Outdoor Adventure USA

[quote="DaveK]OK, Randy, let’s just see who missed the point.
I am ready for your experiment. The problem discussed in your experiment involves a responsible individual who collects all of the pieces of glass that could be found. All this time I thought we were concerned about the yahoos who picked up nothing. Just how big is the problem involving responsible people who pick up everything they can.
No, the point here is not the glass left by the responsible individual, if any. The point here is the litter left by a small but careless group of desert users who don’t pick up anything. Don’t punish the responsible individual because of the actions of a group of irresponsible knuckleheads. That is the point. And that is one reason why these rules are poorly drafted.
I genuinely hope you are not expecting that this problem will get better merely by the implementation of some new laws. Because without enforcement, things will not improve. Just like it is now![/quote]

Yes, the responsible person collects all that can be found.......but, in sand, not all of what was broken will be found, and that's the problem with glass containers. It's no different with policies adopted for our public beaches. And, of course we are concerned with the yahoos who pick up nothing. But, the BLM officer can't always discern one from the other until something is dropped. With glass containers, that's too late. And, what would be the likelihood he could be there at that moment to observe whether or not every last piece is accounted for? This is the enforcement problem under current laws. An officer couldn't cite an individual for carrying a glass container or burning a pallet. They could discourage it, but couldn't cite for it. I could just see an officer approaching a campfire at night to tell the campers that in the morning his team will be sifting through the ashes of every campfire for nails ....and telling them that if they find any they'll begin issuing citations.....it's not realistic Dave. It's easier to outlaw the pallets and cite them for the possesion or burning of them. In fact it's easier to simply confiscate them at the entry point, period.
So, what is being redefined is who is a responsible public land user. Under the new law, a responsible public land user does not walk around with a glass container or burn pallets. There is no punishment otherwise. That responsible person can conduct themselves as they alway had.....can enjoy the same beverages he always had......just not in a glass container. He can still have a responsible campfire that leaves only ashes. There's no punishment taking place.
You can't keep looking for a bad guy to blame these new laws on. With the shear volume of visitors to these ORV areas there are going to be mishaps of all nature. On holiday weekends these places rival the population of small towns/cities. Responsible or not, all people are having an impact, and all that the BLM is trying to do is limit the possibilities for sharp foreign objects to be introduced into the dunes. Have any idea what a new set of sand tires cost? or have a fun weekend aborted because a child has to be rushed off to to have their foot stitched up?
As for enforcement changes...in the past an officer could patrol through the camping and staging areas and see individuals holding glass containers knowing full well that some of them would make their way into the sand, intentional or not.
Now while patrolling, he can cite them for doing so. Or, if he uses his discretion, can ask the individual to pour it into a legal or more "place appropriate" container.
If he comes by 10 minutes later and the dude is holding another glass bottle....guess what?...he's gettin' dinked! Over time this will catch on in the sand crowd just as any particular "Tread Lightly" ethic will.

DaveK wrote:Randy, you can't expect people to have any respect for the law if law enforcement is going to be selective in their enforcement. If you don't like the law, change it. Until then it is LE's duty is to enforce the law without reference to the fact that some people like to go naked. I can assure you that there are plenty of people who don't like it, even in the remote areas.

Dave,
What you're saying here is completely contrary to your earlier remarks. That's precisely what they are doing......they're changing it. They are making the laws less ambiguous and more specific. They are attempting to create laws that don't require themselves to be selective. As they stand, the laws are obviously vague or inadequate or they wouldn't be adding more place appropriate and specific language to them.
What you were stating earlier is that they could use the existing "broad brush" laws and paint all these problems the same color. That's like trying to catch sardines with a tuna net.
There maybe plenty of people who don't like the idea of having "clothing optional" hot springs. But, they don't go there. Unlike the ORV areas, there aren't "plenty" of people going to these areas. Here in SoCal, for the offroad crowd, Saline Valleys hot springs are probably the most visited. They're definitely "clothing optional", but I've never met anyone who's visited there and stated they were offended. When you go to a place like that you have to plan for it...you know where you're going, and know what to expect.

xtatik wrote:

DaveK wrote:Randy, you can't expect people to have any respect for the law if law enforcement is going to be selective in their enforcement. If you don't like the law, change it. Until then it is LE's duty is to enforce the law without reference to the fact that some people like to go naked. I can assure you that there are plenty of people who don't like it, even in the remote areas.

