OHV Mojave Desert
Re: OHV Mojave Desert
S@andman, Please show proof of how many fatalities are contributed to D-37 races, or is that the usual blanket statement.
Re: OHV Mojave Desert
PITD, everyone pretends that BLM employees are somehow immune to their personal biases. I have met not one single BLM employee who actually IS immune. They all have personal beliefs, and most of those who tend to believe OHV users are the ones who visit the field daily. Many of those who tend to believe the enviro nonsense are not in OHV use areas, they tend to keep to the hiking trails and sequester themselves in an ivory tower....errrrrr.......office.........somewhere.
Most do a pretty good job of walking the fine line, but eventually they all get forced into siding with their bias. Why? Because enviro group lawsuits force them into it. There is no compromising with a foe who refuses to compromise, and instead prefers all out war. That's what we're faced with: the choice between extinction and all out war. Those who believe the level of a conflict is determined by the least committed participant are simply naiive. The level of conflict is determined by the MOST committed participant. When the schoolyard bully gives you a choice between going hungry or fighting him, in reality, there is no choice.
Most do a pretty good job of walking the fine line, but eventually they all get forced into siding with their bias. Why? Because enviro group lawsuits force them into it. There is no compromising with a foe who refuses to compromise, and instead prefers all out war. That's what we're faced with: the choice between extinction and all out war. Those who believe the level of a conflict is determined by the least committed participant are simply naiive. The level of conflict is determined by the MOST committed participant. When the schoolyard bully gives you a choice between going hungry or fighting him, in reality, there is no choice.
-
Plays In The Dirt
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:51 pm
Re: OHV Mojave Desert
Dan, my friend, you really should consider becoming an attorney, you counter quite well. In this piece you are suggesting to the readers that Ms. Rugwell, Southern Nevada District Manager for the BLM, might possibly be biased against OHV's, and that quite possibly may never leave her office so how could she possibly know what's really going-on. Of course this may place doubt and distrust in the minds of the uninformed. I would suggest that someone who attains the title of District Manager has probably been through the ropes, and is well aware of what's going on in the field. Although I have no love affair with all government officials, I also realize that not every one of them is dishonest and deceitful. I'm positive that what does go on in the field is reported to her by the officers in her district of command. Now quite possibly they're all biased against OHV use, and hence her negative comments at the council meeting.Dan wrote:PITD, everyone pretends that BLM employees are somehow immune to their personal biases. I have met not one single BLM employee who actually IS immune. They all have personal beliefs, and most of those who tend to believe OHV users are the ones who visit the field daily. Many of those who tend to believe the enviro nonsense are not in OHV use areas, they tend to keep to the hiking trails and sequester themselves in an ivory tower....errrrrr.......office.........somewhere.
Most do a pretty good job of walking the fine line, but eventually they all get forced into siding with their bias. Why? Because enviro group lawsuits force them into it. There is no compromising with a foe who refuses to compromise, and instead prefers all out war. That's what we're faced with: the choice between extinction and all out war. Those who believe the level of a conflict is determined by the least committed participant are simply naiive. The level of conflict is determined by the MOST committed participant. When the schoolyard bully gives you a choice between going hungry or fighting him, in reality, there is no choice.
-
Allen
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:08 pm
- The middle number please (4): 7
- Location: CA, High Desert
Re: OHV Mojave Desert
If I recall correctly, S@ndman and some others with his odd thinking style and unfounded accusations, indicated either hate or total mis-trust of former Barstow BLM Chief Ranger Barry Nelson. Even though he was never charged with a crime, he was accused of inappropriately spending rehabilitation funds following the Willow Fire several years ago. It would appear that he was deemed by some to be guilty without any sort of formal review. Could it be that Ms. Rugwell is tainted with a bad reputation from someone she pissed off or just carrying out her own private agenda???Plays In The Dirt wrote:Dan, my friend, you really should consider becoming an attorney, you counter quite well. In this piece you are suggesting to the readers that Ms. Rugwell, Southern Nevada District Manager for the BLM, might possibly be biased against OHV's, and that quite possibly may never leave her office so how could she possibly know what's really going-on. Of course this may place doubt and distrust in the minds of the uninformed. I would suggest that someone who attains the title of District Manager has probably been through the ropes, and is well aware of what's going on in the field. Although I have no love affair with all government officials, I also realize that not every one of them is dishonest and deceitful. I'm positive that what does go on in the field is reported to her by the officers in her district of command. Now quite possibly they're all biased against OHV use, and hence her negative comments at the council meeting.Dan wrote:PITD, everyone pretends that BLM employees are somehow immune to their personal biases. I have met not one single BLM employee who actually IS immune. They all have personal beliefs, and most of those who tend to believe OHV users are the ones who visit the field daily. Many of those who tend to believe the enviro nonsense are not in OHV use areas, they tend to keep to the hiking trails and sequester themselves in an ivory tower....errrrrr.......office.........somewhere.
Most do a pretty good job of walking the fine line, but eventually they all get forced into siding with their bias. Why? Because enviro group lawsuits force them into it. There is no compromising with a foe who refuses to compromise, and instead prefers all out war. That's what we're faced with: the choice between extinction and all out war. Those who believe the level of a conflict is determined by the least committed participant are simply naiive. The level of conflict is determined by the MOST committed participant. When the schoolyard bully gives you a choice between going hungry or fighting him, in reality, there is no choice.
