Elorado Nat. Forest Closures - Tactic 1

[1966Scout800]

Gee, thanks Doris I'll be sure to contact the BLM with my concerns over proposed closures in my National Forest .

[resqme]

That was as stupid a response from an elected official as I have ever seen...priceless.

[R290]

She thinks off highway = tear up our public lands.

By making it " wild lands" It's closing access to get to locations. In my 20's I could hike all day long with a 50lbs pack, not anymore.

Write back stating that you drive a street legal vehicle into public lands to get away from the city and be refreshed by the outdoors. Closing access to these areas are locking people out of our public land. State you have a bad knee or something that limits you from hiking back into these area.
How are people with disabilities going to access these "wild lands"

Ask how will this "wild lands" contribute the Mexican Mafia and there pot growing operations on California public lands.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-6255189.html

"Not far from Yosemite's waterfalls and in the middle of California's redwood forests, Mexican drug gangs are quietly commandeering U.S. public land to grow millions of marijuana plants and using smuggled immigrants to cultivate them.

Pot has been grown on public lands for decades, but Mexican traffickers have taken it to a whole new level: using armed guards and trip wires to safeguard sprawling plots that in some cases contain tens of thousands of plants offering a potential yield of more than 30 tons of pot a year.

"Just like the Mexicans took over the methamphetamine trade, they've gone to mega, monster gardens," said Brent Wood, a supervisor for the California Department of Justice's Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement. He said Mexican traffickers have "supersized" the marijuana trade.
"

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by resqme

That was as stupid a response from an elected official as I have ever seen...priceless.

I vote for Tim to make a personal appearance/appointment in her office to set her and her staff straight. Her ignorance is a blinding beacon that she needs some attention in this area.

[Runzoff]

Letters sent to Boxer, Feinstein and Miller.
Used some of your verbage and added my own...

Dear Senator,

I have recently become aware that there will be a massive closure of OHV trails in the Eldorado National forest this summer.

Closing these trails for a solid year or more is absolutely the wrong approach. Off-roading is a major hobby enjoyed by people from across the country and is a major contributor to our state and region’s economy;
From Local users - $8.5 million (within 30 miles driven to the forest)
From Non-Local users - $45 million (Over 30 miles driven to the forest)

California has 4.9 million ohv users on forest service land across the state.
California also has the highest number for forest service OHV users.
The recreation user data came from this report.
http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/prog...risRec1rpt.pdf


I understand that the ElDorado National Forest, or its surrounding communities may not be an area that you frequent, but it is where I spend many weekends a year recreating with my family. I am asking for your help to rectify this situation. There is no grounds for this closure, aside from some peoples disdain for wheeled recreation.

I consider myself an environmentalist, a strong supporter of "Tread Lightly" and responsible Land Stewardship. I spend many weekends a year in the forest, as a member of Cal 4 Wheel, Blue Ribbon Coalition and Diablo 4 Wheelers, maintaining trails, so that they can be enjoyed for years to come. As an aging American, 4x4 has become my source of enjoying our Public Lands. Many of these trails and Routes have Historical significance of our National Heritage.

Please take the time to look into this issue, and let me know how you can help.

Sincerely,

Nora Lee
Richmond, Ca.

[1uglyranger]

Just got this response back from my congressman

Dear Mr. Whitford:

Thank you for sharing your views with me about your opposition to H.R. 4094, the Preserving Access to Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area Act. I have reviewed your comments and welcome this opportunity to share my views with you.

As an avid user of the National Park system, my family and I greatly value the natural wonders, recreation areas, scenic rivers and seashores, monuments, battlefields, and military parks throughout the United States. These parks encompass over 84 million acres of land and receive over 250 million visitors each year.

While I am committed to integrate the many natural, historic and cultural resources within the department into the tourism and recreation sector of the economy, I do have concerns about maintaining the safety and purity of our National Parks and recreation areas, Cape Hatteras included. The Preserving Access to Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreations Area Act, would open beach areas that are currently closed to off-road vehicle usage and would limit the National Park Service’s authority to manage recreational usage at Cape Hatteras. It would also override a compromise reached last year by the National Park Service and environmental advocates.

As a member of the Natural Resources Committee, I continually to advocate for legislation that will protect our national and international conservation programs that have protected thousands of species, and oppose any legislation that will further endanger our nation’s wildlife or ecosystems. As H.R. 4094 is being considered in the Natural Resources Committee, I will keep your thoughts in mind as I weigh the compromises of environmental risks, the Nation Park Services Authority, and the economic impacts of opening recreational access in Cape Hatteras.

Once again, I thank you for sharing your concerns with me. If I can be of further assistance, feel free to contact my office in Walnut Creek at (925) 932-8899 or in Washington at (202) 225-1880.

I don't think he read my letter

[MochaMike]

Here is mine:

Dear Congressman
I have recently become aware that there will be a massive closure of OHV trails in the Eldorado National forest this summer.

These trails have been used/open for decades (if not longer). While I feel it is important that we preserve our environment & a study should be conducted to determine the effects & Solutions to any possible problems (if are any actually exhist). I don’t see why these trails need to be closed until the environmental study is complete.

Closing these trails for a solid year or more is absolutely the wrong approach. Off-roading is a major hobby enjoyed by people from across the country and is a major contributor to our state and region’s economy.
Those of us that use these trails, work very hard/volunteer thousands of hours every year with the Forrest Service to help the preserve & the wilderness accessible & pristine for future generations.

I strongly suggest that you urge the Forrest Service & others involved to work with the OHV community to create a workable solution which keeps the trails open to the community while maintaining & preserving this wonderful forrest (& trails).


Sincerely,

[yotasmob]

Some good news from the El Dorado Board of Supervisors. Be sure to leave a comment.

http://www.laketahoenews.net/2012/04...unty-is-wrong/

Posted by admin in Voices on April 23rd, 2012 | 7 responses


Publisher’s note: On April 17 at the recommendation of Supervisors Ray Nutting and Ron Briggs, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors adopted the following public statement regarding the case of Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. U.S. Forest Service (E.D. Cal No. S-09-2523).

El Dorado County is dismayed to learn that the plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court in the case of Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. U.S. Forest Service (E.D. Cal. No. S-09-2523) have asked the court to consider the blanket closure of 42 roads in the Eldorado National Forest because those roads happen to pass through very small meadow areas. The court has ordered those roads closed until a final order has been issued, which may cause the loss of a number of the most popular recreation trails in Eldorado County for this summer season.

These roads have been in use for recreation for decades (some for a century), and provide a unique and irreplaceable opportunity for citizens to enjoy the land which they own. The court’s decision on the merits of the litigation found that the U.S. Forest Service must supplement its analysis of whether the roads crossing meadows affects the hydrology of the meadow, a process that the Forest Service estimates will take a full year, mostly because of the various procedural time limits applicable to supplemental environmental impact statements under NEPA. The 42 roads total about 120 miles in length, of which less than 5 miles involve meadow areas, and 23 out of the 42 roads involve meadow crossings of less than 300 feet.

The court has extended the normal winter closure of all 42 roads into the summer recreation season, while it considers various alternative orders it might issue to be in effect during the period while the supplemental analysis is being done. The closure of all 42 roads for an entire summer recreation season just because they happen to pass through a meadow area for a short distance would be an unnecessarily blunt remedy that fails to maintain the status quo of many years of public use on those roads, and that fails to distinguish between different roads with different circumstances. For example, the Barrett Lake Trail has been in use for decades, and over the years has been upgraded and maintained by users so it is in a better condition to sustain its popularity without degradation of the environment than many other trails in the forest. It is considered a model of user-maintained road. It has several short sections involving meadows, but in many instances it has been re-routed around the meadow and in other sections it has been improved so that any hydrological problem has been eliminated. The Barrett Lake Trail ends at Barrett Lake, so that closing it at a short meadow section anywhere along its length effectively closes it entirely. The closure of this road for an entire recreation season is simply not justified by its particular circumstances. Furthermore, the closure of some of the most popular recreational roads in the Eldorado National Forest will divert users to other trails (such as the Rubicon Trail, a public road under R.S. 2477 and thus not involved in the current litigation), potentially overburdening these other trails which are not involved in the litigation.

Most important, a blanket closure of all 42 roads fails to take into account the enormous negative economic impact this will have on El Dorado County (and the other counties affected by the closure – Amador and Alpine counties). Closure of 42 roads will discourage citizens from coming here to recreate this summer, and the resulting confusion and uncertainty will no doubt discourage recreational use of the Eldorado National Forest for subsequent seasons also. It has been estimated that vehicular recreation in the Eldorado National Forest produces a net positive economic effect estimated to exceed $2 million per year to El Dorado County. An order carefully tailored to recognize the decades of prior use of the 42 routes, which recognizes the different circumstances of particular roads among the 42 at issue, can help alleviate unnecessary damage to the local economy.

The environmental and planning laws must be honored, but in a way that is both rational and realistic, without causing unnecessary damage to a fragile economy, and without unjustified restrictions on a citizen’s right to use federal land. El Dorado County believes that the roads should be kept open for this season while the remaining environmental analysis is being performed.

[nvduckdog]

Hey YOTASMOB. FYI: I just copied your post to Nevada 4X4.Com, and Reno 4X4.Com. Thanks for the update !

[atvobsession]

Thanks for posting.

[yotasmob]

Originally Posted by nvduckdog

Hey YOTASMOB. FYI: I just copied your post to Nevada 4X4.Com, and Reno 4X4.Com. Thanks for the update !

Originally Posted by atvobsession

Thanks for posting.

No problem!! Spread the word as much as you can!!

[MochaMike]

Here is the letter I received from my Congressman John Garamendi (along with my reply):

"Dear Mike:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding H.R. 1581, the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act. I have reviewed your comments and welcome this opportunity to share my views with you.
As former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Interior and an avid user of the National Parks system, I greatly value the natural wonders, recreation areas, scenic rivers and seashores, monuments, battlefields, and military parks America has been wise to preserve – especially in California. This is why I am opposed to H.R. 1581. The act opens up over 36 million acres of unspoiled land for commercial use in our national forests with an irresponsible blanket approach that doesn’t account for local needs and conditions. Opening millions of acres of national forests to development without analyzing the potential negative effects would harm communities throughout our country. To whatever extent we permit new road construction in national forests, it must be on a case-by-case basis weighing the possible negative impact against the potential positive value.
As member of the House Natural Resources Committee and the Subcommittee National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, I will continue to advocate for the conservation of the wilderness generations of Americans have bestowed to us. We must protect our land and the people and wildlife that depend on it. Since H.R. 1581 takes us in the opposite direction, I have spoken out against this legislation. Instead, I encourage community, local, state and federal stakeholders’ to develop consensus around how to approach protecting and promoting our public lands.
Correspondence from constituents like you is essential to my work in Congress, and I hope that you will continue to share your concerns with me as I represent the 10th District and help shape national policy. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact my office in Walnut Creek at (925) 932-8899 or in Washington at (202) 225-1880.
Please be sure to visit my website at www.garamendi.house.gov"






"Thank you for getting back to me.

I realize the Congressman has a very demanding & busy schedule, so I'm going to assume that this reply was from an aide or at the very least an intern.

HR 1581 has NOTHING to do with the letter I sent to the Congressman.
My letter was in reference to the El Dorado National Forest (in El Dorado County).
HR1581 pertains the Bureau of Land Management Land (BLM).

Over 120 miles of established trails in El Dorado National Forest which have been in use for over 50 years have been closed pending environmental impact studies.
HR1581 deals with the opening of BLM land for public/commercial use.

These two issues are like comparing Apples to Oranges.

This level of incompetence is embarrassing.

Sincerely....

PS-An associate sent the Congressman a similar letter. His reply referenced H.R. 4094, the Preserving Access to Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area Act, which isn't even in California!"

[RockMolester]

Here's what the "Honorable" George Miller had as a reply:

Thank you for contacting me about the Eldorado National Forest, and your concern about maintaining access to the National Forest's off-highway vehicle routes this year.



As you know, dirt roads and trails in the Eldorado National Forest are seasonally closed every year in order to prevent damage to the roads and trails, minimize erosion, and reduce other detrimental impacts to the forest. This year, those seasonal closures have been extended at least through the end of April. It is my understanding that the U.S. Forest Service is under a court order to additionally close portions of the 42 routes that you mentioned, as the district court found that opening these routes to vehicle use was contrary to the National Forest Management Act. The order from the district court specifically directs the Forest service to "extend the seasonal closings of the 42 roads" until the judge provides further direction. That is, under the order, the Forest Service does not have the option to leave the routes open.



A full list of questions and answers on the court order and the impacts, including information on how you can participate in the Forest Service's public planning and environmental review process, is available online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5362065.pdf



In addition, you may be interested in the court order itself, which may be reviewed here:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5362063.pdf

Sincerely,

GEORGE MILLER
Member of Congress

[LYIN' KING]

Thanks for trying!!!

Garamendi and his crew are clueless about this issue and don't even have their facts straight on H.R. 1581.

This is why I cautioned earlier in this thread . . .

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

The few Public Servants who may try to act on these early letters will likely find they have no place to voice concerns; it is not a currently open political topic.

Generally, they only deal with numbered stuff, hence the reply.

Regarding H.R. 1581, the title says it all . . . "the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011".

It merely releases areas long ago deemed unsuitable for Wilderness. These areas have remained locked up and managed as such, some cases over two decades.

At least Miller's crew bothered to do the research!!!

[1uglyranger]

Originally Posted by 1uglyranger

Just got this response back from my congressman

Dear Mr. Whitford:

Thank you for sharing your views with me about your opposition to H.R. 4094, the Preserving Access to Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area Act. I have reviewed your comments and welcome this opportunity to share my views with you.

As an avid user of the National Park system, my family and I greatly value the natural wonders, recreation areas, scenic rivers and seashores, monuments, battlefields, and military parks throughout the United States. These parks encompass over 84 million acres of land and receive over 250 million visitors each year.

While I am committed to integrate the many natural, historic and cultural resources within the department into the tourism and recreation sector of the economy, I do have concerns about maintaining the safety and purity of our National Parks and recreation areas, Cape Hatteras included. The Preserving Access to Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreations Area Act, would open beach areas that are currently closed to off-road vehicle usage and would limit the National Park Service’s authority to manage recreational usage at Cape Hatteras. It would also override a compromise reached last year by the National Park Service and environmental advocates.

As a member of the Natural Resources Committee, I continually to advocate for legislation that will protect our national and international conservation programs that have protected thousands of species, and oppose any legislation that will further endanger our nation’s wildlife or ecosystems. As H.R. 4094 is being considered in the Natural Resources Committee, I will keep your thoughts in mind as I weigh the compromises of environmental risks, the Nation Park Services Authority, and the economic impacts of opening recreational access in Cape Hatteras.

Once again, I thank you for sharing your concerns with me. If I can be of further assistance, feel free to contact my office in Walnut Creek at (925) 932-8899 or in Washington at (202) 225-1880.

I don't think he read my letter

Originally Posted by MochaMike

Here is the letter I received from my Congressman John Garamendi (along with my reply):

"Dear Mike:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding H.R. 1581, the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act. I have reviewed your comments and welcome this opportunity to share my views with you.
As former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Interior and an avid user of the National Parks system, I greatly value the natural wonders, recreation areas, scenic rivers and seashores, monuments, battlefields, and military parks America has been wise to preserve – especially in California. This is why I am opposed to H.R. 1581. The act opens up over 36 million acres of unspoiled land for commercial use in our national forests with an irresponsible blanket approach that doesn’t account for local needs and conditions. Opening millions of acres of national forests to development without analyzing the potential negative effects would harm communities throughout our country. To whatever extent we permit new road construction in national forests, it must be on a case-by-case basis weighing the possible negative impact against the potential positive value.
As member of the House Natural Resources Committee and the Subcommittee National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, I will continue to advocate for the conservation of the wilderness generations of Americans have bestowed to us. We must protect our land and the people and wildlife that depend on it. Since H.R. 1581 takes us in the opposite direction, I have spoken out against this legislation. Instead, I encourage community, local, state and federal stakeholders’ to develop consensus around how to approach protecting and promoting our public lands.
Correspondence from constituents like you is essential to my work in Congress, and I hope that you will continue to share your concerns with me as I represent the 10th District and help shape national policy. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact my office in Walnut Creek at (925) 932-8899 or in Washington at (202) 225-1880.
Please be sure to visit my website at www.garamendi.house.gov"

Awesome... wrong twice.... just awesome. Let us know if they reply again. I have yet to get a response to my second letter....

[R290]

I did not hear back, so set off another letter. Change of tactics. I started out local, but brought in its a national crisis. Toss in some personal stuff and ask them for help. I also said we need a new law. 501c should pay taxes on legal fees when they are the plaintiff as they are wasting my tax dollars.

[LYIN' KING]

OCCUPY Pollock Pines Monday April 30th at 6:00 PM!!!

/forum/land-use-issues/1062276-town-hall-meeting-held-pollock-pines-monday-april-30th.html

[MochaMike]

I got the following bounce message late last night:

"Failed to deliver to 'CongressmanJohnGaramendi@housemail.house.gov'
SMTP module(domain housemail.house.gov) reports:
housemail.house.gov: no response"

I guess I have to send it via the initial form on his web page.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by R290

I also said we need a new law. 501c should pay taxes on legal fees when they are the plaintiff as they are wasting my tax dollars.

There is legislation pending (stuck on "The Hill") that would prevent abuse of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) by large environmental groups and others who frequently challenge the federal government in court, it’s called the Government Litigation Savings Act (H.R. 1996 and S. 1061).

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...on+savings+act

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...on+savings+act

[Samiam2714]

I sent mine in, one to the president, govenor of NV, govenor in CA, both NV Senators.

[1uglyranger]

Originally Posted by MochaMike

I got the following bounce message late last night:

"Failed to deliver to 'CongressmanJohnGaramendi@housemail.house.gov'
SMTP module(domain housemail.house.gov) reports:
housemail.house.gov: no response"

I guess I have to send it via the initial form on his web page.

You can't reply to their email, it has to go through their channels

[MochaMike]

To give folks a better idea of who/what we/the FS is dealing with, check out this info I found the other day:

http://www.expeditionportal.com/foru...Sierra-Nevadas)

From post #7 by xtatik:

Please keep in mind this organization doesn't give a damn what the NFS or its field biologists have to say regarding this issue. They have no regard for the NFS and all the NFS is attempting to do here is avoid having to enter into litigation with them. From this link to their site, it appears they have targeted the Eldorado NF at least five times in the last decade, and as recently as last year.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/p..._timeline.html

As for the $$$$$, here is the best I could derive from public records:

Here are some examples of the salaries received by board members directly from the "Center". Keep in mind these individuals also pursue their own endeavours. Kieran and Peter also derive income from speaking engagements and appearances that could match their salaries if contracted wisely.

Salaries:
Kieran Suckling Exec Dir 104,313.00
Peter Galvin, Director $94,922.00
Robin D. Silver Secretary 81,500.00
Todd Schulke Treasurer 51,500.00

Also keep in mind, they are considered a non-profit. Salary disparities between a staff attorney and a board memeber won't often be as great as in private sector law practice. In fact, some staff attorney salaries could exceed that of the Director or Exec. Director in many cases, and they have many attornies. They have a much larger legal tool bag than scientific.

Earnings:
2008 IRS filings show $1,398,161.00 in receipts for legal fees reaped while suing the U.S. Government.
In 2009 they showed $ 1,173,517.00 doing same.
In 2010, $ 685,981.00
That's $ 3,257,659.00 earned over three years while attacking the NFS, NPS, BLM, EPA, etc. on these same types of issues.

Now, here come the Contributions:
$ 1,423,127.00 received as foundation grants in 2009
$ 1,876,800.00 received as foundation grants in 2010.

Memberships and donations totaled 4,795,424.00 in 2009
In 2010 they totaled $ 5,389,003.00

Grand totals for 2008 were $7,392,068.00.
In 2010 they were $ 7,951,784.00.

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_...200812_990.pdf
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/p...ualRpt2010.pdf

Appears to be a nice little business concern if you ask me.
Haven, I'm not one to BS and I'm certainly not one to condemn without having my facts in order. Seems in this case, you could stand to make yourself better aware of how the game is played between special interest groups that are essentially hiking/backpacking clubs (Sierra Club) or birding clubs (Audubon) and the like and agencies we entrust to steward our lands for all users and "the greater good". Everyone wants their own "private Idaho" and reserving these areas exlusively for the enjoyment of those interested in only bipedal pursuits is not the greater good. These organizations have lost proper focus and view the issue through a very fine lens. Ultimately, they serve a special interest and by the time the CBD is hired an organism or threat has been selected or fronted and a fight plan is in formulation. But, the true end game is that a particular special interest group will gain their true wishes....exclusive use/access.

[LYIN' KING]

Ted Turner admitted yesterday to handing 2 billion dollars to the United Nations for their environmental initiatives, think Agenda 21.

I'm all for protecting the environment while practicing multiple-use sustained-yield principles too, this crud is a real nightmare!

[MochaMike]

Pretty good article from the Supervisors today...


http://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/count...road-closures/

[Bebe]

You need to copy and paste - if you don't have a subscription - you can't access it.