This is for all threads to goto about www.stopburningman.org

Share your views on the policies, philosophies, and spirit of Burning Man.

if you own a wetland you can't destory it

Postby allanon2 » Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:46 am

just ask any enviromentalist that question
a farmer if he owns a wetland can't destroy it.
they have to do mitigation.


Tancorix wrote:Tiara's link would explain the earth moving at the Frog Pond.

And one other thing stands out. The Frog Pond is PRIVATE LAND in the West that has water rights. First off, why are pseudoenvironmentalists trying to tell a private landowner what they should do with their property? And coming back to the water rights if anyone starts sticking their noses into the ORG's business regarding that block of land, I'm wondering if a water rights land grab is the over-riding goal? Then as I sit here thinking about it the rumor of a proposed geo-thermal development comes to mind and I have the foundation of a great consipracy theory.

In any event if the ORG owns the water rights than they can do anything they want with the water, or at least that's my take on it not knowing the minutiae of water rights laws in Nevada. This part of the discussion basically becomes a moot point.
allanon2
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:27 pm

Re: Frog Pond restoration efforts

Postby sparks » Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:47 am

Tiara wrote:Regarding the Frog Pond restoration efforts, please go to http://home.earthlink.net/~karinaoc/burn99/frog.html to read more.

"Wetland restorationists and environmental artists will craft a site-specific plan to create wetland habitat in a human-use setting, an esthetic environment with maximum wildlife value. We will explore the intersection of art, science and our ideas about nature, using cutting-edge restoration techniques to create a living landscape that is also a work of art. A volunteer-based project integrating wild art and rigorous science will give birth to a living community that enriches our surroundings and our consciousness. "


I'm impressed! Based on the information presented on that site, it looks like things are headed in the right direction with regard to Frog Pond. I won't say another word about that issue unless there is very good reason to do so. It definitely appears to be a good-faith effort.

By the way... in the first picture on that site, there is a stove made out of a 55-gallon drum. I wonder if that's the same one we found turned upside-down in Trego Hot Spring last month... ;-) Regardless, we salvaged it and made extensive use of it.

-Rodney
Last edited by sparks on Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Corduroy pillows... they're making headlines"
- unknown wise man
User avatar
sparks
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:19 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Postby Badger » Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:49 am

By the way, calling us "trolls" damages the credibility of the eplaya folks as well.


Actually no. No it doesn't. Not really.

No more than lobbing 'fucktard', 'clueless asswipe', 'schmutz', 'hypocrite' and 'asshat' damages my credibility. Especially when they're shoes that seem to be fitting you bubba's exceptionally well.

You've all shown yourselves to be not unlike a small herd of clueless goats that wandered into the wrong velociraptor's cave.

And I'm starting to enjoy it.
Last edited by Badger on Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
.
Desert dogs drink deep.

Image
.
User avatar
Badger
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Postby KellY » Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:03 pm

Hello y'all,

Firstly, thanks everyone for agreeing to keep this on one thread. It certainly makes the discussion easier to follow. Now, a few points:

1) As for the litter on 447, I don't see how Burning Man is any more responsible for it than the NFL is responsible for post-game rioting. The org does everything it can to get people to behave responsibly; it certainly doesn't have the resources to police a hundred miles of highway. Suggesting they could seems just deliberately stupid. Speaking of police though, I think the Nevada cops are the ones who should really be on this. I mean, we all know that they patrol very heavily during lead up to the event and exodus, adding to government coffers with out of state traffic fines. Well, I seem to recall that the fines for littering are a lot higher than those for speeding -if the cops make an effort to crack down on litter, they can both discourage it and boost their treasury.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong Metric, but I seem to recall that DPW has on many occasions picked up trash along 447.

2) DPW makes a huge effort to pick up trash on the playa -I know, I've done it. If you say we don't, you're calling me a liar. Sometimes circumstances make it difficult -sandstorms covering up debris, for instance- but we work like hell, bending over in the hot sun, gridding off the city square by square, picking up every particle that's spotted. Then we do it again. I went over Easter in 2003 and we spent a bunch of time picking up what the rains had unearthed- a lot of stuff just gets ground under during the event. So pardon me if I say you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

(disclaimer: I haven't worked the entire weeks-long post event clean-up, only the week immediately following and other times when I get up to visit the ranch. By "we" I mean DPW.)

(BTW, the thing I found myself picking up the most last Easter was cigarrete butts. If I ever catch someone throwing their cigarette on the playa I'm going to make them eat it. I'm not kidding.)

3) Your complaints about the effects of having the city in one location for so long should be directed at the BLM, not the org. It's been their decision to keep us there, when many Burning Man people (me included) would much prefer to be farher out in the desert. Everything has to get surveyed fresh every year - it doesn't make anyone's life that much easier to keep it in the same place.

4) Lastly, in an earlier post you said:

"For the record, we (people that actually care) *do* go up against corporate polluters. Black Rock LLC just happens to be on the list of corporate polluters."

So, I still want to know, what corporate polluters have you guys actually "gone up against"? And I don't mean just making a donation to Greenpeace, either.
"Of what use is a philosopher who doesn't hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes
User avatar
KellY
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 11:32 am

Postby dragonfly Jafe » Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:06 pm

This thread has been very interesting to me, it may be old news to some but it is new news to me! Thanks for taking this discussion to the next level by consolidating the threads and providing examples, sites, etc. Good stuff on both sides of the fence!

