from CA4WDC...as always be polite and to the point... I will be writing a letter this evening on behalf of the PBB, VCAS, myself and my family and friends....




I talked today to Sen. Feinstein office and they want to hear from groups and individuals
who oppose Boxer's Wilderness Plan. If you are such a group, I suggest that you click on the following link and send the good Senator a letter.

I also suggest that you FAX it to her office at: 202.228.3954


http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/email.html

They are real interested in what the public thinks about Boxers bill.

Thanks


Don Klusman


:usa:

Send a letter people, only take a minute, and that couldn't make it any easier;)

Done:D

woe woe woe. hold on here. Sen. Feinstein is on our side. or just wants a field poll? Am I the only one that remembers the desert protection act that she passed. for a turrtle taht has only been study for a few years. Why we are fighting to get suprise canyon back. and backcountry travel is prohibited in the area. also miners and herders are not alowed in the surounding areas. I sure hope this is a real concern of her's and not some way to helping out Boxer with a field poll. The both have there pockets lined with sierra club and other "GAG" funds.

oops
soap_box: off

What do I classify it under environment or terrorism?:mad: Kodak we know she's on our side. that is why she wants letters opposing the bill.

Originally posted by noodles
What do I classify it under environment or terrorism?:mad: Kodak we know she's on our side. that is why she wants letters opposing the bill.

Feinstein on our side? :rolleyes: Give me a break.

Crowdog

Originally posted by Crowdog


Feinstein on our side? :rolleyes: Give me a break.

Crowdog

That's what has me wondering what's up with this deal:confused:

Originally posted by Mustard Dog


That's what has me wondering what's up with this deal:confused:

I don't understand it either, but the more she hears from us, the better off we will be.

Jon

DF is a gun grabbibng leftest Eco nazi Lesbo but if you have the money or the votes (shes a polition) she can be bought with your hard earned money. But I wouldnt stupe to wipe my ass with any thing she signed.

She has to at least care about our recreational activities to want to hear our side of this.

She is evil. She wants to know what we are saying so she can have a rebutle for all our arguements.

If she's on our side she need to have one of them press conferences on TV telling us she isn't a commie leftist econazi bitch any more.

Al right by the way you are makin it sound then why is yellow telling use to write what we feel is it some sort of sabotage to turn what we have done already against us you are makin it sound like, "if you see a post like this do not respond." its a trick. yellow delete this post Monkey Boy says it's a trap.

Here is some info that has been flying around from John Stewart, Jim Arbogast & Don Amador......

Crowdog

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the first e-mail began circulating, there has been a flurry of
activity. As the dust is settling, there appears to be a "divide and
conquer" effort in progress. Below are two emails from Jim Arbogast (CORVA) that capture the intent of what is happening and the direction we (multiple-use advocates) need to be pushing. I can identify two and maybe three variations of the request from Feinstein's office.

In short, the area of high interest appears to be Northern California (north of I-80) with the intent of finding one (or more) multiple use recreation group(s) that can support some form of the wilderness bill. We need to make sure she won't find anyone to support this. If you belong to a club in this area, please construct a simple letter that opposes more wilderness and have your membership sign it. Then send it to Feinstein & Boxer. Crowdog

I believe Jim has laid out a good strategy where a group (or groups) 'adopt' a proposed wilderness area in order to ground proof the boundaries, existing road structure, existing industry, existing recreation value and any other existing issue that would eliminate that area from wilderness consideration.

One key element that has not been broached is the economic impact to the specific county.

As you are aware, several of us have been digging into the CWC and their activities. It has turned up some numerous areas where laws were violated and where laws appear to have been violated. The information has been provided to a number of state and federal lawmakers. We need others to send in demands for investigation and action.

As a course of action, the following are key points that need to be addressed:

1. Obtain maps of the proposed areas.

2. Verify the maps with "on-the-ground" reviews. (See Jim's suggestion about 'adopting' an area)

3. Keep forwarding opposition letters to both Feinstein and Boxer.

4. Keep the pressure on the counties to oppose the legislation.

5. Keep pressure on state and federal lawmakers to oppose more wilderness designation.

6. Unite ALL recreation groups that depend on public lands to fight a common cause with the same goals and demands.

This will not come without a significant amount of effort. The
payoff is huge. It will not win the war. It is only a single
battle; but a significant battle.



