Dumont Dunes Fence

[Dunerocket]

No, not to enforce that any more than they are already....because evidentally driving on the finger dune is reckless! :rant_on:

For some people it reckless, they keep going through my caution tape................lol

[dunefreak]

For some people it reckless, they keep going through my caution tape................lol

If your caution tape is on the finger dune you can count on me mowing it right down if it is right in the path. That is another thread that will go forever though.

I meant driving on the finger dune with a vehicle (truck). Its a long story. :rant_on:

[lvnalolife]

If your caution tape is on the finger dune you can count on me mowing it right down if it is right in the path. That is another thread that will go forever though. :argue:

I meant driving on the finger dune with a vehicle (truck). Its a long story. :rant_on:

Yeah long story with a few tickets huh?!?

[dunefreak]

Yeah long story with a few tickets huh?!?

a FEW? NO, just one really big one. :rant_on:

[Richard Cheese]

No, not to enforce that any more than they are already....because evidentally driving on the finger dune is reckless! :rant_on: :assrock:

THAT was a raw deal man.....that is what i am talking about though.....idiots abound on big weekends, and the LEOS are so pumped up on dhickheadnall, that things that you did get called out, and the big offenders mostly get away with what they do.

IMO more LEOS=more enforcement of the big stuff...

[SailAway]

i think the money for the fence should be used for more LEO presence in the dunes, an start writing tickets to every azzhat that breaks the speed limit around camp law, along with reckless driving etc..

If this money was coming from the user fees... your suggestion would be heard by the TRT.

But it's not money coming from user fees. It is money being sought in the form of a grant submitted to the State of California.

I do believe a law enforcement grant was also submitted... and that money would cover extra law enforcement in the dunes.

This just sonds like more BLM b.s. what is there to bother out there. Wake up people its the dessert it is deserted. More wasted money by the feds, trying to justify there jobs. When will all of this just stop.

Well, this actually has nothing to do with increasing jobs... it has more to do with freeing up necessary dune support that is being wasted babysitting a boundary. Yes, the desert is deserted... except for the people who love it, like the duners. This fencing is meant to protect what we have and keep us from losing more.

VickiW

[rpost215]

And is there a REAL problem going on there with some people going out to the OFF LIMIT area's in the first place, or another tree hugger trying to limit our riding area again? Who keeps proposing this stuff?

What the individuals speaking for the rights of all of us do not understand is that the opposition, those who want to close the riding areas permanently, has a strategy of "attrition". What that means is that they work for compromise on an issue, win some level of capitulation, then they attack another issue, work for compromise, win some level of capitulation, and so on... Each and every time we give a little, we are losing the war so to speak.

If we allow the approval of a fence, then we will have to fight as to where the boundaries are. As evidenced in many of the posts, the boundaries are not clearly marked and many of us do not know actually where they are. So when it comes time to determine where the fence line should be established, it will be far more expansive than originally thought.

I have been very close to some environmental lobbyist who are client of mine, and I can tell you that what we need is a stronger voice when it comes to these issues. We need greater communication on the topics that effect us as a community. We need a proactive approach to getting out the information so the community as a whole can rally and show our support against the action being taken against us. Our opponents are in this for the long haul. They are not going to stop. Their agenda is to push us off the land completely.

Does this sound familiar?

1. Cut funding while raising the expense.

2. Pass the cost of support to the individuals there by making it cost prohibitive to engage in the activity.

3. Limit access to the activity and the land the activity is engaged upon there by limiting the amount of participants that can effectively use the recreational area.

The environmentalist will keep 'circling' this strategy until the riding area's are completely closed off.

My suggestion, on the fence issue. While it makes logical sense to build a fence to cordon off the "off Limit" areas, we must oppose the use of our funds for the cost of construction and maintenance. If it is that important that a fence be constructed, let the other side find the way to pay for it. We must insist that our funds be used to better our experience and not be used against us.

