Jeepers get charged double at dunes...

Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, input from the subgroup will be presented directly to the DAC for its deliberation and consideration. The DSG replaces the ISDRATRT.

Moderator: Sitewide Forum Moderators

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jhitesma » Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:39 pm

Actually Jerry your quote above is still the BLM's words and NOT what appears in the official supplementary rule. Here is the applicable text from the rule (There's a page of text above this giving GPS coordinates of where the fee area is...I'm not including that for brevity)
The primary purpose of this
supplementary rule is to set out the
stipulations of the user permit for the
Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area.
Any person using the recreation area
must buy a weekly or yearly permit for
the areas described in the above listed
legal description.
1. A permit is required for all persons
using the Imperial Sand Dunes
Recreation Area.
2. Permits must be purchased and
displayed within 30 minutes of arrival
in the fee area.
3. Every primary transportation
vehicle must have a permit. A primary
transportation vehicle is a street legal
vehicle used for transportation to the
recreation site. A street legal vehicle
that was towed to the site and whose
sole purpose is to be driven off-road for
recreation is not considered to be a
primary transportation vehicle.
4. Yearly permits are non-transferable.
5. All permits must be visibly
displayed in the front windshield of the
primary transportation vehicle with the
date side facing out.
6. Violations of these or other
regulations relating to the Imperial Sand
Dunes Recreation Area shall be grounds
for removal from the Recreation Area for
the time specified by the authorized
officer.
7. All permits are non-refundable and
may be revoked at any time by an
authorized officer if violation(s) occur.
The permit must be surrendered to the
authorized officer upon demand.
8. This permit does not allow the
permittee to camp in excess of 14 days
out of every 28 consecutive days on
public land without moving at least 25
miles away for 14 days.
9. Any directions listed on officially
posted signs shall supersede these
stipulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective December 17,
1998 and will remain in effect until
rescinded or modified by the authorized
officer.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chief Area Ranger Robert Zimmer,
Bureau of Land Management, El Centro
Field Office, 1661 S. 4th St., El Centro,
CA 92243 (760) 337–4407.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
authority for these rules is provided in
43 CFR 8365.1–6. Violation of these
regulations is punishable by a fine not
to exceed $100,000.00 and/or
imprisonment not to exceed 12 months.
Dated: December 9, 1998.
Elayn M. Briggs,
Volunteer Program Specialist.
[FR Doc. 98–33424 Filed 12–16–98; 8:45 am]
Note - nowhere does it say that once a towed in vehicle drives on a roadway does it become a primary vehicle. The only thing the rule says is " Every primary transportation vehicle must have a permit. A primary transportation vehicle is a street legal vehicle used for transportation to the recreation site. A street legal vehicle that was towed to the site and whose sole purpose is to be driven off-road for recreation is not considered to be a primary transportation vehicle."

So as long as the primary purpose of that vehicle is for off road recreation it does NOT require a pass. There's no mention at all of any other secondary purpose (such as driving on a road or even leaving the area to get supplies) changing the status of the vehicle in question.

BUT.

This is the 1998 supplementary rule (see my signature link) defining the rules for DEMO Fee. I am not familiar enough with FLERA to know if this would have been grandfathered or if the BLM would have had to create new supplementary rules under the FLERA. The BLM's favorite "43 CFR 8365.1–6." does NOT give them the authority to create fees. In fact other parts of 43 CFR specifically say that they are NOT allowed to create fees. The only reason they are now allowed to charge fees are because FEE DEMO and then FLERA superceded 43 CFR and created new requirements for enacting fees.

And...in order for a supplementary rule to be valid it must meet certian conditions (again see my sig for the link to the full CFR) For one the rules "These rules may provide for the protection of persons, property, and public lands and resources." That's the ONLY thing they can be used for. The BLM would probably make a case that the fee is there to protect the resources...but they have never said that officially so I'm not sure how well that would stand.

Further. There are requirements of notification on these rules when they are created. In addition to being available upon request at the BLM office they have to be published in the federal register (which is what was sent to Jerry) the have to be published in a "newspaper of general circulation in the affected vicinity, or be made available to the public by such other means as deemed most appropriate by the authorized officer"....and the biggie "The rules shall be posted near and/or within the lands, sites or
facilities affected"

I've NEVER seen the text of the supplementary rules posted anywhere at the ISDRA. They have kiosks they could use to do so but I've never seen any such rules posted. The CFR does not say that they only have to be posted when enacted - it says that they must be posted...period.

What I suspect though....is that this is not even accurate.