I have often thought adopting the section of 447 by the Playa would be a good thing to do. What do others think? This would leave the locals a year-round reminder of the good we do in their community. Also, having a few volunteers hidden along the road w/ video cameras filming polluters (and more importantly their liscence plates...) and signs posted every few miles warning that polluters will be tracked down and prosecuted...

I have also been suspicious of the LNT effectiveness (especially POL-wise). No, I haven't stayed to clean-up yet (job) but I am our camp's LNT-nazi and do fence clean-up each year for my 2 hours (interesting what gets collected at the fence). I have always been proud of BM's intention environmentally - would it really be such a bad thing to get an independent evaluation to see if we are really as good as we think? We would either find out areas to improve or validate our current efforts. What is bad with that? Yes, it would cost something, but money doesn't appear to be an object for most of BRC based on what we bring each year...I for one would be willing to donate bucks for this, anyone else?

Also, how do we compare to other users of BLM land? The land sailors, rocketeers, ranchers, hikers, etc. The Media makes it seem like we are the best (besed on BLM and LLC press releases); are we?

Seems to me that if we want to keep doing this, we have to self-police. And when an outside group spends time and effort (as has been done), it would behoove us as a community to listen to what they have to say. This does not appear to me to be a random Troll or the rantings of a psychopath - the latest posts are well articulated and consistent. Maybe there is merit, maybe not (it appears to me that both sides have some learning to do). But we ignore them at our own peril. As long as both sides are communicating, it is possible for both sides to get what they want. Let's keep this communication going!

Long live Black Rock Desert! (and BurningMan!)

regards, Dragonfly Jafe
dragonfly Jafe
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:08 am
Location: the Oregon Trail

Re: Frog Pond restoration efforts

Postby allanon2 » Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:11 pm

sparks wrote:
Tiara wrote:Regarding the Frog Pond restoration efforts, please go to http://home.earthlink.net/~karinaoc/burn99/frog.html to read more.

"Wetland restorationists and environmental artists will craft a site-specific plan to create wetland habitat in a human-use setting, an esthetic environment with maximum wildlife value. We will explore the intersection of art, science and our ideas about nature, using cutting-edge restoration techniques to create a living landscape that is also a work of art. A volunteer-based project integrating wild art and rigorous science will give birth to a living community that enriches our surroundings and our consciousness. "


I'm impressed! Based on the information presented on that site, it looks like things are headed in the right direction with regard to Frog Pond. I won't say another word about that issue unless there is very good reason to do so. It definitely appears to be a good-faith effort.

By the way... in the first picture on that site, there is a stove made out of a 55-gallon drum. I wonder if that's the same one we found turned upside-down in Trego Hot Spring last month... ;-) Regardless, we salvaged it and made extensive use of it.

-Rodney


not good faith if its a wetland

and by EPA's defintation of a wetland you can't modify a wetland without a prior plan.
and a plan aprroved by the proper governing authorities.

I tried to get BLM to take notice of it as a wetland but they have dragged their feet about it.
wont answer my question when i sent them comments in may on their permit process.

that is one of the reasons why we created this website. to get people to listen and they are!!!

media is now contacting us.
allanon2
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:27 pm

Frog Farm Restoration

Postby stopbmorg » Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:23 pm

The web page at http://home.earthlink.net/~karinaoc/burn99/frog.html paints a pretty picture, but I'm afraid that what it paints on the web and what things look like at Frog Farm are in opposition.

The site really is still a mess. There used to be a fireplace there, made from a common sedimentary stone called wonderstone or paintstone. Really pretty, and it was demolished so trucks could get closer to the spring. As of December 29, 2003, the remains were still in a heap near the large scraping/pit shown on www.stopburningman.org (the pit seemed like more of a concern than a pile of stone at the time). There are a set of stairs (steel) in the original dugout spring that are rusting into the water. There is an old 55 gallon stove drum still there (this is not the one found in Trego on December 27/28 2003) rusting away. A truck axle is behind some moderate bushes, and an even cursory inspection of the ground shows bottle caps (MGD, Coors, some other brand I forget), cigarette butts, scraps of paper and food containers.

Then, there is some sort of log / brush barrier with a sign talking about the restoration project and 1 or 2 very young planted trees(species unknown, but possibly olive or cottonwood). Not much has actually been done vs. what that web page may lead you to believe. The diggings and scrapings were there before the restoration project was even a glimmer in anyone's eyes and the piles and pits remain to this day.

I understand the argument that "This is private property, they can do what they want". That is a view many people share, but it is a false view in the eyes of the law. The central premise of private property use in property law is that you cannot use your property to the harm of another person or person's property. For example, that's why we can take private property like the Valero refinery, and regulate their smoke plumes. So, while the C-Punch ranch, owners of Frog Farm can do as they want to a degree, their use of private land is not absolute and unfettered. That is something to keep in mind.

Now, some people have asked "Yeah OK, great, what ELSE have you done?" Well to lay out my bona fides, I'm an avid fly fisherman (who actually does not believe in catch and release unless the regulations call for it). Many of the places I fish, from the coast to the Sierras to Pyramid Lake are often 'decorated' with trash, refuse, fishing line, beer cans and so on, the result of many inconsiderate anglers and non-anglers. I spend several weeks each summer and 2 weeks in winter, cleaning the places that I use, raising awareness among other anglers through flyers and meetings with local angling groups and encouraging the "bring a bag" project I came up with. In short, everyone takes a plastic bag fishing and fills it with whatever trash they find during the day. Even if you go home without fish for supper, you go home having left the place cleaner than you found it. It's a small effort, sure, but it's helpful and more helpful than doing nothing. And the bonus is that lots of messy people dump aluminum and plastic - so you get to recycle, too!