I know I am new here and I am not trying to call out those of you who have done a good job trying to protect us. But more can be done. We need to stop trying to negotiate and start finding ways to impose some of our rights. Negotiation will only end in a limiting of our rights and the eventual closing of our riding areas.

[Sanduners]

Our opponents are in this for the long haul. They are not going to stop. Their agenda is to push us off the land completely.

Does this sound familiar?

1. Cut funding while raising the expense.

2. Pass the cost of support to the individuals there by making it cost prohibitive to engage in the activity.

3. Limit access to the activity and the land the activity is engaged upon there by limiting the amount of participants that can effectively use the recreational area.

The environmentalist will keep 'circling' this strategy until the riding area's are completely closed off.

Great first post and welcome to the board. I see you understand...

Last weekend I took a trip to the :freakin_nuts: and while there picked up the trash. It sure would be nice to have EVERYONE on the same page...

If you're not a member yet, please consider joining up (it is still Free)

American Sand Association

[SailAway]

Actually, there are many of us who do understand the opposition and completely understand the strategies you describe.

Welcome to the DDR forums, by the way...

This has been a very frustrating thread for some of us... one thing that was missed when this thread was started and continually seems to be overlooked is that in this particular instance, this fence has nothing to do with new closures of riding areas in any way. The fence is not being proposed to keep us out... it is being proposed to more accurately discern the boundaries that already exist and have existed for some time and to keep the riders from riding outside the open areas.

The open riding area is circled by closures of various kinds... environmental, historical, archeological... and none of those closures are growing with this fence... and none of our open riding area is shrinking with this fence.

There is no "compromise" involved in the planning or structure of this fence. It's not like anyone is saying "just let us protect this area and we'll leave you alone." On the contrary, the issue of riders venturing accidentally out of the open riding areas has been a growing concern and therefore, before we are faced with any kind of ultimatum, viable solutions are being considered.

Dumont, as of this season, is funded entirely by user fees. The people who are paying those fees will need to choose whether they would rather see their money go to keeping the area safe and operating, or see their fees pay to keep the open-area boundaries staffed with rangers chasing people back into the open areas.

At this point the bottom line is often the bottom-dollar. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to make these kinds of choices. But in the real world of Dumont, the unique situation of being literally surrounded by out-of-bounds areas presents a problem that, left unanswered, could indeed cause buffer zones, additional closures and of course, increased fees.

VickiW

What the individuals speaking for the rights of all of us do not understand is that the opposition, those who want to close the riding areas permanently, has a strategy of "attrition". What that means is that they work for compromise on an issue, win some level of capitulation, then they attack another issue, work for compromise, win some level of capitulation, and so on... Each and every time we give a little, we are losing the war so to speak.

If we allow the approval of a fence, then we will have to fight as to where the boundaries are. As evidenced in many of the posts, the boundaries are not clearly marked and many of us do not know actually where they are. So when it comes time to determine where the fence line should be established, it will be far more expansive than originally thought.

I have been very close to some environmental lobbyist who are client of mine, and I can tell you that what we need is a stronger voice when it comes to these issues. We need greater communication on the topics that effect us as a community. We need a proactive approach to getting out the information so the community as a whole can rally and show our support against the action being taken against us. Our opponents are in this for the long haul. They are not going to stop. Their agenda is to push us off the land completely.

Does this sound familiar?

1. Cut funding while raising the expense.

2. Pass the cost of support to the individuals there by making it cost prohibitive to engage in the activity.

3. Limit access to the activity and the land the activity is engaged upon there by limiting the amount of participants that can effectively use the recreational area.

The environmentalist will keep 'circling' this strategy until the riding area's are completely closed off.

My suggestion, on the fence issue. While it makes logical sense to build a fence to cordon off the "off Limit" areas, we must oppose the use of our funds for the cost of construction and maintenance. If it is that important that a fence be constructed, let the other side find the way to pay for it. We must insist that our funds be used to better our experience and not be used against us.

