So Cal Forest Land management Plan Meeting Preparation

From some of our OHV Friends.

********

The Southern California National Forests will be having open house to
display their revised Forest Land Management Plans.

This may be the most effective opportunity to to have an influence on a
plan that can affect the next 15 years of 4x4 and OHV opportunity on
Southern California forests.

I see where the SIERRA CLUB has begun to roll out a slick EMAIL/WEB
comprehensive campaign to fully take advantage of this critical and perhaps
last opportunity to influence the plan; or to quote the SIERRA CLUB, "TAKE
ACTION"

*********************

* They plan to post an analysis of the plan asap.

* Inform THEIR public on how to influence forest service personnel at the
meetings.

* Solicit written letters and provide sample comments "will deliver these
comments in person to key Forest Service management."

********************

I can only hope Off Highway Vehicle organizations will act in a timely
manner to compete with this well planned blitz to minimize our input.

If you wrote comments from the last open houses then expect to get
responses at these open houses. You will have a opportunity to make input
on those responses.

You can use this link to share info on open houses but I think the one
from the Sierra Club may be more compelling to motivate OHV'rs to get out
and express any disagreements with the plan; or "TAKE ACTION".

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/scfpr/

----------------------------

"Ironically, the 2004 wildfires gave residents a reprieve, since the
Forest Service has temporarily closed trails in burned areas. “We’ve
had a year of peace,” says Henderson. “It was hell with the motorcycles
and it’s heaven without them.” Now many are asking the
Forest Service to close these areas to ORVs permanently."

http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/socalforests/threats.pdf
---------------

"The Southern California Forests Campaign (SIERRA CLUB)will be soliciting
letters from the public in October about how the plans can be improved, and
it will deliver these comments in person to key Forest Service management.
An analysis of the forest plans will be available on this website in early
October, about a week after the plans are released."
...
"The Forest Service will be holding 28 open house meetings across southern
California to present the plans to the public in October and early November
(see below). Locations range from Big Sur to San Diego. Visit this website
in early October for suggested comments to make to Forest Service personnel
at the meetings."

http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/socalforests/plans_released.asp

-------------------------------------


What to do?

"TAKE ACTION: Attend A Forest Service Open House Meeting And Write A Brief
Comment Letter!"

http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/socalforests/take_action.asp

"You can help protect the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino
National Forests for a generation to come by attending a Forest Service open
house meeting and writing a comment letter about the new plans for delivery
to the Forest Service by the(Sierra Club) Southern California Forests
Campaign. Visit the campaign website in early October for a brief analysis
of the plans, sample comments, and links to the full management plan map and
text. In the meantime, save the date of a meeting near you."

--------------------


I do not recommend using the SC website to offer comments. Past messages have been form lettered (by the SC, Heritage Forest Campaign, and Bluewater Network) to delete anyting but their choice talking points.

You are better off using the USFS site and hand delivering comments at a metting:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/scfpr/

Ed A. Stevens said:

From some of our OHV Friends.
The Southern California National Forests will be having open house to
display their revised Forest Land Management Plans.

Click to expand...

Thanks for keeping up on these issues Ed! I'll be able to attend a few of the meetings!
When speaking with different forest service employees I get the feeling that they are on "our" side, but they are so politically hammered by other groups they are forced to give in. We really need to take action (as the Sierra Club says).
:us:

Forest Plans Link


Letter From Regional Forester Bernie Weingardt
File Code: 1920
September 20, 2005

Forest Stakeholders:

I am pleased to announce the availability of the Revised Land and Resource Management Plans (Forest Plans) and accompanying Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Records of Decision for the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forests. For those of you who have been involved through the planning process, I thank you for your time and hard work. Your input has been instrumental to crafting higher quality final Forest Plans.



Press Release

New Forest Service Plans Provide Recreation and Protect National Forests
VALLEJO, Calif., Sept. 23, 2005 – The Forest Service announced new land management plans today to protect the natural character of four southern California national forests and provide a wide range of recreation opportunities over the next 10-15 years. Pacific Southwest Regional Forester Bernie Weingardt called the plans a “balanced, strategic blueprint for responding to the increasing demand for recreation and other uses of the national forests while protecting forest ecosystems and resources, especially threatened and endangered species

*********

Ed, Thanks for devoting so much time to these land use issues. I wish I had the time! I regulary write letters/e-mails, and some times make phone calls to representatives and such, but generally after you (or someone like yourself) has brought it to my attention. I e-mailed my local Representative about a year ago regarding the land use fees for the Barstow/Johnson Valley area. About an hour later, one of his assistants called me back on the telephone. I was very surprised, and also impressed that my correspondance was actually being read. He told me that he, nor Mr. Lewis (My local rep) was aware of the bill, or what it ws all about, let alone the fact that they had already voted on it. I talked to him for over an hour, and he seemed eager to learn about this topic (not the outdoorsy type) and seemed to take the points I had to heart. He was taking notes on our conversation, and said he was going to discuss it with Mr. Lewis as soon as he hung up the phone. I don't think this guy was an intern as he sounded very experienced at his job and sounded like 40 years old.

