Are japs controlling the Blue Ribbon Coalition?

The Blue Ribbon Coalition is supposed to be the voice for the ORV
users. Why would a group that does that want public comments on public
lands
banned?Answer:

Because they dont care about recreational ORV. They are a front for
the
resource extraction industry. Anyone who still has respect for this
organization now is nothing but a knuckle dragging, mullet-headed
mouth
breather with no brain whatsoever.

Ending public comments on public lands , from no matter what side you
are
on, is WRONG.

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


Awhile ago a very smart man posted a study on privatization, the blue
ribbon
coalition, the bush administration and WARC.

doing away with comment periods is also another form of privatization.
This
guy was right on the money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/17/we...ew/17SEEL.html


""Although the snowmobilers won their battle, the groups representing
them
say tha
t the public comment period should be abolished. "What this outcome
shows is
tha
t these huge hate-mail campaigns are not effective now and won't be in
the
futur
e," said Clark Collins, executive director of the Blue Ribbon
Coalition, an
indu
stry-backed lobbying group based in Idaho.

If the public comment periods ceased, he said, both sides could save a
lot
of ti
me.""
-----------------------

Clark collins also started "WARC", a group whose main goal is to undo
congressionaly designated wilderness.


MEDIA RELEASE
The Wilderness Act Reform Coalition
WARC
1540 North Arthur
Pocatello, ID 83204
www.wildernessreform.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Clark Collins, 208-233-6570 -

Wilderness Act Reform Coalition Launching On 35th Anniversary of
Passage

August 27, 1999 -- POCATELLO, IDAHO: Local governments, private
citizens
and outdoor groups announced today that they will mark the 35th
anniversary of the passage of the national Wilderness Act by launching
a nationwide coalition to reform it. The new coalition, to be called
the
"Wilderness Act Reform Coalition" (WARC), will focus initially on
fixing
ten specific problems with the wilderness law.
"The Wilderness Act is antiquated, inflexible, anti-resource
management and flies in the face of sound and responsible public
policy
principles," said Clark Collins, a spokesman for the emerging
coalition.
"There can be no doubt that it would never pass any modern Congress in
its present form and that alone should be a warning signal to the
public
that it is seriously flawed."
Initially, the Coalition will serve three functions. It will act as
a clearing house for examples of problems with the Act and help build
the
case to amend it. It will educate the public, the media and policy
makers about these problems and the ways to solve them. Finally, it
will
also serve to coordinate the efforts of the members of the Coalition.
The
Coalition's Internet site, www.wildernessreform.com, which will be
posted
on September 1, will be the primary communication mechanism in all of
these efforts.
"Those of us putting this Coalition together have our own horror
stories about the Wilderness Act but until we started talking among
ourselves we did not really realize how widespread the problems are,"
noted Collins. "I doubt that any individual or organization in the
country has a handle on all of the problems the Wilderness Act is
causing. Our top priority will be asking individuals and organizations
around the country to submit additional case studies and examples to
us
so we can provide the public and policy makers for the first time with
a
clear and comprehensive picture of the negative impacts of this Act."
The groups launching the Coalition represent the a very broad
spectrum of the public. Prominent among them are rural counties,
county
officials and county organizations, including Juab and Uinta Counties
in
Utah, and the Western Counties' Resources Policy Institute, a natural
resources policy think tank being created by rural western counties.
Citizen groups include the Blue Ribbon Coalition, which represents
600,000 recreationists nationwide ranging from mountain bikers and
motorized recreationists to equestrian groups, People for the USA, a
nationwide organization of 25,000 members representing all public land
and resource users and the Rocky Mountain Federation of Mineralogical
Societies.. Many individuals are also supporting the Coalition,
including scientists and other professionals specializing in natural
resources management, retired federal resource management agency
employees and ordinary citizens who simply want to protect the
public's
interest in these lands and resources.
"Our goal is to educate the public on the problems inherent in the
philosophy and application of the Wilderness Act and then to stimulate
a
broad and informed national policy debate on reforming it," Collins
said.
"It must be reformed to serve the public interest and the public needs
of the 21st Century."
---------------

The BRC is run by Japanese corporations, timber and mining
donations, and anti-wilderness supporters. They pride themselves on
helping build new logging roads through national forests, keeping the
ball rolling on drilling ANWR, mining claims and keeping grazing
leases. "access" for ORv users is their last priority:



ttp://www.ewg.org/pub/home/clear/by_clear/Fifty_VI.html

Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC)


The Blue Ribbon Coalition is partially funded by Japanese
manufacturers of off-road vehicles. The organization was cofounded by
snowmobiler and anti-wilderness activist Darryl Harris and trail biker
Clark Collins.


Three full-time employees manage the coalition's annual operating
budget of $180,000. Board members a Kay Lloyd, co-chairman,
International Snowmobile Council; Craig Cazier, president, Utah State
Snowmobile Association; and Joe Wernex, a Washington State logging
engineer and amateur trail designer. Individuals pay dues of $20 to
belong to the coalition; groups pay $100. But at least as much
money--roughly $85,000 a year--is provided by grants from the mining
and timber industries and especially from ORV manufacturers.


Major contributors of the 1989 Convention we American Honda Motor
Company, Yamaha Motor Company, Suzuki Motor Corporation, ARCTCO,
Bombardier Corporation, Polaris Industries, and Kawasaki Motor
Corporation.


The Blue Ribbon Coalition is credited with the Wise Use Movement's
major federal legislative achievement to date, lobbying successfully
to add $30 million to the 1991 Highway Bill for the construction of
off-road vehicle trails.


"Environmentalists are still trying to figure out how they got KOed on
the trails act, but it wasn't a lucky punch," says a report in
Harrowsmith Country Life.


Mike Francis of the Wilderness Society said of Clark Collins: "I have
to give Collins a lot of credit. The guy is good. As flaky as he
seems, he is one hell of a tactician. He got Steve Symms to make the
trails amendment his number one project on the highway bill. The
trails act is a flea on the rear end of an elephant when you compare
it to the regular highway bill. Everyone wanted Symms' support for
something else. With the exception of Howard Metzenbaum, our best
environmentalists on the Senate Energy Committee weren't willing to
take on Symms. They all took a walk. Symms and Collins played that
thing beautifully."


The Blue Ribbon Coalition has boasted about "organizing support" for:
1. logging road construction by the Forest Service; 2. oil exploration
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; 3. protection of the Mining
Act; and 4. continuation of the present grazing formula.


Clark Collins travels extensively addressing local and national groups
on the need to work together and form a strong network

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


The Blue Ribbon coalition favors opening up new roads in national
parks and wilderness:


http://www.sharetrails.org/releases/....cfm?story=175


Editorial Release: BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO PRESERVE HISTORIC ACCESS
Contact: Clark L. Collins, Executive Director
Phone: (208) 237-1008 (x101)
Fax: (208) 237-9424
E-mail:

Webpage: http://sharetrails.org/staffbio.html#Clark
Date: December 26, 2002


.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . .

POCATELLO, ID (December 26) -- An announcement by the Department of
Interior that historic access routes will be preserved is welcomed by
the BlueRibbon Coalition. The Bush Administration is expected to
announce a new policy later this week for dealing with RS-2477 rights
of way across federal lands.

"We've been working with our recreation organizations across the
country to protect our access to federal lands," said BlueRibbon
Coalition Executive Director Clark Collins. "We are excited that
the Bush Administration appears willing to help in that effort."

"Many of these historic routes were used for commerce initially,
but they are now important for recreation access. We look forward to
working cooperatively with this Administration to ensure the public
can use these routes for access to our federal lands," Collins
concluded.

-





Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:49:28 -0700
From: Pat Rasmussen >
Subject: ENS---Roadless Proposal Opponent Has Industry Ties


ROADLESS PROPOSAL OPPONENT HAS INDUSTRY TIES

WASHINGTON, DC, June 20, 2000 (ENS) - The Blue Ribbon Coalition, one
of
the most active opponents of the U.S. Forest Service's (USFS) efforts
to
preserve large, intact areas in national forests, is closely tied to
the
timber, mining and oil and gas industry, says a report released today
by
the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG). The Pocatello,
Idaho
based Coalition has opposed any proposal to protect roadless areas in
national forests even if such a proposal would further the Coalition's
stated recreational interests. While the group's mission statement
values land stewardship and responsible use, the organization receives
funding from 355 corporations including the American Forest and Paper
Association, Exxon, and Sierra Forest Products.

"Far from being a grassroots organization simply advancing an agenda
of
access to public lands for the public, the Blue Ribbon Coalition is
working hand-in-hand with industry to keep our national forests open
to chainsaws, bulldozers and oil rigs," said US PIRG forest campaign
coordinator Aaron Viles. The US PIRG report, "The Blue Ribbon
Coalition:
Protector of Recreation or Industry?" was released as a battle is
waged
over how the remaining 60 million acres of pristine wilderness in
national forests will be managed.

In May, the USFS released a draft proposal on managing these wild
forests, otherwise known as roadless areas, and is soliciting public
comment and holding more than 400 public hearings around the country,
including a hearing in Arlington, Virginia on June 26. The report is
available at: http://www.wildforests.com

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






The Blue Ribbon Coalition is supposed
to be by the people, for the people.
Yet I see no sign that they oppose the
double taxation forest fee demo program.
I find this quite odd since most BRC memebers
are active users of the public lands.

I sent emails, and phoned many members of the
Blue Ribbon Coalition yet they can't seem to
give me a solid answer on wether they oppose
or favor the Forest Fee program.

Interesting. But I did find this on their
website:

http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/index.cfm?mr=69

It's a "small business" alert. Funny. I
thought the BRC was about keeping trails open.

And here is another thing I found. The
BRC is sending out an "alert" because 14
peercent of California (according to them) is
protected wilderness, and a new wilderness bill
would add 2.5 million acres.

http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/index.cfm?mr=97

My question is why are they so concerned?
It's only 14 percent of the land base. I
could see their case if the total was approaching
50 percent, or even 40 percent. But yet, it's only
a very small percent. Why is the BRC trying to
refuse wilderness protection for some of our best
areas? I mean the rest of the state is open to
motorized use and is roaded and trailed. I
think at the end of all this you have to ask
yourself who benefits. And you will see who
does concerning the corrupt BRC and their scam.


Continuing tosearch their site, I came across
a link for minig? Hmmm..

I thought the BRC was for reacreational access?
What is a mining link doing on their site?


http://www.sharetrails.org/links.htm

(look under "M")


Also, I found a link to the Wilderness Act
Reform Coalition(WARC)on their website:


http://www.wildernessreform.com/


The first thing you are greeted to on the WARC
webpage is this quote:

" Finally we are going to do something about

the Wilderness Act".

It appears this group supports building new r
oads into congressionaly designtaed wilderness
for logging and mining! Talk about extreme.
Thats right, the propose building new roads
for mining and logging into the Bob MArshal
Wilderness, the Boundary Waters Canoe area
Wilderness, and other national treasures.
While they appear to be a access/recreation
group, it seems their ultiamte cause is revealed
towards the end of their explanation.

"The Coalition supports the creation of committees
composed of locally-based federal and state
resource managers, local governments, local economic
interests and local citizens which will initiate a
process to override the basic non-management
directive of the Wilderness Act on a case-by-case basis. "


Wai a second here folks.....doesn't this sound
like Bush's "Charter Forests"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A27700-2002Feb5.html


Bush Admin. Wants 'Charter Forests'


More from WARC:

"Developing a mechanism to permit active
resource management in wilderness areas to
achieve a wide range of public benefits
and to respond to local needs"


Bush supports Forest Fees
http://www.everyweek.com/Archives/News.
asp?no=2317



So far here we have some very interesting
findings. We have "recreation" groups severly
concerned with resource extraction. We have
the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a group which is
born on recreation access by its members, not
opposing a forest fee demo program. We have
the Bush administration echoing these same
things. The question is, who benefits? Where
does the money trail lead? The answer is
pretty simple. It leads right to the ORV
industry, the logging inddustry, the mining
industry, and yes, even Walt Disney Corporation.
Thats right.


Who supports the Forest Fee Demo program?

http://www.freeourforests.org



ARC is the American Recreation Coalition.
They are a large group of corporations.
Arc has currently been caught bragging about
how theycreated the Fee Demo program:

These corporations arent "evil" or "bad".
But when put together, and in favor of charging
money to US taxpayers to use their public
lands, they become a clear enemy to our public
lands and our use of them.


Bush's domestic issues advisor,
Terry Anderson is sitting back and smiling:


The Bush administration, along with Terry
L Anderson are planning to turn our national
parks over to corporate control.



GEORGE BUSH'S ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISOR: "
AUCTION OFF ALL
FEDERAL LANDS INCLUDING NATIONAL PARKS"
Terry L. Anderson, environmental advisor to

George W. Bush Jr., has
proposed to auction off all 600 million acres of
federal public lands in
the
U.S. over the next 20-40 years. This not only
incudes every National
Forest, National Wildlife Refuge, and BLM District,
it also includes
every National Park and Monument. Under his
proposal, non-profit
environmental groups could bid on the free
market against the likes of
Exxon to obtain the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, or against
Weyerhouser to obtain Yellowstone National
Park, or against Phelps Dodge
to obtain Grand Canyon National Park. Any
bets on how the bidding will
go?
Anderson is closely associated with several
conservative think tanks
pushing for the privatization and/or
commercialization of public lands.
He is the director of the Political Economy

Research Center, a senior
fellow at the Hoover Institution. PERC's
website links to the Thoreau
Institute which has proposed, among other
nonsense, to privatize
ownership of endangered species. Anderson's
proposal was published by
the CATO institute and can be viewed at
<http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-363es.html>
Anderson freely admits that his corporate
take-over agenda would be
wildly unpopular with the American public.""


If you go to the link you can see it is published
in whole at the Cato Institute website, a right
wing study corp.



So what we have here is the Bush administration,
the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Wilderness Act
Reform Coalition, Walt Disney, and many other
corporations trying to wrestle control of the
public lands to private enterprises for private
profit. In essence, they want to "Disney-fi"
our public lands. This is a bad thing for
every single user of public lands from a tree
hugger to a snowmobiler to a horseback rider
to a hunter or a fisherman.

It is time to see through the fronts, the
lies and the myths. We need to keep a careful
eye out so our easily accesible public lands
arent gone forever.------------




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





From: Clark Collins, 73563,1551
To: (An Un-Named Senate Democratic Policy
Committee staffer)

Date: 6/28/00 2:17 PM

Interior Riders

As I mentioned to you on the phone, the only Interior
Appropriations Committee rider that I am personally familier with is
the
one that would protect snowmobile access to our national parks. My
understanding is that rider was dropped in the House bill and we are
hopeful it will be re-submitted in the Senate version.

I understand that as a staffer for the Democratic Policy Committee in
the
U.S. Senate you are looking for information on what organizations are
supportive of the Interior Appropriations riders that have been
mis-labeled
by the environmental extremist industry as "anti-environment." While
our
organization's focus is on recreation access issues, such as the NPS
proposed snowmobile ban, we are supportive of responsible multiple use
of
our public lands.

We know that opposition to the Interior riders is coming from the
environmental extremists community. Those organizations already have
lists
of most of the groups who oppose their anti-multiple-use viewpoint.
You can
get those lists from them. I hope you were really trying to get a
handle on
what's happening in the land use debates.

The primary change in that whole debate, in my view, is that many rank
and
file members of the various resource industry unions are no longer
voting
the AFL-CIO party line. They realize that the environmental extremists
are
driving the industries - who provide their jobs - out of this country.
Democrats who support the extreme anti-timber, anti-mining, anti-oil
industry, and anti-recreation-access agenda of the so-called
environmental
community are losing the support of blue-collar workers. I myself was
a
Union electrician who supported the Democratic party in my home state
of
Idaho. I know a lot of former Democrats who've changed parties because
of
the land use issues.

I hope that your call was Senator Dachle's attempt to get to the heart
of
what's happening at the grass roots on these land use issues. My view
is
that the Democratic party is going to need to dissassociate itself
from the
extreme environmental viewpoint or suffer additional erosion of their
support from blue-collar workers. THAT'S THE MESSAGE I HOPE YOU WILL
DELIVER. It's not to late to tell the Sierra Club to take a hike.

Clark L. Collins, BlueRibbon Coalition
for more information about the BlueRibbon Coalition check our website
www.sharetrails.org


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




<http://www.msnbc.com/local/pisea/102348.asp?vts=1120031042>http://www.msnbc.com/local/pisea/102...vts=1120031042

Bush opens up backcountry trails to vehicles

By ROBERT McCLURE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Jan. 1 - The Bush administration, in a move that has outraged
environmentalists, is about to hand a big victory to Westerners who
want
to use a post-Civil War-era law to punch dirt-bike trails and roads
into
the backcountry.
Untallied thousands of miles of long-abandoned wagon roads, cattle
paths, Jeep trails and miners' routes potentially could be transformed
into roads -- some of them paved. Many crisscross national parks,
wildlife refuges and wilderness areas. Scheduled to go into effect
shortly, the rule change was greeted warmly by off-road vehicle
enthusiasts, whose numbers have exploded in recent years. Many oppose
attempts to fence off wilderness areas where mechanized vehicles are
banned. Where miners and wagons trains went, so should dirt bikes,
they
say.
"We consider it a pretty substantial gain," said Clark Collins,
executive director of the Blueribbon Coalition, an advocacy group for
snowmobilers, dirt-bike and all-terrain-vehicle riders and 4X4
enthusiasts based in Pocatello, Idaho.
"That historic use in our view should provide for continued
recreational
use of those routes," he said. "The government should not be allowed
to
close those routes."
Environmentalists say the amount of noise pollution, erosion, water
pollution and other harm done to the backcountry will depend largely
on
how the rule is handled by the Bush administration. And they're
worried.
"I don't think Congress in 1866 meant to grant rights of way to
off-road-vehicle trails," said Heidi McIntosh of the Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance. "This is flying under the radar screen, but I
can't
think of another initiative the Bush administration is pursuing that
would have a more lasting and significant impact on public lands."
In Washington state, huge areas -- including parts of North Cascades
National Park -- are honeycombed by old mining trails that could be
promoted by off-road-vehicle devotees as open to motorized traffic.
Other national parks that could be affected include Grand Canyon,
Death
Valley, Joshua Tree, Denali, Wrangell-St. Elias and Rocky Mountain. A
1993 National Park Service report said the impact across 17.5 million
acres in 68 national parks could be "devastating." The law was
originally passed when Jesse James was just starting to rob banks and
the U.S. cavalry was still fighting Indians. Seattle did not yet have
a
bank or a public schoolhouse. It made federal land available for wagon
roads, miners' trails and other transportation routes. Its purpose was
to open the West to settlement. It would be nine years after the law's
passage before the internal combustion engine was invented. Decades
would elapse before many newfangled automobiles were scooting around
the
landscape. The rule change announced on Christmas Eve by the Bush
administration rolls back severe restrictions slapped on the use of
the
law under the Clinton administration.
"We're really concerned about this because it seems like the
administration is encouraging (road) claims that will affect the
parks,"
said Heather Weiner, Northwest director for the National Parks
Conservation Association.
Outside national parks, wilderness areas set aside by Congress in
national forests and other federal lands also are in play. "It would
disrupt the quiet and the feeling that you're away from civilization,"
said Seattle activist Pat Goldsworthy. Lots of land is at stake. In
California alone, 19 wilderness areas and proposed wilderness areas
could be affected. A full accounting of such areas in Washington
apparently has not been compiled, but the Alpine Lakes, Pasayten,
Glacier Peak, Stephen Mather and Mount Baker wilderness areas all
contain old miners' trails. "You name it, miners have been everywhere"
around the West, said Seattle attorney Karl Forsgaard, an
environmental
activist. "So keep that in mind."
Te one-sentence, 21-word statutory provision in question, known as
Revised Statute 2477, was part of the nation's first general mining
law,
passed July 26, 1866. It says, "The right of way for the construction
of
highways across public lands not otherwise reserved for public
purposes
is hereby granted."
The idea was to induce miners to continue to fan out across the West
and
settle it. To do that, they needed roads, or at least what passed for
roads in those days.
That law and its replacements in 1870 and 1872 gave miners the right
to
buy public land for $5 an acre or less if they did work necessary to
discover minerals on the land. Those prices remain in effect today. A
few years earlier, Congress had passed the Homestead Act, which
provided
cheap land to settlers willing to build ranches, farms and homes on
the
acreage. That law was repealed in 1976. That was the same year
Congress
repealed the roads-for-lands provision of the old mining law. However,
at the time Congress gave states and counties 12 years to settle their
old road claims. Ten years later, Congress in effect extended the
deadline. But the Clinton administration fought most attempts to turn
wilderness into roadways.
Now, the Bush administration says it will finalize a rule giving
Western
states, counties and cities -- some avowedly hostile to federal
control
of wilderness areas -- a better chance to enforce those claims.
The Clinton administration made it difficult to get the Interior
Department's Bureau of Land Management to approve the road claims. A
burst of litigation resulted, much of it in Alaska and Utah. In Utah,
some 15,000 road claims are at issue; Alaska's state government has
identified about 650.
In Utah, county governments angry about the establishment of a
national
monument have become embroiled in a fight over the issue. The state
sued
the federal government.
And in Alaska, the state government contends that even some section
lines -- the imaginary grid that marks off every square mile in the
nation -- are subject to the provision and can be claimed as roads.
Until now, proving that would likely have involved an arduous legal
battle.
Under the Bush policy, though, the BLM can process the claims more
readily as an administrative action.
It makes sense, says the Bush administration, because it saves state
and
federal taxpayers money on court costs. "The department felt this
allowed them to address the . . . issues in a more straightforward
way,"
said David Quick, a BLM spokesman. Stephen Griles, a former mining
lobbyist who serves as the No. 2 official in the Interior Department,
told a pro-development group in Alaska that the rule change was
spurred
in part by the advocacy of the Western Governors Association.
"The department is poised to bring finality to this issue that has
created unnecessary conflict between federal land managers and state
and
local governments," Griles told the Resource Development Council in
November.
Griles told the group the rules would be "consistent with historic
regulation prior to 1976."
What's changed since then is that sales of off-road vehicles,
particularly three- and four-wheeled all-terrain vehicles, have
skyrocketed. Enthusiasts have started to fight to maintain access to
back-country trails.
Meanwhile, environmental activists are trying to declare additional
areas off-limits to the off-road vehicles, saying they disturb
wildlife
and hikers, cloud up streams and cause erosion of trails and
hillsides.
The new rule could help put to rest a controversy over a related
Clinton-era policy, said the Blueribbon Coalition's Collins. A Clinton
policy banned most logging, mining and other commercial uses in 58.5
million acres of national forests where no roads are built. But under
the new policy, if states, counties or others are able to establish a
network of legally recognized "highways" through those acres -- even
if
the highways are dirt roads or something less -- it would give those
fighting the so-called "roadless" proposal ammunition.
At least that's what Collins hopes.
"That's why we have a real interest in it," he said. "It does have the
potential to influence this debate." In national forests, those trying
to open a route to motorized travel would have to show that the route
existed prior to the establishment of national forests -- around the
turn of the last century for most places in the Pacific Northwest. In
many places, though, miners preceded establishment of the forests. Old
maps can pinpoint their routes.
"You're talking about going back and doing some fairly detailed
research
in old historical documents," said Paul Turcke, a Boise, Idaho,
attorney
who represents off-road-vehicle enthusiasts, including the Blueribbon
Coalition.
It's clear that counties and states have the right to try to open up
the
old routes. Cities would, too, under the new rule. It remains to be
seen
whether private groups such as off-road-vehicle clubs could sue to
open
the routes.
"If I had to predict, I would say the trend is going to be toward more
private interests being involved," Turcke said.
----------------------------------------------
P-I reporter Robert McClure can be reached at 206-448-8092 or
>robertmcclure@ seattlepi.com
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation
Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com Webmaster,
Tierra
del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com Webmaster, Jeep-L:
http://www.jeep-l.net



BLUERIBBON COALITION NEWS RELEASE
www.sharetrails.org

RECREATIONISTS SUPPORT NORTON FOR INTERIOR

POCATELLO, ID 12/29/00-- The Blue Ribbon Coalition, a national
recreation
group, is pleased with President-elect Bush's nomination of Gale
Norton to
be the next Secretary of the Interior. For many years, Coalition
members
have felt disenfranchised by the Clinton administration's continued
top-down efforts to force unreasonable land closures on the American
public.

It appears that the new Interior Secretary will focus on better
management
of public lands rather than forcing non-collaborative land closures
and
restrictions on families who enjoy the great outdoors.

Denver Colorado native Jack Welch, the president of the Blue Ribbon
Coalition, says, "I have seen Ms. Norton work for the best interests
of
people and the environment in Colorado. I think she will be a
refreshing
change from the top-down DC-based philosophy of the Clinton
administration. She will be a positive influence for multi-use of
public
lands 'FOR' the public instead of 'FROM' the public."

Clark Collins, Executive Director for the Blue Ribbon Coalition, said,
"President-elect Bush talked about rebuilding the worn down
infrastructure
-- after 8 years of neglect by the current administration -- of our
National Parks and Forests and other public lands. Ms. Norton will
most
certainly focus on providing services to the public while protecting
valuable resources. She will change Interior from its current status
as a
political arm of the White House to its dutiful role as a land
management
agency that serves people rather than politicians or special interest
groups." ###
article >,
Viki > wrote:
> <http://www.denver-rmn.com/election/1229gale4.shtml>
-----------------------



The Wilderness Act Reform Coalition
After 35 Years, We Are Finally Going
To Do Something About The Wilderness Act!

Why we are organizing...

September 3, 1999 marks the 35th anniversary of the passage of the
Wilderness
Act. During those 35 years, it has never been substantively amended.
Yet,
the history of the application of the Wilderness Act to the public's
lands and
resources provides overwhelming evidence that it must be significantly
reformed if the public interest is to be served.

