Skip to comments.Cabin owners 'deeply alarmed' by forest plan
Posted on 03/01/2002 9:37:48 AM PST by farmfriendEdited on 04/12/2004 5:33:32 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The proposed Sierra Nevada framework is regularly characterized as a dispute between pro- and anti-logging interests. However, because the plan would restrict human activity more than any previous forest plan, recreational interests, including cabin owners, would be adversely affected if this framework is upheld. Members of the National Forest Homeowners are deeply alarmed.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Historical forest management
Re "Sierra Nevada games," Your Views, Jan. 17: The Sierra Nevada Framework needed reviewing. There have been repeated calls by environmentalists to limit logging in the Sierra Nevada. They throw out rhetoric about the forest being overlogged and overgrazed, but the facts say otherwise.
Wildlife biologist George Gruell just published his book "Fire in Sierra Nevada Forests -- A photographic Interpretation of Ecological Change Since 1849" (Mountain Press). In it, he shows that contrary to environmentalists' claims of overlogging, the forests are extremely overgrown.
Native American tribes burned more than 1 million acres a year to keep forests thin and meadows large. Now forests throughout California are dying from overcrowding. In some areas there are more than 300 trees per acre that naturally supported fewer than 20.
Until people stop listening to the environmental fear mongers and start looking at what was and what is, we will continue to have superhot fires that kill the very forests we desire to protect.
- Maggie Bloom, Sacramento
California State Grange
"Ephemeral stream" is any trickle of water located anywhere snow is melting and flowing downhill. The proposed language states that human activity is not allowed within 150 feet of an ephemeral stream. Cabins are a human activity, as are camping, hiking, fishing, mountain biking and so on. Almost every cabin in the Sierra is surrounded by melting snow in the spring.
No human activity could occur within 300 feet of a meadow, stream bank, lake or river
That no human activity could occur within 300 feet shows their complete hatred of the average American. As a fly fisher, who never litters, catches and releases and leaves an area cleaner than when I came in (I pack out litter). I could be prevented from going withing 300 feet of a stream bank, lake or river. That makes it impossible to fish!
BTW, I admire anyone people's ability to fly fish. I would move more towards making the flies.
Great English there. Sometimes I wonder. First I misspell people's names, then I write funky. What next?
How exactly does one do this?
What concerns me more about forest policy is the closing of roads, trails, or otherwise limiting access to areas the the public used to enjoy for hiking, camping, hunting, or whatever.
I never knew what a Vernal Pool was until that trip. I noticed barbed wire around these colored puddles. The barbed wire was to keep the rancher's cattle off of these pools.
My son explained to me what the Vernal Pools were and the cost to those ranchers.
Later in May we drove up those same roads to go fly fishing in a river up in that area. The fences were still there. No Vernal pools, just dust bowls where the colored puddles were.
Your tax dollars at work.
Have a nice day.
The proposed Sierra Nevada framework
There's a high probability that whoever wrote and proposed the Sierra Nevada framework is insane and should probably be hospitalized. I'm serious. But then again, I also think 99% of members of congress have violated their oath of office at least once and most of them have several times.
"We will engage homeowners associations, offroad vehicle groups, the ski industry, and others to assure that we have carefully considered their concerns."
I may have made "D"s in spelling but I made "A"s in Trig.
Waspman, a new word.
Shore nuff! I rites phunky alla the danged time!
Hay! The "Sierra Nevada Framework," has never been nuthin but a dad blamed "Sierra Nevada FRAME-UP!"
Hay! It was forced on the USFS over the last 10 years by the same people that used "ballot box planning" to convert road rage over traffic congestion, coupled with a seige of litigation, into striking down the GREENEST master plan a County government had ever adopted in CA's history!
This used to be a pretty "good natured" place. I noticed a discussion of Prop #40 today by city slickers on the radio and they talked about how your drinking water quality MUST be improved with all of that bond money to buy up that land that their water runs through to keep it clean.
They talked as if they were desperate to get everyone off this land up here to protect their precious water quality. The idiots will never understand they been drinkin water that's been through someone else's kidneys, upstream, all of their lives.
