+menu-


  • Category Archives KICKED OFF AND OUT
  • WOW Opposition to Wild Olympics

    WOW Opposition to Wild Olympics

    Yesterday, Ross and I, (two 74 year old senior citizens) put up (12) “STOP WILD OLYMPICS” signs on highway 101.

    Yes, it is that important….

    TO THWART THE GOVERNMENTS  GRABBING OF MORE OF OUR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND FOR MORE WILD WILDERNESS LAND AND RIVERS IN THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK

    Have you seen the signs? Do you know what is behind them? Why the opposition to MORE Wild Olympics?

    The signs read  Stop Wild Olympics $900 Million Land Grab

    Do you know what is behind them? (more info at the bottom)

    Most people have no knowledge of these vast,  LAND AND POWER GRAB encroachments to take our property and property rights on the Olympic Peninsula, and it is time that the truth be known

    Why the opposition to MORE Wild?

    FEAR…. FEAR OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO DO AMERICAN CITIZENS.

    2015  MORE WILD OLYMPICS PLUS MORE WILDERNESS,  CREATES MORE FEAR, MORE ECONOMIC STARVATION, MORE POVERTY, MORE UNEMPLOYMENT, MORE FEAR OF GRABBING OF  MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN IN FAMILIES FOR GENERATIONS BY IMMINENT DOMAIN

    Do you know who is behind this?

    Our own federal elected representatives.

    Grabbing our, public and private land, grabbing our economy,  NO logging, NO mining, NO commercial development or NO motorized vehicle access, grabbing our access to our PUBLIC USE AND ENJOYMENT  on 126,000 acres of public land  It would also designate 19 rivers on the OLYMPIC PENINSULA  as wild and scenic.

    This land grabbing will never STOP  unless we the people, property owners and tax payers start fighting back to STOP THE LAND GRAB and the taking of all our property on the Olympic Peninsula.

    We have a bloated bureaucracy providing nothing, living off of our tax dollars and still grabbing, to take MORE of our public and private land from us, with our more of our own tax dollars.

    How can a Federal Government of ours pay money MORE MONEY for things like this when our government, the  UNITED STATES NATIONAL DEBT IS

     $18,161,486,020,506.42 TRILLION DOLLARS.?

    ——————————————————————————————————-

    WHO KNEW? DID YOU KNOW?

    WILDERNESS AREAS ARE WITHDRAWN FROM THE PUBLIC LAND LAWS and the mining and mineral leasing laws. (read more, Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress)

    U.S. Code: Title 43 – PUBLIC LANDS | US Law | LII / Legal …

    www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43

    Legal Information Institute

    CHAPTER 1—BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (§§ 1–25_to_25b) · CHAPTER … CHAPTER 13—FEDERAL LANDS INCLUDED IN STATE IRRIGATION …

    ——————————————————————————————-

    WILDERNESS AREAS ARE WITHDRAWN FROM THE PUBLIC LAND LAWS

     The complete 42 chapters of Public Land laws are listed at the bottom.

    ——————————————————————————————————

    950,000 ACRES OF WILD WILDERNESS DESIGNATION, of the OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARKS  million acres of AMERICAN public land has already been grabbed  by CONGRESS

    ALREADY  CONTROLLED AND PROTECTED, OFF LIMITS, UNTRAMMELED,  “WILD OLYMPICS” WILDERNESS  BY THE UNITED NATIONS.

    KILMER AND MURRAY WANT TO GRAB MORE “WILD OLYMPICS” WILDERNESS

    The Olympic Peninsula ECONOMY DOES NOT GROW ON WILDERNESS

    The Olympic Peninsula ECONOMY GROWS ON TREES

    The trees that grow in “Wild Olympics’ Wilderness don’t WORK for the ECONOMY

    And, they don’t WORK for Olympic Peninsula WORKING FAMILIES

    ————————————————————————————

    Olympic Peninsula JOBS DON’T GROW IN THE “WILD OLYMPICS WILDERNESS”

    Olympic Peninsula  OUR JOBS GROW ON TREES

    Olympic Peninsula  OUR ECONOMY GROWS ON TREES

    Olympic Peninsula  OUR MONEY GROWS ON TREES

    ————————————————————————————–

    The  WILD OLYMPICS IS A FEDERAL LAND GRAB WILL THAT SHALL CLOSE roads and cut off recreational access to our public lands.  

    Most areas protected as or proposed for WILDERNESS are undeveloped, with few (if any) signs of human activity, such as ROADS and structures

    ———————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | The Roadless Crew Cantwell and Inslee

    The Wilderness  designation prohibits commercial  activities, motorized access, and human infrastructure from wilderness area. The WILDERNESS authority is permanent, with limited access permitted for specific areas, uses, and times, or with the authority to operate and maintain pre-existing infrastructure.

    The potential losses (opportunity costs) for some resources, such as timber harvesting, can be determined with relative accuracy

    ——————————————————————————

    The “CONS” of Wilderness Designations

    Opponents of wilderness generally seek to retain development options for federal lands. The potential use of lands and resources can provide economic opportunities in extracting and developing the resources, especially in the relatively rural communities in and around the federal lands. The principal cost of a wilderness designation is the lost opportunity for economic activity resulting from resource extraction and development.

    While some economic activities, such as grazing ( the Bundy Ranch?) and outfitting, are allowed to continue within wilderness areas, many are prohibited. The potential losses (opportunity costs) for some resources, such as timber harvesting, can be determined with relative accuracy, since the quality and quantity of the resource can be measured.

    ————————————————————-

     IF WE “THE PEOPLE” DON’T WANT CONGRESS TO GRAB MORE PUBLIC LAND.…

    “WE THE PEOPLE” SHOULD MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE…

    “WE THE PEOPLE”  SHOULD MAKE EVERY ATTEMPT TO MAKE MORE WILD OLYMPICS IMPOSSIBLE….

    —————————————————————————————————-

    WILDERNESS AREAS ARE WITHDRAWN FROM THE PUBLIC LAND LAWS

     The complete 42 chapters

    U.S. Code: Title 43 – PUBLIC LANDS

    prev | next

    ———————————————————————————————-

    I received this comment on the STOP WILD SIGNS

    ———————————————-

    The 900 million $ land grab sign is not very applicable since the WOC dropped the private property expansion of ONP.  Only an observation on my part

    —————————————————————————————

    My response was…

    Any $$$ amount on the WILD OLYMPICS LAND GRABBING is just a drop in the bucket…

    The cumulative $$$ total of the land grabs that increased the park to nearly a million acres?

    The cumulative $$$ total of the loss of income to the forest industry?

    The cumulative $$$ total of the loss of income mill closures?

    The potential losses (opportunity costs) for some resources, such as timber harvesting, can be determined with relative accuracy

    There is no reference to time frame or origin of the $$$ amount on the signs.

    It is just a nice round number that grabs  attention.

    For all we know?? it could be BILLIONS of dollars???

    Thank you for caring enough to observe and respond.

     


  • New Zealand’s Logging History

    New Zealand’s  History of Logging

    2. Impacts and effectiveness of logging bans in natural …

    HMMM… THIS REVIEW COVERS THE EVOLUTION OF THE COUNTRY’S LOGGING BAN SINCE THE EARLY 1970S, when the Government decided to phase out the last logging operations on State-owned natural forests in the WEST COAST REGION. the role of Government in forestry and the future use of natural forests during the last three decades. THE EVENTS THAT PLAYED MAJOR ROLES IN THE WAY LOGGING RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED.

    AFTER FORESTS WITHIN CATCHMENT PROTECTION AREAS, NATIONAL PARKS, AND OTHER KEY RESERVE AREAS ARE REMOVED FROM THE AVAILABLE HARVEST AREA, AN ESTIMATED 930 000 HA OF LOGGED AND UNLOGGED FORESTS ON STATE LANDS REMAIN DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE LOGGING BAN.

    snippet Social implications

    The impacts on employment and income generation from logging restrictions have been felt most in the smaller milling-dependant communities. The pre-1987 restrictions especially affected people living in communities in the central North Island, South Island West Coast, and Southland, which served older mills cutting natural timber. Some smaller isolated towns, notably those serving larger mills, lost substantial populations or closed completely. Some regional communities also supported farming and other activities, or alternative employment was available in the planted forest operations.

    DOES THIS SOUND VAGUELY FAMILIAR? OR ALL TO FAMILIAR?

     OH, YES, BUT, THAT’S  NOT ABOUT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

     THAT’S ABOUT NEW ZEALAND

    Indeed, there is a difference.

    NEW ZEALAND DIDN’T HAVE THE ENDANGERED SPOTTED OWL

    AND NEW ZEALAND BANNED THE EXPORT OF TIMBER.

    Of course, in the United States of America, IT’S JUST THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL

    IN NEW ZEALAND IT IS THE FEDERAL STATE LAW.

    PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE

    2. Impacts and effectiveness of logging bans in natural …

    ——————————————————————————

    If the U.S. congress is first allowed to legislate “WILD” and “VOTE”  to make all public trust and National Park land “WILD FIRST “?  Shall THE U.S. FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT, by due process, automatically  remove the legal entitlement of income we the people have from The Enabling Act?

      Behind My Back | The ENABLING ACT February 22, 1889

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/…/the-enablingact-february-22-1889/

    Mar 9, 2014 – Way back then, the Federal Government and the elected representative gave to and enabled American citizens, they made donations of public …

    ——————————————————————————————————–

    NEW ZEALAND’S  HISTORY OF LOGGING

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=2.nEW+ZELAND+Impacts+and+effectiveness+of+logging+bans+in+natural+…

    2. Impacts and effectiveness of logging bans in natural …

    www.fao.org/docrep/…/x6967e05.ht…

    Food and Agriculture Organization

    New Zealand’s natural forests have been the subject of protracted public and … which eventually became the main source of timber in New Zealand. Another was the reorganization of the Government natural resources … However, much of the natural forests in all ownerships cover steep land and other protection areas. New Zealand’s renewable plantation forests.

    http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6967e/x6967e05.htm

    2. IMPACTS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF LOGGING BANS IN NATURAL FORESTS: NEW ZEALAND

     ALAN REID

    INTRODUCTION

    New Zealand’s natural forests have been the subject of protracted public and political debate regarding the role of Government in forestry and the future use of natural forests during the last three decades. THIS REVIEW COVERS THE EVOLUTION OF THE COUNTRY’S LOGGING BAN SINCE THE EARLY 1970S, when public interest and disquiet over natural forest management became prominent, through late 1999 when the Government decided to phase out the last logging operations on State-owned natural forests in the West Coast region.

    Some events played major roles in the way logging restrictions have been implemented. One was the development of planted forests of introduced species, which eventually became the main source of timber in New Zealand. Another was the reorganization of the Government natural resources administration in the mid-1980s, which resulted in the separation of commercial planted forests and natural forests.