September 3, 1999 also marks the launch of the Wilderness Act Reform
Coalition
(WARC), the first serious effort to reform this antiquated and
poorly-conceived
law. Much has changed since the Wilderness Act became law in 1964.
Dozens of
other laws have been passed since then to protect and
responsibly-manage
all of
the public's lands and resources. Underpinning all of these laws--and
guaranteeing their enforcement-- is a public sensitivity and
commitment
to wise
resource management which was not present two generations ago when the
Wilderness Act was enacted.

Over this same time period our knowledge and understanding of how to
accomplish
this kind of wise and responsible resource management has increased
exponentially. The demand side of the public's interest in their
lands
and
resources has also increased exponentially. Recreation demand, for
example,
has increased far beyond what anyone could have anticipated 35 years
ago
and it
has done so in directions which could not have been foreseen in 1964.
Demand
for water, energy and minerals, timber and other resources continues
to
go up
as well.

All of this means that as the 21st Century dawns we find ourselves
facing more
complex natural resources realities and challenges than ever before in
our
history. Meeting these challenges while at the same time serving the
broad
public interest will require careful and thoughtful balancing of all
resource
values with other social goals. It will also require integrating them
all into
a comprehensive management approach which will provide the greatest
good
for
the greatest number of Americans over the longest period of time.

These lands and resources, after all, belong to all of the American
people.
They deserve to enjoy the maximum benefits from them. Yet, the
Wilderness Act,
with its outdated, inflexible, and anti-management requirements,
presently
locks away over 100 million acres of the public's lands and resources
from
this kind of intelligent and integrated resource management. The
inevitable
result is the numerous negative impacts and damage to other resource
values
which are becoming increasingly apparent on the public's lands. The
Wilderness Act remains frozen in another era. Due to the exponential
changes
which have occurred since it was passed, that era lies much further in
the past
than a mere 35 year linear time line would suggest.

Our goals and objectives...

The Wilderness Act Reform Coalition is being organized by members of
citizen's
groups and local government officials who have experienced firsthand
the

limitations and problems the Wilderness Act has caused. It has a
simple

mission: to reform the Wilderness Act. In carrying out that mission,
the
Coalition has identified two primary goals towards which it will
initially work.

The first goal is to make those changes in the wilderness law which
are
essential to mitigate the most serious resource and related problems
it
is
causing. These problems range from prohibiting the application of
sound
resource management practices where needed to hampering important
scientific
research and jeopardizing our national defense.

The second goal of the coalition is to use the failings of the
Wilderness Act
to help educate the public, the media and policy makers on the
fundamentals of
natural resource management. Most of the "conventional wisdom" about
natural
resource management to which most of them presently subscribe is
simply
wrong.
It is essential that the public be better educated on the facts, the
realities,
the challenges and the options before there can be any responsible or
useful
policy debate on the most fundamental problems with the Wilderness Act
or, for
that matter, any of the other federal management laws and policies
which
also
need to be reformed. That is why the Coalition has chosen a
comparatively
limited reform agenda for this opening round in what we recognize
ultimately
must be a broader and more comprehensive national policy debate.

Our reform agenda...

The Coalition currently advocates the following reforms of the
Wilderness Act:

1. Developing a mechanism to permit active resource management in
wilderness
areas to achieve a wide range of public benefits and to respond to
local needs.
The inability or unwillingness of managers to intervene actively
within
wilderness areas to deal with local resource management problems or
goals has
resulted in economic harm to local communities and damage to other
important
natural resource and related values and objectives. The Coalition
supports
the creation of committees composed of locally-based federal and
state

resource managers, local governments, local economic interests and
local
citizens which will initiate a process to override the basic
non-management
directive of the Wilderness Act on a case-by-case basis.

2. Establishing a mechanism for appeal and override of local
managers
for
scientific research. Wilderness advocates often tout the importance
of
wilderness designation to science. The reality, however, is that
agency
regulations make it difficult or impossible to conduct many
scientific

experiments in wilderness, particularly with modern and
cost-effective

scientific tools. Important scientific experiments have been
opposed
simply
because they would take place within wilderness areas. A simple,
quick and
cheap appeal process must be created for scientists turned down by
wilderness
land managers.

3. Making it clear that such things as use of mechanized equipment
and
aircraft landings can occur in wilderness areas for search and
rescue
or law
enforcement purposes. There have been incidents where these have
been

prevented by federal wilderness managers.

4. Requiring that federal managers use the most cost-effective
management
tools and technologies. These managers have largely imposed upon
themselves
a requirement that they use the "least tool" or the "minimum tool"
to
accomplish tasks such as noxious weed control, wildfire control or
stabilization of historic sites. In practice, this means that hand
tools are
often used instead of power tools, horses are employed instead of
helicopters
and similar practices which waste tax dollars.

5. Clarifying that the prohibition on the use of mechanized
transportation in
wilderness areas refers only to intentional infractions. This would
be, in
effect, the "Bobby Unser Amendment" designed to prevent in the
future
the
current situation in which he is being prosecuted by the federal
government
for possibly driving a snowmobile into a wilderness area in Colorado
while
lost in a life-threatening blizzard.

6. Pulling the boundaries of wilderness areas and wilderness study
areas
(WSA's) back from roads and prohibiting "cherrystemming." In many
cases,
the boundaries of wilderness areas and WSA's come right to the very
edge of
a road. Lawsuits have been filed or threatened against counties for
going
literally only a few feet into a WSA when doing necessary road
maintenance
work. It is clearly impossible to have a wilderness recreational
experience
in close proximity of a road. When formal wilderness areas are
designated,
the current practice is to pull the boundaries back a short distance
from
roads, depending on how the roads are categorized. That distance
should be
standardized and extended, probably to at least a quarter of a mile.
The
practice of "cherrystemming," or drawing wilderness boundaries right
along
both sides of a road to its end, sometimes for many miles, is a
clear
violation of the intent of the Wilderness Act that wilderness areas
must
first and foremost be roadless. It must be eliminated.

7. Permitting certain human-powered but non-motorized mechanized
transport
devices in wilderness areas. This would include mountain bikes and
wheeled "game carriers" and similar devices. The explosion of
mountain
biking was not envisioned by the Congress when the Wilderness Act
was
passed.
Opening up those wilderness areas which are suitable to mountain
biking
would provide a high quality recreation experience to more of the
Americans
who own these areas. Use of these human-powered conveyances would
also
reduce pressure on these areas in a number of ways, such as by
dispersing
recreation use over a wider area. At the same time opening these
areas can
also reduce the current or potential conflicts between various
recreation
uses on land outside of designated wilderness. The impact on the
land
from these types of mechanized recreation uses would be minimal to
non-existent. Their presence in wilderness areas would not cause
problems
on aesthetic grounds for any but the most extreme wilderness purists
and
they represent only a tiny fraction of the Americans who own these
lands.

8. Requiring that the resource potential in all WSA's and any other
land
proposed for wilderness be updated at least every ten years. For
example,
mineral surveys and estimates of oil and gas potential completed on
many of
the WSA's on BLM-managed land which have been recommended for
wilderness
designation are now 10 to 15 years old and in some cases even older.
These reviews were often not very thorough even by the standards and
technology available then, much less what is available now. Before
any
additional land is locked up in wilderness, Congress and the
American
people should at least have the best and most up-to-date information
on
which to weigh the resource trade offs and make decisions.

9. Stating clearly that wilderness designation or the presence of
WSA's
cannot interfere with military preparedness. In a number of
instances,
conflicts related to military overflights of designated or potential
wilderness areas, or to the positioning of essential military
equipment
on the ground in these areas, poses a threat or a potential threat
to
our
defense preparedness. The Coalition will push for clarification
that
when
considering the impacts of any mission certified by the military as
essential
to the national defense, wilderness areas or WSA's will be treated
exactly
the same as any other land administered by that agency.

10. Clarifying that wilderness designation or WSA designation will
not
in and
of itself result in any management or regulatory changes outside the
wilderness or WSA boundaries. This change is essential to prohibit
federal
agencies or the courts from taking actions to impose any type of
"buffer zones" around these areas, including such things as special
management
of "viewsheds" or asserting wilderness-based water rights.

For additional information about the Wilderness Act Reform Coalition
contact:

WARC
1540 North Arthur
Pocatello, ID 83204
ph. (208)233-6570 fax (208)233-8906
www.wildernessreform.com


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




Turns out that the Ribbon Coalition owns the new "coalition," the
Wilderness Act Reform Coalition outfit. See below for the office space
and fax number they share in Pocatello. Chances are good that both of
these "coalitions" are just one fat-assed, pencil-necked flack in the
employ of some offshore jet-ski and ATV manufacturers. To unravel
fronts set up by these greedy flag wavers (national defense, the
people are the owners of the public land), just follow the money.

Your search on the URL above using <sharetrails.org> will give you:

Registrant:
The BlueRibbon Coalition (SHARETRAILS-DOM)
1540 N. Arthur Ave.
Pocatello, ID 83204
US

Domain Name: SHARETRAILS.ORG

Administrative Contact:
Patty, Michael (MP13224)
208-233-6570
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Hemsley, Kevin (KH315)
(208) 528-6161
Billing Contact:
Hemsley, Kevin (KH315)
(208) 528-6161

Record last updated on 19-Apr-99.
Record created on 19-Feb-97.
Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.

I'm going to call them the Ribbon Coalition, instead of the Blue
Ribbon Coaltion, because there is an police-support organization on
the Web which already uses the fuller name.

The Ribbon Coalition's homepage shows its only "industry supporters"
as Honda, Ski-Doo, Yamaha, Polaris, Horizon (chemicals for ATVs and
snowmobiles), The Outdoor Channel, and Off-Road.com (don't ask). I
don't conclude that this is a client list for their efforts to create
more demand for the products of their "industry supporters."

Yahoo yellow pages lists them under Non-Profit Organizations and
Asosiations. (I wonder if the IRS and the Idaho attorney general's
consumer fraud people have looked into advertising this tax status?
Somebody remind me to find this AG's email address on the Idaho state
homepage.)

Who is the Michael Patty shown above? Internic says:
Patty, Michael (MP9395)
BlueRibbon Coalition
1540 N. Arthur
Pocatello , ID 83204
208-233-6570 (FAX) 208-233-8906

Record last updated on 02-Nov-98.
Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.

Who is Kevin Hemsley? Internic says:
Hemsley, Kevin (KH1926)
Sign Pro
765 S Woodruff Av
Idaho Falls, ID 83404
(208)523-8540

Record last updated on 06-Mar-97.
Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.

What is Sign Pro? Yahoo yellow pages lists them under "Truck Lettering
and Painting" and "Sign Manufacturing" at

765 S Woodruff Ave
Idaho Falls, ID
(208) 523-8540

Now for the Ribbon guy's newest front. Your search on the URL at the
top of this message using <wildernessreform.com> will give you:

Registrant:
Western Counties Institute (WILDERNESSREFORM-DOM)
Po Box 27514
SLC, UT 84127-0514
US

Domain Name: WILDERNESSREFORM.COM

Administrative Contact:
Kinsel, sheldon (SK1881)
801-654-4087
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Services, Fibernet Dns (FDS6)
801-223-9939
Billing Contact:
Kinsel, sheldon (SK1881)
801-654-4087

Record last updated on 23-Aug-99.
Record created on 23-Aug-99.
Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.


So, who is this Kinsel, sheldon? Internic says:

Kinsel, sheldon (SK1881)
Public Interest Communications
box 516
Heber, UT 84032
801-654-4087

Record last updated on 09-Dec-96.
Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.

What is Public Interest Communications? Yahoo yellow pages shows it
at:
555 E 200 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
(801) 364-2345

and lists under "Fund Raising Counselors & Organizations." Now, why
would sheldon set up a P.O. box in Heber, UT, when he has a perfectly
good mailing address in Salt Lake City? Hmmmmmm.

So the Ribbon Coalition guy hired a fund raiser (sheldon) for his
latest incarnation, the WARC. Maybe his clients in Tokyo don't want to
get involved in lobbying for changes in US law? I can only guess. If
you want to ask him yourself, you can write to the address on one of
his Web pages (this is all very confusing to this ol'country boy) at:

Wilderness Reform Act Coalition
Box 5449. Pocatello, Idaho 83202-0003
1540 North Arthur, Pocatello, ID 83204
fax (208)233-8906
http://www.wildernessreform.com

Someones trolling............

