Post by: shanevg on August 17, 2016, 03:56:58 PM
We have until 9/12/16 to submit objections. Mt Baker REFORM has hired a lawyer to write the following letter to be sent to Forest Service. It is encouraged that everyone send a copy of the letter. Please note - if you are going to email, you must scan in your signature into the letter or it will not be considered. Getting a letter in the mail today may be better if that is not possible.
Even if you did not comment back in February, it doesn't hurt to send a letter! Below you'll see the letter I'll be sending. You can easily edit by placing your name where Mt.Baker REFORM is, and at the end of the letter where it will be signed.
You can also email objection to:
objections-pnw-mtbaker-snoqualmie@fs.fed.us
Must include: Your name, address, telephone #, and a scanned signature.
Or Fax to:
Forest Supervisor, ATTEN: Objections
425-783-0141
Finally, also send it to Suzan DelBene's office:
204 W.Montgomery Street, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
email:
delbene.house.gov/contact-me/email-me
Letters need to be received by Monday 9/12, so in the mail by this Friday.
Thanks everyone!!!!
September 9, 2016
Jamie Kingsbury, Forest Supervisor
Objection Reviewing Officer
Mt. Baker – Snoqualmie National Forest
Attn. 1570 Appeals and Objections
2930 Wetmore Ave
Everett, WA 98201
Via email: objections-pnw-mtbaker-snoqualmie@fs.fed.us
RE: Upper North Fork Nooksack Access and Travel Management (ATM) Project OBJECTION
Pursuant to 36 C.F.R Part 218, Subpart B, the Mt. Baker REFORM (Recreation Enthusiast for our Road Maintenance) files this objection to the proposed decision for the Upper North Fork Nooksack Access and Travel Management (ATM) Project (herein referred to as “Nooksack ATM”). The responsible official is Erin Uloth, Mt. Baker District Ranger. The Nooksack ATM project occurs on the Mt. Baker Ranger District of the Mt. Baker – Snoqualmie National Forest.
Objector
Your Name on behalf of Mt. Baker REFORM is providing support of Objectors’ comments issued as Appendix D of the Final Environmental Assessment dated July 29, 2016. Mt. Baker REFORM members attended public meetings and have commented directly to the Mt. Baker Ranger in regards to the concerns with the proposal. Specifically, we provide support of comments requesting road maintenance to allow public access by all users; allowing volunteer groups to assist with preventative road work and recognizing road access is crucial to our local economy.
Reasons for the Objection
The content of this objection is Mt. Baker REFORM has strong concern that the Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact statement dated July 29, 2016, presents new information not presented in the Nooksack ATM, and pursuant to 36 CFR Part 218.7(c)(2)(ii), modified Alternative B was not given designated opportunities for public comment. Secondly, objection is based on previously submitted public comments, which Mt. Baker REFORM is submitting a statement of community support in maintaining our forest roads for recreation and public access, as it affects the viability of the local economy.
Mt. Baker REFORM provides the following descriptions on those aspects of the project NOT addressed in the Nooksack ATM, and issues regarding new information presented as Modified Alternative B, and suggested remedies to resolve the objection:
• As outlined in the table below, the Final EA Proposed Alternative B actions compared to the modified Alternative B actions. These proposed actions introduce major modification on seasonal and scheduled closures to public access, specifically to motorized vehicles; and represents new information which has not been allowed adequate public review or comment.
Proposed Actions Alternative Plan B Modified Alternative B
Maint Level 3 40 miles 57 miles
Maint Level 2 74 miles 36 miles
Decommision Roads 6 miles with 5 currently closed 38 miles would be decommissioned (7 miles currently opened)
Close Roads to Vehicles Keep 36 miles of currently closed roads, closed to vehicle access
Close Roads to Public Access Close 18 miles *Close 28 miles to public vehicle access.
*11 miles would be administrative and in some cases, Tribal vehicle access only.
The modified Alternative B includes, keeping 36 miles of currently closed roads permanently closed to vehicle access and closing an additional 11 miles of roads strictly to public access. It appears the roads will be closed to the public; however, maintained for select user groups? How is this decision supported within the context of road maintenance budgets and more importantly, how does this meet the Northwest Forest Plan? This information was not discussed within the Nooksack ATM. Mt. Baker REFORM is objecting the decision and requesting the Nooksack ATM follow Alternative Plan B.
1. The Nooksack ATM did not provide information or language describing seasonal or scheduled closures and how it would affect user groups. Shown in Table 1 of the modified plan, Seasonal Closures Scheduled for the Project Area under this decision, Glacier Creek Road (FSR 39) will be closed in winter once Canyon Creek Road (FSR 31) is open. The table does not address where the closure will occur, nor if winter access will be allowed to the snowmobile community. Mt. Baker REFORM is objecting Table 1 actions until further discussion of the impacts these closures will have on the community and user groups.