Anyway, I hope that gives people something to consider about those (at least me, sparks has a different take on recycling, allanon2 is pretty eco-conscious and RTP is a recycling nazi) that are behind this push. Just like the streams and rivers I fish, I also consider BR Desert my backyard. And I want it to be healthy, clean and accessible for the rest of my life and for my kids and so on. I would imagine that is a goal the rest of you share to some degree or another as well. So let's work towards it.
stopbmorg
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:48 am

Postby Tancorix » Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:31 pm

My first reaction after skimming that last post is to ask: Did you have permission to be snooping around the frog pond if it is indeed private property as the posts have acknowledged?

And I'm curious...how is the frog pond being used to harm any other property? Is it a crime to take water from the privately owned frog pond that comes from the same water table that is under the West Arm of the BRD and proceed to dump it with no chemical alterations back into the soil? I just don't understand it. Enlighten me.
User avatar
Tancorix
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: Not here, not there. I'm somewhere though.

Postby Badger » Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:34 pm

Also, correct me if I'm wrong Metric, but I seem to recall that DPW has on many occasions picked up trash along 447.


As far as I know - from personal experience - every post-event cleanup that's occurred HAS taken into account the 447 highway. I've participated in two of them myself. It's easy to shirk responsibility for road trash outside of the event as 'possibly' being related to non-BM traffic. It's a line of reasoning that would make it easy enough to shirk responsibility for cleaning it up. Truth is though that 447 is such a damn desolate stretch of road that's pretty damn clean by anyone's standards. Seeing it trashed one week out of the year ought to be enough in anyone's mind to take responsibility for cleaning it up.

And that's what happens. Yeah, the trash may not be attended to immediately but within a week patrols are making tours with flatbeds, pickups, and VW's. Lots of water (or beer), trash bags and leather gloves to take care of the shit - along with a good deal of gret conversation. Probably the best gauge of how well we (DPW, volunteers, Earth Guardians, etc.) do the job is by asking locals. Some of them have issues with the crowds and the event itself but I dare say that even the most negative of folks will concede that we do a good job and are impressed with the results.
Last edited by Badger on Tue Jan 20, 2004 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
.
Desert dogs drink deep.

Image
.
User avatar
Badger
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: Frog Farm Restoration

Postby Tiara » Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:14 pm

stopbmorg wrote: There used to be a fireplace there. . . Really pretty, and it was demolished . . . .


So, can you please clarify how it is consistent to be upset at removal of one manmade structure, while complaining about the presence of other "improvements" such as the staircase that contributes greatly to erosion control?


stopbmorg wrote:I understand the argument that "This is private property, they can do what they want". That is a view many people share, but it is a false view in the eyes of the law.


Do you have a law degree, or other valid credential that qualifies you to interpret the complex legislation, government agency policies, and case law governing situations such as this?

I applaud your efforts to do something to make an improvement in the world around you by working to remove litter from fishing holes that you enjoy. But as for fly fishing being a "bona fide" qualification for anything other than fly fishing. . . go fish.
User avatar
Tiara
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 2:07 pm
Location: Richmond CA

Postby Tiara » Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:19 pm

This information provided by Badger in another thread should be considered by all who are trying to evaluate the actual situation here:

Badger wrote:
Several folks/groups opposed to the event on the playa have often used this very same straw man argument to frame the Project as wildly irresponsible, wreckless razers of pristine ecosystems.

FACT: Frog pond which is a small artesian well (once a perched water table) located to the south of the Lahanton lake bed/playa very near the train tracks, is not a natural site of any biological significance other than the occasional bird, antelope, rabbit or the large non-native species of bullfrog which were introduced to the area. Frog pond was drilled (bored) out many decades ago by some forgotten entrepreneur who realized that the water table at that end of the playa was relatively close to the surface compared to other occurrances of water around the entire basin/graben (go look that word up - it's a fave of mine) and decided to build there using the drilled well as a source of water. In short, the pool is man made and NOT an naturally occurring geological phenomenon. Suggesting that modification of a constructed area that has pleasing recreational value or perceived biological significance is moot. It's not unlike suggesting that tearing down or modifying a barn is destroying a natural and significant site just because a few bats happened to take advantage of the inner roof of the structure.

I'll concede that the alteration of the site due to backhoeing(sp?) the area for water has made an impact and that it doesn't look like it once did but to suggest as our ill-informed troll has that the alteration(s) are paramount to wreckless destruction of the area is a leap of reason and a distortion of facts. . . .

For anyone interested, I have a somewhat bulging collection of books, articles, papers and abstracts culled primarily from Stanford University's Mitchell Earth Sciences library collected from over eight years of general study of the Lahanton/Carson sink region of the western Basin and Range provence. Cites and topical titles available on request . . .
User avatar
Tiara
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 2:07 pm
Location: Richmond CA

Re: Frog Farm Restoration

Postby Zane5100 » Tue Jan 20, 2004 5:19 pm

stopbmorg wrote:I understand the argument that "This is private property, they can do what they want". That is a view many people share, but it is a false view in the eyes of the law. The central premise of private property use in property law is that you cannot use your property to the harm of another person or person's property. For example, that's why we can take private property like the Valero refinery, and regulate their smoke plumes. So, while the C-Punch ranch, owners of Frog Farm can do as they want to a degree, their use of private land is not absolute and unfettered. That is something to keep in mind.


