Meet Kerry White , Blue Ribbon member - but in actuality an industry pawn
votegreen=votebush
What does logging have to dow with trail riding and the Blue Ribbon
Coalition?
Why is Kerry White so hung up on getting the cut out when he is a
member of "recreational" groups?
Once again, much like the BLue Ribbon Coalition, there is no mention
of motorized recreation, just promotion of resource extraction. The
Blue Ribbon Coalition and it's members are a disgrace to modern man.
Non-human interests must not drive forest policy
10/04/02
By Kerry White
During the week of Sept. 16, a cabal of eco-whacko groups appealed in
court to stop the federal government from allowing 226 acres in the
Gallatin National Forest from being logged and actively managed. Reed
Noss of "The Wildlands Project" states his position this way: "The
collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the
needs and desires of humans." This irresponsible view leaves little
doubt in my mind about the agenda of the extreme environmentalists.
With little or no respect for human needs I now understand that they
are working to move the people out. To them the garden we live in is
not to be actively managed but instead left to fend for itself.
I recently read the new mission statement of the Sonoran Institute
which exposes their primary goal of controlling private land.
Executive director Luther Propst writes, "Protected areas in the West
are simply not large enough to sustain the wildlife they were created
to protect." I disagree with Mr. Propst as I believe public lands were
created for the enjoyment of the people. To elevate non-human needs
above human needs is ludicrous. To target private lands because public
lands are not enough tells me that these non-human crusaders will stop
at nothing to gain control of both private and public property all
over the world. Many of their ideas have recently come under fire from
governors, legislators and even President Bush. I support the
president's "Healthy Forest Initiative," a common sense approach to
active management.
I want to share an article written by Don Amador. Don is the western
representative for the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a multiple-use advocate
headquartered in Idaho. This story echoes my feelings and I couldn't
say it any better. Don writes:
"Tragically missing in the current debate of 'enviro lawsuits/appeals
of forest fuel load reduction programs' is the effect of the
wildfire's air pollution on the people located hundreds of miles from
the fire."
"I started to think about this on a recent vacation at the King Range
National Conservation Area in northwest California. My efforts to
photograph the mountain splendors in this region were blocked by the
thick brown haze generated from the Oregon fires burning almost 150
miles away.
The active management of our forests -- substantial mechanical
treatment and prescribed burning -- is something that must become a
reality. As one who grew up in the small timber town of Eureka,
Calif., in the 1950s and ’60s, here is my view on active
management vs. eco-lawsuits.
Active management programs on our national forests will not cause
elderly citizens and children living 100 to 200 miles from a wildfire
to be asked to stay indoors by state officials because of a
smoke-generated smog alert.
Active management of public lands will not cause families to cancel
their vacations at Lake Almanor in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range
because the dominating and breath-taking views of Mt. Lassen in Lassen
Volcanic National Park are obscured by a filthy veil of brown air.
Active management will not require the chief of the Forest Service in
Washington, D.C., to ask his agency to stop campground projects and
trail maintenance programs so that those funds can be redirected to
fire fighting.
Active management will not require the evacuation of towns in
Colorado, Oregon, and California. It will not destroy the homes and
property of rural residents. It will not take the lives of brave
firefighters and leave those families without a mom or dad.
Active management will not destroy the critical habitat of threatened
and endangered species. It will not char the bodies of bear, deer,
pine marten, red fox and other animals that can't outrun a fast moving
flame.
Active management will not ruin for generations the many
family-oriented recreation areas on Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management public lands.
As smoke gets in the eyes of everyday Americans we no longer have the
option of allowing green lawsuits and appeals to stop the active
management of our forests. Our forestry professionals must be allowed
to do their job."
All these things Don says are true and the fact that we can't thin 226
acres of precious Gallatin Forest makes me sick. We were very lucky
this year and our forest didn't burn, but we all should realize that
if nothing is done in the way of active forest management soon it will
burn. My first question is why thinning of Sen. Daschle's forest in
South Dakota can be such a good idea while the rest of the nation's
forests aren't worth saving. My second question is how do
environmental groups get away with using federal grant money to fund
lawsuits against federal government agencies like the Forest Service,
to stop active forest management projects like thinning. Who's in
charge here?
Kerry White is a member of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, Montana Trail
Riders Association, Big Sky Trail Preservers and the Montana
Snowmobile Association.
J5
my money at the BRC as they're obviously pissing you off which makes me
happy!
j5
--
J5's jeep page at http://www.users.qwest.net/~j5/
"votegreen=votebush" <flat...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:69a2eaff.02102...@posting.google.com...
>
http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?pnpid=311&show=archivedetails&Arch