Anyway, sorry to be so long winded...just trying to show everyone else that a little effort goes a long way.

Dan

Do you like the new Forest land plan?

see what the C.B.D. has to say.
******

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
BECAUSE LIFE IS GOOD
Protecting endangered species and wild places through
science, policy, education, and environmental law.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 23, 2005

CONTACT: Monica Bond, Center for Biological Diversity: 415-436-9682 x305
Bill Corcoran, Sierra Club: 213-387-6528 x208
Chris Hicks, Center for Law in the Public Interest: 213-977-1035 x104
More Information: Reports on Southern California Forests


Forest Service Plans Leave Southern California Forests at Risk
Management Plans Fail to Meet Needs of Majority of Forest Visitors

Los Angeles –The final land management plans for the four national forests of southern California fail to protect the forests from new and rapidly growing threats and do not serve most forest visitors, according to California conservation organizations. The final plans, released yesterday by the Forest Service, affect 3,530,723 acres of forest land, guiding decisions on everything from protecting wildlife and providing recreational opportunities, to deciding where potentially damaging development can be placed.

“The Forest Service has let down the vast majority of forest visitors. Four years and millions of dollars have been spent on a plan that will only lead to a further decline in the quality of visitors’ experiences and the health and beauty of the forests. Those who love and value our forests must champion an alternative vision that will serve the public and protect the forests in ways the Forest Service plans fail to do,” said Bill Corcoran, Sierra Club Senior Regional Representative.

The forests are visited by over eight million people a year—twice the number of visitors to Yosemite National Park. These forests are where many children play in snow for the first time, see their first pinecones and deer, and wade in their first sparkling creek. For millions of residents, a personal link with our natural world begins and is sustained on the four forests.

The final plans fail to address challenges that threaten the natural and recreational values in the four forests. The Cleveland National Forest is confronted with proposals to flood a popular recreation area for a hydroelectric plant, build a toll road through wilderness-quality lands, and construct massive power transmission lines along a spectacular scenic vista. A plan to drill for oil in condor habitat and ongoing off-road vehicle damage are key threats on the Los Padres National Forest.

A toll road has also been proposed through the Angeles National Forest, where visitors often suffer inadequate facilities and services, and major new developments are gradually encircling the forest, threatening vital wildlife migration trails, increasing the risk of fire and impacting recreation opportunities. The San Bernardino National Forest faces similar development risks, particularly from growth pressures on communities surrounded by national forest land.

Off-road vehicle damage on all of the forests is a key threat. The new plans will expand harmful, polluting off-road vehicle use on the forests while offering few improvements for the 95% of visitors who don’t use off-road vehicles.

The plans are virtually silent on addressing inadequate services and facilities for economically disadvantaged residents who use the forests for family vacations. “The four forests of southern California are in America’s most ethnically diverse region. The plans offer platitudes when action is needed to make our forests more inviting and rewarding places for the growing number of Latino and African-American visitors. A visitor to the East Fork of the San Gabriel River on a summer weekend will see thousands of visitors making do without safe walkways, adequate bathrooms or even basic educational materials,” said Chris Hicks, Center for Law in the Public Interest Attorney.

In the plans, the Forest Service largely rejected using its own best land designation tools to protect the forests from harmful development such as oil wells, toll roads, and transmission lines, despite public demand for stronger protection. For example, the Forest Service has retreated from wilderness protection for Morrell Canyon, a popular hiking destination on the Cleveland NF, facilitating plans to flood the canyon for a hydroelectric project. The recommendation for protection was included in last year’s draft plans.

“The Forest Service admits that there is not enough wilderness designation in the plans to meet public demand, but has refused to do much about it. Giving these last wild places the highest level of protection is the best defense against damaging development. When even a beloved place like Morrell Canyon can’t be protected, it’s clear that the plans have ignored the public interest,” said Sara Barth, The Wilderness Society Regional Director.

The final plans also lack adequate protections for the 470 plants and animals on the forests, identified by state and federal agencies as threatened, endangered, sensitive, or of concern - including the Nelson bighorn sheep and the California condor. Viewing wildlife is one of the most popular visitor activities on the forests.

“With these plans, the Forest Service has abdicated the regional leadership it alone can provide to protect our rapidly disappearing native wildlife and plants. Worse, their final plans leave our native wildlife and plants at increased risk. Providing management leadership now will ensure a future for southern California’s plants and animals so that our grandchildren can experience the joy of discovering nature,” said Monica Bond, Center for Biological Diversity Wildlife Biologist.