Are you seriously saying that a contamination plume is the same thing as a person using (or overusing) a resource located on their land and that they have full legal rights to use? A refinery has to operate under a Title V air permit, but I don't know of any federal permit needed to use a well--especially an artificial one. (Ever seen a Title V application, let alone worked on one? I have. Three of them in fact. As a result I understand just a little bit of what's involved when it comes down to a refinery's emissions.)

Use cites if you're going to start throwing around statements like that. What Nevada or Federal law is being violated? Be exact.

If you can't back it up, all you're doing is shouting your opinion so people will agree with you just to shut you up.

stopbmorg wrote:Now, some people have asked "Yeah OK, great, what ELSE have you done?" Well to lay out my bona fides, I'm an avid fly fisherman (who actually does not believe in catch and release unless the regulations call for it). Many of the places I fish, from the coast to the Sierras to Pyramid Lake are often 'decorated' with trash, refuse, fishing line, beer cans and so on, the result of many inconsiderate anglers and non-anglers. I spend several weeks each summer and 2 weeks in winter, cleaning the places that I use, raising awareness among other anglers through flyers and meetings with local angling groups and encouraging the "bring a bag" project I came up with. In short, everyone takes a plastic bag fishing and fills it with whatever trash they find during the day. Even if you go home without fish for supper, you go home having left the place cleaner than you found it. It's a small effort, sure, but it's helpful and more helpful than doing nothing. And the bonus is that lots of messy people dump aluminum and plastic - so you get to recycle, too!


That's really sweet that you do all that.

Now what does it have to do with the price of tea in China?

Nothing you have listed qualifies you as an expert in environmental law or engineering.

stopbmorg wrote:Anyway, I hope that gives people something to consider about those (at least me, sparks has a different take on recycling, allanon2 is pretty eco-conscious and RTP is a recycling nazi) that are behind this push. Just like the streams and rivers I fish, I also consider BR Desert my backyard. And I want it to be healthy, clean and accessible for the rest of my life and for my kids and so on. I would imagine that is a goal the rest of you share to some degree or another as well. So let's work towards it.


Just because you are taking some type of personal ownership of the Black Rock Desert, doesn't mean everyone has to follow your wishes or desires.

BTW, don't the people of Gerlach get a say in this...? (You know, the people that actually live there?)


"Bingo. Bingo the Clown-o."...sound familiar?
Last edited by Zane5100 on Tue Jan 20, 2004 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
middle-aged, wannabe-hipster, dilettante
User avatar
Zane5100
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 9:51 am
Location: closer than you think

Re: Frog Pond restoration efforts

Postby technopatra » Tue Jan 20, 2004 5:51 pm

sparks wrote:
I'm impressed! Based on the information presented on that site, it looks like things are headed in the right direction with regard to Frog Pond. I won't say another word about that issue unless there is very good reason to do so. It definitely appears to be a good-faith effort.


Does that mean you will go and update your website with this info? Or admit fealty in that your slanderous claims are so wholly unsubstantiated, and so entirely uninvestigated, that you never knew any of this was happening?

None of this would be news to you if you had made any good faith efforts to contact anyone in the Project or the BLM.

You say you intend no ill, just want to wake people up, yet your very organization's name is a direct insult to everyone involved in the event, and the community that develops within and without the event.

There is nothing in "Stop Burning Man" that indicates any desire, willingness, or intent to work with this community. It quite clearly conveys that your organizations goal is to stop the event.

If your goals truly are to protect the environment and inform the populace then you need to show true good faith.

Ending your crossposted blitz on the boards and settling down into one thread is not a good faith measure. Shaking my hand after slapping my face does not good faith make. It is merely good sense.

The following would need to happen before you gain any measure of credibilty, or begin to repair the damage you have done to your relationship with this community:

1) Remove the unsubstantiated content from your site.

2) Change your organization's name to something less defamatory

3) Condense your group to one active spokesperson on these boards

4) Have that spokesperson issue an apology, on behalf of your organization, to this entire community.

5) Meet with members of the Burning Man Project to discuss your claims

All else is nothing but sound and fury.
Last edited by technopatra on Tue Jan 20, 2004 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
technopatra
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 3:04 pm
Location: SF, CA

Postby blyslv » Tue Jan 20, 2004 5:52 pm

>>The central premise of private property use in property law is that you cannot use your property to the harm of another person or person's property.

No it's not. Ever live near a hog farm or a poultry plant?
Fight for the fifth freedom!
blyslv
 
Posts: 1562
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:22 pm
Location: Fanta Se NM

Burning Man Project Responds

Postby metric » Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:06 pm

This post was compiled by Burning Man Project staff members in reply
to questions recently raised on this list concerning Burning Man and
its environmental policies in the Black Rock Desert and at Frog Farm,
a nearby hot spring sited on private land.

Frog Farm (actually called the Garrett Ranch on most maps) is
privately owned by the C-Punch Ranch, Inc. and is used by the owners
as a cattle watering site. It is not subject to Bureau of Land
Management regulation. It's history of use includes a hunting lodge,
saloon, produce farm, and frog farm. When we first leased the
property it was not frequented by water fowl because all of the
former large cold ponds were choked with vegetation. There are 8
artesian wells on the property. We developed ponds on 3 of them and
now, happily, migratory birds are again landing there. Wildlife has
not "died off en mass", as has been falsely claimed. Before we leased
the property the fence and gates were not maintained. Year-round
public users of the hot springs would drive their vehicles onto this
private land and camp for extended periods of time right on the edge
of and all around the hot springs, denuding the land and leaving
garbage and human waste.

