Petition for changes to the Mojave NPS Plan

spectr17

Administrator
Admin
Joined
Mar 11, 2001
Messages
69,719
Reaction score
550
TO;

It is very disturbing to me about what is happening within and to the Mojave National Preserve located in the Southeastern portion of California. Initially the rangers closed many of the established, well-traveled roads making it impossible for the elderly, the not-so-young nature observer, much less the disabled person, who might want to enjoy this area and should be able to do so. The Park Service states they only closed 15% of the roads; unfortunately this 15% has denied access to over 250 miles of well-traveled roads.

Their chosen 250 miles of road closures led to a majority of the springs and scenic areas that allowed for true enjoyment of this beautiful desert area.  Furthermore, what good does it do to close only 15% if you are trying to preserve this environment? Either close them all, which I am afraid is coming, or let the public keep using these roads which have been traveled on for over 50 years. At this point, it looks like almost 50% of this beautiful mountainous/desert preserve is inaccessible to anyone but the youngest an«l hardiest hikers.  

What the park service is doing is preventing a good many Americans who are older or with any walking disability from enjoying their land.   The Park Service says that they are preserving the desert for the future generations.  What is wrong with now - this generation? Secondly and very important and very urgent, as we speak, the MNP has gained control of most of the grazing rights thus removing the cattle from the preserve, destroying a way of life the ranchers have endured for over 50 years.

Under the direction of the National Park Service the ranchers have shut off the water and are in the process of
removing all existing, man-made water tanks and system. A vast amount of the wildlife located in the Preserve have
grown accustomed to and have become dependent on these existing watering areas. A few of the larger animals will
be displaced but the majority of the wildlife will be destroyed, dying of thirst never to return. This is unacceptable to
me. is a needless waste and this shows a grave lack of planning on the part of the MNP.

The Park Service gives the reason that these watering areas, which have been in existence over 50 years, are not natural. The NPS wants the wildlife to exist on the few natural springs that they say are in the area but which go dry during drought years. It is hard for me to understand why you can't use an existing well for the benefit of these animals. Just to name a few of the animals that will be affected when they no longer will be able to get to this water are; Big Horn Sheep, burros,
deer, coyote, kit foxes (endangered??), gray fox, badgers, bobcats, rabbits, hawks, owls, eagles, ducks, quail and countless other mammals and migratory birds.

The Park Seryice say they only want the "natural" wildlife to exist.
Question; how long does any wildlife have to exist in an area before they become natural? (FYI, is everyone aware that the beautiful ring-neck pheasant is unnatural to the U. S. A. and was imported).

I could possibly accept this destruction of wildlife if someone will give me a rational explantation for this action.
Additionally, how can this possibly benefit the general public who might want to visit their preserve or the wildlife
already in residence. Visitors to the area will see beautiful sunrises and sunsets, breathtaking scenery, only on the roads left open, but void of any wildlife, with water all of the above named animals could possibly flourish for all to see and enjoy.

There is a readily available solution to avoid this devastation. There are several organizations who will gladly
volunteer their time and money to help maintain these watering areas for wildlife only. This will negate any argument the Park Service people have about no money, manpower or using too much water, as we would install watering areas sufficient only to service wildlife. What I am asking for, from the MNP is permission for a nonprofit group to maintain small and efficient, natural appearing watering areas for the wildlife, large and small. What or who would this hurt?

Awaiting your reply,

Name:  
Age & Occupation:
Address:  
Telephone & E-mail:

======================================================

I am signing this petition because I am in complete agreement with the letter authored by Cliff McDonald regarding the closure of the watering holes in the Mohave Preserve.  I find this action taken by the National Park Service a total disregard for wildlife in this area, both animal and birds. It serves no useftil purpose whatsoever to cause the devastation of this currently bountiful habitat.

