Whoa! I was there and my memory does not match yours. I remember that there were several abstentions on the motion. I also don't remember the motion stating that an illegal action was taken by the BLM.
Jennifer From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:29:05 -0600 CC: [email protected] Subject: [SWR] Continuing FOIA commentary Michael, Thank you for your comments. From: michael queen Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 8:05 PM Subject: Re: [SWR] SWR BLM FOIA a mistake Stan raises some valid points, which have been criticized but not really addressed. I’m sorry that you feel that way. They were addressed, by Steve Peerman, myself and others, in several emails. It is not at all clear he was outvoted (since a vote of the SWR membership seems not to have been taken), nor that a consensus was sought or desired. I’m sorry that you feel that way. A unanimous vote did occur at the last regional that the Chair write the BLM asking for status and justifications for the continuing closure of 25 NM caves, an action taken that was illegal, in violation of BLM policy, and a breach of contract with the SWR. Mr. Allison was not there to vote. His comments on bringing issues to the general membership via email are well made and should be discussed openly via internet as well as at the SWR meeting. And they have been. I have, so far, 274 messages pertaining to the subject, all since May 9th. A great many of them, probably a majority, were on the SWR list server. I do not know how many persons are on that list server, but only about 30 of the ~147 regional members have taken the time to comment. That leaves nearly 80% of the region that have yet to be heard from, and need to be heard from. Liaisons are usually chosen such that they can maintain a dialogue between groups and present the views of the group they represent. Synonyms for liaise include cooperate, collaborate, and work together. Steve Fleming was apparently chosen because of his familiarity with writing FOIA requests, which meant that course of action had been chosen before his appointment. Regardless of protestations to the contrary, an FOIA request is not designed to facilitate cooperation. I’m sorry that you feel that way. The history of the SWR regarding federal land agencies proves otherwise, as I and others have previously attested. Anyone is welcome to dissent, but a working knowledge of the processes involved and undertaken, and their historical results, should first be obtained. Assertions that are based on opinion and not fact gain little if anything. This is particularly true when, as Pat Seiser aptly brings up, it is not clear who in SWR can evaluate the technical aspects of the BLM response. I recommend Pat to be that person, since she has brought it up. It will be quite easy, since the reply will contain virtually no technical content. A PhD in Biology, Microbiology, Geology or other related professional field is not required since to my knowledge, only one person BLM-NM has one. The SWR has about a dozen. Let me be absolutely clear: I have been a vocal critic of the CBD since it became apparent that they were patently uninterested in facts, logic, or science. When first I read their draft of the WNS suit I responded positively, as a scientist (with as strong a background in biology as geology), and tried to point out, point by point, weaknesses in their analysis, all of which were ignored and remained uncorrected in their final document. An examination of the degrees held by their staff revealed the likely reason - lots of lawyers and few staff with a good science background (BS's hardly qualify, unless accompanied by decades of experience). From what I can gather, they are more concerned with keeping up their income than with science, and without a sound footing in science, concerns about biological diversity come across as window dressing. And I have been acutely disappointed in the readiness with which BLM, USFS and NPS have seemed to sign on to the CBD platform rather than countering with good science and better data and logic. But it is certainly not clear to me (and it seems some several others) that the FOIA request is the best way to accomplish this. Is there no way that the conniving and misrepresentation of the CBD can't be brought to the attention of the broader community of ecologically concerned individuals, on whose continued support the group depends for credibility? How can these arguments be presented on the Internet, so that when one searches CBD one finds as many criticisms as self-serving claims of helping save the planet? If you have a better way to obtain a BLM response to justify their actions, both with WNS/cave closure and with CBD, please make your knowledge available. Until a better idea is presented (we’ve gone 3+ years without one), please do not criticize the action taken. Letters to BLM have been ignored, verbal requests at BLM meetings have been ignored, BLM/SWR meeting schedules have been ignored, and emails to BLM have been ignored. We have no magic wand to wave to make things happen. It may be that the FOIA is not the best method of eliciting a response from BLM, but until someone can come up with a better plan instead of simply castigating the one taken, it is superior choice. You are always welcome to disagree. And anyone who wishes change within the SWR is encouraged any time to run for office, and/or be there to vote for or against issues or officers. Jim Evatt Michael Queen _______________________________________________ SWR mailing list [email protected] http://lists.caver.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swr _______________________________________________ This list is provided free as a courtesy of CAVERNET
_______________________________________________ SWR mailing list [email protected] http://lists.caver.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swr _______________________________________________ This list is provided free as a courtesy of CAVERNET