I suspect that new supplemental rules were enacted when the FLERA was passed...and as usual the BLM has no clue what they're doing and sent the wrong thing.

It's also interesting to note...this says that the passes are required for each person AND that they are non-transferable. Even though they've always been treated as being needed per vehicle not person and they say on them that they're "non-transferable - while at the ISDRA".

But again I'm pretty sure that this 1998 document the BLM provided is NOT what is currently in effect and that there is a newer definition (after all they made another supplementary rule after this enlarging the fee area and again spelling out the rules for passes.)

There's a LOT wrong here. The problem is because the BLM is unwilling to fight for the funding through proper sources too many people are afraid to challenge the legal issues surrounding the improper use of "SRP's" and blatant abuse of the CFR in my signature because they fear of what the BLM would do without user fees.

Frankly I think that's the ONLY way the BLM will ever do their job and seek funding through the proper channels instead of looking to tap the pockets of users and rely on unreliable grants to fund themselvs. The BLM only seems to respond to things in the proper way when all other options have been taken away from them. It's time to start taking those other options away if they're not being used properly.

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jhitesma » Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:45 pm

Here's a link to the full PDF that Jerry was given by the BLM:

http://www.yumaduners.com/jth_upload/Fe ... 201998.pdf

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:28 am

Jerry Seaver wrote:"Primary vehicle is a registered street legal motorized vehicle that is driven into the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreational Area: i.e. motor homes, trucks, SUVs, passenger cars. A street legal vehicle that is towed or trailered to the dunes is exempt. This vehicle must remain off all roadways and utilize OHV authorized areas and routes only. If this vehicle is then utilized for travel on any of the non OHV authorized areas and routes; it will be considered as a primary vehicle and will require a permit."
So it sounds like it is more of a training issue. Since crossing the bridge is allowed by non-street legal vehicles I am still staying within the exempt rules. I know it will be difficult for the people at the check point entering Gordon's Well, and thus why I think a second pass issued for such vehicles would be a good idea still, however this being the definitiion it needs to be shown to the ICSO so they are enforcing it correctly and not on their own terms.

Even in jhitesma's post it basically says the same thing.

I hear you on the funding. However I still see the pass issue partially as a training issue. The ICSO told me straight up, they don't care what the BLM rules are, they are there to enforce their rules (the ICSO) and to them all street legal vehicles must have a pass. To me the BLM needs to step up and train the ICSO and remind them who is paying them to be there. They are under contract to enforce the BLM rules on federal land, it sort of trumps the local county, in my eyes anyway.

I do agree the BLM should not sit back and rely on grants, no organization should. Financials change year to year and what someone was able to afford in a grant one year they may not the next, it is bad business.

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck » Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:11 pm

My1stJeep wrote:So it sounds like it is more of a training issue. Since crossing the bridge is allowed by non-street legal vehicles I am still staying within the exempt rules.
That is exactly what it is, a training issue.

Was it an LEO that told you you needed a permit, or if it was a county employee stationed at "fee station" set up at the entrance/exit of Dune Buggy Flats?

As I've posted before... Based on what I've heard it is the non-LEO county employees that do not know the rules applying to street legal towed in vehicles. The ICSO LEO's do know the rules.
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:07 pm

The first instance was day number 2, teh day after the guy at the trailer sold me the one pass, he saw the Jeep on the trailer behind the motor home. I was up by the main area (vendors) at Buttercup when an LEO told me I needed one. I went to the table and they backed up the LEO even though about a dozen duners were trying to tell them that I did not need the second pass.

The second was later when going over to Gordon's Well and getting stopped and asked for the pass when entering over there and it was again an LEO. I spoke with a person from the BLM and an sheriff's officer listened in, I am sure to make sure I was not a threat, he left about midway though the conversation when he knew it was just a question and answer and input to the BLM official.

Third was when I talked to the ICSO (this week on the phone trying to clarify just whose rules we are living by and to try and work out a resolution) and was told they did not care what the BLM rules where, they were there to enforce the ICSO rules and according to them I either needed a second pass or could buy on OHV out of state pass and take my license plates off.

I don't think any of them are getting it right (excpet the 1st guy who saw me enter the park and sold me just the one pass), nor are they even consistant as to why and what pass I need or can use. Seems like the definition that should be in the dictionary under FUBAR. :idea:

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Post by L&L Corvairs » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:06 am

My1stJeep wrote: Seems like the definition that should be in the dictionary under FUBAR. :idea:
Are we sure it isn't SNAFU? :lol: :lol:
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

azsandrider
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2864
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2001 2:28 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Mesa, Az.