    Prior to these events, large areas of natural forests covering New Zealand’s rugged and erosion-prone terrain were also set aside for water and soil protection. Such reservation became a feature of forest management when the first Government policy on natural forest management and timber sales was formulated.

    The exclusion of timber harvests from other natural forests, as a matter of national policy for conservation reasons, is a relatively recent development in New Zealand. Logging restrictions followed growing public interest in natural forest management in the 1970s, and subsequent political changes affecting forestry administration. The Government reorganized the natural forest administration in 1987. Maturing planted forests provide alternative raw material in many parts of the country, cushioning the effect of these changes in the forest industry.

    After 1987, new policies and legislation focused on private forests. Timber harvests have not been banned in these forests. Commercial timber harvests are, however, restricted by export, sawmilling, and sustainable forest management constraints.

    NATURAL FOREST AREAS AFFECTED BY LOGGING BANS

    Logging restrictions eventually will apply to about 5.1 million ha of New Zealand’s State-owned natural forests. An additional 142 000 ha of State-owned natural forests and about 1.3 million ha of private forests are subject to restrictions that limit commercial timber harvest according to sustainable forest management guidelines. However, much of the natural forests in all ownerships cover steep land and other protection areas. AFTER FORESTS WITHIN CATCHMENT PROTECTION AREAS, NATIONAL PARKS, AND OTHER KEY RESERVE AREAS ARE REMOVED FROM THE AVAILABLE HARVEST AREA, AN ESTIMATED 930 000 HA OF LOGGED AND UNLOGGED FORESTS ON STATE LANDS REMAIN DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE LOGGING BAN. Similarly, about 670 000 ha of private forests are potentially available for commercial management, although only about 124 000 ha of this area are currently of commercial interest.

    snippet, Social implications

    The impacts on employment and income generation from logging restrictions have been felt most in the smaller milling-dependant communities. The pre-1987 restrictions especially affected people living in communities in the central North Island, South Island West Coast, and Southland, which served older mills cutting natural timber. Some smaller isolated towns, notably those serving larger mills, lost substantial populations or closed completely. Some regional communities also supported farming and other activities, or alternative employment was available in the planted forest operations.

    ————————————————————————————-

    The Outrage of WA DNR Logging? I posted it on my website.

    As usual, one thing led to another, connecting the dots.

    THE IGNORANCE OF THE UNIFORMED PUBLIC ON LOGGING AND HARVESTING? Federal Public Trust Land, WA State Public Trust Land  and  the entire private forest land industry has a very serious impact on the economy of the of Washington State.

    As usual, one thing led to another, dot to dot.

    (instant visual identification of a tree farm, for the tourists)

     PHOTOS OF TREE FARMS IN NEW ZEALAND

    George C. Rains Sr. my Dad, as a private property owner of 3000 acres of timberland in Clallam County WA.  made a trip to New Zealand.  I have his photo album of that New Zealand trip. He took pictures of tree farms. They were beautiful, they looked exactly like a farm, the trees were lined up like corn rows, evenly spaced,  no under growth, and easily identifiable from a distance as a  renewable tree farm.

     RESEARCHING THE  FOLLOWING WAS WHY GEORGE C. RAINS SR.  FLEW TO NEW ZEALAND

    ——————————————————————————————————

    WHAT CAN AMERICAN CITIZENS  LEARN FROM  NEW ZEALAND’S LOGGING  HISTORY?

    LOOKING BACK AND MOVING FORWARD?

    —————————————————————–

    NEW ZEALAND’S RENEWABLE PLANTATION FORESTS.

    Jenkin’s range of timber products are made from radiata pine grown in NEW ZEALAND’S RENEWABLE PLANTATION FORESTS.

    http://jenkin.co.nz/why-wood

    Why Wood | Jenkin Timber Ltd

    jenkin.co.nz/why-wood

    Wood is also a most renewable and sustainable building material. The cycle of planting and … For further information on finger-jointing visit www.nzwood.co.nz.

    Wood has long been a popular choice for building. It is an attractive natural product that offers design flexibility, durability, and thermal, acoustic, and fire performance. Wood is also a most renewable and sustainable building material. The cycle of planting and harvesting of plantation forests results in the removal and storage of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This helps make timber an environmentally friendly choice for anyone concerned about their carbon footprint.

    Jenkin’s range of timber products are made from radiata pine grown in New Zealand’s renewable plantation forests.

    AS A RESULT OF DECADES OF INVESTMENT IN FORESTRY RESEARCH, New Zealand’s radiata pine forests produce timber of uniform density and colour. This timber is finger-jointed which improves on the original physical and structural characteristics of radiata pine by over 400%.

    Jenkin exclusively uses timber produced in New Zealand’s radiata pine plantation forests. The timber from these forests meets the standards set by the international Forest Stewardship Council® (FSC) for environmentally responsible, socially beneficial, and economically viable forest management. This means Jenkin can supply product that carries the prized FSC® certification.

    When you choose a New Zealand manufactured pine product made from timber sourced from one of our sustainably managed forests you are making a responsible choice.

    ——————————————————————–

    New Zealand

    www.fao.org/…/003/…/Y1720E19.H…

    Food and Agriculture Organization

    (Note: New Zealand’s domestic market for forest products is estimated at … Annual new plantation development in 2000 was 37 440 ha plus around 30 000 ha …. Many New Zealand exporters use the themes of environmental friendly, renewable … Employment statistics: The New Zealand forest industry employs around 25 …

    —————————————————–

    r6Killerby.doc – unece

    www.unece.org/…/tim

    United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

    The New Zealand timber industry has responded with User Guides and Design … The country currently has 1.8 million hectares of commercial plantation forest, with … New Zealand producers tend to often emphasise the versatile, reliable, renewable ….. OWNERS ASSOCIATION 2002a: Forestry Facts and Figures 2002/03.

     


  • Electronic Warfare Public Forums

    Electronic Warfare Public Forums

    Large crowd protests Navy electronic warfare training plan at PA forum

    Many in the crowd grew upset when they learned THE FORUM was not being recorded and the questions would not be used as part of the comments on the proposal. Instead, officials said questions and comments have to be submitted in writing through the formal comment process.

    AT AN OPEN PUBLIC FORUM…YOU ARE GIVEN THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH, PROTECTION YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BE  LOUD, AND EVEN THE IGNORANT DISRUPTIVE PUBLIC IS WELCOMED, FREE SPEAKING, EVEN SHOUTING THOSE PUBLIC SERVANTS DOWN IS ALLOWED.

    ————————————————-

    The bottom line

    ARE THE FEDS JUST ALLOWING US TO BLOW OFF STEAM AT A LOCAL PUBLIC FORUM?

    OR ARE THE FEDS JUST BLOWING US OFF?

    IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE….. What difference does it make?

    Electronic Warfare is FEDERAL.  Don’t waste your time sending comments through the formal comment process.

    SEND YOUR OBJECTIONS TO YOUR FEDERAL ELECTED CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES,

    (1) THEY ARE NOT PROTECTING US

    (2)  THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTING OUR BEST INTERESTS

     (3)  AND, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE TO US  FOR THE NAVY ELECTRONIC WARFARE PROJECT.

    I have three, Rep. Kilmer, Senators Murray and Cantwell.

    WHAT DIFFERENCE DO THEY  MAKE?

    ———————————————————————————-

    ARE LOCAL PUBLIC FORUMS? PUBLIC MEETING? EFFECTIVE?

    PUBLIC FORUM

     Public forum doctrine relies heavily on history and tradition. A location is deemed a “traditional public forum” or a “general public forum” and given THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION when it has “immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public, and, time out of mind, [has] been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.” Strict scrutiny applies to any content-based speech restriction in these locations.

    PUBLIC MEETINGS

     Public meetings shouldn’t be marred by insults, unruly behavior 
    The U.S. Forest Service organizes open meetings to answer questions and to give everyone a chance to weigh in on the use of our public lands. WHEN PEOPLE ARE INTIMIDATED INTO SILENCE, they are effectively DENIED ACCESS TO A PUBLIC FORUM.

    —————————————————————————————

    IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE

    ARE YOU ONE OF THE IGNORANT, DISRUPTIVE, PUBLIC THAT ATTENDS PUBLIC FORUMS OR PUBLIC MEETINGS?

    AT AN OPEN PUBLIC MEETING? DISRUPTIVE PUBLIC ATTENDEES have to sit down and shut up… or they will KICK YOU OUT

    AT AN OPEN PUBLIC FORUM…YOU ARE GIVEN THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH, PROTECTION YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BE  LOUD, AND EVEN THE IGNORANT DISRUPTIVE PUBLIC IS WELCOMED,  WOW FREE SPEAKING, EVEN SHOUTING THOSE PUBLIC SERVANTS DOWN IS ALLOWED.

    “If you’re not allowed  to use your free speech to criticize your own government, at a PUBLIC MEETING, then what the hell is the point of having it?”

    ———————————————————————————–

    WHAT’S  “NEW”  (2006) LISTENING SESSIONS?

    An increasing trend in PUBLIC PARTICIPATION is for agencies, elected officials, and non-governmental organizations to hold listening sessions. While there is a wide degree of variation depending on the issue and the host, LISTENING SESSIONS generally are an opportunity for citizens to exchange ideas and provide recommendations on programs and policies. SIMILAR TO PUBLIC MEETINGS, many listening sessions begin with the agency or official giving a brief presentation on the issue and then allowing time for citizens to offer comments or recommendations.

     (after the 2014 election results?) HELLO CONGRESS…  CAN YOU HEAR US NOW?

    ————————————————————————————————

    WHAT ELSE IS   “NEW” WITH PUBLIC MEETINGS?  WITH PUBLIC OBSERVERS? WITH NO PUBLIC COMMENTS?

    OBSERVER by definition

     (1) A PERSON WHO FOLLOWS EVENTS, ESPECIALLY POLITICAL ONES, CLOSELY

     AND COMMENTS PUBLICLY ON THEM.

    (2) A  person who watches or notices something.

    (3) A fly on the wall

    (4) A fly on the wall who watches or notices something.

    WITH NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ALLOWED.

    ———————————————————————————–

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?  SILENCING THE VOICE OF OPPOSITION

    “Once a government is committed to the principle of SILENCING THE VOICE OF OPPOSITION, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

    ———————————————————————————-

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?  ENFORCED SILENCE

    If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, NOT ENFORCED SILENCE.”

    ————————————————————————————-

    FEDERAL PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS

    WHAT THE DIFFERENCE? PUBLIC FORUM? PUBLIC MEETING?

    Meeting Face to Face: Public Meetings, Hearings, and Open …

    rlch.org/…/meeting-face-face-public-meetings-hearings-open-houses-and…

    Apr 8, 2010 – A public meeting is a gathering where people come together to share … are intimidated into silence, they are effectively denied access to a public forum. ….. of the differences between public hearings and public meetings, …

    In addition to providing notice and requesting written comments, part of the federal public participation process often involves public meetings, hearings, and/or open houses as another way for agencies to obtain public input on an issue. But there are other opportunities to meet face-to-face with decision-makers at all levels of government, from the U.S. Congress to your local planning commission. In this edition of the Problem-Solving Tools Series, we highlight some of the various opportunities to voice your comments and concerns, describe what you can expect, and provide links to other resources and “how-to guides” for more information.