Name
Address
Please print & sign

When completed, please mail to:

Cliff McDonald
2128 El Monte Drive. Needles. CA 92363. PH# 760-326-2935.   e-mail: bigmc@ctaz.com


Ms. Mary Martin, Superintendent
National Park Service
Mojave National Preserve
222 E. Main St., Suite 202
Barstow.CA 92311
e-mail: Mary_Martin@nps.gov

Ms. Gale Norton, Secretary***
United State Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20240
gale norton@ios.doLgov

Honorable Jerry Lewis
Representative, U. S. House of Representatives
1150 Brookside Drive #J5
Redlands,CA 92373
Atta:  Spencer/Janet 'Scott
e-mail go to web site: http://www.house.gov/jenylewis

Bill Postmus, Supervisor
San Bernardino County
301 E. Mountain View
Baistow,CA 92311
e-mail: kyent@bos.co.san-beniardino.ca.us

Honorable Barbara Boxer
Senator, United States Senate
201 North E. Street, Suite 210
SanBemardino,CA 92401-1520

Honorable Dianne Femstein
Senator, United States Senate  .
11111 SantaMonicaBlvd., Suite 915
LosAimeles.CA 90025-3343

State of California Assembly, District 34
Keith Oldberg, Assemblyman
14011 Park Avenue, Suite 470
Victorville.CA 92393-2461

State of California Senate, District 17
William Knight
1008 West Avenue
Pairndale CA 'WW

Bureau of Land Management
Needles Field Office
101 W. Spike's Road
Needles, CA 92363

U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
317 Mesquite Avenue
Needles. CA 92363

=============================================================

January 17,2001

Dear Friends,
Thank you for your support and concern re the Mohave National Preserve. I am sending you a
copy of information. I am in the process of trying to start a chapter in Needles of an organization that is already established out of Blythe, CA.  Because of similar problems, they have already started legal proceedings against the BLM, Park Service, etc. The name of this organization is RSBA (Recreation, Sports and Business Association). It is obvious to me that there are a lot of people fighting the battle over closing off our land and we need to gather our numbers so we talk with a bigger voice. I will be contacting you in a couple of weeks about joining either their organization or our own "preserve" chapter once we iron out the details. In the meantime, I am enclosing letters for you to read, copy and mail out to the addresses provided or any other person or organization you feel can help. Additionally there is a real important website which is a must for you to visit.
http://www.publicland-publicuse.com/

Thank you again for your support, we'll keep up the fight and will keep you advised as to what you can do.

Contact me any time at:

Cliff McDonald          
2128 El Monte
Needles, CA. 92363    
PH# 760-326-2935
email   kippy@citlink.net or
bigmc@ctaz.com
 

huntducks

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2001
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
0
Stepping stone, Catalina anyone.

Maybe Rifleman can explane this one also.
 

RIFLEMAN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
32
huntducks,

    No, I have no idea what the mentality is behind the removal of the water tanks.  I don't see how removing many of the water sources in the area (that is of benefit to ALL species) has anything to do with their desire to see that only native wildlife lives in MNP.  

    Unless I'm mistaken, the only non-native animals in the area are burros.  If they want the burros gone, I am not sure why they don't relocate them or capture them for adoption.  

    Shutting the water off makes no sense to me.
 

huntducks

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2001
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
0
Rifleman

I'm sure your a good guy and well meaning, and I have no idea of your age, but you look at all with a scientific approach to solve all problems, but just sometimes a little dose of common sense is a lot better then a black or white theroy.

I totaly destine the nature conservancy and the national park service along with the sierra club, they truely are a group of anti-hunter and elitist who have way to much say in what goes on with this state and country.

MNP is now becoming a worthless unusable chunk of land, the guzzlers that the DFG, BHSF and SCI installed and maintained are most likely unuasable and even ripped out by the NPS by now, there were at least 40 out there, and I donated time and money to install them, for Sheep, desert mule deer, and all the animals that used them, they the NPS the NC and SC were totaly opposed to driving on the roads to service and repair them, this is truely a anti hunting effort, by the NPS and the ones that side with them.

You will say what do they have to gain, it's simple you kill off the game that the hunters are after, the user use goes down to little or nothing, the NPS says it is not in our top 10 of useage there, so there is NO reason to have a hunting program, these people have time and european history on there side (KINGS GAME) have you ever heard of that term.

After they get rid of the hunting program they will spent millions on research to what happened to all the animals, and they will come back with a conclusion no steady source of water, they will then drill wells, install guzzlers, and reintroduce there native animals, are two bimbo senators will support this at a cost of millions to the tax payers, will they have a hunting program NO, because of 1. the reintroduction of some endangered spieces like the southern red wolf, and 2. because lack of hunting usage from previous years.

Your most likely thinking this guy has way to much time on his hands, NO I don't trust the NPS and most Democrats.

I have a simple theory IF YOUR NOT RIGHT ABOUT GUNS YOU USUALY NOT RIGHT ABOUT THE REST.