Post by azsandrider » Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:42 pm

What are the ICSO rules concerning ISDRA passes?

Have they passed some new laws?

How can y\the ICSO have different laws concerning the ISDRA fees when they are acting as the contractor to the BLM to collect federally mandated fees?????

:? :? :?
(The above statement is my own opinion and not that of the ASA's.)

T. Wight
Mesa, AZ.
ASA Supporting Member
ASA Volunteer

Is your spouse an ASA member??? Numbers count!!

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:53 pm

Good questions.

When talking with the ICSO officer he informed me that all street licensed vehicles are required to pay, even if towed in as they are considered primary. That is the ICSO's stance on what a primary vehicle is, even if it is towed in.

Second there is no such thing as a street legal sand rail. While they are in the minority, they do exist. According to the officer if he sees one try and drive on the street he is going to write them up. Also if they don't have the off road sticker on them, since they are not street legal, he was going to write them up.

I attempted to point out that they are a contractor paid to enforce BLM rules of the land being used. His reply "No one is going to tell us what to enforce, we enforce the Sheriffs office rules..." To me I would not be happy if someone I contract out to was enforcing other rules and upsetting the users. To me the BLM needs to address this and ensure the ICSO is not going off half cocked.

There was a point in there that I just plain backed off, while I did not agre with him and his definition I tried to change the tone of the conversation as it was very appearant he was upset. Since the only way in my opinion to get it done is that we are both on the same page I just put forth some suggestions on how this could be more fair. We will have to work them going forward so I wanted him to see us as a team player, not alienate him, let him know we wanted to work with him on this and all other issues. By the end of the conversation it was very civil, I never lost my cool or raised me voice, figured that would do more harm than good.

After getting off the phone I thought through everything and took the stance that the ICSO was not going to listen to me, and that it would have to come from the BLM and that the ASA and TRT might be able to work out a resolution with the BLM that would go to the ICSO and all would be resolved. It was very appearant the ICSO cared nothing about the users of the land, just their own opinion.

User avatar
HozayKwarvo
ASA Board of Directors • Vice Chairman
ASA Board of Directors • Vice Chairman
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:53 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Murrieta, CA.

Post by HozayKwarvo » Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:57 pm

azsandrider wrote:How can y\the ICSO have different laws concerning the ISDRA fees when they are acting as the contractor to the BLM to collect federally mandated fees?????

:? :? :?
They can't. Plain and simple.
Brian

User avatar
A Family of 4
ASA Legislative Affairs Representative
ASA Legislative Affairs Representative
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2000 5:58 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Murrieta
Contact:

Post by A Family of 4 » Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:46 pm

maybe I'm missing something...

When are you being questioned about your jeep? Do they pull into camp and give you are hard time? Are you driving down wash road or gecko?

We take our jeep every trip out. We haul it out there in our Weekend Warrior but 2 years before, it was on a trailer or on a tow bar. We've never been harassed about it. BUT, we never drive it down any of the roads either, we always go through the dunes to get from Point A to Point B.
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

-Ronald Reagan

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Post by L&L Corvairs » Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:29 am

A Family of 4 wrote:When are you being questioned about your jeep? Do they pull into camp and give you are hard time? Are you driving down wash road or gecko?

The hassals appear to primarily be in the south dunes when transversing from one side of Hwy 8 to the other over the bridge. Due to the radically different traffic patterns in the south I can see where, as an LEO, it would be difficult to distinguish between a towed in vehicle and a primary vehicle.
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

User avatar
A Family of 4
ASA Legislative Affairs Representative
ASA Legislative Affairs Representative
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2000 5:58 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Murrieta
Contact:

Post by A Family of 4 » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:19 am

That makes sense...they'd take one look at ours though and not even question if it were towed in or driven in.....scary!!! :lol:
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

-Ronald Reagan

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:39 am

Never been questioned in camp or while in the dunes.

At Buttercup, vendor row or corner, which ever you may call it is right on the road. No way to park in front without going through someone's camp or on the road a short ways. Quads, 3 wheelers and rails seem to get a "pass" on this and are allowed, but my Jeep they want a pass.

Again when crossing over the bridge non-street legal vehicles have a variance to go over, and can enter Gordon's Well area with out a problem, but as I enter they stop me for a pass.

If I follow the same rules, I should only have to pay the same price. So far I am following the same rules, but I am paying double.

