Re:

[connie B Berto <cberto@juno.com>]

Ann and all, there is another volume of correspondence that does not
support Edie's position on USFS lands, but unfortunately there isn't a
quick way to forward everything.   
     There was, plain and simple, no time to contact the entire committee
and collate answers.  I regret that I don't have time right now to write
a long reply, but in brief: reread my last paragraph.   I am asking for 
a proper public disclosure statement and TIME to evaluate and comment.   
We are ALL supporters of healthy public lands, but there is a lot of
misinformation, vagueness, and ambiguity in this proposal.  BCH
coordinators have been told there will not be an appeals period.   There
are too many questions with missing answers.    Why the rush?    Don't
forget that what gets implemented in California seems to spread all over.
  We need time, and that was the point of my letter.   Sorry if you
disagree.   
    I find it ironic that, given the scope and potential consequences
(both intended and unintended)  of the Level II Roads proposal, that we
are scrapping over the wording of a letter, when we should be going to
the Roadless people in Salt Lake City and quizzing THEM over their
wording!   More than one person has found that the timing of this is
suspicious (December 20) one of the busiest times of the year when people
have little or no free time to devote to outside projects. 
    I can appreciate, Ann, that  "California's concerns" are foreign to
you.  Consider, though, that  I have written several letters regarding
trail projects OR trail problems  in Virginia and Florida, for instance,
*at the request of AERC members living there,* and I have not laid eyes
on those trails.   I wrote a strong letter about Grand
Staircase/Escalante GMP in Utah.    Was it wrong to give this kind of
official assistance?    I don't think so.  
     That's it!   I'm turning my computer off until next week.   Happy
holidays!     Connie B
     

On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:47:36 -0700 annparr@earthlink.net (Ann Parr)
writes:
>The volume of correspondance re Level II roads seems to support Edie's
>feelings that the entire committee needs to be invloved in offering an
>opinion in the name of AERC..Connie I know you mean well but perhaps 
>you should express your ideas as personal rather than AERCs, since for 
>example California's concerns are nearly foriegn to me
>
>We all deal with different problems in our specific locales, my 
>problems are on private lands, and I have a VERY good relationship with
the 
>forest service in the Wasatch Front.  Bob Morris indicates serious
problems 
>in his area.
>
>A convention discussion could cover just what should be done in the 
>name of AERC?
>
>Ann Parr
>12887 S. Boulter St.
>Draper, Ut.  84020
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________
Get FREE e-mail without paying for Web access! --
Or get full, reliable Internet access from Juno Web at just $9.95/month!
Download your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagh.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=