BLM Rules for Calif Desert.

[DaveK]

I don't think its an imaginary or exaggerated problem that there is glass and nails all over the place where people camp. I also don't think rules like this will change anything for the better. I don't have a solution either.

Of course glass and nails are not imaginary. What is imaginary is the belief that another anti littering law will make the problem better. There are sufficient littering laws on the books right now that prohibit ANY type of behavior that would lead to this problem. If they are not being enforced now what makes anyone believe that things will be better after these new rules take effect.

I have a solution. Enforce the existing laws.

[DaveK]

Dave,
It's true there are laws against littering, but I don't think they've erred by being more specific. Again, all that has been written here are some specifics regarding recreation in and adjacent to the dune recreation areas. Most of the rules here are designed to protect people and property and are not purely "environmentalist driven". Broken glass, nails, and stakes in the sand are hard on tires, fallen riders and bare feet. Many in that particular offroad community have discouraged others in their ranks from burning pallets and having glass containers for years. But without it being specifically illegal they had no grounds (no teeth) to push the issue. I would bet that many of these rules were co-written by responsible members of the ORV community (ISDRA) that recreate at the dunes, if not, they are in favor of them.
The BLM doesn't have the resources to police or enforce the broader current laws as we'd all like and rely on many recreation groups to self-police themselves, such is the case at Glamis and Dumont. Without specifying conduct for these areas in particular, it makes it harder for volunteers in that ORV community to self-police itself. Now that they have specific gudelines (laws) they can keep each other in accord.
The BLM officers are going to have to use their discretion as peace officers will in any case. I doubt seriously I would be cited for driving a ground stake in order to set up a radio station elsewhere in the desert. But, the the idea of driving one into the sand at one of these places doesn't sound like a good idea to me either. Things are too easily swallowed and lost to the sand, and often only reveal themselves by gashing a tire or flesh later.

Randy:

You and I are in total agreement that there is a significant problem, not just in the Glamis area, but in many public areas in general when it comes to trash, glass, nails, etc. As Mr. Obama would say, "let me be clear". I am not in denial that there is a problem in this regard. I take issue with unnecessary and poorly drafted rules that are duplicitive.

Our problem is not the lack of laws or rules that clearly spell out what is prohibited. Does anyone really believe that it is legal now to litter with broken glass and trash? There are literally dozens of anti-littering laws that address this problem but they go mostly ignored and more importantly, unenforced.

And every time we put another set of these type of rules in place, we end up with more problems, as I mentioned in my earlier post. Here is the solution, and it will be the same solution whether these new rules are implemented or not - ENFORCE THE LAW!

[xtatik]

Dave,
It's true there are laws against littering, but I don't think they've erred by being more specific. Again, all that has been written here are some specifics regarding recreation in and adjacent to the dune recreation areas. Most of the rules here are designed to protect people and property and are not purely "environmentalist driven". Broken glass, nails, and stakes in the sand are hard on tires, fallen riders and bare feet. Many in that particular offroad community have discouraged others in their ranks from burning pallets and having glass containers for years. But without it being specifically illegal they had no grounds (no teeth) to push the issue. I would bet that many of these rules were co-written by responsible members of the ORV community (ISDRA) that recreate at the dunes, if not, they are in favor of them.
The BLM doesn't have the resources to police or enforce the broader current laws as we'd all like and rely on many recreation groups to self-police themselves, such is the case at Glamis and Dumont. Without specifying conduct for these areas in particular, it makes it harder for volunteers in that ORV community to self-police itself. Now that they have specific gudelines (laws) they can keep each other in accord.
The BLM officers are going to have to use their discretion as peace officers will in any case. I doubt seriously I would be cited for driving a ground stake in order to set up a radio station elsewhere in the desert. But, the the idea of driving one into the sand at one of these places doesn't sound like a good idea to me either. Things are too easily swallowed and lost to the sand, and often only reveal themselves by gashing a tire or flesh later.

Randy:

You and I are in total agreement that there is a significant problem, not just in the Glamis area, but in many public areas in general when it comes to trash, glass, nails, etc. As Mr. Obama would say, "let me be clear". I am not in denial that there is a problem in this regard. I take issue with unnecessary and poorly drafted rules that are duplicitive.

Our problem is not the lack of laws or rules that clearly spell out what is prohibited. Does anyone really believe that it is legal now to litter with broken glass and trash? There are literally dozens of anti-littering laws that address this problem but they go mostly ignored and more importantly, unenforced.

And every time we put another set of these type of rules in place, we end up with more problems, as I mentioned in my earlier post. Here is the solution, and it will be the same solution whether these new rules are implemented or not - ENFORCE THE LAW!

