SLIDER 03
SLIDER 02
SLIDER 01
PNMTA reports dangerous open Mine Pit to BLM
This open mine pit is adjacent to a very popular, well used single track trail in the Pine Nut Mountains. The BLM did not have this mine shaft on their list of hazardous open mines until the information and location was brought to them by PNMTA members. BLM employees quickly constructed some temporary fencing to help improve the safety of the area.
By Doug Holcomb
Before
After
Update on the NCOHV
The latest meeting of the Nevada Commission on Off Highway Vehicles was held July 2, 2014.
The Commission continued working on language for the OHV Grant Regulations.
Language brought forth from the Regulations Committee meetings was discussed. Some of it was modified, then voted on by the full Commission. The resulting document will be sent to the Nevada State Legislative Bureau for legal scrutiny then brought back to the Commission to be presented in a public workshop.
The public workshop is where you and I get to comment on the Commissions ideas for how the State OHV grants are given out. This is the time for all of us to get involved.
The grant regulations document should be posted on the NCOHV website prior to the workshop. Dates and times of future meetings, and links to view the documents will be posted.
For more information go to the Nevada Commission on Off Highway Vehicles website at nvohv.com.
Drug Testing In Place For AMA Motocross Series
While this is not about keeping public lands open I thought it is cool that the AMA is taking steps to make sure the professional side of our passion stays above reproach. While there has never been a suspected case of MX stars using PEPs the AMA is getting ahead of the curve –
http://www.cyclenews.com/648/24354/Racing-Article/Drug-Testing-In-Place-For-AMA-Motocross-Series.aspx
PNMTA on Facebook
[fts facebook page id=PinenutMountainTrailAssociation posts_displayed=page_only type=page]
Nv. Legislative Committee on Public Lands Meeting Announcment
From: npieretti@lcb.state.nv.us
Date: June 5, 2014 at 3:44:40 PM PDT
To: Pointman0853@yahoo.com
Subject: Legislative Committee on Public Lands Agenda for the Thursday, June 12, 2014 Meeting
The agenda for the Thursday, June 12, 2014, meeting of the Legislative Committee on Public Lands can be viewed at the following link: Meetings and Agendas for the Legislative Committee on Public Lands. If you have any questions, please contact the Research Division at (775) 684-6825.
As a courtesy, meeting materials provided in advance (the day before or earlier) for use at the committee meeting will be uploaded to the committee’s webpage prior to the beginning of the meeting.Materials received on the day of the meeting will be uploaded as soon as feasibly possible after the meeting.
In accordance with Nevada Revised Statutes 241.020(3)(b), you are hereby advised that requests for notice of meetings lapse after 6 months. However, due to the unique nature of the legislative interim, the Legislative Counsel Bureau does not cause requests for notices of meetings to lapse until the end of the legislative interim or until the legislative committee is reappointed, whichever comes later.
Research Division Legislative Counsel Bureau 401 S. Carson Street Telephone: (775) 684-6825
Sage Grouse Meeting 5/28/14 Writeup
Hi Folks,
Here are some of the high points for the recent sage grouse meeting:
1)The Record Courier put the wrong day in their article notifying the public that a meeting was going to happen.
2)Attendance was about 15 or 20 people. The room was set up for hundreds..
3)We had about 5 speakers – Nate Littrell(PNMTA) , Bill Chernock(chamber of Commerce), John Helmer (PNMTA), and a few other concerned citizens
4)The topics that were brought up were common among the speakers
a.Economic impact – every speaker stressed this. The article in the paper grossly underestimates the impact at a few million dollars. Listing of the sage grouse as endangered will cost much more than that.
b.The draft report presented in wellington does not address economic impact, although it is a required topic.
c.Meetings: there is a lot of dissatisfaction about how the meeting have been handled
i. The wellington meeting – several speakers noted that the timing, location and notification of that meeting was awful.
ii. Federal register – Ted Koch noted that notices were posted in the federal register as if that is really a good way to reach the public. Nate noted on the record that posting in the federal register satisfies the legal requirements for notification, but is an ineffective method to reach the public. We need accurate articles in the media if we are truly to be informed.
iii. Cancellation of the previous meeting – no notice and no reason was given. Again, this is unacceptable and this was noted in the record.
d.Mapping and Designation of critical habitat -There is no justification for the boundaries drawn on the maps for critical habitat. The USF&W staffer acknowldeged that the west side of the pine nuts have never had a sage grouse population although the map shows the west side and a large portion of alpine county(!?!) as being critical habitat. Nate mentioned the problems with the boundaries on the record. This topic has also been addressed through written comments. Overall, a serious look at habitat designation boundaries is needed. In general, the boundaries at this point are arbitrary.
e.The root need and motivation for this effort is political. It was repeatedly noted that this effort is based in shaky science but has solid funding from the environmental lobbies.This is truly a battle of money and time. Local citizens must stay engaged or we will lose all access to public lands.
f. Genetics – the distinction of the “Bi-State” sage grouse as a separate species is arguable. The genetic difference is minimal compared to normal sage grouse. This was entered in the record.
5)News articles: after the meeting there was another sage grouse article from kurt kildebrand at the Record courier that had significant typos (again). He left out a critical ‘not’ in reference to the impact from recreation. Mr. Hildebrand either needs someone to proofread his work or he should stop writing articles.
Final verdict:if the purpose of this meeting was to engage the public, it was a failure. There were not enough citizens there to really call the meeting ‘public’. The people in the room were all the usual groups that have been engaged already.
Nate