>**Jim Arbogast - CORVA**
>I recieved a call Tuesday @3:20pm from Dianne's SF Field Rep Chris
>Norem (415) 393.0707. Kat Hayden received a similar call that day.
>
>It looks like Feinstein's office is running interference for the
>Boxer Bill, Norem mentioned that some OHV orgs/groups in the
>Monterey area where supportive of the bill that allows cherry stem
>roads etc. and that Feinstein has not supported this bill at this
>point.
>
>When I asked who these folks were, Norem said that he didn't know.
>Norem was very interested in Wilderness areas north of I-80 and
>organizations to call.
>
>In Kat's conversation with Norem, she said to e-mail the request and
>she'll distribute to her community up north. Apparently Mr. Norem
>had no interest in that. The Boxer/Feinstein team are looking for
>organizations representing Multiple Use/Recreation/OHV that is or
>could be supportive of this bill.
>
>I mentioned the need for maps to evaluate the specifics of each
>proposal. I can't get a straight answer from the guy and I have
>e-mailed Tom Bohigian this same request earlier this week. He's
>Boxer's Deputy Director out of her Fresno office who I talked with 2
>weeks ago. I haven't heard from him yet.
>
>Can we get a punch list of every MU org in the state that has this
>bill on there radar screen and is supportive of it's demise? Marie
>Brashear has offered a office in Johannesberg to help in our efforts.
>
>Every Wilderness proposal needs to be adopted by at least one group
>that knows the area, its attributes, its specifics, details and can
>put together at least a 1 page release/justification why this
>specific proposal is bankrupt and lacking and therefore does not
>meet the required criteria for
>Wilderness characteristics and designation.
>************