2. Mt. Baker REFORM objects to modified Alternative B as the actions and language seem to blur into Alternative Plan C. Public comments submitted were clearly in support of Alternative Plan B and support seeking solutions to maintain public access. To reiterate public comment (#22, page 184 Final EA) and the response:
“Road closures will have a negative effect on my quality of life in both recreation and financially. These actions also have a terrible financial impact to our community… The only option… is to figure a way to work with public (user groups) or any other ways to source outside funding…”
Response: The Forest Service has benefitted greatly from volunteer efforts the past number of years, and will continue to pursue and grow these relationships. Volunteer work can make a substantial difference in the agency’s ability to maintain roads.
Resolution Requested
Mt. Baker REFORM requests that remedies/alternatives suggested below be included in an updated EA and/or clarified in supporting documentation.
1. The Nooksack ATM and Record of Decision should support Alternative Plan B actions to maintain public access and support the socio-economic factors of the community. The Record of Decision is a modified alternative that was not allowed adequate public review.
2. Further explicit detail of scheduled and seasonal closures should be presented to the public for comment and should be vetted with the community to provide clarity of timelines and expected solutions. Further clarity on the definition between motorized vehicles and wheeled vehicles is suggested. This would further allow the interested public and those affected to determine the impact of these decisions and to seek positive solutions of preventive road maintenance, which is a necessary component of the proposal.
3. The Nooksack ATM should not discriminate public access by supporting road closures specific to private users. Recognizing treaty rights and tribal access is a requirement in the review process; however, closing public access while maintaining roads for private uses is outside the scope of the Nooksack ATM.
4. Mt. Baker REFORM requests implementation of Alternative B for the Nooksack ATM, and requests proactive engagement by the Forest Service and interested volunteer groups to assist with preventive road maintenance requirements. There has been active participation and success with volunteers, along with growing interest from the community to continue these efforts.
Request for Resolution Meeting
Pursuant to 36 CFR 218.11, the objectors request a meeting with the reviewing officer to discuss the issues raised in this objection and potential resolution.
In the event multiple objections are filed on this decision, Mt. Baker REFORM respectfully requests the resolution meeting be held as soon as possible with all objectors’ present. Mt. Baker REFORM believes that having all objectors together at one time, though may require a longer meeting, will provide for more expeditious process to either resolve appeal issues or move the process forward. With that in mind, Mt. Baker REFORM requests to participate to the maximum extent practicable, and specifically requests to provide comments on point with other objectors in the course of the objection resolution meeting.
Thank you for your efforts on this project and your consideration of this objection. Mt. Baker REFORM looks forward to our initial resolution meeting. Please contact our representative, Lesley Rosten, at the email address: Bakerbiler@gmail.com, to arrange a date for the resolution meeting.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
Phone Number
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Original post:
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/mt-baker-snoqualmie-nf-districts-travel-plan-notable/
Everyone remember the public meetings and comment period that Forest Service offered this spring regarding decommissioning certain logging roads? Well apparently they made their decisions on what roads to close and keep open. Oh, and they also decided to add a special provision (that was never discussed this spring) to grant North Sound Tribes exclusive motor vehicle access to Wells Creek Road and parts of Glacier Creek Road here in Whatcom County. For those of you that don't know, these are the main access points to 2 of the 3 Mt. Baker Goat units as well as miles and miles of great deer and bear hunting country.
Of course the comment period has passed and you are only allowed to submit an "Objection" to the new rules if you commented on the road closures during public comment period this spring.
Ultimately, I don't care whether these roads are decommissioned altogether or maintained and stay open. As long as the tribes are honoring their tribal rights, I don't even care where they hunt. I understand the budget shortfalls USFS is facing right now. But from what I've read, this proposal would continue to use FS dollars to continue to maintain these PUBLIC roads and then grant exclusive motor vehicle access to tribal members only. I see no reason whatsoever why tribes should get exclusive access to public roads that are maintained by our tax dollars.
To say I'm fuming right now would be an understatement.
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
The revised proposal was written Erin Uloth, District Ranger (Mt. Baker Ranger District). If you want to talk to her about it, her direct line is 360-854-2601 and her email is euloth@fs.fed.us.
Post by: Buckewe on August 17, 2016, 04:01:24 PM
Post by: shanevg on August 17, 2016, 04:03:37 PM
Wow that really suck I use both roads regularly. When do they plan on doing this.
From what I can tell, they regulations "can" go into effect as soon as the 45 day "Objection" period is up. That "Objection" period began when they published the regulations which was sometime in late July.
I'm just fuming because I honestly don't care whether they decide to decommission these roads or keep them open. But to close them to motor vehicle access for all recreational users except tribal members is complete BS. They have their treaty rights and for all I care can hunt within those rights, but I know of know reason that those treaty rights should provide them exclusive access to Forest Service roads.
