Here is a great Op-Ed from Congressman Doolittle regarding Boxer's Wilderness Area Bill.

http://www.crowley-offroad.com/public_lands_should_benefit_all.htm

Be sure to send Doolittle an email thanking him for standing up for public access for multiple use!

Jon

Look who has stepped up to cosponsor the bill:

Rep Hunter, Duncan
Rep Radanovich, George P.
Rep Pombo, Richard W.
Rep Calvert, Ken
Rep Herger, Wally
Rep Schaffer, Bob
Rep Gibbons, Jim

Drop these guys a note of thanks too.

Letter to Senator Boxer from Congressman Radanovich

June 5, 2002


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Honorable Barbara Boxer
112 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Boxer:

I am writing to you to express great concern regarding your legislative effort to designate over 109,000 acres of Wilderness Areas and at least 37 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers within my congressional district. I am opposed to the inclusion of these lands within your legislative package and respectfully request that you remove them from your bill.

Specifically, I ask that you remove the following provisions including, but not limited to these lands and waterways within my current and the new 19th congressional district:

Proposed Wilderness Areas

* Mineral King Wilderness Area, Sequoia National Park--68,480 acres, Fresno County

* South Fork Merced Wilderness Area, Sierra National Forest--40,960 acres and inholdings totaling 50 acres

Proposed Wild & Scenic Rivers

* Dinkey Creek, Sierra National Forest, 25 miles in Fresno County and inholdings totaling 200 acres

* Kings River, Sierra National Forest, 12 miles in Fresno County

* Clavey River (within the new 19th congressional district), Stanislaus National Forest, 63 miles and 27 miles of the Clavey River tributaries

* Tuolumne, South Fork (within the new 19th congressional district), Stanislaus National Forest, approximately 4 miles

Having grown up and now residing just outside of Yosemite National Park and near both the Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests, I am keenly aware of the impacts your proposed legislation would have in my congressional district. The fundamental problem I have with the draft bill is that the Wilderness Area and Wild and Scenic River designations, under the guise of "protection," have been used in the past as methods to restrict public access. As National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee Chairman, I am committed to open access to public lands for all people. Your legislation advocates the opposite position to taxpayers ? stay out.

It is my understanding that hiking, fishing, horseback riding, hunting and other related activities within the wilderness area land will be permitted. However, off-road vehicles such as motorbikes and snowmobiles, are banned. This creates a problem in that many senior citizens and disabled individuals use motorized forms of transportation to enjoy the national forests within my congressional district. Eliminating this method of experiencing our federal lands is a mechanism to keep people away from the very places they pay to maintain.

Furthermore, I have to say it is disingenuous for you to claim that most recreational activities will continue as currently allowed. Wilderness Areas severely restrict the amount of people who can recreate together due to group size restrictions and trailhead quotas. Boy scouts troups are an example of this problem. Many scout troups are 25 or more in size, and Wilderness Areas currently designated within my congressional district prevent groups of over 12 people from hiking into those areas. The children must have adult companions, so the number is even further reduced. Horse packers face a confined number of service days, in addition to the trailhead quotas and group size limitations in Wilderness Areas, which I mentioned above. As a result, family reunions, church organizations and other groups are prevented from enjoying our public lands together. Mountain bikers are another group who would be negatively impacted by the bill because numerous bike trails would no longer be accessible. Your effort to designate 2.5 million acres of Wilderness in California, therefore, will serve as a ready means to reduce visitor access. I cannot support legislation to further impede the public?s ability to take pleasure in our federal lands.

Regarding the Wild and Scenic River designations, I am concerned the irreversible decision to set aside the small portions of waterways in my region will have negative implications on California?s capability to store water and explore energy resources. Your draft bill contains sections of Dinkey Creek, the Kings River, the Clavey River and the South Fork of the Tuolumne River located within my current district and the new 19th congressional district that were not included in the 1984 California Wilderness Act (Public Law 98-425) or the 1987 Wild and Scenic Act (Public Law 100-150). These small sections were not in the Acts because there was an agreement that they would remain open to the option for storage and hydroelectric activity in the future. Now, your legislation plans to incorporate those areas into the wild and scenic designation?despite the previous agreements to keep them out. I believe such action is ill-advised and short-sighted given the current and potential future water and energy needs within California. It is unacceptable to permanently take these limited portions of the aforementioned waterways out of consideration for possible water storage and energy sources. In particular, you would be eliminating the option to create hydroelectric power, which is one of the cleanest, most environmentally-friendly energy resources. Any planned project must comply with federal environmental laws, and a Dinkey Creek facility would have to be approved by Congress. Given our state?s history on water and energy shortages, we cannot afford to limit our options. We must instead consider viable projects to provide for the needs of a state that could grow by 20 million additional people by the year 2025.

I am also very concerned about fire, insect and disease management within the proposed Wilderness Areas, as well as the operation of snow sensors. Although your draft bill does state that mechanical fuel treatments are permitted for public safety or private property purposes, I am concerned about how this will be carried out in actual practice. Mechanical treatments are one of the most effective methods of protecting our forests, however, Wilderness Areas are typically not regions where mechanical fuel management is accepted as a method of controlling fire, insects and diseases. Monitoring of snow sensors within these designated lands has also been a problem in the past within my congressional district. As a result, I am skeptical that your legislation will change traditional management of Wilderness Areas.

Overall, your legislation would create in California 2.5 million acres of Wilderness areas, 66,000 acres for Wilderness study, 21,000 acres as possible Wilderness, 75,000 acres for salmon restoration, 525 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers, and 79 miles of Wild and Scenic River study areas. The proposed bill imposes mandates and restrictions upon the use of our lands and waterways. Such action goes against my firm belief in collaborative efforts between government and private interests to protect our public lands and waterways. Thus, I cannot support legislation advocating contrary policy.

In closing, your legislation would remove potential options to store water and generate electricity within my congressional district. I believe it would also lead to visitors no longer being welcome on our public lands, except for the privileged few. I want more people to enjoy our public lands and waterways?not fewer. The citizens of this nation, and many foreign visitors, desperately want to experience the beauty of our public treasures without restricted access. You can be certain I will do what I can to ensure they have the freedom to do so.

Sincerely,
George Radanovich
Member of Congress