We repaired the fence and locked the gate, leaving a walk-in opening,
and posted the private land as a no camping/ day use only area. We
also spent many hours cleaning up the garbage, abandoned cars, old
farm equipment and human waste, including used toilet paper that was
left in the bushes by campers next to the hot springs. The diesel
tank has been removed. Since then the land is showing signs of
recovery. A plan to further improve the ecological condition of the
property is being developed by our organization, though this is not
required by either state, county or federal authorities. We do use
some of the water from the large cold pond that we developed for
required fugitive dust abatement in Black Rock City. This use is
approved by the Nevada State Water Authority and represents a very,
very small portion of the annual flow of the artesian wells that
exist on this property and an almost infinitesimal portion of the
total water contained in this aquifer. Furthermore, our use of this
water for the brief duration of our event cannot reasonably be
compared to the far greater amount that is used year-round in this
region for agricultural purposes.

The serpentine dunes that form on the Black Rock Desert dry lake bed
are a natural, periodic occurrence. Our detractors have incorrectly
tried to identify the surface disturbance from recreational use as
the cause of this phenomenon. This reasoning would not explain the
dunes that have formed up wind from the event site. Geologists have
studied this phenomenon starting in the 1950's and have concluded
that the cause is a combination of naturally occurring conditions.


The BLM has studied the potential ecological effect on the water
table and on migratory water fowl from motor oil that might leak from
recreational user's vehicles onto the Black Rock Desert playa,
specifically during the Burning Man Event. This study, conducted over
a two year period, concluded that there is no significant negative
impact. We do check vehicles at the gate for hazardous fluid leakage
(among other things) and do tell our participants not to bring leaky
vehicles to the Black Rock Desert. If fluid leakage is suspected,
participants are required to place some form of catchment basin
beneath their vehicles. This issue, along with the charge that
Burning Man is responsible for dune formation, was raised in an
appeal of our annual land use permit. The BLM determined that it had
no merit. It was not supported by reliable scientific evidence, and
the entire appeal was ultimately rejected by a permit appeals board.

Lastly, the method used to inspect the Burning Man event site is
determined by the Bureau of Land Management, not the Burning Man
Project. The method of inspection is as follows. First, a transect is
randomly selected (a transect consists of an area 100 feet by 1500
feet long). Then volunteers in close-set rank walk slowly along its
length, collecting everything that they discover. Disinterested third
parties are present to observe this process. The allowable amount of
litter is 5 square feet per transect. In 2002, three transects done
at our site post-event netted a TOTAL of 4 square feet of material
(no engine blocks or other large objects were found, despite alarmist
claims). In 2003, this same inspection yielded less than 2 square
feet of debris! These transects have included many high use areas of
our city.

Any method employed to inspect so large an area as our event site can
be portrayed as arbitrary or incomplete, since many hundreds of
people would be required in order to inspect every inch of this area
in a limited period of time. It takes our cleanup crew many days to
accomplish this very task. However, this is only half of the story.
The BLM has also conducted transects in the Black Rock Desert in
recreation areas that are NOT used by Burning Man, and many of these
areas have failed to meet this official standard. Particular methods
of inspection can always be improved, but the baseline standard
employed by the BLM, when matched against the condition of other
sites, is very far from being arbitrary or irrelevant. Ours is an
extraordinary achievement. This is why we have been publicly praised
by the BLM for setting new national standards.

The Bureau of Land Management is not involved in a conspiracy to harm
public lands. The Burning Man Project is environmentally responsible
on both public AND private land. We not only leave no trace, we tend
to leave places cleaner than we've found them. We have nothing to
hide. We even host a website that allows our critics to speak out in
a public forum. However, in recent instances, an anonymous critic who
hides behind multiple identities has cited spurious information on a
website with a falsified registration address. You be the judge. More
contentious and misleading posts employing sock puppets can probably
be expected. Our advice is simple: think twice before you feed the
troll.

Signed, Burning Man Staff
metric
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 9:32 pm
Location: Nevada

Postby Badger » Tue Jan 20, 2004 7:38 pm

and by EPA's defintation of a wetland you can't modify a wetland without a prior plan.
and a plan aprroved by the proper governing authorities.

I tried to get BLM to take notice of it as a wetland but they have dragged their feet about it.
wont answer my question when i sent them comments in may on their permit process.

that is one of the reasons why we created this website. to get people to listen and they are!!!


Hey rock star, you're setting yourself up again in showing how your selective cut and pasting of 'facts' is setting the stage for people like myself to plug your blathering ass cheeks with another round of truth.

Ready? OK, now bend over.

A wetlands definition as recognized and defined by the US Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Canadian Wetland Registry, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental protection Agency and, I believe, the California Coastal Commission is as follows:

-those areas that are INUNDATED or SATURATED (emphasis mine) by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (U.S. ACE 1987). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas;


POINT: Starting with the following references (all of which are available at the BLM Winnemucca Field Office); Soil survey of Washoe County, Nevada, Central Part, by Ed Blake, Soil Conservation Service; Soil Survey of Humboldt County, Nevada, West part, by Donald Jossie, Bureau of land Management, and Soil Survey of Pershing County, Nevada, West part, by Clarence Seagraves and Michael J. Zielinski, Bureau of Land Management. One will note that the following descriptions of the playa soils and soils adjacent to the playa have certain, very similar characteristics. For instance, when describing mountain foothills fan piedmonts (which the Frog pond by geographic location is a part of) the following is described:

These soils are steep to very steep, very shallow and moderately deep, somewhat excessively and well drained, leaching depth increases, pH is lower, and a light to darker A horizon has developed. Plant cover is sparse and consists of drought and salt tolerant species. Soils are low in organic matter.