Post by: Widgeondeke on August 17, 2016, 04:08:25 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on August 17, 2016, 04:13:11 PM
Don't blame the tribes.....it's not on them, its the pukes pretending to be working with AND FOR us.
Post by: shanevg on August 17, 2016, 04:15:20 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on August 17, 2016, 04:17:32 PM
Post by: shanevg on August 17, 2016, 04:17:49 PM
A good example of where distrust comes in. Pretty quickly it can seem as tho they intentionally tried to slide this through, deceiving everyone of what their real intention was during the public comment period.
Don't blame the tribes.....it's not on them, its the pukes pretending to be working with AND FOR us.
This is at least partially on the tribes. (Well the Tulalip tribe at least.)
Post by: Fl0und3rz on August 17, 2016, 04:18:34 PM
Post by: Cougartail on August 17, 2016, 04:22:41 PM
Post by: X-Force on August 17, 2016, 04:34:24 PM
I cant believe this crap.
There was a volunteer group up there for Sustainable Roads but there website is now down. That group did maintenance on Wells Creek and a couple other road on the north side of baker.
Post by: skidynastar33 on August 17, 2016, 05:29:35 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on August 17, 2016, 05:33:36 PM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on August 17, 2016, 05:46:48 PM
Post by: lokidog on August 17, 2016, 06:19:47 PM
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Post by: 4fletch on August 17, 2016, 06:51:14 PM
Post by: Hectocotylus on August 17, 2016, 06:52:49 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Duckslayer89 on August 17, 2016, 06:54:30 PM
Sounds like gates need to be welded shut rather than pulled down... wait did I say that out loud...?😣
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Probably better idea. Equal rights, not rights for some
Post by: 3dsheetmetal on August 17, 2016, 07:09:09 PM
Sounds like gates need to be welded shut rather than pulled down... wait did I say that out loud...?😣Sounds like that might be a winner I can see that happening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >:(
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Post by: trophyhunt on August 17, 2016, 07:24:54 PM
Sounds like gates need to be welded shut rather than pulled down... wait did I say that out loud...?😣much better idea than mine, great idea!!
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Post by: trophyhunt on August 17, 2016, 07:26:43 PM
When does it get to the point where we say enough is enough and just start taking gates down and driving wherever we want? Can only bow down and bend over for so long. Whatever. I'm waiting for the tribes to buy the private timber land I frequent near my house then it's really over for me in this state.When the mucks buy Hancock kapowsin, let's go hunting!! They won't keep us out of there!
Post by: Duckslayer89 on August 17, 2016, 07:31:00 PM
When does it get to the point where we say enough is enough and just start taking gates down and driving wherever we want? Can only bow down and bend over for so long. Whatever. I'm waiting for the tribes to buy the private timber land I frequent near my house then it's really over for me in this state.When the mucks buy Hancock kapowsin, let's go hunting!! They won't keep us out of there!
They'll allow us to buy the permits I'm sure, then I can be up 9 miles in on a peaceful mountain bike ride getting passed by 4x4 trucks in game escapement areas. Idaho brotha!
Post by: trophyhunt on August 17, 2016, 07:50:55 PM
You can hitch a ride on my quad!When does it get to the point where we say enough is enough and just start taking gates down and driving wherever we want? Can only bow down and bend over for so long. Whatever. I'm waiting for the tribes to buy the private timber land I frequent near my house then it's really over for me in this state.When the mucks buy Hancock kapowsin, let's go hunting!! They won't keep us out of there!
They'll allow us to buy the permits I'm sure, then I can be up 9 miles in on a peaceful mountain bike ride getting passed by 4x4 trucks in game escapement areas. Idaho brotha!
Post by: bobcat on August 17, 2016, 08:05:26 PM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on August 17, 2016, 08:11:22 PM
This is the kind of crap that makes me not want to ever buy a hunting license in this state again. :bash:
I didn't buy fireworks this year and I don't go to casinos.
Post by: trophyhunt on August 17, 2016, 08:13:06 PM
This is the kind of crap that makes me not want to ever buy a hunting license in this state again. :bash:yup, unfortunately the tribes could probably supplement the money lost to fish and game if we all stopped buying tags and licenses.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 17, 2016, 09:04:02 PM
Post by: kodiak 907 on August 17, 2016, 09:19:37 PM
Post by: shanevg on August 17, 2016, 09:27:20 PM
I'll keep HuntWa informed once I have an actionable plan. I and others are making calls and trying to make something happen about this.
Post by: bobcat on August 17, 2016, 09:29:37 PM
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on August 17, 2016, 09:38:10 PM
What really needs to happen.......We the people need to pull in the reigns of the FS, or as they should be called....
Not to derail, but I was literally standing next to that building two days ago. Great little town.