I guess they really still believe that bears don't poop or pee in the woods. They wish we humans didn't exist up here and I call that a "hate crime!" Wildlife don't use septic systems!!! (Of course, neither do enviro-rafters who act like wildlife quite often)
This makes no sense to me at all, so I wonder if either the paper is misreading the law, or (probably just as likely) this is the law, however inane it may be. Ephermeral streams are a nearly constant prescence in a mountainous area, with little ones down every hollow on ridge-slope. Such a law would exclude human prescence from most of the mountains- probably the goal, aye?
The forest dept. burned a Boy Scott lodge because THEIR survey showed its foundation was two feet within Forest property. This was in the Sierra's in the early 80s. They have no respect for private ownership, use or recreation of the land. They are the privilege few and all others get out. I had owned one of those cabins for 8 years down here in Los Angeles. This plan has slowly been formed to get rid of all private ownership and private use of forestry land over the last twenty years whether it church camps, road side cafe, restaurants, cabins, etc. Soon, they've also been trying to force adjoining private land owners to sell to government as their eco regulations extend past forestry boundaries. If you want to experience life in a police state, own one of these cabins.
The cabin owners do more to protect the forest and lives than those professional eco-Nazis. Forestry personnel go home when it gets dark. We were the ones that called in the road accidents, fires, looting and vandalism of Government property (usually to the Sheriff dept, since the Forestry only had an answering machine from 5 pm to 9 am). I got the message that it was time to leave when we had a small brush fire threaten our cabins and the Forestry pulled their equipment back to protect the road and their water tanks and were willing to let us burn. Fortunately, Cabin owners have learned not to expect help from anyone in a uniform and we had our own fire hoses. As a result, my neighbor had a scorched carport (which the forestry initially forbade him to fix, but he did anyway).
Now our local forest require a parking permit to stop within the forestry boundaries, so don't break down if you're traveling through any forest land in southern Calif. and don't expect help from any ranger with a gun on his belt and ticket book in his back pocket.
See what happens when you talk to me, you start spelling funny. Civil Engineering was my goal at the time. I think I will remain an advocate at this point. What kind of Engineering are you in.
Click here for the California State Grange's policy on the Propositions.
$1,275.0 Land, Air, and Water Conservation
$1,057.5 Parks and Recreation
$267.5 Historical and Cultural Resources Preservation
I thought the top flycasters, such as yourself, could land a mayfly in a puddle from that distance...
But, when he tried to level it afterwards to return it to pasture, the feds told him the whole place was now a federally protected wetland. And couldn't be used as a pasture even when bone-dry.
IMO the press is incapable of reporting accurately on any legal issue more complicated than a jury saying guilty or not guilty.
The true statist point of view.
First, there is no such thing as government land. - The constitution forbids government holding of land, other than military reservations, and the District of Columbia.
The National Forests are totally outside the provisions of the constitution, and at this time violate the unconstitutional statute that created them in the first place.
If you had any knowledge at all, you would realize that these cabins are not in any way substitutes for an apartment. They are located far from jobs, schools, and supermarkets, and most are not suitable for year around habitation.
Just to clarify, the Constitution does not forbid the governments of the States from holding land. In fact, the equal footing doctrine dictates that the Federal government should have quit-claimed the lands of the territories when they became states. It didn't, in direct violation of the Constitution. Why? Congress was funding operations from land sales.
Congress effectively diluted the citizenship of those states when they did not quit-claim the land. As far as I am concerned, since the adoption 14th Amendmen,t this has been a violation of the equal protection clause.
Stay well - Stay safe - stay armed - Yorktown
That's a fact. Read Carry_Okie's Book if you want to understand who is behind the siege, why and how they are accomplishing it.
Property Rights Rally - Brevard, NC from Sept. 2000.
Right there the plan should be challenged on its constitutionality. WE OWN THIS LAND!
Our tax dollars paid for it, and pay to maintain the parks. The executive branch cannot unilaterally declare it off-limits...the Fifth Amendment takings clause requires that the owners make that decision via the legislative branch.
I truly hate what this country is becoming.