According to this definition inundated andsaturated don’t seem to apply as ‘well drained’ means just that. That water regardless of the source has the characteristic of draining into the lower depths of the lacustrine sediments (lake derived) which is very characteristic of a bolson floor (A “bolson” is a closed basin with centripetal drainage.) – which the playa and adjacent areas represent. Wetlands are NOT characterized by centripetal drainage. Further, it would seem that plants that are drought and salt tolerant don’t really fit the definition of “vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions


Continuing with the wetland definition;

(2) lands that are transitional between
terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface of the land and is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following attributes:

(1)at least periodically, the land predominantly supports hydrophytes (plants dependent on saturated soils or a water medium);


POINT: Though frog pond has several hydrophytic (‘water loving’) species of plants immediately adjacent to its waters, they are by no means the predominant flora in the area. In fact, scrub brush, sage and several large non-native Russian olives are the predominant plant species in the area.

(2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and

(3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.


POINT: As referenced, soil saturation and undrained water are not characteristic of the area in question.

Without belaboring my point I’ll note that NOTHING you’ve suggested to date fits the definition or could even loosely be interpreted as a wetland. Perhaps the reason that the BLM has been reticent to reply to your queries might have to do with not wanting waste sparse resources in providing you a series of reasons, studies, evaluations or definitions which (I believe) you’ll ultimately reject re-fucking-gardless of the source OR the validity.

Really, you should be ashamed of the myopic disregard to people's efforts who've made a good faith effort to answer your accusations, slanderings and innuendo.

You remain a fool. An ass of the first order.

Fuck you.
Last edited by Badger on Tue Jan 20, 2004 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
.
Desert dogs drink deep.

Image
.
User avatar
Badger
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Postby foamin' at the mouth » Tue Jan 20, 2004 8:15 pm

At the risk of overstating the obvious after such clear,concise and truely edifying posts from others above, I still just cant help myself because you wrote:

Once again, the goal is NOT to shut down the event. The goal is to understand what the event is doing to the environment around it.


Then why is your name "stopbmorg"?

you are a cad
I often heard the sorrel nag (who always loved me) crying out, ..."Take care of thyself, gentle Yahoo."
User avatar
foamin' at the mouth
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:12 pm
Location: that fishing village designed by interior decorators

Postby Zane5100 » Tue Jan 20, 2004 8:33 pm

Badger, did I ever tell you that I have a biiiiiiiiiiiig crush on you?
middle-aged, wannabe-hipster, dilettante
User avatar
Zane5100
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 9:51 am
Location: closer than you think

Postby Karma » Tue Jan 20, 2004 9:33 pm

Is it even FEASABLE to come up with a better nick for the guy ??
LOL
Fuckin Badger man !!
"God is a comedian playing to an audience that is afraid to laugh".

Voltaire
User avatar
Karma
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 10:33 am
Location: Lake Forest, Ca

Postby Tancorix » Tue Jan 20, 2004 9:36 pm

Shock and Awe didn't happen in Iraq, it happened here instead. Whew, the smoke is still clearing out of here.
User avatar
Tancorix
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: Not here, not there. I'm somewhere though.

Postby que.f.o. » Tue Jan 20, 2004 9:49 pm

A-fuckin'-Men, Badger. You Rock my bbs world.
Is it time to Burn yet?
User avatar
que.f.o.
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 10:08 pm
Location: Portland (no, not Maine)

the peopel in gerlach do say things

Postby allanon2 » Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:05 pm

[I have 50 or 60 emails/letters (from a FOIA with BLM) from residents in gerlach and empire that say to BLM don't have the event
they say this for a varieity of reasons.

so yes gerlach and empire peopel do say things but are they listened to?

doesn't look like it.

ttyl
allanon


quote="Zane5100"]
stopbmorg wrote:I understand the argument that "This is private property, they can do what they want". That is a view many people share, but it is a false view in the eyes of the law. The central premise of private property use in property law is that you cannot use your property to the harm of another person or person's property. For example, that's why we can take private property like the Valero refinery, and regulate their smoke plumes. So, while the C-Punch ranch, owners of Frog Farm can do as they want to a degree, their use of private land is not absolute and unfettered. That is something to keep in mind.


Are you seriously saying that a contamination plume is the same thing as a person using (or overusing) a resource located on their land and that they have full legal rights to use? A refinery has to operate under a Title V air permit, but I don't know of any federal permit needed to use a well--especially an artificial one. (Ever seen a Title V application, let alone worked on one? I have. Three of them in fact. As a result I understand just a little bit of what's involved when it comes down to a refinery's emissions.)

Use cites if you're going to start throwing around statements like that. What Nevada or Federal law is being violated? Be exact.

If you can't back it up, all you're doing is shouting your opinion so people will agree with you just to shut you up.

stopbmorg wrote:Now, some people have asked "Yeah OK, great, what ELSE have you done?" Well to lay out my bona fides, I'm an avid fly fisherman (who actually does not believe in catch and release unless the regulations call for it). Many of the places I fish, from the coast to the Sierras to Pyramid Lake are often 'decorated' with trash, refuse, fishing line, beer cans and so on, the result of many inconsiderate anglers and non-anglers. I spend several weeks each summer and 2 weeks in winter, cleaning the places that I use, raising awareness among other anglers through flyers and meetings with local angling groups and encouraging the "bring a bag" project I came up with. In short, everyone takes a plastic bag fishing and fills it with whatever trash they find during the day. Even if you go home without fish for supper, you go home having left the place cleaner than you found it. It's a small effort, sure, but it's helpful and more helpful than doing nothing. And the bonus is that lots of messy people dump aluminum and plastic - so you get to recycle, too!


