The desires of the Wilderness Coalitions for a wildlife corridor between the
China Lake NWS and the South Sierra has been on the table for a number of
years. The Rand ACEC was established to cherry stem the corridor they
eventually want. The difficult thing to understand is the application of a
need for deliberate corridor preserves, when tortoise study does not support
validity of the need for a corridor.

The significant routes in the ACEC were mediated, per the agreement, just the

documentation and personnel who witnessed the work are lost or choose to
remain silent.

What stinks is the CBD asked the Judge to implement this "temporary" closure
as a stipulation amendment to the newer CY2000 lawsuit (not the original 1990

lawsuit specific to the Rand ACEC). The interveners voiced no opposition, not

even a counter offer.

I would hope that in the future when faced with an amendment like this we
could at least ask for something in return?

I would have thought the release of the biological opinion and EIR specific
to Surprise Canyon would have been a good candidate for bargaining, including

a "temporary" opening of the route (is it OK to ask for 1 to 1 openings for
each closure)?

Happy Trails!
Ed A. Stevens
stvns@aol.com


here's the part that gets me...

The interveners voiced no opposition, not even a counter offer.


WTF?!?!?!?!?! :mad3:

Where is all my money for CA4WDC going?? I thought they got intervener status so they could be heard??


:usa:

This came across my e-mail this morning

Hi Folks,

I think the off-roaders are being had. While searching today for information to prepare for Monday's field trip I stumbled across two very interesting websites that I have listed below. The first one is a letter that was written to the Resources Committee on 10/11/01. The letter lists a number of demands that the GAGs want to mitigate the expansion of Fort Irwin. First on the list, "Establish a core reserve for the Western Mojave
tortoise by expanding the Desert Tortoise Research Natural Area to include the adjacent Western Rand Mountains Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). Routes in the Western Rand Mountains ACEC will be closed and the area managed for tortoise recovery." Among the signatories are Paul Spitler, Ilene Anderson, Mike Connor and our old friend Daniel Patterson.
It seems they have been plotting to take the Rand Mountains area from the off-roaders and use it to expand the DTNA for quite a while. They also plan to designate the Stoddard and Johnson Valleys as limited with a specified number of miles of roads/trails allowed per township. Of course the want more WSAs designated as wilderness.
Ron

WEBSITES: Coalition Letter to Defense Authorization Bill Conferees
http://www.stopextinction.org/esa/FIconfltr.html

[Environment] On Top of the Hill 10-10-01
(scroll down to 5. GROUPS PUSH TO IMPROVE FORT IRWIN EXPANSION
LEGISLATION) http://mailinglists.marlboro.edu/pipermail/environment/2001-October/0000
34.html



:usa:

Of note is the second url; Groups to Improve Fort Irwin Expansion.

The WSA cited are the same ones Fienstein has been looking into fro
wilderness designation.

There have been several emails dealing with this and I don't know who
have seen what..

It should come as no surprise that this is a "corridor" area. The
tortoise issue is a smoke screen for the Wildlands Project. Once the
corridor areas are established, starting with seemingly innocent
sections, it becomes easier to grab the more controversial ones later.

Damn, when are people going to wake up and smell the roses?????

The Wildlands Project got me into this almost 10 years ago. I was
accused of seeing black helicopters and conspiracies at the time.
But, nothing has changed except the wildlands advocates are becoming
more bold in their grab for land control.

The intervenors may not know what is going on.

I have yet to hear something official out of Cal4Wheel or the Bleu
Ribbon Coalition.


:usa:

http://www.off-road.com/land/rand_mtn_closure.html

more info...from reliable sources....


The interveners were unaware of the total picture. They were required to deal only with what was before the judge. The interveners were advised by their attorney that they had no alternative but to agree(?) as the BLM said it was guilty of what was being charged.

------------------------------------
seperate email from a diff. source....
-------------------------------------

An update. Paul Turke says I am incorrect and that the interveners agreed to nothing. I also heard from Don Amador and he says he went on record as not agreeing to anything.


:usa:

Cal4Wheel leadership's failure to understand the Stipulation Amendment issues (or to talk to their assigned person on the project) should be a learning experience.