“The Forest Service has adopted plans that are out of balance with the needs of most forest visitors. As the amount of open space beyond forest boundaries dwindles and the population grows, protecting the scenic beauty and recreational opportunities provided by the four forests is of ever growing importance. These plans fail to provide the decisive leadership needed to meet that challenge,” said Corcoran.

Conservation groups will continue to encourage a positive vision for strong protection of the forests and communities, and support a sustainable future for non-motorized recreation on the forests. This vision will be the foundation for a long-range campaign to replace today’s failed forest plans with improved plans that reflect the needs and values of the majority of forest visitors.


Sierra Club • Center for Law in the Public Interest • Center for Biological Diversity
The Wilderness Society • California Wilderness Coalition • Los Padres ForestWatch

(end)

********

So Cal Forest Land management Plan

From the http://www.warriorssociety.org/

(a OHV friendly mountain bike organization)

*******


In this Forest Plan Update

1. Forest Plan Update Short Version - Is the Sierra Club out to limit
mountain bike access?

2. Forest Plan Update Long Version - Is the Sierra Club out to limit
mountain bike access?

3. The Forest Plan Open House Schedule

4. Sierra Club can save wildlife but not money


1. SHORT VERION: FOREST PLAN UPDATE - IS THE SIERRA CLUB OUT TO LIMIT
MOUNTAIN BIKE ACCESS?

-"O, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."-

-Sir Walter Scott-

You damn well know they are. For 5 years through the Forest Planning process
and their proposed wilderness designations (wilderness designations ban
mountain biking) they've been trying to ban mountain biking from all the
single track trails in the Southern California National Forests; including
the San Juan Trail.

This statement from a Saturday, Sept. 24th Los Angeles Times article titled
"National Forest Blueprint Tries to Balance Interests" pretty much sums it
up:

"'The forest plan merely recognizes that Southern California's needs and
desires for its public lands could change over time,' Forest Service
spokesman Mathes said.

"'These plans have to be forward-looking,' he said. 'It would be
UNPROFESSIONAL, AND FRANKLY IRRESPONSIBLE, to close the door on something
that humans may desperately need five to 10 years from now.'"

To read the whole article from the Times and the "Record Of Decision" that
explains why Alternative 4A was chosen, go to our message board at:

http://www.warriorssociety.org/voices/

Why did the Forest Service not accept the Sierra Club's and CBD's
Conservation Alternative 6 proposals to restrict recreation and severely cut
back on the public's recreational access?

The question the public and the press should be asking is not why the
current plans were chosen - but why wasn't the Sierra Club's and Center for
Biological Diversity's Conservation Alternative 6 Forest Plan embraced by
the Forest Service?

The answer: the Sierra Club's and CBD's recreation proposals would have
radically limited the public's recreational access of our forests.

I'd like the press to hold the Sierra Club and Center For Biological
Diversity accountable and ask the Forest Service the following question:

"What would be the effect on the public's recreational access if
Conservation Alternative 6 was picked as the preferred management
alternative?"

Why haven't they asked these hard questions and by default betray the
public's trust?

The Forest Plan process is heating up again and as expected the Sierra Club
"rhetoric" campaign is heating up too. As a reminder, the four National
Forests in California have been undergoing revisions of their Forest Plans.
Forest Plans determine how forests will be managed for 15 years. These plans
are critical because they determine how recreation (i.e. mountain biking)
will be managed.

The next set of meetings will present to the public the chosen Alternative
"4A" Forest Plans.

Once we get a look at the final forest plans (and if they are balanced as we
expect they are in addressing conservation and recreation) we will be asking
you to comment in support of them during the 90-day appeal period that will
begin around September 30th.

Please attend a Forest Plan Open House (the Open Houses are listed as item 3
in this email) and help fight the Sierra Club's attempts to deceive the
public into opposing any forest plan that protects the public's recreational
access. Do not allow the Sierra Club to deceive the public and rob them of
their access to their public lands. The Sierra Club will attempt to lobby
opposition to the chosen plans during the 90 day appeal period expected to
begin on September 30.

If you want to know how the Rat Bastards that lead the Sierra Club and
Center For Biological Diversity (CBD) have been deceiving mountain bikers
(and the general public) read the long version of the Forest Plan Update
below. Find out how the Sierra Club and CBD attempted to ban mountain biking
by their proposed Forest Plan: "Conservation Alternative 6."

The Sierra Club and Center For Biological Diversity sure as hell won't tell
you; they don't trust the public to accept their "Vision" for the forest.

-"I have no fear, but that the results of our experiment will be, that men
may be trusted to govern themselves without a master. Could the contrary be
proved, I should conclude, either that there is no God, or that he is a
malevolent being."-

-Thomas Jefferson-

For 5 years the Sierra Club and Center For Biological Diversity have
attempted to ban mountain biking from the National Forests in Socal through
wilderness bills and forest plans; they cannot dispute this fact.

Their proposals would have restricted all aspects of recreation.

Hold the Sierra Club and Center For Biological Diversity accountable for the
policies they promote; don't let them hide behind rhetoric.

*******

more from http://www.warriorssociety.org/voices/

********

2. LONG VERSION: FOREST PLAN UPDATE - IS THE SIERRA CLUB OUT TO LIMIT MOUNTAIN BIKE ACCESS?

The Forest Plan process is heating up again and as expected the Sierra Club
"rhetoric" campaign is heating up too. As a reminder, the four National
Forests in California have been undergoing revisions of their Forest Plans.
Forest Plans determine how forests will be managed for 15 years. These plans
are critical because they determine how recreation (i.e. mountain biking)
will be managed.

The next set of meeting will present to the public the chosen Forest Plans.

All of the plans are available on the Cleveland National Forest website:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/scfpr/projects/lmp/

The Forest Service will be presenting one Final Environmental Impact
Statement and 4 individual forest plans.

This is the end of the 4 year planning phase. The Forest Service is also
issuing their record of decision along with the forest plans. They are built
around a 'selected alternative'. The plans will become effective around the
end of October. There is a 90 day appeal period that they expect to begin on
September 30.

From what we've seen so far the Forest Service (with the input of the public
and the agencies and business' affected), has developed balanced Forest
Plans that will provide protection for both the forests and the public's
freedom to recreate in them. Over the next two weeks the Warrior's Society
and Mike Boeck, our lead consultant on the Cleveland National Forest, will
be evaluating the forest plans.

As we've stated in our past Forest Plan Alerts, the Sierra Club and Center
for Biological Diversity's (CBD) proposed Forest Plans were so out of touch
it's no wonder they were rejected. As the final meetings on the Forest Plan
and 90-day appeal period approaches we need to expose to the mountain bike
community and the public at large what the Sierra Club and CBD proposed in
their Conservation Alternative 6 Forest Plan.

This statement from a Saturday, Sept. 24th Los Angeles Times article titled
"National Forest Blueprint Tries to Balance Interests" pretty much sums up
why the Forest Service did not accept the Sierra Club's and CBD's
Conservation Alternative 6 proposals to restrict recreation (and severely
cut back on Mountain Bike access):

"'The forest plan merely recognizes that Southern California's needs and
desires for its public lands could change over time,' Forest Service
spokesman Mathes said.

"'These plans have to be forward-looking,' he said. 'It would be
UNPROFESSIONAL, AND FRANKLY IRRESPONSIBLE, to close the door on something
that humans may desperately need five to 10 years from now.'"

To read the whole article and the "Record Of Decision" that explains why
Alternative 4A was chosen, go to our website at:

http://www.warriorssociety.org/voices/

The question the public and the press should be asking is not why the
current plans were chosen, but why wasn't the Sierra Club's and Center for
Biological Diversity's Conservation Alternative 6 Forest Plan
recommendations embraced by the Forest Service?

The answer: the Sierra Club's and CBD's recreation proposals would have
severely limited the public's use of the forest; it was no wonder the Forest
Service and recreational leaders rejected it. It is why the Forest Service
Spokesman stated:

"It would be UNPROFESSIONAL, AND FRANKLY IRRESPONSIBLE, to close the door on
something that humans may desperately need five to 10 years from now."

Here's a link to my analysis of their plans to remind you of how radical
their Conservation Alternate 6 was:

http://www.warriorssociety.org/News/ForestPlanAlerts.html

As these final meetings take place we must continue to portray and expose
the Sierra Club and CBD for what they are; a bunch of radical
environmentalists that seeks to deceive the public into trusting them to
protect their access to their public lands.

What is needed is to confront the Sierra Club with their and the Center for
Biological Diversity's Conservation Alternative 6 Forest Plan. Don't let
them hide behind rhetoric their proposals to severely limit the public's
access.

What they need is an open challenge. An invitation to debate and expose to
the mountain biking public what affect the Sierra Club's and CBD's
alternative would have on our access.

Their press releases are an example of losing the debate; they do not state
how their plan will affect recreational access, instead they attack the
proposed forest plans.

-"A man's liberties are none less aggressed upon because those who coerce
him do so in the belief that he will be benefited."-

-Herbert Spencer-

The tactic they are now using is to demonize OHV use as being out of control
in the proposed plans to rally all factions, including mountain bikers,
against the proposed plans.

Again, don't expect them to tell everyone the details of what they propose
because they know the public will never accept them. Expect the Sierra Club
to continue to use the tactic of playing recreationists against each other
by demonizing Off Road Vehicle use.

From the Sierra Club's Orange County September Conservation Newsletter:

"The new forest management plans are expected to be controversial since
draft forest plans released by the Forest Service over a year ago were
headed in the wrong direction. Their main recreational focus was on
expanding trails for motorcycles and other off-road vehicles in our forest
backcountry, offering little for the vast majority of forest visitors..."

"Areas like the East and West Forks of the San Gabriel River on the Angeles
National Forest stand out as an example of where lack of investment provides
a less than quality recreational experience for the 95% of forest users who
come to hike, picnic, fish, MOUNTAIN BIKE, and enjoy scenic vistas."

So the Sierra Club states above that they're concerned about the
"experience" that mountain bikers will have and further states in their
release regarding the Forest Service:

"Their main recreational focus was on expanding trails for motorcycles and
other off-road vehicles in our forest backcountry, offering little for the
vast majority of forest visitors."

A Center for Biological Diversity Press Release proclaimed:

"Forest Service Plans Leave Southern California Forests at Risk; Management
Plans Fail to Meet Needs of Majority of Forest Visitors."

Did the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity's Conservation
Alternative 6 care about the "experience" of mountain bikers or their
"Needs" as they now claim to in their attacks against the proposed plans?
Was their main recreational focus "offering" to the mountain bike community
protection of their "experience" and access?

What about the following statement from their press release:

"Protective zoning that would forestall development on the forests was
reduced. The agency recommended a scant 2% more unspoiled backcountry for
wilderness protection that would help shield more of our forests from ever
increasing development pressures..."

How much wilderness protection did they want in their Alternative 6? The
Wilderness Designation bans mountain bike access. How does banning mountain
biking add to our "experience?"

Here is what the Sierra Club's and CBD's Conservation Alternative 6 states:

"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)

The "Primitive" ROS management designation that they want to apply to all
"Roadless" areas 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.

Here is the link to a PDF of their Alternative 6 where this information was
taken:

http://www.warriorssociety.org/ConservationAlternative2002.pdf

Here in Orange County, all our single track trails, including the San Juan
Trail, are in the Trabuco Roadless Area. The majority of the trails used by
mountain bikers in the other Socal National Forests are also in a named
Roadless Areas. Managing these Roadless Areas as proposed in the Sierra
Club's and CBD's Conservation Alternative 6 under the "Primitive" ROS
designation would radically restrict mountain bike access and pretty much
ban mountain biking from all the single track trails in the majority of our
Socal National Forests.

The Warrior's Society opposed the "Roadless" Initiative/designation when
President Clinton, supported by Environmental Organizations, instituted it.
We knew that the net result would be that access to these areas would be
restricted and then they would be proposed as wilderness areas; we were
proven right. This is what the Sierra Club and CBD were attempting through
the forest plans.

IMBA supported the "Roadless" designation despite our warnings. Did this in
anyway "help" us in protecting mountain bike access in the NorCal wilderness
bill or the Forest Plan revision process? Did it convince the Sierra Club
that "we're just like you so please help protect our access?"

NO.

What about the trail standards that were proposed in Conservation
Alternative 6 and the fact that the forest service does not have the funds
to bring the trails up to the Sierra Club's and CBD's "standard" for
mountain bikes? Of course the Sierra Club and the CBD would not sue to stop
mountain bike access if these standards were adopted in the plan and were
not instituted within the time frame they specified - would they?

You damn well know they would.

Do these proposals in their Conservation Alternative 6 sound like the Sierra
Club and CBD is truly concerned about mountain biker's recreation
"experience" and are they "offering" us more protection of our existing
access in their Alternative 6 than the draft plan currently accepted by
Forest Service?

NO! Their plan would virtually ban mountain biking from the single track
trails in our Socal National Forests.

-"O, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."-

-Sir Walter Scott-

I am willing to debate what affect the Sierra Club's Conservation
Alternative 6 would have had on mountain bike access if it had been accepted
as the draft plan. I tried to get Randall Danta (the founder of the Sierra
Club Mountain Bike Committee) to debate me on how mountain bike access would
be affected by Conservation Alternative 6 but I could not even get him to
admit that he read it.

He's was a "supposed" leader of a mountain bike organization within the
Sierra Club yet he was supporting an Alternative without understanding how
the sport he claims to represent would be affected; I guess he wanted to
believe I was lying and thought it best to remain ignorant.

Does Randall agree with the leadership of the Sierra Club that the public
cannot be trusted to decide how their forests will be managed and rather
then let them know the ramifications of the Sierra Club's proposals it is
best to hide behind slogans such as "Protect and Restore our Forests?"

Is this the best strategy? Does it truly advance our democratic traditions
and freedom by treating the public as a master, untrusting of their
free-will, rather than to reveal to the public their corrupt intentions?

-"I have no fear, but that the results of our experiment will be, that men
may be trusted to govern themselves without a master. Could the contrary be
proved, I should conclude, either that there is no God, or that he is a
malevolent being."-

-Thomas Jefferson-

Randall, is your lack of trust in the public due to the fact that you do not
believe there is a God, or if there is one, he is a malevolent being?

I even tried to get Randall to publicly state he supported all the
provisions, including those that affected mountain bike access, but he would
not give me a direct answer; kind of an embarrassing position to be in when
you claim to represent the mountain bike community; don't you think?

The corrupt leadership of the Sierra Club and CBD realize their success in
restricting access is dependant on the ignorance of the public. Their
fundraising relies on the "Sky is falling" rhetoric for their very
existence.

And when exposed they will run like cockroaches from the light of truth and
honesty; to protect our recreational access we must attack their
Conservation Alternative 6 proposals relentlessly with no room for retreat.
We must not allow them to hide the affect their Proposed Forest Plan would
have had on the public's access to their public lands.

We must not allow them to deceive the public because they are the "Sierra
Club."

And the Warrior's Society will do everything in our power to make it so.

We are dedicated to balancing conservation and recreational access - as well
as confronting the lies of those who not only deceive the public but also
distrust them to make educated decisions that will affect the conservation
of their forests and their recreational access.

Once we get a look at the final plans (and if they are balanced as we
expect) we will be asking you to comment in support of them. Please attend a
Forest Plan Meeting and help fight the Sierra Club's and CBD's attempts to
deceive the public and rob them of their access to their public lands.

For 5 years the Sierra Club and Center For Biological Diversity have
attempted to ban mountain biking from the National Forests in Socal through
wilderness bills and forest plans; they cannot dispute this fact.

Their proposals would have restricted all aspects of recreation.

Hold the Sierra Club and Center For Biological Diversity accountable for the
policies they promote; don't let them hide behind rhetoric.

It is my hope that in the future the Sierra Club spends as much or more
money maintaining our public lands by sponsoring public involvement and
getting people into the forest than they do in political campaigns and the
necessary "Sky is falling" rhetoric needed to fund them and the radical
anti-access policies they espouse.

********

more from www.warriorssociety.org

*********


3. THE FOREST PLAN OPEN HOUSE SCHEDULE

VICINITY OF THE ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST

Huntington Park: October 13, 6:00-8:00 pm, Family Center-Old-timers
Foundation, 3355 E. Gage Ave.

Rosemead: October 17, 6:00-8:00 pm, Garvey Center, 8838 E. Valley Blvd
Santa Clarita: October 18, 6:00-8:00 pm, Santa Clarita Activities
Center, 20880 Centre Pointe Pkwy.

Wrightwood: October 19, 6:00-8:00 pm, Wrightwood Community Center, 1275
Highway 2.

Claremont: October 20, 6:00-8:00 pm, Alexander Hughes Community Center,
1700 Danbury Rd.

Los Angeles: October 22, 9:00-11:00 am, Glassell Park, 3650 Verdugo Rd.

Los Angeles: October 22, 2:00-4:00 pm, Watts Community Center, 10950 S.
Central Ave.

West Covina: October 24, 6:00-8:00 pm, West Covina Senior Center, 2501
E. Cortez St.

VICINITY OF THE CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST

San Juan Capistrano: October 29, 6:00-8:30 pm, Old Fire Station Complex,
31421 La Matanza St.

Fullerton: November 2, 6:00-8:00 pm, Community Senior Multi-Service
Center, 340 W. Commonwealth.


4. SIERRA CLUB CAN SAVE WILDLIFE BUT NOT MONEY

By Eric Heyl
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, September 16, 2005

If Paul Bunyan were more than mere myth, he undoubtedly would be amused By
the Sierra Club's clumsy and contradictory approach to fundraising.

After a disastrous foray into presidential politics last year, the
grassroots environmental organization admits it is in desperate need of
money. Further confirmation comes in the form of a solicitation packet the
club is sending to potential donors.

Deviating slightly from its stated purpose to promote the responsible use of
the planet's resources, the group instead devoted its own resources to
unseating President Bush.

(Spoiler alert to anyone who does not want to know the outcome of last
year's presidential election: I'm about to reveal who won.)

Bush was re-elected, though, and the group apparently is having Difficulty
replenishing the money it spent in a failed attempt to topple him.

Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope recently told the San Diego
Union-Tribune that the organization now is "experiencing kind of a pause
....in the big gifts that support a lot of our programs."

In an attempt to counter that, the club appears to be spending a fortune on
its mailings soliciting prospective benefactors.

A regular reader recently passed on the thick envelope the club has mailed
out in hopes of inducing others to support its initiatives. I'll be happy to
share the contents:

A four-page letter begging for money to help the club fight the continued
commercial logging of Giant Sequoia groves.

A color picture of a Giant Sequoia.

A black-and-white information sheet on Giant Sequoias

A Sierra Club decal, suitable, I suppose, for applying on Giant Sequoias.

A sheet of paper offering a $15 Sierra Club introductory membership.

Another sheet detailing the gifts you get with a club membership, which
includes a sporting and non-organic looking backpack.

A 2005-06 Sierra Club calendar.

Yet another sheet proclaiming the Sierra Club "America's most effective
environmental organization."

Oh yeah, a postage-paid envelope in which to return your contribution,
Which I bet many people overlook while wading through all the other stuff
the club sends them.

Most of the information stuffed into these packed envelopes was printed
On recycled paper whose original fibers came predominantly from trees.

Funny, no?

In its attempt to persuade people to donate a few dollars, the Sierra Club
appears quite willing to resort to destroying the very thing it vows in its
solicitations to use your money to help protect.

Timber!

Eric Heyl can be reached at [email protected] or (412) 320-7857.

Manitou and Shimano are the Major Sponsors of the Warrior's Society

Cytomax is the official fluid replacement drink of the Warrior's Society

Clif Bar is the Official Energy Bar and Gel of The Warrior's Society

The Warrior's Society
A Tax-Exempt organization under 501(c) 4 of the IRS Code
www.warriorssociety.org

An MTBAccess affiliated club

********

********

A couple points (from John Miller, USFS, SBNF):

The designated OHV system remains unchanged.

Regarding fire suppression, we do not have a "let burn" policy on
this forest. We supress all fires on the San Bernardino National
Forest, regardless of land use designation, whether it be wilderness,
or backcountry non-motorized. Every year we have "lightning busts"
where we can have 10-15 fires in a period of a couple days. Almost
all of these fires are at the higher elevations, at or near the
ridgelines and peaks. The Helitack ships make quick work of the
lightning fires, since they have the ability to repel 9-10
firefighters and gear out of the ship, and then have the helicopter
support the helitack crew with water drops.

Here are the official 14 questions and answers

------------------

Q1. What do the new Forest Plans emphasize?

A. The new plans emphasize recreation use while restoring forest
health and protecting the unique biological resources of southern
California. The selected alternative has been modified from the
preferred alternative identified in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement to reflect comments received from the public, tribal
governments, other agencies, scientific review, agency review, and
consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries.
You can find more information on the selected Alternative 4a in the
Record of Decision published for each Forest.

Q2. Does the new plan identify the locations where you are planning
new campgrounds and other facilities? What about plans for specific
roads and trails construction or closures?

A. The Forest Plans do not make site-specific decisions such as
sites for construction of new campgrounds or other facilities.
Likewise, the plans do not identify any specific roads or trails
projects. Similar to county zoning plans, they provide a broad-based
strategic framework to guide local managers in future planning and
decision-making. The plans identify the suitable uses within each
land use zone, and the standards that must be met by various
activities.

Q3. What will be different under the new plans?

A. Land Use Zones – The new Forest Plans apply land use zoning that
includes: Developed Area Interface, Back Country, Back Country
Motorized Use Restricted, Back Country Non-Motorized, Critical
Biological, proposed Recommended Wilderness, Existing Wilderness, and
Experimental Forest (Angeles NF only).

B. Recreation – The new plans recognize our growing populations and
provide strategies to manage increased use, including emphasis on
public education to resolve resource conflicts.

C. Motorized use – Zoning has been fine-tuned to more clearly
display where motorized use is appropriate. Motorized use is allowed
only on designated forest system roads and trails.

D. Focus on Forest Health – The new plans focus on treating
vegetation to promote forest health.

E. Fuels Treatment in the Urban Interface – The new plans emphasize
treating hazardous fuels by prescribed burning, thinning and other
techniques. Most work will be done in the urban interface; some work
will be done in remote areas.

F. Wildlife and Biodiversity - The new plans establish new wildlife
protections, including Critical Biological zones and additional
standards to protect species at risk. They also considered areas
where linkage is needed between wildlife habitat on National Forest
lands and similar habitat outside the Forest boundary.

G. Mountain Bikes – The new plans restrict mountain bicycles to
system roads and trails, outside of Wilderness or the Pacific Crest
Trail. No cross-country travel is permitted.

H. More Flexible Standards – Standards provide greater flexibility
to protect forest resources while using adaptive management to
monitor impacts resulting from other permitted uses. Existing
special use permits will be brought into compliance at permit re-
issuance.