I use to hunt out there all the time.
 

RIFLEMAN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
32
huntducks,

    True, I have been "accused" of looking at things in a purely logical black and white perspective far too often by family and friends many times in the past.  And while I think that it has the capacity to exclude some viable possibilities, I believe that using logic is the most appropriate frame of mind when dealing with issues relating to wildlife management.  Trying to apply common sense creates the possibility for ambiguity because what makes sense to you and I might be completely ludicrous to someone else.    

    I firmly believe in keeping our guard up against the efforts of the anti-hunting organizations and I can completely understand your distaste for the Sierra Club.  They are clearly an anti-hunting organization.  But I can't agree with your assessment of the NPS and TNC.  By the very nature of the organization's name, you get an idea of their philosophy....The Nature Conservancy, not the Nature Preservancy.  To conserve wildlife is much different than preserving wildlife.  I am sure that they came to their name after very careful deliberation based on the mindset of the founders.  Now that mindset may or may not have changed over the years, but they have not officially supported any anti-hunting efforts that I am aware of.  I just don't think that it is fair to lump their efforts to set aside land for future generations with the extremist groups such as PETA, ALF, Earth First!, HSUS, etc.      

    As said before, I am absolutely opposed to removing the guzzlers.  I cannot even begin to understand their intentions.  I sincerely hope it is not for the purpose that you predict.  

    By KINGS GAME, do you mean hunting for the elite only?

    While I don't share your distrust of the NPS, I too do not trust the intentions of most Democrats.  I most certainly despise Boxer and Feinstein.
 

Dakota

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2002
Messages
719
Reaction score
1
Rifleman,

I know that you are too intelligent to beleive that an organization's name reflects their true agenda.  The Nature Conservancy could call themselves "Pro Hunter Unlimited" it does not change their policy and practices.

Planned Parenthood has NOTHING to do with parenthood.  The are abortion advocates or more accurate (zealots)  Call one and ask for advise about a healthy pregnancy or child rearing and see their response!
Handgun Control is not about regulation it is about abolition.
The Conservancy is not about Conservation to is about anti-human preservation.  They and the NPS have become a very effective ally to PETA , Sierra Club and gang.  They suckered sportsmen into believing that their interests were being considered as well.

The trappers used to warn us that we were next and asked for our support during the anti-fur growth.  Hunters didn't beleive it could happen.  Now hunters are warning fisherman and asking for their support.  We will see.
 

huntducks

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2001
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
0
Rifleman

I also believe in logic along with common sense and using both, being armed with only one is like having the ammo & no gun, the anti-hunters use the little science with alot of emotion theory all the time to get injunction after injunction, and only in the last few years have I seen where game departments in the east are adding common sense to there arugment, I consider myself a lay person when it comes to wildlife mangment, I have had no formal schooling in wildlife science, but 48yrs in the outdoors hunting & fishing, I have figured out a few things about animals and the need for a scientific approach, but what about the middle of the road people, that there dad hunted or uncle buck they have family ties to hunting so they know it is not all that bad,and they also know that deer are eating everything, being hit by cars people being injured and even in a few cases death, they don't really give a damn about a scientific approach, but if you give them a common sense reason that the deer should be taken by hunters vs birth control or trapping, or a state hunter then they are more to side with the game dept, sure some of the injunctions are over turned by higher courts, but with a great cost in money and time and where only scientific facts are looked at, but many of the game dept. don't have the money to go that route so they just walk away.

As far as the TNC they are a group of wealthy eliteist, who crontrol huge chunks of land, and usually aquire them for tax write off's of an estate.

How many do you know that are opened to the public to hunt on? but they do hunt on them, by who?
if i'm wrong please shead some lite on it or who I can contact to hunt on TNC property, how about even fishing or even driving.

The NPS is anti- hunting period they have kicked screamed and fought to stop all hunting on the NP that have it, look at Yellowstone they could have issued limited elk, bison, moose, deer, hunting permits, but they would much rather have them starve so they just said lets reintroduce the wolf, how about Pt. Reyes and there over pop. of elk a limited bow or BP season could add money and reduce the herd too the carrying capacity, but I guess I look at it from a common sense approach, too simple in this day and age, and in what seems to be a endless supply of money and research grants, so they just study it till the money runs out 10-20 years later, 10 differnt opinions and no consensus, people retire off jobs like that.
 