That's really sweet that you do all that.

Now what does it have to do with the price of tea in China?

Nothing you have listed qualifies you as an expert in environmental law or engineering.

stopbmorg wrote:Anyway, I hope that gives people something to consider about those (at least me, sparks has a different take on recycling, allanon2 is pretty eco-conscious and RTP is a recycling nazi) that are behind this push. Just like the streams and rivers I fish, I also consider BR Desert my backyard. And I want it to be healthy, clean and accessible for the rest of my life and for my kids and so on. I would imagine that is a goal the rest of you share to some degree or another as well. So let's work towards it.


Just because you are taking some type of personal ownership of the Black Rock Desert, doesn't mean everyone has to follow your wishes or desires.

BTW, don't the people of Gerlach get a say in this...? (You know, the people that actually live there?)


"Bingo. Bingo the Clown-o."...sound familiar?[/quote]
Last edited by allanon2 on Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
allanon2
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:27 pm

did you ever see the wetland vegetation before the remodel?

Postby allanon2 » Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:10 pm

if you did you would not be giving the above argment as you have just proved that yes its a wetland.
drought tollerant speciaes can't be a wetland? humm ok Not.

and anyways are catails and reeds drought tolerant. yes they can compeltly dry out but before the area was dredge and all vegetation removed the area was always wet
so thank you for ocmign up with the leg work for the defination for me.
and helping me prove that frog pond was once a wetland but now by your defination is no longer a wetland.

so in short BMORG destroyed a wetland according to you. since it once suport wetland vegetation and had fully saturated soils with a anaerobic conditions. you know the black smelly stuff.
and now does not.

and blm chnage the mileage in their lastest permit so the mielage from Burnign man is less than whats in the permit. it used to be 7 miles their was no wetland and now its 3. frog pond no longer fits within 3 miles. they just chnaged the mielage so they did not have to deal with my public comment in the public comment period in June.
how convieint of BLM

So in short it was once a wetland and is now no longer acording to you. Their used to be wetland vegetation and now its no longer there
there used to be wetlands birds sometimes and fish. and now?
I am not talkign about the front pond I am talking about the back 4 ponds that have been destroyed.


Badger wrote:
and by EPA's defintation of a wetland you can't modify a wetland without a prior plan.
and a plan aprroved by the proper governing authorities.

I tried to get BLM to take notice of it as a wetland but they have dragged their feet about it.
wont answer my question when i sent them comments in may on their permit process.

that is one of the reasons why we created this website. to get people to listen and they are!!!


Hey rock star, you're setting yourself up again in showing how your selective cut and pasting of 'facts' is setting the stage for people like myself to plug your blathering ass cheeks with another round of truth.

Ready? OK, now bend over.

A wetlands definition as recognized and defined by the US Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Canadian Wetland Registry, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental protection Agency and, I believe, the California Coastal Commission is as follows:

-those areas that are INUNDATED or SATURATED (emphasis mine) by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (U.S. ACE 1987). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas;


POINT: Starting with the following references (all of which are available at the BLM Winnemucca Field Office); Soil survey of Washoe County, Nevada, Central Part, by Ed Blake, Soil Conservation Service; Soil Survey of Humboldt County, Nevada, West part, by Donald Jossie, Bureau of land Management, and Soil Survey of Pershing County, Nevada, West part, by Clarence Seagraves and Michael J. Zielinski, Bureau of Land Management. One will note that the following descriptions of the playa soils and soils adjacent to the playa have certain, very similar characteristics. For instance, when describing mountain foothills fan piedmonts (which the Frog pond by geographic location is a part of) the following is described:

These soils are steep to very steep, very shallow and moderately deep, somewhat excessively and well drained, leaching depth increases, pH is lower, and a light to darker A horizon has developed. Plant cover is sparse and consists of drought and salt tolerant species. Soils are low in organic matter.


According to this definition inundated andsaturated don’t seem to apply as ‘well drained’ means just that. That water regardless of the source has the characteristic of draining into the lower depths of the lacustrine sediments (lake derived) which is very characteristic of a bolson floor (A “bolson” is a closed basin with centripetal drainage.) – which the playa and adjacent areas represent. Wetlands are NOT characterized by centripetal drainage. Further, it would seem that plants that are drought and salt tolerant don’t really fit the definition of “vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions


Continuing with the wetland definition;

(2) lands that are transitional between
terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface of the land and is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following attributes:

(1)at least periodically, the land predominantly supports hydrophytes (plants dependent on saturated soils or a water medium);


POINT: Though frog pond has several hydrophytic (‘water loving’) species of plants immediately adjacent to its waters, they are by no means the predominant flora in the area. In fact, scrub brush, sage and several large non-native Russian olives are the predominant plant species in the area.

(2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and

(3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.


POINT: As referenced, soil saturation and undrained water are not characteristic of the area in question.

Without belaboring my point I’ll note that NOTHING you’ve suggested to date fits the definition or could even loosely be interpreted as a wetland. Perhaps the reason that the BLM has been reticent to reply to your queries might have to do with not wanting waste sparse resources in providing you a series of reasons, studies, evaluations or definitions which (I believe) you’ll ultimately reject re-fucking-gardless of the source OR the validity.

