Nowhere to roam
July 13, 2013
Environmental groups and forest service-connected agencies keep crying wolf with more than 1,000 "endangered" species, while more are to be added to their endless list. As for Tahoe National Forest, now the yellow-legged frog family is so important that a public land grab, 2 million acre-takings agenda lies down the road, which I have paraphrased here:
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to designate critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog … and the Yosemite toad under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 presently projected to affect Nevada County and 16 other California counties.
The greatest concern with the frog, apparently is predation by non-native trout in mountain waterways, drifting pesticides, disease and climate change. However, scientists neglected to mention the massive "let it burn" fires in the habitat destruction assessment, which allows millions of acres to burn every year. Was this an oversight?
If this "bio region" goes into effect, kiss old Tahoe National Forest goodbye and the rest of the Sierra as our forest service agencies will continue to use wildfire and "endangered species" to push their bogus agendas and also us out of the Sierra into major cities for the sole purpose of control.
Wasn't there already enough damage done when the road closures began in the 1990s, when logging was brought to a near standstill and whole rural economies were devastated and brought to dire poverty throughout the Sierra? Just start counting the thousands of trailers and run-down mobile homes. So this what the hard-working public gets for paying their taxes for roughly 45 years of their life, but now they will have nowhere to roam?
If this proposal passes, expect more forest service road closures and a lot less recreation, if any. So far, the forestry agencies are careful not to reveal what new restrictions will be in effect if their massive, Marxist endangered species proposal is implemented. No transparency here, but on the horizon, less access will surely follow while there could very well be an end to the following: logging, mining, hiking trails, fishing, horseback riding, camping, swimming, hunting, trail bike paths, firewood cutting, normal travel by vehicles and regular access with off-road vehicles, such as ATVs or dirt bikes.
The forests in question are public lands that were set aside for the people's enjoyment and not a family of frogs, owls and wolves. Teddy Roosevelt, who was instrumental in bringing us our first national park, was a hunter. Is there anyone out there who is ready to chisel him off of Mount Rushmore because he might have enjoyed hunting for elk in the Rocky Mountains? When it's all said and done, will a person even be able to pan for gold along the Yuba River?
The charade of the environmental protection saddled with enviro lawsuits and forestry regulations is being used against a people that are already oppressed with rock bottom wages, unemployment, foreclosures and inflation. Only a sadistic mind-set would want to limit or prevent the public from the enjoyment of their forests, which in all actuality, belong to them anyway. We, as a people, cannot afford to give the government one more inch of land, which was originally meant for the public good and their welfare, and we certainly don't need those rights taken away that are already inalienable God-given rights to begin with, which by the way, was the rock of freedom that this nation was founded upon.
Shall we now offer these rights back to the "keepers of the forest," who are saying that they no longer have enough money to fight every last forest fire in 2013, while the state of California charges Sierra Nevada homeowners an extra tax that will go into Cal Fire's coffers for, what, their retirement? Where is the outrage?
Chuck Frank lives in Penn Valley.