"Sportsmen Against Bush" > wrote in message
om...
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is supposed to be the voice for the ORV
> users. Why would a group that does that want public comments on public
> lands
> banned?Answer:
>
> Because they dont care about recreational ORV. They are a front for
> the
> resource extraction industry. Anyone who still has respect for this
> organization now is nothing but a knuckle dragging, mullet-headed
> mouth
> breather with no brain whatsoever.
>
> Ending public comments on public lands , from no matter what side you
> are
> on, is WRONG.
>
> --------------------------------------
>
>
> Awhile ago a very smart man posted a study on privatization, the blue
> ribbon
> coalition, the bush administration and WARC.
>
> doing away with comment periods is also another form of privatization.
> This
> guy was right on the money.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/17/we...ew/17SEEL.html
>
>
> ""Although the snowmobilers won their battle, the groups representing
> them
> say tha
> t the public comment period should be abolished. "What this outcome
> shows is
> tha
> t these huge hate-mail campaigns are not effective now and won't be in
> the
> futur
> e," said Clark Collins, executive director of the Blue Ribbon
> Coalition, an
> indu
> stry-backed lobbying group based in Idaho.
>
> If the public comment periods ceased, he said, both sides could save a
> lot
> of ti
> me.""
> -----------------------
>
> Clark collins also started "WARC", a group whose main goal is to undo
> congressionaly designated wilderness.
>
>
> MEDIA RELEASE
> The Wilderness Act Reform Coalition
> WARC
> 1540 North Arthur
> Pocatello, ID 83204
> www.wildernessreform.com
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> Contact: Clark Collins, 208-233-6570 -
>
> Wilderness Act Reform Coalition Launching On 35th Anniversary of
> Passage
>
> August 27, 1999 -- POCATELLO, IDAHO: Local governments, private
> citizens
> and outdoor groups announced today that they will mark the 35th
> anniversary of the passage of the national Wilderness Act by launching
> a nationwide coalition to reform it. The new coalition, to be called
> the
> "Wilderness Act Reform Coalition" (WARC), will focus initially on
> fixing
> ten specific problems with the wilderness law.
> "The Wilderness Act is antiquated, inflexible, anti-resource
> management and flies in the face of sound and responsible public
> policy
> principles," said Clark Collins, a spokesman for the emerging
> coalition.
> "There can be no doubt that it would never pass any modern Congress in
> its present form and that alone should be a warning signal to the
> public
> that it is seriously flawed."
> Initially, the Coalition will serve three functions. It will act as
> a clearing house for examples of problems with the Act and help build
> the
> case to amend it. It will educate the public, the media and policy
> makers about these problems and the ways to solve them. Finally, it
> will
> also serve to coordinate the efforts of the members of the Coalition.
> The
> Coalition's Internet site, www.wildernessreform.com, which will be
> posted
> on September 1, will be the primary communication mechanism in all of
> these efforts.
> "Those of us putting this Coalition together have our own horror
> stories about the Wilderness Act but until we started talking among
> ourselves we did not really realize how widespread the problems are,"
> noted Collins. "I doubt that any individual or organization in the
> country has a handle on all of the problems the Wilderness Act is
> causing. Our top priority will be asking individuals and organizations
> around the country to submit additional case studies and examples to
> us
> so we can provide the public and policy makers for the first time with
> a
> clear and comprehensive picture of the negative impacts of this Act."
> The groups launching the Coalition represent the a very broad
> spectrum of the public. Prominent among them are rural counties,
> county
> officials and county organizations, including Juab and Uinta Counties
> in
> Utah, and the Western Counties' Resources Policy Institute, a natural
> resources policy think tank being created by rural western counties.
> Citizen groups include the Blue Ribbon Coalition, which represents
> 600,000 recreationists nationwide ranging from mountain bikers and
> motorized recreationists to equestrian groups, People for the USA, a
> nationwide organization of 25,000 members representing all public land
> and resource users and the Rocky Mountain Federation of Mineralogical
> Societies.. Many individuals are also supporting the Coalition,
> including scientists and other professionals specializing in natural
> resources management, retired federal resource management agency
> employees and ordinary citizens who simply want to protect the
> public's
> interest in these lands and resources.
> "Our goal is to educate the public on the problems inherent in the
> philosophy and application of the Wilderness Act and then to stimulate
> a
> broad and informed national policy debate on reforming it," Collins
> said.
> "It must be reformed to serve the public interest and the public needs
> of the 21st Century."
> ---------------
>
> The BRC is run by Japanese corporations, timber and mining
> donations, and anti-wilderness supporters. They pride themselves on
> helping build new logging roads through national forests, keeping the
> ball rolling on drilling ANWR, mining claims and keeping grazing
> leases. "access" for ORv users is their last priority:
>
>
>
> ttp://www.ewg.org/pub/home/clear/by_clear/Fifty_VI.html
>
> Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC)
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is partially funded by Japanese
> manufacturers of off-road vehicles. The organization was cofounded by
> snowmobiler and anti-wilderness activist Darryl Harris and trail biker
> Clark Collins.
>
>
> Three full-time employees manage the coalition's annual operating
> budget of $180,000. Board members a Kay Lloyd, co-chairman,
> International Snowmobile Council; Craig Cazier, president, Utah State
> Snowmobile Association; and Joe Wernex, a Washington State logging
> engineer and amateur trail designer. Individuals pay dues of $20 to
> belong to the coalition; groups pay $100. But at least as much
> money--roughly $85,000 a year--is provided by grants from the mining
> and timber industries and especially from ORV manufacturers.
>
>
> Major contributors of the 1989 Convention we American Honda Motor
> Company, Yamaha Motor Company, Suzuki Motor Corporation, ARCTCO,
> Bombardier Corporation, Polaris Industries, and Kawasaki Motor
> Corporation.
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is credited with the Wise Use Movement's
> major federal legislative achievement to date, lobbying successfully
> to add $30 million to the 1991 Highway Bill for the construction of
> off-road vehicle trails.
>
>
> "Environmentalists are still trying to figure out how they got KOed on
> the trails act, but it wasn't a lucky punch," says a report in
> Harrowsmith Country Life.
>
>
> Mike Francis of the Wilderness Society said of Clark Collins: "I have
> to give Collins a lot of credit. The guy is good. As flaky as he
> seems, he is one hell of a tactician. He got Steve Symms to make the
> trails amendment his number one project on the highway bill. The
> trails act is a flea on the rear end of an elephant when you compare
> it to the regular highway bill. Everyone wanted Symms' support for
> something else. With the exception of Howard Metzenbaum, our best
> environmentalists on the Senate Energy Committee weren't willing to
> take on Symms. They all took a walk. Symms and Collins played that
> thing beautifully."
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition has boasted about "organizing support" for:
> 1. logging road construction by the Forest Service; 2. oil exploration
> in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; 3. protection of the Mining
> Act; and 4. continuation of the present grazing formula.
>
>
> Clark Collins travels extensively addressing local and national groups
> on the need to work together and form a strong network
>
> -------------------------
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon coalition favors opening up new roads in national
> parks and wilderness:
>
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/releases/....cfm?story=175
>
>
> Editorial Release: BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO PRESERVE HISTORIC ACCESS
> Contact: Clark L. Collins, Executive Director
> Phone: (208) 237-1008 (x101)
> Fax: (208) 237-9424
> E-mail:
>
> Webpage: http://sharetrails.org/staffbio.html#Clark
> Date: December 26, 2002
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . .
>
> POCATELLO, ID (December 26) -- An announcement by the Department of
> Interior that historic access routes will be preserved is welcomed by
> the BlueRibbon Coalition. The Bush Administration is expected to
> announce a new policy later this week for dealing with RS-2477 rights
> of way across federal lands.
>
> "We've been working with our recreation organizations across the
> country to protect our access to federal lands," said BlueRibbon
> Coalition Executive Director Clark Collins. "We are excited that
> the Bush Administration appears willing to help in that effort."
>
> "Many of these historic routes were used for commerce initially,
> but they are now important for recreation access. We look forward to
> working cooperatively with this Administration to ensure the public
> can use these routes for access to our federal lands," Collins
> concluded.
>
> -
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:49:28 -0700
> From: Pat Rasmussen >
> Subject: ENS---Roadless Proposal Opponent Has Industry Ties
>
>
> ROADLESS PROPOSAL OPPONENT HAS INDUSTRY TIES
>
> WASHINGTON, DC, June 20, 2000 (ENS) - The Blue Ribbon Coalition, one
> of
> the most active opponents of the U.S. Forest Service's (USFS) efforts
> to
> preserve large, intact areas in national forests, is closely tied to
> the
> timber, mining and oil and gas industry, says a report released today
> by
> the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG). The Pocatello,
> Idaho
> based Coalition has opposed any proposal to protect roadless areas in
> national forests even if such a proposal would further the Coalition's
> stated recreational interests. While the group's mission statement
> values land stewardship and responsible use, the organization receives
> funding from 355 corporations including the American Forest and Paper
> Association, Exxon, and Sierra Forest Products.
>
> "Far from being a grassroots organization simply advancing an agenda
> of
> access to public lands for the public, the Blue Ribbon Coalition is
> working hand-in-hand with industry to keep our national forests open
> to chainsaws, bulldozers and oil rigs," said US PIRG forest campaign
> coordinator Aaron Viles. The US PIRG report, "The Blue Ribbon
> Coalition:
> Protector of Recreation or Industry?" was released as a battle is
> waged
> over how the remaining 60 million acres of pristine wilderness in
> national forests will be managed.
>
> In May, the USFS released a draft proposal on managing these wild
> forests, otherwise known as roadless areas, and is soliciting public
> comment and holding more than 400 public hearings around the country,
> including a hearing in Arlington, Virginia on June 26. The report is
> available at: http://www.wildforests.com
>
> ------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is supposed
> to be by the people, for the people.
> Yet I see no sign that they oppose the
> double taxation forest fee demo program.
> I find this quite odd since most BRC memebers
> are active users of the public lands.
>
> I sent emails, and phoned many members of the
> Blue Ribbon Coalition yet they can't seem to
> give me a solid answer on wether they oppose
> or favor the Forest Fee program.
>
> Interesting. But I did find this on their
> website:
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/index.cfm?mr=69
>
> It's a "small business" alert. Funny. I
> thought the BRC was about keeping trails open.
>
> And here is another thing I found. The
> BRC is sending out an "alert" because 14
> peercent of California (according to them) is
> protected wilderness, and a new wilderness bill
> would add 2.5 million acres.
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/index.cfm?mr=97
>
> My question is why are they so concerned?
> It's only 14 percent of the land base. I
> could see their case if the total was approaching
> 50 percent, or even 40 percent. But yet, it's only
> a very small percent. Why is the BRC trying to
> refuse wilderness protection for some of our best
> areas? I mean the rest of the state is open to
> motorized use and is roaded and trailed. I
> think at the end of all this you have to ask
> yourself who benefits. And you will see who
> does concerning the corrupt BRC and their scam.
>
>
> Continuing tosearch their site, I came across
> a link for minig? Hmmm..
>
> I thought the BRC was for reacreational access?
> What is a mining link doing on their site?
>
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/links.htm
>
> (look under "M")
>
>
> Also, I found a link to the Wilderness Act
> Reform Coalition(WARC)on their website:
>
>
> http://www.wildernessreform.com/
>
>
> The first thing you are greeted to on the WARC
> webpage is this quote:
>
> " Finally we are going to do something about
>
> the Wilderness Act".
>
> It appears this group supports building new r
> oads into congressionaly designtaed wilderness
> for logging and mining! Talk about extreme.
> Thats right, the propose building new roads
> for mining and logging into the Bob MArshal
> Wilderness, the Boundary Waters Canoe area
> Wilderness, and other national treasures.
> While they appear to be a access/recreation
> group, it seems their ultiamte cause is revealed
> towards the end of their explanation.
>
> "The Coalition supports the creation of committees
> composed of locally-based federal and state
> resource managers, local governments, local economic
> interests and local citizens which will initiate a
> process to override the basic non-management
> directive of the Wilderness Act on a case-by-case basis. "
>
>
> Wai a second here folks.....doesn't this sound
> like Bush's "Charter Forests"?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
> A27700-2002Feb5.html
>
>
> Bush Admin. Wants 'Charter Forests'
>
>
> More from WARC:
>
> "Developing a mechanism to permit active
> resource management in wilderness areas to
> achieve a wide range of public benefits
> and to respond to local needs"
>
>
> Bush supports Forest Fees
> http://www.everyweek.com/Archives/News.
> asp?no=2317
>
>
>
> So far here we have some very interesting
> findings. We have "recreation" groups severly
> concerned with resource extraction. We have
> the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a group which is
> born on recreation access by its members, not
> opposing a forest fee demo program. We have
> the Bush administration echoing these same
> things. The question is, who benefits? Where
> does the money trail lead? The answer is
> pretty simple. It leads right to the ORV
> industry, the logging inddustry, the mining
> industry, and yes, even Walt Disney Corporation.
> Thats right.
>
>
> Who supports the Forest Fee Demo program?
>
> http://www.freeourforests.org
>
>
>
> ARC is the American Recreation Coalition.
> They are a large group of corporations.
> Arc has currently been caught bragging about
> how theycreated the Fee Demo program:
>
> These corporations arent "evil" or "bad".
> But when put together, and in favor of charging
> money to US taxpayers to use their public
> lands, they become a clear enemy to our public
> lands and our use of them.
>
>
> Bush's domestic issues advisor,
> Terry Anderson is sitting back and smiling:
>
>
> The Bush administration, along with Terry
> L Anderson are planning to turn our national
> parks over to corporate control.
>
>
>
> GEORGE BUSH'S ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISOR: "
> AUCTION OFF ALL
> FEDERAL LANDS INCLUDING NATIONAL PARKS"
> Terry L. Anderson, environmental advisor to
>
> George W. Bush Jr., has
> proposed to auction off all 600 million acres of
> federal public lands in
> the
> U.S. over the next 20-40 years. This not only
> incudes every National
> Forest, National Wildlife Refuge, and BLM District,
> it also includes
> every National Park and Monument. Under his
> proposal, non-profit
> environmental groups could bid on the free
> market against the likes of
> Exxon to obtain the Arctic National Wildlife
> Refuge, or against
> Weyerhouser to obtain Yellowstone National
> Park, or against Phelps Dodge
> to obtain Grand Canyon National Park. Any
> bets on how the bidding will
> go?
> Anderson is closely associated with several
> conservative think tanks
> pushing for the privatization and/or
> commercialization of public lands.
> He is the director of the Political Economy
>
> Research Center, a senior
> fellow at the Hoover Institution. PERC's
> website links to the Thoreau
> Institute which has proposed, among other
> nonsense, to privatize
> ownership of endangered species. Anderson's
> proposal was published by
> the CATO institute and can be viewed at
> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-363es.html>
> Anderson freely admits that his corporate
> take-over agenda would be
> wildly unpopular with the American public.""
>
>
> If you go to the link you can see it is published
> in whole at the Cato Institute website, a right
> wing study corp.
>
>
>
> So what we have here is the Bush administration,
> the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Wilderness Act
> Reform Coalition, Walt Disney, and many other
> corporations trying to wrestle control of the
> public lands to private enterprises for private
> profit. In essence, they want to "Disney-fi"
> our public lands. This is a bad thing for
> every single user of public lands from a tree
> hugger to a snowmobiler to a horseback rider
> to a hunter or a fisherman.
>
> It is time to see through the fronts, the
> lies and the myths. We need to keep a careful
> eye out so our easily accesible public lands
> arent gone forever.------------
>
>
>
>
> ------------
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Clark Collins, 73563,1551
> To: (An Un-Named Senate Democratic Policy
> Committee staffer)
>
> Date: 6/28/00 2:17 PM
>
> Interior Riders
>
> As I mentioned to you on the phone, the only Interior
> Appropriations Committee rider that I am personally familier with is
> the
> one that would protect snowmobile access to our national parks. My
> understanding is that rider was dropped in the House bill and we are
> hopeful it will be re-submitted in the Senate version.
>
> I understand that as a staffer for the Democratic Policy Committee in
> the
> U.S. Senate you are looking for information on what organizations are
> supportive of the Interior Appropriations riders that have been
> mis-labeled
> by the environmental extremist industry as "anti-environment." While
> our
> organization's focus is on recreation access issues, such as the NPS
> proposed snowmobile ban, we are supportive of responsible multiple use
> of
> our public lands.
>
> We know that opposition to the Interior riders is coming from the
> environmental extremists community. Those organizations already have
> lists
> of most of the groups who oppose their anti-multiple-use viewpoint.
> You can
> get those lists from them. I hope you were really trying to get a
> handle on
> what's happening in the land use debates.
>
> The primary change in that whole debate, in my view, is that many rank
> and
> file members of the various resource industry unions are no longer
> voting
> the AFL-CIO party line. They realize that the environmental extremists
> are
> driving the industries - who provide their jobs - out of this country.
> Democrats who support the extreme anti-timber, anti-mining, anti-oil
> industry, and anti-recreation-access agenda of the so-called
> environmental
> community are losing the support of blue-collar workers. I myself was
> a
> Union electrician who supported the Democratic party in my home state
> of
> Idaho. I know a lot of former Democrats who've changed parties because
> of
> the land use issues.
>
> I hope that your call was Senator Dachle's attempt to get to the heart
> of
> what's happening at the grass roots on these land use issues. My view
> is
> that the Democratic party is going to need to dissassociate itself
> from the
> extreme environmental viewpoint or suffer additional erosion of their
> support from blue-collar workers. THAT'S THE MESSAGE I HOPE YOU WILL
> DELIVER. It's not to late to tell the Sierra Club to take a hike.
>
> Clark L. Collins, BlueRibbon Coalition
> for more information about the BlueRibbon Coalition check our website
> www.sharetrails.org
>
>
> -----------------------
>
>
>
>
>
<http://www.msnbc.com/local/pisea/102348.asp?vts=1120031042>http://www.msnbc
..com/local/pisea/102348.asp?vts=1120031042
>
> Bush opens up backcountry trails to vehicles
>
> By ROBERT McCLURE
> SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
>
> Jan. 1 - The Bush administration, in a move that has outraged
> environmentalists, is about to hand a big victory to Westerners who
> want
> to use a post-Civil War-era law to punch dirt-bike trails and roads
> into
> the backcountry.
> Untallied thousands of miles of long-abandoned wagon roads, cattle
> paths, Jeep trails and miners' routes potentially could be transformed
> into roads -- some of them paved. Many crisscross national parks,
> wildlife refuges and wilderness areas. Scheduled to go into effect
> shortly, the rule change was greeted warmly by off-road vehicle
> enthusiasts, whose numbers have exploded in recent years. Many oppose
> attempts to fence off wilderness areas where mechanized vehicles are
> banned. Where miners and wagons trains went, so should dirt bikes,
> they
> say.
> "We consider it a pretty substantial gain," said Clark Collins,
> executive director of the Blueribbon Coalition, an advocacy group for
> snowmobilers, dirt-bike and all-terrain-vehicle riders and 4X4
> enthusiasts based in Pocatello, Idaho.
> "That historic use in our view should provide for continued
> recreational
> use of those routes," he said. "The government should not be allowed
> to
> close those routes."
> Environmentalists say the amount of noise pollution, erosion, water
> pollution and other harm done to the backcountry will depend largely
> on
> how the rule is handled by the Bush administration. And they're
> worried.
> "I don't think Congress in 1866 meant to grant rights of way to
> off-road-vehicle trails," said Heidi McIntosh of the Southern Utah
> Wilderness Alliance. "This is flying under the radar screen, but I
> can't
> think of another initiative the Bush administration is pursuing that
> would have a more lasting and significant impact on public lands."
> In Washington state, huge areas -- including parts of North Cascades
> National Park -- are honeycombed by old mining trails that could be
> promoted by off-road-vehicle devotees as open to motorized traffic.
> Other national parks that could be affected include Grand Canyon,
> Death
> Valley, Joshua Tree, Denali, Wrangell-St. Elias and Rocky Mountain. A
> 1993 National Park Service report said the impact across 17.5 million
> acres in 68 national parks could be "devastating." The law was
> originally passed when Jesse James was just starting to rob banks and
> the U.S. cavalry was still fighting Indians. Seattle did not yet have
> a
> bank or a public schoolhouse. It made federal land available for wagon
> roads, miners' trails and other transportation routes. Its purpose was
> to open the West to settlement. It would be nine years after the law's
> passage before the internal combustion engine was invented. Decades
> would elapse before many newfangled automobiles were scooting around
> the
> landscape. The rule change announced on Christmas Eve by the Bush
> administration rolls back severe restrictions slapped on the use of
> the
> law under the Clinton administration.
> "We're really concerned about this because it seems like the
> administration is encouraging (road) claims that will affect the
> parks,"
> said Heather Weiner, Northwest director for the National Parks
> Conservation Association.
> Outside national parks, wilderness areas set aside by Congress in
> national forests and other federal lands also are in play. "It would
> disrupt the quiet and the feeling that you're away from civilization,"
> said Seattle activist Pat Goldsworthy. Lots of land is at stake. In
> California alone, 19 wilderness areas and proposed wilderness areas
> could be affected. A full accounting of such areas in Washington
> apparently has not been compiled, but the Alpine Lakes, Pasayten,
> Glacier Peak, Stephen Mather and Mount Baker wilderness areas all
> contain old miners' trails. "You name it, miners have been everywhere"
> around the West, said Seattle attorney arl Forsgaard, an
> environmental
> activist. "So keep that in mind."
> The one-sentence, 21-word statutory provision in question, known as
> Revised Statute 2477, was part of the nation's first general mining
> law,
> passed July 26, 1866. It says, "The right of way for the construction
> of
> highways across public lands not otherwise reserved for public
> purposes
> is hereby granted."
> The idea was to induce miners to continue to fan out across the West
> and
> settle it. To do that, they needed roads, or at least what passed for
> roads in those days.
> That law and its replacements in 1870 and 1872 gave miners the right
> to
> buy public land for $5 an acre or less if they did work necessary to
> discover minerals on the land. Those prices remain in effect today. A
> few years earlier, Congress had passed the Homestead Act, which
> provided
> cheap land to settlers willing to build ranches, farms and homes on
> the
> acreage. That law was repealed in 1976. That was the same year
> Congress
> repealed the roads-for-lands provision of the old mining law. However,
> at the time Congress gave states and counties 12 years to settle their
> old road claims. Ten years later, Congress in effect extended the
> deadline. But the Clinton administration fought most attempts to turn
> wilderness into roadways.
> Now, the Bush administration says it will finalize a rule giving
> Western
> states, counties and cities -- some avowedly hostile to federal
> control
> of wilderness areas -- a better chance to enforce those claims.
> The Clinton administration made it difficult to get the Interior
> Department's Bureau of Land Management to approve the road claims. A
> burst of litigation resulted, much of it in Alaska and Utah. In Utah,
> some 15,000 road claims are at issue; Alaska's state government has
> identified about 650.
> In Utah, county governments angry about the establishment of a
> national
> monument have become embroiled in a fight over the issue. The state
> sued
> the federal government.
> And in Alaska, the state government contends that even some section
> lines -- the imaginary grid that marks off every square mile in the
> nation -- are subject to the provision and can be claimed as roads.
> Until now, proving that would likely have involved an arduous legal
> battle.
> Under the Bush policy, though, the BLM can process the claims more
> readily as an administrative action.
> It makes sense, says the Bush administration, because it saves state
> and
> federal taxpayers money on court costs. "The department felt this
> allowed them to address the . . . issues in a more straightforward
> way,"
> said David Quick, a BLM spokesman. Stephen Griles, a former mining
> lobbyist who serves as the No. 2 official in the Interior Department,
> told a pro-development group in Alaska that the rule change was
> spurred
> in part by the advocacy of the Western Governors Association.
> "The department is poised to bring finality to this issue that has
> created unnecessary conflict between federal land managers and state
> and
> local governments," Griles told the Resource Development Council in
> November.
> Griles told the group the rules would be "consistent with historic
> regulation prior to 1976."
> What's changed since then is that sales of off-road vehicles,
> particularly three- and four-wheeled all-terrain vehicles, have
> skyrocketed. Enthusiasts have started to fight to maintain access to
> back-country trails.
> Meanwhile, environmental activists are trying to declare additional
> areas off-limits to the off-road vehicles, saying they disturb
> wildlife
> and hikers, cloud up streams and cause erosion of trails and
> hillsides.
> The new rule could help put to rest a controversy over a related
> Clinton-era policy, said the Blueribbon Coalition's Collins. A Clinton
> policy banned most logging, mining and other commercial uses in 58.5
> million acres of national forests where no roads are built. But under
> the new policy, if states, counties or others are able to establish a
> network of legally recognized "highways" through those acres -- even
> if
> the highways are dirt roads or something less -- it would give those
> fighting the so-called "roadless" proposal ammunition.
> At least that's what Collins hopes.
> "That's why we have a real interest in it," he said. "It does have the
> potential to influence this debate." In national forests, those trying
> to open a route to motorized travel would have to show that the route
> existed prior to the establishment of national forests -- around the
> turn of the last century for most places in the Pacific Northwest. In
> many places, though, miners preceded establishment of the forests. Old
> maps can pinpoint their routes.
> "You're talking about going back and doing some fairly detailed
> research
> in old historical documents," said Paul Turcke, a Boise, Idaho,
> attorney
> who represents off-road-vehicle enthusiasts, including the Blueribbon
> Coalition.
> It's clear that counties and states have the right to try to open up
> the
> old routes. Cities would, too, under the new rule. It remains to be
> seen
> whether private groups such as off-road-vehicle clubs could sue to
> open
> the routes.
> "If I had to predict, I would say the trend is going to be toward more
> private interests being involved," Turcke said.
> ----------------------------------------------
> P-I reporter Robert McClure can be reached at 206-448-8092 or
> >robertmcclure@ seattlepi.com
> --
> John Stewart
> Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
> Recreation
> Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com Webmaster,
> Tierra
> del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com Webmaster, Jeep-L:
> http://www.jeep-l.net
>
>
>
> BLUERIBBON COALITION NEWS RELEASE
> www.sharetrails.org
>
> RECREATIONISTS SUPPORT NORTON FOR INTERIOR
>
> POCATELLO, ID 12/29/00-- The Blue Ribbon Coalition, a national
> recreation
> group, is pleased with President-elect Bush's nomination of Gale
> Norton to
> be the next Secretary of the Interior. For many years, Coalition
> members
> have felt disenfranchised by the Clinton administration's continued
> top-down efforts to force unreasonable land closures on the American
> public.
>
> It appears that the new Interior Secretary will focus on better
> management
> of public lands rather than forcing non-collaborative land closures
> and
> restrictions on families who enjoy the great outdoors.
>
> Denver Colorado native Jack Welch, the president of the Blue Ribbon
> Coalition, says, "I have seen Ms. Norton work for the best interests
> of
> people and the environment in Colorado. I think she will be a
> refreshing
> change from the top-down DC-based philosophy of the Clinton
> administration. She will be a positive influence for multi-use of
> public
> lands 'FOR' the public instead of 'FROM' the public."
>
> Clark Collins, Executive Director for the Blue Ribbon Coalition, said,
> "President-elect Bush talked about rebuilding the worn down
> infrastructure
> -- after 8 years of neglect by the current administration -- of our
> National Parks and Forests and other public lands. Ms. Norton will
> most
> certainly focus on providing services to the public while protecting
> valuable resources. She will change Interior from its current status
> as a
> political arm of the White House to its dutiful role as a land
> management
> agency that serves people rather than politicians or special interest
> groups." ###
> article >,
> Viki > wrote:
> > <http://www.denver-rmn.com/election/1229gale4.shtml>
> -----------------------
>
>
>
> The Wilderness Act Reform Coalition
> After 35 Years, We Are Finally Going
> To Do Something About The Wilderness Act!
>
> Why we are organizing...
>
> September 3, 1999 marks the 35th anniversary of the passage of the
> Wilderness
> Act. During those 35 years, it has never been substantively amended.
> Yet,
> the history of the application of the Wilderness Act to the public's
> lands and
> resources provides overwhelming evidence that it must be significantly
> reformed if the public interest is to be served.
>
> September 3, 1999 also marks the launch of the Wilderness Act Reform
> Coalition
> (WARC), the first serious effort to reform this antiquated and
> poorly-conceived
> law. Much has changed since the Wilderness Act became law in 1964.
> Dozens of
> other laws have been passed since then to protect and
> responsibly-manage
> all of
> the public's lands and resources. Underpinning all of these laws--and
> guaranteeing their enforcement-- is a public sensitivity and
> commitment
> to wise
> resource management which was not present two generations ago when the
> Wilderness Act was enacted.
>
> Over this same time period our knowledge and understanding of how to
> accomplish
> this kind of wise and responsible resource management has increased
> exponentially. The demand side of the public's interest in their
> lands
> and
> resources has also increased exponentially. Recreation demand, for
> example,
> has increased far beyond what anyone could have anticipated 35 years
> ago
> and it
> has done so in directions which could not have been foreseen in 1964.
> Demand
> for water, energy and minerals, timber and other resources continues
> to
> go up
> as well.
>
> All of this means that as the 21st Century dawns we find ourselves
> facing more
> complex natural resources realities and challenges than ever before in
> our
> history. Meeting these challenges while at the same time serving the
> broad
> public interest will require careful and thoughtful balancing of all
> resource
> values with other social goals. It will also require integrating them
> all into
> a comprehensive management approach which will provide the greatest
> good
> for
> the greatest number of Americans over the longest period of time.
>
> These lands and resources, after all, belong to all of the American
> people.
> They deserve to enjoy the maximum benefits from them. Yet, the
> Wilderness Act,
> with its outdated, inflexible, and anti-management requirements,
> presently
> locks away over 100 million acres of the public's lands and resources
> from
> this kind of intelligent and integrated resource management. The
> inevitable
> result is the numerous negative impacts and damage to other resource
> values
> which are becoming increasingly apparent on the public's lands. The
> Wilderness Act remains frozen in another era. Due to the exponential
> changes
> which have occurred since it was passed, that era lies much further in
> the past
> than a mere 35 year linear time line would suggest.
>
> Our goals and objectives...
>
> The Wilderness Act Reform Coalition is being organized by members of
> citizen's
> groups and local government officials who have experienced firsthand
> the
>
> limitations and problems the Wilderness Act has caused. It has a
> simple
>
> mission: to reform the Wilderness Act. In carrying out that mission,
> the
> Coalition has identified two primary goals towards which it will
> initially work.
>
> The first goal is to make those changes in the wilderness law which
> are
> essential to mitigate the most serious resource and related problems
> it
> is
> causing. These problems range from prohibiting the application of
> sound
> resource management practices where needed to hampering important
> scientific
> research and jeopardizing our national defense.
>
> The second goal of the coalition is to use the failings of the
> Wilderness Act
> to help educate the public, the media and policy makers on the
> fundamentals of
> natural resource management. Most of the "conventional wisdom" about
> natural
> resource management to which most of them presently subscribe is
> simply
> wrong.
> It is essential that the public be better educated on the facts, the
> realities,
> the challenges and the options before there can be any responsible or
> useful
> policy debate on the most fundamental problems with the Wilderness Act
> or, for
> that matter, any of the other federal management laws and policies
> which
> also
> need to be reformed. That is why the Coalition has chosen a
> comparatively
> limited reform agenda for this opening round in what we recognize
> ultimately
> must be a broader and more comprehensive national policy debate.
>
> Our reform agenda...
>
> The Coalition currently advocates the following reforms of the
> Wilderness Act:
>
> 1. Developing a mechanism to permit active resource management in
> wilderness
> areas to achieve a wide range of public benefits and to respond to
> local needs.
> The inability or unwillingness of managers to intervene actively
> within
> wilderness areas to deal with local resource management problems or
> goals has
> resulted in economic harm to local communities and damage to other
> important
> natural resource and related values and objectives. The Coalition
> supports
> the creation of committees composed of locally-based federal and
> state
>
> resource managers, local governments, local economic interests and
> local
> citizens which will initiate a process to override the basic
> non-management
> directive of the Wilderness Act on a case-by-case basis.
>
> 2. Establishing a mechanism for appeal and override of local
> managers
> for
> scientific research. Wilderness advocates often tout the importance
> of
> wilderness designation to science. The reality, however, is that
> agency
> regulations make it difficult or impossible to conduct many
> scientific
>
> experiments in wilderness, particularly with modern and
> cost-effective
>
> scientific tools. Important scientific experiments have been
> opposed
> simply
> because they would take place within wilderness areas. A simple,
> quick and
> cheap appeal process must be created for scientists turned down by
> wilderness
> land managers.
>
> 3. Making it clear that such things as use of mechanized equipment
> and
> aircraft landings can occur in wilderness areas for search and
> rescue
> or law
> enforcement purposes. There have been incidents where these have
> been
>
> prevented by federal wilderness managers.
>
> 4. Requiring that federal managers use the most cost-effective
> management
> tools and technologies. These managers have largely imposed upon
> themselves
> a requirement that they use the "least tool" or the "minimum tool"
> to
> accomplish tasks such as noxious weed control, wildfire control or
> stabilization of historic sites. In practice, this means that hand
> tools are
> often used instead of power tools, horses are employed instead of
> helicopters
> and similar practices which waste tax dollars.
>
> 5. Clarifying that the prohibition on the use of mechanized
> transportation in
> wilderness areas refers only to intentional infractions. This would
> be, in
> effect, the "Bobby Unser Amendment" designed to prevent in the
> future
> the
> current situation in which he is being prosecuted by the federal
> government
> for possibly driving a snowmobile into a wilderness area in Colorado
> while
> lost in a life-threatening blizzard.
>
> 6. Pulling the boundaries of wilderness areas and wilderness study
> areas
> (WSA's) back from roads and prohibiting "cherrystemming." In many
> cases,
> the boundaries of wilderness areas and WSA's come right to the very
> edge of
> a road. Lawsuits have been filed or threatened against counties for
> going
> literally only a few feet into a WSA when doing necessary road
> maintenance
> work. It is clearly impossible to have a wilderness recreational
> experience
> in close proximity of a road. When formal wilderness areas are
> designated,
> the current practice is to pull the boundaries back a short distance
> from
> roads, depending on how the roads are categorized. That distance
> should be
> standardized and extended, probably to at least a quarter of a mile.
> The
> practice of "cherrystemming," or drawing wilderness boundaries right
> along
> both sides of a road to its end, sometimes for many miles, is a
> clear
> violation of the intent of the Wilderness Act that wilderness areas
> must
> first and foremost be roadless. It must be eliminated.
>
> 7. Permitting certain human-powered but non-motorized mechanized
> transport
> devices in wilderness areas. This would include mountain bikes and
> wheeled "game carriers" and similar devices. The explosion of
> mountain
> biking was not envisioned by the Congress when the Wilderness Act
> was
> passed.
> Opening up those wilderness areas which are suitable to mountain
> biking
> would provide a high quality recreation experience to more of the
> Americans
> who own these areas. Use of these human-powered conveyances would
> also
> reduce pressure on these areas in a number of ways, such as by
> dispersing
> recreation use over a wider area. At the same time opening these
> areas can
> also reduce the current or potential conflicts between various
> recreation
> uses on land outside of designated wilderness. The impact on the
> land
> from these types of mechanized recreation uses would be minimal to
> non-existent. Their presence in wilderness areas would not cause
> problems
> on aesthetic grounds for any but the most extreme wilderness purists
> and
> they represent only a tiny fraction of the Americans who own these
> lands.
>
> 8. Requiring that the resource potential in all WSA's and any other
> land
> proposed for wilderness be updated at least every ten years. For
> example,
> mineral surveys and estimates of oil and gas potential completed on
> many of
> the WSA's on BLM-managed land which have been recommended for
> wilderness
> designation are now 10 to 15 years old and in some cases even older.
> These reviews were often not very thorough even by the standards and
> technology available then, much less what is available now. Before
> any
> additional land is locked up in wilderness, Congress and the
> American
> people should at least have the best and most up-to-date information
> on
> which to weigh the resource trade offs and make decisions.
>
> 9. Stating clearly that wilderness designation or the presence of
> WSA's
> cannot interfere with military preparedness. In a number of
> instances,
> conflicts related to military overflights of designated or potential
> wilderness areas, or to the positioning of essential military
> equipment
> on the ground in these areas, poses a threat or a potential threat
> to
> our
> defense preparedness. The Coalition will push for clarification
> that
> when
> considering the impacts of any mission certified by the military as
> essential
> to the national defense, wilderness areas or WSA's will be treated
> exactly
> the same as any other land administered by that agency.
>
> 10. Clarifying that wilderness designation or WSA designation will
> not
> in and
> of itself result in any management or regulatory changes outside the
> wilderness or WSA boundaries. This change is essential to prohibit
> federal
> agencies or the courts from taking actions to impose any type of
> "buffer zones" around these areas, including such things as special
> management
> of "viewsheds" or asserting wilderness-based water rights.
>
> For additional information about the Wilderness Act Reform Coalition
> contact:
>
> WARC
> 1540 North Arthur
> Pocatello, ID 83204
> ph. (208)233-6570 fax (208)233-8906
> www.wildernessreform.com
>
>
> -------------------
>
>
>
>
> Turns out that the Ribbon Coalition owns the new "coalition," the
> Wilderness Act Reform Coalition outfit. See below for the office space
> and fax number they share in Pocatello. Chances are good that both of
> these "coalitions" are just one fat-assed, pencil-necked flack in the
> employ of some offshore jet-ski and ATV manufacturers. To unravel
> fronts set up by these greedy flag wavers (national defense, the
> people are the owners of the public land), just follow the money.
>
> Your search on the URL above using <sharetrails.org> will give you:
>
> Registrant:
> The BlueRibbon Coalition (SHARETRAILS-DOM)
> 1540 N. Arthur Ave.
> Pocatello, ID 83204
> US
>
> Domain Name: SHARETRAILS.ORG
>
> Administrative Contact:
> Patty, Michael (MP13224)
> 208-233-6570
> Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
> Hemsley, Kevin (KH315)
> (208) 528-6161
> Billing Contact:
> Hemsley, Kevin (KH315)
> (208) 528-6161
>
> Record last updated on 19-Apr-99.
> Record created on 19-Feb-97.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
> I'm going to call them the Ribbon Coalition, instead of the Blue
> Ribbon Coaltion, because there is an police-support organization on
> the Web which already uses the fuller name.
>
> The Ribbon Coalition's homepage shows its only "industry supporters"
> as Honda, Ski-Doo, Yamaha, Polaris, Horizon (chemicals for ATVs and
> snowmobiles), The Outdoor Channel, and Off-Road.com (don't ask). I
> don't conclude that this is a client list for their efforts to create
> more demand for the products of their "industry supporters."
>
> Yahoo yellow pages lists them under Non-Profit Organizations and
> Asosiations. (I wonder if the IRS and the Idaho attorney general's
> consumer fraud people have looked into advertising this tax status?
> Somebody remind me to find this AG's email address on the Idaho state
> homepage.)
>
> Who is the Michael Patty shown above? Internic says:
> Patty, Michael (MP9395)
> BlueRibbon Coalition
> 1540 N. Arthur
> Pocatello , ID 83204
> 208-233-6570 (FAX) 208-233-8906
>
> Record last updated on 02-Nov-98.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
> Who is Kevin Hemsley? Internic says:
> Hemsley, Kevin (KH1926)
> Sign Pro
> 765 S Woodruff Av
> Idaho Falls, ID 83404
> (208)523-8540
>
> Record last updated on 06-Mar-97.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
> What is Sign Pro? Yahoo yellow pages lists them under "Truck Lettering
> and Painting" and "Sign Manufacturing" at
>
> 765 S Woodruff Ave
> Idaho Falls, ID
> (208) 523-8540
>
> Now for the Ribbon guy's newest front. Your search on the URL at the
> top of this message using <wildernessreform.com> will give you:
>
> Registrant:
> Western Counties Institute (WILDERNESSREFORM-DOM)
> Po Box 27514
> SLC, UT 84127-0514
> US
>
> Domain Name: WILDERNESSREFORM.COM
>
> Administrative Contact:
> Kinsel, sheldon (SK1881)
> 801-654-4087
> Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
> Services, Fibernet Dns (FDS6)
> 801-223-9939
> Billing Contact:
> Kinsel, sheldon (SK1881)
> 801-654-4087
>
> Record last updated on 23-Aug-99.
> Record created on 23-Aug-99.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
>
> So, who is this Kinsel, sheldon? Internic says:
>
> Kinsel, sheldon (SK1881)
> Public Interest Communications
> box 516
> Heber, UT 84032
> 801-654-4087
>
> Record last updated on 09-Dec-96.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
> What is Public Interest Communications? Yahoo yellow pages shows it
> at:
> 555 E 200 S
> Salt Lake City, UT 84102
> (801) 364-2345
>
> and lists under "Fund Raising Counselors & Organizations." Now, why
> would sheldon set up a P.O. box in Heber, UT, when he has a perfectly
> good mailing address in Salt Lake City? Hmmmmmm.
>
> So the Ribbon Coalition guy hired a fund raiser (sheldon) for his
> latest incarnation, the WARC. Maybe his clients in Tokyo don't want to
> get involved in lobbying for changes in US law? I can only guess. If
> you want to ask him yourself, you can write to the address on one of
> his Web pages (this is all very confusing to this ol'country boy) at:
>
> Wilderness Reform Act Coalition
> Box 5449. Pocatello, Idaho 83202-0003
> 1540 North Arthur, Pocatello, ID 83204
> fax (208)233-8906
> http://www.wildernessreform.com

Someones trolling............