I know I am new here and I am not trying to call out those of you who have done a good job trying to protect us. But more can be done. We need to stop trying to negotiate and start finding ways to impose some of our rights. Negotiation will only end in a limiting of our rights and the eventual closing of our riding areas.

[SailAway]

My suggestion, on the fence issue. While it makes logical sense to build a fence to cordon off the "off Limit" areas, we must oppose the use of our funds for the cost of construction and maintenance. If it is that important that a fence be constructed, let the other side find the way to pay for it. We must insist that our funds be used to better our experience and not be used against us.

Rest assured, this fence is not being funded through Dumont user fees. It would be funded through the use of "Green Sticker" money and while yes, that is still "our" money, please keep in mind that this is very much "our" problem in the first place.

There have been no user groups complaining about bands of rebel hikers wandering into the open riding area by mistake. There have been no citations issued to rogue entomologists who insist on ignoring the boundaries to collect samples in the open riding area. And there are no manpower dollars being spent to shoo any Spanish Trail history buffs back out of the open riding area. Why? Because our area isn't restricted to only motorized access.

But what is happening is, riders... primarily on green-stickered vehicles... are wandering out of the open riding area and into the areas they are not allowed to play in because those areas are non-motorized access only. Pretending that isn't happening is going to get us into big trouble, raise our fees and reduce our riding areas.

Again, this fence is not being proposed to protect anything that hasn't been closed to us for a very long time.

It is being proposed because riders are leaving the open riding area and entering the non-motorized access areas and we're running out of viable solutions short of spending more money and building buffer zones, nothing more and nothing less.

VickiW

Edited October 25, 2007 by SailAway

[rpost215]

Rest assured, this fence is not being funded through Dumont user fees. It would be funded through the use of "Green Sticker" money and while yes, that is still "our" money, please keep in mind that this is very much "our" problem in the first place.

There have been no user groups complaining about bands of rebel hikers wandering into the open riding area by mistake. There have been no citations issued to rogue entomologists who insist on ignoring the boundaries to collect samples in the open riding area. And there are no manpower dollars being spent to shoo any Spanish Trail history buffs back out of the open riding area. Why? Because our area isn't restricted to only motorized access.

But what is happening is, riders... primarily on green-stickered vehicles... are wandering out of the open riding area and into the areas they are not allowed to play in because those areas are non-motorized access only. Pretending that isn't happening is going to get us into big trouble, raise our fees and reduce our riding areas.

Again, this fence is not being proposed to protect anything that hasn't been closed to us for a very long time.

It is being proposed because riders are leaving the open riding area and entering the non-motorized access areas and we're running out of viable solutions short of spending more money and building buffer zones, nothing more and nothing less.

VickiW

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

However, and I do say this with respect, I think you are misinformed. I have clients who are very deep in the environmental protection movement and I can tell you first hand that the issue of 'the fence' is only one of several steps in an otherwise coordinated plan for ultimate closure. To use your term, conspiracy, is exactly what we are facing. It is done at all levels of government when it comes to environmental issues. The Endangered Species Act was just that. While the argument that riding in closed area's and the damage caused by that element in our riding community is a logical one, it is not as pervasive as they would have you believe. In addition, the fact that it is being touted that a fence would lead to lower maintenance costs by way of freeing up law enforcement to patrol more of the open area's there by leading to an overall reduction in the manpower needed is a farce. They will still need to dedicate as many officers to protection the fence as they currently need to patrolling the closed areas. This same argument was made in Riverside County when they built the fences there. However, I know personally first hand that there was an increase in cost for law enforcement. One of my client's son was instrumental in the fight in Riverside to put the fences up. They then petitioned law enforcement to patrol with civilian volunteers that would sit high on the hills with telescopes and spot the riders and call down to the officers on the ground the locations so that they could ticket and arrest the riders. One of the stated mission objectives of the environmental protection movement is that of harassment.