    What are the Forums?  What Should I Expect?

    PUBLIC MEETINGS

    A public meeting is a gathering where people come together to share information, exchange ideas, introduce new services and ways of working, or to develop relationships and contacts.  The purpose of a public meeting is to discuss issues, not to make decisions.  By allowing for a two-way flow of information, meetings provide an opportunity for people to share their concerns, hear other points of view, and identify areas of conflict.  The term “public meeting” is used rather loosely to describe anything from community members gathering to informally discuss an issue to more formal events used to obtain comment on an agency decision or action.

    PUBLIC FORUM

    Public forum doctrine relies heavily on history and tradition. A location is deemed a “traditional public forum” or a “general public forum” and given the highest level of First Amendment protection when it has “immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public, and, time out of mind, [has] been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.”[8] Strict scrutiny applies to any content-based speech restriction in these locations.[9]

    Public meetings shouldn’t be marred by insults, unruly behavior 
    The U.S. Forest Service organizes open meetings to answer questions and to give everyone a chance to weigh in on the use of our public lands. When people are intimidated into silence, they are effectively denied access to a public forum.

    ———————————————————-

    Documented Research “behindmyback.org”

    WA. STATE PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS

    Shut Us Up? and Kick Us Out?

    Posted on May 28, 2014 11:22 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    Shut Us Up? and Kick Us Out?

    SOMEONE? AT MRC APPROVED AND ALLOWED this OFFENSIVE 14 PAGE power point presentation,  under  PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS?

    ———————————————————————-

    JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS

    The Public Meeting “Observer”

    Posted on May 29, 2014 9:14 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    The Public Meeting OBSERVER

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?

    “If you’re not allowed  to use your free speech to criticize your own government, at a PUBLIC MEETING, then what the hell is the point of having it?”

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?

    THE “NEW” PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA FOR OBSERVER PUBLIC COMMENTS

    ————————————————————————-

    FEDERAL PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS

    Posted on July 6, 2014 9:40 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    The Fly on the Wall Observer?

    5 U.S. Code § 552b – Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA)

    For purposes of this section—

    (3) (c), EVERY PORTION OF EVERY MEETING OF AN AGENCY SHALL BE OPEN TO PUBLIC OBSERVATION.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    OPEN TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE  Public Meeting?

    Where did Jefferson County WA come up with their PUBLIC MEETING OBSERVER?

    AKA the  A FLY ON THE WALL?

    ——————————————————

    The bottom line

    ARE THE FEDS JUST ALLOWING US TO BLOW OFF STEAM AT A LOCAL PUBLIC FORUM?

    OR ARE THE FEDS JUST BLOWING US OFF?

     

     


  • (7) WA Parks New Deal and Raw Deals

    (7) WA Parks -New Deal and  Raw Deals

    First Posted  – In Part, as (9) WOW New Deal –  Feb. 21, 2014

    snippet,

    Implicitly, the CCC also led to a greater public awareness and appreciation of the outdoors

    CCC included improved physical condition, heightened morale, and increased employability

    This should be required reading to enlighten

    The Governor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on WA Parks -Recreation and Tourism

    ——————————————————————————

    The Second New Deal “(1935-1938)

    THE CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS (CCC)

    THE UNEMPLOYED AND POOR UPGRADED MOST STATE PARKS

    CONSTRUCTED MORE THAN 800 PARKS NATIONWIDE

    At its peak in 1938, it provided paid jobs for three million unemployed men and women, as well as youth

    ——————————————————————————————————

    Aug. 19, 2014 The WA Parks Raw Deal? Recreation? and Tourism?

    The Governor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force?

    What was it that they were all constantly babbling about?

    Public awareness and appreciation of the outdoors and improved physical condition?

    Well, except for the lower element? Those families of the working poor and unemployed?

    ——————————————————————————————

    In addition, THE CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS (CCC) those poor and unemployed

    Updated forest fire fighting methods, and built a network of service buildings, public roadways in remote areas, and planted nearly 3 billion trees to help reforest America

    I repeat, IMPLICITLY, THE CCC ALSO LED TO A GREATER PUBLIC AWARENESS AND APPRECIATION OF THE OUTDOORS AND THE NATION’S NATURAL RESOURCES; and the continued need for a carefully planned, comprehensive national program for the protection and development of natural resources.

    ——————————————————————————-

    The first New Deal (1933–34)

    What historians call the 3 R’S: RELIEF, RECOVERY, AND REFORM. that is relief for the UNEMPLOYED AND POOR; RECOVERY OF THE ECONOMY to normal levels; and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.

    ——————————————————————————

    The Raw Deal Aug. 19, 2014

    The WA Parks Raw Deal? Recreation? and Tourism?

    The Governor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force?

    FOR THE UNEMPLOYED AND POOR The cost of the Discovery Pass discourages the lower element?

    SELECTIVELY prohibits use of WA State Parks by financial affordability to a specific social economic financial class?

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was a public work relief program

    That operated from 1933 TO 1942 in the United states for Unemployed, Unmarried men from relief families, ages 18–25 as part the new deal.  and provided unskilled manual labor jobs related to the conservation and development of natural resources in rural lands owned by federal, state and local governments.

    The CCC was designed to provide jobs for young men, to relieve families who had difficulty finding jobs during the Great Depression in the United States   while at the same time implementing a general natural resource conservation program in every state and territory.

    In nine years 3 million young men participated in the CCC  (my dad was one of them) which provided them with shelter, clothing, and food, together with a small wage of $30 a month ($25 of which had to be sent home to their families).

    Check with your family, a member of YOUR FAMILY was very likely one of the POOR, UNEMPLOYED, MOSTLY UNSKILLED PEOPLE that participated in the rebuilding of America during the depression.

    ———————————————————————

    Between 1935 and 1943, the WPA provided almost eight million jobs. it tried to provide one paid job for all families in which the breadwinner suffered long-term unemployment.

    (I am NOT endorsing unions)

    ALMOST EVERY COMMUNITY IN THE UNITED STATES HAD A NEW PARK, bridge or school constructed by  those poor and previously unemployed people.

    New Deal agency  employing millions of unemployed people (mostly unskilled men) to carry out public works projects, including the construction of public buildings and roads.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    THE IRONY OF THESE DEALS, THE 1933-1943 DEPRESSION NEW AND THE 2014 RAW, is the incongruity between what actually happened and what might be expected to happen, especially when this disparity seems ABSURD or laughable.

    That the very same type, social economic class of people, THE POOR, UNEMPLOYED AND UNSKILLED,  between 1933-1943

    Physically  BUILT UP THE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL  PARKS, THE ROADS, SHELTERS, TRAILS AND  PLANTED OVER 300 MILLION TREES TO REFOREST AMERICA, when, ALMOST EVERY COMMUNITY IN THE UNITED STATES HAD A NEW PARK, bridge or school that was constructed by poor and previously unemployed people.

    IRONICALLY THOSE POOR AND UNEMPLOYED, UNSKILLED PEOPLE, OUR FOREFATHERS, WERE INVITED TO COME ON PUBLIC LAND, 

    THEY WERE HIRED TO, PAID TO, AND  DID DO, THE WORK TO BUILD AND IMPROVE OUR PUBLIC ACCESS AND USE OF OUR FEDERAL AND STATE PARKS PUBLIC LAND IN AMERICA.

    NOW?  In 2014 shall “We The People”  examine the WA Parks and ONP RAW DEALS?

    OUR FOREFATHERS BUILT THE PARKS.

     NOW? their descendents, AKA the lower element, the FAMILIES OF working poor and/or unemployed people, HAVE BEEN DENIED  affordable PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND,  BECAUSE OF their low income and social status?

    ACCESS Denied? BECAUSE OF  THE PROHIBITIVE  COST, arbitrarily? authoritarians?  using their unlimited power to IMPOSE FEDERAL, ONP AND WA STATE PARKS  fees and passes?

    Is this Really America?

    DISCRIMINATION by exclusion of the lower element?

    ——————————————————————–

     WOW, THE Olympic National Park RAW DEAL  2014

    Senator Murray and Rep.  Kilmer keep proposing and pushing  THE RAW DEALS.

    WILD OLYMPICS WILDERNESS & WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT of 2014 ) an additional 126,000 more acres of National Forest land would be taken out of planned harvestable Natural Resource  timber production.

    IT WOULD  LIMIT AND RESTRICT PUBLIC USE AND ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND, CLOSE ROADS AND BAR ENTRY WITH LOCKED GATES, CREATING 126,000 WILD ACRES OF NO MAN’S REASONABLE ECONOMIC RESOURCE OR USE OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LAND.

    LIBERALS ARE TOO DAMNED WILD FOR ME!

    First Posted  – In Part as (9) WOW New Deal –  Feb. 21, 2014

    read  MORE – WOW WAR ON WILD-  PARTS (1) THROUGH (11)

     


  • Part 11 (WOW) Protest the ONP Celebration

    Part 11 (WOW) Protest the ONP Celebration

    WOW?  WHO WANTS TO PROTEST?

    THE WILDERNESS  ONP CELEBRATION?

    News Release  August 25, 2014 OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK TO CELEBRATE Fiftieth Anniversary of WILDERNESS ACT

    ————————————————————-

    WHY WOULD WE WANT TO PROTEST THIS?

    1944 “George, I should not tell you this, but THE LONG RANGE PLAN OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IS TO TAKE THE WHOLE OLYMPIC PENINSULA OVER

     AND PUT IT IN THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK

     AND MOVE EVERYONE OFF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA.”

     The  conversation that  the acting Olympic National Park Superintendent Preston Macy and had with my father George C. Rains Sr. in 1944.

    ———————————————————————–

    PROTEST? OR CELEBRATE?  THE REAL 70 YEAR “LONG” RANGE WILDERNESS PLAN OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 1944 TO AUGUST 25, 2014

    COME TO PROTEST THE REAL  NPS AND ONP  70 YEARS OF WILDERNESS TAKING ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA.

    BRING YOUR SIGNS.

    MAKE A LIST OF YOUR QUESTIONS.

    THIS IS  THE PERFECT  TIME TO COME AND PROTEST

    ———————————————————————————–

    WHO?  wants to celebrate the WILDERNESS? WILD OLYMPICS? and the WILD and scenic river ACT?