"Sportsmen Against Bush" > wrote in message
om...
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is supposed to be the voice for the ORV
> users. Why would a group that does that want public comments on public
> lands
> banned?Answer:
>
> Because they dont care about recreational ORV. They are a front for
> the
> resource extraction industry. Anyone who still has respect for this
> organization now is nothing but a knuckle dragging, mullet-headed
> mouth
> breather with no brain whatsoever.
>
> Ending public comments on public lands , from no matter what side you
> are
> on, is WRONG.
>
> --------------------------------------
>
>
> Awhile ago a very smart man posted a study on privatization, the blue
> ribbon
> coalition, the bush administration and WARC.
>
> doing away with comment periods is also another form of privatization.
> This
> guy was right on the money.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/17/we...ew/17SEEL.html
>
>
> ""Although the snowmobilers won their battle, the groups representing
> them
> say tha
> t the public comment period should be abolished. "What this outcome
> shows is
> tha
> t these huge hate-mail campaigns are not effective now and won't be in
> the
> futur
> e," said Clark Collins, executive director of the Blue Ribbon
> Coalition, an
> indu
> stry-backed lobbying group based in Idaho.
>
> If the public comment periods ceased, he said, both sides could save a
> lot
> of ti
> me.""
> -----------------------
>
> Clark collins also started "WARC", a group whose main goal is to undo
> congressionaly designated wilderness.
>
>
> MEDIA RELEASE
> The Wilderness Act Reform Coalition
> WARC
> 1540 North Arthur
> Pocatello, ID 83204
> www.wildernessreform.com
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> Contact: Clark Collins, 208-233-6570 -
>
> Wilderness Act Reform Coalition Launching On 35th Anniversary of
> Passage
>
> August 27, 1999 -- POCATELLO, IDAHO: Local governments, private
> citizens
> and outdoor groups announced today that they will mark the 35th
> anniversary of the passage of the national Wilderness Act by launching
> a nationwide coalition to reform it. The new coalition, to be called
> the
> "Wilderness Act Reform Coalition" (WARC), will focus initially on
> fixing
> ten specific problems with the wilderness law.
> "The Wilderness Act is antiquated, inflexible, anti-resource
> management and flies in the face of sound and responsible public
> policy
> principles," said Clark Collins, a spokesman for the emerging
> coalition.
> "There can be no doubt that it would never pass any modern Congress in
> its present form and that alone should be a warning signal to the
> public
> that it is seriously flawed."
> Initially, the Coalition will serve three functions. It will act as
> a clearing house for examples of problems with the Act and help build
> the
> case to amend it. It will educate the public, the media and policy
> makers about these problems and the ways to solve them. Finally, it
> will
> also serve to coordinate the efforts of the members of the Coalition.
> The
> Coalition's Internet site, www.wildernessreform.com, which will be
> posted
> on September 1, will be the primary communication mechanism in all of
> these efforts.
> "Those of us putting this Coalition together have our own horror
> stories about the Wilderness Act but until we started talking among
> ourselves we did not really realize how widespread the problems are,"
> noted Collins. "I doubt that any individual or organization in the
> country has a handle on all of the problems the Wilderness Act is
> causing. Our top priority will be asking individuals and organizations
> around the country to submit additional case studies and examples to
> us
> so we can provide the public and policy makers for the first time with
> a
> clear and comprehensive picture of the negative impacts of this Act."
> The groups launching the Coalition represent the a very broad
> spectrum of the public. Prominent among them are rural counties,
> county
> officials and county organizations, including Juab and Uinta Counties
> in
> Utah, and the Western Counties' Resources Policy Institute, a natural
> resources policy think tank being created by rural western counties.
> Citizen groups include the Blue Ribbon Coalition, which represents
> 600,000 recreationists nationwide ranging from mountain bikers and
> motorized recreationists to equestrian groups, People for the USA, a
> nationwide organization of 25,000 members representing all public land
> and resource users and the Rocky Mountain Federation of Mineralogical
> Societies.. Many individuals are also supporting the Coalition,
> including scientists and other professionals specializing in natural
> resources management, retired federal resource management agency
> employees and ordinary citizens who simply want to protect the
> public's
> interest in these lands and resources.
> "Our goal is to educate the public on the problems inherent in the
> philosophy and application of the Wilderness Act and then to stimulate
> a
> broad and informed national policy debate on reforming it," Collins
> said.
> "It must be reformed to serve the public interest and the public needs
> of the 21st Century."
> ---------------
>
> The BRC is run by Japanese corporations, timber and mining
> donations, and anti-wilderness supporters. They pride themselves on
> helping build new logging roads through national forests, keeping the
> ball rolling on drilling ANWR, mining claims and keeping grazing
> leases. "access" for ORv users is their last priority:
>
>
>
> ttp://www.ewg.org/pub/home/clear/by_clear/Fifty_VI.html
>
> Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC)
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is partially funded by Japanese
> manufacturers of off-road vehicles. The organization was cofounded by
> snowmobiler and anti-wilderness activist Darryl Harris and trail biker
> Clark Collins.
>
>
> Three full-time employees manage the coalition's annual operating
> budget of $180,000. Board members a Kay Lloyd, co-chairman,
> International Snowmobile Council; Craig Cazier, president, Utah State
> Snowmobile Association; and Joe Wernex, a Washington State logging
> engineer and amateur trail designer. Individuals pay dues of $20 to
> belong to the coalition; groups pay $100. But at least as much
> money--roughly $85,000 a year--is provided by grants from the mining
> and timber industries and especially from ORV manufacturers.
>
>
> Major contributors of the 1989 Convention we American Honda Motor
> Company, Yamaha Motor Company, Suzuki Motor Corporation, ARCTCO,
> Bombardier Corporation, Polaris Industries, and Kawasaki Motor
> Corporation.
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is credited with the Wise Use Movement's
> major federal legislative achievement to date, lobbying successfully
> to add $30 million to the 1991 Highway Bill for the construction of
> off-road vehicle trails.
>
>
> "Environmentalists are still trying to figure out how they got KOed on
> the trails act, but it wasn't a lucky punch," says a report in
> Harrowsmith Country Life.
>
>
> Mike Francis of the Wilderness Society said of Clark Collins: "I have
> to give Collins a lot of credit. The guy is good. As flaky as he
> seems, he is one hell of a tactician. He got Steve Symms to make the
> trails amendment his number one project on the highway bill. The
> trails act is a flea on the rear end of an elephant when you compare
> it to the regular highway bill. Everyone wanted Symms' support for
> something else. With the exception of Howard Metzenbaum, our best
> environmentalists on the Senate Energy Committee weren't willing to
> take on Symms. They all took a walk. Symms and Collins played that
> thing beautifully."
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition has boasted about "organizing support" for:
> 1. logging road construction by the Forest Service; 2. oil exploration
> in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; 3. protection of the Mining
> Act; and 4. continuation of the present grazing formula.
>
>
> Clark Collins travels extensively addressing local and national groups
> on the need to work together and form a strong network
>
> -------------------------
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon coalition favors opening up new roads in national
> parks and wilderness:
>
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/releases/....cfm?story=175
>
>
> Editorial Release: BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO PRESERVE HISTORIC ACCESS
> Contact: Clark L. Collins, Executive Director
> Phone: (208) 237-1008 (x101)
> Fax: (208) 237-9424
> E-mail:
>
> Webpage: http://sharetrails.org/staffbio.html#Clark
> Date: December 26, 2002
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . .
>
> POCATELLO, ID (December 26) -- An announcement by the Department of
> Interior that historic access routes will be preserved is welcomed by
> the BlueRibbon Coalition. The Bush Administration is expected to
> announce a new policy later this week for dealing with RS-2477 rights
> of way across federal lands.
>
> "We've been working with our recreation organizations across the
> country to protect our access to federal lands," said BlueRibbon
> Coalition Executive Director Clark Collins. "We are excited that
> the Bush Administration appears willing to help in that effort."
>
> "Many of these historic routes were used for commerce initially,
> but they are now important for recreation access. We look forward to
> working cooperatively with this Administration to ensure the public
> can use these routes for access to our federal lands," Collins
> concluded.
>
> -
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:49:28 -0700
> From: Pat Rasmussen >
> Subject: ENS---Roadless Proposal Opponent Has Industry Ties
>
>
> ROADLESS PROPOSAL OPPONENT HAS INDUSTRY TIES
>
> WASHINGTON, DC, June 20, 2000 (ENS) - The Blue Ribbon Coalition, one
> of
> the most active opponents of the U.S. Forest Service's (USFS) efforts
> to
> preserve large, intact areas in national forests, is closely tied to
> the
> timber, mining and oil and gas industry, says a report released today
> by
> the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG). The Pocatello,
> Idaho
> based Coalition has opposed any proposal to protect roadless areas in
> national forests even if such a proposal would further the Coalition's
> stated recreational interests. While the group's mission statement
> values land stewardship and responsible use, the organization receives
> funding from 355 corporations including the American Forest and Paper
> Association, Exxon, and Sierra Forest Products.
>
> "Far from being a grassroots organization simply advancing an agenda
> of
> access to public lands for the public, the Blue Ribbon Coalition is
> working hand-in-hand with industry to keep our national forests open
> to chainsaws, bulldozers and oil rigs," said US PIRG forest campaign
> coordinator Aaron Viles. The US PIRG report, "The Blue Ribbon
> Coalition:
> Protector of Recreation or Industry?" was released as a battle is
> waged
> over how the remaining 60 million acres of pristine wilderness in
> national forests will be managed.
>
> In May, the USFS released a draft proposal on managing these wild
> forests, otherwise known as roadless areas, and is soliciting public
> comment and holding more than 400 public hearings around the country,
> including a hearing in Arlington, Virginia on June 26. The report is
> available at: http://www.wildforests.com
>
> ------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is supposed
> to be by the people, for the people.
> Yet I see no sign that they oppose the
> double taxation forest fee demo program.
> I find this quite odd since most BRC memebers
> are active users of the public lands.
>
> I sent emails, and phoned many members of the
> Blue Ribbon Coalition yet they can't seem to
> give me a solid answer on wether they oppose
> or favor the Forest Fee program.
>
> Interesting. But I did find this on their
> website:
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/index.cfm?mr=69
>
> It's a "small business" alert. Funny. I
> thought the BRC was about keeping trails open.
>
> And here is another thing I found. The
> BRC is sending out an "alert" because 14
> peercent of California (according to them) is
> protected wilderness, and a new wilderness bill
> would add 2.5 million acres.
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/index.cfm?mr=97
>
> My question is why are they so concerned?
> It's only 14 percent of the land base. I
> could see their case if the total was approaching
> 50 percent, or even 40 percent. But yet, it's only
> a very small percent. Why is the BRC trying to
> refuse wilderness protection for some of our best
> areas? I mean the rest of the state is open to
> motorized use and is roaded and trailed. I
> think at the end of all this you have to ask
> yourself who benefits. And you will see who
> does concerning the corrupt BRC and their scam.
>
>
> Continuing tosearch their site, I came across
> a link for minig? Hmmm..
>
> I thought the BRC was for reacreational access?
> What is a mining link doing on their site?
>
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/links.htm
>
> (look under "M")
>
>
> Also, I found a link to the Wilderness Act
> Reform Coalition(WARC)on their website:
>
>
> http://www.wildernessreform.com/
>
>
> The first thing you are greeted to on the WARC
> webpage is this quote:
>
> " Finally we are going to do something about
>
> the Wilderness Act".
>
> It appears this group supports building new r
> oads into congressionaly designtaed wilderness
> for logging and mining! Talk about extreme.
> Thats right, the propose building new roads
> for mining and logging into the Bob MArshal
> Wilderness, the Boundary Waters Canoe area
> Wilderness, and other national treasures.
> While they appear to be a access/recreation
> group, it seems their ultiamte cause is revealed
> towards the end of their explanation.
>
> "The Coalition supports the creation of committees
> composed of locally-based federal and state
> resource managers, local governments, local economic
> interests and local citizens which will initiate a
> process to override the basic non-management
> directive of the Wilderness Act on a case-by-case basis. "
>
>
> Wai a second here folks.....doesn't this sound
> like Bush's "Charter Forests"?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
> A27700-2002Feb5.html
>
>
> Bush Admin. Wants 'Charter Forests'
>
>
> More from WARC:
>
> "Developing a mechanism to permit active
> resource management in wilderness areas to
> achieve a wide range of public benefits
> and to respond to local needs"
>
>
> Bush supports Forest Fees
> http://www.everyweek.com/Archives/News.
> asp?no=2317
>
>
>
> So far here we have some very interesting
> findings. We have "recreation" groups severly
> concerned with resource extraction. We have
> the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a group which is
> born on recreation access by its members, not
> opposing a forest fee demo program. We have
> the Bush administration echoing these same
> things. The question is, who benefits? Where
> does the money trail lead? The answer is
> pretty simple. It leads right to the ORV
> industry, the logging inddustry, the mining
> industry, and yes, even Walt Disney Corporation.
> Thats right.
>
>
> Who supports the Forest Fee Demo program?
>
> http://www.freeourforests.org
>
>
>
> ARC is the American Recreation Coalition.
> They are a large group of corporations.
> Arc has currently been caught bragging about
> how theycreated the Fee Demo program:
>
> These corporations arent "evil" or "bad".
> But when put together, and in favor of charging
> money to US taxpayers to use their public
> lands, they become a clear enemy to our public
> lands and our use of them.
>
>
> Bush's domestic issues advisor,
> Terry Anderson is sitting back and smiling:
>
>
> The Bush administration, along with Terry
> L Anderson are planning to turn our national
> parks over to corporate control.
>
>
>
> GEORGE BUSH'S ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISOR: "
> AUCTION OFF ALL
> FEDERAL LANDS INCLUDING NATIONAL PARKS"
> Terry L. Anderson, environmental advisor to
>
> George W. Bush Jr., has
> proposed to auction off all 600 million acres of
> federal public lands in
> the
> U.S. over the next 20-40 years. This not only
> incudes every National
> Forest, National Wildlife Refuge, and BLM District,
> it also includes
> every National Park and Monument. Under his
> proposal, non-profit
> environmental groups could bid on the free
> market against the likes of
> Exxon to obtain the Arctic National Wildlife
> Refuge, or against
> Weyerhouser to obtain Yellowstone National
> Park, or against Phelps Dodge
> to obtain Grand Canyon National Park. Any
> bets on how the bidding will
> go?
> Anderson is closely associated with several
> conservative think tanks
> pushing for the privatization and/or
> commercialization of public lands.
> He is the director of the Political Economy
>
> Research Center, a senior
> fellow at the Hoover Institution. PERC's
> website links to the Thoreau
> Institute which has proposed, among other
> nonsense, to privatize
> ownership of endangered species. Anderson's
> proposal was published by
> the CATO institute and can be viewed at
> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-363es.html>
> Anderson freely admits that his corporate
> take-over agenda would be
> wildly unpopular with the American public.""
>
>
> If you go to the link you can see it is published
> in whole at the Cato Institute website, a right
> wing study corp.
>
>
>
> So what we have here is the Bush administration,
> the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Wilderness Act
> Reform Coalition, Walt Disney, and many other
> corporations trying to wrestle control of the
> public lands to private enterprises for private
> profit. In essence, they want to "Disney-fi"
> our public lands. This is a bad thing for
> every single user of public lands from a tree
> hugger to a snowmobiler to a horseback rider
> to a hunter or a fisherman.
>
> It is time to see through the fronts, the
> lies and the myths. We need to keep a careful
> eye out so our easily accesible public lands
> arent gone forever.------------
>
>
>
>
> ------------
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Clark Collins, 73563,1551
> To: (An Un-Named Senate Democratic Policy
> Committee staffer)
>
> Date: 6/28/00 2:17 PM
>
> Interior Riders
>
> As I mentioned to you on the phone, the only Interior
> Appropriations Committee rider that I am personally familier with is
> the
> one that would protect snowmobile access to our national parks. My
> understanding is that rider was dropped in the House bill and we are
> hopeful it will be re-submitted in the Senate version.
>
> I understand that as a staffer for the Democratic Policy Committee in
> the
> U.S. Senate you are looking for information on what organizations are
> supportive of the Interior Appropriations riders that have been
> mis-labeled
> by the environmental extremist industry as "anti-environment." While
> our
> organization's focus is on recreation access issues, such as the NPS
> proposed snowmobile ban, we are supportive of responsible multiple use
> of
> our public lands.
>
> We know that opposition to the Interior riders is coming from the
> environmental extremists community. Those organizations already have
> lists
> of most of the groups who oppose their anti-multiple-use viewpoint.
> You can
> get those lists from them. I hope you were really trying to get a
> handle on
> what's happening in the land use debates.
>
> The primary change in that whole debate, in my view, is that many rank
> and
> file members of the various resource industry unions are no longer
> voting
> the AFL-CIO party line. They realize that the environmental extremists
> are
> driving the industries - who provide their jobs - out of this country.
> Democrats who support the extreme anti-timber, anti-mining, anti-oil
> industry, and anti-recreation-access agenda of the so-called
> environmental
> community are losing the support of blue-collar workers. I myself was
> a
> Union electrician who supported the Democratic party in my home state
> of
> Idaho. I know a lot of former Democrats who've changed parties because
> of
> the land use issues.
>
> I hope that your call was Senator Dachle's attempt to get to the heart
> of
> what's happening at the grass roots on these land use issues. My view
> is
> that the Democratic party is going to need to dissassociate itself
> from the
> extreme environmental viewpoint or suffer additional erosion of their
> support from blue-collar workers. THAT'S THE MESSAGE I HOPE YOU WILL
> DELIVER. It's not to late to tell the Sierra Club to take a hike.
>
> Clark L. Collins, BlueRibbon Coalition
> for more information about the BlueRibbon Coalition check our website
> www.sharetrails.org
>
>
> -----------------------
>
>
>
>
>
<http://www.msnbc.com/local/pisea/102348.asp?vts=1120031042>http://www.msnbc
..com/local/pisea/102348.asp?vts=1120031042
>
> Bush opens up backcountry trails to vehicles
>
> By ROBERT McCLURE
> SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
>
> Jan. 1 - The Bush administration, in a move that has outraged
> environmentalists, is about to hand a big victory to Westerners who
> want
> to use a post-Civil War-era law to punch dirt-bike trails and roads
> into
> the backcountry.
> Untallied thousands of miles of long-abandoned wagon roads, cattle
> paths, Jeep trails and miners' routes potentially could be transformed
> into roads -- some of them paved. Many crisscross national parks,
> wildlife refuges and wilderness areas. Scheduled to go into effect
> shortly, the rule change was greeted warmly by off-road vehicle
> enthusiasts, whose numbers have exploded in recent years. Many oppose
> attempts to fence off wilderness areas where mechanized vehicles are
> banned. Where miners and wagons trains went, so should dirt bikes,
> they
> say.
> "We consider it a pretty substantial gain," said Clark Collins,
> executive director of the Blueribbon Coalition, an advocacy group for
> snowmobilers, dirt-bike and all-terrain-vehicle riders and 4X4
> enthusiasts based in Pocatello, Idaho.
> "That historic use in our view should provide for continued
> recreational
> use of those routes," he said. "The government should not be allowed
> to
> close those routes."
> Environmentalists say the amount of noise pollution, erosion, water
> pollution and other harm done to the backcountry will depend largely
> on
> how the rule is handled by the Bush administration. And they're
> worried.
> "I don't think Congress in 1866 meant to grant rights of way to
> off-road-vehicle trails," said Heidi McIntosh of the Southern Utah
> Wilderness Alliance. "This is flying under the radar screen, but I
> can't
> think of another initiative the Bush administration is pursuing that
> would have a more lasting and significant impact on public lands."
> In Washington state, huge areas -- including parts of North Cascades
> National Park -- are honeycombed by old mining trails that could be
> promoted by off-road-vehicle devotees as open to motorized traffic.
> Other national parks that could be affected include Grand Canyon,
> Death
> Valley, Joshua Tree, Denali, Wrangell-St. Elias and Rocky Mountain. A
> 1993 National Park Service report said the impact across 17.5 million
> acres in 68 national parks could be "devastating." The law was
> originally passed when Jesse James was just starting to rob banks and
> the U.S. cavalry was still fighting Indians. Seattle did not yet have
> a
> bank or a public schoolhouse. It made federal land available for wagon
> roads, miners' trails and other transportation routes. Its purpose was
> to open the West to settlement. It would be nine years after the law's
> passage before the internal combustion engine was invented. Decades
> would elapse before many newfangled automobiles were scooting around
> the
> landscape. The rule change announced on Christmas Eve by the Bush
> administration rolls back severe restrictions slapped on the use of
> the
> law under the Clinton administration.
> "We're really concerned about this because it seems like the
> administration is encouraging (road) claims that will affect the
> parks,"
> said Heather Weiner, Northwest director for the National Parks
> Conservation Association.
> Outside national parks, wilderness areas set aside by Congress in
> national forests and other federal lands also are in play. "It would
> disrupt the quiet and the feeling that you're away from civilization,"
> said Seattle activist Pat Goldsworthy. Lots of land is at stake. In
> California alone, 19 wilderness areas and proposed wilderness areas
> could be affected. A full accounting of such areas in Washington
> apparently has not been compiled, but the Alpine Lakes, Pasayten,
> Glacier Peak, Stephen Mather and Mount Baker wilderness areas all
> contain old miners' trails. "You name it, miners have been everywhere"
> around the West, said Seattle attorney arl Forsgaard, an
> environmental
> activist. "So keep that in mind."
> The one-sentence, 21-word statutory provision in question, known as
> Revised Statute 2477, was part of the nation's first general mining
> law,
> passed July 26, 1866. It says, "The right of way for the construction
> of
> highways across public lands not otherwise reserved for public
> purposes
> is hereby granted."
> The idea was to induce miners to continue to fan out across the West
> and
> settle it. To do that, they needed roads, or at least what passed for
> roads in those days.
> That law and its replacements in 1870 and 1872 gave miners the right
> to
> buy public land for $5 an acre or less if they did work necessary to
> discover minerals on the land. Those prices remain in effect today. A
> few years earlier, Congress had passed the Homestead Act, which
> provided
> cheap land to settlers willing to build ranches, farms and homes on
> the
> acreage. That law was repealed in 1976. That was the same year
> Congress
> repealed the roads-for-lands provision of the old mining law. However,
> at the time Congress gave states and counties 12 years to settle their
> old road claims. Ten years later, Congress in effect extended the
> deadline. But the Clinton administration fought most attempts to turn
> wilderness into roadways.
> Now, the Bush administration says it will finalize a rule giving
> Western
> states, counties and cities -- some avowedly hostile to federal
> control
> of wilderness areas -- a better chance to enforce those claims.
> The Clinton administration made it difficult to get the Interior
> Department's Bureau of Land Management to approve the road claims. A
> burst of litigation resulted, much of it in Alaska and Utah. In Utah,
> some 15,000 road claims are at issue; Alaska's state government has
> identified about 650.
> In Utah, county governments angry about the establishment of a
> national
> monument have become embroiled in a fight over the issue. The state
> sued
> the federal government.
> And in Alaska, the state government contends that even some section
> lines -- the imaginary grid that marks off every square mile in the
> nation -- are subject to the provision and can be claimed as roads.
> Until now, proving that would likely have involved an arduous legal
> battle.
> Under the Bush policy, though, the BLM can process the claims more
> readily as an administrative action.
> It makes sense, says the Bush administration, because it saves state
> and
> federal taxpayers money on court costs. "The department felt this
> allowed them to address the . . . issues in a more straightforward
> way,"
> said David Quick, a BLM spokesman. Stephen Griles, a former mining
> lobbyist who serves as the No. 2 official in the Interior Department,
> told a pro-development group in Alaska that the rule change was
> spurred
> in part by the advocacy of the Western Governors Association.
> "The department is poised to bring finality to this issue that has
> created unnecessary conflict between federal land managers and state
> and
> local governments," Griles told the Resource Development Council in
> November.
> Griles told the group the rules would be "consistent with historic
> regulation prior to 1976."
> What's changed since then is that sales of off-road vehicles,
> particularly three- and four-wheeled all-terrain vehicles, have
> skyrocketed. Enthusiasts have started to fight to maintain access to
> back-country trails.
> Meanwhile, environmental activists are trying to declare additional
> areas off-limits to the off-road vehicles, saying they disturb
> wildlife
> and hikers, cloud up streams and cause erosion of trails and
> hillsides.
> The new rule could help put to rest a controversy over a related
> Clinton-era policy, said the Blueribbon Coalition's Collins. A Clinton
> policy banned most logging, mining and other commercial uses in 58.5
> million acres of national forests where no roads are built. But under
> the new policy, if states, counties or others are able to establish a
> network of legally recognized "highways" through those acres -- even
> if
> the highways are dirt roads or something less -- it would give those
> fighting the so-called "roadless" proposal ammunition.
> At least that's what Collins hopes.
> "That's why we have a real interest in it," he said. "It does have the
> potential to influence this debate." In national forests, those trying
> to open a route to motorized travel would have to show that the route
> existed prior to the establishment of national forests -- around the
> turn of the last century for most places in the Pacific Northwest. In
> many places, though, miners preceded establishment of the forests. Old
> maps can pinpoint their routes.
> "You're talking about going back and doing some fairly detailed
> research
> in old historical documents," said Paul Turcke, a Boise, Idaho,
> attorney
> who represents off-road-vehicle enthusiasts, including the Blueribbon
> Coalition.
> It's clear that counties and states have the right to try to open up
> the
> old routes. Cities would, too, under the new rule. It remains to be
> seen
> whether private groups such as off-road-vehicle clubs could sue to
> open
> the routes.
> "If I had to predict, I would say the trend is going to be toward more
> private interests being involved," Turcke said.
> ----------------------------------------------
> P-I reporter Robert McClure can be reached at 206-448-8092 or
> >robertmcclure@ seattlepi.com
> --
> John Stewart
> Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
> Recreation
> Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com Webmaster,
> Tierra
> del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com Webmaster, Jeep-L:
> http://www.jeep-l.net
>
>
>
> BLUERIBBON COALITION NEWS RELEASE
> www.sharetrails.org
>
> RECREATIONISTS SUPPORT NORTON FOR INTERIOR
>
> POCATELLO, ID 12/29/00-- The Blue Ribbon Coalition, a national
> recreation
> group, is pleased with President-elect Bush's nomination of Gale
> Norton to
> be the next Secretary of the Interior. For many years, Coalition
> members
> have felt disenfranchised by the Clinton administration's continued
> top-down efforts to force unreasonable land closures on the American
> public.
>
> It appears that the new Interior Secretary will focus on better
> management
> of public lands rather than forcing non-collaborative land closures
> and
> restrictions on families who enjoy the great outdoors.
>
> Denver Colorado native Jack Welch, the president of the Blue Ribbon
> Coalition, says, "I have seen Ms. Norton work for the best interests
> of
> people and the environment in Colorado. I think she will be a
> refreshing
> change from the top-down DC-based philosophy of the Clinton
> administration. She will be a positive influence for multi-use of
> public
> lands 'FOR' the public instead of 'FROM' the public."
>
> Clark Collins, Executive Director for the Blue Ribbon Coalition, said,
> "President-elect Bush talked about rebuilding the worn down
> infrastructure
> -- after 8 years of neglect by the current administration -- of our
> National Parks and Forests and other public lands. Ms. Norton will
> most
> certainly focus on providing services to the public while protecting
> valuable resources. She will change Interior from its current status
> as a
> political arm of the White House to its dutiful role as a land
> management
> agency that serves people rather than politicians or special interest
> groups." ###
> article >,
> Viki > wrote:
> > <http://www.denver-rmn.com/election/1229gale4.shtml>
> -----------------------
>
>
>
> The Wilderness Act Reform Coalition
> After 35 Years, We Are Finally Going
> To Do Something About The Wilderness Act!
>
> Why we are organizing...
>
> September 3, 1999 marks the 35th anniversary of the passage of the
> Wilderness
> Act. During those 35 years, it has never been substantively amended.
> Yet,
> the history of the application of the Wilderness Act to the public's
> lands and
> resources provides overwhelming evidence that it must be significantly
> reformed if the public interest is to be served.
>
> September 3, 1999 also marks the launch of the Wilderness Act Reform
> Coalition
> (WARC), the first serious effort to reform this antiquated and
> poorly-conceived
> law. Much has changed since the Wilderness Act became law in 1964.
> Dozens of
> other laws have been passed since then to protect and
> responsibly-manage
> all of
> the public's lands and resources. Underpinning all of these laws--and
> guaranteeing their enforcement-- is a public sensitivity and
> commitment
> to wise
> resource management which was not present two generations ago when the
> Wilderness Act was enacted.
>
> Over this same time period our knowledge and understanding of how to
> accomplish
> this kind of wise and responsible resource management has increased
> exponentially. The demand side of the public's interest in their
> lands
> and
> resources has also increased exponentially. Recreation demand, for
> example,
> has increased far beyond what anyone could have anticipated 35 years
> ago
> and it
> has done so in directions which could not have been foreseen in 1964.
> Demand
> for water, energy and minerals, timber and other resources continues
> to
> go up
> as well.
>
> All of this means that as the 21st Century dawns we find ourselves
> facing more
> complex natural resources realities and challenges than ever before in
> our
> history. Meeting these challenges while at the same time serving the
> broad
> public interest will require careful and thoughtful balancing of all
> resource
> values with other social goals. It will also require integrating them
> all into
> a comprehensive management approach which will provide the greatest
> good
> for
> the greatest number of Americans over the longest period of time.
>
> These lands and resources, after all, belong to all of the American
> people.
> They deserve to enjoy the maximum benefits from them. Yet, the
> Wilderness Act,
> with its outdated, inflexible, and anti-management requirements,
> presently
> locks away over 100 million acres of the public's lands and resources
> from
> this kind of intelligent and integrated resource management. The
> inevitable
> result is the numerous negative impacts and damage to other resource
> values
> which are becoming increasingly apparent on the public's lands. The
> Wilderness Act remains frozen in another era. Due to the exponential
> changes
> which have occurred since it was passed, that era lies much further in
> the past
> than a mere 35 year linear time line would suggest.
>
> Our goals and objectives...
>
> The Wilderness Act Reform Coalition is being organized by members of
> citizen's
> groups and local government officials who have experienced firsthand
> the
>
> limitations and problems the Wilderness Act has caused. It has a
> simple
>
> mission: to reform the Wilderness Act. In carrying out that mission,
> the
> Coalition has identified two primary goals towards which it will
> initially work.
>
> The first goal is to make those changes in the wilderness law which
> are
> essential to mitigate the most serious resource and related problems
> it
> is
> causing. These problems range from prohibiting the application of
> sound
> resource management practices where needed to hampering important
> scientific
> research and jeopardizing our national defense.
>
> The second goal of the coalition is to use the failings of the
> Wilderness Act
> to help educate the public, the media and policy makers on the
> fundamentals of
> natural resource management. Most of the "conventional wisdom" about
> natural
> resource management to which most of them presently subscribe is
> simply
> wrong.
> It is essential that the public be better educated on the facts, the
> realities,
> the challenges and the options before there can be any responsible or
> useful
> policy debate on the most fundamental problems with the Wilderness Act
> or, for
> that matter, any of the other federal management laws and policies
> which
> also
> need to be reformed. That is why the Coalition has chosen a
> comparatively
> limited reform agenda for this opening round in what we recognize
> ultimately
> must be a broader and more comprehensive national policy debate.
>
> Our reform agenda...
>
> The Coalition currently advocates the following reforms of the
> Wilderness Act:
>
> 1. Developing a mechanism to permit active resource management in
> wilderness
> areas to achieve a wide range of public benefits and to respond to
> local needs.
> The inability or unwillingness of managers to intervene actively
> within
> wilderness areas to deal with local resource management problems or
> goals has
> resulted in economic harm to local communities and damage to other
> important
> natural resource and related values and objectives. The Coalition
> supports
> the creation of committees composed of locally-based federal and
> state
>
> resource managers, local governments, local economic interests and
> local
> citizens which will initiate a process to override the basic
> non-management
> directive of the Wilderness Act on a case-by-case basis.
>
> 2. Establishing a mechanism for appeal and override of local
> managers
> for
> scientific research. Wilderness advocates often tout the importance
> of
> wilderness designation to science. The reality, however, is that
> agency
> regulations make it difficult or impossible to conduct many
> scientific
>
> experiments in wilderness, particularly with modern and
> cost-effective
>
> scientific tools. Important scientific experiments have been
> opposed
> simply
> because they would take place within wilderness areas. A simple,
> quick and
> cheap appeal process must be created for scientists turned down by
> wilderness
> land managers.
>
> 3. Making it clear that such things as use of mechanized equipment
> and
> aircraft landings can occur in wilderness areas for search and
> rescue
> or law
> enforcement purposes. There have been incidents where these have
> been
>
> prevented by federal wilderness managers.
>
> 4. Requiring that federal managers use the most cost-effective
> management
> tools and technologies. These managers have largely imposed upon
> themselves
> a requirement that they use the "least tool" or the "minimum tool"
> to
> accomplish tasks such as noxious weed control, wildfire control or
> stabilization of historic sites. In practice, this means that hand
> tools are
> often used instead of power tools, horses are employed instead of
> helicopters
> and similar practices which waste tax dollars.
>
> 5. Clarifying that the prohibition on the use of mechanized
> transportation in
> wilderness areas refers only to intentional infractions. This would
> be, in
> effect, the "Bobby Unser Amendment" designed to prevent in the
> future
> the
> current situation in which he is being prosecuted by the federal
> government
> for possibly driving a snowmobile into a wilderness area in Colorado
> while
> lost in a life-threatening blizzard.
>
> 6. Pulling the boundaries of wilderness areas and wilderness study
> areas
> (WSA's) back from roads and prohibiting "cherrystemming." In many
> cases,
> the boundaries of wilderness areas and WSA's come right to the very
> edge of
> a road. Lawsuits have been filed or threatened against counties for
> going
> literally only a few feet into a WSA when doing necessary road
> maintenance
> work. It is clearly impossible to have a wilderness recreational
> experience
> in close proximity of a road. When formal wilderness areas are
> designated,
> the current practice is to pull the boundaries back a short distance
> from
> roads, depending on how the roads are categorized. That distance
> should be
> standardized and extended, probably to at least a quarter of a mile.
> The
> practice of "cherrystemming," or drawing wilderness boundaries right
> along
> both sides of a road to its end, sometimes for many miles, is a
> clear
> violation of the intent of the Wilderness Act that wilderness areas
> must
> first and foremost be roadless. It must be eliminated.
>
> 7. Permitting certain human-powered but non-motorized mechanized
> transport
> devices in wilderness areas. This would include mountain bikes and
> wheeled "game carriers" and similar devices. The explosion of
> mountain
> biking was not envisioned by the Congress when the Wilderness Act
> was
> passed.
> Opening up those wilderness areas which are suitable to mountain
> biking
> would provide a high quality recreation experience to more of the
> Americans
> who own these areas. Use of these human-powered conveyances would
> also
> reduce pressure on these areas in a number of ways, such as by
> dispersing
> recreation use over a wider area. At the same time opening these
> areas can
> also reduce the current or potential conflicts between various
> recreation
> uses on land outside of designated wilderness. The impact on the
> land
> from these types of mechanized recreation uses would be minimal to
> non-existent. Their presence in wilderness areas would not cause
> problems
> on aesthetic grounds for any but the most extreme wilderness purists
> and
> they represent only a tiny fraction of the Americans who own these
> lands.
>
> 8. Requiring that the resource potential in all WSA's and any other
> land
> proposed for wilderness be updated at least every ten years. For
> example,
> mineral surveys and estimates of oil and gas potential completed on
> many of
> the WSA's on BLM-managed land which have been recommended for
> wilderness
> designation are now 10 to 15 years old and in some cases even older.
> These reviews were often not very thorough even by the standards and
> technology available then, much less what is available now. Before
> any
> additional land is locked up in wilderness, Congress and the
> American
> people should at least have the best and most up-to-date information
> on
> which to weigh the resource trade offs and make decisions.
>
> 9. Stating clearly that wilderness designation or the presence of
> WSA's
> cannot interfere with military preparedness. In a number of
> instances,
> conflicts related to military overflights of designated or potential
> wilderness areas, or to the positioning of essential military
> equipment
> on the ground in these areas, poses a threat or a potential threat
> to
> our
> defense preparedness. The Coalition will push for clarification
> that
> when
> considering the impacts of any mission certified by the military as
> essential
> to the national defense, wilderness areas or WSA's will be treated
> exactly
> the same as any other land administered by that agency.
>
> 10. Clarifying that wilderness designation or WSA designation will
> not
> in and
> of itself result in any management or regulatory changes outside the
> wilderness or WSA boundaries. This change is essential to prohibit
> federal
> agencies or the courts from taking actions to impose any type of
> "buffer zones" around these areas, including such things as special
> management
> of "viewsheds" or asserting wilderness-based water rights.
>
> For additional information about the Wilderness Act Reform Coalition
> contact:
>
> WARC
> 1540 North Arthur
> Pocatello, ID 83204
> ph. (208)233-6570 fax (208)233-8906
> www.wildernessreform.com
>
>
> -------------------
>
>
>
>
> Turns out that the Ribbon Coalition owns the new "coalition," the
> Wilderness Act Reform Coalition outfit. See below for the office space
> and fax number they share in Pocatello. Chances are good that both of
> these "coalitions" are just one fat-assed, pencil-necked flack in the
> employ of some offshore jet-ski and ATV manufacturers. To unravel
> fronts set up by these greedy flag wavers (national defense, the
> people are the owners of the public land), just follow the money.
>
> Your search on the URL above using <sharetrails.org> will give you:
>
> Registrant:
> The BlueRibbon Coalition (SHARETRAILS-DOM)
> 1540 N. Arthur Ave.
> Pocatello, ID 83204
> US
>
> Domain Name: SHARETRAILS.ORG
>
> Administrative Contact:
> Patty, Michael (MP13224)
> 208-233-6570
> Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
> Hemsley, Kevin (KH315)
> (208) 528-6161
> Billing Contact:
> Hemsley, Kevin (KH315)
> (208) 528-6161
>
> Record last updated on 19-Apr-99.
> Record created on 19-Feb-97.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
> I'm going to call them the Ribbon Coalition, instead of the Blue
> Ribbon Coaltion, because there is an police-support organization on
> the Web which already uses the fuller name.
>
> The Ribbon Coalition's homepage shows its only "industry supporters"
> as Honda, Ski-Doo, Yamaha, Polaris, Horizon (chemicals for ATVs and
> snowmobiles), The Outdoor Channel, and Off-Road.com (don't ask). I
> don't conclude that this is a client list for their efforts to create
> more demand for the products of their "industry supporters."
>
> Yahoo yellow pages lists them under Non-Profit Organizations and
> Asosiations. (I wonder if the IRS and the Idaho attorney general's
> consumer fraud people have looked into advertising this tax status?
> Somebody remind me to find this AG's email address on the Idaho state
> homepage.)
>
> Who is the Michael Patty shown above? Internic says:
> Patty, Michael (MP9395)
> BlueRibbon Coalition
> 1540 N. Arthur
> Pocatello , ID 83204
> 208-233-6570 (FAX) 208-233-8906
>
> Record last updated on 02-Nov-98.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
> Who is Kevin Hemsley? Internic says:
> Hemsley, Kevin (KH1926)
> Sign Pro
> 765 S Woodruff Av
> Idaho Falls, ID 83404
> (208)523-8540
>
> Record last updated on 06-Mar-97.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
> What is Sign Pro? Yahoo yellow pages lists them under "Truck Lettering
> and Painting" and "Sign Manufacturing" at
>
> 765 S Woodruff Ave
> Idaho Falls, ID
> (208) 523-8540
>
> Now for the Ribbon guy's newest front. Your search on the URL at the
> top of this message using <wildernessreform.com> will give you:
>
> Registrant:
> Western Counties Institute (WILDERNESSREFORM-DOM)
> Po Box 27514
> SLC, UT 84127-0514
> US
>
> Domain Name: WILDERNESSREFORM.COM
>
> Administrative Contact:
> Kinsel, sheldon (SK1881)
> 801-654-4087
> Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
> Services, Fibernet Dns (FDS6)
> 801-223-9939
> Billing Contact:
> Kinsel, sheldon (SK1881)
> 801-654-4087
>
> Record last updated on 23-Aug-99.
> Record created on 23-Aug-99.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
>
> So, who is this Kinsel, sheldon? Internic says:
>
> Kinsel, sheldon (SK1881)
> Public Interest Communications
> box 516
> Heber, UT 84032
> 801-654-4087
>
> Record last updated on 09-Dec-96.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
> What is Public Interest Communications? Yahoo yellow pages shows it
> at:
> 555 E 200 S
> Salt Lake City, UT 84102
> (801) 364-2345
>
> and lists under "Fund Raising Counselors & Organizations." Now, why
> would sheldon set up a P.O. box in Heber, UT, when he has a perfectly
> good mailing address in Salt Lake City? Hmmmmmm.
>
> So the Ribbon Coalition guy hired a fund raiser (sheldon) for his
> latest incarnation, the WARC. Maybe his clients in Tokyo don't want to
> get involved in lobbying for changes in US law? I can only guess. If
> you want to ask him yourself, you can write to the address on one of
> his Web pages (this is all very confusing to this ol'country boy) at:
>
> Wilderness Reform Act Coalition
> Box 5449. Pocatello, Idaho 83202-0003
> 1540 North Arthur, Pocatello, ID 83204
> fax (208)233-8906
> http://www.wildernessreform.com