Dave,
What you're saying here is completely contrary to your earlier remarks. That's precisely what they are doing......they're changing it. They are making the laws less ambiguous and more specific. They are attempting to create laws that don't require themselves to be selective. As they stand, the laws are obviously vague or inadequate or they wouldn't be adding more place appropriate and specific language to them.
What you were stating earlier is that they could use the existing "broad brush" laws and paint all these problems the same color. That's like trying to catch sardines with a tuna net.
There maybe plenty of people who don't like the idea of having "clothing optional" hot springs. But, they don't go there. Unlike the ORV areas, there aren't "plenty" of people going to these areas. Here in SoCal, for the offroad crowd, Saline Valleys hot springs are probably the most visited. They're definitely "clothing optional", but I've never met anyone who's visited there and stated they were offended. When you go to a place like that you have to plan for it...you know where you're going, and know what to expect.

Randy, we need to saty on topic here. This particular sub thread has to do with nudity in public places. By your own admission, there are laws now in place which prohibit this behavior but there has been SELECTIVE enforcement by the BLM. Nothing in the current law "requires" selective enforcement. It has been a choice, as you note, by the BLM, to not enforce the laws. If we stay on topic here, then there is only one conclusion we can reach. The laws exist. Enforce the laws. End of discussion and end of need for another law.

Randy:

I have reached a point where I think we can look at what has transpired and come to a few conclusions.

I started this whole mess with my observation that we have enough laws and there are currently laws on the books that cover all of the real or imagined problems that you raise. So there is no confusion, please understand that I believe there are some problems, similar to what you have described.

You have spent considerable energy supporting these new laws and promoting their benefits.

Conspicuously absent from this discussion has been even one specific reference, by you, to any existing law with an analysis of how it fails to address the problems your are concerned with. In particular, of all of the various anti-littering laws, you can't even mention one. The unfortunate truth is that neither the BLM nor you have any idea what the current laws are but you are willing to heap another set of laws on us to correct a problem. I have challenged you, without a Google search, to identify one law that is inadequate, and we have not seen a response. The lack of a response, without any research, clearly suggests that you are not aware of any of the laws which currently exist. For someone so bent on more laws, it seem reasonable to place the burden on you to demonstrate where the current laws are inadequate. All we hear is, "we need 'em".

Just as important to this discussion is the complete absence of the issue of enforcement. The question, to you, to which we do not have an answer, is how you expect these new laws to be enforced, especially if the old ones were not. These new laws do not provide any enforcement provision, no additional funding is provided, and it is the same agency in charge, under the new laws, as existed previously.

It is dangerously naive to believe that the mere passage of a law will correct this problem. If such a magic law existed we would be able to wipe out all crime with the mere passage of a law. You need enforcement. Even you have admitted that the BLM has failed to enforce the laws, by choice. If you are telling us that they are going to start enforcing these new laws, then we deserve to know why didn't they enforce the old ones.

Lastly, I have tried to point out to you that these rules will have an impact well beyond the "postage stamp" areas you are concerned with. The effect will cover all 11 million acres of BLM managed land in Southern California. Your response is that we should rely on the discretion of the peace officer to not cite us. Hardly an adequate response and certainly an admission that these rules are poorly drafted.

DaveK wrote:Randy:
Conspicuously absent from this discussion has been even one specific reference, by you, to any existing law with an analysis of how it fails to address the problems your are concerned with. In particular, of all of the various anti-littering laws, you can't even mention one. The unfortunate truth is that neither the BLM nor you have any idea what the current laws are but you are willing to heap another set of laws on us to correct a problem. I have challenged you, without a Google search, to identify one law that is inadequate, and we have not seen a response. The lack of a response, without any research, clearly suggests that you are not aware of any of the laws which currently exist. For someone so bent on more laws, it seem reasonable to place the burden on you to demonstrate where the current laws are inadequate. All we hear is, "we need 'em".
Lastly, I have tried to point out to you that these rules will have an impact well beyond the "postage stamp" areas you are concerned with. The effect will cover all 11 million acres of BLM managed land in Southern California. Your response is that we should rely on the discretion of the peace officer to not cite us. Hardly an adequate response and certainly an admission that these rules are poorly drafted.