    INDEED, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK TO CELEBRATE Fiftieth Anniversary of WILDERNESS ACT

    News Release  August 25, 2014

    FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5

    WILDERNESS SPEAKER PANEL

    7:00 PM – 9:00 PM

    PENINSULA COLLEGE LITTLE THEATER

    Reception to follow in the Pirate Union Building

    A DIVERSE PANEL?  OF WILDERNESS SPEAKERS WILL SHARE THEIR PERSPECTIVES ON THE MEANING? AND VALUE of the first fifty years of the Wilderness Act and reflect on its relevancy for the next fifty years.  EACH SPEAKER WILL ALSO SHARE HIS OR HER PERSONAL CONNECTIONS TO THE OLYMPIC WILDERNESS.

     Speakers include noted Sequim author and poet Tim McNulty, Shelley Spalding, Great Old Broads for Wilderness board member,  National Park Service Pacific West Region Cultural Resources Director David Louter and Olympic National Park Wilderness Ranger Erin Reading.  Janine Ledford, Director of the Makah Cultural and Research Center and Frances Charles, Chairwoman of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe have also been invited.

    Superintendent Sarah Creachbaum will moderate the panel discussion. AUDIENCE QUESTIONS WILL BE ENCOURAGED?

    ————————————————————————————————

     NOW THE TIME  FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2014 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM

    FOR US TO SPEAK OF A WAR ON WILD AND KEEP OUR RIGHTS.

    COME TO PROTEST THE NPS 70 YEARS OF WILDERNESS TAKING

    BRING YOUR SIGNS..MAKE A LIST OF YOUR QUESTIONS.

    ASK YOUR QUESTIONS,  SHARE YOUR PERSONAL CONNECTIONS TO THE OLYMPIC WILDERNESS.

    HOW HAS THE ONP WILDERNESS AFFECTED THE ECONOMY OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA?

    HOW MUCH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TIMBERLAND  HAS BEEN TAKEN?

     1992 THRU 2014 “THIS CONSPIRACY WILL NEVER END UNLESS YOU PEOPLE, PROPERTY OWNERS AND TAX PAYERS START FIGHTING BACK TO STOP THE CONSPIRACY AND THE TAKING OF ALL OUR PROPERTY ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA”

    ————————————————————————-

    COME ON NOW… WE CAN DO IT.

    NORTH OLYMPIC TIMBER ACTION COMMITTEE NOTAC

    WILD OLYMPIC SCAM

    WFPA MEMBERS  WORKING FORESTS FOR WORKING FAMILIES

    IT IS OUR TIME TO SPEAK AND PROTEST AND  KEEP

    We are American citizens, we are private property owners, we are the stewards of our pristine forest land, it is our heritage, it is who we are and what we do, it is our way of life, it is our source of employment and income, it provides our shelter, the roof over our heads, food on our tables and heat from our hearth, indeed it has been  the  lot of our lives for many generations of local  families.

    ——————————————————————————

    LET’S STOP WHINING – STOP THE  DISMAY- AND ACT ON IT- PROTEST!

    PROTEST by definition, complain or object strongly, express strong disapproval of or disagreement with something, complain or OBJECT PUBLICLY express strong opposition to or disapproval of something in the form of a public demonstration or other action

    And, TO THE DISMAY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA  the National Park Service HAS TAKEN A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND AND TURNED IT INTO, WILDERNESS. And, THERE IS NO UP SIDE TO “WILD”.

     WE HAVE BEEN FILLED WITH ALARM, APPREHENSION AND DISTRESS FOR TOO MANY YEARS

    DISMAY by definition, to fill somebody with alarm, apprehension, or distress

    LET’S STOP WHINING – STOP THE  DISMAY- AND ACT ON IT- PROTEST!

    —————————————————————————————-

     IN 1992 MY DAD GEORGE C. RAINS SR. CALLED IT A CONSPIRACY

    “This conspiracy will never end unless you people, property owners and tax payers start fighting back to stop the conspiracy and the taking of all our property on the Olympic Peninsula”

    ———————————————————————————————

    OTHERS IDENTIFIED  IT

    THE WILD OLYMPICS SCAM

    www.wildolympicsscam.com/

    stop the wild olympics, agenda 21, land grabs; will devastate rural communities.

    ———————————————————————————————

    I CALLED IT A WAR

    THE WAR ON WILD  (10) WILD comments on my website.

    Part 1  (WOW) a War on Wild?

    Now is the time for many of us to speak of a War On Wild and keep our rights.

    Is it your time?

    We are American citizens, we are private property owners, we are the stewards of our pristine forest land, it is our heritage, it is who we are and what we do, it is our way of life, it is our source of employment and income, it provides our shelter, the roof over our heads, food on our tables and heat from our hearth, indeed it has been  the  lot of our lives for many generations of local  families.

    ——————————————————————————–

    THOSE WHO WANT TO PROTECT AND SUSTAIN CALLED IT

    WORKING FORESTS FOR WORKING FAMILIES

    www.wfpa.org/

    WFPA members are committed to advancing sustainable forestry in … acres, and 47% are working forests supporting jobs and families in rural communities.

    www.wfpa.org/news-and-resources/blog/

    4 days ago – One Voice For Working Forests …. there for decades, with different generations of the same families taking jobs at the local mill. ..

    ——————————————————————————

    OTHERS TOOK ACTION

    NORTH OLYMPIC TIMBER ACTION COMMITTEE

    www.notac.org/north_olympic_peninsula_maps.html

    Media · WILD OLYMPICS · HISTORY · NOTAC Proposal · Original … The Olympic National Forest … notac © 2012 North Olympic Timber Action Committee. All Rights

    ———————————————————————————-

    THE ONP IS CELEBRATING THIS?

    1944 “THE LONG RANGE PLAN OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IS TO TAKE THE WHOLE OLYMPIC PENINSULA OVER  AND PUT IT IN THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK  AND MOVE EVERYONE OFF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA.”

     The proof of this LONG RANGE PLAN, conspiracy has and is being proven in the step by step acquisition of private and DNR land by the National Park Service, as this is being written and during the last 21 years from 1992 to 2013.

    The nine page summary includes some of the 48 year history of Clallam County from 1944 to 1992 and is his proof of the conspiracy.

    ————————————————————————————————————–

     THE ONP IS  “NOT”  CELEBRATING THIS?

    “CONSPIRACY EXPOSED”
    The notarized document “Conspiracy Exposed” was written on Oct. 8, 1992 by George C. Rains Sr. when he was 77 years old.

    The referenced “Conspiracy” was exposed in a conversation at Sol Duc Hot Springs between the acting Olympic National Park Superintendent Preston Macy and my father George C. Rains Sr. in 1944.

    “George, I should not tell you this, but the long range plan of the National Park Service is to take the whole Olympic Peninsula over and put it in the Olympic National Park and move everyone off the Olympic Peninsula.”

    The proof of this conspiracy has and is being proven in the step by step acquisition of private and DNR land by the National Park Service, as this is being written and during the last 21 years from 1992 to 2013.

    The nine page summary includes some of the 48 year history of Clallam County from 1944 to 1992 and is his proof of the conspiracy.

    It’s a good read from a historical standpoint and a cautionary statement to the citizens of Clallam County. Could this happen to Clallam Country by imminent domain, isolation, regulation, restriction and/or economic starvation?

    —————————————————————————-

    Added Aug. 26, 2014

    Could this happen to the entire Olympic Peninsula by imminent domain, isolation, regulation, restriction and/or economic starvation?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

     THE ONP IS CELEBRATING THIS?

    AS done, proposed or referenced in 1992 document

    FACTS ARE TROUBLESOME THINGS.

    Taking of private property and property rights

    Removal of Lake Mills Dam loss of flood control and electricity

    Removal of Glines Canyon Dam

    Eminent domain of Lake Crescent private property

    Taking of corridors on rivers and streams (200 foot?)

    Destroying the Olympic Hot Springs

    Elwha River Private recreational park destroyed

    The acquisition of Sol Duc Hot Springs
    Excessive fees and taxes
    Four Seasons
    Pacific Ocean Coast
    Lake Ozette
    Quinault River
    Lake Quinault
    Lake Mills property loss of fishing

    North West Marine Sanctuary
    56 miles of tidelands

    Million dollar sewer treatment plant
    Clallam County Roads around Lake Crescent
    Why the Lake Crescent property taken from Jack Olsen became the summer
    home of Chief Justice Douglas of the US Supreme Court?

    Lake Crescent purchase of 79.81 acres of land for $410,000.00
    Control of wetlands
    If you have read this far, and are interested in downloading the actual scanned document, please click here.
    ***

    I, GEORGE C. RAINS, SR., HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE AND ATTEST THAT

    THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE.

    STATE OF WASHINGTON  (County of Clallam )

    1992, before me appeared who signed the above of his own free will.

    Notary Public in and for the State of Washington; residing at Port Angeles

    More Public Information

    Originally on the Olympic Peninsula in the state of Washington was an area known

    as the Olympic National Monument containing some “500,000″ acres in the high country of the Olympic Peninsula.

    Around 1938 this monument was taken over by the National Park Service, creating

    the Olympic National Park.

    THE ONP IS CELEBRATING THIS?

    In the conspiracy since that time to take the whole Olympic Peninsula away from

    our people, the Olympic National Park has doubled in size to over one million acres or

    more. This conspiracy will never end unless you people, property owners and tax payers start fighting back to stop the conspiracy and the taking of all our property on the Olympic Peninsula.

    We have a bloated bureaucracy providing nothing, living off of our tax dollars and

    still continue to take away our property from us, with our own tax dollars.

    In furtherance of the National Park Service conspiracy to take over the entire

    Olympic Peninsula and make it one large park, I offer the following evidence as to what has already been done to expose that conspiracy.

    THE ONP IS CELEBRATING THIS?

    A complete land corridor taken over by the National Park Service bordering the

    Pacific Ocean from the south boundary of the Makah Indian Reservation south to the north boundary of the Quinault Indian Reservation. The purpose to completely take over this valuable ocean frontage to block out resort development, industry and private home frontage on the Pacific Ocean.

    Also to completely circle Lake Ozette with a land corridor on the Olympic

    THE ONP IS CELEBRATING THIS?

    Peninsula, thus preventing any resort development, industry or home sites by the public. In furtherance of their conspiracy of the National Park Service was the taking of a very wide corridor on each side of Quinault River from the park boundary in a southwesterly direction to the Quinault Indian Reservation.

    THE ONP IS CELEBRATING THIS?

    In furtherance of the National Park Service conspiracy is the taking of a very large

    area bordering Lake Quinault on the north side of that lake.

    Attempts are being made to grab land corridors on each side of the major rivers

    on the Olympic Peninsula. If they succeed here attempts will be made to grab land corridors on smaller streams on the Olympic Peninsula.

    THE ONP IS CELEBRATING THIS?

     

    A LAND GRAB of all the property around Mills Lake in Clallam County is part of the

    conspiracy plan.

    Page 2

    A GRAB OF PROPERTY around Lake Crescent is also part of that conspiracy.

    THE ONP IS CELEBRATING THIS?

