Saline Preservation Association

The voice of Saline Valley

 
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
peneumbra

Registered:
Posts: 69
 #1 
You can delete all the comments you want, but you cannot delate the feelings of people who have a long investment in Saline Valley and are not willing to allow any further damage to be done by well-intentioned compromisers who will sell us out.

Look around you. The world has changed. And it will continue to do so. We have seen that allowing our enemies - and that is what they are, like it or not - to chip away at our beliefs and at our freedoms is just as bad as losing all in the first minute. Worse, really, because the illusion of success makes people believe that they are still in the game when the game is already over.

The Park Service is not on "our" side. I speak now not of the NPS Rangers and techs and regular folks who work at DVNP but of the overhead, the people in Washington who decide what the rules are. They are not, nor will they ever be, our friends.

Silver Bob, you seem to scoff at the idea of "insurrection," armed or otherwise. Are you not aware of what is happening in the United States, in Oregon, in Nevada? Many of us are of the opinion that the only way to keep the things we treasure is to be willing, at least, to fight for them. To accept the placation of the Park Service is to be sold down the river.

Or, in this case, down the hot springs.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNUS




Salt Peter

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 581
 #2 
First off, I thought Rabbit left. He didn't want to be part of this community and has better options. So having missed any commentary from him in this thread I suggest he leave since we know his position and his belief he was "bullied" on the interwebs.

Regarding the fencing and cattle guards I hadn't heard that at the Ridgecrest meeting. I will include it in my comments to the NPS and thank you for sharing that information.

I'm happy to see the constructive discourse here and am optimistic the park service will hear from the user community which is invested in such a wonderful place we all know.
SilverBob

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 378
 #3 
OK boys and girls, it's time to play like adults.  

We will carry on with civil discussions.  Personal attacks, name-calling, threats, and other bullshit will be promptly deleted.

Rabbit,  you have every right to your opinion.  That's why "Alternative 4" was included among the proposals.  If that is indeed your wish for the future of the springs, I suggest you put it in writing and send it in before the deadline for comments.  Meanwhile, continually posting your thoughts on this forum which is populated by people who are diametrically opposed to your opinions, seems to be nothing more than "trolling" for attention.  

Penumbra,  if you actually have any useful suggestions, short of an armed uprising, please let us hear them.  If, on the other hand, you wish to continue tossing insults and disparaging comments, I'll just keep deleting them.  

This thread is intended to let the community help shape SPA's reply to the NPS plan for the springs.  Constructive comments along those lines are welcomed.  It's time to get over all the petty feuds and personal conflicts and at least attempt to have some say in the future of the springs.
Big Jeff

Registered:
Posts: 106
 #4 
I hate to be wasting time on this but just so you all know that when Rabbit first came to this Forum they were treated poorly by a few of the resident Bullies. It is time to move on, but it would be fine to start a new thread on this Forum and continue your skirmish.
speakeasy

Registered:
Posts: 54
 #5 

The issue of the "hostile/negative" environment that many perceive when commenting on the Saline Preservation Association (SPA) Forum was discussed during the board meeting so I will be as polite as I can be. And if I cross the line, will the moderators please remove my post.

Rabbit, this forum is for the folks who want to preserve the springs. If you are advocating transferring the springs to the Indians then you are advocating the destruction of the springs. The tribe has stated it will shut them down if it ever regained ownership of the valley: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saline_Valley,_California)

 So my question to you is why are you here?

Red Molly

Registered:
Posts: 5
 #6 
Thanks for all the comments.  The fencing is very troubling.  SPA supported alternative 2 which proposed fencing only the source pools.  We are opposed to fencing the tubs and showers, that would be horrible.  I like the comments supporting alternative 4 the whole wilderness and that would be better than alternative 5 where we would see it.  My personal feelings is, if we can do our part to not feed the burros, chase them out of camp would help show NPS we want see the burros as a problem. 

Unless someone can figure out a way to go back under the management of BLM, we need to deal with the National Park Service.  Having said that, please send in your comments and lets hope the Park Service listens to us.

Red Molly


natur_lover

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 49
 #7 
I tend to favor fence alternative #5 because I don't want to be fenced in every time I go to a spot that has water (soaking pools, shower, sink, etc.).  I don't want to be looking at the fence while soaking. I thoroughly enjoyed the tranquility of camping in the valley without the nuisance of the burros back in 2005.  But honestly, that didn't last long. 

Let's be realistic, there will be a few burros who are missed and you know what that means ... those 2 will turn into 3 ... and 5 ... and 10 ... then 50 ... etc.  The burro population out there just explodes.  I don't want them in our camps.  It will be years until there is another burro round-up to get "all the ones they missed".  Just my two cents.

I will definitely be working on my comments.  They will hear from me!  Hippies love to protest!
peneumbra

Registered:
Posts: 69
 #8 
NPS Not Going Anywhere?

