|
| SPPORT OUR TROOPS |
|
| (click on ribbion) |
This land is your land, this land is my land From California, to the New York Island From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters This land was made for you and me
words and music by Woody Guthrie
Our State “brown shirted Civil Servants” (AKA “enviro interpreters’) are calling to US again, along with their “stake
holder groups” to “cross the Tees – dot the Iiis - & fill in their blanks”; so as to get the ok
on “their General Plan” and our "green sticker tax monies” to manage US off our “Public Lands” and rewrite the words to Woody’s
song to read – “This Land Is Gov Land…” and they are telling US the Gov'll interpret
its use i.e. General Plan..
Public recreation on public lands - what a novel idea – but these are dirty words to the Gov! … Unless we re-interpret
them for CA State Parks at these public workshops:
As I said last time; “… let's go... telling 'em we want a true "Public Park"; You remember those, don't
you? A place were families could rest, walk, walk dogs, ride horses, bike and motor to secluded redoubts to fish, picnic
and enjoy extended camping. After all is said and done - it is our public land and we are the public! Let's ask
them how much of our "public 25,000 acres" the public will get to use and how much of our public park we will we be locked
out of? “
The fundamental logic underling
the development of the “General Plan Amendment” (GPA) propaganda rap is that after all is said and done –
it can never be greater or encompass more than the General Plan. Terms like “general plan”, “stake holder groups’ and interrupter” are exclusionary and are designed to preclude any meaningful accomplishment
through the “development of alternatives’, “future management actions”, “public outreach”,
“community & agency input”, “development of the GPA” and any other meaningful input. They, their
stakeholder groups and other special interest “friends” feel they have as so framed this discussion
NO, NO, NO - only if we fall to show, disengage and walk away
from this. IF on the other hand, however, we show up in large and impressive numbers and reinstate the original meaning of
“civil servants”, stress “diverse-ability” is humane inclusive, that WE ARE the
stakeholders in this community and that “PUBLIC land” is just that – PUBLIC! And keep
ramming this home with a strong “poking verbal finger” we can reframe and redefine this debate. WE CAN
take back our county.
Keep The Public In Public Lands
&
The Public lands In Public Hands!
Related Documentation To Off Highway
Vehicle (OHV) Usage
In
Del Norte County
Extensive National Parks Related Documentation
Extensive CA State Parks Related Documentation
Extensive Mill Creek Related Documentation
TDSP Gen Public Protest Letter (020806)
TDSP Iterim Plan
Letter From DN BofS To State Parks (020106)
Letter From LEG To CA Resources Agency (083105)
LEG Letter To CA State ParksThis Is To Address The Following: ( 020806A&B)
E-Mail Support For Multi Use TDSP
CA DEPT OF PARKS & REC ORDER NO. 1-635-88 (020406)
DN BofS Letter To Ruth Coleman State Parks HQ In Support Of Multi Use
Agenda CA State Parks Meeting @ Grange (012606)
Tolowa Dunes Related OHV Documentation
|
| alt |
| Can Be Enlarged |
|
|
| (to enlarge click on above map) |
One Fine Gift
Today, less than 10 percent
of the Mill Creek
property is old
growth; most of the
remaining forest was
logged within the
last 50 years. When voters passed the California Clean Water,
Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood
Parks, and Coastal Protection
Act of 2002, did
they realize that some of the money
would be used to
help stabilize, repair, and convert old
logging roads for
use as recreational trails or to restore fish
passageways and enhance
fish habitat?
With over 2-½ billion
dollars to distribute, the value
of the Mill Creek
watershed made it a project recipient.
During the extensive
logging of the Mill Creek property
over the past 50
years, a vast network of roads were
constructed to remove
the timber and transfer it to the
mill for processing.
There are more than 255 miles of
roads on 25,000 acres.
http://www.nps.gov/redw/parknews/upload/VG03_featurestories.pdf
Already Written Mill Creek General Plan
And From The LOR:
We hear there is another CA State
Parks meeting planed for 21 June 07 on the Already Written Mill Creek General Plan (AWMCGP). Dejah vue!
This time it's Supervisor Bruce
Lynn, blathering on how he's; "hoping this will be a cooperative process.... We definitely want to find
out what the different interests are and include them".
Well at least he hasn't started
by limiting "parks" opening remarks to our local "stake holders". Nope, residents will be invited to attend a series of meetings
and give input.
However, one might ask - for what
purpose? Our LOR reports; "State Parks will determine how much land use, circulation and facilities, natural
and cultural resources, and education might affect the already written Mill Creek General Plan." LOR
goes on to ask us to "Help Create the Plan", to be fare the article later says to amend. What nonsense is this? According
to our LOR "The General Plan Amendment will include all environmental regulations that apply." Mmmm, doesn't sound like a
hell of a lot of room for public use. Oh but the public "will be at the table" so to speak. BUT WILL IT MEAN ANYTING? The
die seems cast.