Post by: cboom on August 17, 2016, 11:53:56 PM
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/mt-baker-snoqualmie-nf-districts-travel-plan-notable/
Everyone remember the public meetings and comment period that Forest Service offered this spring regarding decommissioning certain logging roads? Well apparently they made their decisions on what roads to close and keep open. Oh, and they also decided to add a special provision (that was never discussed this spring) to grant North Sound Tribes exclusive motor vehicle access to Wells Creek Road and parts of Glacier Creek Road here in Whatcom County. For those of you that don't know, these are the main access points to 2 of the 3 Mt. Baker Goat units as well as miles and miles of great deer and bear hunting country.
Of course the comment period has passed and you are only allowed to submit an "Objection" to the new rules if you commented on the road closures during public comment period this spring.
Ultimately, I don't care whether these roads are decommissioned altogether or maintained and stay open. As long as the tribes are honoring their tribal rights, I don't even care where they hunt. I understand the budget shortfalls USFS is facing right now. But from what I've read, this proposal would continue to use FS dollars to continue to maintain these PUBLIC roads and then grant exclusive motor vehicle access to tribal members only. I see no reason whatsoever why tribes should get exclusive access to public roads that are maintained by our tax dollars.
To say I'm fuming right now would be an understatement.
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: r
The revised proposal was written Erin Uloth, District Ranger (Mt. Baker Ranger District). If you want to talk to her about it, her direct line is 360-854-2601 and her email is euloth@fs.fed.us.
I was at the meeting in Kendall this spring. There were three options discussed on which roads our tax dollars would be spent on maintaining, A,B, and C as they called them. Never once was an option D brought up where our scarce tax dollars go to maintaining roads only the tribes can use. My understanding is there is a meeting at Chair 9 tomorrow evening at 5 and Erin will be there. I sure encourage anybody that can be there. I will try to confirm early in the day tomorrow is in fact the case. I'm not 100% sure on this but have been led to believe Erin Uloth made this decision completely on here own. This is after there were two public meetings in which nothing like this was brought up.
Post by: huntnphool on August 18, 2016, 12:05:11 AM
What happened to "usual and accustomed"? :dunno:
Post by: Dan-o on August 18, 2016, 12:15:30 AM
"Treaty tribes depend on the current road system to access fish and wildlife populations."
What happened to "usual and accustomed"? :dunno:
There is that...... but also.....
How about "Non treaty people depend on the current road system to access fish and wildlife populations".????
Why does it matter that treaty tribes are used to having these roads for access, but it doesn't matter that other citizens are used to using these roads for access?
Post by: trophyhunt on August 18, 2016, 07:05:31 AM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on August 18, 2016, 07:06:54 AM
Blood pressure is up again, I just can't wait till it happens down here in greenwater.
They are already preparing by shutting down that corral pass road.
Post by: trophyhunt on August 18, 2016, 07:12:06 AM
And a bunch more, you know the mucks will get keys!Blood pressure is up again, I just can't wait till it happens down here in greenwater.
They are already preparing by shutting down that corral pass road.
Post by: jackmaster on August 18, 2016, 07:16:24 AM
Legalize gambling. Simple as that. All leverage would be removed.you damn right, if we legalize gambling it takes ALL the power away from every tribe with casinos, WE the regular people have the leverage then, tribes would lose so damn much money that they would relinquish all kinds of stuff!! Money is the only way to fix this and it's through the CASINOS!! Why do you think the tribes spent millions in slander campaigns against non native casinos??
Post by: Fl0und3rz on August 18, 2016, 07:32:39 AM
http://www.ghcog.org/DemoTables/Economic%20Tables/Econ_Fiscal_Impacts_IndianTribes_WA.pdf
http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/1997/04/21/editorial2.html
What it seems to leave out is whether any tax benefits afforded to these sovereign governments' casino operations remunerate back to non-tribal governments, politicians, and their lobbyists to lobby for special considerations only for tribal members concerning WA or federal public resources.
The most glaring example of this type of activity seems to be this.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Tribes-give-big-to-Gregoire-avoid-sharing-casino-1276446.php
Post by: WAPatriot on August 18, 2016, 08:31:46 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 18, 2016, 08:47:12 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on August 18, 2016, 09:02:08 AM
I would fully support conquering these sovern nations and turning them into the USA. Seems like it would be easy enough for U.S. military to conquer these independent nations and expand the U.S. Territory.yup, should have done that many years ago!
Post by: MountainTracker on August 18, 2016, 09:03:27 AM
Why does it matter that treaty tribes are used to having these roads for access, but it doesn't matter that other citizens are used to using these roads for access?
I've always been curious about this ^^^^, none of these roads existed when the treaties were signed. Go ahead and hunt as per the agreements, but don't act like these roads make the difference for that to happen.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on August 18, 2016, 09:03:31 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_branch_of_government#Administrative_agencies
We've heard of various sue and settle schemes whereby interest groups have sued various friendly administrative agencies, and then the suit is "settled" out of court, including a legally binding stamp of approval from a friendly federal judge.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/252444-sue-and-settle-shenanigans
I am sure that the FS is not immune.