User avatar
A Family of 4
ASA Legislative Affairs Representative
ASA Legislative Affairs Representative
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2000 5:58 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Murrieta
Contact:

Post by A Family of 4 » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:43 am

What a bummer. I bet if you fought a ticket you'd win. You are playing in your toy, just like everyone else is, yours just happens to be a jeep.
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

-Ronald Reagan

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jhitesma » Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:38 am

Don't forget washroad which has been mentioned as a "road" that will suddenly change your Jeep into a primary vehicle. Even though OHV's are allowed on it.

Which apparenly has now even been proven in court after someone was ticketed this year for riding their quad and contested it. (I believe it was 'oldman' who got the ticket IIRC.)

So there's another place where it's OK for OHV's but suddenly not OK for street legal off road vehicles.

f-BOB
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 912
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 3:21 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Buena Park, CA

Post by f-BOB » Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:30 am

jhitesma wrote:Don't forget washroad which has been mentioned as a "road" that will suddenly change your Jeep into a primary vehicle. Even though OHV's are allowed on it.

Which apparenly has now even been proven in court after someone was ticketed this year for riding their quad and contested it. (I believe it was 'oldman' who got the ticket IIRC.)

So there's another place where it's OK for OHV's but suddenly not OK for street legal off road vehicles.
I can't believe they reversed that ticket, unless the person who received it was riding through the "whoops" section of wash road (why that's not considered a part of the road is beyond me though). Regardless, I thought the ISDRA regulations state that you may not drive an OHV (unless street legal/registered) on Wash Road. If LEO's continue to allow quads bikes/buggies on Wash road, it'll end up just as whooped out as the "whoops" section.

Consistent enforcement, or...Just smile and wave boys, smile and wave.
If "pro" means yes, and "con" means no, is Congress the opposite of Progress?

'05-Raptor 660
'05-Raptor 350
'05 Banshee
'07 YFZ 450

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:00 am

According the that regulation I don't need to buy a second pass, which is what I tried to tell those at the booth.

However it does not solve the problem when crossing the bridge over to Gordon's Well, they are going to want to see a pass when you enter there.

To me there are only two solutions.

1) Training so that the rules are understood and applied correctly and fairly.

2) A second pass that does not cost anymore to identify a street legal vehicle was trailered in.

User avatar
Sand Commander
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
Posts: 1566
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 1:45 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Huntington Beach, CA

Post by Sand Commander » Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:01 pm

If LEO's continue to allow quads bikes/buggies on Wash road, it'll end up just as whooped out as the "whoops" section.
There have been many times over the years (more than I want to admit) that I have limped a broken buggy or quad down Wash Road to get back to camp because it wouldn't make it through the dunes.
Bill Jones
Apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
If you give in to fear and pain, there are thrills you will never know- North Dallas Forty
Government by the people has now been replaced by Government verses the people
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter- Winston Churchill

User avatar
HozayKwarvo
ASA Board of Directors • Vice Chairman
ASA Board of Directors • Vice Chairman
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:53 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Murrieta, CA.

Post by HozayKwarvo » Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:55 pm

My1stJeep wrote: 1) Training so that the rules are understood and applied correctly and fairly.
novel idea, good luck with that :lol:
Brian

User avatar
A Family of 4
ASA Legislative Affairs Representative
ASA Legislative Affairs Representative
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2000 5:58 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Murrieta
Contact:

Post by A Family of 4 » Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:30 am

My1stJeep wrote: 2) A second pass that does not cost anymore to identify a street legal vehicle was trailered in.

I think they should do this. I would even be more than happy to have them verify it was my jeep being towed in instead of someone just trying to get another free pass.
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

-Ronald Reagan

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:14 am

A Family of 4 wrote:
My1stJeep wrote: 2) A second pass that does not cost anymore to identify a street legal vehicle was trailered in.

I think they should do this. I would even be more than happy to have them verify it was my jeep being towed in instead of someone just trying to get another free pass.
To me this is the best option. A second pass that can only be distributed at the booth at time of entry so that they can verify it being trailered in would be fine with me. It just seems like the easiest solution and the least amount of headache. Easy to train those checking the passes to allow the second pass rather than try to train them on the rules of who is allowed or not and when.

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Post by L&L Corvairs » Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:27 pm

I would even be more than happy to have them verify it was my jeep being towed in

A second pass that can only be distributed at the booth at time of entry
Going to respectfully disagree. To do the above will require gates and fences. Gates that can/will be locked when there is no one there to staff them and fences to keep people from going around the gates. I like being able to show up at 1:00 am in the morning and setting up camp in the middle of the week when there is no one there. Nor am I willing to pay the massive increase in fees to staff the thing 24/7/365.
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

User avatar
A Family of 4
ASA Legislative Affairs Representative
ASA Legislative Affairs Representative
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2000 5:58 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Murrieta
Contact:

Post by A Family of 4 » Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:30 pm

No, no, no....not like that....