Well, that depends. There are a lot of people who would like to do away with the Park Service in places that do not need the type of "protection" that the Park Service insists upon. And anyone who is aware and is a student of history knows that NOTHING manmade is exempt from change. Remember the Soviet Union?

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

 




Flipper

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 76
 #9 
Want to encourage all to write your comments and get them to sent in before the comment period closes on July 2nd. 
In plan on asking for the comment period to be extended. Yes doubtful it will but I'm asking.  The more responses sent in the better. Use the position paper or not but send in your comments.
DVExile

Registered:
Posts: 48
 #10 
With regards to the fence options note that at the Bishop meeting the NPS emphasized that the fencing alternatives in the draft were drafted before there was the new agreement with an organization to do burro removal. Hence the currently drafted options assumed an ever present and potentially growing burro population. They emphasized that has now changed and thus they are actively soliciting comments and ideas on the fencing.

Furthermore they indicated due to likely funding cycles it would probably be three to five years before something the scale of the full perimeter fence could even be installed. Someone else suggested using the springs area as a humane trap for burros to be collected be also considered and the NPS indicated in fact that is a common and preferred method for removal as it is less stressful than round ups.

So wise and useful comments would probably center around thinking about fencing in the condition of a reduced burro population in the near future, proposing a “wait and evaluate” on the large perimeter fence as burro populations are going to change and funding slow anyway and finally community and volunteer participation on any smaller perimeter fencing closer to the pools so people can hopefully intelligently implement an artistic solution that considers the view shed. If they are pinched on funding and SPA can step in to volunteer on smaller scale fencing that could be a win-win.
CanyonHiker

Registered:
Posts: 5
 #11 

In reply to Salt Peter’s issues with fencing: 

During the webinar they told us there would be cattle guards in the perimeter fence for Bat Rock Road and Steel Pass, and therefore no gates.   They also said there would be “V” type openings for walk through access that would exclude burros at trailheads such as to the Seven Sisters and the lower Peace Sign.   I will be asking for an opening at the trailhead to Black Mountain in my comments and including the GPS coordinates (36 48.824, -117 46.565).   If anyone has other favorite routes or trails that would benefit from an opening, you should include that in your comments, just in case they end up building a perimeter fence, even if you are against that plan.

If the parks alternative to a perimeter fence was only fencing the source pools, I would agree that is a better option, but that isn’t what they consider an alternative to the perimeter fence.  Their alternative to a perimeter fence is to also fence around the “soaking tubs” and “riparian areas”, as stated in Alternative 3.  Imagine sitting in Crystal Pool or Wizard Pool and peering through a fence to see the surrounding countryside.

Salt Peter

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 581
 #12 
The NPS isn't going anywhere. That can be seen as good or bad depending on point of view. Hopefully everyone reads the entire report and puts forth a written comment. The NPS is looking for ideas even though the draft of the final plan has been proposed.

The issues with the fencing are complicated. In some ways I'm for the wire perimeter fence but I wonder how it will be secured in place for potential weather events. Will it have gates for Bat Rock Road and the the road up to Steel Pass? Those two things would make fencing the source pools a better option IMHO. But would that really prevent burros from getting water? Would they become more aggressive for the water at the tubs/showers etc? Once the burros are rounded up will the fencing be removed?
speakeasy

Registered:
Posts: 54
 #13 
ETA for SPA's revised position paper if any, please?
peneumbra

Registered:
Posts: 69
 #14 
No fences, no lists of dos and don'ts, no concrete "toilet facilities," and NO PARK SERVICE.

Return the Springs to the stewardship of the BLM (Best and Least Management).
CanyonHiker

Registered:
Posts: 5
 #15 

You said our input was welcome regarding the SPA position paper, so here goes.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 state SPA is opposed to fencing the entire area, as in alternative 5.  However, it is implied that SPA is not opposed to the fencing plans in Alternative 3.  Paragraph 6 only mentions fencing around the source springs and settling pond, but alternative 3 proposes much more extensive fencing than just that.

See: “A wildlife exclusion fence installed around the source springs, soaking tubs, and riparian areas that would eliminate feral burros from these areas.” (page 128)

I am very much opposed to a fence around the soaking tubs, no matter how artistic you could make it.  I would rather have the wire fence in alternative 5 than any fence obstructing the view while soaking.  The perimeter fence of alt-5 would be far enough away that it would not be as much of an eyesore as the close up and personal fencing of alt-3. 

The language of the above quote is too vague.  Their stated intent is to exclude burros and that could mean fencing other watering sources such as the showers, the Bat Soaking Tub (the park calls it a bath tub), and the open trenches that provide water to the palms and other vegetation.  Where does the fencing really end?

It could be argued that the perimeter fence of alt-5 would prevent burro access to the water from Burro Spring that is currently providing water to the line of mesquite trees, and that would eliminate the need to remove that piping. 

I agree that all of this fencing is useless if the park is really able to remove all burros, but how realistic is that?

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.