How much do you value your freedom?
What is your "Vision" for the future of our National Forests here in
Southern California?
I challenge anyone to read the forest management proposals being
advocated by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Sierra
Club in their Conservation Alternative 6 - and dispute the fact that
this plan would radically limit our access - as well as affect our
ability to manage fire, especially controlled burns.
If you missed our past Forest Plan Updates:
What's at Stake Part I (fire management)
What's at Stake Part II (roads/Access)
What's at Stake Part III (mountain biking)
you can view them on our web site by clicking on drop down list at the top of this page.
The goal of the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club is
to remove what has been estimated as 60 to 70 percent of our access to
the Forests. This campaign is part of the "Wildlands Project", which we
will discuss in our next Forest Plan Update.
The CBD and the Sierra Club have pinned their hopes on the fact that you
will not read the proposals contained in Alternative 6. They have relied
on a deceptive tactic to hide the details of their alternative by the
use of emotional appealing slogans such as "Protect and Restore our
Forests!" and not truthfully telling the public of the radical proposals
this slogan represents.
Why did the Forest Service pick Alternative 2 for the Cleveland and
Alternative 4 for the Las Padres, San Bernardino and Angeles National
Forests - and not Alternative 6?
For the very reasons I pointed out. In their own words:
The Forest Service picked Alternative 2 for the Cleveland National
Forest for the following reasons:
• The balanced land use zoning in Alternative 2 would allow us to place
needed emphasis on retaining or restoring healthy natural environments
that are valued for habitats, biodiversity and special ecosystems.
• It would retain the option for managed motorized access in areas where
it is needed for fire suppression, community protection and forest
health projects
• Alternative 2 would provide some opportunity for increased recreation
to complement the extensive public recreation opportunities found on
other public lands near the forest.
The Forest Service picked Alternative 4 for the Los Padres, San
Bernardino and Angeles National Forests for the following reasons:
• Alternative 4 would allow us to place needed emphasis on vegetation
and hazardous fuels management to ensure a healthy forest for the
future.
• It would allow us the flexibility to respond to the variety and level
of recreation expected from a growing, culturally diverse population.
• Alternative 4 would retain the option for managed motorized access in
many locations, which would allow flexibility in fire suppression,
community protection and forest health projects.
• It would retain our commitment to conduct activities in an
environmentally sustainable way to continue the protection and recovery
of species at risk.
I will ask you to do something the CBD and Sierra Club fear asking you
to do, compare their Conservation Alternative 6:
click to view 3.7mb PDF file
with Alternative 2 (for the Cleveland National Forest) and Alternative 4
(for the Angeles, Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forests)
posted on the Forest Planning Revision Web site:
www.fs.fed.us/r5/scfpr/draft/publication/index.htm
Although the alternatives the Forest Service has chosen are not perfect
(and need some tweaking), they reflect balanced management rather than
the extreme proposals put forth by Alternative 6, which would eliminate
access to (or remove/obliterate) 60 to 70 percent of the roads and
trails in these National Forests.
I want you to be informed; I want you to know the details; unlike the
CBD and the Sierra Club I have nothing to hide behind slogans such as
"Protect and Restore our Forests!"
The contrast between these alternatives and Alternative 6 is striking.
While the Forest Service seeks to balance environmental protection with
the public's recreational needs and fire management, the CBD and the
Sierra Club's Alternative 6 seeks to turn our forests into virtual
zoos, with us behind the bars of no access looking in.
If only the Sierra Club did not view mankind as evil, but instead
focused on the great things mankind can accomplish - when allowed the
freedom to do so. The Warrior's Society has been extremely successful in
encouraging people to get out in the forest and give back by
participating in trail work projects. In 2002 we were awarded the Trail
Advocate award for region 5 by the American Trails Association and the
U.S. Forest Service. Can you imagine what the Sierra Club, with their
millions of dollars given by their supporters (who are naïve about their
radical agenda), could accomplish if they did the same instead of
attempting to remove the public's access to the forest - no matter what
the cost to their freedom?
But there is a fundamental difference in how the Warrior's Society and
the Sierra Club views human potential, they have lost faith in mankind -
and we have not. They have also drifted away from science and instead
are becoming more and more a faith based organization, a very radical
one, that sees its' redemption in removing the presence of mankind from
our public lands, and even lands that are not public. While their call
to Jihad is not "Death to America" it is "Death to the Public's Access
and Freedom."
America is a great country - and what makes it great is our focus on
protecting the freedom of our citizens. We can only continue this great
legacy if we believe we are capable of exercising that freedom and
allowed and encouraged to do so.
My Vision for our forests is that we do not forget the value of our
freedom; that we retain our passion for it and nurture and encourage
people to exercise that freedom by being involved in maintaining our
public lands. Our freedom is worth protecting, and doing so demands we
look for the good that mankind is capable of. We must encourage that
goodness and seek solutions that leave mankind in the equation, and do
not bestow upon mankind the mantle of disdain.
I will not lose faith in our citizens - for to do so means the America I
love will not long exist. This is not the legacy I will leave our
children.
To do otherwise, as the Sierra Club and CBD have done, can only be
described as similar to a totalitarian regime that believes itself the
sole arbitrator of freedom, a freedom that cannot be trusted to the
masses; they are a de facto God. This is a frightening Vision.
This belief in their "God" like powers should not go without
questioning. If they are the sole arbitrators of freedom, i.e. "God,"
what kind of God are they?
Are they a vindictive God that demands blind obedience?
Or are they a loving God that demands relentless questioning; not
withholding the knowledge that makes intelligent decisions possible? Are
they a God that allows us to determine our fate; that allows this act of
grace that is free will?
In our natural state we have the gift of free will. In which God, in
which "faith," do you find the freedom necessary to nurture free will
and advance mankind.
And if you are a person of faith:
Do you view this blessing from God, free will (i.e. freedom) as a gift
of grace - or a curse to be eliminated and taken away from the unworthy
masses - as the CBD and Sierra Club view it; a viewpoint shared by the
worst regimes in history?
The Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity have shown, by
their attempts to remove us from our public lands, that they believe we
are no longer worthy of freedom - or the legacy that gave birth to it.
They have lost faith in our citizens and see them only as a threat. As
history has proven, no democracy can long survive in such a climate.
Their Vision of America is not one of hope, but of despair and ultimate
control.
For the sake of our children, for the sake of our country, for the sake
of our freedom - I hope their Vision of America does not come to pass.
I fear that the demise of America, the guiding light of liberty that has
been a beacon of hope to the subjugated of the world, will not begin
with it being conquered by a tyrant from within or without.
It will begin with its' citizens incrementally giving up their freedom,
no longer willing or able to defend it, instead abdicating it slowly to
the certainty of servitude; no longer willing to exercise the
responsibility that comes with free will. This destruction, this
abdication of the freedom to question that makes the practice of free
will and freedom possible, will be our end.
It will be the tragic ending of a great country no longer willing to
view freedom as a gift from God; but a liability instead.
"Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away
from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for
and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a
people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known
it again."
- Ronald Reagan - January 5, 1967
You are being given the opportunity to protect your freedom to access
your public lands by commenting on the future of your forests; please
take this responsibility seriously.
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 to evaluate with an email address to the Forest Planning
Team 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.
 |
Copyright© The Warrior's Society® |
|