-
Plays In The Dirt
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:51 pm
Re: OHV Mojave Desert
Well, I guess one could cloud the issue with all sorts of questions, possibly creating doubt, (exactly the tactics of attorneys). I guess we'll never know as there are some who would never believe what she had to say even if she said it to their face. Depends on what side of the fence you reside on I guess.Allen wrote: If I recall correctly, S@ndman and some others with his odd thinking style and unfounded accusations, indicated either hate or total mis-trust of former Barstow BLM Chief Ranger Barry Nelson. Even though he was never charged with a crime, he was accused of inappropriately spending rehabilitation funds following the Willow Fire several years ago. It would appear that he was deemed by some to be guilty without any sort of formal review. Could it be that Ms. Rugwell is tainted with a bad reputation from someone she pissed off or just carrying out her own private agenda???
Re: OHV Mojave Desert
Ms Rugwell hasn't been in the Las Vegas Field Office very long. I don't expect her to be an expert on the specific field issues this soon. I'm sure this isn't her first rodeo. But when one is out of the field for any length of time, it's easy to fall into a different mindset when surrounded by those with a slightly different perspective. People who are promoted to "management" are often viewed very differently by their new subordinates once they become the boss, and partly it's their change in outlook that is responsible.
It's been my experience that BLM employees will sometimes fool you. They talk a good game, but those who truly support OHV use are usually the Outdoor Recreation Coordinator, or some in Law Enforcement, and not all of them are supportive. Sometimes, those outside those two depts, who support the general right to use OHVs on public lands, are often well camouflaged, as most of their compatriots only minimally support OHV use (or any other recreational use of the desert). Most believe like S@ndman, that everyone should be happy with driving to a trailhead and walking the rest of the way (if it's even possible). Many believe that if man cannot walk there, he doesn't belong there. Pro-OHV people in BLM are like conservatives in Hollywood. For the most part, they don't get hired or promoted if their opinions are too much in favor of OHV use, or if they are the least bit suspicious of the agency concept of the current makeup of our Federal Government.
I will say that most make a very commendable attempt to uphold the spirit of the agency, which is to "manage" for all users. It's a tough job. There are some ideologues in high places, however. When lawsuits are filed, they should fight them. Instead, I've been told (by people far better informed and connected than I) there are some employees in some agencies who actually advise (off the record, of course) environmental groups on how to most effectively plan their legal actions against their employers in order to help direct policy decisions to match their personal bias. If so, that's an incestuous relationship that cannot have the interest of the American people first and foremost. It's called corruption.
Even if they believe the agency is headed in the wrong direction, most individuals are powerless to stop such a behemoth when most policies don't favor common sense, but instead favor balancing unhappiness among competing interests, no matter whose policy advocacy is morally right or wrong. But when 2/3 of the agency is of a mind that generally does not favor OHV use, it's easy to get decisions which sound great in the office, but don't work when it gets to the field. It has plagued BLM since Gerry Hillier's days. Hillier was one of those who I believe leaned slightly in favor of preservation, but he did a very good job of pissing everyone off at one time or another, because his decisions were sometimes in favor of balance. Enviro groups don't like it when things don't always go their way. In his day, the focus was more on policy created to manage the real problems in the California Desert District. Today, BLM manages mostly in order to avoid lawsuits by environmental groups when their dictation isn't followed to the letter. There is no budget for litigation within BLM. It's why they make decisions that are often devoid of hard evidence of degradation of a species or habitat. They are forced to spend budgets for other management options such as studies and fact-finding, on avoiding the huge cost of all-out litigation.
PS: The huge cost of all-out litigation is precisely why environmental groups file such lawsuits and threaten to file others.
It's been my experience that BLM employees will sometimes fool you. They talk a good game, but those who truly support OHV use are usually the Outdoor Recreation Coordinator, or some in Law Enforcement, and not all of them are supportive. Sometimes, those outside those two depts, who support the general right to use OHVs on public lands, are often well camouflaged, as most of their compatriots only minimally support OHV use (or any other recreational use of the desert). Most believe like S@ndman, that everyone should be happy with driving to a trailhead and walking the rest of the way (if it's even possible). Many believe that if man cannot walk there, he doesn't belong there. Pro-OHV people in BLM are like conservatives in Hollywood. For the most part, they don't get hired or promoted if their opinions are too much in favor of OHV use, or if they are the least bit suspicious of the agency concept of the current makeup of our Federal Government.
I will say that most make a very commendable attempt to uphold the spirit of the agency, which is to "manage" for all users. It's a tough job. There are some ideologues in high places, however. When lawsuits are filed, they should fight them. Instead, I've been told (by people far better informed and connected than I) there are some employees in some agencies who actually advise (off the record, of course) environmental groups on how to most effectively plan their legal actions against their employers in order to help direct policy decisions to match their personal bias. If so, that's an incestuous relationship that cannot have the interest of the American people first and foremost. It's called corruption.
Even if they believe the agency is headed in the wrong direction, most individuals are powerless to stop such a behemoth when most policies don't favor common sense, but instead favor balancing unhappiness among competing interests, no matter whose policy advocacy is morally right or wrong. But when 2/3 of the agency is of a mind that generally does not favor OHV use, it's easy to get decisions which sound great in the office, but don't work when it gets to the field. It has plagued BLM since Gerry Hillier's days. Hillier was one of those who I believe leaned slightly in favor of preservation, but he did a very good job of pissing everyone off at one time or another, because his decisions were sometimes in favor of balance. Enviro groups don't like it when things don't always go their way. In his day, the focus was more on policy created to manage the real problems in the California Desert District. Today, BLM manages mostly in order to avoid lawsuits by environmental groups when their dictation isn't followed to the letter. There is no budget for litigation within BLM. It's why they make decisions that are often devoid of hard evidence of degradation of a species or habitat. They are forced to spend budgets for other management options such as studies and fact-finding, on avoiding the huge cost of all-out litigation.
PS: The huge cost of all-out litigation is precisely why environmental groups file such lawsuits and threaten to file others.