>
>Don Amador used the term "Ground Proofing". Perfect. Don and Larry
>Thompson of Bishop reiterated the need to have the maps in our
>possessions for the neccessary ground proofing.
>
>Everyone on this list (until I hear other wise) are freinds of the
>Multiple Use community who are opposed to the Boxer Bill and/or
>addtional Wilderness(s). We are gathering our numbers and are in a
>holding pattern waiting for the maps.
>
>The need to adopt and engage each proposal is a neccessity.
>
>
>Boxer's Wilderness Bill involves 76 proposals that make up the 2.5
>million acre land grab. (The old 5/10/02 draft of 73 proposals has
>been modified with ** notations)
>
>1) Angeles National Forest (ANF) "West Fork Wilderness Area" 3,200 acres
>2) ANF "Silver Mountain WA" 7,680 ac
>3) ANF "Castaic WA" 567,320 ac
>4) ANF "Magic Mt. WA" 12,160 ac
>5) ANF "Pleasant View WA" 19,200 ac
>7) ANF "Sheep Mt. WA" 8.960
>8) ANF "Santa Clarita Canyons WA" 2,560 ac
>9) Cleveland NF "Eagle Peak WA" 23,371 ac
>10) Eldorado & Humboldt-Toiyabe & Inyo NF " Caples Creek WA" 23,040 ac
>11) E & H-T & I NF "Meiss Meadows WA" 19,380 ac
>12) E & H-T & I NF "Hoover WA" 79,360 ac
>13) Inyo NF ""Owens River Headwaters additions to Ansel Adams WA" 14,800 ac
>14) Inyo NF & Bishop BLM "John Muir WA additions" 136,320 ac
>15) INF & B/BLM & Ridgecrest BLM "White Mts. WA" 297,000 ac
>16) Klamath NF "Marble Mt. WA additions" 64,160 ac
>17) KNF "Red Butte WA additions" 51,600 ac
>18) KNF "Russian WA additions" 19,360 ac
>19) Lassen NF "Heart Lake WA" 19,000 ac
>20) LNF "Wild Cattle Mt. WA" 4,760 ac
>21) LNF "Caribou WA additions" 6,400 ac
>22) Los Padres NF "Black Mt. WA" 11,500 ac
>23) LPNF "Dick Smith WA additions" 48,625 ac
>24) LPNF Garcia WA additions" 3,550 ac
>25) LPNF "Machesna WA additions" 9,050 ac
>26) LPNF "Matilija WA additions" 47,400 ac
>27) LPNF "San Rafael WA additions" 64,500 ac
>28) LPNF "Ventana WA additions" 37,110 ac
>**29) LPNF "Silver Peak additions" 17,055 (language changes)
>30) LPNF "Chumash additons" 47,050
>31) LPNF "Sespe additions" 14,350
>32) Mendocino NF "Snow Mt. additions" 23,800
>33) MNF "Sanhedrin" 10,160
>34) MNF & Arcata BLM "Yuki" 51,790
>35) Plumas NF "Feather Falls" 9,000
>36) San Bernardino NF "Cahuilla" 7,040
>37) SBNF "South Fork San Jacinto" 8,320
>38) SBNF "Cucamonga additions" 12,480
>39) SBNF "San Gorgonio additions" 17,920
>40) SBNF "Sugarloaf" 8,320
>41) Sequoia NF "Domelands additions" 11,200
>42) SNF "Golden Trout additions" 41,280
>43) SNF "Bright Star additions" 48,000
>44) Sierra NF "South Fork Merced" 39,360
>45) Six Rivers NF "Mt. Lassic" 7,300
>46) SRNF "Mad River Buttes" 5,740
>47) SRNF & KNF "Siskiyou additions" 86,470
>48) SRNF & Mendocino & Shasta-Trinity & the Redding & Arcata BLM "Yolla
>Bolly-Middle Eel additions" 40,550
>49) SRNF & KNF & STNF "Trinity Alps additions" 97,590
>50) SRNF & STNF "Underwood" 12,750
>51) Stanislaus NF "Emigrant" 25,280
>52) Stainslaus & Hum-Toy NF "Carson Iceberg additions" 35,200
>53) Tahoe NF "Black Oak" 12,160
>54) TNF "Duncan Canyon" 2,880
>55) TNF "North Fork American" 20,480
>56) TNF "Granite Chief additions" 4,880
>57) TNF "Castle Peak" 16,350
>58) TNF "Grouse Lakes" 17,280
>59) Bishop BLM "Granite Mt." 17,920
>60) Bakersfield BLM "Caliente Mt." 24,680
>61) CDD BLM "Carrizo Gorge additions" 6,508
>62) CDD BLM "Sawtooth additions" 6,518
>63) CDD BLM & Cleveland NF "Hauser additions" 7,361
>64) CDD BLM "Big Horn Mt. additions" 1,920
>65) CDD BLM "Avawatz Mts." 64,300
>66) CDD BLM " Cady Mts." 92,878
>67) CDD BLM "Soda Mts." 110,800
>68) CDD BLM "Kingston Range" 41,400
>**69) CDD BLM "Denning Springs additions" 27,560 (reduced to 19,580)
>70) Alturas BLM "Pit River" 6,600
>**71) Ukiah BLM "Cache Creek" 71,314 (reduced to 48,434)
>**72) Ukiah BLM "Blue Ridge" 10,880 NEW
>**73) Ukiah BLM "Berryessa" 9,120 NEW
>**74) Ukiah BLM "Cedar Roughs" 5,880 NEW
>**72 is now 75) Arcata BLM "King Range" 41,100
>**73 is now 76) Arcata BLM "South Fork Eel" 14,000
>

--
John Stewart

Here is Feinstein's response to my latest letter to her:


Dear Mr. Crowley, Jr.:

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to
the "California Wilderness and Rivers Act." I appreciate hearing
from you.

The "California Wilderness and Rivers Act" was just
introduced on May 21, 2002 and I am still reviewing the contents
of the bill. I believe however, that we must carefully weigh the
costs and benefits of wilderness designations. Please know that I
will keep your thoughts in mind as we take a close look at this bill.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I value
your opinion and I hope you will continue to keep in touch on
issues important to you. If you have any questions or need
assistance, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. staff at
(202) 224-3841.

I dont have time for spell check

You know ofcourse that, that was a form letter and she didnt read your letter. she hires people to tell here how many for and against letters she recives. Thats how they all do it. Unless you speak to her on the phone or in person she will not see or hear you.

What you may or may not understand with these wonder full little designations is the Road less area desigantions that go along with them. The NW forest plan that Clit ton pushed through also included a provision for road less areas that are withen 5 ( READ FIVE MILES) of a wilderness area that are greater than 5000 acres in size will become defacto wilderness in conjuction with said wilderness area, and may not hold wilderness area desingation, But will be forever linked to the the wilderness area and therefore protected from any use that is not compliant with wilderness area use.