So, you're saying you're in favor of higher taxation in order to place more BLM officers on the ground to enforce litter laws........?
It's easy to mentally drift away from the areas these laws are intended to benefit and want to apply them to our own favorite BLM areas. Don't....think sand. Given the numbers of visitors to these places the visible litter problem is kept to a minimum and the current laws are being enforced both by law enforcement and the offroad community. What they're addressing now are types of litter that are difficult to detect. Once a drunk smacks his bottle into a corner of a trailer and it breaks, the glass is lost in the sand. When a pallet is burned the remnant nails and staples are lost in the sand. Someone strikes their tent and mistakenly leaves a stake buried in the sand. All three of these landmines lie in wait to create a problem for someone else at a later time. Up to this point, there were no laws forbidding any of these activities. Even so, the community has worked ahead of these laws in discouraging these practices but, they never had the weight of existing law behind them in order to force compliance. Now they will.

The sand just swallows things, and anyone who's lost a watch or any other item at the beach knows how this can happen. It's not like camping in a place where if a bottle is accidentally broken most of the pieces could be found and properly discarded. The second the glass shards impact the ground....they're lost. The second the tent is off the ground, the stake placement is forgotten and lost. And, few people will dig through the sand and ashes to recover nails from a burnt pallet.

As for the nudity deal.........even with existiing law, the BLM has shown a great deal of tolerance in most of the lands they manage. Many of the hot springs that occur on these lands have a history of being "clothing optional" and the BLM has left this alone. With areas like Dumont and Glamis you see more family activity and the BLM and sand folks want to be clear on what behaviors will be tolerated in these places. The current enforcement of these laws have become ambiguous when you note near complete tolerance from the BLM in one area and absolutely none in another. I don't think putting definition to this law is a mistake. This allows the public to know what will be tolerated, and what won't be, in the different areas they manage.

[BorregoWrangler]

First, I thank Steve for bringing this up. I do agree with Dave on enforcing the existing laws out there.

Yes, the biggest problems out in the sand dunes have been glass and nails from people littering and burning pallets. But there were already regulations against these things. The majority of folks did wise up and stop using firewood with nails in it, but go on out there after a big holiday weekend and you'll still spend a lot of time picking up trash.

For the beer drinkers who enjoy their beverage from a bottle it looks like its time to start using cans or plastic. Or just keep the bottles in the RV.

I've always enjoyed playing horseshoes out there but it seems that this new regulation would prohibit that as well.

[xtatik]

Um, ok, this is strange. Can I get a mod to look into post #21 in this thread....it's not my doing.

[DaveK]

So, you're saying you're in favor of higher taxation in order to place more BLM officers on the ground to enforce litter laws........?

I would never suggest something so absurd. The government has quite enough of my money. In fact, quite independent of this discussion, I understand that they are planning to take even more.

This idea, of raising taxes to fund anything new, is frustrating. When we discover that we need more law enforcement, for example, the nearly universal response is “ higher taxes.” The fallacy of this thinking is that there are no other means to fund this need. Absolutely untrue. I invite you to look at the colossal waste that occurs at almost every level of government and then tell me that there are not enough funds to cover this legitimate expense. No, we don’t need to raise taxes, just cut out some of the more ridiculous waste.

What they're addressing now are types of litter that are difficult to detect. Once a drunk smacks his bottle into a corner of a trailer and it breaks, the glass is lost in the sand. When a pallet is burned the remnant nails and staples are lost in the sand. Someone strikes their tent and mistakenly leaves a stake buried in the sand. All three of these landmines lie in wait to create a problem for someone else at a later time. Up to this point, there were no laws forbidding any of these activities.

Randy, not even the most foolish among those who are creating this "difficult to detect" form of litter, believe that it is allowed. Each and every one of them knows that what they are doing constitutes litter. If I am understanding you correctly, you are claiming that there are currently no laws that prohibit someone from breaking a glass bottle in the sand and leaving it? I would respectfully disagree. If a pallet is burned in the middle of the desert, in the sand, and nails and other debris are left behind, do you honestly believe that the current set of anti-litter laws do not prohibit such behavior? Again, I respectfully disagree. Interestingly, it appears that these new laws exempt tent stakes, and if in fact they do constitute the “land mines” you describe, then they will continue to be so.

Even so, the community has worked ahead of these laws in discouraging these practices but, they never had the weight of existing law behind them in order to force compliance. Now they will.

I hate to burst your bubble here, Randy, but the community has no authority to “force compliance”. They can, as you suggest, discourage certain types of behavior, and report violations to the appropriate agencies for prosecution. But that option already exists. The reality is that every rule that the community is seeking, through these new rules, pre-existed this discussion. It merely lacked enforcement.

