Registered: 1343719700 Posts: 61
Thank you for the update. Has anyone inquired what the tribe intends to do?
Registered: 1391793026 Posts: 68
At tonight’s meeting Reynolds and staff repeated statements that the rule about not camping within 200 feet of the springs was a mistake. They actually want a 100 foot buffer. But he said they want the public to comment on it.
Flipper did an excellent job of representing SPA, and asking NPS to work with SPA. Reynolds said that they have no funds to implement the plan, so they will be looking to partner with organizations that can help with implementation. It’s not hard to imagine that THAT will translate into help with the waste water treatment from the sink and shower, which they were no longer talking about removing. Interestingly he also sited funding to explain the choice of organizations to handle the burro gathers: an outfit out of Texas agreed to do it for free if NPS would do all the environmental homework for the place they will take the burros to. __________________ Perhaps what we hold most in awe about nature is its majestic indifference to humanity.- Mark Algazy
Registered: 1483183755 Posts: 96
A LIKELY story, pro salvage. Just like when that UFO - the one from Planet Mongo - landed next to the Lower Springs and Killer Kane told us his camera was "malfunctioning for some unknown reason."
Registered: 1419792379 Posts: 2
Sorry about that. My camera overheated and ceased recording.
Registered: 1295390965 Posts: 818
The most important discussion IMHO is close to the end of the video about the tribal involvement. Unfortunately, the video ends before the topic discussion completed.
David, the guy who asked these questions, told me he was going to post his thoughts. I hope he does. In subsequent conversations we had with the park officials it was mentioned that the consession option Inyo county proposed was not on the table. I'd like to see those meeting notes. Is that the reason the county has been grading the road more frequently ? In the worst case scenario the hot springers will have to yield some days to let the tribe do its thing. With the tribe officials stating that if they ever get control over the springs they will demolish everything I wonder how that will work out in the plan. One more point that has been emphasized frequently is that whatever people say in these meetings or whatever people post here or on the facebook is not going to count. Only the posts on the official site are going to count. Please do that. I would also wait for the SPA's post-meeting response before making comments.
Registered: 1419792379 Posts: 2
Hello, I recorded the first hour or so of the meeting held at the springs May 27th 2018. I am posting here and on the Saline Valley Warm Springs Facebook group.
Registered: 1454696754 Posts: 5
I'm thankful to all who can attend the public meetings...wish I could be there. Stand up for us please.
My main points, if anyone cares to carry them forward: Why is Saline Valley being singled out to be treated differently than other parts of DVNP? yes, Palm trees and the grass are introduced species, however, introduced species exist throughout DVNP (in particular in Furnace Creek and Scotty's Castle.). While the grass is non-native, it's not spreading and not competing with any endangered plants so why not just leave it in place with the agreement that active measures will be taken to ensure it does not spread? After listing alternative 1 as non-viable because of water quality issues and hazardous materials issue, why is there no alternative that addresses those two issues? ie. just fixing those two 'issues' should be an alternative, why isn't it? Historical human (I refuse to recognize 'types' of humans regardless of DVNP insistence on doing so) use of the springs is recognized by DVNP as significant. Why then are they attempting to minimize that use by the destruction of shade vegetation? The row of mesquite (?) trees that produce much needed shade SHOULD be required to be protected in order to assist in the continued use of the springs by HUMANS, not killed by cutting off their water supply. Lastly -given that DVNP has a longterm plan to eliminate Burros in DVNP, why is the fence needed? My comments for now, good luck tonight!!!
Registered: 1347014451 Posts: 613
Just curious who has read the entire report/plan. I am almost done. During the process I've written down a few pages of notes and found one grammatical error. Gotta love the govt.
Registered: 1483183755 Posts: 96
There will be burros in Death Valley long after the Park Service is just a memory.
(More Asses, Less Bureaucrats!) SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
Registered: 1527047053 Posts: 1
I myself will plan to remove the fences and plant baby palms because I like burros and shade. Like to see them stop me
Registered: 1378875129 Posts: 28
So then - no point for the NPS wasting tax payer money erecting a fence around the springs!