RIFLEMAN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
32
Dakota,

    Very good point about the intent of a name.  That was a very weak argument to make.
 

RIFLEMAN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
32
huntducks,

    I too think that being armed with both logical theory and practical experience is best.  But the problem I see with relying on common sense too much is that you open yourself up for criticism too easily.  There is nothing absolute with common sense; it is far too open to interpretation.  To use your example about deer overpopulation...you might suggest that it is due to hunting being restricted or banned while someone else might suggest with equal conviction that it is due to new housing in the wooded areas or the destruction of their wintering yard for a new shopping mall.  Instead of limiting the deer population as you suggest, they might suggest other means of addressing the problems they suspect.  

    I just think that it is harder to dispute data and proven logical principles based on scientific methodologies.  Whenever I have gotten into debates with people with either a neutral or anti-hunting perspective, I am quick to whip out the logic and science.  Their vigor has been more easily subdued when I speak of things from a logical perspective rather than arguing things from a simplified approach.
   
    As to TNC, they own some property near my hometown.  They purchased the land so that Stockton and Sacramento could never grow together to form a megalopolis like you see in Southern California and the Bay Area.  They allow grazing and they allow coyote calling.  
    I'm not sure if you could call the NPS anti- hunting.  To my way of looking at things, anti-hunting means the opposition to all hunting, anywhere.  The NPS doesn't believe that sport hunting for recreation is condusive to their management plan.   The establishment and then eventual ban on the Yellowstone winter hay feeding program was most definitely tragic and I would have preferred hunting to the dependency on humans or the starvation.  However, I do not see the re-introduction of the wolf as any short-sighted or futile attempt to replace the need for hunting.  I think that it was a logical move to restore balance to the Yellowstone ecosystem.  
    The Pt. Reyes elk situation is a whole lot different and I don't see why they shouldn't consider limited BP or bow hunting as an option.  The order that was once there cannot ever be restored.  The idea of re-introducing wolves or grizzlies is crazy and not possible, so human predation is the best answer to the problem.  

    You make a lot of sense concerning the option of having limited hunting in national parks.  I would support this measure only if the natural system in place cannot keep things in balance.  There is no longer any need to do so in Yellowstone.  Now that the wolves have re-established themselves, things have regained the balance that once was there.  

    I will also admit that the government does tend to just throw money at a problem without thinking about what simpler options might be.  I have a hunch that they think that public hunting would be too much of an inconvienience on their part.  They probably do not want to deal with the logistical hassle.  I'm not saying that it is right, I am just speculating at their motives.
 

Dakota

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2002
Messages
719
Reaction score
1
Rifleman,

I have to disagree with you once again on the reintroduction of wolves.  It will not strike a balance.  Nature works in a pendulum type manner populations peak and fall and some times swing WAY out of balance.  

Properly managed hunting is the BEST way to stifle extreme swings of the pendulum, keeping a more stable population.  Rather than allow populations to swing wildly (no pun intended) and then have the taxpayer brunt the cost for population control via professional hunters, relocating, birth control, reintroduction of predators, etc.

Can you imagine if CA stopped hog hunting?  What is now a income generating sport would become an enormous burden to the taxpayer.  Payment for crop damage, eradication efforts, not to mention the costs of lack of efficency that is part of any beauracracy.

Man has a responsiblity to each other as well as animals.
 

huntducks

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2001
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
0
Rifleman

I think you fail to see that when dealing with people, the common sense factor is the first line in reasoning.

I owned a plumbing business, I delt with people all day long, in most cases they did not want to know how or with what I was going to plumb a 10 story office building, they just wanted it to work and the finished product to look good, I equate that same thought with people and animal conflicts, they don't want to hear about the strip mall that went up a mile away, or it was a harsh winter or a drought and forced the deer into there yard or the bears into there pool, they also don't want to see the inner workings of how your going to get rid of them just the end result, these people are all dealing from a common sense approach.

The wolf. Who controls them and when, I believe the state of Montana, is now knowing why they opposed them, they are seeing declining calf counts during winter migration in there herds that have large wolf packs as there major predator, so much so that this problem is being addressed by a number congressman within the state by both Rep.& Dem.

Do you think that the tree huggers are going to let the states involed have a hunting season without a full court battle I doubt it.

So the 3 S rule will go into effect in the 3 major states of ID. MT. WY.