Dave, I believe you were the first to post/bring a complaint that these laws were unnecessary and redundant. How then, does the burden land on me? You know how this works.
Additionally, your challenge for me to drill down and make specific comments on standing law without research would be contrary to my nature......won't do it.
However, I'd reason the current laws make no specific mention prohibiting the burning of pallets, possession of glass containers, and do not define when and where nudity would be prohibited.
You keep mentioning that all 11m acres would come under these rules and I've tried to tell you repeatedly that these new rules are targeted for specific sites and a specific crowd.
Here's a link to the BLM website that posts these new rules.
Please note the definition, language and mention of "developed sites and areas" as they explain where these rules are meant to apply. This is the language that was necessary in discerning hot springs behavior from campground behavior on the nudity issue. This is the language that discerns between boondocks behavior and campground behavior on the glass container issue. This is the language that better defines what types of firewood can be used on all BLM lands, and especially note the "have in their possession" wording which would help in enforcement before having to apply the broader written "litter laws" that could only be affected after an infraction occurs.
http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/cdd/cdd_ ... ntary.html

xtatik wrote:Dave, I believe you were the first to post/bring a complaint that these laws were unnecessary and redundant. How then, does the burden land on me? You know how this works.

I sure do and that was why the challenge was issued. You are intent on heaping on a another layer of laws which, even by your own admission, are duplicates of existing laws. It is both careless and irresponsible to insist on another set of laws where the risk exists that they are duplicates. You began this with the observation that this was long overdue. The unfortunate truth is that both you and the BLM have no idea what laws are out there, making it impossible to state that is it overdue.

xtatik wrote:Additionally, your challenge for me to drill down and make specific comments on standing law without research would be contrary to my nature......won't do it.

Can't do it!

xtatik wrote:However, I'd reason the current laws make no specific mention prohibiting the burning of pallets, possession of glass containers, and do not define when and where nudity would be prohibited.

Randy, I honestly believe that your comments and fervor are genuine and well intentioned, but mis-directed. All too often the knee jerk response to problems these days is to just pass another law. Your inability to demonstrate knowledge of even one law strongly suggests that both you and the BLM have not done your homework. The easy path here is to pass these new laws and create the appearance that the problem is addressed. To support a new set of laws without even the slightest knowledge of what already exists, is wrong. The sad reality is, even if the new laws are passed, without a change in enforcement, very little, if anything, will change. You would be well advised to direct your energy to get the BLM to implement greater enforcement.

xtatik wrote:You keep mentioning that all 11m acres would come under these rules and I've tried to tell you repeatedly that these new rules are targeted for specific sites and a specific crowd.

Randy, read the proposed law. It doesn't say that.

DaveK wrote:

xtatik wrote:You keep mentioning that all 11m acres would come under these rules and I've tried to tell you repeatedly that these new rules are targeted for specific sites and a specific crowd.

Randy, read the proposed law. It doesn't say that.

Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area 1,280,000 acres
Plaster City OHV Open Area 41,000 acres
Superstition Mtn. OHV Open Area 13,000 acres
Dove Springs OHV Recreation Area 5,000 acres
Dumont OHV Recreation Area 8,150 acres
El Mirage OHV Recreation Area 12,000 acres
Jawbone OHV Open Area 7,000 acres
Johnson Valley OHV Area 188,000 acres
Rasor OHV Area 22,500 acres
Spangler Hills OHV Open Area 57,000 acres
Stoddard Valley OHV Open Area 53,000 acres.
Above is a complete list of the OHV Open and OHV Recreation Areas and their individual acreages.
Other miscellaneous developed areas and sites as defined by these rules and definitions (I've quoted them below) that fall within the jurisdiction of the BLM's California Desert Region Office amount to approx. 18600 acres.
This renders a Grand Total of: 1,705,250 acres which is just shy of(sij), but not quite 11,000,000 acres.

The Supplementary Rules #1(nudity), #4 (glass containers), #5 (stakes), and #7 (reserving spaces) all state as being prohibited "in all developed sites and areas and all ORV open areas".

Under "Definitions":
"Developed Sites and Areas means sites or areas that contain structures or capital improvements primarily used by the public for recreation purposes. Such sites or areas may include features as: delineated spaces for parking, camping or boat launching; sanitary facilities;potable water; grills or fire rings; tables; or controlled access. This definition is consistent with 43 CFR part 8360"

So, my assumption is that popping the cork on a glass bottle, running around nekkid where no one can see you, or anchoring your tent or antenna with metal stakes while lost anywhere in the other 9,294,750 acres under mgmt. of the California Desert Region Office would be just fine.
However, throughout the 11m acre region....burning or possessing pallets, riding in vehicles that are not designed to accomodate you, or littering up any campsite remote or developed...is considered bad form.