That being said, here is my solution to the immediate problem as well potential action to be taken to fight for our rights.

1. Education. Not my original thought but a very good one none the less. We need to educate our community about respect of others, responsibility for our own actions and how to be good caretakers of the community. We need better education on the rules and regulations and the boundaries themselves. I have been going to Dumont for 5 years and only know of a few of the off limit riding areas. We also need to educate our community about activism. We need to educate our community about the laws that are written and how to change them. We need to educate our community about the power of solicitation of our elected representatives and how to put pressure on them to pass legislation in our favor.

2. Volunteerism. We need to rally the community into action by way of volunteers that will show up for the clean up days. Those of you are DDR have done a great job of this and I hope you will continue the good work. We need volunteers to pass out materials on the rules and riding areas and the issues facing our community at every major weekend as well as the off weekends.

I am not opposed to volunteer patrols of the off limit riding areas. This in its self would be a good deterrent to that element of our community who do not respect themselves much less the rights of the rest of us.

3. Organization. Again, DDR has done a great job of bringing the community together in an informal fashion, but we need a more formal level of organization in order to form the strength to fight for our rights. In a previous post one of the posters talked about a greater need for coordination between the various groups that represent us, DDr, FoDD, TRT, ASA ect. Other than the TRT meeting in Barstow, I have not heard of any formal meetings held here in Las Vegas to discuss the issues facing our community. We do not have a formal level of representation that presents to us the topics for discussion with a planned mechanism to address our concerns and a way to present them to the decision makers of the policy. Also, we do not have a formal organization that researches the issues and looks for ways to overcome the opposition. We need a formal structure, much the same as GreenPeace or The Sierra Club, with local and national chapters that will be able to organize our community into a powerful voice.

4. Activism. First, we need a formal way to raise the dollars necessary to produce the educational materials required to get out the message. Second, we need to develop a plan of action that will coordinate the volunteer effort and get people mobilized. Much the same way the 'Clean Up' weekends have worked. Third, we need to raise the dollars necessary to do the research the issues and hire the legal professionals that can formally present our side of the issues when necessary. Fourth we need better communication about when the issues are being decided so we can show up and have our collective voice heard. Fifth, we need to become more proactive about soliciting our representatives at the local, state and federal level to hear us and to take action for us. The only way this can be done is to threaten them with voting power. Finally, we need to take an activist approach to the issues as they are presented. An absolute stance that shows that we are determined to not go away, to go the distance and fight until we have gained all that we want. That means, No Fences, No Closures, No Fees, (That is what we pay taxes for) etc. In addition, instead of fighting a protectionist fight, we need to fight an offensive fight. We need to fight for re-opening of closed riding areas. While I agree that some closures and fences and fees seem necessary, it is only in an absolute stance that we will protect ourselves. We need to fight for re-assessment of those areas that are closed and why they are closed and what can be done to re-open them. In this fight, the opposition will need to engage on that level and divert their resources to that fight and not to closing more areas or putting up more fences or raising more fees. You get the point.

I apologize for the Biblical length of my response. I have been silent for a long time because I felt it necessary not to rock the boat for business purposes. No longer. I am willing to follow through on every one of the action steps listed above. I just don't have the network to begin. I would need help from those of you who have already been fighting the good fight so to speak. I am open to suggestions from any and all but if we are going to have a chance at overcoming the opposition we will need to do it as one consolidated community.

[SailAway]

You think your response was long? Wait until you see this!

Actually, I'm going to have to do this in little pieces since I'll be out of computer contact for an hour or so very soon.

I have clients who are very deep in the environmental protection movement and I can tell you first hand that the issue of 'the fence' is only one of several steps in an otherwise coordinated plan for ultimate closure.

I am a little confused by this... are you trying to say that you have intimate knowledge of a direct attack on Dumont using this fencing as a starting point? Or are you saying this is 'common tactic' used in the environmental movement?