NOW the real ass kick in the pants from the black booted eco-nazi Bitchs, is that they can create I said (CREATE) roadless areas. This is a simple administrative proccess that once moneys are found they designate areas to decomission roads in. (because they (the forest circus)can't afford to maintain the roads in a safe manner)These areas once they rip the road (cat with rippers drives down the road) and remove the culverts and plant trees. are now considered (road less) on the same plane as an area that has never had a road.

The county I live in is 97% owned by the Forest Service We are talking about several hunder thousand acreas of land We have 12 wilderness areas that I can count off the top of my head We have about 2/3rd of the rest of those areas slated to have the roads removed. What I find uniqly funny to the entire delima is that in 50 years when those trees in those roadless areas are huge and timber in the third world is gone. we will be pressured heavly to cut those trees in Mass. not manage them for the futre but the worl enviromental stance is all Forked up we/Our hippys effect change here becuase they can. If they were effecting change world wide in countrys that need forest management not preservation then the rest of the world would not be in a bind but the hippys here want to smoke dope and write letters. not learn about silva culture and how to establish and maintain forest harvest levels to ensure future use of a renable resource.

:mad3:

Senator Feinstein's office may try to find an a MU group that supports the Wilderness proposals, let them try, it's our job to make sure none do support the bill (and expose the BS shill MU talking fronts for the GAG's). If every environmental prohibitionist GAG writes the Senator, and recreation interests fail to comment, we lose recognition that the public cares about extreme legislation.

I urge you to not drop an opportunity to let Senator Feinstein know there are opponents to Senator Boxer's Bill.

Happy Trails!

===============================

Dear Senator Feinstein:

I urge you to represent my interests and opposition to the congressional designation of more Wilderness Areas, in California and across the nation. I urge you to oppose Senator Boxer's "California Wilderness and Rivers Act" Wilderness expansion Bill.

Wilderness Area designation of more lands will result in the exclusion of numerous existing outdoor recreation activities, due to the incompatibility with management guidelines demanded by the Wilderness Act of 1964. I do not believe we need to further restrict existing recreation opportunity on land where it is currently acceptable to enjoy, activities disallowed in Wilderness. While there are many areas that activists claim to meet designated Wilderness guidelines, nearly all wildlands meeting the requirements set forth in the Wilderness Act already enjoy valid designated Wilderness status.

The most visible recreation activities to be excluded in the proposed Wilderness Areas are motorized vehicle and bicycle travel. Considerable media attention has been granted to the impacts of the ignorant extreme participants of these sports, reporting that does not represent the mainstream public's impact. Many less recognized recreation activities are also impacted and restricted in wilderness, activities that are supported by vehicle travel for the general public, activities where the public that cannot afford the luxury of peak physical health and financial stability required to afford multiple day hiking trips into wilderness.

Backcountry photography will be restricted in wilderness to only those healthy enough to venture a few miles into the wilderness area. Backcountry bird watching and fishing will be limited to only the public that can hike far past the gates and fences to enjoy the wildlands. Dispersed camping and picnic opportunity will be further limited, compounding the density impacts our park and forest campgrounds already suffer. These collateral impacts are unacceptable. These recreation activities are a legitimate need, and must be supported, even if they demand motorized vehicle access to wildlands.

I urge you to not restrict recreation opportunities for the public to enjoy the wonders of nature. My family relies on vehicle access to experience these opportunities. We rely on vehicle access to physically reach the backcountry, and to carry the food and support equipment needed for a family to safely enjoy the backcountry. Designating more Wilderness in California will exclude my family from enjoying these opportunities.

I urge you to be careful in how Congress balances Wilderness designation with the loss of recreation opportunity.

Vast areas of desert protected in the California Desert Protection Act currently suffer from severe recreation restrictions. I cannot believe you imagined, or currently support, the extent of restriction to public recreation that has evolved on the desert lands you fought to protect for the public enjoyment? While your goals may have been noble in authoring this Act, to protect the desert from commercial development and preserve the land for the enjoyment of future generations of Americans, unfortunately, the resulting land management since passage of the California Desert Protection Act has effectively eliminated enjoyment of (and even exposure to) the California desert for nearly the entire general public. Do not let this Wilderness Area result, closure and restriction, continue.

I urge you to consider alternative land management designations that better serve the public need for backcountry recreation with balanced environment protection.

Sincerely,