It's worth mentioning, I found out most of these rules are being re-written from an existing RAMP (regional area management plan) dating back to December 2001. Glass containers and nudity were written into this version. The burning of iron-laden wood, saving spaces and the use of inflexible stakes are new ones, as are the site specific camping restrictions. So it'll make you happy to know that the BLM has ignorantly and redundantly had them in place for nearly a decade....Umm yeah, moving on.
As for your asking me to comment on laws that you feel may already supercede, be applicable or make redundant the BLM's........where would be a good place to start looking? Here's why I ask.....the BLM has the benefit of plurality when it comes to jurisdiction, and they know it. Should I research county (depending on location), the CPC, or federal level? Cuz, I'm sure as you assert, that they ALL have anti-litter regulations. But, i'm also certain they would have NO impact on the targeted problems/solutions that the BLM is attempting to abate in these areas.
Find me an existing law (not written by the BLM) that will be as effective as a ban in keeping glass, nails and other foreign objects out of the dunes.

I think there may be a misunderstanding in that the BLM is instituting “rules” not law. The “law” that allows them to do so has been in place for some time. Rules may reflect current law, but are not law. They are supported by law, most of the time. The BLM does not make laws.

Anyway, they are creating these rules via a process described in current law and the result is a change in the Code of Federal Regulations and in this case, , 43 CFR 8365.1–6.

So, if you’ve issue with the rules, then this is the period open to giving input to the BLM under a process described in current law. That is how it works.

If folks have an issue with the laws, the ones created and all that by our representatives, then they would do better to direct attention toward the laws surrounding the yearly updates to the entire Code of Federal Regulations (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html) and those who can change them. Do not vote for them if they do not listen to how you want the law to be. That is how that works.

They are two very different things is my point law and rule.

The rule changes, from what I have read, are actually rules in place already in some if not many areas inside BLM jurisdiction, but not universally. This brings them all more in line with each other across all the offices and such, maning more universal enforcement is then possible.

And, though I do not care if folks want to run about naked . . . glass and nails are a problem out there, along with all sorts of trash . . . Burning pallets was never a good idea. I do not like the government telling folks what to do, but so many people are irresponsible fools!

There my 2 cents.

you guys crack me up with your seriousness. My cousins are crazy motocross desert guys (like the typical crowd). The first time i went to the desert with them they said you can't bring glass (because it breaks in the cooler while offroading) and you can't burn pallets where a vehicle could drive (because they had all had nails in their tires). So basically the guys that routinely go to the desert regulate themselves. No laws needed.

Boobs are just boobs. Only in the US and muslim countries to people freak out about a set of boobs. I used to rock climb on a nude beach in the bay area, not because it was a nude beach, that is where the climbing rocks were. I could care less about nudity (but choose to turn by head when dudes play ultimate frisbee ).

Riding on something not designed to be ridden on only hurts one person, the guy doing it. If you understand the risk and consequences, why should it be illegal? Laws protecting people from hurting themselves are stupid. Pretty soon there will be laws that say sandals are illegal in the desert because you can stub your toe on a cactus. Laws protecting people from hurting others should be strictly enforced.

jgorm wrote:Riding on something not designed to be ridden on only hurts one person, the guy doing it. If you understand the risk and consequences, why should it be illegal? Laws protecting people from hurting themselves are stupid. Pretty soon there will be laws that say sandals are illegal in the desert because you can stub your toe on a cactus. Laws protecting people from hurting others should be strictly enforced.

I want to address that thought - but in general, not just as it applies to this discussion. I apologize for the hijack in advance...

Well, while I agree in theory, I think this is a common misconception - that regulating a person's bad behavior isn't necessary because it doesn't affect anyone else. Nothing could be further from the truth in a civilized society, and that it the sole purpose of instituting laws.

These are public lands. An act of stupidity or thoughtlessness by one person can absolutely impact the ability of another to have a safe, enjoyable experience. This can be spread to almost any public activity or action, and it is why, in a civilized society, some freedoms are regulated or curtailed for the benefit of many. When that regulation impacts you, you are upset; when it protects you, you are thankful. It's been the same for thousands of years, and I'm sure we will continue to hear the same arguments on both sides of this debate for the remainder of humankind.

Saying that you don't need laws because only stupid folks violate them does nothing to help ensure the safety of the population at large - and that is the sole purpose of government. I know we have different views here on what is too much regulation, and redundant regulation, an lack of enforcement, etc...that is not my point here. I am just saying that the actions of one usually have an impact on many, whether that was the intent or not.

To say that people should be allowed the ability to make bad decisions because it doesn't affect others is, IMO, ignorant of reality. The backlash to that line of thinking is over-regulation, which is not a solution to the initial problem either.

In civilized societies, compromise is required between individual freedom and public freedom to allow everyone the same opportunities, as best as possible, despite the idiots that roam among us...