I'm asking these questions out of concern and with no disrespect... I don't personally subscribe to most conspiracy theories but if you have knowledge that this particular fencing is part of a conspiracy to close down Dumont in particular, that is something many of us need to know and action must take place.

Now... if you are talking about fencing in a more general way, my next question (again out of concern for Dumont) would be to ask how precisely this tactic would benefit to the "bad guys" in this particular instance.

Your statement that there will still have to be man hours spent patrolling the fence is a concern of mine. I have no doubt that patrol will be stepped up if off-roaders are vandalizing or circumventing the fencing. But then again, if off-roaders are vandalizing or circumventing the fencing, I would expect law enforcement to put an end to it (just as I would expect them to arrest anyone who is ignoring my fence and entering my property without permission).

Your use of the word harassment troubles me here... shouldn't anyone who intentionally gets through that fencing and begins to ride in those closed areas be harassed since that is not responsible use of riding areas?

Sorry... but I have to run and will answer some more of this when I get a chance.

Vicki

[HappyHour]

Just from reading his post and seeing what the enviro-terrorists have done over the years, I believe that rpost215 is talking in general terms when he uses the word "fence" and not talking about Dumont in particular. He's right, they start with little things and keep going until those little things accomplish the ultimate objective of whatever they are fighting for.

He does have some very good points.

I'll be watching this thread.................. :beer_bang:

[SailAway]

He does have some very good points.

Yes he does. The anti-access zealots do start with little things and keep going. And if this was a new closure threat, if this was a new restriction of any kind, his points would be spot-on.

In fact, most of the points that rpost brings up are absolutely valid and pertain to our constant fight against ridiculous closures... but they fit our situation in a very general, over-all kind of way, and this fence issue is a particular, not general, issue. This is not a criticism. As I said, the points are valid.

Along the lines of generalities, for many years all of us in the off-road community, leaders and users and business owners alike, have known that the environmental movement isn't really about the environment, it's about power and control, and their quest to close land to mechanized use through every means available.

We also know they are well funded and organized and that to fight them we need to be well funded and organized.

But acknowledging the problems we face hasn't solved them. It would be wonderful if we could ask for funding, volunteer assistance, cooperation between various groups and it would happen. But funding comes hard, volunteers who will stay the course are rare and cooperation between various groups? It does happen and is happening even here at Dumont, but even that is only a partial solution to our problems.

So yes, there are valid points. But I become concerned when we try to apply what "generally" happens to something that is very particular and in this case we are dealing with a very particular problem.

What I'm saying is there are "big picture" issues and there are tightly focused issues.

At Dumont, we are of course faced with the big picture threat of losing vehicular access to public lands. And we're faced with an anti-access movement that is well oiled and well funded. It's important to keep those big picture issues in mind when dealing with all of the issues at Dumont.

Unfortunately, some of the more tightly focused issues we are facing must be dealt with in a more tightly focused manner even while keeping an eye on the big picture.

And, here, riding outside the designated areas and into closed areas is one of those issues.

Vicki

[rpost215]

You think your response was long? Wait until you see this!

Actually, I'm going to have to do this in little pieces since I'll be out of computer contact for an hour or so very soon.

I am a little confused by this... are you trying to say that you have intimate knowledge of a direct attack on Dumont using this fencing as a starting point? Or are you saying this is 'common tactic' used in the environmental movement?

I'm asking these questions out of concern and with no disrespect... I don't personally subscribe to most conspiracy theories but if you have knowledge that this particular fencing is part of a conspiracy to close down Dumont in particular, that is something many of us need to know and action must take place.

Now... if you are talking about fencing in a more general way, my next question (again out of concern for Dumont) would be to ask how precisely this tactic would benefit to the "bad guys" in this particular instance.

