It only takes a few seconds and the letter is already written. Thanks in advance ..
http://www.sharetrails.org/letters/letter.php?id=47
http://www.sharetrails.org/letters/letter.php?id=47
Save mt jefferson !!!
- Thread starter Powderhound
- Start date
F
sent mine....
Done!!
X
done, and I am completely beside myself with the continued onslaught against this area. It just keeps coming 
C
The Mt Jefferson portion (4500 acres) of the Tester bill would be a big loss for sure, the whole 677,000 acres proposed for wilderness in Tester's bill would be a huge loss.
Here is a link to our SAWS alert on this bill from July, 2009:
http://www.snowmobile-alliance.org/...Introduces_Forest_Jobs_and_Recreation_Act.htm
Wording from the bill regarding Mt Jefferson:
http://tester.senate.gov/forest/forestmaps/b-d/MtJefferson.pdf
I sure hope that those that write to oppose the approximate 4,500 acres at Mt Jefferson, also oppose the remaining 672,500 acres proposed for wilderness too.
Here are maps of all of the areas that would also be closed and the entire language of the bill:
http://tester.senate.gov/Legislation/forestresources.cfm
Here is a link to our SAWS alert on this bill from July, 2009:
http://www.snowmobile-alliance.org/...Introduces_Forest_Jobs_and_Recreation_Act.htm
Wording from the bill regarding Mt Jefferson:
"(10) MOUNT JEFFERSON WILDERNESS.—Certain land in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, comprising approximately 4,465 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Mount Jefferson Proposed Wilderness’’ and dated July 16, 2009, to be known as the ‘‘Mount Jefferson Wilderness’’."
Map of Mt Jefferson proposed closure area:http://tester.senate.gov/forest/forestmaps/b-d/MtJefferson.pdf
I sure hope that those that write to oppose the approximate 4,500 acres at Mt Jefferson, also oppose the remaining 672,500 acres proposed for wilderness too.
Here are maps of all of the areas that would also be closed and the entire language of the bill:
http://tester.senate.gov/Legislation/forestresources.cfm
Last edited:
Done.
SUBJECT: VOTE NO ON FOREST JOBS AND RECREATION ACT
Dear [Letter Recipient],
I am writing to express my concern regarding Senator Jon Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.
The draft of the bill released to the public has significant flaws. Senator Tester's staff has admitted it has errors and have committed to several changes. They also have attempted to clarify motorized and mountain bike access. I am concerned that the bill will be heard in the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests December 17, 2009 before the public has had a chance to view any changes to the original bill.
I ask that you aggressively oppose this legislation as presently written.
The legislation would close the popular Mt. Jefferson snowmobile area. Known as "The Crown Jewel of Western Snowmobiling," Mt. Jefferson can only be accessed from Idaho and is an important component of a viable year-round economy in Island Park, Idaho. Snowmobile use of the area has been a controversial issue for decades. However, the new Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest planning process resulted in a compromise solution that kept most of the popular snowmobile areas open. This compromise represents a hard-fought and, sadly, uncommon victory for the snowmobile community. According to Sen. Tester's staff, the intent of the bill is to mirror the Forest Plan. Yet, the closure of Mt. Jefferson is a substantial deviation from that plan. The bill would close what the snowmobile community fought so hard to keep open, and it adds insult to injury for anyone to suggest differently.
It is impossible to determine how the legislation will affect travel planning. Again, Senate staff indicate the bill will mirror the Forest Plan, and ultimately the Forest's Travel Plan, now in the planning stage. The Senator has recently posted maps of the existing travel plan, saying that it portrays the intent of the bill. This is a mistake, at best. The problem is that the agency is in the middle of the planning process, and the bill will codify the final plan, not the existing condition, which is what the maps show.
Please don't believe the myth that the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership represents a true collaboration. The Partnership is actually a small subset of the larger spectrum of interests intent on using the "image" of collaboration to advance their own self-serving vision. Moreover, serious questions can and will be made regarding how the U.S. Forest Service adopted the Partnership recommendations, in toto, during the very late stages of their planning process.
Sincerely,
Christopher Parrett,
SnoWest Online
po box 100
rigby, ID, 83442-0100
Dear [Letter Recipient],
I am writing to express my concern regarding Senator Jon Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.
The draft of the bill released to the public has significant flaws. Senator Tester's staff has admitted it has errors and have committed to several changes. They also have attempted to clarify motorized and mountain bike access. I am concerned that the bill will be heard in the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests December 17, 2009 before the public has had a chance to view any changes to the original bill.
I ask that you aggressively oppose this legislation as presently written.
The legislation would close the popular Mt. Jefferson snowmobile area. Known as "The Crown Jewel of Western Snowmobiling," Mt. Jefferson can only be accessed from Idaho and is an important component of a viable year-round economy in Island Park, Idaho. Snowmobile use of the area has been a controversial issue for decades. However, the new Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest planning process resulted in a compromise solution that kept most of the popular snowmobile areas open. This compromise represents a hard-fought and, sadly, uncommon victory for the snowmobile community. According to Sen. Tester's staff, the intent of the bill is to mirror the Forest Plan. Yet, the closure of Mt. Jefferson is a substantial deviation from that plan. The bill would close what the snowmobile community fought so hard to keep open, and it adds insult to injury for anyone to suggest differently.
It is impossible to determine how the legislation will affect travel planning. Again, Senate staff indicate the bill will mirror the Forest Plan, and ultimately the Forest's Travel Plan, now in the planning stage. The Senator has recently posted maps of the existing travel plan, saying that it portrays the intent of the bill. This is a mistake, at best. The problem is that the agency is in the middle of the planning process, and the bill will codify the final plan, not the existing condition, which is what the maps show.
Please don't believe the myth that the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership represents a true collaboration. The Partnership is actually a small subset of the larger spectrum of interests intent on using the "image" of collaboration to advance their own self-serving vision. Moreover, serious questions can and will be made regarding how the U.S. Forest Service adopted the Partnership recommendations, in toto, during the very late stages of their planning process.
Sincerely,
Christopher Parrett,
SnoWest Online
po box 100
rigby, ID, 83442-0100
Sent
got mine sent to!!
J
Done..
done
Done.
Come on everyone do this it really only takes a minute to do.
Thanks Doug
Come on everyone do this it really only takes a minute to do.
Thanks Doug
Z
Done and thanks to everyone who participates in keeping our freedoms and basic rights as Americans alive.:beer;
Sent, Done.
X2 on thanks to all who protect my right to ride.
X2 on thanks to all who protect my right to ride.
X
Done..:beer;
T
ttt
I
Done, and thanx for posting the link & action.
sent mine
S
Done, thanks for the post.
F
ttt....
Similar threads