Q4. How did you decide which areas to propose for recommended
Wilderness?
A. The decisions on which areas to recommend for Wilderness
designation were made after careful consideration of factors specific
to each area. Wilderness evaluations were prepared as a part of the
planning process and included examining Wilderness characteristics
and manageability (capability); weighing if the value of Wilderness
offset other foregone values including other uses and demands
(availability); and considering the public need for additional
Wilderness and contribution to the National Wilderness Preservation
System. One example of a use foregone by Wilderness is mountain
biking. Another is the full range of tools to actively manage
important needs such as fuels treatments. Managers considered the
overall issues of each area to make a decision to recommend
Wilderness or not.

Q5. How does Wilderness get designated?
A. The Department will submit its administrative recommendation for
Wilderness to the President and Congress for congressional action.
The Congress has reserved the authority to make final decisions on
Wilderness designation. In the interim, the plan directs that
Wilderness characteristics be protected in the areas until Congress
takes final action.


Q6. What activities are allowed in Wilderness?

A. Wilderness is managed to protect the primitive character and
natural condition of the area. Hiking and equestrian use are
allowed, while motorized use and mechanized activities such as
mountain bicycles are not permitted. Developments such as power
lines, pipelines, and other utilities are generally not permitted.

Fire suppression in Wilderness is allowed and protocols exist to
quickly obtain approval for the use of equipment and aircraft to
fight fires in Wilderness areas. Fears of lack of fire suppression
capability in Wilderness, especially near communities, is mitigated
in part by the adoption of a Wilderness fire strategy in the new
Forest Plans that allows for prescribed burning in designated
Wilderness to maintain Wilderness values or to provide for community
protection.

Q7. What happens to the inventoried roadless areas?

A. The inventoried roadless areas will be managed according to the
land use zones described in the Forest Plans. In most cases, the land
use zones reflect the current condition of the area, including
inventoried roadless areas. The new plans require that motorized use
be limited to designated forest system roads, trails, or OHV areas
(Cleveland and Angeles National Forest) only.

Projects in roadless areas will only be undertaken after an
evaluation of the effects of the project on the roadless character.
In general, roadless areas are managed in the new Forest Plans to
retain their undeveloped landscape character. Where zoning other
than Recommended Wilderness was applied, the intent is to offer
managers a broader range of options to actively manage these areas to
address important issues such as fuels treatments, forest health, or
habitat improvement.

Q8. How do the new plans address unauthorized vehicle use?

A. Both the prior plans and the new plans require that vehicles
operate only on designated routes; however, in some areas,
improvements are needed in the system to help discourage unauthorized
use. Although none of the four Forests intends to make large
additions to their OHV systems, all may eventually need to make some
adjustments. The Back Country zone provides the flexibility to make
those improvements.


Q9. Are any new areas being opened to off-highway vehicles?

A. The new Forest Plans do not open any new areas to off-highway
vehicle use. In fact, the plans require that vehicles be operated
only on designated routes. The current status of designated OHV
routes (roads, trails and limited areas on the Angeles and Cleveland
Forests) is unaffected by the new Forest Plans. All designated
routes or areas are in zones in which public motorized use is
allowed. Any changes in the future will be proposed within areas
that are zoned for public motorized use and will be subject to site-
specific planning including public involvement.

Q10. Why do the Forest Plans designate Critical Biological zones?

A. The designation of Critical Biological zones is intended to
provide an added measure of protection in the most important areas
for management of species which are most at risk. The zones are
focused on areas where there are active conflicts between certain
listed species and existing facilities or activities such as
campgrounds, road crossings, and grazing allotments. More Critical
Biological areas are selected in the approved plans than initially
proposed in the Draft EIS and Forest Plan. However, even though more
species and Critical Biological areas are protected in the new plans,
the acres do not show an increase. This is because in the draft the
Cleveland National Forest used relatively large Research Natural Area
boundaries as the Critical Biological zone boundaries but later
adjusted the boundaries to focus on species habitat, which is the
target of the zone's protection.

Q11. What is the Forest Service doing to protect habitat linkages?

A. The new Forest Plans address the areas where additional habitat
linkage is needed to connect National Forest land with other
important habitat areas. Because the Forests have limited funding to
acquire linkages, and because the Forest Service does not normally
acquire lands outside the National Forest boundary, the Forests must
work in partnership with state and local agencies to effectively
address the linkage issues.

Q12. What is the Forest Service doing to meet the needs of the
broader recreating public? Are you providing more trash pickup or
more restrooms?

A. Although the Forest Plans identify the uses that are appropriate
in each land use zone, the amount of funding is not a decision made
in a Forest Plan. However, the new plans do emphasize working with
local communities and user groups, partners, volunteers, and other
resources to help achieve these important recreation objectives.

Q13. What monitoring is planned?

A. Monitoring and evaluation are key elements of the new Forest
Plans and are intended to help us determine whether the desired
results are being achieved. The results of our monitoring will
determine whether changes are needed in the plan. This process is
called adaptive management. The public is encouraged to assist in
the monitoring effort.

Hope this helps,

John

********