    Seven Wilderness areas set aside on the Olympic Peninsula, six of which adjoin

    the Olympic National Park.

    WHY ARE THESE VAST AREAS NOT SET ASIDE AS SPOTTED OWL HABITAT?

    Wilderness areas listed below are:

    1. Buckhorn Wilderness Area #1

    2. Buckhorn Wilderness Area #2

    3. The Brothers Wilderness Area #3

    4. Mt. Skohomish Wilderness Area #4

    5. Wonder Mountain Wilderness #5

    6. Colonel Bob Wilderness Area #6

    7. Colonel Bob Wilderness Area #7

    THE ONP IS CELEBRATING THIS?

    Most people have no knowledge of these vast encroachments to take our property and property rights on the Olympic Peninsula, and it is time that the truth be known. P.S. Land and Power Grab

    George C. Rains

    THE ONP IS CELEBRATING THIS?

    Are the removal of the Lake Mills Dam and Aldwell Lake Dam part of the National

    Park Service conspiracy to later demand a wide corridor down each side of the Elwha River to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and ultimately split Clallam County?

    THE ONP IS CELEBRATING THIS?

    Is the proposed Northwest Strait’s National Marine Sanctuary part of a master

    subversive plan by the Federal Government to encircle and isolate our Olympic

    Peninsula? Further domination and control seems to be their objective.

    Does it fit into the conspiracy to take the whole Olympic Peninsula over and make it one big national park.

    THE ONP IS CELEBRATING THIS?

    THE MOST RECENT LAND GRAB BY OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE NATIONAL PARK

    Service was the Fisher Property, east of Lake Crescent and bordering the Olympic

    National Park. Now this land will be added to the Olympic National Park.

    The purchase price of the 19.81 acres more or less was $4 10,000.

    A Question from 1992 How can a Federal Government of ours pay money for things like this when our government is many trillions of dollars in debt?

    George C. Rains

     

    Jack Del Guzzi, Joseph H. Lewis and I developed one of the finest recreational

    campground facilities the Elwha River area has ever known. We subdivided and developed it into campsites with underground electric power, water systems and good roads, and restroom facilities. In the course of our development I noticed a small breach through a narrow strip of land on the south end of the big island which is owned by the Park. I COULD FORESEE A LOT OF DAMAGE IF SOMETHING WAS NOT DONE TO PROTECT OUR PROPERTY BELOW and the Olympic Hot Springs road. I contacted Del Hur Industries to get an estimate on what it would cost to plug the breach and put a small rock dike to prevent further damage to our property and the road. After getting an estimate I contacted some Park people, and they would do nothing to help remedy the situation. I also offered to provide free of cost all the rip rap from our rock quarry on Little River.

    THE PROBLEM WAS IGNORED. Finally some time later the river came up high enlarging

    THE ONP IS CELEBRATING THIS?

    the breach, washing out a section of the Olympic Hot Springs road, and cut a channel through our development and took out our bridge.

    The Hot Springs road had to be rebuilt by moving it to higher ground up the hillside.

    At a later date when I was in the area after the road was rebuilt, I noticed men working with a drilling outfit on the east side of the new road.· Federal highway crews were doing the work and testing the fault area above the Hot Springs road. They informed me that if the rock dike was not built to keep the river in its original channel, more of that area east of the road would slip into the river. They informed me that the whole hillside for a great distance up the hill was nothing but fault ready to sink into the river if the problem was not corrected. To this day they have done nothing to remedy the threat and a good portion of

    our property was destroyed through their sheer negligence.

    THE ONP IS CELEBRATING THIS

    The National Park Service has no respect for private property ownership and rights.

    THE ONP IS CELEBRATING THIS?

    The Olympic Hot Springs was one of the first recreational facilities on the Olympic

    Peninsula. Originally built and maintained a long time ago by the Everett and Harry

    Schoefell family. Harry Schoefell was a very fine host. He liked people and people liked

    him. His resort business was very successful for many years. Long leases and plans could be made to maintain and improve his business.

    When the Olympic National Park put the squeeze on Harry Schoefell by giving a

    lease for only one year at a time. This put the squeeze on improvement programs and you had nothing certain to make improved facilities and maintenance work for in the future. I was told by Harry Schoefell that all he received in the end when the Olympic

    National Park took over his lease was $10,000.00 for all those years of work and for facilities

    left there.

    George C. Rains, Sr.

    October 8, 1992

    AND? THE ONP IS CELEBRATING ALL OF THIS?

     


  • The Fly on the Wall Observer?

    The Fly on the Wall Observer?

    5 U.S. Code § 552b – Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA)

    For purposes of this section—

    (3) (c), EVERY PORTION OF EVERY MEETING OF AN AGENCY SHALL BE OPEN TO PUBLIC OBSERVATION.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    OPEN TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE  Public Meeting?

    Where did Jefferson County WA come up with their PUBLIC MEETING OBSERVER?

    AKA the  A FLY ON THE WALL?

    ———————————————————————-

    The Public Meeting OBSERVER? PUBLIC COMMENTS?

    Is a public body required to allow a member of the

    public to speak at an open meeting?

    YES AND NO

    BASED ON THE STATE?  Of the State where you reside.

    ————————————————————————

    ILLINOIS  RIGHT TO SPEAK AT MEETINGS?

     Is a public body required to allow a member of the

    public to speak at an open meeting?

    http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/pdf/FAQ_OMA_Government.pdf

    The Open Meetings Act requires that public bodies give members of the public an opportunity to speak at a public meeting. Public bodies are authorized to adopt rules regarding the public comment portion of a meeting. Such rules may limit the time allotted for the public to speak.

    ———————————————————————————–

    WASHINGTON STATE  RIGHT TO SPEAK AT MEETINGS?

     Is a public body required to allow a member of the

    public to speak at an open meeting?

    http://www.atg.wa.gov/OpenGovernment/InternetManual/Chapter3.aspx#.U7lbHLEUGGc

    The OPMA does not require a governing body to allow everyone to speak at a public meeting.  A governing body has significant authority to limit the time of speakers to a uniform amount (such as three minutes) or to not allow anyone to speak.  OTHER LAWS MIGHT REQUIRE THE GOVERNING BODY TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK AT A PUBLIC MEETING, but the OPMA does not.

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    NEW JERSEY RIGHT TO SPEAK AT MEETINGS?

    https://www.aclu-nj.org/files/7313/1793/0127/OPMA_Booklet.pdf

    Do I have the right to speak at public meetings?

    The law currently requires municipal governing bodies and

    school boards to set aside a portion of every meeting for public

    comments. Other public bodies may also allow public comments,

    but they are not required to do so. If a public body provides a time for public comment, it may adopt written policies that require speakers to sign up in advance and that limit the time of each speaker.

    When addressing the public body, the public body is not required

    to respond to your questions.

    The public body cannot censor your speech during a public comment portion because it does not agree with you or like what you are saying.

    The public body also cannot prohibit comments based on subject matter so long as the comments relate to any issue “that a member of the public feels

    may be of concern to the residents of the municipality or school district.”

     

    ——————————————————————————————————————-

    U.S. CodeTitle 5Part IChapter 5Subchapter II › § 552b

    5 U.S. Code § 552b – Open  Public Meetings Act

    ————————————————

    Short form? Open Public  Meeting Act ? If you read it? (full text below)

    More is written about what is PROTECTED and NOT OPEN to the public

    ———————————————————————————————–

    5 U.S. Code § 552b – Open meetings

    For purposes of this section—

    (1) the term “agency” means any agency, as defined in section 552 (e)  [1] of this title, headed by a collegial body composed of two or more individual members, a majority of whom are appointed to such position by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and any subdivision thereof authorized to act on behalf of the agency;

    (2) the term “meeting” means the deliberations of at least the number of individual agency members required to take action on behalf of the agency where such deliberations determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official agency business, but does not include deliberations required or permitted by subsection (d) or (e); and

    (3) the term “member” means an individual who belongs to a collegial body heading an agency.

    (b) Members shall not jointly conduct or dispose of agency business other than in accordance with this section. Except as provided in subsection (c), EVERY PORTION OF EVERY MEETING OF AN AGENCY SHALL BE OPEN TO PUBLIC OBSERVATION.

     

    (c) Except in a case where the agency finds that the public interest requires otherwise, the second sentence of subsection (b) shall not apply to any portion of an agency meeting, and the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) shall not apply to any information pertaining to such meeting otherwise required by this section to be disclosed to the public, where the agency properly determines that such portion or portions of its meeting or the disclosure of such information is likely to—

    (1) disclose matters that are

    (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interests of national defense or foreign policy and

    (B) in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

    (2) relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

    (3) disclose matters specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552 of this title), provided that such statute

    (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or

    (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

    (4) disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

    (5) involve accusing any person of a crime, or formally censuring any person;

    (6) disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

    (7) disclose investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, or information which if written would be contained in such records, but only to the extent that the production of such records or information would

    (A) interfere with enforcement proceedings,

    (B) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication,

    (C) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,

    (D) disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source,

    (E) disclose investigative techniques and procedures, or

    (F) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel;

    (8) disclose information contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions;

    (9) disclose information the premature disclosure of which would—

    (A) in the case of an agency which regulates currencies, securities, commodities, or financial institutions, be likely to

    (i) lead to significant financial speculation in currencies, securities, or commodities, or

    (ii) significantly endanger the stability of any financial institution; or

    (B) in the case of any agency, be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action,

    except that subparagraph (B) shall not apply in any instance where the agency has already disclosed to the public the content or nature of its proposed action, or where the agency is required by law to make such disclosure on its own initiative prior to taking final agency action on such proposal; or

    (10) specifically concern the agency’s issuance of a subpena, or the agency’s participation in a civil action or proceeding, an action in a foreign court or international tribunal, or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or disposition by the agency of a particular case of formal agency adjudication pursuant to the procedures in section 554 of this title or otherwise involving a determination on the record after opportunity for a hearing.

    (d)

    (1) Action under subsection (c) shall be taken only when a majority of the entire membership of the agency (as defined in subsection (a)(1)) votes to take such action. A separate vote of the agency members shall be taken with respect to each agency meeting a portion or portions of which are proposed to be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c), or with respect to any information which is proposed to be withheld under subsection (c). A single vote may be taken with respect to a series of meetings, a portion or portions of which are proposed to be closed to the public, or with respect to any information concerning such series of meetings, so long as each meeting in such series involves the same particular matters and is scheduled to be held no more than thirty days after the initial meeting in such series. The vote of each agency member participating in such vote shall be recorded and no proxies shall be allowed.

    (2) Whenever any person whose interests may be directly affected by a portion of a meeting requests that the agency close such portion to the public for any of the reasons referred to in paragraph (5), (6), or (7) of subsection (c), the agency, upon request of any one of its members, shall vote by recorded vote whether to close such meeting.