Lets say that I wanted to obtain a 2nd pass of some sort for my towed in street legal vehicle to make everyone's (LEO's) life easier so they knew it was towed in vs. driven in....i would be more then willing to take my crap to their doorstep so they can verify that it's towed in...why would they need fences and gates? Leave it up to those who tow in...if you want a 2nd pass, go to them so they can issue one.
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

-Ronald Reagan

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:43 pm

Going to respectfully disagree. To do the above will require gates and fences. Gates that can/will be locked when there is no one there to staff them and fences to keep people from going around the gates. I like being able to show up at 1:00 am in the morning and setting up camp in the middle of the week when there is no one there. Nor am I willing to pay the massive increase in fees to staff the thing 24/7/365.
It will not require gates anymore then we have now.

So how do those who show up in the middle of the week now pay for passes? If no one is there to sell them and since the machines are gone, you could show up in the middle of the week, ride for a few days and leave in the middle of the night or before they show up for the weekend shift and pay nothing. So the Jeepers should get charged more money to help make up for this?

Currently there is a check point at Gordon's Well and the main entrance to Buttercup, yes this may be specific to those areas, but it is a fact. They do there enforcement this way now, how would requiring those entering into the dunes towing a street legal vehicle who want a second permit for a towed in vehicle cause alarms to put in gates? It doesn't.

If we are looking to make it fair and some think Jeepers paying more to do the same is cool, how about we make it really fair.

Say everyone pays???? Sound good? Ok, why should a family of 2, a husband and wife pay the same as a family of 5? The family of 5 is getting more use of the land so they should pay more. So how about we introduce a plan where everyone person has to have an operational permit to ride/drive in the dunes? Say we make the primary vehicle permit to camp a flat rate of $75 per year, then an additional $10 per person for the Operational permit that they are required to have on them at all times? Sounds fair to me, everyone has to pay that way.

Am I serious, not really as that would require alot more officers to try an enforce and a whole different set of headaches. However if you really want to be fair, that would be a much fairer system as you would be truly paying equally to use.

What I am looking for is a little less difficult to pull off. A second pass, that we can tie to the primary vehicle so we don't have abuse of loaning out of giving away to others to use that allows us all to play by the same rules and will be a much smaller change then an entire overhaul of the current system.

I was trying to find a way to help those who would say everyone will claim they towed it in after hours, no one was there to sell me a pass, when in deed they are just circumventing the process. We need a way to validate the second vehicle is a tow in, rather than a primary. I am all ears to hear suggestions on how we do this other than sight verification at the time of entry. I oppose gates, and see to reason why the suggestion above would warrant it.

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck » Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:38 pm

A Family of 4 wrote:No, no, no....not like that....

Lets say that I wanted to obtain a 2nd pass of some sort for my towed in street legal vehicle to make everyone's (LEO's) life easier so they knew it was towed in vs. driven in....i would be more then willing to take my crap to their doorstep so they can verify that it's towed in...why would they need fences and gates? Leave it up to those who tow in...if you want a 2nd pass, go to them so they can issue one.
This is not a bad idea. It might work, but here are a few of concerns:

1. As it is right now there is no consistant manner during the weekdays to even get a primary permit, let alone a secondary. This may or may not change next season. The push is to get permit machines installed & operational, and move enforcement away from enter/exit check points to the campsites where it is needed.

2. The responsibilty would be on the dune user to get their towed OHV to a "pay station" if there was not one "open" when they arrived. If not, the LEO would then have to cite anyone without a permit. It would not be an option.

3. To do this, or any, type of secondary permit is going to cost money. It can not be done for free. Just to process a plain paper reciept will have a cost associated with it.
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:30 pm

So bascially what it is coming down to is that if you drive a Jeep that is street legal you may just be hosed and have to pay? I just don't buy that as an viable option. Yes the second piece of paper may cost something and if it is receipt paper we are talking pennies, and most here seem to agree that Jeeps are the minority, especially street legal licensed ones so we are not talking about more than a couple bucks a season to print them on receipt paper. I think the over all budget can accomodate that to make it fair for everyone.