Really, you should be ashamed of the myopic disregard to people's efforts who've made a good faith effort to answer your accusations, slanderings and innuendo.

You remain a fool. An ass of the first order.

Fuck you.
allanon2
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:27 pm

Re: did you ever see the wetland vegetation before the remod

Postby technopatra » Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:48 pm

allanon2 wrote:if you did you would not be giving the above argment as you have just proved that yes its a wetland.
drought tollerant speciaes can't be a wetland? humm ok Not.

and anyways are catails and reeds drought tolerant. yes they can compeltly dry out but before the area was dredge and all vegetation removed the area was always wet
so thank you for ocmign up with the leg work for the defination for me.
and helping me prove that frog pond was once a wetland but now by your defination is no longer a wetland.

so in short BMORG destroyed a wetland according to you. since it once suport wetland vegetation and had fully saturated soils with a anaerobic conditions. you know the black smelly stuff.
and now does not.



Wow, I haven't seen a leap like that since Evel Kneivel tried to jump Snake Canyon. You're almost as successful as he was, too.
technopatra
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 3:04 pm
Location: SF, CA

go ahead and say where my logic is flawed

Postby allanon2 » Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:54 pm

[/quote]

Wow, I haven't seen a leap like that since Evel Kneivel tried to jump Snake Canyon. You're almost as successful as he was, too.[/quote]


it may not be written as articiltly as some peopel but the logic is sound.
it what the BMORG said was truely a wetland. then frog pond (garret ranch) was once a wetland as it harbored wetland life and the apporpaite ecosystem
and now according to the BMORG guy it does not.

heck even one picture on www.stopburningman.org shows some wetland vegetation. not the reeds that used to be there but some type of wetland grass. and its flat and dead.
allanon2
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:27 pm

Postby Lydia Love » Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:58 pm

but the logic is sound


I'm laughing too hard to post a decent rebuttal.
It's all about the squirrels.
User avatar
Lydia Love
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Postby Badger » Wed Jan 21, 2004 12:18 am

Wow, I haven't seen a leap like that since Evel Kneivel tried to jump Snake Canyon.


The quick description of Allanon2's logic thread: selective interpretation

The technical description of Allanon2's logic thread: fallacy of explanation. In this case the argumentative fallacy is known as one of 'limited depth' where the (respondent's) theory seeks to explain an experience or occurrence by appealing to some underlying cause or phenomena in spite of the proof.

The shorthand description of Allanon2's logic thread:[/b] I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?

You can put your pants back On now Allan.
Last edited by Badger on Wed Jan 21, 2004 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
.
Desert dogs drink deep.

Image
.
User avatar
Badger
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Postby technopatra » Wed Jan 21, 2004 12:25 am

Badger wrote:
Wow, I haven't seen a leap like that since Evel Kneivel tried to jump Snake Canyon.


The quick description: selective interpretation

The technical description: fallacy of explanation. In this case the argumentative fallacy is known as one of 'limited depth' where the (respondent's) theory seeks to explain an experience or occurrence by appealing to some underlying cause or phenomena in spite of the proof.

The shorthand description: I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?


I _knew_ the syntax sounded familiar:

http://www.proft.org/tips/conv-terror.html
technopatra
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 3:04 pm
Location: SF, CA

Postby Badger » Wed Jan 21, 2004 12:35 am

I _knew_ the syntax sounded familiar:


It does don't it. Thing is, no one here seems terrorized by our little logic mangling Australiopithican.

That's why (at times) I love this group so much.
.
Desert dogs drink deep.

Image
.
User avatar
Badger
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Postby Wind_Borne » Wed Jan 21, 2004 1:15 am

Reading the anti-Burn posters here reminds me of that old definition of a puritan:
    a person who is miserable knowing that someone, somewhere, is having fun.

I get the stong impression that the idea that 30,000 people are enjoying a positive, uplifting, even spiritual experience just pisses them off.

I've read so many thoughtful posts here that try to illuminate the issue; please forgive me if I repeat what others have already noted.

One fallacy that has been noted is that BRD was pristine before Burning Man -- it wasn't. In fact it BRD is under better stewardship now, and in better condition, than any time in the last 50 years. And that's because burners care about it; and they are willing to take constructive criticism to improve that care.

This extreme, hateful response to BMOrg over the frog pond is an amazing case of missing the environmental forest for the trees.

Environmentally, Nevada has huge issues on a scale that render BM's impact microscopic. Las Vegas has passed 1,000,000 people and is still growing. The entire basin in which LV sits is just being paved over. And all those people consume huge amounts of water. And then there's an open pit mine at Battle Mountain that could swallow San Francisco. And there are dry lake beds where the surface has turned to glass from the heat of nuclear blasts. Oh, and what do you imagine might be sitting in 55 gallon drums out at Area 51? These are deep concerns that demand the attention of Nevada's environementally concerned citizens.

I'm stuck by a certain irony in the unproductive approach that the stopburningman people have taken to the problem they see. Burning Man provides the very tools needed to address these environmental concerns, and a receptive audience. First, change the name and attitude from stopburningman to enhancebrd. Then set up a theme camp to educate and enlighten fellow burners on good desert stewardship. And finally, stand as heros amongst us, instead of as heels.

What I just outlined requires a desire to build, to be constructive, to work with people. Unfortunately it is easier to reject people, to destroy, and to tear down. It takes years, centuries, to build a city; it takes just microseconds to vaporize it. It's up to you to choose your path.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-- George Washington
User avatar
Wind_Borne
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 9:53 pm
Location: Sonoma, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Politics & Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest