In our last update we explained the radical road removal proposals being
advocated by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Sierra Club's
Conservation Alternative 6. This week we will discuss the impact Alternative
6 would have on mountain biking.
If you missed our past Forest Plan Updates, "What's at Stake Part I (fire
management)" and "What's at Stake Part II (Roads/Access)," you can view them
by clicking on the drop down menu on the top of this page.
In this issue:
1. Mountain Biking - The Sierra Club's and Center for Biological Diversity's campaign to radically limit mountain biking
2. Upcoming Forest plan meetings for the Angeles and Los Padres National Forests (Wednesday, June 2nd to Saturday, June 5th)
3. Meeting instructions and protocols for sound management advocates
Note: Forest Plans determine how a forest will be managed for 15 years. As
we mentioned last week, the Forest Service has chosen as the preferred draft
plans Alternative 2 for the Cleveland National Forest and Alternative 4 for
the Angeles, Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests. The Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD) and Sierra Club's supporters are attending the
current forest plan meetings pushing instead for the adoption of Alternative
6; and they are in a panic.
The sad fact is many of their supporters have no clue what Alternative 6 is
proposing - and the Sierra Club has made no attempt to explain the details
of Alternative 6. They have instead distracted their supporters by passing
out stickers at the Forest Plan meetings with the slogan "Protect and
Restore our Forests!" without explaining the radical ramifications behind
that slogan - and the devil is always in the details.
The page numbers are for reference and indicate the pages in Alternative 6
where the information was taken.
You can view the CBD's and the Sierra Clubs Conservation Alternative 6 on
our web site. (3.7mb PDF file)
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Sierra Club's proposals for
recreation would ban mountain bike use from a large portion of the Southern
California National Forests, restricting mountain bike use to only the few
fire roads that remain open after their radical road standards are adopted
(as explained in last weeks update). Always keep in mind the CBD and the
Sierra Club's main goal in these forest plans is to limit public access and
recreation, many times by the abuse of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
"The Forest Service shall designate all existing and potential Wilderness
Areas and Roadless Areas over 1,000 acres in size as Primitive under the ROS
(Recreation Opportunity Spectrum)." (Page 328)
As I previously mentioned in our past alert on fire management, a major
portion of the four National Forests are designated as "roadless." Although
Roadless Inventoried Areas must be reviewed as a part of the forest plan
revision process, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is enjoined from
implementation by a lawsuit in Colorado and there are two additional suits
pending. But we should still proceed as if this initiative/designation will
be implemented, as has the CBD and the Sierra Club.
Here in Orange County, all our single track trails, including the San Juan
Trail, are in the Trabuco Roadless Area. Many of the trails in your National
Forest are probably also in a named Roadless Area. The "Primitive" ROS
management designation prohibits mountain bikes (page 324) and while
wilderness areas must be at least 5,000 acres in size, this rule would in
fact create de facto wilderness designations in areas (designated as
roadless) that are as small as 1,000 acres in size. Managing these areas
under the "Primitive" ROS designation would radically affect mountain bike
access.
The Warrior's Society opposed the Roadless Initiative because we believed it
was an attempt by environmental groups, such as the CBD and Sierra Club, to
create de facto wilderness designations, and we were proven correct. The
Trabuco Roadless Area contains nearly 100 percent of our trails here in
Orange County, including the San Juan Trail. The Sierra Club attempted to
designate the Trabuco Roadless Area as wilderness in the current wilderness
bill - but with your help we defeated them.
To prove their "environmental credentials" to the Sierra Club, IMBA
supported the Roadless Initiative despite our warning. IMBA's trust of the
Sierra Club and attempts to appease them has resulted in IMBA being betrayed
- again. IMBA even signed a "Joint Statement of Commitments" with the Sierra
Club to support the wilderness designation:
WildernessAlert22.html
How does the Sierra Club react to the signing of this "Joint Statement of
Commitments?" Emboldened by this appeasement, it promotes management
policies detrimental to mountain biking.
IMBA has been betrayed again.
"The Forest Service shall, within 1 year, classify all trails according to
the following authorized use classes: (I) hiking and equestrian use only;
(II) all non-motorized permitted uses (e.g. hiking, equestrian and
bicycling); and (III) all permitted uses (e.g. hiking, equestrian,
bicycling, and ORV). (Page 329)
This requirement, combined with the following requirement in the "Mountain
Bike" section, would have severe impacts on mountain biking, especially if
the Forest Service is unable to accomplish this assessment in the 1 year
time period required. This would give the CBD grounds to file a lawsuit,
their favorite weapon, to close these trails to mountain bikes because the
Forest Service is in violation of the Forest Plan. Remember, to survey these
trails and bring these trails up to their standard will take funds and
personnel the Forest Service does not have:
"The Forest Service shall, within 1 year, examine all system trails for
suitability for use by bicycles, review for safety of and conflicts with
other users all trails on which bicycles are allowed. Review for safety of
other users all trails that do not meet the following criteria: minimum
sight distance of +/- 85 feet for trail grades of 5-10% at blind turns;
minimum sight distance of +/- 50 feet for trail grades of 10-15% at blind
turns; minimum sight distance of +/- 25 feet for tail grades over 15% at
blind curves." (Page 330)
Although the Sierra Club, after much controversy, allowed the creation of a
"Mountain Bike Committee" within the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club,
their proposals truly show the disdain they have for mountain bike
recreation. The token gesture of embracing mountain biking by the creation
of that "committee" was as deceptive as the slogan, "Protect and Restore our
Forests!" printed on stickers they passed out to their supporters at the
Forest Plan meetings. I wonder if the Sierra Club Mountain Bike Committee is allowed
to oppose Alternative 6?
I think you know the answer to that question.
A few comments to those naïve citizens who attended the Forest Plan meetings
and without thought supported the CBD and the Sierra Club; you place so
little value on your freedom; you relinquish it without thought or
deference. Only the intellectually bankrupt defer to ignorance on such
important issues.
What does "Protect and Restore our Forests!" really mean?
The long version is:
"Protect and Restore our Forests!" means although we pay lip service to
allowing mountain bike recreation we must make every effort to ban the evils
of mountain biking from the forest by use of restrictive designations,
unrealistic standards and requirements that the Forest Service will not be
able to meet. This strategy will allow us to manage by lawsuit and by
abusing the Endangered Species Act - and achieve our goal of radically
removing public access to the forest.
The short version is:
"Protect and Restore our Forests!" means banning mountain bikes.
The CBD and the Sierra Club have been anything but honest with the public by
not revealing the details of their proposals, instead relying on the Sierra
Club's false "mainstream" reputation as a balanced environmental
organization, a reputation that over the years has become increasingly
tarnished; their behavior during the Forest Plan process has only confirmed
their decline as a trustworthy organization.
History has shown that Democracy can not long endure in a climate where the
information that will govern it is denied or hidden behind slogans such as
"Protect and Restore our Forests!" This tactic has found a home in the
agenda of fanatics worldwide - as recent history has shown.
The Sierra Club's path of deception, built on fanaticism and not reason,
shows how far they have fallen from grace. We must remember that Jihad under
any name poses a great risk to those subject to it; the folly of misplaced
faith and ignorance over reason - and the subsequent destruction of our
freedom.
The Sierra Club places such little value in your freedom, the freedom that
many or our citizens have sacrificed their lives for.
Our next "Forest Plan Update - What's at Stake Part IV (Vision)" will deal
with what the future holds.
We will be evaluating and commenting on the forest plans before the comment
period ends in August. We will be releasing these comments to our supporters
with a link to the Forest Service web site so you can comment too. Please do
your part to protect your access by visiting our web site for this
information or sign up on our email list to be kept informed on the forest
plans.
|
ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST |
LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST |
The following information is needed:
We need to know what trails are contained within the specially designated
areas: Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Natural Research Areas and
Special Interest Areas.
Questions to ask related to these areas:
1. What existing trails are located in proposed special designated areas -
Wilderness, Wild and Scenic, Research Natural, Special Interest?
2. What is the real "need" for a particular direction - are existing uses
such as trails not impacting these areas and thus should access not be
restricted.
3. Are the proposed wilderness areas, or areas with the Primitive ROS
(Recreation Opportunity Spectrum) designation at high risk for fire, which
could affect local communities, and what strategies are being implemented to
address fire suppression and management of these areas? Alert your local
fire marshal and Fire agency union representatives and ask them to review
and comment on the fire management proposals being advocated in Conservation
Alternative 6, which is advocated by the Center for Biological Diversity and the
Sierra Club (copies can obtained from the Warrior's Society) and in
Alternative 2 (for the Cleveland) and 4 (for the Angeles, San Bernardino and
Los Padres National Forests). Also ask what threats are being posed to these
areas that they warrant wilderness protection? Are the threats real or
overblown, etc.
The information from these questions is what we need to comment on the DEIS
Draft Plan. This information many also be used for future actions, such as
an appeal (if needed), and to show a particular direction or designation is
simply not needed.
Remember when evaluating these areas:
Your feedback will be most helpful if you:
* are as specific as possible with your comments by naming the proposed
wilderness area, Wild and Scenic River, Natural Resource Area, Special
Interest Area that you are commenting on (and provide pictures if possible).
* indicate what trails will be affected
* suggest alternative management approaches or solutions to the specific
problem(s) that warrant specific designations - i.e. trails will not impact
area (take pictures for proof) or trails can be rerouted around area prior
to designation being applied.
What ever information you can provide would be most helpful, so don't feel
overwhelmed. We are going to compile all the information received after the
meetings are over and formulate our appeal. Your help will be a big part of
influencing these plans.
PROPOSED DRESS AND BEHAVIOR CODE FOR FOREST PLAN OPEN HOUSES
1. THE TASK: inform our motorized, equestrian and mountain bike recreation
representatives (whom are planning on) attending the Forest Plan Open Houses
to wear "business casual" attire, preferably kaki, and or, green unmarked
garments.
2. DEFINITION: These are public business meetings, not club social events.
Hence the concern and suggestion is, "Please, resist the temptation to wear
your favorite 'motorized, equestrian or mountain bike recreation interest'
apparel."
3. RESULT: Adhering to this simple "plan of action" will help minimize the
initial "stereotyping" from opposing non-recreational representatives. This
will enhance our effectiveness in discussing opposing opinions and give us
the freedom to roam the room with less likely-hood of confrontation.
4. PROPOSED GUIDELINES:
|
DO'S: |
DON'TS: |
PROPOSED CONDUCT CODE FOR RECREATION ATTENDEE'S
1. Don't argue! Remain calm. On either end of the spectrum we will
encounter folks that can be quite vocal and militant.
2. Assign a knowledgeable group representative for each meeting, to address
your initial questions and concerns and plan for action. If you have no
knowledge of the Forest Plan Alternatives don't get caught airing your lack
of understanding outside the privacy of your group.
3. Identify those in your group that have experience speaking at public
meetings and ask them to act as your liaison and address those in
attendance. They must also try to neutralize the emotions of those fed up
with the religious fanaticism of the environmental movement. Ask these
individuals to share their prime concerns within the control of your group.
Use a "reflective listening" technique such as, "So, what you are saying is,
you are adamant about this boundary being here, as opposed to there?" Or,
escort that person to a FS person you trust, to privately address their
fear.
Please follow these instructions so you can be an effective representative
of the recreation community.
 |
Copyright© The Warrior's Society® |
|