I suggested from the get go that if you wanted the freebie second pass the only way to get it was at the station so they could verify you trailered it in. Yes this causes issues like L&L brought up if you come in after hours, but at least it gave the user the option and it does affect the minority of the duners, that we would have to show up during the hours of operation. It still may not work for everyone, but I think it might be a start in the right direction.

Idealy it would be nice if everyone were honest and bought what they were supposed, it would cut down on the issue all together.

Any progress on the new system they are working on? I talked with some computer guru's about a set up and was curious as to if we can expect the new system to be in place by next season?

f-BOB
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 912
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 3:21 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Buena Park, CA

Post by f-BOB » Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:36 pm

LoBuck wrote: Just to process a plain paper reciept will have a cost associated with it.
SO...charge only the cost associated w/ processing that paper receipt and be done with it. no additional fees, purley administrative costs. I dunno, shouldn't be a tough thing to do, but maybe it's too simple.

A secondary permit can only be obtained when proof of a primary permit is presented. Limit one per primary permit. The secondary permit would have to be tied to the vehicle it's been issued to. (shouldn't be to tough to note the license plate # of that secondary vehicle on the permit document) that way it COULD be enforced. plate # on permit doesn't match plate # on vehicle, here's your ticket, thank you for playing.

Now, how do I get that permit when I show up mid week, or early in the AM or even when they've got machines in place? There's the rub.
If "pro" means yes, and "con" means no, is Congress the opposite of Progress?

'05-Raptor 660
'05-Raptor 350
'05 Banshee
'07 YFZ 450

User avatar
A Family of 4
ASA Legislative Affairs Representative
ASA Legislative Affairs Representative
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2000 5:58 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Murrieta
Contact:

Post by A Family of 4 » Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:08 pm

I think you should be able to obtain one from a Ranger but of course, that's a whole different can of worms.

Here Mr Ranger, here is $.25 for my secondary permit, Have a nice day!
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

-Ronald Reagan

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:48 pm

Like I said, this is not a bad idea. In fact I said I thought it might work.

My point
3. To do this, or any, type of secondary permit is going to cost money. It can not be done for free. Just to process a plain paper reciept will have a cost associated with it.
was just to point out that the BLM and ISCO will not go for a FREE permit. There will be cost associated with tracking and enforcing it. The paper would be the least of it.

One of the biggest efforts the TRT has pushed for in the last 2 years has been accountablity by the BLM and now the ICSO. If its to be managable, it must be measurable. To be measurable, it must be accounted for.

This thread has produced some GREAT suggestions and discussion :!: Keep it going. :D
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:55 pm

My1stJeep wrote:Any progress on the new system they are working on? I talked with some computer guru's about a set up and was curious as to if we can expect the new system to be in place by next season?
It is the TRT's hope that the ICSO and the BLM can get things sorted out and working. At the very least, the BLM needs a vendor, whether it is the ICSO or not, that can provide the resources, equipment, and product, responsibly and effectively next season.
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:51 am

LoBuck wrote:Like I said, this is not a bad idea. In fact I said I thought it might work.

My point
3. To do this, or any, type of secondary permit is going to cost money. It can not be done for free. Just to process a plain paper reciept will have a cost associated with it.
was just to point out that the BLM and ISCO will not go for a FREE permit. There will be cost associated with tracking and enforcing it. The paper would be the least of it.

One of the biggest efforts the TRT has pushed for in the last 2 years has been accountablity by the BLM and now the ICSO. If its to be managable, it must be measurable. To be measurable, it must be accounted for.

This thread has produced some GREAT suggestions and discussion :!: Keep it going. :D
There should be no extra costs to tracking and enforcing it. Currently they are already standing at the entrance to Buttercup and Gordon's Well asking for them as you enter. If you don't have it, here's your ticket. IF you do you can proceed. So there won't be any additional labor, just the cost of the paper.

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Mon May 15, 2006 11:14 am

Just curious if those in the know have heard any news on the progress...

Jerry Seaver
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 4:48 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by Jerry Seaver » Mon May 15, 2006 12:47 pm

The BLM and the County are in the process of making some revision to their Assistance Agreement. We don't know what they are at this time because they haven't released any drafts of the proposed changes or what the revision to the agreement include, they may just be clarifications. I know that they have to be approved by the County Council and probably after there is a approved agreement, the TRT will get a copy.

At this time the next TRT meeting or conference call hasn't been scheduled. So there has been nothing new reported to the TRT. At the next TRT meeting this can be brought up and a recommendation given to the BLM that there be a way to identify street legal vehicles towed in to the ISDRA.

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:52 am

Was curious if the next TRT had been planned and if this was on the agenda?

