now the program that had such promise is no longer working. It's broken. But here's the thing... it's not just the off-roaders who are losing. Because the anti-access zealots are so impossible to work with, the true conservationists are losing too. The anti-access crazies will never rid themselves of OHVs... it's not possible. There's way too much money tied up in the industry and even in the face of all the environmental adversity we face today, our sport is growing. And their blind ambition has made enemies of people who could actually help the true conservationists reach their goals. We are here to stay. How we stay is in their hands just as much as it is in our hands. Do we want the OHMVR division to continue? Yes, we do. Do we want our money to be held hostage? No, we don't. The legislation that created the OHMVR Division is about to sunset in January 2008. Without additional legislation to keep it going, it will simply cease to exist. Money that is currently being paid into the OHMVR general fund will no longer be solely accessible to the OHV community. But we're not getting our money anyway, right? We are, right now, faced with the very real choice of either extending the sunset date in the hopes we improve the program, or letting it lapse and being forced to start over. There is new legislation moving through the system right now, SB 742, and it's gnarly as it stands. But maybe we can make it work to our advantage... we'll see. I'll go into more detail on that under a separate post. For now, we are continuing to meet with the California State Parks & Recreation people under the hope that we will still have an OHMVR division this time next year... but with improvements. The meeting last night, the meeting Thursday night, and any we are able to arrange in other places... these are all workshops that are vital to fixing this extremely broken system. If we leave it to the beaurocrats, they'll screw it up. Sorry, but that's the fact. They need our input and our guidance if they are going to get it right. And that's why it's important to be at the workshops. It's called taking control. Vicki

Which pass are you referring to? State and Federal are two different systems. The America The Beautiful pass, which replaced the Golden Eagle pass, is a National Parks system program. California has come up with their own pass program called the Golden Poppy Annual Day Use and Pismo State Beach is one of the included parks, but keep in mind it is a day use pass so there will be an additional camping fee. Here is a complete list of included parks and unfortunately I do not see any of the State Vehicle Recreation Areas such as Hungry Valley, Hollister or Ocotillo listed. Vicki

I LOVE THIS COMMENT! You are so right. The off-road community has a boat load of new fees added to the off-road areas... but what about those areas where trails have to be maintained for the hikers? If they're not being charged a fee they certainly should be. I've been on some of those trails where no motorized access allowed and there is always trash and debris. If we pay, so should they! VW.

Back on the subject of the new road, I received this from the BLM to help clear up some of the questions/confusion: There you have it. Do we all wish it had been done right in the first place? Of course, but it wasn't and now it will have to be fixed. I love the point that they were more concerned with access than perfection so that we could at least still use the road while finding a solution. Vicki

Richard, you lost me with that first comment... as of this last grant cycle Dumont isn't receiving any green sticker money and since it's on Federal land it doesn't get any funding from the California State Parks & Recreation. As for only paying $25 every other hear, that's coming to an end real damn quick. There is legislation moving through the system right now that would raise it to $75 and now there's talk of that being required every year. Vicki

I plan on suggesting appropriate places for the next round... Any suggestions? Outside of Nevada of course, since this is a California program and Dumont is in California. Baker? Bakersfield? High desert? Vicki

There’s a public workshop tonight (and one Thursday night in San Diego) that anyone who has ever had to pay a use fee at Dumont or Glamis should try to attend. Heck, anyone who has ever registered an off-highway vehicle should try to attend now that we can't get to our money. This workshop is being put on to discuss how the California Off-Highway Motorized Vehicle Recreation Division that handles our “green sticker” money will work in the future. Here is what the Commission has written for the Division’s “program focus.” Not quite the focus I was looking for, I must say. Sure would like to see less “landscape” and more “motorized recreation” in there. Aw, I'm probably asking to much of the motorized recreation division. :bangin: Here’s the blurb about the meeting... Here's the Draft Vision Statement And here's the Abstract Strategic Plan Yeah, I know it's last-minute and I'm sorry about the timing, but I sure hope to see some people there. Vicki W.

The dust issue is not an "excuse." It is a serious problem, not just here but in many of our off-road areas. A lawsuit was filed a while back about the dust in Ocotillo Wells. One suggestion for that area was (and you'll love this) to pave all the off-road trails. No, I'm not kidding. Closing an off-road area due to blowing dust defies common sense. But common sense does not have a place in these lawsuits. The situation is really quite simple -- cure the dust problem. Their solution is to close Dumont. We're working to find a better solution. Join the side that's working to keep it open or help the other side by ignoring/denying the problem. Choice is yours. Vicki

We have a Sand Limo sticker on the back of our truck because we own a Sand Limo... but not the company. Before we get the rope to hang these guys, we better be certain it wasn't just somone who supports their product. It's already been mentioned that Dumont is being targeted by surrounding community "puppet conservationists" using eye-witness accounts of tanks being dumped. This is a fight they can win folks... it's disgusting and everyone knows it. If you or someone you know dumps their grey or black water in this way, please stop. This is a serious problem... the anti-access zealots are calling for Dumont to be closed to access until this is solved. Vicki

A word about the dust possibly effecting the surrounding towns/populace. Is this likely? No way. Can they prove that the dust kicked up by Dumont users is bothering them? They don't have to. The regulations are there to support the argument against allowing the dust problem to continue. Would we win if we got sued to shut down due to dust? Possibly. After lots and lots of money is spent... money that has to come from somewhere. So please, before anyone scoffs at this issue, you might how much it would cost to fight against it versus how much it cost to show we are working to fix it. Vicki

The dust issue has very little to do with protecting any one or any thing in particular. It's not even closely linked to the Endangered Species Act. It is just another tool for the anti-access crazies to use against us. Like it or not there are regulations regarding dust particle size as it relates to human health and enforcement is becoming very strict. Since we cannot possibly win this argument by trying to claim we do not create dust, we must work within the system. Helping the BLM find solutions to this problem is one way to work within the system. Vicki