Fortunately, US regulatory agencies are required to adhere to the Administrative Procedures Act in conducting its rule-making activities. The APA prescribes, notice, hearing, and comment procedures to be followed to enact valid agencies rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States)#Standard_of_judicial_review
Also fortunately in this instance, it appears that the agency responsible may have run roughshod of the APA in attempting to sneak this one through.
Someone could attempt to get an injunction against enforcement of these new regulations, if it is, as it appears, to be an improper exercise of federal agency rule-making.
Post by: Russ McDonald on August 18, 2016, 09:30:19 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on August 18, 2016, 09:41:18 AM
The draft decision notice for your reading pleasure http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/102294_FSPLT3_3817679.pdf (http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/102294_FSPLT3_3817679.pdf)
Funny. The first substantive info in the notice?
Quote
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activi ty conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs).
:o
You have to pay good money to get better fiction than that.
Helpfully, they provide a useful link and contact information where you can file a program discrimination complaint related to the notice.
Quote
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD -3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632 -9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250 -9410; (2) fax: (202) 690- 7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.
Be sure and tell them that they might have skipped the day that APA was taught.
Anyone know of a good class action attorney that might want to make a quick buck on behalf of WA sportsmen, sportswomen, and various other sportsXs?
Post by: saylean on August 18, 2016, 09:47:11 AM
Who do they think they are?!
Since society is now allowing people to be "who they most associate themselves with" I think I am now tribal. Where are my keys to the gate? After all, if a guy can claim he is a woman, or a woman marry a tree, why cant a pasty red head be indian?
Post by: Hectocotylus on August 18, 2016, 10:09:45 AM
What a crock of the material that comes out of the south end of a steer.Well said.
Who do they think they are?!
Since society is now allowing people to be "who they most associate themselves with" I think I am now tribal. Where are my keys to the gate? After all, if a guy can claim he is a woman, or a woman marry a tree, why cant a pasty red head be indian?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: NoBark on August 18, 2016, 10:55:42 AM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on August 18, 2016, 12:11:57 PM
"Treaty tribes depend on the current road system to access fish and wildlife populations."I am still hung up on "in common with the citizenry", ALL CITIZENS of Washington State should have the same rules!
What happened to "usual and accustomed"? :dunno:
Post by: Green broke on August 18, 2016, 08:45:02 PM
Blood pressure is up again, I just can't wait till it happens down here in greenwater.:peep:
Post by: trophyhunt on August 18, 2016, 09:03:53 PM
ha ha, your just waiting for that key!!! :chuckle:Blood pressure is up again, I just can't wait till it happens down here in greenwater.:peep:
Post by: trophyhunt on August 18, 2016, 09:06:43 PM
hey, all the comments and you pick out mine?? Greenbroke is a native who doesn't agree with my opinions! :dunno:Blood pressure is up again, I just can't wait till it happens down here in greenwater.:peep:
Post by: Bullkllr on August 18, 2016, 09:13:43 PM
Wow that really suck I use both roads regularly. When do they plan on doing this.
From what I can tell, they regulations "can" go into effect as soon as the 45 day "Objection" period is up. That "Objection" period began when they published the regulations which was sometime in late July.
Anyone know how someone would go about making a formal "objection"?
I guess I could call this number say 100 times or so tomorrow.
For More Information Contact:
Mt. Baker Ranger District
810 State Route 20
Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284
360-856-5700
Post by: whackmaster on August 18, 2016, 09:21:03 PM
Legalize gambling. Simple as that. All leverage would be removed.you damn right, if we legalize gambling it takes ALL the power away from every tribe with casinos, WE the regular people have the leverage then, tribes would lose so damn much money that they would relinquish all kinds of stuff!! Money is the only way to fix this and it's through the CASINOS!! Why do you think the tribes spent millions in slander campaigns against non native casinos??
Post by: NWWA Hunter on August 19, 2016, 10:53:46 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 21, 2016, 08:19:04 AM
As much as I dislike much of the damage the initiative process has done against us hunter/trapper/ conservative types I think it is time for an initiative on this.......Legalize gambling. Simple as that. All leverage would be removed.you damn right, if we legalize gambling it takes ALL the power away from every tribe with casinos, WE the regular people have the leverage then, tribes would lose so damn much money that they would relinquish all kinds of stuff!! Money is the only way to fix this and it's through the CASINOS!! Why do you think the tribes spent millions in slander campaigns against non native casinos??
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 21, 2016, 08:46:41 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 21, 2016, 09:22:37 AM
........ if we legalize gambling it takes ALL the power away from every tribe with casinos, WE the regular people have the leverage then, tribes would lose so damn much money that they would relinquish all kinds of stuff!! Money is the only way to fix this and it's through the CASINOS!!
So the what you're saying is if gambling is legal, the tribes will come hat in hand to the greater US for money, and happily bargain away treaty and other rights such as those steming from Boldt?
