View Full Version : Forwarded by James Bingham:

07-12-2006, 09:24 AM
Could you forward this to the RS land use director?
I'm still on the e-mail list for United Four Wheel Drive Assn.and this was in my e=mail box today.

Change the state name to Colorado, and edit out the personel parts of this letter and it makes a great letter for all foreset users!! Start with paragraph 4.
The entire lettter is wonderful!

bcdo typing w/o many cups of java this am *<);^0

-----Forwarded Message-----
>From: woodmansee <woodmansee@ll.net>
>Sent: Jul 12, 2006 7:07 AM
>To: uniteddelegates@six.pairlist.net
>Subject: [UnitedDelegates] need response
>Hi All,
>One of our members, Dave Westerberg, got a very good letter published
>in our second largest population center here in MN (the letter is
>below). His letter was of course celebrated among our association.
>Only one rebuttal letter from the anti's has been published but that
>one rebuttal said that Westerberg did not speak for all off-roaders. I
>wish to write back to this anti's comments (most of which centered
>around the global warming and national security issues of recreating in
>a manner that uses petrol
>products) and I want to be able to say that Westerberg's comments DO
>represent all responsible off-roaders. So, if I could just get a
>response from you all saying that his letter hits the nail in the head
>for the group you are representing I would feel that is enough for me
>to write in my letter that Westerberg's comments represent off-roaders
>nation wide. Seems silly maybe, but I just want to cover my behind.
>Thanks, Alex.
>Off-road enthusiasts deserve access to state forests Why can't I use
>the forest, too?
>For those who didn't follow the state Legislature this winter, I have
>some news. There were amendments to the fish and wildlife bills in the
>House and the Senate that would have denied access to recreational
>opportunities in state forests. Thankfully, the measures died in
>committee. However, because they were passed on the floor, I believe
>the possibility remains the amendments could be reintroduced in coming
>I'm an environmentalist. I care about what happens in our forests as
>much as the next guy. In fact, I care more than most. I grew up the son
>of a Department of Natural Resources forester. I was probably the only
>kid in kindergarten who could tell you how much wood was in a cord, the
>difference between a red pine and a white pine, and how to determine
>the age of a tree without cutting it down.
>I've probably planted more trees than most members of the Sierra Club.
>I've probably cleared and maintained more miles of trails than any
>member of the Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation. I've hauled tons
>of garbage out of the woods, only to be told I wasn't welcome in the
>woods with my Jeep.
>I understand there are areas in state forests with rare plants, and I
>don't want to go there. I know there are wetlands that could be damaged
>if I were to drive my Jeep into them. I don't want to go there, either.
>I know in some areas my tires may cause erosion. I won't go there.
>But I'd like to be able to take my wife and son on a drive along a
>trail and have a picnic lunch. Why can't I do that? There are areas in
>our forests where trails exist that can sustain travel by a 4x4 like
>mine. Why can't I use those areas?
>I understand there are people out there who enjoy the peace and quiet
>of the forest; I do, too. But I also enjoy driving my Jeep along a
>tight trail under the canopy of trees. And I understand that my Jeep
>can disturb the peace and quiet of other people. So if we, as off- road
>enthusiasts, were given areas within forests designated for our use,
>people seeking peace and quiet could avoid us and we could all enjoy
>the recreational opportunities our state forests provide.
>No one group should have more rights to the forests than others. The
>forests are public lands, and if we can find areas where we have a
>minimal impact, why can't we use those areas?
>To just throw a blanket ban over the forests is not the answer.
>I know there's people in the off-roading community with little regard
>for the environment. They have fun tearing up the countryside, and some
>even take pride in the damage they do. We in the off-road community are
>working hard to educate these people that what they are doing is
>harmful and that their behavior will not be tolerated. The Minnesota 4
>Wheel Drive Association spends thousands of dollars each year on
>education and law enforcement to prevent these incidents. I'm just as
>upset about them as members of the Minnesotans for Responsible
>Recreation. It sickens me to see an area where people have taken
>off-road vehicles and caused damage to the environment. I think they
>should be punished.
>But is it fair to take trails away from me, a law-abiding person? No.
>Are hiking trails taken away when hikers venture off and create new
>trails and cause erosion? No.
>I've worked in state parks and for the Minnesota Conservation Corps,
>and I've seen damage caused by hikers, bikers, fisherman and horseback
>riders when they don't stick to the existing trail systems.
>Taking trails away only leads to more illegal activity.
>People need places to recreate. Yes, there is an off-highway vehicle
>park in Gilbert. But that's only a small area for a lot of people who
>enjoy off-roading. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources policy
>states it will provide outdoor recreation opportunities for all
>Well, I am a resident of Minnesota and I want to keep my recreational
>opportunities. I want to keep my access to the state forests.
>And it isn't just my Jeep some want to ban. It's all 4x4 vehicles.
>Hunters, trappers, fisherman and berry pickers: If you want to keep
>your access to the forests, too, let your voices be heard -- before
>your recreational opportunities are taken away. Contact your
>representatives and let them know you want to have responsible access
>to public lands.
>UnitedDelegates mailing list

07-12-2006, 09:34 AM
Great letter...