Registered: 1265794913 Posts: 16
This plan to remove burros is likely part of the management plan.
Las Vegas Review Journal Park Service signs deal to round up Death Valley’s wild burros By Henry Brean / Las Vegas Review-Journal May 17, 2018 - 5:35 pm Death Valley National Park hopes to be burro-free within the next five years. The National Park Service said Thursday it has entered into a contract with Peaceful Valley Donkey Rescue, a Texas-based nonprofit, to round up and remove up to 2,500 wild burros from the park 100 miles west of Las Vegas. The animals are not native to Death Valley, but they have made themselves at home there, said park Superintendent Mike Reynolds. They damage springs and vegetation, create a safety hazard on park roads and compete for food and water with desert bighorn sheep and other native animals. “Burros are not part of the natural California desert ecosystem,” Reynolds said in a written statement. “With this partnership, we have created a win-win situation for the burros, the park and taxpayers.” Starting later this month, Peaceful Valley will lure the animals with food and water or drive them with wranglers on horseback into temporary pens. The burros will then be trucked out of the park to training centers to be prepped for adoption. “Our main objective is to protect our wild burros. If they must be removed, we want to ensure that it is done safely with as little stress possible,” Mark Meyers, the rescue group’s executive director, said in a written statement. “This is what they do,” Death Valley spokeswoman Abby Wines said of Peaceful Valley. “Their main mission is to rescue burros and put them up for adoption.” Wines said the group has agreed to find room at one of its sanctuaries for any animals that can’t be trained or placed in new homes. Pleasant Valley also plans to remove up to 2,500 wild burros from nearby Mojave National Preserve in California under the same five-year contract. The operation is being paid for with private donations and grants to the group. Wines said the cost to the federal government is “pretty close to zero.” Eliminating wild burros from Death Valley has been the Park Service’s stated goal since the adoption of a master plan for the 3.4 million acre park in 2002, but no roundups have been conducted since 2005. So why now? “They’re multiplying,” Wines said. “We don’t really know what our population is, but we think it’s in the neighborhood of 2,000.” The largest concentrations of burros can be found in Saline and Butte valleys and in the Wildrose area, she said, but the animals also have recently shown up in the Black Mountains south of Dantes View for the first time since the 1940s. The National Park Service is allowed to remove them because it is not bound by the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, which requires the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to manage and maintain the animals on public land. The wild burros of today are not related to the larger animals used in the 20-mule teams that famously hauled borax out of Death Valley in the late 1800s, but Wines said they may be the descendants of old pack animals once used by prospectors in the region. “That’s the foundation of the wild population in the West,” she said. The Park Service doesn’t expect the upcoming roundup to eliminate the burro problem entirely. For one thing, Wines said, “it will be very hard to get all of them.” And there is nothing to stop burros from neighboring parts of Nevada and California from making their way into Death Valley some day. “We’re not going to fence the park,” Wines said. Contact Henry Brean at firstname.lastname@example.org
Registered: 1387078275 Posts: 11
Only thing bad about a galvanized bucket is the zinc fumes are toxic when burned off.
Looking forward to the SPA position paper. Probably best if we all get on the same page.
Registered: 1378875129 Posts: 28
In Anza Borrego the only way you can have a fire is to haul in your fire ring.
One of these has been working for me for a few years now when i head there......with holes drilled in the side. Seems like an easy solution? 10 bucks from Home Depot!
Registered: 1265052278 Posts: 121
I believe that it won’t be designated to camping at a site specific number, say go to camp #1 and put up your gear, it will be based on where NPS puts the ash pans/grills/ inside the dispersed area. It seems likely the fire pans would be set permenant as so they don’t wander out of the Park. NPS wants to keep campers back 200’ from the source springs so there will be some sort of delineation for these campsites. SPA board is meeting on Thursday to draft our position paper, so look for it in your e-mail or on this web site at the end of the week. OJ