I'm not even going into the economic loss that the ranchers have suffered.

So TNC allows hunting on there property up by Stockton to the general public? or to large cash donor's.

I just look at all the thousands of acres that they have under crontrol and in conjunction with the DFG and have not seen one acre open to the general public to hunt on, (if i'm wrong please tell me where these are) in my case i'm generally speaking of waterfowl property, oh yes there are people that hunt that property but not the average Joe.

The NPS, there are hunting programs at a number of NP across the country so this is something that they have delt with, and for me to say they are anti-hunting is very easy, just look at there animal control policy on area's that have no hunting program, it is never a option always throwen out at every discussion, so yes there mind set is anti-hunting.

Glad to see we agree on PT. Reyes.
 

rlwright

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2002
Messages
562
Reaction score
0
I agree, removing water sources from the mojave desert would  be the definition of stupid. The NPS should concentrate on removing the burros. These teritorial jackasses have done nothing but decline the sheep population in the mojave. When I was younger I remember seeing herds of sheep on the shores of lake havasu, now theres donkeys.

There must be something more to this, It's clearly a bad plan. How can it logically be justified.
 

Kernhuntr

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
rlwright,
Don't want to point out the obvious...but the words "logic and justified" just don't go together very well when speaking of our great leaders, be it Federal or private :mad-red:.
Kernhuntr
 

RIFLEMAN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
32
huntducks,

    Sure, I would agree that you could first attempt to appeal to their common sense.  BUT, should your common sense differ from theirs, I would think that bringing out the big guns of logic and science would be more effective.  

    I don't equate the end result with having to rely on common sense (so perhaps we're arguing two different points).  Rather, I think that the end result can be logically justified by saying that man must provide the balance to nature because our presence has directly (eradication of predators) and indirectly (development of habitat) upset that balance.  Sure, perhaps the specifics to management might not be crucial to the argument, but basing the argument on logical reason is the most effective in my opinion and experience.  It is much more difficult to debate against science than it is against "common sense."

PLEASE ANSWER AND EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING USING COMMON SENSE:

***If you drop an ink pen that weighs 1.5 ounces and a bowling bowl that weighs 16 pounds from your outstretched arms at the EXACT same time, which will hit the ground first?***
     
    The federal government co-sponsored the wolf re-introduction into Yellowstone and are just as liable for the effects.  Please keep in mind that much of the issues Montana is experiencing with wolves involve those that have emigrated from Canada down the Bob Marshall Wilderness corridor.  

    As a species listed under the ESA, the "tree hugger" opposition is a non-issue at this time.  Once the population has moved them beyond a threatened status and a proposal to manage them with sport hunting is put on the table, they will undoubtedly state their opposition.  But if the USFWS has pushed a management plan forward, it will be pretty difficult for the anti's to counter.

    Any livestock lost as a result of wolf depredation is reimbursed through a fund started by the Defenders of Wildlife per the legal agreement.  The ranchers are not going out of business because of the wolf.  Unfortunately, hounds are not covered under this livestock depredation provision and are being killed by wolves throughout western Montana.

    I know a kid who has permission to call coyotes on some of their property.  He is not from an affluent family and I know of no formal relationship his family might have with TNC.  I do not know by what means he gained permission.

    So if you say that there are "hunting programs at a number of NP across the country", how can you say that the NPS is anti-hunting? Perhaps they feel that hunting on those other areas you mentioned is not feasible.

Yes, we agree on PT. Reyes...so there is hope for us yet, huntducks!!!  LOL
 

huntducks

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2001
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
0
Rifleman

Your first three lines say it all, and that's another places we agree 100% there may be hope for you also, hehehe.

How about we just drop a Catalina pig and a Kit fox to see which hit the ground first.

I never said you could explane all with common sense or logic and you do need a scienctific approach at times.

Rifleman the TNC has a peice of wetlands up by LDC refuge, do me a favor see if you can get permission to hunt it for two for next year, if you can I will join you, I won't hold my breath.
 

Swiss Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2001
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
The NPS mandate is to make everything like it was.  I'm not sure what time line is to be represented but the chuckar, burros, man made water, and vehicles have to go.  Insane and not well thought out to say the least.  Most important is that once again we have to fight.  Copy the petition, or join the RSBA, or at least give Cliff a call.  We still have a chance.
 

Latest Posts

Top Bottom