Take Action to help protect our Wilderness in California!

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
MrsBJLee's picture

Here is a message sent to my email which I signed and hope you will all sign.

The four national forests in southern California - the Cleveland, Angeles, San Bernardino and Los Padres National Forests - contain some of the state's wildest lands. They provide clean drinking water to millions of California residents. They also offer opportunities for recreation, such as hiking, camping, fishing and swimming.

Forests in southern California deserve wilderness protection

The U.S. Forest Service is drafting a revised management plan that will affect more than three dozen potential wilderness areas in these forests. Unfortunately, the Forest Service is proposing to recommend just 17% of these lands for wilderness. This would leave the remaining 83% vulnerable to development.

Why is wilderness in southern California important?

Visitors to southern California find ancient pine and fir forests and cool pools in mountain streams. The national forests provide habitat for species such as bighorn sheep and California condors. All this natural splendor exists within a short drive of some of the most populated urban areas in America.

You can help

The time has come for the Forest Service to draft a management plan that preserves, rather than destroys, the natural value of southern California wilderness.

You can help ensure the Forest Service preserves these vital southern California wildlands. Take a few moments to ask the Forest Service to preserve all of southern California's remaining potential wilderness.



The Wilderness Society


nimblecivet's picture
Hi, I got a page not found

Hi, I got a page not found message from your link.

I have not spent any time down in that area, but I am sure it is a wonderful and unique region. Speaking of the National Forests in general, road decommission has to become a top priority. Once roadless areas grow in number and size, it is a matter of time before wilderness returns. At that point, more places can receive wilderness protection. I recall reading somewhere that in some cases logging companies have been allowed to amortize their debt for hundreds of years. That means that what they were suppossed to pay the Forest Service for road building during the clearcut era will never actually be paid. That means that the average citizen has subsidized the operations of those that have destroyed so much of the forests. If we had had to pay the real value of timber, it would have been more difficult to inflate home prices artificially, no?

MrsBJLee's picture
Oh I am SORRY.....I don't

Oh I am SORRY.....I don't know how that happened but here is a link that will work! It will take you right to the page where you can edit the letter and sign.


 This is important! THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME KNOW!!

rigel1's picture
The biggest threat to our

The biggest threat to our wilderness areas is out of control population growth spurred on by massive immigration. We need to get this monster under control before it destroys us.

MrsBJLee's picture
Yes that is a huge part of it

Yes that is a huge part of it for sure but you can't forget the GREED element that drives the oil, natrual gas, tar sands, mining, and other developments. Do we always have to have some big resort at the edge of pristine wilderness? Do we really need to allow dirt bikes, atv's and snow mobiles destroy our solitude with nature? Must there always be electric power lines covering the mountainsides and criss crossing the meadows? Sure we have GOT to stop the massive immigration but we've also got to stop building houses and buildings that we really don't need just to give someone a job! There are several BRAND NEW office buildings just 1 mile from my house that have sat EMPTY for nearly 2 years now and they are planning on building houses all over this land that they should put a solar farm on because it's destressed land but a solar farm doesn't pay the city taxes. I know you get my drift.

nimblecivet's picture
You don't know what you're

You don't know what you're talking about.

MrsBJLee's picture
Excuse me.....could you

Excuse me.....could you please elaborate on what you mean by that comment.

nimblecivet's picture
If you didn't notice, its a

If you didn't notice, its a reply to #4 (rigel's comment). I wouldn't know where to start its so ignorant. It's typical of the type of spurious logic trolls use to derail threads or divert the issue to their agenda.

For one thing, campesinos in Mexico have long been fighting US logging companies whose practices cause mudslides to wipe out the campesinos' farms. Neoliberalism (NAFTA) further destroyed small-scale agriculture in Mexico and sent the disenfranchised north looking for the jobs that never materialized in Mexico except for in the maquiladoras along the border (another example of "libertarian Paradise").

If those people could vote, I think they would generally vote democratic or progressive. But of course, that was part of the reason for allowing then here in the first place: undocumented immigrants can't vote. They can't unionize or fight for labor and environmental standards.

Rigel is looking only for those stupid enough to not to see the reality that's right in front of them: the same people who profited off the labor of undocumented workers are bankrolling the candidates and movements which put the blame on them for, well, just about everything. It's scapegoating at its worst and the most ugly form of trolling you'll find on this website or anywhere else.

also see: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n11/slavoj-zizek/save-us-from-the-saviours

MrsBJLee's picture
Sorry....I forgot to check if

Sorry....I forgot to check if it was a reply to my post or someone elses. I completely understand your last comment and appreciate your message.

Ads by Google   "Park

Ads by Google


"Park closures just don't pencil out


The governor's plan to shut parks to save $22 million won't make a dent in the projected deficit and doesn't account for the effect shutting them would have on communities.