Your statement that there will still have to be man hours spent patrolling the fence is a concern of mine. I have no doubt that patrol will be stepped up if off-roaders are vandalizing or circumventing the fencing. But then again, if off-roaders are vandalizing or circumventing the fencing, I would expect law enforcement to put an end to it (just as I would expect them to arrest anyone who is ignoring my fence and entering my property without permission).

Your use of the word harassment troubles me here... shouldn't anyone who intentionally gets through that fencing and begins to ride in those closed areas be harassed since that is not responsible use of riding areas?

Sorry... but I have to run and will answer some more of this when I get a chance.

Vicki

1. General tactic. It has been used in Riverside County, Orange County and San Diego County specifically. In the Riverside County, I do have specific knowledge.

2. A fence helps the environmental protectionist in several ways. First, it is part of the classic 'domino effect'. By erecting a fence, no matter where it is, you delineate a boundary that is clear and fixed. You now have a starting point by which to move the boundary. Currently, there is an established boundary but not too many people have clear understanding of where that boundary is because it was established some time ago and it is not clearly marked. By erecting a fence, it becomes that much harder to move the boundary back because it just become accepted as fixed. It becomes much easier to move a fence outward instead of inward.

Question? Is it a wonder that this action only comes on the heals of the 'loss' the environmental protectionists took over the milk vetch and the butterfly?

Once the fence is put up, it will make it that much harder to fight to re-open areas as the expense of putting up the fence would wasted.

There are many other ways it benefits the opposition but I am not trying to be Biblical in length.

3. Harassment. I agree that anyone not respecting the boundaries should be ticketed. Repeat offenders should have an escalating fine and quiet possibly jail. I believe in protection of nature where there is a proven necessity and reason that serves the greater good. However, some of the protections are unnecessary and discriminatory. When they inhibit the freedoms of any one group without good cause, that is injustice.

In Riverside County, the environmentalist protection movement set a course of first creating the fences, then they set up observation posts to track the movements of people riding in the area, whether in legal boundaries or not, and finally worked in coordination with local law enforcement sympathetic to the cause to ticket anyone riding out of bounds. However, there are several instances where individuals were ticketed on their own private property and had to go to court to dismiss the violations, there were several instances where people riding 'in-bounds' who were ticketed and had to go to court to dismiss the charges. I was also privy to a discussion where it was stated that what was needed was to quote, "harass the riding community such that they would go find somewhere else to ride".

The people proposing the fence would have you believe that the problem of riding out of bounds is far worse than it actually is. They would also have you believe that the fence, and I think I am referencing one of your posts, that it would lead to less manpower. It is not the case as they will now need to patrol the fence to protect the fence itself.

I am not denying the logic of a fence to protect the at risk areas. I am calling into question the motives.

[rpost215]

And if this was a new closure threat, if this was a new restriction of any kind, his points would be spot-on.

You can reverse closures. The Environmental Protection Act states that protections are not necessarily permanent. See my statement prior dealing with the hinderance of reversal if the fence is put up.

..but they fit our situation in a very general, over-all kind of way, and this fence issue is a particular, not general, issue.

What you don't understand is that this is part of the bigger issue. Every issue is part of the bigger issue. It is a battle of attrition, not isolated events. The best analogy is that of football. Every play matters to the overall outcome of the game.

Along the lines of generalities, for many years all of us in the off-road community, leaders and users and business owners alike, have known that the environmental movement isn't really about the environment, it's about power and control, and their quest to close land to mechanized use through every means available.

We also know they are well funded and organized and that to fight them we need to be well funded and organized.

But acknowledging the problems we face hasn't solved them. It would be wonderful if we could ask for funding, volunteer assistance, cooperation between various groups and it would happen. But funding comes hard, volunteers who will stay the course are rare and cooperation between various groups? It does happen and is happening even here at Dumont, but even that is only a partial solution to our problems.

Grass root efforts are hard to get started, no doubt. This goes to my point of organization. As organized as it may seem, our community is not organized. There are no local chapters of ASA, FoDD, or even DDR. Where are the local meetings? When have they been held? If the do exist and have been held, it has not been communicated effectively as I have not heard of them.