I just don't think that is at all workable, and so likely to become mired in the courts as to be a much bigger than could be imagined.
1) Boldt was a Federal decision.
2) The State is not empowered to bargain with the tribes regarding anything to do with Boldt except on how to manage the resources as per Boldt (and following court orders). What is being discussed here is removal of Boldt guarantees, something the state is not allowed to do.
3) The monies tribes receive are largely due to Federal programs or funds, often managed by states.
4) These treaties which cause so much aggravation and angst to some here are between the US and the indigenous nations, and actions by the states to dismember these treaties through other acts could be looked upon by the courts at all levels (especially State Supreme and Federal) as a form of coercion, and treated upon very unfavorably.
Post by: Special T on August 21, 2016, 10:18:38 AM
Does anyone remember the $350k plus that was contributed to the anti smoking initiative by the tribes? If they are a sovereign state nation how are they allowed to donate $ to state causes and issues? The conflict of interest abounds
Post by: Special T on August 21, 2016, 10:28:56 AM
While federal contributions are a stickier subject because they are a "state" the contributions for or against city County or state issues/officials is a conflict of interest. It's this conflict of interest that needs to be a dresses because it covers so many issues.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 21, 2016, 10:33:22 AM
Hence they are allowed the rights therein.
Post by: Special T on August 21, 2016, 10:37:39 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 21, 2016, 10:40:13 AM
Good luck trying to change that.
Post by: bracer40 on August 21, 2016, 12:04:08 PM
Knocker,........ if we legalize gambling it takes ALL the power away from every tribe with casinos, WE the regular people have the leverage then, tribes would lose so damn much money that they would relinquish all kinds of stuff!! Money is the only way to fix this and it's through the CASINOS!!
So the what you're saying is if gambling is legal, the tribes will come hat in hand to the greater US for money, and happily bargain away treaty and other rights such as those steming from Boldt?
I just don't think that is at all workable, and so likely to become mired in the courts as to be a much bigger than could be imagined.
1) Boldt was a Federal decision.
2) The State is not empowered to bargain with the tribes regarding anything to do with Boldt except on how to manage the resources as per Boldt (and following court orders). What is being discussed here is removal of Boldt guarantees, something the state is not allowed to do.
3) The monies tribes receive are largely due to Federal programs or funds, often managed by states.
4) These treaties which cause so much aggravation and angst to some here are between the US and the indigenous nations, and actions by the states to dismember these treaties through other acts could be looked upon by the courts at all levels (especially State Supreme and Federal) as a form of coercion, and treated upon very unfavorably.
Always enjoy the factual nature of your posts. Refreshing juxtaposition against so many of the "knee-jerk, emotional rants" that are so frequently expressed.
Thanks for keeping us informed!
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 21, 2016, 12:45:20 PM
Well that kinda depends on if they live on the Rez or not... additionally since the tribe itself is a sovereign state it would be the same as wa state contributing it's dollars to influence an initiate or election in another state.
Contributions from out of state interests are common in the initiave process.
Your state analogy is flawed because states are universally prohibited from such spending by their charters or constitutions.
Some of your other ideas amount to disenfranchisement, which ain't going to happen.
Post by: fireweed on August 21, 2016, 01:39:16 PM
Seems like the DNR tried something similar with some tribes also. Time to scream NO WAY loud and clear because the precedent is horrible for the average citizen .
Post by: PlateauNDN on August 21, 2016, 04:20:38 PM
........ if we legalize gambling it takes ALL the power away from every tribe with casinos, WE the regular people have the leverage then, tribes would lose so damn much money that they would relinquish all kinds of stuff!! Money is the only way to fix this and it's through the CASINOS!!
So the what you're saying is if gambling is legal, the tribes will come hat in hand to the greater US for money, and happily bargain away treaty and other rights such as those steming from Boldt?
I just don't think that is at all workable, and so likely to become mired in the courts as to be a much bigger than could be imagined.
1) Boldt was a Federal decision.
2) The State is not empowered to bargain with the tribes regarding anything to do with Boldt except on how to manage the resources as per Boldt (and following court orders). What is being discussed here is removal of Boldt guarantees, something the state is not allowed to do.
3) The monies tribes receive are largely due to Federal programs or funds, often managed by states.
4) These treaties which cause so much aggravation and angst to some here are between the US and the indigenous nations, and actions by the states to dismember these treaties through other acts could be looked upon by the courts at all levels (especially State Supreme and Federal) as a form of coercion, and treated upon very unfavorably.
Good post knocker. But rights didn't stem from US v WA. ST (aka Boldt decision) they stemmed from the Treaties as reserved rights. Judge Boldt reaffirmed the rights were reserved by the Tribes. The Reserved Rights were there in the Treaties the whole time he just acknowledged them.