Is there a status on where they are for the new electronic passes with the chips in them and how they are going to be enforced?

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck » Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:09 pm

My1stJeep wrote:Was curious if the next TRT had been planned and if this was on the agenda?

Is there a status on where they are for the new electronic passes with the chips in them and how they are going to be enforced?
The next meeting has not been scheduled. This topic will most certainly be on the agenda.

No information has been given on next season's passes.

Announcements of the next TRT meeting will be posted on this BBS as well as http://www.isdratrt.org and glamisdunes.com
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

Voice
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 11:56 am

Post by Voice » Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:09 pm

Anyone fighting any of these tickets would win on many grounds that I can think of right off the top of my head.

It is illegal to make a law which is unfair to one group.
The code is unclear and arbitrairy.
The definition of "Primary Vehicle" is unclear.
There are no signs, no postings in Newspapers.
FLERA allows for a "USE" fee, not an "ENTRY" fee.
Glamis does not meet the FLERA qualifications.

For many of these tickets the following would also apply.
It is illegal for the BLM to charge a toll for traveling on a road.

It absolutely amazes me that so many years after the discussion of the Demo Fee and now the FLERA here we are discussing the addition of even further buracracies at even more expense with very questionable improvements on the ground.

Keep on pushing for more and more. Pretty soon we'll have to have a special sticker pasted on our butts in order to walk down Vendor Row.

And oh, if you are trying to figure out how this whole thing got so screwed up consider these two things...
One: It's a government burocracy. What did you expect?
Two: The legalities surrounding this whole thing is questionable. It's not suprising whatsoever that as they keep tacking on new rules to try to fix the problem it only gets worse and worse.


Bottom line: The Jeeps have to pay twice because there is no easy way to distinguish them. Instead of exempting them (which would be the simple answer) they will continue to make up more and more confusing and unenforcable rules in order to force you to pay up.
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in a letter to President Elect Barak Obama
"May God Almighty ... bless the leaders of societies with the courage to learn from the mistakes of predecessors,"
"I hope that you will be able to take fullest advantage of the opportunity to serve and leave behind a positive legacy."

Image

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck » Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:15 pm

GREAT NEWS :!:

The ICSO and BLM have a plan, and a pretty good one as it will cost nothing, to address towed in street licensed vehicles. Still a few details to fine tune, but it will be ready to go by the start of the season.

Watch for an announcement in the next few days for more info on the entire July 28 TRT meeting.
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:44 am

That is great news!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks to all on the TRT and ASA that represented us on this issue!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also thanks to the ICSO and BLM for working to come up with a solution!!!!!

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:30 pm

Ok, halloween weekend seems to be the first big weekend, and I am sure this was put to the test. Anyone have any comments on how it worked?

I have a friend here in AZ that was told before going by someone local to just buy a green sticker and that would suffice. I told him about the posted meeting notes that said you just need the paperwork and it was free. Just wanted to hear how it all went over as I am planning on going in two weeks and want to know what to expect.

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck » Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:14 pm

I haven't heard anyone's experience yet either.

I was at Dune Buggy Flats this past Friday night with my Jeep. I had my whip on, but it was tucked under my soft-top. The person at the entrance directing people to the trailer where ICSO was selling permits, didn't give me a second look. No problem going out either.

Time will tell.
My1stJeep wrote:I have a friend here in AZ that was told before going by someone local to just buy a green sticker and that would suffice.
A green sticker is not valid for a street licensed vehicle. It is only for use by registered off-highway vehicles.

This may have been brought up in this thread, I know it has on this board. It has been suggested that the license plate simply be removed and a green sticker attached. This question has been asked to Law enforcement and they confirmed that this would be a violation of the law. Operating a licensed vehicle without a plate.

All vehicles driven off-highway in CA must be registered, either for off-highway or street legal use.

A vehicle such as a Jeep may be registered as an off-highway vehicle, but can not be registered as a street legal licensed vehicle at the same time.

So, if your friend in has his vehicle registered only as an off-highway vehcle in AZ, he could opt to purchase a green sticker for use in CA. However, because AZ OHV registration is recognized at the ISDRA, it is not required.
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:58 am

Ok, I have experience with the new system.

When I arrived Friday Night it was too late for purchasing it from the BLM or Sheriff, so I bought one from one of the vendors at Buttercup. They had not heard of the additonal pass for trailerd in vehicles such as a Jeep. They only the yearly or weekly passes. So we bought the yearly and went to find a camp site.