Wonder if they'll have us write
our comments on taped up "wall paper" like the last time we visited? Mmmm, do you think "parks" will listen
and include our interests or just listen? Will they seriously amend / adjust / change \ recon
fig their already made plan for us "unwashed masses"? Judging by the most recent as well as most distant
past - naaaah!
So, let's go anyways to make 'em
squirm and kick 'em in their - - - mmmm, their little "gray cells", very, very little "gray cells" telling 'em we want
a true "Public Park"; You remember those, don't you? A place were families could rest, walk, walk dogs, ride horses,
bike and motor to secluded redoubts to picnic and camp. After all is said and done - it is our public land and we
are the public! Let's ask them how much of our "public 25,000 acres" the public will get to use and how much of our public
park we will we be locked out of?
Neighbors let's not pass this one
up, you can be sure "the friends of" the county won't. There are one heck of a lot of questions for and
comments on the "already written Mill Creek General Plan" I believe we all have.
Should
You Want To Go & Plan For The Plan
(click here to see Community Calendar for time & place)
alt
2006 NPS Management Policies
More than 45,000 commenters responded to the proposed draft Management Policies during the
127-day review period that ended February 25, 2006. Those comments were read, processed, summarized and organized by National
Park Service staff in the Office of Policy and the Environmental Quality Division. The results were then considered by a National
Park Service review team* that met in Denver the week of April 10, 2006. Based on the comments received, the review team prepared
extensive edits to the draft. The revised text was subsequently evaluated by a number of park managers and subject matter
experts who suggested further refinements. The National Leadership Council suggested additional improvements.
A special committee representing the National Park System Advisory Board met with Deputy Director
Steve Martin and key NPS staff May 23 and May 24, 2006, to discuss the revised draft. The committee then reported back to
the full Board, which discussed and endorsed the committee's recommendations at its June 9, 2006, meeting. The Board's recommendations
were then considered by the Director and other NPS senior managers and incorporated as appropriate.
An internal Servicewide review was completed July 10, 2006. At the close of the comment period
a review committee met to consider the comments and make any further edits to improve the draft. A final revised draft was
then reviewed by the National Leadership Council before being presented for the Director's consideration and approval. Director
Mainella approved the final document August 31, 2006.
For More Info On This Doc & Links To Other Related Resource
Material - Click Here.
NPS
Policy Options for a Changing Rural
America
No longer tied closely to farm policies, rural economies in the 21st
century will be shaped demographic change, industrial restructuring, and national economic trends.
Leslie A. Whitener and Tim Parker
In 1950, 4 out of every 10 rural people lived on a farm, and
almost a third of the Nation’s rural workforce was engaged directly in production agriculture. Because agriculture dominated
the social and economic well-being of most of the rural population, public policy related to agriculture was a dominant force
shaping rural life both on the farm and in rural
communities. But today, rural America is vastly different from the 1950’s,
and current commodity-based farm policies do not fully address the complexities of rural economies and populations. Farms
are larger and more efficient, farm households depend more on off-farm income, and rural communities look for nonfarm sources
of economic growth. Today, less than 10 percent of rural people live on a farm, and only 14 percent of the rural workforce
is employed in farming.
In addition, some rural communities have changed dramatically
since 1990 due to increased population from urban areas, shifts in age and ethnic composition, and economic and industrial
restructuring. Population changes are creating new needs as new migrants from urban areas and abroad revitalize some nonmetropolitan
(nonmetro) or rural areas, while long-term population and employment losses have the opposite effect on other rural communities.
Increasing competition from abroad and sectoral shifts in employment present new challenges and opportunities in the worldwide
economy and raise the question—how can rural communities successfully build on their economic base and other assets
to retain and attract population and employment? And, when, where, and under what circumstances will rural development strategies
be most successful? The diversity within rural America dictates that strategies tailored to particular types of rural economies
may be more effective than a broader “one size fits all” rural policy. Demographic change, the health of the Nation’s
economy, and industrial restructuring will be major factors affecting rural policy in the 21st century.
(for the rest of this article click - here)
| For More Info |
|
|
| (click on above pic) |
Congress Reviews
The "Farm Security
& Rural Investment Act"
Agricultural policy affects not only the economic
well-being of farm households, but also our food supply, the environment, and the future of rural communities. The current
farm law (the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002) remains in force only through 2007. A proposal for a new farm
bill was released by the Bush administration at the end of January, and other proposals have been made by various stakeholder
groups. The agriculture committees in Congress have begun to debate these ideas and develop their own proposals. In the
upcoming months, they will be crafting legislation that will eventually become the next farm law.
And Now For The Rest
Of The Story!
|