On 18 Dec 2003 23:17:56 -0800, (Sportsmen
Against Bush) wrote:

>Anyone who still has respect for this
>organization now is nothing but a knuckle dragging, mullet-headed
>mouth
>breather with no brain whatsoever.

Hmm, that would be me and every other educated OHV enthusiast.......

Ah, now I see who is posting this drivel. (The reference to the BRC
being run by the Japanese was the dead giveaway!)

You have been busy.... Well, maybe not too busy since it is mainly a
re-hash of other stuff you posted 6-12 mos ago. Still though, a good
effort on your part.

Now, why not crawl back under your rock. You didn't convert anybody
to your side last time, in fact, you actually added to the numbers on
ours.

If you want to post this crap, why not aim it at your Sierra Club and
Blue Water Network brothers who really need the pep talk.

Have a Merry Christmas!

Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
Doo owner
Manta owner

On 18 Dec 2003 23:17:56 -0800, (Sportsmen
Against Bush) wrote:

>Anyone who still has respect for this
>organization now is nothing but a knuckle dragging, mullet-headed
>mouth
>breather with no brain whatsoever.

Hmm, that would be me and every other educated OHV enthusiast.......

Ah, now I see who is posting this drivel. (The reference to the BRC
being run by the Japanese was the dead giveaway!)

You have been busy.... Well, maybe not too busy since it is mainly a
re-hash of other stuff you posted 6-12 mos ago. Still though, a good
effort on your part.

Now, why not crawl back under your rock. You didn't convert anybody
to your side last time, in fact, you actually added to the numbers on
ours.

If you want to post this crap, why not aim it at your Sierra Club and
Blue Water Network brothers who really need the pep talk.

Have a Merry Christmas!

Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
Doo owner
Manta owner

Mike Haight, is that you? Tired of the old Muskie nick? You should
really seek some help as you have a cyclical tendency to spew drivel
into usenet bandwidth.

Sportsmen Against Bush wrote:

> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is supposed to be the voice for the ORV
> users. Why would a group that does that want public comments on public
> lands
> banned?Answer:
>
> Because they dont care about recreational ORV. They are a front for
> the
> resource extraction industry. Anyone who still has respect for this
> organization now is nothing but a knuckle dragging, mullet-headed
> mouth
> breather with no brain whatsoever.
>
> Ending public comments on public lands , from no matter what side you
> are
> on, is WRONG.
>
> --------------------------------------
>
>
> Awhile ago a very smart man posted a study on privatization, the blue
> ribbon
> coalition, the bush administration and WARC.
>
> doing away with comment periods is also another form of privatization.
> This
> guy was right on the money.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/17/we...ew/17SEEL.html
>
>
> ""Although the snowmobilers won their battle, the groups representing
> them
> say tha
> t the public comment period should be abolished. "What this outcome
> shows is
> tha
> t these huge hate-mail campaigns are not effective now and won't be in
> the
> futur
> e," said Clark Collins, executive director of the Blue Ribbon
> Coalition, an
> indu
> stry-backed lobbying group based in Idaho.
>
> If the public comment periods ceased, he said, both sides could save a
> lot
> of ti
> me.""
> -----------------------
>
> Clark collins also started "WARC", a group whose main goal is to undo
> congressionaly designated wilderness.
>
>
> MEDIA RELEASE
> The Wilderness Act Reform Coalition
> WARC
> 1540 North Arthur
> Pocatello, ID 83204
> www.wildernessreform.com
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> Contact: Clark Collins, 208-233-6570 -
>
> Wilderness Act Reform Coalition Launching On 35th Anniversary of
> Passage
>
> August 27, 1999 -- POCATELLO, IDAHO: Local governments, private
> citizens
> and outdoor groups announced today that they will mark the 35th
> anniversary of the passage of the national Wilderness Act by launching
> a nationwide coalition to reform it. The new coalition, to be called
> the
> "Wilderness Act Reform Coalition" (WARC), will focus initially on
> fixing
> ten specific problems with the wilderness law.
> "The Wilderness Act is antiquated, inflexible, anti-resource
> management and flies in the face of sound and responsible public
> policy
> principles," said Clark Collins, a spokesman for the emerging
> coalition.
> "There can be no doubt that it would never pass any modern Congress in
> its present form and that alone should be a warning signal to the
> public
> that it is seriously flawed."
> Initially, the Coalition will serve three functions. It will act as
> a clearing house for examples of problems with the Act and help build
> the
> case to amend it. It will educate the public, the media and policy
> makers about these problems and the ways to solve them. Finally, it
> will
> also serve to coordinate the efforts of the members of the Coalition.
> The
> Coalition's Internet site, www.wildernessreform.com, which will be
> posted
> on September 1, will be the primary communication mechanism in all of
> these efforts.
> "Those of us putting this Coalition together have our own horror
> stories about the Wilderness Act but until we started talking among
> ourselves we did not really realize how widespread the problems are,"
> noted Collins. "I doubt that any individual or organization in the
> country has a handle on all of the problems the Wilderness Act is
> causing. Our top priority will be asking individuals and organizations
> around the country to submit additional case studies and examples to
> us
> so we can provide the public and policy makers for the first time with
> a
> clear and comprehensive picture of the negative impacts of this Act."
> The groups launching the Coalition represent the a very broad
> spectrum of the public. Prominent among them are rural counties,
> county
> officials and county organizations, including Juab and Uinta Counties
> in
> Utah, and the Western Counties' Resources Policy Institute, a natural
> resources policy think tank being created by rural western counties.
> Citizen groups include the Blue Ribbon Coalition, which represents
> 600,000 recreationists nationwide ranging from mountain bikers and
> motorized recreationists to equestrian groups, People for the USA, a
> nationwide organization of 25,000 members representing all public land
> and resource users and the Rocky Mountain Federation of Mineralogical
> Societies.. Many individuals are also supporting the Coalition,
> including scientists and other professionals specializing in natural
> resources management, retired federal resource management agency
> employees and ordinary citizens who simply want to protect the
> public's
> interest in these lands and resources.
> "Our goal is to educate the public on the problems inherent in the
> philosophy and application of the Wilderness Act and then to stimulate
> a
> broad and informed national policy debate on reforming it," Collins
> said.
> "It must be reformed to serve the public interest and the public needs
> of the 21st Century."
> ---------------
>
> The BRC is run by Japanese corporations, timber and mining
> donations, and anti-wilderness supporters. They pride themselves on
> helping build new logging roads through national forests, keeping the
> ball rolling on drilling ANWR, mining claims and keeping grazing
> leases. "access" for ORv users is their last priority:
>
>
>
> ttp://www.ewg.org/pub/home/clear/by_clear/Fifty_VI.html
>
> Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC)
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is partially funded by Japanese
> manufacturers of off-road vehicles. The organization was cofounded by
> snowmobiler and anti-wilderness activist Darryl Harris and trail biker
> Clark Collins.
>
>
> Three full-time employees manage the coalition's annual operating
> budget of $180,000. Board members a Kay Lloyd, co-chairman,
> International Snowmobile Council; Craig Cazier, president, Utah State
> Snowmobile Association; and Joe Wernex, a Washington State logging
> engineer and amateur trail designer. Individuals pay dues of $20 to
> belong to the coalition; groups pay $100. But at least as much
> money--roughly $85,000 a year--is provided by grants from the mining
> and timber industries and especially from ORV manufacturers.
>
>
> Major contributors of the 1989 Convention we American Honda Motor
> Company, Yamaha Motor Company, Suzuki Motor Corporation, ARCTCO,
> Bombardier Corporation, Polaris Industries, and Kawasaki Motor
> Corporation.
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is credited with the Wise Use Movement's
> major federal legislative achievement to date, lobbying successfully
> to add $30 million to the 1991 Highway Bill for the construction of
> off-road vehicle trails.
>
>
> "Environmentalists are still trying to figure out how they got KOed on
> the trails act, but it wasn't a lucky punch," says a report in
> Harrowsmith Country Life.
>
>
> Mike Francis of the Wilderness Society said of Clark Collins: "I have
> to give Collins a lot of credit. The guy is good. As flaky as he
> seems, he is one hell of a tactician. He got Steve Symms to make the
> trails amendment his number one project on the highway bill. The
> trails act is a flea on the rear end of an elephant when you compare
> it to the regular highway bill. Everyone wanted Symms' support for
> something else. With the exception of Howard Metzenbaum, our best
> environmentalists on the Senate Energy Committee weren't willing to
> take on Symms. They all took a walk. Symms and Collins played that
> thing beautifully."
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition has boasted about "organizing support" for:
> 1. logging road construction by the Forest Service; 2. oil exploration
> in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; 3. protection of the Mining
> Act; and 4. continuation of the present grazing formula.
>
>
> Clark Collins travels extensively addressing local and national groups
> on the need to work together and form a strong network
>
> -------------------------
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon coalition favors opening up new roads in national
> parks and wilderness:
>
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/releases/....cfm?story=175
>
>
> Editorial Release: BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO PRESERVE HISTORIC ACCESS
> Contact: Clark L. Collins, Executive Director
> Phone: (208) 237-1008 (x101)
> Fax: (208) 237-9424
> E-mail:
>
> Webpage: http://sharetrails.org/staffbio.html#Clark
> Date: December 26, 2002
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . .
>
> POCATELLO, ID (December 26) -- An announcement by the Department of
> Interior that historic access routes will be preserved is welcomed by
> the BlueRibbon Coalition. The Bush Administration is expected to
> announce a new policy later this week for dealing with RS-2477 rights
> of way across federal lands.
>
> "We've been working with our recreation organizations across the
> country to protect our access to federal lands," said BlueRibbon
> Coalition Executive Director Clark Collins. "We are excited that
> the Bush Administration appears willing to help in that effort."
>
> "Many of these historic routes were used for commerce initially,
> but they are now important for recreation access. We look forward to
> working cooperatively with this Administration to ensure the public
> can use these routes for access to our federal lands," Collins
> concluded.
>
> -
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:49:28 -0700
> From: Pat Rasmussen >
> Subject: ENS---Roadless Proposal Opponent Has Industry Ties
>
>
> ROADLESS PROPOSAL OPPONENT HAS INDUSTRY TIES
>
> WASHINGTON, DC, June 20, 2000 (ENS) - The Blue Ribbon Coalition, one
> of
> the most active opponents of the U.S. Forest Service's (USFS) efforts
> to
> preserve large, intact areas in national forests, is closely tied to
> the
> timber, mining and oil and gas industry, says a report released today
> by
> the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG). The Pocatello,
> Idaho
> based Coalition has opposed any proposal to protect roadless areas in
> national forests even if such a proposal would further the Coalition's
> stated recreational interests. While the group's mission statement
> values land stewardship and responsible use, the organization receives
> funding from 355 corporations including the American Forest and Paper
> Association, Exxon, and Sierra Forest Products.
>
> "Far from being a grassroots organization simply advancing an agenda
> of
> access to public lands for the public, the Blue Ribbon Coalition is
> working hand-in-hand with industry to keep our national forests open
> to chainsaws, bulldozers and oil rigs," said US PIRG forest campaign
> coordinator Aaron Viles. The US PIRG report, "The Blue Ribbon
> Coalition:
> Protector of Recreation or Industry?" was released as a battle is
> waged
> over how the remaining 60 million acres of pristine wilderness in
> national forests will be managed.
>
> In May, the USFS released a draft proposal on managing these wild
> forests, otherwise known as roadless areas, and is soliciting public
> comment and holding more than 400 public hearings around the country,
> including a hearing in Arlington, Virginia on June 26. The report is
> available at: http://www.wildforests.com
>
> ------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is supposed
> to be by the people, for the people.
> Yet I see no sign that they oppose the
> double taxation forest fee demo program.
> I find this quite odd since most BRC memebers
> are active users of the public lands.
>
> I sent emails, and phoned many members of the
> Blue Ribbon Coalition yet they can't seem to
> give me a solid answer on wether they oppose
> or favor the Forest Fee program.
>
> Interesting. But I did find this on their
> website:
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/index.cfm?mr=69
>
> It's a "small business" alert. Funny. I
> thought the BRC was about keeping trails open.
>
> And here is another thing I found. The
> BRC is sending out an "alert" because 14
> peercent of California (according to them) is
> protected wilderness, and a new wilderness bill
> would add 2.5 million acres.
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/index.cfm?mr=97
>
> My question is why are they so concerned?
> It's only 14 percent of the land base. I
> could see their case if the total was approaching
> 50 percent, or even 40 percent. But yet, it's only
> a very small percent. Why is the BRC trying to
> refuse wilderness protection for some of our best
> areas? I mean the rest of the state is open to
> motorized use and is roaded and trailed. I
> think at the end of all this you have to ask
> yourself who benefits. And you will see who
> does concerning the corrupt BRC and their scam.
>
>
> Continuing tosearch their site, I came across
> a link for minig? Hmmm..
>
> I thought the BRC was for reacreational access?
> What is a mining link doing on their site?
>
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/links.htm
>
> (look under "M")
>
>
> Also, I found a link to the Wilderness Act
> Reform Coalition(WARC)on their website:
>
>
> http://www.wildernessreform.com/
>
>
> The first thing you are greeted to on the WARC
> webpage is this quote:
>
> " Finally we are going to do something about
>
> the Wilderness Act".
>
> It appears this group supports building new r
> oads into congressionaly designtaed wilderness
> for logging and mining! Talk about extreme.
> Thats right, the propose building new roads
> for mining and logging into the Bob MArshal
> Wilderness, the Boundary Waters Canoe area
> Wilderness, and other national treasures.
> While they appear to be a access/recreation
> group, it seems their ultiamte cause is revealed
> towards the end of their explanation.
>
> "The Coalition supports the creation of committees
> composed of locally-based federal and state
> resource managers, local governments, local economic
> interests and local citizens which will initiate a
> process to override the basic non-management
> directive of the Wilderness Act on a case-by-case basis. "
>
>
> Wai a second here folks.....doesn't this sound
> like Bush's "Charter Forests"?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
> A27700-2002Feb5.html
>
>
> Bush Admin. Wants 'Charter Forests'
>
>
> More from WARC:
>
> "Developing a mechanism to permit active
> resource management in wilderness areas to
> achieve a wide range of public benefits
> and to respond to local needs"
>
>
> Bush supports Forest Fees
> http://www.everyweek.com/Archives/News.
> asp?no=2317
>
>
>
> So far here we have some very interesting
> findings. We have "recreation" groups severly
> concerned with resource extraction. We have
> the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a group which is
> born on recreation access by its members, not
> opposing a forest fee demo program. We have
> the Bush administration echoing these same
> things. The question is, who benefits? Where
> does the money trail lead? The answer is
> pretty simple. It leads right to the ORV
> industry, the logging inddustry, the mining
> industry, and yes, even Walt Disney Corporation.
> Thats right.
>
>
> Who supports the Forest Fee Demo program?
>
> http://www.freeourforests.org
>
>
>
> ARC is the American Recreation Coalition.
> They are a large group of corporations.
> Arc has currently been caught bragging about
> how theycreated the Fee Demo program:
>
> These corporations arent "evil" or "bad".
> But when put together, and in favor of charging
> money to US taxpayers to use their public
> lands, they become a clear enemy to our public
> lands and our use of them.
>
>
> Bush's domestic issues advisor,
> Terry Anderson is sitting back and smiling:
>
>
> The Bush administration, along with Terry
> L Anderson are planning to turn our national
> parks over to corporate control.
>
>
>
> GEORGE BUSH'S ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISOR: "
> AUCTION OFF ALL
> FEDERAL LANDS INCLUDING NATIONAL PARKS"
> Terry L. Anderson, environmental advisor to
>
> George W. Bush Jr., has
> proposed to auction off all 600 million acres of
> federal public lands in
> the
> U.S. over the next 20-40 years. This not only
> incudes every National
> Forest, National Wildlife Refuge, and BLM District,
> it also includes
> every National Park and Monument. Under his
> proposal, non-profit
> environmental groups could bid on the free
> market against the likes of
> Exxon to obtain the Arctic National Wildlife
> Refuge, or against
> Weyerhouser to obtain Yellowstone National
> Park, or against Phelps Dodge
> to obtain Grand Canyon National Park. Any
> bets on how the bidding will
> go?
> Anderson is closely associated with several
> conservative think tanks
> pushing for the privatization and/or
> commercialization of public lands.
> He is the director of the Political Economy
>
> Research Center, a senior
> fellow at the Hoover Institution. PERC's
> website links to the Thoreau
> Institute which has proposed, among other
> nonsense, to privatize
> ownership of endangered species. Anderson's
> proposal was published by
> the CATO institute and can be viewed at
> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-363es.html>
> Anderson freely admits that his corporate
> take-over agenda would be
> wildly unpopular with the American public.""
>
>
> If you go to the link you can see it is published
> in whole at the Cato Institute website, a right
> wing study corp.
>
>
>
> So what we have here is the Bush administration,
> the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Wilderness Act
> Reform Coalition, Walt Disney, and many other
> corporations trying to wrestle control of the
> public lands to private enterprises for private
> profit. In essence, they want to "Disney-fi"
> our public lands. This is a bad thing for
> every single user of public lands from a tree
> hugger to a snowmobiler to a horseback rider
> to a hunter or a fisherman.
>
> It is time to see through the fronts, the
> lies and the myths. We need to keep a careful
> eye out so our easily accesible public lands
> arent gone forever.------------
>
>
>
>
> ------------
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Clark Collins, 73563,1551
> To: (An Un-Named Senate Democratic Policy
> Committee staffer)
>
> Date: 6/28/00 2:17 PM
>
> Interior Riders
>
> As I mentioned to you on the phone, the only Interior
> Appropriations Committee rider that I am personally familier with is
> the
> one that would protect snowmobile access to our national parks. My
> understanding is that rider was dropped in the House bill and we are
> hopeful it will be re-submitted in the Senate version.
>
> I understand that as a staffer for the Democratic Policy Committee in
> the
> U.S. Senate you are looking for information on what organizations are
> supportive of the Interior Appropriations riders that have been
> mis-labeled
> by the environmental extremist industry as "anti-environment." While
> our
> organization's focus is on recreation access issues, such as the NPS
> proposed snowmobile ban, we are supportive of responsible multiple use
> of
> our public lands.
>
> We know that opposition to the Interior riders is coming from the
> environmental extremists community. Those organizations already have
> lists
> of most of the groups who oppose their anti-multiple-use viewpoint.
> You can
> get those lists from them. I hope you were really trying to get a
> handle on
> what's happening in the land use debates.
>
> The primary change in that whole debate, in my view, is that many rank
> and
> file members of the various resource industry unions are no longer
> voting
> the AFL-CIO party line. They realize that the environmental extremists
> are
> driving the industries - who provide their jobs - out of this country.
> Democrats who support the extreme anti-timber, anti-mining, anti-oil
> industry, and anti-recreation-access agenda of the so-called
> environmental
> community are losing the support of blue-collar workers. I myself was
> a
> Union electrician who supported the Democratic party in my home state
> of
> Idaho. I know a lot of former Democrats who've changed parties because
> of
> the land use issues.
>
> I hope that your call was Senator Dachle's attempt to get to the heart
> of
> what's happening at the grass roots on these land use issues. My view
> is
> that the Democratic party is going to need to dissassociate itself
> from the
> extreme environmental viewpoint or suffer additional erosion of their
> support from blue-collar workers. THAT'S THE MESSAGE I HOPE YOU WILL
> DELIVER. It's not to late to tell the Sierra Club to take a hike.
>
> Clark L. Collins, BlueRibbon Coalition
> for more information about the BlueRibbon Coalition check our website
> www.sharetrails.org
>
>
> -----------------------
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.msnbc.com/local/pisea/102348.asp?vts=1120031042>http://www.msnbc.com/local/pisea/102...vts=1120031042
>
> Bush opens up backcountry trails to vehicles
>
> By ROBERT McCLURE
> SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
>
> Jan. 1 - The Bush administration, in a move that has outraged
> environmentalists, is about to hand a big victory to Westerners who
> want
> to use a post-Civil War-era law to punch dirt-bike trails and roads
> into
> the backcountry.
> Untallied thousands of miles of long-abandoned wagon roads, cattle
> paths, Jeep trails and miners' routes potentially could be transformed
> into roads -- some of them paved. Many crisscross national parks,
> wildlife refuges and wilderness areas. Scheduled to go into effect
> shortly, the rule change was greeted warmly by off-road vehicle
> enthusiasts, whose numbers have exploded in recent years. Many oppose
> attempts to fence off wilderness areas where mechanized vehicles are
> banned. Where miners and wagons trains went, so should dirt bikes,
> they
> say.
> "We consider it a pretty substantial gain," said Clark Collins,
> executive director of the Blueribbon Coalition, an advocacy group for
> snowmobilers, dirt-bike and all-terrain-vehicle riders and 4X4
> enthusiasts based in Pocatello, Idaho.
> "That historic use in our view should provide for continued
> recreational
> use of those routes," he said. "The government should not be allowed
> to
> close those routes."
> Environmentalists say the amount of noise pollution, erosion, water
> pollution and other harm done to the backcountry will depend largely
> on
> how the rule is handled by the Bush administration. And they're
> worried.
> "I don't think Congress in 1866 meant to grant rights of way to
> off-road-vehicle trails," said Heidi McIntosh of the Southern Utah
> Wilderness Alliance. "This is flying under the radar screen, but I
> can't
> think of another initiative the Bush administration is pursuing that
> would have a more lasting and significant impact on public lands."
> In Washington state, huge areas -- including parts of North Cascades
> National Park -- are honeycombed by old mining trails that could be
> promoted by off-road-vehicle devotees as open to motorized traffic.
> Other national parks that could be affected include Grand Canyon,
> Death
> Valley, Joshua Tree, Denali, Wrangell-St. Elias and Rocky Mountain. A
> 1993 National Park Service report said the impact across 17.5 million
> acres in 68 national parks could be "devastating." The law was
> originally passed when Jesse James was just starting to rob banks and
> the U.S. cavalry was still fighting Indians. Seattle did not yet have
> a
> bank or a public schoolhouse. It made federal land available for wagon
> roads, miners' trails and other transportation routes. Its purpose was
> to open the West to settlement. It would be nine years after the law's
> passage before the internal combustion engine was invented. Decades
> would elapse before many newfangled automobiles were scooting around
> the
> landscape. The rule change announced on Christmas Eve by the Bush
> administration rolls back severe restrictions slapped on the use of
> the
> law under the Clinton administration.
> "We're really concerned about this because it seems like the
> administration is encouraging (road) claims that will affect the
> parks,"
> said Heather Weiner, Northwest director for the National Parks
> Conservation Association.
> Outside national parks, wilderness areas set aside by Congress in
> national forests and other federal lands also are in play. "It would
> disrupt the quiet and the feeling that you're away from civilization,"
> said Seattle activist Pat Goldsworthy. Lots of land is at stake. In
> California alone, 19 wilderness areas and proposed wilderness areas
> could be affected. A full accounting of such areas in Washington
> apparently has not been compiled, but the Alpine Lakes, Pasayten,
> Glacier Peak, Stephen Mather and Mount Baker wilderness areas all
> contain old miners' trails. "You name it, miners have ben everywhere"
> around the West, said Seattle attorney Karl Forsgaard, an
> environmental
> activist. "So keep that in mind."
> The one-sentence, 21-word statutory provision in question, known as
> Revised Statute 2477, was part of the nation's first general mining
> law,
> passed July 26, 1866. It says, "The right of way for the construction
> of
> highways across public lands not otherwise reserved for public
> purposes
> is hereby granted."
> The idea was to induce miners to continue to fan out across the West
> and
> settle it. To do that, they needed roads, or at least what passed for
> roads in those days.
> That law and its replacements in 1870 and 1872 gave miners the right
> to
> buy public land for $5 an acre or less if they did work necessary to
> discover minerals on the land. Those prices remain in effect today. A
> few years earlier, Congress had passed the Homestead Act, which
> provided
> cheap land to settlers willing to build ranches, farms and homes on
> the
> acreage. That law was repealed in 1976. That was the same year
> Congress
> repealed the roads-for-lands provision of the old mining law. However,
> at the time Congress gave states and counties 12 years to settle their
> old road claims. Ten years later, Congress in effect extended the
> deadline. But the Clinton administration fought most attempts to turn
> wilderness into roadways.
> Now, the Bush administration says it will finalize a rule giving
> Western
> states, counties and cities -- some avowedly hostile to federal
> control
> of wilderness areas -- a better chance to enforce those claims.
> The Clinton administration made it difficult to get the Interior
> Department's Bureau of Land Management to approve the road claims. A
> burst of litigation resulted, much of it in Alaska and Utah. In Utah,
> some 15,000 road claims are at issue; Alaska's state government has
> identified about 650.
> In Utah, county governments angry about the establishment of a
> national
> monument have become embroiled in a fight over the issue. The state
> sued
> the federal government.
> And in Alaska, the state government contends that even some section
> lines -- the imaginary grid that marks off every square mile in the
> nation -- are subject to the provision and can be claimed as roads.
> Until now, proving that would likely have involved an arduous legal
> battle.
> Under the Bush policy, though, the BLM can process the claims more
> readily as an administrative action.
> It makes sense, says the Bush administration, because it saves state
> and
> federal taxpayers money on court costs. "The department felt this
> allowed them to address the . . . issues in a more straightforward
> way,"
> said David Quick, a BLM spokesman. Stephen Griles, a former mining
> lobbyist who serves as the No. 2 official in the Interior Department,
> told a pro-development group in Alaska that the rule change was
> spurred
> in part by the advocacy of the Western Governors Association.
> "The department is poised to bring finality to this issue that has
> created unnecessary conflict between federal land managers and state
> and
> local governments," Griles told the Resource Development Council in
> November.
> Griles told the group the rules would be "consistent with historic
> regulation prior to 1976."
> What's changed since then is that sales of off-road vehicles,
> particularly three- and four-wheeled all-terrain vehicles, have
> skyrocketed. Enthusiasts have started to fight to maintain access to
> back-country trails.
> Meanwhile, environmental activists are trying to declare additional
> areas off-limits to the off-road vehicles, saying they disturb
> wildlife
> and hikers, cloud up streams and cause erosion of trails and
> hillsides.
> The new rule could help put to rest a controversy over a related
> Clinton-era policy, said the Blueribbon Coalition's Collins. A Clinton
> policy banned most logging, mining and other commercial uses in 58.5
> million acres of national forests where no roads are built. But under
> the new policy, if states, counties or others are able to establish a
> network of legally recognized "highways" through those acres -- even
> if
> the highways are dirt roads or something less -- it would give those
> fighting the so-called "roadless" proposal ammunition.
> At least that's what Collins hopes.
> "That's why we have a real interest in it," he said. "It does have the
> potential to influence this debate." In national forests, those trying
> to open a route to motorized travel would have to show that the route
> existed prior to the establishment of national forests -- around the
> turn of the last century for most places in the Pacific Northwest. In
> many places, though, miners preceded establishment of the forests. Old
> maps can pinpoint their routes.
> "You're talking about going back and doing some fairly detailed
> research
> in old historical documents," said Paul Turcke, a Boise, Idaho,
> attorney
> who represents off-road-vehicle enthusiasts, including the Blueribbon
> Coalition.
> It's clear that counties and states have the right to try to open up
> the
> old routes. Cities would, too, under the new rule. It remains to be
> seen
> whether private groups such as off-road-vehicle clubs could sue to
> open
> the routes.
> "If I had to predict, I would say the trend is going to be toward more
> private interests being involved," Turcke said.
> ----------------------------------------------
> P-I reporter Robert McClure can be reached at 206-448-8092 or
> >robertmcclure@ seattlepi.com
> --
> John Stewart
> Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
> Recreation
> Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com Webmaster,
> Tierra
> del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com Webmaster, Jeep-L:
> http://www.jeep-l.net
>
>
>
> BLUERIBBON COALITION NEWS RELEASE
> www.sharetrails.org
>
> RECREATIONISTS SUPPORT NORTON FOR INTERIOR
>
> POCATELLO, ID 12/29/00-- The Blue Ribbon Coalition, a national
> recreation
> group, is pleased with President-elect Bush's nomination of Gale
> Norton to
> be the next Secretary of the Interior. For many years, Coalition
> members
> have felt disenfranchised by the Clinton administration's continued
> top-down efforts to force unreasonable land closures on the American
> public.
>
> It appears that the new Interior Secretary will focus on better
> management
> of public lands rather than forcing non-collaborative land closures
> and
> restrictions on families who enjoy the great outdoors.
>
> Denver Colorado native Jack Welch, the president of the Blue Ribbon
> Coalition, says, "I have seen Ms. Norton work for the best interests
> of
> people and the environment in Colorado. I think she will be a
> refreshing
> change from the top-down DC-based philosophy of the Clinton
> administration. She will be a positive influence for multi-use of
> public
> lands 'FOR' the public instead of 'FROM' the public."
>
> Clark Collins, Executive Director for the Blue Ribbon Coalition, said,
> "President-elect Bush talked about rebuilding the worn down
> infrastructure
> -- after 8 years of neglect by the current administration -- of our
> National Parks and Forests and other public lands. Ms. Norton will
> most
> certainly focus on providing services to the public while protecting
> valuable resources. She will change Interior from its current status
> as a
> political arm of the White House to its dutiful role as a land
> management
> agency that serves people rather than politicians or special interest
> groups." ###
> article >,
> Viki > wrote:
>
>> <http://www.denver-rmn.com/election/1229gale4.shtml>
>
> -----------------------
>
>
>
> The Wilderness Act Reform Coalition
> After 35 Years, We Are Finally Going
> To Do Something About The Wilderness Act!
>
> Why we are organizing...
>
> September 3, 1999 marks the 35th anniversary of the passage of the
> Wilderness
> Act. During those 35 years, it has never been substantively amended.
> Yet,
> the history of the application of the Wilderness Act to the public's
> lands and
> resources provides overwhelming evidence that it must be significantly
> reformed if the public interest is to be served.
>
> September 3, 1999 also marks the launch of the Wilderness Act Reform
> Coalition
> (WARC), the first serious effort to reform this antiquated and
> poorly-conceived
> law. Much has changed since the Wilderness Act became law in 1964.
> Dozens of
> other laws have been passed since then to protect and
> responsibly-manage
> all of
> the public's lands and resources. Underpinning all of these laws--and
> guaranteeing their enforcement-- is a public sensitivity and
> commitment
> to wise
> resource management which was not present two generations ago when the
> Wilderness Act was enacted.
>
> Over this same time period our knowledge and understanding of how to
> accomplish
> this kind of wise and responsible resource management has increased
> exponentially. The demand side of the public's interest in their
> lands
> and
> resources has also increased exponentially. Recreation demand, for
> example,
> has increased far beyond what anyone could have anticipated 35 years
> ago
> and it
> has done so in directions which could not have been foreseen in 1964.
> Demand
> for water, energy and minerals, timber and other resources continues
> to
> go up
> as well.
>
> All of this means that as the 21st Century dawns we find ourselves
> facing more
> complex natural resources realities and challenges than ever before in
> our
> history. Meeting these challenges while at the same time serving the
> broad
> public interest will require careful and thoughtful balancing of all
> resource
> values with other social goals. It will also require integrating them
> all into
> a comprehensive management approach which will provide the greatest
> good
> for
> the greatest number of Americans over the longest period of time.
>
> These lands and resources, after all, belong to all of the American
> people.
> They deserve to enjoy the maximum benefits from them. Yet, the
> Wilderness Act,
> with its outdated, inflexible, and anti-management requirements,
> presently
> locks away over 100 million acres of the public's lands and resources
> from
> this kind of intelligent and integrated resource management. The
> inevitable
> result is the numerous negative impacts and damage to other resource
> values
> which are becoming increasingly apparent on the public's lands. The
> Wilderness Act remains frozen in another era. Due to the exponential
> changes
> which have occurred since it was passed, that era lies much further in
> the past
> than a mere 35 year linear time line would suggest.
>
> Our goals and objectives...
>
> The Wilderness Act Reform Coalition is being organized by members of
> citizen's
> groups and local government officials who have experienced firsthand
> the
>
> limitations and problems the Wilderness Act has caused. It has a
> simple
>
> mission: to reform the Wilderness Act. In carrying out that mission,
> the
> Coalition has identified two primary goals towards which it will
> initially work.
>
> The first goal is to make those changes in the wilderness law which
> are
> essential to mitigate the most serious resource and related problems
> it
> is
> causing. These problems range from prohibiting the application of
> sound
> resource management practices where needed to hampering important
> scientific
> research and jeopardizing our national defense.
>
> The second goal of the coalition is to use the failings of the
> Wilderness Act
> to help educate the public, the media and policy makers on the
> fundamentals of
> natural resource management. Most of the "conventional wisdom" about
> natural
> resource management to which most of them presently subscribe is
> simply
> wrong.
> It is essential that the public be better educated on the facts, the
> realities,
> the challenges and the options before there can be any responsible or
> useful
> policy debate on the most fundamental problems with the Wilderness Act
> or, for
> that matter, any of the other federal management laws and policies
> which
> also
> need to be reformed. That is why the Coalition has chosen a
> comparatively
> limited reform agenda for this opening round in what we recognize
> ultimately
> must be a broader and more comprehensive national policy debate.
>
> Our reform agenda...
>
> The Coalition currently advocates the following reforms of the
> Wilderness Act:
>
> 1. Developing a mechanism to permit active resource management in
> wilderness
> areas to achieve a wide range of public benefits and to respond to
> local needs.
> The inability or unwillingness of managers to intervene actively
> within
> wilderness areas to deal with local resource management problems or
> goals has
> resulted in economic harm to local communities and damage to other
> important
> natural resource and related values and objectives. The Coalition
> supports
> the creation of committees composed of locally-based federal and
> state
>
> resource managers, local governments, local economic interests and
> local
> citizens which will initiate a process to override the basic
> non-management
> directive of the Wilderness Act on a case-by-case basis.
>
> 2. Establishing a mechanism for appeal and override of local
> managers
> for
> scientific research. Wilderness advocates often tout the importance
> of
> wilderness designation to science. The reality, however, is that
> agency
> regulations make it difficult or impossible to conduct many
> scientific
>
> experiments in wilderness, particularly with modern and
> cost-effective
>
> scientific tools. Important scientific experiments have been
> opposed
> simply
> because they would take place within wilderness areas. A simple,
> quick and
> cheap appeal process must be created for scientists turned down by
> wilderness
> land managers.
>
> 3. Making it clear that such things as use of mechanized equipment
> and
> aircraft landings can occur in wilderness areas for search and
> rescue
> or law
> enforcement purposes. There have been incidents where these have
> been
>
> prevented by federal wilderness managers.
>
> 4. Requiring that federal managers use the most cost-effective
> management
> tools and technologies. These managers have largely imposed upon
> themselves
> a requirement that they use the "least tool" or the "minimum tool"
> to
> accomplish tasks such as noxious weed control, wildfire control or
> stabilization of historic sites. In practice, this means that hand
> tools are
> often used instead of power tools, horses are employed instead of
> helicopters
> and similar practices which waste tax dollars.
>
> 5. Clarifying that the prohibition on the use of mechanized
> transportation in
> wilderness areas refers only to intentional infractions. This would
> be, in
> effect, the "Bobby Unser Amendment" designed to prevent in the
> future
> the
> current situation in which he is being prosecuted by the federal
> government
> for possibly driving a snowmobile into a wilderness area in Colorado
> while
> lost in a life-threatening blizzard.
>
> 6. Pulling the boundaries of wilderness areas and wilderness study
> areas
> (WSA's) back from roads and prohibiting "cherrystemming." In many
> cases,
> the boundaries of wilderness areas and WSA's come right to the very
> edge of
> a road. Lawsuits have been filed or threatened against counties for
> going
> literally only a few feet into a WSA when doing necessary road
> maintenance
> work. It is clearly impossible to have a wilderness recreational
> experience
> in close proximity of a road. When formal wilderness areas are
> designated,
> the current practice is to pull the boundaries back a short distance
> from
> roads, depending on how the roads are categorized. That distance
> should be
> standardized and extended, probably to at least a quarter of a mile.
> The
> practice of "cherrystemming," or drawing wilderness boundaries right
> along
> both sides of a road to its end, sometimes for many miles, is a
> clear
> violation of the intent of the Wilderness Act that wilderness areas
> must
> first and foremost be roadless. It must be eliminated.
>
> 7. Permitting certain human-powered but non-motorized mechanized
> transport
> devices in wilderness areas. This would include mountain bikes and
> wheeled "game carriers" and similar devices. The explosion of
> mountain
> biking was not envisioned by the Congress when the Wilderness Act
> was
> passed.
> Opening up those wilderness areas which are suitable to mountain
> biking
> would provide a high quality recreation experience to more of the
> Americans
> who own these areas. Use of these human-powered conveyances would
> also
> reduce pressure on these areas in a number of ways, such as by
> dispersing
> recreation use over a wider area. At the same time opening these
> areas can
> also reduce the current or potential conflicts between various
> recreation
> uses on land outside of designated wilderness. The impact on the
> land
> from these types of mechanized recreation uses would be minimal to
> non-existent. Their presence in wilderness areas would not cause
> problems
> on aesthetic grounds for any but the most extreme wilderness purists
> and
> they represent only a tiny fraction of the Americans who own these
> lands.
>
> 8. Requiring that the resource potential in all WSA's and any other
> land
> proposed for wilderness be updated at least every ten years. For
> example,
> mineral surveys and estimates of oil and gas potential completed on
> many of
> the WSA's on BLM-managed land which have been recommended for
> wilderness
> designation are now 10 to 15 years old and in some cases even older.
> These reviews were often not very thorough even by the standards and
> technology available then, much less what is available now. Before
> any
> additional land is locked up in wilderness, Congress and the
> American
> people should at least have the best and most up-to-date information
> on
> which to weigh the resource trade offs and make decisions.
>
> 9. Stating clearly that wilderness designation or the presence of
> WSA's
> cannot interfere with military preparedness. In a number of
> instances,
> conflicts related to military overflights of designated or potential
> wilderness areas, or to the positioning of essential military
> equipment
> on the ground in these areas, poses a threat or a potential threat
> to
> our
> defense preparedness. The Coalition will push for clarification
> that
> when
> considering the impacts of any mission certified by the military as
> essential
> to the national defense, wilderness areas or WSA's will be treated
> exactly
> the same as any other land administered by that agency.
>
> 10. Clarifying that wilderness designation or WSA designation will
> not
> in and
> of itself result in any management or regulatory changes outside the
> wilderness or WSA boundaries. This change is essential to prohibit
> federal
> agencies or the courts from taking actions to impose any type of
> "buffer zones" around these areas, including such things as special
> management
> of "viewsheds" or asserting wilderness-based water rights.
>
> For additional information about the Wilderness Act Reform Coalition
> contact:
>
> WARC
> 1540 North Arthur
> Pocatello, ID 83204
> ph. (208)233-6570 fax (208)233-8906
> www.wildernessreform.com
>
>
> -------------------
>
>
>
>
> Turns out that the Ribbon Coalition owns the new "coalition," the
> Wilderness Act Reform Coalition outfit. See below for the office space
> and fax number they share in Pocatello. Chances are good that both of
> these "coalitions" are just one fat-assed, pencil-necked flack in the
> employ of some offshore jet-ski and ATV manufacturers. To unravel
> fronts set up by these greedy flag wavers (national defense, the
> people are the owners of the public land), just follow the money.
>
> Your search on the URL above using <sharetrails.org> will give you:
>
> Registrant:
> The BlueRibbon Coalition (SHARETRAILS-DOM)
> 1540 N. Arthur Ave.
> Pocatello, ID 83204
> US
>
> Domain Name: SHARETRAILS.ORG
>
> Administrative Contact:
> Patty, Michael (MP13224)
> 208-233-6570
> Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
> Hemsley, Kevin (KH315)
> (208) 528-6161
> Billing Contact:
> Hemsley, Kevin (KH315)
> (208) 528-6161
>
> Record last updated on 19-Apr-99.
> Record created on 19-Feb-97.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
> I'm going to call them the Ribbon Coalition, instead of the Blue
> Ribbon Coaltion, because there is an police-support organization on
> the Web which already uses the fuller name.
>
> The Ribbon Coalition's homepage shows its only "industry supporters"
> as Honda, Ski-Doo, Yamaha, Polaris, Horizon (chemicals for ATVs and
> snowmobiles), The Outdoor Channel, and Off-Road.com (don't ask). I
> don't conclude that this is a client list for their efforts to create
> more demand for the products of their "industry supporters."
>
> Yahoo yellow pages lists them under Non-Profit Organizations and
> Asosiations. (I wonder if the IRS and the Idaho attorney general's
> consumer fraud people have looked into advertising this tax status?
> Somebody remind me to find this AG's email address on the Idaho state
> homepage.)
>
> Who is the Michael Patty shown above? Internic says:
> Patty, Michael (MP9395)
> BlueRibbon Coalition
> 1540 N. Arthur
> Pocatello , ID 83204
> 208-233-6570 (FAX) 208-233-8906
>
> Record last updated on 02-Nov-98.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
> Who is Kevin Hemsley? Internic says:
> Hemsley, Kevin (KH1926)
> Sign Pro
> 765 S Woodruff Av
> Idaho Falls, ID 83404
> (208)523-8540
>
> Record last updated on 06-Mar-97.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
> What is Sign Pro? Yahoo yellow pages lists them under "Truck Lettering
> and Painting" and "Sign Manufacturing" at
>
> 765 S Woodruff Ave
> Idaho Falls, ID
> (208) 523-8540
>
> Now for the Ribbon guy's newest front. Your search on the URL at the
> top of this message using <wildernessreform.com> will give you:
>
> Registrant:
> Western Counties Institute (WILDERNESSREFORM-DOM)
> Po Box 27514
> SLC, UT 84127-0514
> US
>
> Domain Name: WILDERNESSREFORM.COM
>
> Administrative Contact:
> Kinsel, sheldon (SK1881)
> 801-654-4087
> Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
> Services, Fibernet Dns (FDS6)
> 801-223-9939
> Billing Contact:
> Kinsel, sheldon (SK1881)
> 801-654-4087
>
> Record last updated on 23-Aug-99.
> Record created on 23-Aug-99.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
>
> So, who is this Kinsel, sheldon? Internic says:
>
> Kinsel, sheldon (SK1881)
> Public Interest Communications
> box 516
> Heber, UT 84032
> 801-654-4087
>
> Record last updated on 09-Dec-96.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
> What is Public Interest Communications? Yahoo yellow pages shows it
> at:
> 555 E 200 S
> Salt Lake City, UT 84102
> (801) 364-2345
>
> and lists under "Fund Raising Counselors & Organizations." Now, why
> would sheldon set up a P.O. box in Heber, UT, when he has a perfectly
> good mailing address in Salt Lake City? Hmmmmmm.
>
> So the Ribbon Coalition guy hired a fund raiser (sheldon) for his
> latest incarnation, the WARC. Maybe his clients in Tokyo don't want to
> get involved in lobbying for changes in US law? I can only guess. If
> you want to ask him yourself, you can write to the address on one of
> his Web pages (this is all very confusing to this ol'country boy) at:
>
> Wilderness Reform Act Coalition
> Box 5449. Pocatello, Idaho 83202-0003
> 1540 North Arthur, Pocatello, ID 83204
> fax (208)233-8906
> http://www.wildernessreform.com

