As the summer starts winding down I've been thinking
about what issues need to be concentrated on over the
fall and winter. My Sept. ORC column will be on this
issue, but I'm looking for anyones ideas or input.
Here's my top 5, in order of importance, IMO:

1. The Roadless-- This thing just won't die, IMO it
is still the biggest danger to recreation and forest
management we've ever seen.

2. Boxer's lunatic wilderness bill--Even though I've
been rather vocal in my downplaying of this thing, it
is still a very real threat. IMO it will never see
passage in a form even close to what she wants, heck,
as far as I know Feinstein hasn't even supported it,
but still a very dangerous precedent.

3. Anything and everything to do with what is
happening in the CA deserts, NECO, NEMO, etc. A lot
of land involved here.

4. Lawsuits and actions with potential farreaching
RS2477 implications. Specifically the Las Cruces, NM
BLM lawsuit and Surprise Canyon in CA, but there are
others.

5. The San Rafael Swell National Monument--A huge,
great area, very controversial right now, has the
potential to set the tone for much of the Bush
administrations view on these kind of issues.

There you go, my top 5, I would appreciate any input
or suggestions.

John Stewart, in a reply to an identical post of mine on the LUN poointed something out that I fully realized, but didn't bring up. All 5 of these are tied together with one very common theme, The Wildlands Project ! The UN, Agenda 21 and socialism are knocking at your door.

2002 is an election year and, as the media and the polls start gearing up, we need to remind off-road enthusiasts that they can make a difference in charting the future of recreation. The support for mechanized recreation starts at the local level.

Make support for motorized and mechanized backcountry recreation a priority single-issue political position. The politicians need to know that multiple opportunity recreation enthusiasts demand representation and support, or they will lose the vote.

Do you think it's not important? Is it only important in a Federal Senate or House Election campaign?

Who is being urged to represent the public in issues like the Boxer Wilderness Bill? Who is being asked to support Red Rock Wilderness? Who is being put on the spot to dance the line between forest health and economic sustainability, and the extreme preservation agenda of the Wildlands Project?

Well, it isn't the Federal Politico's; it's local government.

How many media and extreme anti-recreation group press releases have you read stating something similar to the following:

"The Board of Supervisors for XXX XXXXX County are voting on support for the Wilderness Bill"?

The "City of XXXXX considers support for the expansion of wildlife corridors and open space as proposed by the Heritage Extreme Anti-Recreation Network Campaign"?

"The City of XXXXXX supports a resolution to add green belts and enhanced riparian area restoration to improve the quality of life"?

"The Supervisors for the County of XXXX are deliberating open space initiatives and establishing buffer zones for wilderness parks"?

"Urban/wildland interface separation solutions (closure buffers) are being investigated to improve the quality and diversity of habitat adjacent to our City"?

How much weight do these statements make in the decision process, or the public perception of what is good for the local economy and public health? They may not mean much on larger government issues, but it's clear they paint anti-recreation as an acceptable political position. They also cultivate and promote anti-recreation politicians locally, politicians that may eventually enter state and national election campaigns.

The multi-opportunity recreation enthusiast (those who want to choose to motor and hike and ride) are forty years behind the extreme environmental movement on the issue of building and supporting people in positions of political power. Supporting people who understand a healthy habitat includes healthy and diverse recreation opportunities for the public, including motorized recreation may seem like a simple thing, but it has failed to be a priority political issue.

This November make a few calls. Ask the candidates office if they support the local Wilderness Campaigns? Ask if they would still support wilderness if they learned it would harm the local economy, and if it would reduce legal recreation opportunities for our children? Ask if they are willing to trade the quality of human life, for some unproven idealistic vision of quality of animal life?

Let the politicians know the quality of your life is enhanced by affordable recreation, and the quality of your families' life is being threatened by wilderness proposals that exclude mechanized and motorized recreation.

You do not need to know the scope of the Wildlands Project to understand the closure threat to local recreation opportunities that your family enjoys. Your local politicians need to know your fear of closures, and lost recreation opportunity for sports that you enjoy, even if they are told the choice is a simple decision between development and open space. Make sure they know the "open space" you desire includes space for motorized recreation (and the proposals on their desk are not simple career decisions unless they support motorized recreation).

Happy Trails!