The next day we went over to GW and was stopped, this is normally where the main BLM set up is. The officer stopping me agreed that the Jeep still qualified for the exemption and I should get one of the additional free passes, but they were out of them. I should go over to the Buttercup area.

When we went back over I stopped and received a pass from the officers there. It was free. I was given an overview, that it allows me to be in the sand, cross over the roadsways and over to GW, but if I drive down a main road (paved) other than crossing over the bridge to GW then I could be sighted or am required to have another pass, as soon as you drive on the paved road you are considered a primary vehicle.

The vendor who sold me the pass asked when I found it to come back so he could see it, so I did. We also went over to the BLM area where the volunteers sat and they also had not heard of this and were surprised.

So I would like to thank all of you who worked on this and got the secondary pass for trailered in Jeeps in place. Anyone getting one just be sure to stay in the sand, if you drive on the pavement other than to cross over you will be sighted if caught as driving on the pavement makes you a primary vehicle.

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:31 pm

Chris, I'm really glad that this is working. I had not tried to get one yet as I've been driving my Jeep out so far this season.

The vendors and the volunteers can not issue the "towed-in pass", only an LEO can. Although I'm not surprised that they didn't know about them, I am disppointed they didn't.

Thanks for the info! :D
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:15 pm

Just curious, is this process still going to be in place for the 2007/2008 season?

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:50 pm

Yes it is. Although it may be a bit harder to find an Deputy to issue it as they will only be at the pay stations during certain times of the day. There could be some OHVEST officers with these passes.

There is no change in that the vendors will not be able to issue them. They must be issued by the ICSO.

I did end up getting one twice last season. One time was easy, the next not so much.
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

proglamis
ASA Transportation Vice Chair
ASA Transportation Vice Chair
Posts: 983
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2000 11:56 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Re: Jeepers get charged double at dunes...

Post by proglamis » Mon Dec 22, 2008 9:36 pm

What's been the policy this season? And what's been the outcome?

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Re: Jeepers get charged double at dunes...

Post by LoBuck » Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:40 am

Policy for 2008 (Oct)-2009 (Sept) season:

If you drive a street licensed vehicle into the ISDRA it is considered to be a primary vehicle and a permit is required.

If you towed a street licensed vehicle into the ISDRA with another street licensed vehicle, the towing vehicle requires a permit and the towed vehicle would need a special towed vehicle permit to use at the dunes. The special permit can be obtained free of charge at the ranger stations. It is possible the special permit may be available from an on-site WEP pay location. There is an important fact about using the special permit though. If you drive the street licensed vehicle with the special permit anywhere but on the sand it will be considered a Primary Vehicle and will requires a pass. This means it can not be driven on any roads or streets except 90 degrees to cross. Roads include Gecko, Gray's Well, Luis Aguilar, Ted Kipf, Wash Road, and specifically hwy 78 and I-8. There is an exception for the Gordon's Well I-8 overpass.
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Re: Jeepers get charged double at dunes...

Post by My1stJeep » Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:16 am

It has been a few years since I have been to the dunes, is the process for Jeeps still the same? Will be going to Glamis for the first time and just want to know what to expect.

alyshka
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 453
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:31 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: pauma valley

Re: Jeepers get charged double at dunes...

Post by alyshka » Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:25 pm

LoBuck wrote:Policy for 2008 (Oct)-2009 (Sept) season:

If you drive a street licensed vehicle into the ISDRA it is considered to be a primary vehicle and a permit is required.

If you towed a street licensed vehicle into the ISDRA with another street licensed vehicle, the towing vehicle requires a permit and the towed vehicle would need a special towed vehicle permit to use at the dunes. The special permit can be obtained free of charge at the ranger stations. It is possible the special permit may be available from an on-site WEP pay location. There is an important fact about using the special permit though. If you drive the street licensed vehicle with the special permit anywhere but on the sand it will be considered a Primary Vehicle and will requires a pass. This means it can not be driven on any roads or streets except 90 degrees to cross. Roads include Gecko, Gray's Well, Luis Aguilar, Ted Kipf, Wash Road, and specifically hwy 78 and I-8. There is an exception for the Gordon's Well I-8 overpass.

as of last season all this was the same. I got my towed in pass 2 years a go from the WEp at wash road and is still taped to my windshield and have had no problems.
Robert Hancock
"The task that has fallen to us as Americans is to keep alive the hope and dream of freedom"
Ronald Reagan
alyshka r.i.p. 1987-2004
Alyshka's Photos

Post Reply

Return to “Desert Advisory Council (DAC) ISDRA Sub Group (DSG)”