Mike Haight, is that you? Tired of the old Muskie nick? You should
really seek some help as you have a cyclical tendency to spew drivel
into usenet bandwidth.

Sportsmen Against Bush wrote:

> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is supposed to be the voice for the ORV
> users. Why would a group that does that want public comments on public
> lands
> banned?Answer:
>
> Because they dont care about recreational ORV. They are a front for
> the
> resource extraction industry. Anyone who still has respect for this
> organization now is nothing but a knuckle dragging, mullet-headed
> mouth
> breather with no brain whatsoever.
>
> Ending public comments on public lands , from no matter what side you
> are
> on, is WRONG.
>
> --------------------------------------
>
>
> Awhile ago a very smart man posted a study on privatization, the blue
> ribbon
> coalition, the bush administration and WARC.
>
> doing away with comment periods is also another form of privatization.
> This
> guy was right on the money.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/17/we...ew/17SEEL.html
>
>
> ""Although the snowmobilers won their battle, the groups representing
> them
> say tha
> t the public comment period should be abolished. "What this outcome
> shows is
> tha
> t these huge hate-mail campaigns are not effective now and won't be in
> the
> futur
> e," said Clark Collins, executive director of the Blue Ribbon
> Coalition, an
> indu
> stry-backed lobbying group based in Idaho.
>
> If the public comment periods ceased, he said, both sides could save a
> lot
> of ti
> me.""
> -----------------------
>
> Clark collins also started "WARC", a group whose main goal is to undo
> congressionaly designated wilderness.
>
>
> MEDIA RELEASE
> The Wilderness Act Reform Coalition
> WARC
> 1540 North Arthur
> Pocatello, ID 83204
> www.wildernessreform.com
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> Contact: Clark Collins, 208-233-6570 -
>
> Wilderness Act Reform Coalition Launching On 35th Anniversary of
> Passage
>
> August 27, 1999 -- POCATELLO, IDAHO: Local governments, private
> citizens
> and outdoor groups announced today that they will mark the 35th
> anniversary of the passage of the national Wilderness Act by launching
> a nationwide coalition to reform it. The new coalition, to be called
> the
> "Wilderness Act Reform Coalition" (WARC), will focus initially on
> fixing
> ten specific problems with the wilderness law.
> "The Wilderness Act is antiquated, inflexible, anti-resource
> management and flies in the face of sound and responsible public
> policy
> principles," said Clark Collins, a spokesman for the emerging
> coalition.
> "There can be no doubt that it would never pass any modern Congress in
> its present form and that alone should be a warning signal to the
> public
> that it is seriously flawed."
> Initially, the Coalition will serve three functions. It will act as
> a clearing house for examples of problems with the Act and help build
> the
> case to amend it. It will educate the public, the media and policy
> makers about these problems and the ways to solve them. Finally, it
> will
> also serve to coordinate the efforts of the members of the Coalition.
> The
> Coalition's Internet site, www.wildernessreform.com, which will be
> posted
> on September 1, will be the primary communication mechanism in all of
> these efforts.
> "Those of us putting this Coalition together have our own horror
> stories about the Wilderness Act but until we started talking among
> ourselves we did not really realize how widespread the problems are,"
> noted Collins. "I doubt that any individual or organization in the
> country has a handle on all of the problems the Wilderness Act is
> causing. Our top priority will be asking individuals and organizations
> around the country to submit additional case studies and examples to
> us
> so we can provide the public and policy makers for the first time with
> a
> clear and comprehensive picture of the negative impacts of this Act."
> The groups launching the Coalition represent the a very broad
> spectrum of the public. Prominent among them are rural counties,
> county
> officials and county organizations, including Juab and Uinta Counties
> in
> Utah, and the Western Counties' Resources Policy Institute, a natural
> resources policy think tank being created by rural western counties.
> Citizen groups include the Blue Ribbon Coalition, which represents
> 600,000 recreationists nationwide ranging from mountain bikers and
> motorized recreationists to equestrian groups, People for the USA, a
> nationwide organization of 25,000 members representing all public land
> and resource users and the Rocky Mountain Federation of Mineralogical
> Societies.. Many individuals are also supporting the Coalition,
> including scientists and other professionals specializing in natural
> resources management, retired federal resource management agency
> employees and ordinary citizens who simply want to protect the
> public's
> interest in these lands and resources.
> "Our goal is to educate the public on the problems inherent in the
> philosophy and application of the Wilderness Act and then to stimulate
> a
> broad and informed national policy debate on reforming it," Collins
> said.
> "It must be reformed to serve the public interest and the public needs
> of the 21st Century."
> ---------------
>
> The BRC is run by Japanese corporations, timber and mining
> donations, and anti-wilderness supporters. They pride themselves on
> helping build new logging roads through national forests, keeping the
> ball rolling on drilling ANWR, mining claims and keeping grazing
> leases. "access" for ORv users is their last priority:
>
>
>
> ttp://www.ewg.org/pub/home/clear/by_clear/Fifty_VI.html
>
> Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC)
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is partially funded by Japanese
> manufacturers of off-road vehicles. The organization was cofounded by
> snowmobiler and anti-wilderness activist Darryl Harris and trail biker
> Clark Collins.
>
>
> Three full-time employees manage the coalition's annual operating
> budget of $180,000. Board members a Kay Lloyd, co-chairman,
> International Snowmobile Council; Craig Cazier, president, Utah State
> Snowmobile Association; and Joe Wernex, a Washington State logging
> engineer and amateur trail designer. Individuals pay dues of $20 to
> belong to the coalition; groups pay $100. But at least as much
> money--roughly $85,000 a year--is provided by grants from the mining
> and timber industries and especially from ORV manufacturers.
>
>
> Major contributors of the 1989 Convention we American Honda Motor
> Company, Yamaha Motor Company, Suzuki Motor Corporation, ARCTCO,
> Bombardier Corporation, Polaris Industries, and Kawasaki Motor
> Corporation.
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is credited with the Wise Use Movement's
> major federal legislative achievement to date, lobbying successfully
> to add $30 million to the 1991 Highway Bill for the construction of
> off-road vehicle trails.
>
>
> "Environmentalists are still trying to figure out how they got KOed on
> the trails act, but it wasn't a lucky punch," says a report in
> Harrowsmith Country Life.
>
>
> Mike Francis of the Wilderness Society said of Clark Collins: "I have
> to give Collins a lot of credit. The guy is good. As flaky as he
> seems, he is one hell of a tactician. He got Steve Symms to make the
> trails amendment his number one project on the highway bill. The
> trails act is a flea on the rear end of an elephant when you compare
> it to the regular highway bill. Everyone wanted Symms' support for
> something else. With the exception of Howard Metzenbaum, our best
> environmentalists on the Senate Energy Committee weren't willing to
> take on Symms. They all took a walk. Symms and Collins played that
> thing beautifully."
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition has boasted about "organizing support" for:
> 1. logging road construction by the Forest Service; 2. oil exploration
> in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; 3. protection of the Mining
> Act; and 4. continuation of the present grazing formula.
>
>
> Clark Collins travels extensively addressing local and national groups
> on the need to work together and form a strong network
>
> -------------------------
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon coalition favors opening up new roads in national
> parks and wilderness:
>
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/releases/....cfm?story=175
>
>
> Editorial Release: BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO PRESERVE HISTORIC ACCESS
> Contact: Clark L. Collins, Executive Director
> Phone: (208) 237-1008 (x101)
> Fax: (208) 237-9424
> E-mail:
>
> Webpage: http://sharetrails.org/staffbio.html#Clark
> Date: December 26, 2002
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . .
>
> POCATELLO, ID (December 26) -- An announcement by the Department of
> Interior that historic access routes will be preserved is welcomed by
> the BlueRibbon Coalition. The Bush Administration is expected to
> announce a new policy later this week for dealing with RS-2477 rights
> of way across federal lands.
>
> "We've been working with our recreation organizations across the
> country to protect our access to federal lands," said BlueRibbon
> Coalition Executive Director Clark Collins. "We are excited that
> the Bush Administration appears willing to help in that effort."
>
> "Many of these historic routes were used for commerce initially,
> but they are now important for recreation access. We look forward to
> working cooperatively with this Administration to ensure the public
> can use these routes for access to our federal lands," Collins
> concluded.
>
> -
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:49:28 -0700
> From: Pat Rasmussen >
> Subject: ENS---Roadless Proposal Opponent Has Industry Ties
>
>
> ROADLESS PROPOSAL OPPONENT HAS INDUSTRY TIES
>
> WASHINGTON, DC, June 20, 2000 (ENS) - The Blue Ribbon Coalition, one
> of
> the most active opponents of the U.S. Forest Service's (USFS) efforts
> to
> preserve large, intact areas in national forests, is closely tied to
> the
> timber, mining and oil and gas industry, says a report released today
> by
> the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG). The Pocatello,
> Idaho
> based Coalition has opposed any proposal to protect roadless areas in
> national forests even if such a proposal would further the Coalition's
> stated recreational interests. While the group's mission statement
> values land stewardship and responsible use, the organization receives
> funding from 355 corporations including the American Forest and Paper
> Association, Exxon, and Sierra Forest Products.
>
> "Far from being a grassroots organization simply advancing an agenda
> of
> access to public lands for the public, the Blue Ribbon Coalition is
> working hand-in-hand with industry to keep our national forests open
> to chainsaws, bulldozers and oil rigs," said US PIRG forest campaign
> coordinator Aaron Viles. The US PIRG report, "The Blue Ribbon
> Coalition:
> Protector of Recreation or Industry?" was released as a battle is
> waged
> over how the remaining 60 million acres of pristine wilderness in
> national forests will be managed.
>
> In May, the USFS released a draft proposal on managing these wild
> forests, otherwise known as roadless areas, and is soliciting public
> comment and holding more than 400 public hearings around the country,
> including a hearing in Arlington, Virginia on June 26. The report is
> available at: http://www.wildforests.com
>
> ------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is supposed
> to be by the people, for the people.
> Yet I see no sign that they oppose the
> double taxation forest fee demo program.
> I find this quite odd since most BRC memebers
> are active users of the public lands.
>
> I sent emails, and phoned many members of the
> Blue Ribbon Coalition yet they can't seem to
> give me a solid answer on wether they oppose
> or favor the Forest Fee program.
>
> Interesting. But I did find this on their
> website:
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/index.cfm?mr=69
>
> It's a "small business" alert. Funny. I
> thought the BRC was about keeping trails open.
>
> And here is another thing I found. The
> BRC is sending out an "alert" because 14
> peercent of California (according to them) is
> protected wilderness, and a new wilderness bill
> would add 2.5 million acres.
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/index.cfm?mr=97
>
> My question is why are they so concerned?
> It's only 14 percent of the land base. I
> could see their case if the total was approaching
> 50 percent, or even 40 percent. But yet, it's only
> a very small percent. Why is the BRC trying to
> refuse wilderness protection for some of our best
> areas? I mean the rest of the state is open to
> motorized use and is roaded and trailed. I
> think at the end of all this you have to ask
> yourself who benefits. And you will see who
> does concerning the corrupt BRC and their scam.
>
>
> Continuing tosearch their site, I came across
> a link for minig? Hmmm..
>
> I thought the BRC was for reacreational access?
> What is a mining link doing on their site?
>
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/links.htm
>
> (look under "M")
>
>
> Also, I found a link to the Wilderness Act
> Reform Coalition(WARC)on their website:
>
>
> http://www.wildernessreform.com/
>
>
> The first thing you are greeted to on the WARC
> webpage is this quote:
>
> " Finally we are going to do something about
>
> the Wilderness Act".
>
> It appears this group supports building new r
> oads into congressionaly designtaed wilderness
> for logging and mining! Talk about extreme.
> Thats right, the propose building new roads
> for mining and logging into the Bob MArshal
> Wilderness, the Boundary Waters Canoe area
> Wilderness, and other national treasures.
> While they appear to be a access/recreation
> group, it seems their ultiamte cause is revealed
> towards the end of their explanation.
>
> "The Coalition supports the creation of committees
> composed of locally-based federal and state
> resource managers, local governments, local economic
> interests and local citizens which will initiate a
> process to override the basic non-management
> directive of the Wilderness Act on a case-by-case basis. "
>
>
> Wai a second here folks.....doesn't this sound
> like Bush's "Charter Forests"?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
> A27700-2002Feb5.html
>
>
> Bush Admin. Wants 'Charter Forests'
>
>
> More from WARC:
>
> "Developing a mechanism to permit active
> resource management in wilderness areas to
> achieve a wide range of public benefits
> and to respond to local needs"
>
>
> Bush supports Forest Fees
> http://www.everyweek.com/Archives/News.
> asp?no=2317
>
>
>
> So far here we have some very interesting
> findings. We have "recreation" groups severly
> concerned with resource extraction. We have
> the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a group which is
> born on recreation access by its members, not
> opposing a forest fee demo program. We have
> the Bush administration echoing these same
> things. The question is, who benefits? Where
> does the money trail lead? The answer is
> pretty simple. It leads right to the ORV
> industry, the logging inddustry, the mining
> industry, and yes, even Walt Disney Corporation.
> Thats right.
>
>
> Who supports the Forest Fee Demo program?
>
> http://www.freeourforests.org
>
>
>
> ARC is the American Recreation Coalition.
> They are a large group of corporations.
> Arc has currently been caught bragging about
> how theycreated the Fee Demo program:
>
> These corporations arent "evil" or "bad".
> But when put together, and in favor of charging
> money to US taxpayers to use their public
> lands, they become a clear enemy to our public
> lands and our use of them.
>
>
> Bush's domestic issues advisor,
> Terry Anderson is sitting back and smiling:
>
>
> The Bush administration, along with Terry
> L Anderson are planning to turn our national
> parks over to corporate control.
>
>
>
> GEORGE BUSH'S ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISOR: "
> AUCTION OFF ALL
> FEDERAL LANDS INCLUDING NATIONAL PARKS"
> Terry L. Anderson, environmental advisor to
>
> George W. Bush Jr., has
> proposed to auction off all 600 million acres of
> federal public lands in
> the
> U.S. over the next 20-40 years. This not only
> incudes every National
> Forest, National Wildlife Refuge, and BLM District,
> it also includes
> every National Park and Monument. Under his
> proposal, non-profit
> environmental groups could bid on the free
> market against the likes of
> Exxon to obtain the Arctic National Wildlife
> Refuge, or against
> Weyerhouser to obtain Yellowstone National
> Park, or against Phelps Dodge
> to obtain Grand Canyon National Park. Any
> bets on how the bidding will
> go?
> Anderson is closely associated with several
> conservative think tanks
> pushing for the privatization and/or
> commercialization of public lands.
> He is the director of the Political Economy
>
> Research Center, a senior
> fellow at the Hoover Institution. PERC's
> website links to the Thoreau
> Institute which has proposed, among other
> nonsense, to privatize
> ownership of endangered species. Anderson's
> proposal was published by
> the CATO institute and can be viewed at
> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-363es.html>
> Anderson freely admits that his corporate
> take-over agenda would be
> wildly unpopular with the American public.""
>
>
> If you go to the link you can see it is published
> in whole at the Cato Institute website, a right
> wing study corp.
>
>
>
> So what we have here is the Bush administration,
> the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Wilderness Act
> Reform Coalition, Walt Disney, and many other
> corporations trying to wrestle control of the
> public lands to private enterprises for private
> profit. In essence, they want to "Disney-fi"
> our public lands. This is a bad thing for
> every single user of public lands from a tree
> hugger to a snowmobiler to a horseback rider
> to a hunter or a fisherman.
>
> It is time to see through the fronts, the
> lies and the myths. We need to keep a careful
> eye out so our easily accesible public lands
> arent gone forever.------------
>
>
>
>
> ------------
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Clark Collins, 73563,1551
> To: (An Un-Named Senate Democratic Policy
> Committee staffer)
>
> Date: 6/28/00 2:17 PM
>
> Interior Riders
>
> As I mentioned to you on the phone, the only Interior
> Appropriations Committee rider that I am personally familier with is
> the
> one that would protect snowmobile access to our national parks. My
> understanding is that rider was dropped in the House bill and we are
> hopeful it will be re-submitted in the Senate version.
>
> I understand that as a staffer for the Democratic Policy Committee in
> the
> U.S. Senate you are looking for information on what organizations are
> supportive of the Interior Appropriations riders that have been
> mis-labeled
> by the environmental extremist industry as "anti-environment." While
> our
> organization's focus is on recreation access issues, such as the NPS
> proposed snowmobile ban, we are supportive of responsible multiple use
> of
> our public lands.
>
> We know that opposition to the Interior riders is coming from the
> environmental extremists community. Those organizations already have
> lists
> of most of the groups who oppose their anti-multiple-use viewpoint.
> You can
> get those lists from them. I hope you were really trying to get a
> handle on
> what's happening in the land use debates.
>
> The primary change in that whole debate, in my view, is that many rank
> and
> file members of the various resource industry unions are no longer
> voting
> the AFL-CIO party line. They realize that the environmental extremists
> are
> driving the industries - who provide their jobs - out of this country.
> Democrats who support the extreme anti-timber, anti-mining, anti-oil
> industry, and anti-recreation-access agenda of the so-called
> environmental
> community are losing the support of blue-collar workers. I myself was
> a
> Union electrician who supported the Democratic party in my home state
> of
> Idaho. I know a lot of former Democrats who've changed parties because
> of
> the land use issues.
>
> I hope that your call was Senator Dachle's attempt to get to the heart
> of
> what's happening at the grass roots on these land use issues. My view
> is
> that the Democratic party is going to need to dissassociate itself
> from the
> extreme environmental viewpoint or suffer additional erosion of their
> support from blue-collar workers. THAT'S THE MESSAGE I HOPE YOU WILL
> DELIVER. It's not to late to tell the Sierra Club to take a hike.
>
> Clark L. Collins, BlueRibbon Coalition
> for more information about the BlueRibbon Coalition check our website
> www.sharetrails.org
>
>
> -----------------------
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.msnbc.com/local/pisea/102348.asp?vts=1120031042>http://www.msnbc.com/local/pisea/102...vts=1120031042
>
> Bush opens up backcountry trails to vehicles
>
> By ROBERT McCLURE
> SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
>
> Jan. 1 - The Bush administration, in a move that has outraged
> environmentalists, is about to hand a big victory to Westerners who
> want
> to use a post-Civil War-era law to punch dirt-bike trails and roads
> into
> the backcountry.
> Untallied thousands of miles of long-abandoned wagon roads, cattle
> paths, Jeep trails and miners' routes potentially could be transformed
> into roads -- some of them paved. Many crisscross national parks,
> wildlife refuges and wilderness areas. Scheduled to go into effect
> shortly, the rule change was greeted warmly by off-road vehicle
> enthusiasts, whose numbers have exploded in recent years. Many oppose
> attempts to fence off wilderness areas where mechanized vehicles are
> banned. Where miners and wagons trains went, so should dirt bikes,
> they
> say.
> "We consider it a pretty substantial gain," said Clark Collins,
> executive director of the Blueribbon Coalition, an advocacy group for
> snowmobilers, dirt-bike and all-terrain-vehicle riders and 4X4
> enthusiasts based in Pocatello, Idaho.
> "That historic use in our view should provide for continued
> recreational
> use of those routes," he said. "The government should not be allowed
> to
> close those routes."
> Environmentalists say the amount of noise pollution, erosion, water
> pollution and other harm done to the backcountry will depend largely
> on
> how the rule is handled by the Bush administration. And they're
> worried.
> "I don't think Congress in 1866 meant to grant rights of way to
> off-road-vehicle trails," said Heidi McIntosh of the Southern Utah
> Wilderness Alliance. "This is flying under the radar screen, but I
> can't
> think of another initiative the Bush administration is pursuing that
> would have a more lasting and significant impact on public lands."
> In Washington state, huge areas -- including parts of North Cascades
> National Park -- are honeycombed by old mining trails that could be
> promoted by off-road-vehicle devotees as open to motorized traffic.
> Other national parks that could be affected include Grand Canyon,
> Death
> Valley, Joshua Tree, Denali, Wrangell-St. Elias and Rocky Mountain. A
> 1993 National Park Service report said the impact across 17.5 million
> acres in 68 national parks could be "devastating." The law was
> originally passed when Jesse James was just starting to rob banks and
> the U.S. cavalry was still fighting Indians. Seattle did not yet have
> a
> bank or a public schoolhouse. It made federal land available for wagon
> roads, miners' trails and other transportation routes. Its purpose was
> to open the West to settlement. It would be nine years after the law's
> passage before the internal combustion engine was invented. Decades
> would elapse before many newfangled automobiles were scooting around
> the
> landscape. The rule change announced on Christmas Eve by the Bush
> administration rolls back severe restrictions slapped on the use of
> the
> law under the Clinton administration.
