Big Elmer
10-01-2002, 09:09 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: schiller <schiller@ridgecrest.ca.us>
To: Undisclosed Distribution (E-mail) <schiller@ridgecrest.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:52 AM
Subject: KERN COUNTY RESOLUTION FOLLOWUP
> Well, we did not do as well as we hoped at the Kern County
> Supervisor's meeting. The vote for the resolution was 3 to1 but because
> the Kern County Supervisors have a policy of only passing resolutions with
> a unanimous vote, the motion did not carry. The sole vote against the
> resolution opposing the Boxer wilderness bill was Supervisor Barbara
> Patrick. Her district is located entirely within the Bakersfield city
> limits. Supervisor Jon McQuiston did an excellent job of laying out the
> major problems and concerns with the bill to the other supervisors and
> offered every possible rationale for the other supervisors to support the
> resolution. Supervisor McQuiston stated, "In my view, there has been no
> credible public outreach, public meetings, or comprehensive analysis to
> justify to a reasonable person why this land should be segregated as
> wilderness." "It's not untrammeled, undeveloped, it's not primeval, and
> its got a lot of structures, and the Forest Service has not made any
> determinations," McQuiston concluded. "They have had five years [in
> developing this legislation] which is ample time to make their case to
> justify support for wilderness," he noted. The supervisors did, however,
> unanimously approve a motion that authorizes the Chairman of the Kern
> County Board of Supervisors to send a letter to Senator Boxer and other
> elected officials outlining their concerns. Among the concerns to be
> addressed in the letter is a request that the wilderness proposal be
> referred to the Forest Service to study the area to determine wilderness
> suitability including public involvement in the process and a strong
> suggestion that adequate funding be appropriated for the study.
>
> In beginning the hearing, Board Chairman Perez asked for a show of
> hands from supporters and opponents and decided to take statements from
> wilderness supporters first. In total, 15 people spoke in support of
> additional wilderness designations in Kern County. Their basic arguments
> were the usual generic emotional reasons for preservation with little
> discussion of site-specific facts or issues. Among the speakers
supporting
> more wilderness were Joe Fontaine; local Sierra Club leader, Mark
> Christopher; Friends of the River, and Tim Allyn; California Wild Heritage
> Campaign. Tim's statement was quite different from his statement at the
> July 30th supervisor's meeting. He did not mention having worked with any
> of the OHV representatives and he significantly altered his statements
that
> were challenged during the fact-finding meeting with the Kern County
> Planning Department personnel. He seemed to grope for answers to respond
> to questions asked by the supervisor Jon McQuiston regarding the
> justification for wilderness designations but never did quite make his
case
> with any substantive points. The chairman finally cut him off. Other
> speakers for the bill included hikers, backpackers, canoeists, and a local
> property owner.
>
> On the other hand, there were 24 speakers in opposition to the
> wilderness bill before discussion was cut off due to the lack of time.
> Speakers included a past Kern County Supervisor, a rancher, firefighters,
a
> farm bureau representative, teachers, a chamber of commerce
representative,
> a hot springs enthusiast, mountain bicyclists, motorized and non-motorized
> recreation organization representatives, an executive director of a nearby
> boys camp, miners, and two disabled persons, one in a wheel chair and
> another having to carry an oxygen bottle. All made excellent points. Dick
> Taylor, who represented Kern Off Highway Vehicle Association, showed
> several recent photographs of roads, cabins, and mining structure taken in
> one of the proposed wilderness areas where the proponents insisted that no
> roads exist. Several attendees and a reporter later noted they were
> surprised by the diversity of the opponents of the wilderness bill.
>
> Even though the original resolution was not carried, there were a
> number of resulting benefits for our perspective. First, because the
> supervisors directed the Planning Department personnel to meet with
> proponents and opponents of the bill, the supervisors are much more aware
> of the real issues and now know the facts. Second, opponents outnumbered
> the bill's supporters by at least fifty percent thus demonstrating that a
> likely majority of people in Kern County opposes the bill. Third, because
> of the print and televised media coverage, the public is now very much
more
> aware of the proposal for more wilderness. This will foster more
> opposition to the bill. Finally, several supervisors noted that some type
> of alternate less restrictive land management designation should be
> available. Obviously, the backcountry designation could provide a basis
> for the needed alternative.
>
> It was noted that the county received 84 letters regarding Boxer's
> wilderness bill. There were 68 letters opposing the bill and only 16 in
> support. This is significant because, historically, we have not usually
> been able to outnumber the environmentalist's letters to such a degree.
> Considering the number of letters coupled with the low turnout of
> wilderness supporters, one could conclude that the environmental
> organizations are losing their public support as their position on land
> management issues become more and more discriminatory, exclusionary, and
> extreme.
>
>
> A related article is available online on the Bakersfield Californian
> website. The URL is
> http://www.bakersfield.com/local/story/1837856p-1952685c.html
>
>
> A summary of the proceedings and a list of speakers is located on the
> Kern County website. See page 12.
> http://www.co.kern.ca.us/clerk/minutes/9-24-02.pdf
>
>
>
> This information is provided by Ron Schiller, Chairman, High Desert
> Multiple Use Coalition. As usual, please feel free to pass this
> information on to any other interested parties. Anyone wishing to receive
> future information regarding issues related to the management of public
> lands in the California Desert should send an e-mail to
> schiller@ridgecrest.ca.us and request to be placed on the distribution
> list. Please print "PLEASE ADD TO LIST" in the subject line.
