Self-serving politicians shouldn't try to manage land
This letter is in regard to the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revisions, which include Wallowa-Whitman, Umatilla and Malheur National Forests (almost 5 million acres that belong to all the citizens of the United States.
Every plant, microorganism, and animal on Earth exists within an ecosystem, a complex network of interdependent relationships in which each individual strand is important and contributes to the success of the whole. Ecosystems, in turn, interact with one another to form the biosphere (the zone of life on our planet). These systems, so important to the world around us, are far from stable. The intermountain lowlands of the western United States is considered one of the most imperiled ecosystems in North America.
The rapid growth of human population and their attendant technologies have created unprecedented forces of ecological change. Once you understand the biosphere's interactive network of relationships, you develop a deeper appreciation of the complexity of the life around us.
Dale Bosworth, the former Forest Service Chief, named unrestricted motor vehicle use as one of the four major threats to national forests. He specifically cited the growing popularity of ATVs and their potential to contribute to erosion, harassment of wildlife and conflict with other forest users. He ordered each national forest to write a travel management plan that would designate which roads, trails and areas would be open to motor vehicles.
A ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that "there can be no doubt that the Dept. of Agriculture (of which the Forest Service is a part) possesses statutory authority to regulate activities related to mining even in non-wilderness areas in order to preserve the national forests."
I believe this applies to all other activity in our national forests. We are looking at a situation where maybe 1 percent or less of the U.S. citizens are trying to dictate the use of our national forests to the other 99 percent. Is this social justice?
We need to keep the self-serving state and local politicians from trying to manage our public lands and let the Forest Service do their job.
Robert L. Kern
Editor's note: The version of this letter that ran in Monday's edition contained several typographical errors that were not contained in the original letter submitted for publication.
Thanks, counties, for opposing forest plan
Locked and Loaded Off Road Group of Baker City would like to thank the representatives from the Eastern Oregon Counties Association (EOCA), including our three commissioners from Baker County, for objecting to the Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision 2014 draft.
Those of us who have been involved with the previous attempt to pass the WWNF Travel Management Plan, the BLM Draft Resource Management Plan, the BLM Sage Grouse commenting period and now the BMFPR comment period will stay vigilant and it is refreshing to know that we have the support of groups such as the EOCA.
We hope that all people who live, work and recreate in the Blues are paying attention at all times and that you make your voice be heard now and in the future. As stated in the Baker City Herald article on Aug. 5, timber harvesting has to increase and "the plan makes no guarantee that the forests will meet those projected timber volumes" as stated in the plan alternatives D and E. It will not only benefit the forest health but add revenue to surrounding communities and provide proper funding for USFS maintenance. The discussion that the "BMFPR sets a stage for the USFS to impose a TMP that bans motorized vehicles from a substantial number of roads in the WWNF" is all too real and it's not fair. If maintaining the current forest roads is a money issue and in turn is the reason behind closing multiple roads in the Blues then increased timber harvesting is the answer. Those of us who spend time in the Blues for any reason, should not be denied access but should be encouraged to enjoy what is ours. The USFS multiple use mandate should be held in highest regard and properly managed by the USFS as a steward of the Blues and not a dictator.
Aug. 15 is the deadline to comment on the BMFPR
Guide to commenting: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/BlueMtnsPlanRevision
Submit comments to: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/BlueMountainForestPlanRevisionComments
USPS Mail to: Blue Mountains Plan Revisions Team, P.O. Box 907, Baker City, OR 97814.
On behalf of the Locked and Loaded Off Road Group
Democrats' ideas won't save the planet
Save the planet! a local Democratic official tells us; vote Democratic. But this fellow doesn't tell us that the Democratic climate change program is both expensive and ineffective.
One Democratic policy is to allow the price of gasoline to rise, so people will buy smaller cars. We now pay nearly $4 a gallon for gasoline; when President Obama was inaugurated, it sold for under $2. What's that done to your budget? Wind turbine-generated electricity costs around four times as much as that from conventional generators; the Democratic plan requires public utilities to purchase that electricity despite its high cost. That expensive electricity shows up in your monthly OTEC bills. Energy costs are such a vital part of our economy that expensive energy makes everything else more expensive as well.
But do the Democratic policies actually save the planet? Not really. Consider the much ballyhooed higher standards for fuel efficiency in our automobiles. Cram Americans into motorized sardine cans for 30 years and you put off drowning of the Statue of Liberty for a whole month. As long as fossil fuels are burned, carbon dioxide will continue to accumulate in the earth's atmosphere. This buildup will stop only when all countries in the entire world stop burning fossil fuels. That's not going to happen. The only significant outcome of Democratic climate change policies is that Al Gore and his politically connected buddies are getting rich at our expense.
Our Democratic official also doesn't tell us that there have been periods in recorded human history when the earth's climate was significantly warmer than it is today. He leaves out the fact that none of the calamities shown so graphically in Al Gore's film actually happened during those warm centuries. He fails to mention that the scientists who study the history of the earth's climate call these warmest times climactic optimums, for conditions then were the most favorable for mankind.
Our local fellow wants us to vote Democratic so we can lower our standard of living yet have no significant impact on what will happen in the coming decades. No thanks!