Post by: Special T on August 21, 2016, 05:38:15 PM
Yes but not from the states themselves and that is the crux of my point.Well that kinda depends on if they live on the Rez or not... additionally since the tribe itself is a sovereign state it would be the same as wa state contributing it's dollars to influence an initiate or election in another state.
Contributions from out of state interests are common in the initiave process.
Your state analogy is flawed because states are universally prohibited from such spending by their charters or constitutions.
Some of your other ideas amount to disenfranchisement, which ain't going to happen.
Post by: jonjcb on September 06, 2016, 03:11:20 PM
Please get involved!!! Also send your concern to: Suzanne Delbene 1st congressional district
Post by: ribka on September 06, 2016, 08:00:43 PM
Where some groups are more equal than others.
There is indicative of an entire political movement going on in our new hope and change country from BLM, tranny rights , anti gun pro wolf , pro tribe etc
Say good bye to the America you grew up in
Orwell predicted this would happen in the Soviet Union Europe and now the US
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 06, 2016, 08:14:47 PM
Tribal access only, denying all the tax paying public access is a disgrace.
Only the roads are closed, access is still open
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 06, 2016, 08:32:59 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 06, 2016, 08:37:50 PM
Motor vehicle access is open to everyone?
Nope, you're going to walk. But that is still a far different thing than denying access.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 06, 2016, 08:58:04 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on September 07, 2016, 05:08:40 AM
Not for disabled, youth, and senior hunters, who may not be able to strap 50# on their backs to take advantage of such "access." But that is beside your technical point.:yeah: isn't there lawyer or organizations that fight actions like this?? How about backcountry hunters and anglers? I know it's not backcountry but it is a loss of access.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 07, 2016, 06:56:14 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on September 07, 2016, 07:02:28 AM
I think any class action discrimination lawyer could handle it based on the page 1 unequal access. It is not necessarily the loss of access that is the issue, it is the loss of access to disfavored groups only.:yeah:Thats what I meant, there has to be a lawyer out there to help.
Post by: shanevg on September 09, 2016, 10:10:28 AM
Even if you did not comment back in February, it doesn't hurt to send a letter! Below you'll see the letter I'll be sending. You can easily edit by placing your name where Mt.Baker REFORM is, and at the end of the letter where it will be signed.
You can also email objection to:
objections-pnw-mtbaker-snoqualmie@fs.fed.us
Must include: Your name, address, telephone #, and a scanned signature.
Or Fax to:
Forest Supervisor, ATTEN: Objections
425-783-0141
Finally, also send it to Suzan DelBene's office:
204 W.Montgomery Street, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
email:
delbene.house.gov/contact-me/email-me
Letters need to be received by Monday 9/12, so in the mail by this Friday.
Thanks everyone!!!!
September 9, 2016
Jamie Kingsbury, Forest Supervisor
Objection Reviewing Officer
Mt. Baker – Snoqualmie National Forest
Attn. 1570 Appeals and Objections
2930 Wetmore Ave
Everett, WA 98201
Via email: objections-pnw-mtbaker-snoqualmie@fs.fed.us
RE: Upper North Fork Nooksack Access and Travel Management (ATM) Project OBJECTION
Pursuant to 36 C.F.R Part 218, Subpart B, the Mt. Baker REFORM (Recreation Enthusiast for our Road Maintenance) files this objection to the proposed decision for the Upper North Fork Nooksack Access and Travel Management (ATM) Project (herein referred to as “Nooksack ATM”). The responsible official is Erin Uloth, Mt. Baker District Ranger. The Nooksack ATM project occurs on the Mt. Baker Ranger District of the Mt. Baker – Snoqualmie National Forest.
Objector
Your Name on behalf of Mt. Baker REFORM is providing support of Objectors’ comments issued as Appendix D of the Final Environmental Assessment dated July 29, 2016. Mt. Baker REFORM members attended public meetings and have commented directly to the Mt. Baker Ranger in regards to the concerns with the proposal. Specifically, we provide support of comments requesting road maintenance to allow public access by all users; allowing volunteer groups to assist with preventative road work and recognizing road access is crucial to our local economy.
Reasons for the Objection
The content of this objection is Mt. Baker REFORM has strong concern that the Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact statement dated July 29, 2016, presents new information not presented in the Nooksack ATM, and pursuant to 36 CFR Part 218.7(c)(2)(ii), modified Alternative B was not given designated opportunities for public comment. Secondly, objection is based on previously submitted public comments, which Mt. Baker REFORM is submitting a statement of community support in maintaining our forest roads for recreation and public access, as it affects the viability of the local economy.
Mt. Baker REFORM provides the following descriptions on those aspects of the project NOT addressed in the Nooksack ATM, and issues regarding new information presented as Modified Alternative B, and suggested remedies to resolve the objection:
• As outlined in the table below, the Final EA Proposed Alternative B actions compared to the modified Alternative B actions. These proposed actions introduce major modification on seasonal and scheduled closures to public access, specifically to motorized vehicles; and represents new information which has not been allowed adequate public review or comment.