It was my understanding (the direct word) the representative was instructed to "not oppose the amendment, without comment, other than to reserve rights of procedural objection." Is this accurate (or not)? What was/is the direction of interveners on the Stipulation Amendment? Since the direction to the judge of "no comment" is on record, can we use the failure to communicate an objection (and the failure to recognize an opportunity to record an objection) as a learning experience?

Let's look at the only "official response" a little (critique the available response, and ask a few questions)?

"The interveners were unaware of the total picture"? The Stipulation Amendment lists closure of the Rand ACEC as a demand named in the amendment (it's the sole topic of a numbered amendment paragraph #12).

What does it require, more than putting it in a legal written record, to raise an "awareness" (what else have they missed)?

"They were required to deal only with what was before the judge"? The list of amended demands, including the Rand ACEC closure, was before the Judge (what did they miss, did they fail to read the Stipulation Amendment. Again, what else have they missed)?

"The BLM said it was guilty of what was being charged." OK, the BLM says it's guilty. We have never heard this before (right, and expect to never hear it again in the future)?

So, what is the role of an intervener in a situation like this (where representation of the defendant is lacking)? Is the intervener's role to be only "after the fact" (to gather evidence of legal malpractice), or is it one of a proactive participant (where is the "record" of opposition to the Stipulation Amendment)?

This reveals the most difficult part to understand: the lack of public information regarding the defense of the case, intervener's and the BLM. The lack of representation for the public impacted by the action is a large unanswered question? If the interveners have evidence of the BLM complying with the demands of the original lawsuit (as reflected on the BLM website photos, and witness accounts from Cal4Wheel membership) why did they choose to remain silent? We should be fair, and not single out any group, why are the other three interveners silent? The BLM may choose to fail in the assembly of a defense, but does this preclude any of the interveners from defending the public rights?

"The interveners were advised by their attorney that they had no alternative but to agree?"

Agree to what:

Agree to the lack of BLM compliance including good faith actions implemented to comply with the original Rand ACEC lawsuit (1990) stipulation agreement (compliance actions undertaken with participation by the intervener organizations)?
Did we agree to forget the hard work of the recreation community to act in good faith and implement mitigation actions (in return for continued access to the ACEC)?

Did we agree that the actions of a few ignorant visitor's illegal entry to portions of the Rand ACEC (entries reflected in the BLM photo's) constitute a widespread and uncontrollable violation of the BLM's agreement to curtail the prior level of OHV use in the ACEC?

Did we agree that the BLM is guilty of maintaining an adequate defense, and unable to produce their own records or evidence of compliance? Did we agree that no records of compliance exist (including our own records)?

Did we agree that the closure demand is indeed a paragraph of the Stipulation Amendment to the (1999) lawsuit (not a separate independent action demand, due to a failure to comply with the 1990 lawsuit)? If it is part of the 1999 lawsuit, Stipulation Amendment paragraph #12, does the consideration of an amendment allow the defense to submit to the Judge evidence to counter any of the original 1999 lawsuit stipulations?

I believe we may agree that some of the leadership "went on record as not agreeing to anything" and "agreed to nothing" (easy to state if you know "nothing" about the issue)? What about agreeing on the process and result (and what needs to be done the next time a similar situation comes up)?

I find it difficult to find "agreement" on anything, without revealing a conflict with the historical record (other than a lack of communication). This brings us full circle, again, with communication as the topic of concern. What is the official intervener position on the content of the 1999 lawsuit Stipulation Amendment?

"They had no alternative but to agree." We may not have an alternative in the result (the BLM position is on record with no alternative), but does this absolve interveners from opposing the agreement? Does this preclude the interveners from offering an "alternative" Stipulation Amendment for the record (considering the BLM failed to represent the public recreation rights)?

Most people understand we do what we can when faced with government failures, but the non-government organizations need to learn from the mistakes.

What will we do differently in the future? What are our rights as interveners? What are out alternatives? How can we help the government defend public recreation when they take a position as their actions have revealed in this situation?

Rather than providing a view into the past confusion (the history I dislike pointing out), how about some direction for the future (this was always meant to be constructive criticism)?

Happy Trails!