Bakersfield BLM Resource Management Plan

I don't mind seeing things protected. I'd rather not see a fence around land given to Chevron. I think there is a middle ground somewhere. I think that we as collectors can't lobby the way big business can. $$$ is what runs the whole thing!

Christopher, thanks for bringing this to wider attention.

The RMP proposal, drafting and approval process is an unending, ongoing elephantine & labyrinthine process. What the average citizen will find (if they have the time, vocabulary and stamina to wade through it) is that it seems wholly designed to favor the ongoing goals of the Dept. of the Interior.

These goals are simple, yet they also explain why the average citizen must remain baffled by the RMP process. They are as follows:

A.
To expand both the scope of influence and physical size of the DOI, in accordance with the aims of the entrenched Progressive bureaucrats, i.e. to ensure their jobs and ever expanding power.

B.
To insure that the average citizen is given as little true input and influence in decisions of Public Lands management and policy as is legally (a term open to wide interpretation) practical.

Note: search (www.ixquick.com for anonymous searching) "Clear Creek Management Area", pro & con, on wholesale closure of Public Lands. The EPA and other "Environmentally Correct" government departments have made the Clear Creek boondoggle a clear case of bureaucratic delay tactics, obfuscation, bad scientific practices and top level abuse. More on Clear Creek in another thread, soon.

The purpose of the Resource Management Plan process is, ultimately, to create the appearance of a finely crafted management outline, while still allowing the bureaucracy maximum political flexibility in carrying out their own mission of departmental expansion.
The bottom line on the RMP is that it only proposes management alternatives, not a true operating management plan. From this form, or the form that is produced after revisions suggested by public comment, a Proposed Final RMP will be submitted to Congress ...

Or not.

As in the case of Clear Creek, the DOI might simply decide to withhold submission of the PFRMP to Congress, pending litigation, court ordered redo's of Environmental Impact Reports or a more favorable political climate. (This is where Clear Creek currently stands ... Firmly in limbo.)

And when (if) they get around to taking the RMP to Congress, well, those nasty politicians with thier concern for public opinion and polls and elections and ...

THEY might not choose the right alternative!!! (i.e., the one that best serves the Bureaurats and their need for chioce lobbying jobs while they draw a fat Gov't pension.)

So, now that you're feeling totally frustrated (misery LOVES company! ;D. ) ...

What CAN you do to make your voice heard, eventually?

Maybe.


It's simple. You can have the greatest impact by making your public comment supporting Alternative A. This Alternative changes nothing ... It preserves the status quo, and is, according to strict interpretation of statute law (NEPA) the only legal management option.

Unless the DOI can get it through Congress and into a favorable Federal Court. The final arbiter will almost certainly be a Federal Appeals Court panel, which can ignore interprete the intent of the statute, in effect creating new law. But, in effect (and precedent) only.

So, I hope that you'll do as I am, and send your comments in support of Alternative A. Though rockhounding isn't mentioned, prospecting is, and could be denied under the other Alternatives.

Finally, this subject is a crucial one for the future of our a/vocation. Yes, it's tedious and depressing, but it's setting the rules under which we may enter some of our favorite collecting areas ... And where we may be denied entry.

So, read what you can of the document (Especially chapter 2 and appendices E & H) and make comment. It may not seem like much, but it's something ...

For now.

Best regards,
Kris

"Remember, with Bureaucracy, it's always about the excuse ..."