| My Official Public
Comments: Allegheny National Forest, Forest Plan Revision
August 26, 2006
To: r9_anf_fpr@fs.fed.us; r9_allegheny_nf@fs.fed.us; lelmquist@fs.fed.us
From: propertyrights@earthlink.net
Date: 8-26-2006
Public Comments: Allegheny National Forest, Forest Plan Revision
I am submitting these comments on August 26, 2006, knowing that the comment deadline is August 28, 2006. The entire text of this email, including headers, is to be accepted as my official comments and is to be left totally intact and not subjected to any "Content Analysis" or other virtual shredding/identity theft of my comments, meaning, tone and timbre.
Absolutely nowhere in all the Language Deception gobbledygook:
Forest Plan Revision
Allegheny National Forest (ANF) Reviewer's Guide ANF Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Executive Summary
ANF Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP)Introduction to the Proposed Plan Part III - Forest-wide Design Criteria Part IV - Management Area Direction Appendix A - Vegetation Management Silvicultural Guides for ANF Forest Types Appendix B - Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation Appendix C - Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Descriptions and Development Level Table Appendix D - Species with Viability Concerns Table Other Documents
Open filesDraft Proposed Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP)Draft Proposed Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Draft Proposed Appendices Volume I (Appendices A-F)Draft Proposed Appendix Volume II (Appendix G)
located here: http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/allegheny/projects/forest_plan_revision/DEIS-LRMP/index.php is there a shard of common sense or a crumb of honesty. You may throw my comments out as being too "nebulous," but the entire "Forest Plan Revision" reeks with "nebulous." A vast number of words and phrases that are bandied about are never even defined: probably because they are, in fact, undefinable.
The Allegheny National Forest (ANF) is a mosaic of land that has been employed over time in many diverse resource utilizations. Not being a contiguous tract of forest is not necessarily a bad thing, because the more differences there are of flora and fauna within the ANF, the greater the diversity.
If the mission of the Forest Service is truly to insure that the American people have an abundant, regenerating supply of timber, as was so candidly said by a certain Rough Rider: "And now, first and foremost, you can never afford to forget for a moment what is the object of our forest policy. That object is not to preserve forests because they beautiful, though that is good in itself; nor because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness, though that, too, is good in itself; but the primary object of our forest policy, as of the land policy of the United States, is the making of prosperous homes. It is part of the traditional policy of home making in our country. Every other consideration comes as secondary. You yourselves have got to keep this practical object before your minds: to remember that a forest which contributes nothing to the wealth, progress, or safety of the country is of no interest to the Government, and should be of little interest to the forester. Your attention must be directed to the preservation of forests, not as an end in itself, but as the means of preserving and increasing the prosperity of the nation." - President Theodore J. "Teddy" Roosevelt, 26th president of the United States of America, speaking to the Society of American Foresters in 1903. (emphasis added) http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/presidential_quotes.htm -- you will not stand in the way of reaping the benefits from this land that should be helping support the Americans whose taxpayer dollars have paid for it. Locking it up could scarcely be more contradictory to its original intent!
"...the primary object of our forest policy, as of the land policy of the United States, is the making of prosperous homes.."
Vacillation must never be a part of the equation. The exodus of caring, knowledgeable Forest Service employees that began in the mid-1990s and continues to this day, bodes ill for America's National Forests as well as those Americans that should still be free to "make prosperous homes" from those trees and that lumber. Trees are a Renewable Resource. "Old growth timber" is different for each variety of tree. Trees have different life expectancies, but they all go through life cycles, from germination to sapling, to youngster competing for sunlight and nutrients, to mature tree, to post-maturity and declining health, to disease/lightning strike/fire/insect infestation and eventual death. Neglect is not stewardship. It is not dominion. It is neglect, and it is criminal.
Recreation in the national forests must remain "standard equipment" and not "optional." Rather than the current "politically correct" hogwash of "passive recreation," immediately return all parts of America that are currently discriminating in favor of whatever someone says pabulum "passive" recreation is (there's that notorious Clinton word "is"), to Active Recreation.
Stop discriminating against those that are unable to see scenic views without motorized transportation there, whether it be by All-terrain vehicle (ATV), car, over-the-snow vehicle (OSV), etc. War veterans with missing limbs may no longer be Olympians, able to cross country ski or hike for days to reach places deliberately gated/chained/padlocked off from them.
Teddy Roosevelt did not trot 'round in circles, beating a path of Language Deception in order to seize control of America's resources.
He expressly stated that lands set aside for national parks be lands "unsuitable for agriculture."
Do you not think he is rolling in his grave to see your "vision," "plan" and four "alternatives?"
He'd be one Rough Rider who'd leave tracks all over your agenda, which is NOT in ANY WAY, SHAPE or FORM his original intent.
A plan that holds natural resources hostage under the Language Deception banner of "environment" is a Trojan Horse, seeking to crash the gates of this Republic and grind into oblivion our property rights and nation's wealth.
As an aside, I guarantee that the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, also known as ANWR, is under no risk of hurricanes, as are oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, so crank up the drilling on that postage-stamp-sized fraction of one percent of ANWR that should be reclaiming America's Independence from "foreign oil."
The choice of "Management Plans" must not kowtow to "environmental concerns," which are nothing more than agendas to Control every square inch of the ANF, i.e., all the natural resources within the boundaries of the ANF.
Return ALL National Forests to their original intended use and purpose and dispense with the vagaries, smoke and mirrors!
Julie Kay Smithson
London, Ohio
Property rights researcher
Comments based in their entirety upon what is located here:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/allegheny/projects/forest_plan_revision/DEIS-LRMP/index.php |