>
>
>
>
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
From: schiller <schiller@ridgecrest.ca.us>
To: Undisclosed Distribution (E-mail) <schiller@ridgecrest.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:52 AM
Subject: KERN COUNTY RESOLUTION FOLLOWUP
> Well, we did not do as well as we hoped at the Kern County
> Supervisor's meeting. The vote for the resolution was 3 to1 but because
> the Kern County Supervisors have a policy of only passing resolutions with
> a unanimous vote, the motion did not carry. The sole vote against the
> resolution opposing the Boxer wilderness bill was Supervisor Barbara
> Patrick. Her district is located entirely within the Bakersfield city
> limits. Supervisor Jon McQuiston did an excellent job of laying out the
> major problems and concerns with the bill to the other supervisors and
> offered every possible rationale for the other supervisors to support the
> resolution. Supervisor McQuiston stated, "In my view, there has been no
> credible public outreach, public meetings, or comprehensive analysis to
> justify to a reasonable person why this land should be segregated as
> wilderness." "It's not untrammeled, undeveloped, it's not primeval, and
> its got a lot of structures, and the Forest Service has not made any
> determinations," McQuiston concluded. "They have had five years [in
> developing this legislation] which is ample time to make their case to
> justify support for wilderness," he noted. The supervisors did, however,
> unanimously approve a motion that authorizes the Chairman of the Kern
> County Board of Supervisors to send a letter to Senator Boxer and other
> elected officials outlining their concerns. Among the concerns to be
> addressed in the letter is a request that the wilderness proposal be
> referred to the Forest Service to study the area to determine wilderness
> suitability including public involvement in the process and a strong
> suggestion that adequate funding be appropriated for the study.
>
> In beginning the hearing, Board Chairman Perez asked for a show of
> hands from supporters and opponents and decided to take statements from
> wilderness supporters first. In total, 15 people spoke in support of
> additional wilderness designations in Kern County. Their basic arguments
> were the usual generic emotional reasons for preservation with little
> discussion of site-specific facts or issues. Among the speakers
supporting
> more wilderness were Joe Fontaine; local Sierra Club leader, Mark
> Christopher; Friends of the River, and Tim Allyn; California Wild Heritage
> Campaign. Tim's statement was quite different from his statement at the
> July 30th supervisor's meeting. He did not mention having worked with any
> of the OHV representatives and he significantly altered his statements
that
> were challenged during the fact-finding meeting with the Kern County
> Planning Department personnel. He seemed to grope for answers to respond
> to questions asked by the supervisor Jon McQuiston regarding the
> justification for wilderness designations but never did quite make his
case
> with any substantive points. The chairman finally cut him off. Other
> speakers for the bill included hikers, backpackers, canoeists, and a local
> property owner.
>
> On the other hand, there were 24 speakers in opposition to the
> wilderness bill before discussion was cut off due to the lack of time.
> Speakers included a past Kern County Supervisor, a rancher, firefighters,
a
> farm bureau representative, teachers, a chamber of commerce
representative,
> a hot springs enthusiast, mountain bicyclists, motorized and non-motorized
> recreation organization representatives, an executive director of a nearby
> boys camp, miners, and two disabled persons, one in a wheel chair and
> another having to carry an oxygen bottle. All made excellent points. Dick
> Taylor, who represented Kern Off Highway Vehicle Association, showed
> several recent photographs of roads, cabins, and mining structure taken in
> one of the proposed wilderness areas where the proponents insisted that no
> roads exist. Several attendees and a reporter later noted they were
> surprised by the diversity of the opponents of the wilderness bill.
>
> Even though the original resolution was not carried, there were a
> number of resulting benefits for our perspective. First, because the
> supervisors directed the Planning Department personnel to meet with
> proponents and opponents of the bill, the supervisors are much more aware
> of the real issues and now know the facts. Second, opponents outnumbered
> the bill's supporters by at least fifty percent thus demonstrating that a
> likely majority of people in Kern County opposes the bill. Third, because
> of the print and televised media coverage, the public is now very much
more
> aware of the proposal for more wilderness. This will foster more
> opposition to the bill. Finally, several supervisors noted that some type
> of alternate less restrictive land management designation should be
> available. Obviously, the backcountry designation could provide a basis
> for the needed alternative.
>
> It was noted that the county received 84 letters regarding Boxer's
> wilderness bill. There were 68 letters opposing the bill and only 16 in
> support. This is significant because, historically, we have not usually
> been able to outnumber the environmentalist's letters to such a degree.
> Considering the number of letters coupled with the low turnout of
> wilderness supporters, one could conclude that the environmental
> organizations are losing their public support as their position on land
> management issues become more and more discriminatory, exclusionary, and
> extreme.
>
>
> A related article is available online on the Bakersfield Californian
> website. The URL is
> http://www.bakersfield.com/local/story/1837856p-1952685c.html
>
>
> A summary of the proceedings and a list of speakers is located on the
> Kern County website. See page 12.
> http://www.co.kern.ca.us/clerk/minutes/9-24-02.pdf
>
>
>
> This information is provided by Ron Schiller, Chairman, High Desert
> Multiple Use Coalition. As usual, please feel free to pass this
> information on to any other interested parties. Anyone wishing to receive
> future information regarding issues related to the management of public
> lands in the California Desert should send an e-mail to
> schiller@ridgecrest.ca.us and request to be placed on the distribution
> list. Please print "PLEASE ADD TO LIST" in the subject line.
>
>
>
>
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: