Page 1 of 1
Posted on August 9 at 11:13 p.m.
I'd like to know more before jumping to conclusions or turning this into a "frogs vs. people" issue. Unfortunately, this article just regurgitates a Forest Service press release. Was the previous closure inadequate, and if so, why? Were endangered frogs or toads trampled or killed, prompting the more extensive closure? Does this have less to do with frogs and toads, and more to do with increased fire danger (the Forest Service just announced increased fire restrictions yesterday) or marijuana eradication in the area? There seems to be more to this story than the Forest Service is telling us...
On Presence of Endangered Amphibians Prompts Major Road Closure
Posted on April 3 at 9:36 a.m.
If everyone cleared a few acres here and a few acres there during bird nesting season, we sure wouldn't have many birds around, would we? That is the whole purpose of having a law to protect bird nests. The law doesn't say to protect bird nests only if it is convenient. It says to protect bird nests, period. Sounds like this law has been on the books for decades. C'mon, Forest Service -- suck it up, follow the law, protect our birds, and do the right thing.
On Fuel Break Squabble
Posted on March 29 at 9:26 p.m.
maybeso = Lori Rafferty
Posted on March 9 at 1:12 p.m.
Seems to me that Forestwatch is the only group here that IS being true to its mission. At least they aren't proclaiming to be "ecstatic" or "thrilled" like some of the other Big Wilderness groups, and have provided an honest assessment of the good and the bad of this bill. I respect that, and quite frankly, find it refreshing amongst today's rancorous political discourse.
I, for one, think that this bill gives away too much to the off-roaders who already enjoy an extensive network of OHV trails in the forest and don't need more. This isn't about access. This is about the sanctity of the backcountry. What the off-roaders don't seem to understand is that their desired mode of transport (dirtbike, quads) can be heard for miles in the backcountry, interfering with the quiet enjoyment of the forest by us hikers, bicyclists and horse people. I'm not saying they should be banned, but opening up new roads and formally calling out areas that they already use is just a recipe for disaster. And BeBe hit the nail on the head with his/her observation that more motorized access = more motorheads trespassing off trails and running amok. The Forest Service is not equipped to deal with the additional motorized access that this bill encourages.
Mr. Gallegly, with all due respect, this is not the proper way to leave a legacy. You get two thumbs down from me. And the backcountry doesn't think too kindly of your bill, either.
On More Wilderness and Off-Roading?