Volunteerism can take hold when people actually feel like they are a part of something. And I mean no offense as I think the internet is a great medium of communication, but being a member of a forum is not being a part of something.

There needs to be an organized effort to get people out and face to face to form the sense of belonging and community pride. The get togethers at the dunes are fine, but people's attention is diverted to the good time and the social aspect of the meeting and not the agenda that needs to be focused on. Like I said, a start is to form local chapters and hold regular meetings for open discussion. This is a starting point.

So yes, there are valid points. But I become concerned when we try to apply what "generally" happens to something that is very particular and in this case we are dealing with a very particular problem.

Again, I do not believe the problem is as bad as it is made out to be. There are bad eggs in our community and they should be dealt with, severely. How many people are at Dumont on a busy weekend? 20k, 40k? If even 1% of these people were riding out of bounds, that would be 400 people, the awareness of the problem would be much more apparent. When I am there, I always camp out towards the small finger, the last finger to the road to little dunes and I have seen isolated infractions. I am also there every holiday weekend. I do believe that this just another of their tactics to forward their cause. And until we are able to fight back, it is only going to get worse.

Unfortunately, some of the more tightly focused issues we are facing must be dealt with in a more tightly focused manner even while keeping an eye on the big picture.

If not here and now, where and when???

Edited October 26, 2007 by rpost215

[SailAway]

I think I have a little better understanding of where you are coming from rpost. Thank you.

Yes, closures can be reversed. Anything is possible. But probable? That's the rub.

Will this fence make those various closures any more permanent than they already are? I don't personally think so, nor do I think any fence is so permanent that if something changed and any of those closures were lifted, that fence couldn't come down.

As for the number of incursions, I'm afraid in our climate even one is too many.

VickiW

[SailAway]

I forgot to say thank you rpost, for your thoughts on volunteerism and your points about word of mouth and face-to-face meetings.

I think a dune-side meeting is a fabulous idea, and local meetings in say, Vegas... Barstow... Orange County... even if they are in the form of Taco Tuesdays. Great idea!

Let's get that ball rolling...

VickiW

[SailAway]

I think a dune-side meeting is a fabulous idea, and local meetings in say, Vegas... Barstow... Orange County... even if they are in the form of Taco Tuesdays. Great idea!

ooooopppppssss. I just noticed the changes in your post and I missed this...

There needs to be an organized effort to get people out and face to face to form the sense of belonging and community pride. The get togethers at the dunes are fine, but people's attention is diverted to the good time and the social aspect of the meeting and not the agenda that needs to be focused on. Like I said, a start is to form local chapters and hold regular meetings for open discussion. This is a starting point.

I know that informal meetings or meetings in the dunes aren't everybody's cup of tea but in my experience some of the best sharing of information and networking has taken place in the sand and in the backroom of pizza parlors.

And... it's a start.

VickiW

Edited October 26, 2007 by SailAway

[SailAway]

For some reason I'm having trouble replying with quotes so I will just have to wing it. The following responses are to statements made by rpost in what he posted at 7:03 pm yesterday.

By erecting a fence, it becomes that much harder to move the boundary back because it just become accepted as fixed. It becomes much easier to move a fence outward instead of inward.

I think I understand what you’re saying but the fact of the matter here, in this particular instance is, those closures surrounding Dumont’s open riding area aren’t going away tomorrow. Or this season or even next season. Anyone who understands how these closures are created knows the time it would take to even begin to get them lifted. Years. And in the meantime, we have a very real problem.

We don’t have years. While moving this fence inward may be possible (not probable, but possible), it would be detrimental to the Dumont community to ignore our immediate problems while holding out for that hope.

Question? Is it a wonder that this action only comes on the heals of the 'loss' the environmental protectionists took over the milk vetch and the butterfly?

