wemo mtg

martininsocal

Well-Known Member
Posts
22,828
Reaction
5
well, had a very intersting meeting last night! the tortoise biologist was there with the vehicle access group for the first time. the methodology being provided for his view of what should be closed was presented to us. it was so wrong it was almost funny. according to him, as route closures are decided, the section of land should have a high sign of tortoise impact, should be less than 20% slope average, be between 2000 and 3500 feet, have a high tortoise count. all of these make sense, but the next group of significant properties is totally screwed up and showed this wasn't about saving tortoises, but about closing routes. these sections of land should also include 17-100 trails, 70-500 pieces of garbage, signs of dog infringment, and evidence of high cross country travel by vehicle.
now, i asked why we should be closing these sections because i find it hard to believe that there would be high tortoise counts in the areas with high vehicle and predatory dog use. the biologist said that by closing these areas where humans have had a significant impact would be better than closing pristine areas where man has had little to no impact. when i told him that didn't make sense, that it would be better to preserve the already good areas and continue to use the already heavily impacted areas, he disagreed. he said the intent is to remove man from the environment, not allow man to continue to use it. when asked what they woul;d do about the ravens, he said if we get rid of man, we will get rid of the ravens since the ravens only came after man. i then asked him if there are so many tortoises in areas with high impact, then that would indicate there wasn't a probelm with vehicle use if the tortoises thrive in those areas. he said it would be impossible to have high tortoise counts in those areas. but according to his logic, the ideal section of land includes high vehicle usage. i again asked him why he included the high vehicle usage as a better designator of prime tortoise habitat and he again said because it closes the routes. the truth came out. at one point he told another 4x4 user that offroaders will have the 4 open areas, johnson, stoddard, razor and spangler to go "kill themselves in". needless to say, the meeting deteriorated a bit after that. even the other biologist disagreed with him and said my suggestion was better for protection than his. this is tha plant and insect biologist who hasn't even begun to lay out the closures being proposed for his areas of expertise.
i will keep you all posted.

martin

If your gonna go, go BIG
 

JasonHutter

Well-Known Member
Posts
3,752
Reaction
266
Thanks Martin for helping out and keeping us updated.

Jason
 

KTM_rad

Well-Known Member
Posts
222
Reaction
0
All I can say is WOW !! This guy is screwed up !

Martin, thanks for keeping us informed.


Randy
CORVA Field Rep - So. Cal.
AMA, BRC, SDORC
 

mustafa

Well-Known Member
Posts
885
Reaction
40
The logic they use to rationalize their agenda is ridiculous, but it always seems to work. That old adage "baffle them with bullsh*t" is true.

He who lives by the sword, gets shot by those who don't.
 

Rodney

Well-Known Member
Posts
132
Reaction
0
Thanks for the update Martin, I really appreciate your efforts...hopefully I will be able to get away from work early enough to attend at least one of these meetings.
Did you catch the article in the BRC newsletter regarding the last DAC meeting in Imperial? The biologist there representing the BLM was asked point blank about the status of the tortoise.
His reply was "we really don't know." The truth really is on our side. In the past few months, there has been some very good challenges to some of the so called facts presented by the eco freaks....hopefully more and more of the truth will surface. I am cautiously optimistic. I know I don't go to enough meetings, but I do send $$ to several groups and write letters. I encourage
everyone I know to do the same. Again, thx for the updates!

Winning IS everything
 

martininsocal

Well-Known Member
Posts
22,828
Reaction
5
rodney-at this meeting, the question was asked if there was any recent decline in tortoise population. there was no answer given. the biologists really don't know. there are areas that have never been surveyed. their reports contardict themselves. there is a huge tortoise population in the johnson valle east area and their report says that it is a hotbed of breeding and habitation, but then they say vehicle use decimates the population. when asked how there could be so many turtles in the open area, they just get a blank stare. they are now trying to say the tortoises in the upper mojave are a different strain than those found in the palo verde valley and those in arizona and new mexico are also different, know why? because they live somewhere else! even though the species is the same, they are all different because they live in different places. more junk science. they learned this from the save the fish folks. trout are now considered deifferent simply because they live in a different creek than another trout. so every creek/species should be listed because only so many trout live in any given creek. they will now apply that to desert tortoises. since the high desert has tortoises in it, and the elevation of the high desert is different than the palo verde desert, the tortoises are different. watch the spin go round and round, round and round, round and round...

If your gonna go, go BIG
 

Paige

Well-Known Member
Posts
946
Reaction
0
Wow - sounds like with all the right questions the truth is slowly coming out - thanks for going Martin - sorry I couldn't make it, I got sick =-(. So we are we now with the access group - still mired in BS?

<font color=yellow>Paige<font color=yellow>
 
Top