    (3) Within one day of any vote taken pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2), the agency shall make publicly available a written copy of such vote reflecting the vote of each member on the question. If a portion of a meeting is to be closed to the public, the agency shall, within one day of the vote taken pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection, make publicly available a full written explanation of its action closing the portion together with a list of all persons expected to attend the meeting and their affiliation.

    (4) Any agency, a majority of whose meetings may properly be closed to the public pursuant to paragraph (4), (8), (9)(A), or (10) of subsection (c), or any combination thereof, may provide by regulation for the closing of such meetings or portions thereof in the event that a majority of the members of the agency votes by recorded vote at the beginning of such meeting, or portion thereof, to close the exempt portion or portions of the meeting, and a copy of such vote, reflecting the vote of each member on the question, is made available to the public. The provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this subsection and subsection (e) shall not apply to any portion of a meeting to which such regulations apply: Provided, That the agency shall, except to the extent that such information is exempt from disclosure under the provisions of subsection (c), provide the public with public announcement of the time, place, and subject matter of the meeting and of each portion thereof at the earliest practicable time.

    (e)

    (1) In the case of each meeting, the agency shall make public announcement, at least one week before the meeting, of the time, place, and subject matter of the meeting, whether it is to be open or closed to the public, and the name and phone number of the official designated by the agency to respond to requests for information about the meeting. Such announcement shall be made unless a majority of the members of the agency determines by a recorded vote that agency business requires that such meeting be called at an earlier date, in which case the agency shall make public announcement of the time, place, and subject matter of such meeting, and whether open or closed to the public, at the earliest practicable time.

    (2) The time or place of a meeting may be changed following the public announcement required by paragraph (1) only if the agency publicly announces such change at the earliest practicable time. The subject matter of a meeting, or the determination of the agency to open or close a meeting, or portion of a meeting, to the public, may be changed following the public announcement required by this subsection only if

    (A) a majority of the entire membership of the agency determines by a recorded vote that agency business so requires and that no earlier announcement of the change was possible, and

    (B) the agency publicly announces such change and the vote of each member upon such change at the earliest practicable time.

    (3) Immediately following each public announcement required by this subsection, notice of the time, place, and subject matter of a meeting, whether the meeting is open or closed, any change in one of the preceding, and the name and phone number of the official designated by the agency to respond to requests for information about the meeting, shall also be submitted for publication in the Federal Register.

    (f)

    (1) For every meeting closed pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (10) of subsection (c), the General Counsel or chief legal officer of the agency shall publicly certify that, in his or her opinion, the meeting may be closed to the public and shall state each relevant exemptive provision. A copy of such certification, together with a statement from the presiding officer of the meeting setting forth the time and place of the meeting, and the persons present, shall be retained by the agency. The agency shall maintain a complete transcript or electronic recording adequate to record fully the proceedings of each meeting, or portion of a meeting, closed to the public, except that in the case of a meeting, or portion of a meeting, closed to the public pursuant to paragraph (8), (9)(A), or (10) of subsection (c), the agency shall maintain either such a transcript or recording, or a set of minutes. Such minutes shall fully and clearly describe all matters discussed and shall provide a full and accurate summary of any actions taken, and the reasons therefor, including a description of each of the views expressed on any item and the record of any rollcall vote (reflecting the vote of each member on the question). All documents considered in connection with any action shall be identified in such minutes.

    (2) The agency shall make promptly available to the public, in a place easily accessible to the public, the transcript, electronic recording, or minutes (as required by paragraph (1)) of the discussion of any item on the agenda, or of any item of the testimony of any witness received at the meeting, except for such item or items of such discussion or testimony as the agency determines to contain information which may be withheld under subsection (c). Copies of such transcript, or minutes, or a transcription of such recording disclosing the identity of each speaker, shall be furnished to any person at the actual cost of duplication or transcription. The agency shall maintain a complete verbatim copy of the transcript, a complete copy of the minutes, or a complete electronic recording of each meeting, or portion of a meeting, closed to the public, for a period of at least two years after such meeting, or until one year after the conclusion of any agency proceeding with respect to which the meeting or portion was held, whichever occurs later.

    (g) Each agency subject to the requirements of this section shall, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, following consultation with the Office of the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States and published notice in the Federal Register of at least thirty days and opportunity for written comment by any person, promulgate regulations to implement the requirements of subsections (b) through (f) of this section. Any person may bring a proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to require an agency to promulgate such regulations if such agency has not promulgated such regulations within the time period specified herein. Subject to any limitations of time provided by law, any person may bring a proceeding in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to set aside agency regulations issued pursuant to this subsection that are not in accord with the requirements of subsections (b) through (f) of this section and to require the promulgation of regulations that are in accord with such subsections.

    (h)

    (1) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to enforce the requirements of subsections (b) through (f) of this section by declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, or other relief as may be appropriate. Such actions may be brought by any person against an agency prior to, or within sixty days after, the meeting out of which the violation of this section arises, except that if public announcement of such meeting is not initially provided by the agency in accordance with the requirements of this section, such action may be instituted pursuant to this section at any time prior to sixty days after any public announcement of such meeting. Such actions may be brought in the district court of the United States for the district in which the agency meeting is held or in which the agency in question has its headquarters, or in the District Court for the District of Columbia. In such actions a defendant shall serve his answer within thirty days after the service of the complaint. The burden is on the defendant to sustain his action. In deciding such cases the court may examine in camera any portion of the transcript, electronic recording, or minutes of a meeting closed to the public, and may take such additional evidence as it deems necessary. The court, having due regard for orderly administration and the public interest, as well as the interests of the parties, may grant such equitable relief as it deems appropriate, including granting an injunction against future violations of this section or ordering the agency to make available to the public such portion of the transcript, recording, or minutes of a meeting as is not authorized to be withheld under subsection (c) of this section.

    (2) Any Federal court otherwise authorized by law to review agency action may, at the application of any person properly participating in the proceeding pursuant to other applicable law, inquire into violations by the agency of the requirements of this section and afford such relief as it deems appropriate. Nothing in this section authorizes any Federal court having jurisdiction solely on the basis of paragraph (1) to set aside, enjoin, or invalidate any agency action (OTHER THAN AN ACTION TO CLOSE A MEETING OR TO WITHHOLD INFORMATION UNDER THIS SECTION) taken or discussed at any agency meeting out of which the violation of this section arose.

    (i) The court may assess against any party reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred by any other party who substantially prevails in any action brought in accordance with the provisions of subsection (g) or (h) of this section, except that costs may be assessed against the plaintiff only where the court finds that the suit was initiated by the plaintiff primarily for frivolous or dilatory purposes. In the case of assessment of costs against an agency, the costs may be assessed by the court against the United States.

    (j) Each agency subject to the requirements of this section shall annually report to the Congress regarding the following:

    (1) The changes in the policies and procedures of the agency under this section that have occurred during the preceding 1-year period.

    (2) A tabulation of the number of meetings held, the exemptions applied to close meetings, and the days of public notice provided to close meetings.

    (3) A brief description of litigation or formal complaints concerning the implementation of this section by the agency.

    (4) A brief explanation of any changes in law that have affected the responsibilities of the agency under this section.

    (k) Nothing herein expands or limits the present rights of any person under section 552 of this title, except that the exemptions set forth in subsection (c) of this section shall govern in the case of any request made pursuant to section 552 to copy or inspect the transcripts, recordings, or minutes described in subsection (f) of this section. The requirements of chapter 33 of title 44, United States Code, shall not apply to the transcripts, recordings, and minutes described in subsection (f) of this section.

    (l) This section does not constitute authority to withhold any information from Congress, and DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE CLOSING OF ANY AGENCY MEETING OR PORTION THEREOF REQUIRED BY ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO BE OPEN.

    (m) Nothing in this section authorizes any agency to withhold from any individual any record, including transcripts, recordings, or minutes required by this section, which is otherwise accessible to such individual under section 552a of this title.

    ———————————————————————————————-

     

     


  • Back to 1754 on the Bundy Ranch

    Back to 1754 on the Bundy Ranch

    Indeed, the United States Government has reverted back to 1754

    With civil disobedience resulting in coercive and intolerable acts, and armed conflict resulting in dissidents being proclaimed rebels

    snippets from THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION etc.

    ————————————————————————————————-

    2014 coercive and intolerable acts, and armed conflict?

     U.S. Bureau of Land Management, SEIZED BUNDY’S  COWS.

    —————————————————

    Bundy and his wife, Carol, say they believe armed federal agents committed assaults, illegally blocked roads, harassed photographers, used attack dogs, pointed weapons and threatened people during the confrontation.

     —————————————————————

    “We believe that the BLM men who pointed guns at over 1,000 people … committed a criminal act and that the Clark County sheriff’s office should be required to investigate

    ——————————————————————

    2014 With civil disobedience?

     OUTSIDE of THE FREE SPEECH ZONE by proclaimed rebels

    Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy called for his supporters and witnesses of a tense April 12 standoff beneath an Interstate 15 overpass to file complaints against U.S. Bureau of Land Management police that he accuses of illegally threatening civilians.

    ———————————————————

    2014 Resulting in dissidents being proclaimed rebels?

    Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada branded Bundy supporters who pointed weapons at federal agents “domestic terrorists.”

    ——————————————————————————-

    2014 Resulting in collaboration  to help solve mutual local problems themselves?

    Militia members continue to live in camps along a state highway leading to Bundy’s ranch in the Virgin River valley. They say they’ll stay until Cliven Bundy tells them to leave.

     Well-armed BLM police backed down while facing militia members with side arms and military-style AR-15 and AK-47 and other rifles

    Openly carrying a pistol or rifle is legal in Nevada, and permit holders can carry concealed weapons.

    Rancher is taking grazing fight to Vegas sheriff

    ————————————————————————–

    2014  SHIFTED TOWARD INDEPENDENCE AND HOW TO ACHIEVE IT?

    Now that the Government of the United States  has reverted back to 1754

    WITH CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE RESULTING IN COERCIVE AND INTOLERABLE ACTS, AND ARMED CONFLICT RESULTING IN DISSIDENTS BEING PROCLAIMED REBELS

    The U.S. Government better go back to the WA DC drawing board and rethink their strategy.

    ————————————————————————-

    REMEMBER What happened in 1775 to ACHIEVE  INDEPENDENCE?

    1775 SHIFTED TOWARD INDEPENDENCE AND HOW TO ACHIEVE IT with events outpacing communications, the Second Continental Congress began acting as the provisional government to run THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR

    “The Revolutionary War” War breaks out. April 19, 1775. The first shots of the Revolutionary War are fired at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts.

    MY HERO PAUL REVERE

    ———————————————————————————-

    read on for American HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF….

    THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION papers were written OVER THE NEXT TWO DECADES

    from 1754 to 1774 by our American forefathers.