There have not been any environmental protectionist losses with either the milk vetch or the butterfly that I know of. If you are referring to the “reduced” critical habitat of the peirson’s milk vetch, please do further research and you will learn that this reduction was indeed not a loss to the anti-access movement, and they have won in court at every possible turn. As for the butterfly I have to assume you are talking about Sand Mountain’s butterfly and again, the anti-access faction has not suffered even minor losses in that battle. Perhaps you are talking about another milk vetch and butterfly?

Once the fence is put up, it will make it that much harder to fight to re-open areas as the expense of putting up the fence would wasted.

I must disagree here. Lifting those closures is such a long-range goal that if and when any or all of those closed areas become open, the cost of a long-ago erected fence will not even figure into an equation.

However, some of the protections are unnecessary and discriminatory. When they inhibit the freedoms of any one group without good cause, that is injustice.

Again, I absolutely agree with this statement as it pertains to the overall pro-access movement. But again we are not talking in generalities, we are talking about a particular problem that is very much within our control to change. The only 'freedom' this fencing will inhibit is illegal riding.

There are many injustices occurring against the pro-access community but this is not one of them and it is unfair to confuse the casual reader on this issue.

However, there are several instances where individuals were ticketed on their own private property and had to go to court to dismiss the violations, there were several instances where people riding 'in-bounds' who were ticketed and had to go to court to dismiss the charges. I was also privy to a discussion where it was stated that what was needed was to quote, "harass the riding community such that they would go find somewhere else to ride".

Of this I have no doubt. It’s happening all over our ‘open’ deserts. But again, this sweeping statement does not pertain to the immediate fencing concern at Dumont.

If not here and now, where and when???

My point exactly. In the here and now, this issue must be dealt with as quickly as possible if we are going to protect what we have before it is under immediate threat. At the same time, the ‘big picture’ is been tended to... there are cleanups and flyers and information outlets (such as this message board) and meetings attended and senators getting phone calls. Everything is happening here and now, with graver attention being given to some issues, as necessary. You are right... every play matters to the overall outcome of a football game. And this proactive move is one of many field goals we need to change the outcome of our game.

You have some wonderful ideas and brother, I stand beside you in your desire to reverse the pre-existing closures. If and when you are ready to spear-head that fight, I will do everything I can to assist you.

VickiW

[SailAway]

In reading back through some of this thread, I realized I need to clarify something.

The fencing that is the subject of this thread, and for which a green sticker grant has been submitted, is to clearly delineate the boundary between certain off-limit areas and some of our open riding areas.

The fencing that is the subject of this thread is not going to encompass the entire open riding area. That subject is for a different thread altogether and should be discussed at great length within the community and its leaders.

VickiW

[SailAway]

Also, for a quick reality check, here's the description of this project from the starting post on this thread:

BLM Barstow Field Office ~ Draft OHMVR 2008 Grant Application

Project Description:

This project would construct about 9 miles of post and cable barrier around portions of the Dumont Dunes OHV Recreation Area boundary. Most visitors come here to enjoy the sand, mounds and mounds of sand. The perimeter fence will have no affect on this legal OHV riding opportunity in the sand. However, public lands closed to motorized use surround the dunes, and illegal intrusions by OHVs are increasing each year. The barrier will help enforce the boundary and prevent illegal riding in closed areas.

The closed areas were never open to riding and include wilderness, areas of critical environmental concern, important cultural sites, sensitive biological resources and Death Valley N.P. Impacts caused by the illegal riding have reached a tipping point and action is required. The perimeter barrier is intended to allow the legal OHV riding opportunity to continue, and is a preferred alternative to possible closures and restrictions.

Perhaps it is the word "fence" that is so alarming, as it seems that everyone is in agreement that some kind of markers need to be in place. This is post and cable, not chain-link and barbed wire.

VickiW

[rpost215]

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

Edited October 26, 2007 by rpost215

[rpost215]

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

[rpost215]

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.

Edited October 26, 2007 by rpost215