Proposed Actions Alternative Plan B Modified Alternative B
Maint Level 3 40 miles 57 miles
Maint Level 2 74 miles 36 miles
Decommision Roads 6 miles with 5 currently closed 38 miles would be decommissioned (7 miles currently opened)
Close Roads to Vehicles Keep 36 miles of currently closed roads, closed to vehicle access
Close Roads to Public Access Close 18 miles *Close 28 miles to public vehicle access.
*11 miles would be administrative and in some cases, Tribal vehicle access only.
The modified Alternative B includes, keeping 36 miles of currently closed roads permanently closed to vehicle access and closing an additional 11 miles of roads strictly to public access. It appears the roads will be closed to the public; however, maintained for select user groups? How is this decision supported within the context of road maintenance budgets and more importantly, how does this meet the Northwest Forest Plan? This information was not discussed within the Nooksack ATM. Mt. Baker REFORM is objecting the decision and requesting the Nooksack ATM follow Alternative Plan B.
1. The Nooksack ATM did not provide information or language describing seasonal or scheduled closures and how it would affect user groups. Shown in Table 1 of the modified plan, Seasonal Closures Scheduled for the Project Area under this decision, Glacier Creek Road (FSR 39) will be closed in winter once Canyon Creek Road (FSR 31) is open. The table does not address where the closure will occur, nor if winter access will be allowed to the snowmobile community. Mt. Baker REFORM is objecting Table 1 actions until further discussion of the impacts these closures will have on the community and user groups.
2. Mt. Baker REFORM objects to modified Alternative B as the actions and language seem to blur into Alternative Plan C. Public comments submitted were clearly in support of Alternative Plan B and support seeking solutions to maintain public access. To reiterate public comment (#22, page 184 Final EA) and the response:
“Road closures will have a negative effect on my quality of life in both recreation and financially. These actions also have a terrible financial impact to our community… The only option… is to figure a way to work with public (user groups) or any other ways to source outside funding…”
Response: The Forest Service has benefitted greatly from volunteer efforts the past number of years, and will continue to pursue and grow these relationships. Volunteer work can make a substantial difference in the agency’s ability to maintain roads.
Resolution Requested
Mt. Baker REFORM requests that remedies/alternatives suggested below be included in an updated EA and/or clarified in supporting documentation.
1. The Nooksack ATM and Record of Decision should support Alternative Plan B actions to maintain public access and support the socio-economic factors of the community. The Record of Decision is a modified alternative that was not allowed adequate public review.
2. Further explicit detail of scheduled and seasonal closures should be presented to the public for comment and should be vetted with the community to provide clarity of timelines and expected solutions. Further clarity on the definition between motorized vehicles and wheeled vehicles is suggested. This would further allow the interested public and those affected to determine the impact of these decisions and to seek positive solutions of preventive road maintenance, which is a necessary component of the proposal.
3. The Nooksack ATM should not discriminate public access by supporting road closures specific to private users. Recognizing treaty rights and tribal access is a requirement in the review process; however, closing public access while maintaining roads for private uses is outside the scope of the Nooksack ATM.
4. Mt. Baker REFORM requests implementation of Alternative B for the Nooksack ATM, and requests proactive engagement by the Forest Service and interested volunteer groups to assist with preventive road maintenance requirements. There has been active participation and success with volunteers, along with growing interest from the community to continue these efforts.
Request for Resolution Meeting
Pursuant to 36 CFR 218.11, the objectors request a meeting with the reviewing officer to discuss the issues raised in this objection and potential resolution.
In the event multiple objections are filed on this decision, Mt. Baker REFORM respectfully requests the resolution meeting be held as soon as possible with all objectors’ present. Mt. Baker REFORM believes that having all objectors together at one time, though may require a longer meeting, will provide for more expeditious process to either resolve appeal issues or move the process forward. With that in mind, Mt. Baker REFORM requests to participate to the maximum extent practicable, and specifically requests to provide comments on point with other objectors in the course of the objection resolution meeting.
Thank you for your efforts on this project and your consideration of this objection. Mt. Baker REFORM looks forward to our initial resolution meeting. Please contact our representative, Lesley Rosten, at the email address: Bakerbiler@gmail.com, to arrange a date for the resolution meeting.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
Phone Number
Post by: X-Force on September 09, 2016, 10:39:10 AM
Have you talked to BHA or another organization like that?
Post by: shanevg on September 09, 2016, 10:53:10 AM
Thanks. Getting 10 people to send the letters.
Have you talked to BHA or another organization like that?
Not I, no.
Post by: X-Force on September 09, 2016, 12:28:25 PM
People it only takes a minute. Take the time and send it off.
Post by: jmden on September 10, 2016, 05:14:43 PM
Post by: X-Force on September 29, 2016, 08:33:07 AM
The other 12 people go the same letter.