As for the nudity deal.........even with existiing law, the BLM has shown a great deal of tolerance in most of the lands they manage. Many of the hot springs that occur on these lands have a history of being "clothing optional" and the BLM has left this alone. With areas like Dumont and Glamis you see more family activity and the BLM and sand folks want to be clear on what behaviors will be tolerated in these places. The current enforcement of these laws have become ambiguous when you note near complete tolerance from the BLM in one area and absolutely none in another. I don't think putting definition to this law is a mistake. This allows the public to know what will be tolerated, and what won't be, in the different areas they manage.

By your own admission, the reason for the nudity is because the BLM, “has shown a great deal of tolerance”. It has nothing to do with the lack of a law, but the failure of the BLM to enforce the existing one. Therein lies the problem with respect to this whole debate, including littering. The laws exist, but they go unenforced. If there is any fault here, it must lie with the BLM.

Moreover, it is not a justification for another set of duplicate laws to say that, now the public will know. They would know now, if there was effective enforcement of existing laws. And just how is the public supposed to know when the BLM is going to enforce the law and when they are going to “show a great deal of tolerance”? Unfortunately, we are left with a need to enact another duplicate law because the old ones were not enforced. That is absurd.

We are suffocating under a mushrooming and ever increasing burden of new laws. Many are duplicates, many are ridiculous, and many are outdated, but few are removed. From my perspective, I see the true magnitude of the laws that we are expected to obey. There are literally millions of pages of laws and the number is growing. We have full time legislatures that do nothing but produce a never ending stream of more laws. In the vast majority of cases, including here, we don’t need more.

[xtatik]

You guys just keep taking this issue off to the nether corners of BLM managed land and want to apply it to your own experiences. Stop! If you're not a regular at the BLM ORV areas.....you don't understand what you are saying.
Have you been to Glamis? Have you been to Dumont?
The reason you guys may not see BLM officers off in the areas you like to frequent is because you are traveling in low use, low impact areas.....they won't be found there often enough and quite frankly they don't care about these particular issues/laws in those areas. Stating that you haven't seen them in 2476 consecutive days on the trails, or pffffft....whatever........has no relevance to this issue/argument. This isn't targeted at the "trail" people, or the hunting people, or the fishing people, or the prospecting people, or any other form of remote camping people. Again and Again, these laws are targeted for the high use, BLM managed "ORV RECREATION AREAS"....the sandrail and quad crowds that gather in these restricted postage stamp sized areas....relatively speaking. The BLM is ever-present at these locations on quads, in trucks and at the entry/exit kiosks. If you'd been there you'd know this. For those who haven't been to, but continue to interject comments that are irrelevant to the ORV areas, I would encourage you to go there on a weekend and see for youself. It will be abundantly obvious to you, both the BLM presence and why these laws are being put in place.

[DaveK]

Again and Again, these laws are targeted for the high use, BLM managed "ORV RECREATION AREAS"....the sandrail and quad crowds that gather in these restricted postage stamp sized areas....relatively speaking.

Randy:

Part of the problem is that while these laws may be targeting the high use areas, they have a much broader impact, and that can include the remote location users, hunters, campers and fishermen. The following is from the proposed rules:

The following rules apply on public lands administered by the BLM California Desert District....totaling over 11 million acres, primarily in the southern and eastern portions of California.

[Chazz Layne]

Part of the problem is that while these laws may be targeting the high use areas, they have a much broader impact, and that can include the remote location users, hunters, campers and fishermen. The following is from the proposed rules:

The following rules apply on public lands administered by the BLM California Desert District....totaling over 11 million acres, primarily in the southern and eastern portions of California.

Yeah, that was the part that flagged it for me (aside from the "common sense" factor). Many of those areas have special rules, applied by BLM, so I know CA-BLM is well aware that they can apply rules to a specific region (see the shotgun-only area north of Joshua Tree, which is there for good reason [houses]) that actually needs them while leaving the rest of the desert alone. I think they are trying to broad-brush it here to see what they can get away with, and I expect to see more.

BTW, I know BLM is a federal agency and should be relatively uniform, but there is a HUGE difference between BLM in CA and BLM in other states (speaking to budget, resources, and policy).

[jgorm]

We are suffocating under a mushrooming and ever increasing burden of new laws. Many are duplicates, many are ridiculous, and many are outdated, but few are removed. From my perspective, I see the true magnitude of the laws that we are expected to obey. There are literally millions of pages of laws and the number is growing. We have full time legislatures that do nothing but produce a never ending stream of more laws. In the vast majority of cases, including here, we don’t need more.

+1

Personally i liked the desert years ago when there was the lawless feel to it. 95% of all the people are respectful and don't cause trouble, or do stupid things like burn pallets in the middle of areas were trucks might drive. The other 5% of idiots will do whatever they want and no amount of laws will stop them. No glass bottles?? haha that is total BS and wont' stop me from having a good beer around a campfire on BLM land. I'll probably have to use a cup so i don't get a ticket.