    The political push to increase cooperation among the then-loyal colonies BEGAN WITH THE ALBANY CONGRESSIN 1754 and Benjamin Franklin’s  proposed intercolonial,  collaboration  to help solve mutual local problems themselves; the Articles of Confederation would bear some resemblance to it. OVER THE NEXT TWO DECADES, SOME OF THE BASIC CONCEPTS IT ADDRESSED would strengthen and others would weaken, particularly the degree of deserved loyalty to the crown.

    WITH CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE RESULTING IN COERCIVE AND INTOLERABLE ACTS, AND ARMED CONFLICT RESULTING IN DISSIDENTS BEING PROCLAIMED REBELS

     and outside the King’s protection, any loyalty remaining

     SHIFTED TOWARD INDEPENDENCE AND HOW TO ACHIEVE IT.

     In 1775, with events outpacing communications, the Second Continental Congress began acting as the provisional government to run THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR

    AND GAIN THE COLONIES THEIR COLLECTIVE INDEPENDENCE.

    THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION

     formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding states that established the United States of America as a confederation of SOVEREIGN STATES AND SERVED AS ITS FIRST CONSTITUTION. Its drafting by the Continental Congress began in mid-1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. THE FORMAL RATIFICATION BY ALL 13 STATES WAS COMPLETED IN EARLY 1781.

     Even when not yet ratified, the Articles provided domestic and international legitimacy FOR THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS TO DIRECT “THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR”, conduct diplomacy with Europe and deal with territorial issues and Native American relations. Nevertheless, the weakness of the government created by the Articles became a matter of concern for key nationalists

     On March 4, 1789, general government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under The United States Constitution The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.

    What were these things? That  the American people wanted? needed? or necessary?

    SOVEREIGNTY IN EARLY 1781, FREEDOM, LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

    “The United States Constitution” March 4, 1789

    “The Revolutionary War” War breaks out. April 19, 1775. The first shots of the Revolutionary War are fired at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts.

    “The Declaration of Independence” IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

    “The Bill of Rights” came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791

    THE BILL OF RIGHTS is the collective name for the first ten amendments to The United States Constitution. Proposed to assuage the fears of Anti-Federalists who had opposed Constitutional ratification, these amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government’s power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been extended to the states by way of THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT  , a process known as incorporation

    THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT  July 9, 1868

    to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. in addition, it forbids states from denying any person “life, liberty or property, without due process of law” or to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.

    ———————————————————————————————————————-

    THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION

     formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding states

     that established the United States of America as a confederation of SOVEREIGN STATES AND SERVED AS ITS FIRST CONSTITUTION.

     Its drafting by the Continental Congress began in mid-1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. THE FORMAL RATIFICATION BY ALL 13 STATES WAS COMPLETED IN EARLY 1781.

     Even when not yet ratified, the Articles provided domestic and international legitimacy FOR THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS TO DIRECT “THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR”


  • Part (11) WOW The Roadless Prelude

    THE ROADLESS PRELUDE  TO INTENTIONALLY CREATE  MORE WILDERNESS

    ——————————————————————————–

    Prelude by definition an event or action that introduces or precedes something else, especially something longer and more important.

    ———————————————————–

     ” The definition of a roadless area for the 2001 Roadless Rule included: undeveloped areas typically exceeding 5,000 ACRES that met the minimum criteria FOR WILDERNESS consideration UNDER THE WILDERNESS ACT and that were inventoried during the Forest Service’s Roadless Area Review and Evaluation.

    —————————————–

     THE INTENT (RARE II) PROCESS is to identify and evaluate all NFS lands that meet the definition of WILDERNESS in section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act.

    ————————————————–

    The H.R.3465 THE FEDERAL ROADLESS PUBLIC LAND

    THE INTENT OF CANTWELL AND INSLEE

    THE MORE ROADLESS PUBLIC LAND IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    THE MORE WILDERNESS, period.

    —————————————————————————

    By definition

    Wilderness is “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled (not limited or controlled) by man.

    ————————————–

    HOW CAN THE USA. GOV  MANAGE AMERICAN PUBLIC LAND WITHOUT CONTROL BY MAN?

    ———————————————–

    IS THE USA. GOV ABANDONING THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF PUBLIC AMERICAN LAND THAT IS DESIGNATED AS WILDERNESS?

    —————————————————-

    TO THE EARTH AND IT’S COMMUNITY OF LIFE?

    ————————————————————

    INDEED, BY DEFINITION, THIS IS BEYOND THE UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE MAN!

    ———————————————————————————–

    DEFINITIONS ,  Details  AND  Documentation

    THE ROADLESS PRELUDE TO WILDERNESS

    What are the definitions of inventoried roadless areas

    www.fs.usda.gov/…/fsbdev3_00…

    United States Department of Agriculture

    roadless areas” when referring to areas to consider for wilderness … 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act. There are two steps to this process: 1) conducting the.

    ———————————————————————————

    By  USDA definition  

    1.INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS

    2. POTENTIAL WILDERNESS AREAS,

    3. RECOMMENDED WILDERNESS AREAS

    4. DESIGNATED WILDERNESS?

     read more at ttps://www.google.com/#q=usda+roadless+act++Wilderness+

    ————————————

     1. INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS

    refer to those areas identified and mapped in accordance with the Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule (the ‘2001 Roadless Rule’). Reference 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 294 and 66 Federal Register 3244-3272

    (Jan. 12, 2001). The 2001 Roadless Rule defines inventoried roadless areas as “Areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps, contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November

    2000, which are held at the National headquarters office of the Forest Service, or any subsequent update or revision of those maps.

    ” The definition of a roadless area for the 2001 Roadless Rule included: undeveloped areas typically exceeding 5,000 ACRES that met the minimum criteria FOR WILDERNESS consideration UNDER THE WILDERNESS ACT and that were inventoried during the Forest Service’s Roadless Area Review and Evaluation

    (RARE II) PROCESS, subsequent assessments, or forest planning.

    The 1982 planning regulations and the Forest Service Handbook used the term “ROADLESS AREAS” when referring to areas to consider for wilderness recommendation.

     

    The 2005 Planning Rule (now the 2008 Planning Rule) and the current Forest Service Handbook now use the term” POTENTIAL WILDERNESS AREAS” when referring to areas to consider for wilderness recommendation.

    ———————————————–

    2. POTENTIAL WILDERNESS AREAS

    refer to those areas identified and evaluated during the

    development or revision of Forest Plans for administrative recommendation TO CONGRESS FOR WILDERNESS DESIGNATION. Reference 72 Federal Register 4478-4481 (Jan. 31, 2007) and Forest Service Handbook 1909.12-2007-1, Chapter 70

    Wilderness Evaluation.

     THE INTENT  is to identify and evaluate all NFS lands that meet the definition of wilderness in section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act. There are two steps to this process: 1) conducting the inventory (based on the definition of wilderness); and 2) evaluating the areas in the inventory (based on capability, availability and need).

    ——————————————————

    3. RECOMMENDED WILDERNESS AREAS

    are those areas (generally identified during the

    preparation or revision of Forest Plans) that the Forest Service recommends to Congress as candidates for designation as Wilderness. ONLY CONGRESS CAN DESIGNATE WILDERNESS.

    —————————————————

    note:

    PASSAGE BY CONGRESS of the Washington Wilderness Act (P.L. 98-339) in 1984 resulted in the designation of several of the RARE II areas as Wilderness in Washington State

    ——————————————————————————-

     

    4. DESIGNATED WILDERNESS

    is any area of land designated by Congress as part of the

    National Wilderness Preservation System that was established in the Wilderness Act of 1964.

    Wilderness is “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled (not limited or controlled) by man,

    WHERE MAN HIMSELF IS A VISITOR WHO DOES NOT REMAIN.”

    An area of wilderness is further defined in the Wilderness Act to mean “an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval prehistoric, ancient, archaic, character and influence, WITHOUT permanent improvements or HUMAN HABITATION, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions

    and which

     (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable;

     (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive, prehistoric, ancient, archaic,  and unconfined type of recreation;

     (3) HAS AT LEAST FIVE THOUSAND ACRES OF LAND or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and

    (4) MAY also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or HISTORICAL value.”

     

    Can we add areas to the inventoried roadless area list developed for the 2001  Roadless Rule?

     

    We will not be adding any areas to the list of Inventoried Roadless Areas.

     

    Under the 2008 Planning Rule we will inventory additional areas to determine if they meet the definition of wilderness in section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act.

    However, we will now call them POTENTIAL WILDERNESS AREAS rather than ROADLESS AREAS.

    This will keep them separate from the areas whose management was DICTATED BY THE 2001 ROADLESS RULE.

     

    What are the limitations on management contained in

    the 2001 Roadless Rule?

     

    (1) PROHIBITS NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION in inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands,

     

     except:

     

    To protect health and safety in cases of an imminent threat of flood, fire, or other catastrophic event that, without intervention, would cause the loss of life or property.

     

    To conduct environmental clean up required by federal law.

     

    To allow for reserved or outstanding rights provided for by statute or treaty.

     

    To prevent irreparable resource damage by an existing road.

     

    To rectify existing hazardous road conditions.

     

    Where a road is part of a Federal Aid Highway project.

     

    Where a road is needed in conjunction with the continuation, extension, or renewal of a mineral lease on lands that are under

    lease, or for new leases issued immediately upon expiration of an existing lease.

     

    (2) PROHIBITS CUTTING, SALE, AND REMOVAL OF TIMBER IN INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS,

     

     except:

     

    For the cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter trees which maintains or improves roadless characteristics and:

     

    To improve habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive

    species, or

    To maintain or restore ecosystem composition and structure, such as

    reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects.

     

    When incidental to the accomplishment of a management activity not otherwise  prohibited by this rule.

     

    FOR PERSONAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE USE.

     

    Where roadless characteristics have been substantially altered in a portion of an  inventoried roadless area due to the construction of a classified road and subsequent timber harvest occurring after the area

    was designated an inventoried roadless area and prior to the publication date of this rule.

     

    WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE 2001 ROADLESS RULE?

     

    On August 12, 2008 a federal judge in Wyoming ruled

    that the 2001 Roadless Rule was prepared in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wilderness Act. He set aside the 2001 Roadless Rule and prohibited the Forest Service from implementing it.

     

    How will Inventoried Roadless Areas be managed if the 2001 Roadless Rule is not in effect?

     

    If these areas are no longer under a national rule,

    their management is determined by the provisions of the current Forest Plan. As such, their future management will be determined by the revision process. Since Potential Wilderness Areas only include areas that meet the definition of wilderness, how will large unroaded areas that do not qualify for consideration as wilderness be managed?

     

    We would determine management for these areas through the forest planning process as we identify desired conditions, general suitability for uses and guidelines.

     


  • Cantwell’s Enchanted Response

    Cantwell’s Enchanted Response

    Thank you for writing me about the Enchanted Valley Chalet. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue and sincerely regret the delayed response.  

