Page 2 of 2
Posted on July 1 at 6:48 a.m.
Misternatural, designating these areas as wilderness won't change the critter habitat.
The question you need to answer is; why did a congressman with 24 years in Congress and a 0 environmental voting record and who supports the house bill to release over 50 million acres of wilderness study areas throughout America currently managed as wilderness, for development, all of a sudden support hundreds of thousands of acres of new wilderness in the Los Padres Forest.?
On Making the Los Padres Even More Wild
Posted on June 29 at 6:59 p.m.
"Sounds great! I look forward to walking through expanded wilderness areas!"
Good luck, most of the proposed areas are trail less chapparal, who do you figure will build and maintain the trails? The FS does not have the budget to maintain the existing trail system.
"No Areas can include or be within 300yds of any Public or Private Utilities (power lines). No Areas can include or be within any Public or USFS/BLM permitted or leased lands.The southern portion of the Condor project will abut both commercial and private lands and wildfire concerns are that if forest undergrowth is not controlled, there will be problems."
Not accurate, the Santa Lucia Wilderness is bisected by a transmission line.
"The southern portion of the Condor project will abut both commercial and private lands and wildfire concerns are that if forest undergrowth is not controlled, there will be problems."
Forest Watch has sued to stop FS from doing controlled burns. Interestingly in the Brea Fire, they were able to stop the fire at the controlled burn areas, but it over ran the areas Forest Watch prevented them from doing controlled burns.
Posted on June 28 at 6:19 a.m.
Georgy Bicycles are not allowed in designated wilderness areas.
With over 875,000 acres of designated wilderness in the Los Padres, nearly half the forest it is obvious that every square mile of our national forest is not and cannot be dominated by man's machinery
"Just don't get lost or injured in these designated areas because it's going to take a really, really long time for search and rescue to come get you. That's right folks, this ban also applies to them! Unfortunately, there is no exemption for life-threatening situations and search and rescue cannot use their vehicles or ATV's to rescue you."
Whether it is designated wilderness or merely roadless, machinery is not going to get to a victim.
""bans the use of motorized/mechanized devices, including chainsaws and bicycles" This would not be legal as it would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. "Mechanized devices" would include wheel chairs, thus restricting access to operators of wheelchairs."
This is an interesting conundrum, all of the tens of millions of acres of designated wilderness in the U.S. is technically in violation of the ADA.
Posted on June 27 at 2:14 p.m.
I have a couple of questions, I recommend that the writer of this piece and each interested individual look for the answers.
1. Congressman Gallegly has proposed this, he has a big fat 0 environmental voting record. Why is he now in favor of this wilderness extension?
2. The Congress is controlled by the Republicans, there isn't a snow ball's chance in hell that this bill will pass, Why is Congressman Gallegly introducing it?
3. Congressman Gallegly has also signed onto H.R. 1581 a bill which if enacted will release millions of acres of public land to resource extraction, it seems that his two bills are in opposition to each other. Which again brings up the question as to his true goal and objective with these proposed wilderness extensions.
B. The following is a comment, not a question. There is a reason for the proposed extensions. Keep in mind the old saying, "Follow the Money". You will find a very curious and devious shell game in action.
I suggest a bit of investigative journalism.