First of all I am not angry and second there is no contest. I still do not see where at anytime Mr. Harris advocated for any closure of a trail or road in the editorial. I do see he is quoting the forest service in their process of implementation in regards to comments, the MVUM and the development of the TMP. He is stating though that we all need to be involved in the process to get anything out of it. It has been over the course of the last 4-5yrs that the Klamath club has been mapping trails that they use or have found and turned them into the appropriate land manger. I am sure that they have kept copies of them and copies of any correspondence that they may have had with those respective managers. I am equally sure that anyone who has taken the time to put their opinion into the TMP at whatever level will have the right to appeal, especially when the final plan comes out and there are no class II trails made available to the user. If you will also note by the time line in the article, Fremont-Winema is far behind in the process. THey have pretty much stuck their head in the sand and not been doing their job.
As we are all aware, each forest district seems to have their own way of interpreting the rules, how they will use the process for gathering information, how they will then use that information and then spell it out for us. Do I like the process, not on a bet but it is what we have to follow. As we learned from the USFS Region 6 Home Office, we need to be able to show where they did not follow the letter of the law. That is why we need to be involved or we give our right of appeal away. That is what I took from the editorial, BE INVOLVED...not the selling out of the class II community by just taking what they give us.
The reason I posted last night was not out of anger. I had 6 emails and two phone calls last night asking me what I was going to do about the post. My first thought after reading the post, was nothing. Patti is entitled to her opinion. I may not agree with it but it is hers. However, the more I read that post last night the more I thought was WOW! this really is not so cool. We have lost some very dedicated members in this region who had built strong relationships with their land managers that have just quit because they felt that if they did something wrong, didn't fully understand the process of the TMP or brokered deals that would let trails stay open but possibly close others that they were "selling out" the class II community. Then I thought about another post by Patti in which she described how things work in DC4W, that it was like a marriage but they could patch things up when they disagreed. I kept wondering why that same thought process could not have been applied unilaterally for others in region 6 when there was a disagreement. Instead people were made to feel like they were stupid, sell outs or disinfranchised. And that is just not good. I don't want to be a part of that atmosphere and any consideration I had of trying to develop an individual members club within region 6 to replace the club I was in was gone. I seriously considered resigning as Oregon Director last night because there does not seem to be any way to cross that divide.
The tough job to me is to get people who are willing to go into battle with you. The easy part is to listen to others opinions and let go of the parts that you don't think will work for your particular argument. However, when we have silenced those opinions we all lose. I do not always agree with the thoughts of DC4W and how they are presented. However, I have always taken the time to congratulate you on your victories and thank you for your hard work. It just would be nice to see that courtesy returned to others who may disagree with you no matter how misguided you think their opinion is, they took the time to form an opinion and took the time to see it through.
I still stand by my original statement in that the editorial should be removed and I really think that it has been misapplied in this case.
Wolf Pack 4x4
The ox is slow but the earth is patient