    As you know, the Enchanted Valley Chalet, built in 1930, is a wooden lodge located in the backcountry of the Olympic National Park and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Recently, the stability of the Chalet has become at risk due to erosion along the banks of the main channel of the Quinault River, which has undercut the structure of the Chalet.  

    The U.S. National Park Service is currently in consultation with the Olympic National Park staff, local stakeholders, and regional preservation organizations to determine the best approach going forward. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor the situation closely and I will keep your thoughts in mind should I have the opportunity to consider this issue in the future.  

    I believe we have a responsibility to protect our state and nation’s rugged natural beauty and pristine and historic lands for the collective benefit  of current and future generations. From expanding Mt. Rainier National Park, to creating the Lewis and Clark National Historical Park at the mouth of the Columbia River I have worked tireless to preserve our amazing natural treasures while boosting Washington’s recreation and tourism industries at the same time. I have also opposed making the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge available for oil exploration, and introduced the Roadless Area Conservation Act to protect 58.5 million  acres of our nation’s last remaining pristine forest lands, including two million  acres in Washington State.

    Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

    Sincerely,
    Maria Cantwell
    United States Senator

     

     


  • The Roadless Crew Cantwell and Inslee

    The Roadless Crew Cantwell and Inslee

    H.R.3465 — National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Act

    Various forms of this bill have been introduced by INSLEE AND CANTWELL SINCE 2002.

    According to U.S. SEN. MARIA CANTWELL, D-WASH., a sponsor of the bill along with U.S. REP. JAY INSLEE D-WASH., the Roadless Area Conservation Act  would? protect “hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country.”

    Thursday, November 17, 2011

    —————————————————————————————————–

    This article comes to us courtesy of California Watch

    By Susanne Rust

    Nearly 60 million acres of national forests were put off-limits to motor vehicles, road building and logging during the Clinton administration.

    Last week, a bill was introduced that would turn that rule into law.

    According to U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., a sponsor of the bill along with U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee D-Wash., the Roadless Area Conservation Act  would protect “hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country.”

    Various forms of this bill have been introduced by Inslee and Cantwell since 2002.

    “There is an urgent need to safeguard the remaining undeveloped forest lands as a home for wildlife, a haven for recreation and a heritage for future generations,” Cantwell said.

    But not everyone is convinced. And one California congressman wants to make sure that bill never sees the light of day. Instead, U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., introduced – the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act – in April that would release about 43 million of those acres to be used for oil and gas development, motorized recreation and logging.

    “Millions of acres of land across the United States are being held under lock and key unnecessarily,” McCarthy said. “My bill acts on recommendations made by government agencies managing these lands so they are opened up for increased public use.”

    The recommendations upon which McCarthy’s bill relies are from a1979 U.S. Forest Service Report (PDF)  that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had called “inadequate because of its use of unsupported and undocumented statements, its lack of related data on demands for resources, and its unbalanced economic approach.”

    The report recommends keeping 15 million acres protected, allocating 36 million for non-wilderness and holding an additional 11 million aside for further planning.

    “This is just common sense,” McCarthy said. “By opening these lands up to the residents of our local communities and across the country for their use and enjoyment, we can help create jobs, boost local economies and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires.”

    Joe Walsh, a spokesman for the U.S. Forest Service, said the document is not one the Forest Service uses anymore.

    “Science changes,” Walsh said. “We like to use the latest science we have, so we’re always on the cutting edge.”

    According to the 1979 report: “Resource trade-offs were compelling reasons for allocating a roadless area to either the wilderness or non-wilderness category.”

    “Areas with high oil and gas potential were normally not allocated to wilderness,” the report stated, adding that “high timber values have been used as reasons to allocate an area to non-wilderness.”

    Andrea McCarthy, a spokeswoman for Kevin McCarthy, said it makes sense to allow local land managers to have a say in how to use these resources.

    “These decisions should be made on a local level, not left up to bureaucrats in D.C.,” she said. She added that the bill “does not terminate existing, congressionally designated wilderness areas, nor does it release wilderness study areas or roadless areas deemed suitable for wilderness.”

    The roadless rule, which was issued in 2001 by President Bill Clinton, was the result of the largest public lands review process in U.S. history. It also has been in the courts since its inception.

    Five months after it was implemented, a federal court in Idaho blocked it. Then, in 2005, the Bush administration repealed the rule and replaced it with a state petition process.

    Attorneys general in California, Oregon, New Mexico and Washington sued, and in 2006, a federal judge ruled in their favor. The case then went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the Clinton rule.

    In 2008, a federal judge in Wyoming blocked the rule. That was then sent to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month ruled again in favor of the Clinton rule.

    With two agreeing rulings from the circuit courts, the rule will stand – unless a new law is made.

    “The courts agree on the ruling,” said Paul Spitler, a policy expert with The Wilderness Society, “but Congress trumps rulings. And if McCarthy’s bill gets through, these rulings are irrelevant.”

    The Wilderness Society supports the Clinton rule.

    Spitler said McCarthy’s bill is a “wholesale attack on values that Americans hold dear and a grand giveaway to great corporate polluters.”

    Susanne Rust is an investigative reporter for California Watch, a project of the non-profit Center for Investigative Reporting. Find more California Watch stories.

    —————————————————————————————————–

    Press Release of Senator Cantwell

    Cantwell, Inslee Introduce Legislation to Support Outdoor Economy, Permanently Protect Last Remaining Wild Forestlands

    National forest roadless areas provide irreplaceable societal and economic benefits worth billions of dollars annually

     ——————————————————————————————————

    Thursday, November 17,2011

     

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and U.S. Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA-01) jointly introduced legislation in the Senate and House to preserve Washington’s last remaining pristine forestlands — lands that contribute billions of dollars to the state’s economy. The measures introduced today have 130 Congressional co-sponsors.

    The Roadless Area Conservation Act would codify the 2001 Presidential rule that applies to nearly 60 MILLION ACRES OF ROADLESS NATIONAL FOREST LANDS IN 38 STATES. The widely popular Roadless Rule, which was the result of the largest public lands review process in U.S. history, has been under assault since its inception over a decade ago. After years of legal wrangling, on OCTOBER 21ST THE CONSERVATIVE 10TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED ALL LEGAL CLAIMS AGAINST THE ROADLESS RULE. Yet ongoing legislative efforts in both the House and Senate would open up roadless areas to logging, mining, and drilling. Passage of the Roadless Area Conservation Act would permanently protect these last remaining untouched public lands and safeguard the many benefits they provide Americans today and in the future.

    “THE ROADLESS RULE PROTECTS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. In Washington one-fifth of our national forests are roadless. These areas are a critical engine to our economy and quality of life and need to be a lasting part of the landscape,” said Senator Cantwell.

     “Our cities depend on roadless areas for drinking water, and our pristine forests support more than 100,000 outdoor industry jobs here in Washington. There is an urgent need to safeguard the remaining undeveloped forest lands as a home for wildlife, a haven for recreation, and a heritage for future generations.”

    “Roadless areas protect the health of our communities, the diversity of our forests, and support Washington’s economy,” said Representative Inslee.

    “The outdoor industry in Washington state gains $11.7 billion annually, generating more than 115,00 jobs and accounting for 3.5 percent of the state’s economy. Further, preserving roadless areas ensures that the generations that come after us have the opportunity to enjoy the beautiful wild lands Washington state has to offer.”

    Washington State’s outdoor recreation industry contributes more than $11.7 billion to the state’s economy every year. It also supports more than 115,000 jobs across the state and produces $8.5 billion annually in retail sales, accounting for 3.5 percent of Washington’s gross state product.

    National forests cover 9.2 million acres of Washington – about one-fifth of the state’s total land mass. There are two million acres of inventoried roadless areas in the Evergreen State, including sites like Kettle River Range, Dark Divide and Lena Lake. 

    “Roadless protections of intact habitats provide for the biggest bulls, largest bucks and best fishing on our public lands,” said Gregg Bafundo, Washington Field Representative for Trout Unlimited. “It is important as hunters and anglers that we pass down our heritage by protecting these special places.”

    “Roadless areas are part of the identity of the Pacific Northwest,” said Tom Uniack, Conservation Director for the Washington Wilderness Coalition. “They are home to ancient forests, provide habitat for wild salmon and protect the clean water we drink. It is only a matter of time before these pristine areas are developed unless they can be legislatively protected.”

    “Each year, more than 150 million American’s participate in active, outdoor recreation driving $300 billion in retail sale and services,” said Frank Hugelmeyer, President & CEO, of the Outdoor Industry Association. “Our customers seek and demand a full spectrum of quality, accessible outdoor experiences. From mountain biking in Washington’s Dark Divide Roadless Area to hunting in the Cheoah Bald in North Carolina, Forest Service roadless areas support a wide range of activities and are essential to local recreation economies.”

    Roadless areas in America’s national forests provide irreplaceable societal and economic benefits worth billions of dollars annually by supporting jobs, protecting air and water quality, preserving fish and wildlife habitat, and delivering unique outdoor recreational opportunities. For example:

    • National forest lands provide drinking water to 125 million Americans in 900 cities across the United States
    • Roadless areas generate a significant portion of the outdoor industry’s $730 billion in annual revenues.
    • Roadless areas help to save taxpayer dollars by stemming the growth of the Forest Service’s estimated $5.3 billion maintenance backlog for roads and other infrastructure.
    • Roadless areas provide exceptional habitat for fish and game and extraordinary experiences for hunting and fishing.
    • Roadless areas provide critical habitat for 1,600 threatened or endangered plant and animal species.

    Like the original 2001 Roadless Rule, the Roadless Area Conservation Act establishes a balanced and flexible policy that protects pristine roadless areas while still allowing for new roads and logging to fight forest fires and ensure public safety, full access to recreational activities, and continued oil and gas development on existing leases. 

    This legislation also reflects the premium that Americans place on these last remaining untouched public lands. To date, the U.S. Forest Service has received over 4.2 million comments on the roadless rule — the most extensive public involvement in a federal rulemaking ever — with the vast majority in support of the rule’s protections. This legislation is strongly supported by fishing and hunting groups, the outdoor recreation industry, and environmental groups.

    Sen. Cantwell also released a new report on the importance of roadless area protection, accompanying today’s introduction of the Roadless Area Conservation Act. This report highlights the many economic, environmental, and societal benefits that roadless areas provide and shows that the Roadless Act is a step toward more responsible government in an era of budget constraints for federal agencies, which are charged with maintaining existing assets and protecting public safety on public lands.

    Cantwell has long championed the protection of America’s remaining roadless areas. In fact, during her first week as a U.S. Senator, Cantwell raised implementation of the roadless rule as a primary concern during the January 2001 nomination hearing of President George W. Bush’s pick for attorney general, John Ashcroft. Recently, Cantwell hailed the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision which upheld the rule to preserve national forests. In 2009, she introduced legislation with Inslee that would have codified the Roadless Rule into law and has repeatedly challenged administrative efforts to weaken or overturn it. 

    ###