> "We're really concerned about this because it seems like the
> administration is encouraging (road) claims that will affect the
> parks,"
> said Heather Weiner, Northwest director for the National Parks
> Conservation Association.
> Outside national parks, wilderness areas set aside by Congress in
> national forests and other federal lands also are in play. "It would
> disrupt the quiet and the feeling that you're away from civilization,"
> said Seattle activist Pat Goldsworthy. Lots of land is at stake. In
> California alone, 19 wilderness areas and proposed wilderness areas
> could be affected. A full accounting of such areas in Washington
> apparently has not been compiled, but the Alpine Lakes, Pasayten,
> Glacier Peak, Stephen Mather and Mount Baker wilderness areas all
> contain old miners' trails. "You name it, miners have ben everywhere"
> around the West, said Seattle attorney Karl Forsgaard, an
> environmental
> activist. "So keep that in mind."
> The one-sentence, 21-word statutory provision in question, known as
> Revised Statute 2477, was part of the nation's first general mining
> law,
> passed July 26, 1866. It says, "The right of way for the construction
> of
> highways across public lands not otherwise reserved for public
> purposes
> is hereby granted."
> The idea was to induce miners to continue to fan out across the West
> and
> settle it. To do that, they needed roads, or at least what passed for
> roads in those days.
> That law and its replacements in 1870 and 1872 gave miners the right
> to
> buy public land for $5 an acre or less if they did work necessary to
> discover minerals on the land. Those prices remain in effect today. A
> few years earlier, Congress had passed the Homestead Act, which
> provided
> cheap land to settlers willing to build ranches, farms and homes on
> the
> acreage. That law was repealed in 1976. That was the same year
> Congress
> repealed the roads-for-lands provision of the old mining law. However,
> at the time Congress gave states and counties 12 years to settle their
> old road claims. Ten years later, Congress in effect extended the
> deadline. But the Clinton administration fought most attempts to turn
> wilderness into roadways.
> Now, the Bush administration says it will finalize a rule giving
> Western
> states, counties and cities -- some avowedly hostile to federal
> control
> of wilderness areas -- a better chance to enforce those claims.
> The Clinton administration made it difficult to get the Interior
> Department's Bureau of Land Management to approve the road claims. A
> burst of litigation resulted, much of it in Alaska and Utah. In Utah,
> some 15,000 road claims are at issue; Alaska's state government has
> identified about 650.
> In Utah, county governments angry about the establishment of a
> national
> monument have become embroiled in a fight over the issue. The state
> sued
> the federal government.
> And in Alaska, the state government contends that even some section
> lines -- the imaginary grid that marks off every square mile in the
> nation -- are subject to the provision and can be claimed as roads.
> Until now, proving that would likely have involved an arduous legal
> battle.
> Under the Bush policy, though, the BLM can process the claims more
> readily as an administrative action.
> It makes sense, says the Bush administration, because it saves state
> and
> federal taxpayers money on court costs. "The department felt this
> allowed them to address the . . . issues in a more straightforward
> way,"
> said David Quick, a BLM spokesman. Stephen Griles, a former mining
> lobbyist who serves as the No. 2 official in the Interior Department,
> told a pro-development group in Alaska that the rule change was
> spurred
> in part by the advocacy of the Western Governors Association.
> "The department is poised to bring finality to this issue that has
> created unnecessary conflict between federal land managers and state
> and
> local governments," Griles told the Resource Development Council in
> November.
> Griles told the group the rules would be "consistent with historic
> regulation prior to 1976."
> What's changed since then is that sales of off-road vehicles,
> particularly three- and four-wheeled all-terrain vehicles, have
> skyrocketed. Enthusiasts have started to fight to maintain access to
> back-country trails.
> Meanwhile, environmental activists are trying to declare additional
> areas off-limits to the off-road vehicles, saying they disturb
> wildlife
> and hikers, cloud up streams and cause erosion of trails and
> hillsides.
> The new rule could help put to rest a controversy over a related
> Clinton-era policy, said the Blueribbon Coalition's Collins. A Clinton
> policy banned most logging, mining and other commercial uses in 58.5
> million acres of national forests where no roads are built. But under
> the new policy, if states, counties or others are able to establish a
> network of legally recognized "highways" through those acres -- even
> if
> the highways are dirt roads or something less -- it would give those
> fighting the so-called "roadless" proposal ammunition.
> At least that's what Collins hopes.
> "That's why we have a real interest in it," he said. "It does have the
> potential to influence this debate." In national forests, those trying
> to open a route to motorized travel would have to show that the route
> existed prior to the establishment of national forests -- around the
> turn of the last century for most places in the Pacific Northwest. In
> many places, though, miners preceded establishment of the forests. Old
> maps can pinpoint their routes.
> "You're talking about going back and doing some fairly detailed
> research
> in old historical documents," said Paul Turcke, a Boise, Idaho,
> attorney
> who represents off-road-vehicle enthusiasts, including the Blueribbon
> Coalition.
> It's clear that counties and states have the right to try to open up
> the
> old routes. Cities would, too, under the new rule. It remains to be
> seen
> whether private groups such as off-road-vehicle clubs could sue to
> open
> the routes.
> "If I had to predict, I would say the trend is going to be toward more
> private interests being involved," Turcke said.
> ----------------------------------------------
> P-I reporter Robert McClure can be reached at 206-448-8092 or
> >robertmcclure@ seattlepi.com
> --
> John Stewart
> Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
> Recreation
> Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com Webmaster,
> Tierra
> del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com Webmaster, Jeep-L:
> http://www.jeep-l.net
>
>
>
> BLUERIBBON COALITION NEWS RELEASE
> www.sharetrails.org
>
> RECREATIONISTS SUPPORT NORTON FOR INTERIOR
>
> POCATELLO, ID 12/29/00-- The Blue Ribbon Coalition, a national
> recreation
> group, is pleased with President-elect Bush's nomination of Gale
> Norton to
> be the next Secretary of the Interior. For many years, Coalition
> members
> have felt disenfranchised by the Clinton administration's continued
> top-down efforts to force unreasonable land closures on the American
> public.
>
> It appears that the new Interior Secretary will focus on better
> management
> of public lands rather than forcing non-collaborative land closures
> and
> restrictions on families who enjoy the great outdoors.
>
> Denver Colorado native Jack Welch, the president of the Blue Ribbon
> Coalition, says, "I have seen Ms. Norton work for the best interests
> of
> people and the environment in Colorado. I think she will be a
> refreshing
> change from the top-down DC-based philosophy of the Clinton
> administration. She will be a positive influence for multi-use of
> public
> lands 'FOR' the public instead of 'FROM' the public."
>
> Clark Collins, Executive Director for the Blue Ribbon Coalition, said,
> "President-elect Bush talked about rebuilding the worn down
> infrastructure
> -- after 8 years of neglect by the current administration -- of our
> National Parks and Forests and other public lands. Ms. Norton will
> most
> certainly focus on providing services to the public while protecting
> valuable resources. She will change Interior from its current status
> as a
> political arm of the White House to its dutiful role as a land
> management
> agency that serves people rather than politicians or special interest
> groups." ###
> article >,
> Viki > wrote:
>
>> <http://www.denver-rmn.com/election/1229gale4.shtml>
>
> -----------------------
>
>
>
> The Wilderness Act Reform Coalition
> After 35 Years, We Are Finally Going
> To Do Something About The Wilderness Act!
>
> Why we are organizing...
>
> September 3, 1999 marks the 35th anniversary of the passage of the
> Wilderness
> Act. During those 35 years, it has never been substantively amended.
> Yet,
> the history of the application of the Wilderness Act to the public's
> lands and
> resources provides overwhelming evidence that it must be significantly
> reformed if the public interest is to be served.
>
> September 3, 1999 also marks the launch of the Wilderness Act Reform
> Coalition
> (WARC), the first serious effort to reform this antiquated and
> poorly-conceived
> law. Much has changed since the Wilderness Act became law in 1964.
> Dozens of
> other laws have been passed since then to protect and
> responsibly-manage
> all of
> the public's lands and resources. Underpinning all of these laws--and
> guaranteeing their enforcement-- is a public sensitivity and
> commitment
> to wise
> resource management which was not present two generations ago when the
> Wilderness Act was enacted.
>
> Over this same time period our knowledge and understanding of how to
> accomplish
> this kind of wise and responsible resource management has increased
> exponentially. The demand side of the public's interest in their
> lands
> and
> resources has also increased exponentially. Recreation demand, for
> example,
> has increased far beyond what anyone could have anticipated 35 years
> ago
> and it
> has done so in directions which could not have been foreseen in 1964.
> Demand
> for water, energy and minerals, timber and other resources continues
> to
> go up
> as well.
>
> All of this means that as the 21st Century dawns we find ourselves
> facing more
> complex natural resources realities and challenges than ever before in
> our
> history. Meeting these challenges while at the same time serving the
> broad
> public interest will require careful and thoughtful balancing of all
> resource
> values with other social goals. It will also require integrating them
> all into
> a comprehensive management approach which will provide the greatest
> good
> for
> the greatest number of Americans over the longest period of time.
>
> These lands and resources, after all, belong to all of the American
> people.
> They deserve to enjoy the maximum benefits from them. Yet, the
> Wilderness Act,
> with its outdated, inflexible, and anti-management requirements,
> presently
> locks away over 100 million acres of the public's lands and resources
> from
> this kind of intelligent and integrated resource management. The
> inevitable
> result is the numerous negative impacts and damage to other resource
> values
> which are becoming increasingly apparent on the public's lands. The
> Wilderness Act remains frozen in another era. Due to the exponential
> changes
> which have occurred since it was passed, that era lies much further in
> the past
> than a mere 35 year linear time line would suggest.
>
> Our goals and objectives...
>
> The Wilderness Act Reform Coalition is being organized by members of
> citizen's
> groups and local government officials who have experienced firsthand
> the
>
> limitations and problems the Wilderness Act has caused. It has a
> simple
>
> mission: to reform the Wilderness Act. In carrying out that mission,
> the
> Coalition has identified two primary goals towards which it will
> initially work.
>
> The first goal is to make those changes in the wilderness law which
> are
> essential to mitigate the most serious resource and related problems
> it
> is
> causing. These problems range from prohibiting the application of
> sound
> resource management practices where needed to hampering important
> scientific
> research and jeopardizing our national defense.
>
> The second goal of the coalition is to use the failings of the
> Wilderness Act
> to help educate the public, the media and policy makers on the
> fundamentals of
> natural resource management. Most of the "conventional wisdom" about
> natural
> resource management to which most of them presently subscribe is
> simply
> wrong.
> It is essential that the public be better educated on the facts, the
> realities,
> the challenges and the options before there can be any responsible or
> useful
> policy debate on the most fundamental problems with the Wilderness Act
> or, for
> that matter, any of the other federal management laws and policies
> which
> also
> need to be reformed. That is why the Coalition has chosen a
> comparatively
> limited reform agenda for this opening round in what we recognize
> ultimately
> must be a broader and more comprehensive national policy debate.
>
> Our reform agenda...
>
> The Coalition currently advocates the following reforms of the
> Wilderness Act:
>
> 1. Developing a mechanism to permit active resource management in
> wilderness
> areas to achieve a wide range of public benefits and to respond to
> local needs.
> The inability or unwillingness of managers to intervene actively
> within
> wilderness areas to deal with local resource management problems or
> goals has
> resulted in economic harm to local communities and damage to other
> important
> natural resource and related values and objectives. The Coalition
> supports
> the creation of committees composed of locally-based federal and
> state
>
> resource managers, local governments, local economic interests and
> local
> citizens which will initiate a process to override the basic
> non-management
> directive of the Wilderness Act on a case-by-case basis.
>
> 2. Establishing a mechanism for appeal and override of local
> managers
> for
> scientific research. Wilderness advocates often tout the importance
> of
> wilderness designation to science. The reality, however, is that
> agency
> regulations make it difficult or impossible to conduct many
> scientific
>
> experiments in wilderness, particularly with modern and
> cost-effective
>
> scientific tools. Important scientific experiments have been
> opposed
> simply
> because they would take place within wilderness areas. A simple,
> quick and
> cheap appeal process must be created for scientists turned down by
> wilderness
> land managers.
>
> 3. Making it clear that such things as use of mechanized equipment
> and
> aircraft landings can occur in wilderness areas for search and
> rescue
> or law
> enforcement purposes. There have been incidents where these have
> been
>
> prevented by federal wilderness managers.
>
> 4. Requiring that federal managers use the most cost-effective
> management
> tools and technologies. These managers have largely imposed upon
> themselves
> a requirement that they use the "least tool" or the "minimum tool"
> to
> accomplish tasks such as noxious weed control, wildfire control or
> stabilization of historic sites. In practice, this means that hand
> tools are
> often used instead of power tools, horses are employed instead of
> helicopters
> and similar practices which waste tax dollars.
>
> 5. Clarifying that the prohibition on the use of mechanized
> transportation in
> wilderness areas refers only to intentional infractions. This would
> be, in
> effect, the "Bobby Unser Amendment" designed to prevent in the
> future
> the
> current situation in which he is being prosecuted by the federal
> government
> for possibly driving a snowmobile into a wilderness area in Colorado
> while
> lost in a life-threatening blizzard.
>
> 6. Pulling the boundaries of wilderness areas and wilderness study
> areas
> (WSA's) back from roads and prohibiting "cherrystemming." In many
> cases,
> the boundaries of wilderness areas and WSA's come right to the very
> edge of
> a road. Lawsuits have been filed or threatened against counties for
> going
> literally only a few feet into a WSA when doing necessary road
> maintenance
> work. It is clearly impossible to have a wilderness recreational
> experience
> in close proximity of a road. When formal wilderness areas are
> designated,
> the current practice is to pull the boundaries back a short distance
> from
> roads, depending on how the roads are categorized. That distance
> should be
> standardized and extended, probably to at least a quarter of a mile.
> The
> practice of "cherrystemming," or drawing wilderness boundaries right
> along
> both sides of a road to its end, sometimes for many miles, is a
> clear
> violation of the intent of the Wilderness Act that wilderness areas
> must
> first and foremost be roadless. It must be eliminated.
>
> 7. Permitting certain human-powered but non-motorized mechanized
> transport
> devices in wilderness areas. This would include mountain bikes and
> wheeled "game carriers" and similar devices. The explosion of
> mountain
> biking was not envisioned by the Congress when the Wilderness Act
> was
> passed.
> Opening up those wilderness areas which are suitable to mountain
> biking
> would provide a high quality recreation experience to more of the
> Americans
> who own these areas. Use of these human-powered conveyances would
> also
> reduce pressure on these areas in a number of ways, such as by
> dispersing
> recreation use over a wider area. At the same time opening these
> areas can
> also reduce the current or potential conflicts between various
> recreation
> uses on land outside of designated wilderness. The impact on the
> land
> from these types of mechanized recreation uses would be minimal to
> non-existent. Their presence in wilderness areas would not cause
> problems
> on aesthetic grounds for any but the most extreme wilderness purists
> and
> they represent only a tiny fraction of the Americans who own these
> lands.
>
> 8. Requiring that the resource potential in all WSA's and any other
> land
> proposed for wilderness be updated at least every ten years. For
> example,
> mineral surveys and estimates of oil and gas potential completed on
> many of
> the WSA's on BLM-managed land which have been recommended for
> wilderness
> designation are now 10 to 15 years old and in some cases even older.
> These reviews were often not very thorough even by the standards and
> technology available then, much less what is available now. Before
> any
> additional land is locked up in wilderness, Congress and the
> American
> people should at least have the best and most up-to-date information
> on
> which to weigh the resource trade offs and make decisions.
>
> 9. Stating clearly that wilderness designation or the presence of
> WSA's
> cannot interfere with military preparedness. In a number of
> instances,
> conflicts related to military overflights of designated or potential
> wilderness areas, or to the positioning of essential military
> equipment
> on the ground in these areas, poses a threat or a potential threat
> to
> our
> defense preparedness. The Coalition will push for clarification
> that
> when
> considering the impacts of any mission certified by the military as
> essential
> to the national defense, wilderness areas or WSA's will be treated
> exactly
> the same as any other land administered by that agency.
>
> 10. Clarifying that wilderness designation or WSA designation will
> not
> in and
> of itself result in any management or regulatory changes outside the
> wilderness or WSA boundaries. This change is essential to prohibit
> federal
> agencies or the courts from taking actions to impose any type of
> "buffer zones" around these areas, including such things as special
> management
> of "viewsheds" or asserting wilderness-based water rights.
>
> For additional information about the Wilderness Act Reform Coalition
> contact:
>
> WARC
> 1540 North Arthur
> Pocatello, ID 83204
> ph. (208)233-6570 fax (208)233-8906
> www.wildernessreform.com
>
>
> -------------------
>
>
>
>
> Turns out that the Ribbon Coalition owns the new "coalition," the
> Wilderness Act Reform Coalition outfit. See below for the office space
> and fax number they share in Pocatello. Chances are good that both of
> these "coalitions" are just one fat-assed, pencil-necked flack in the
> employ of some offshore jet-ski and ATV manufacturers. To unravel
> fronts set up by these greedy flag wavers (national defense, the
> people are the owners of the public land), just follow the money.
>
> Your search on the URL above using <sharetrails.org> will give you:
>
> Registrant:
> The BlueRibbon Coalition (SHARETRAILS-DOM)
> 1540 N. Arthur Ave.
> Pocatello, ID 83204
> US
>
> Domain Name: SHARETRAILS.ORG
>
> Administrative Contact:
> Patty, Michael (MP13224)
> 208-233-6570
> Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
> Hemsley, Kevin (KH315)
> (208) 528-6161
> Billing Contact:
> Hemsley, Kevin (KH315)
> (208) 528-6161
>
> Record last updated on 19-Apr-99.
> Record created on 19-Feb-97.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
> I'm going to call them the Ribbon Coalition, instead of the Blue
> Ribbon Coaltion, because there is an police-support organization on
> the Web which already uses the fuller name.
>
> The Ribbon Coalition's homepage shows its only "industry supporters"
> as Honda, Ski-Doo, Yamaha, Polaris, Horizon (chemicals for ATVs and
> snowmobiles), The Outdoor Channel, and Off-Road.com (don't ask). I
> don't conclude that this is a client list for their efforts to create
> more demand for the products of their "industry supporters."
>
> Yahoo yellow pages lists them under Non-Profit Organizations and
> Asosiations. (I wonder if the IRS and the Idaho attorney general's
> consumer fraud people have looked into advertising this tax status?
> Somebody remind me to find this AG's email address on the Idaho state
> homepage.)
>
> Who is the Michael Patty shown above? Internic says:
> Patty, Michael (MP9395)
> BlueRibbon Coalition
> 1540 N. Arthur
> Pocatello , ID 83204
> 208-233-6570 (FAX) 208-233-8906
>
> Record last updated on 02-Nov-98.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
> Who is Kevin Hemsley? Internic says:
> Hemsley, Kevin (KH1926)
> Sign Pro
> 765 S Woodruff Av
> Idaho Falls, ID 83404
> (208)523-8540
>
> Record last updated on 06-Mar-97.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
> What is Sign Pro? Yahoo yellow pages lists them under "Truck Lettering
> and Painting" and "Sign Manufacturing" at
>
> 765 S Woodruff Ave
> Idaho Falls, ID
> (208) 523-8540
>
> Now for the Ribbon guy's newest front. Your search on the URL at the
> top of this message using <wildernessreform.com> will give you:
>
> Registrant:
> Western Counties Institute (WILDERNESSREFORM-DOM)
> Po Box 27514
> SLC, UT 84127-0514
> US
>
> Domain Name: WILDERNESSREFORM.COM
>
> Administrative Contact:
> Kinsel, sheldon (SK1881)
> 801-654-4087
> Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
> Services, Fibernet Dns (FDS6)
> 801-223-9939
> Billing Contact:
> Kinsel, sheldon (SK1881)
> 801-654-4087
>
> Record last updated on 23-Aug-99.
> Record created on 23-Aug-99.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
>
> So, who is this Kinsel, sheldon? Internic says:
>
> Kinsel, sheldon (SK1881)
> Public Interest Communications
> box 516
> Heber, UT 84032
> 801-654-4087
>
> Record last updated on 09-Dec-96.
> Database last updated on 5-Sep-99 13:06:28 EDT.
>
> What is Public Interest Communications? Yahoo yellow pages shows it
> at:
> 555 E 200 S
> Salt Lake City, UT 84102
> (801) 364-2345
>
> and lists under "Fund Raising Counselors & Organizations." Now, why
> would sheldon set up a P.O. box in Heber, UT, when he has a perfectly
> good mailing address in Salt Lake City? Hmmmmmm.
>
> So the Ribbon Coalition guy hired a fund raiser (sheldon) for his
> latest incarnation, the WARC. Maybe his clients in Tokyo don't want to
> get involved in lobbying for changes in US law? I can only guess. If
> you want to ask him yourself, you can write to the address on one of
> his Web pages (this is all very confusing to this ol'country boy) at:
>
> Wilderness Reform Act Coalition
> Box 5449. Pocatello, Idaho 83202-0003
> 1540 North Arthur, Pocatello, ID 83204
> fax (208)233-8906
> http://www.wildernessreform.com