xtatik wrote:I think these rules are waaay overdue. They seem to be primarily focused on Glamis/Dumont calamity crew.
I'll take BLM oversight in any case as opposed to the NPS or NFS.
I'll cite the changes and adverse affects not only on people rights, but on the local environment itself once oversight of the Mojave Preserve was handed to the NPS.......ex-Superintendent Mary Martin.......Buffoon!
She abruptly ended a hundred year history of ranching in the area with no remediation plan. Fuel loads skyrocketed and one lightning strike melted nearly half of her precious "park". Before that, she was busy killing wildlife by removing guzzlers and wells that had existed for decades. Stating that the wildlife would soon reach stasis by reverting back to using traditional watering places (springs, seeps), she hadn't figured in that the nearby communities (primarily Newberry Springs) had pulled so much from local aquifers that these tradiional sources no longer flowed as before.....Massive die-offs resulted!
After the Hackberry fire she was summarily dismissed.
There is nothing that the BLM is doing here that is way overdue. There is not a single rule in this mess that is not currently covered by an existing law. This is just another example of multiple layers of laws, all covering the same problems (or imagined problems), which will ultimately prove no more effective than the laws that they are not enforcing now. How many laws do we need that make it illegal to litter. How ridiculous is it to turn someone into a criminal for the mere possession of a glass beverage container.
I agree that I would rather have the BLM managing any area over the NPS, but, to say that an ill-advised set of rules from one Federal Agency is better than a set from another Federal agency, is not saying much. Like most of these (presumably) well intentioned laws, they throw the baby out with the bath water. A good example is the following:
It is prohibited to place into the ground any non-flexible object, such as, but not limited to, metal or wood stakes, poles, or pipes, with the exception of small tent or awning stakes, at all developed sites and areas and all ORV open areas.
If you can get past the initial "WTF does this mean" impression, you are left with the following.
1. Since you are only allowed to put "small tent or awning stakes" into the ground, I wonder just what is a small tent stake and who makes that determination?
2. Would the large metal stakes we used to anchor our Field Day antennas be illegal? They were certainly not small tent stakes!
3. What is "non flexible". Everything is flexible, to one degree or another.
4. Would the long metal rods you used to ground the Ham radios be illegal? They were not tent or awning stakes and they certainly were not small.
Guess who gets to interpret this mess - the officer on the beat. And if you get cited for any of these alleged violations, then the judge gets to interpret it -IN FEDERAL COURT.
I have no idea what these new rules are intended to cover, but if you are right, that they are meant to address problems at Glasmis, then there is no reason why everyone else should suffer from another set of poorly and inartfully drafted rules.
This theory, that more rules mean fewer problems, is endemic to our government and is one it's most dangerous habits.