This isn't even penny wise and pound foolish. It's not even pennies. It's nuts.

Do the math.

Brown calculates that closing 70 state parks would save the general fund $22 million. Leave aside that the governor's record as a calculator is not stellar. He projected a $9.2-billion deficit in January; it ballooned to $15.7 billion by May. But let's accept the $22-million figure. That amounts to only 1/714 of the amount needed to fill the deficit hole.

Every penny may count. But if the deficit were $1, the park-closure savings wouldn't even be a penny. Not close. It would work out to roughly 1/7 of a penny.

That's my calculation. I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm way off.

Regardless, we're talking about some scenic treasures, inherited natural gems that enrich the California lifestyle. Our state parks recorded roughly 65 million visits last year.

"There's not a California brochure that you've seen in your lifetime that didn't have redwoods and beaches on it," says state Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), one of the legislators searching for a way to keep most of the parks open.

"This is not my idea of a strategy to attract tourism and hospitality growth in California."

In truth, California's state parks have been deteriorating for years. They're just too vulnerable to budget cuts. There's a backlog of $1 billion-plus in deferred maintenance: leaking roofs, rotting water pipes, broken fences, oozing septic tanks, eroded trails.

"We do a lot to hide it," parks Director Ruth Coleman told me two summers ago. "If a bathroom is nonfunctioning, we put a lock on it. We're locking every other bathroom on the beaches."

That fall, California voters overwhelmingly rejected a ballot measure that would have substantially boosted state funding for parks by requiring motorists to pay an additional $18 on their vehicle registration fee. In return, the vehicles would have been entitled to free entry and parking at parks.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was the first to propose shuttering dozens of state parks to balance the budget. But he backed off under heavy fire from local communities.

Brown last year proposed closing 70 of the 279 parks. The parks survived that summer with cutbacks. So far only one has been closed, Providence Mountain in the Mojave Desert.

The Legislature gave the governor permission to close all 70 parks July 1. But 17 have been spared, to varying degrees, with help from nonprofits, local communities, donors and the feds.

That leaves 53 on the hit list. State parks spokesman Roy Stearns says there are 19 other "good possibilities" of survival but no deals yet.

No matter, Brown insists on saving the $22 million — either through closures or essentially dumping the cost on someone else.

For perspective, the governor's parks budget for the fiscal year starting July 1 is $383 million, including $112 million from the general fund and the rest from various special kitties and user fees.

Again, we're talking relative peanuts compared with a total $142-billion state budget, including a $91-billion general fund. Parks amounts to a light tap on the general fund of roughly one-tenth of 1%

"Budget dust," says Sen. Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa).

Evans and Simitian are attempting a legislative rescue to save up to 50 parks.

They're pushing legislation that would, among other things, raid the motor vehicle fund. It has a $500-million reserve. They'd use $10 million to construct and maintain public roads in parks. They'd also borrow $50 million over five years from a clean water loan fund and spend it on water and sewer system repairs.

Brown's finance department says it has other plans for that money.

The senators also are proposing that non-rangers be used in key parks jobs that don't require law enforcement training. That would save salary costs. But rangers are upset.

Their legislation calls for creative ways to raise revenue — more robot fee collectors and credit card systems — and encouraging public-private partnerships.

In the Assembly, there is bipartisan legislation to raise money with special license plates and allowing taxpayers to redirect part of their tax refunds to a parks protection fund. That latter idea sounds like wishful thinking.

Brown hasn't taken a position on any of it.

At least some legislators are leading.

They point out that it's really impossible to close parks. The state can't build chain-link fences around them. Vandalism, forest fires and marijuana crops are practically inevitable. Trespassers will get hurt.

"All it would take is a couple of injury suits or wildfires and that $22-million savings would disappear overnight," Simitian says.

Then there's the senseless economic damage to local merchants.

"We think this is very odd mathematics," says Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the California State Parks Foundation. Her group has donated $328,000 to help keep some parks open.

"This budgeting has not been done with any long-term consequences in mind," she says. "And the consequences on local communities has not been calculated at all."

California didn't even close parks during the Great Depression, Evans says.

You'd think we could muddle through now.

Brown says he loves to hike and commune with nature. His public policies should reflect it better."


rigel1's picture
nimblecivet wrote: Rigel is

nimblecivet wrote:

Rigel is looking only for those stupid enough to not to see the reality that's right in front of them:

God no. Dude you whiffed. Whiffed big time. If anyone wants to know what I am looking for I suggest that they ask me directly. No tricks, no sneakiness. I give them my real honest opinion.

I respectfully ask that you never, ever attempt to speak for me again. Fair enough?

The Census Bureau projects that U.S. population will double this century,


  • California has practically doubled in population in the last 35 years. 96% of its growth in the 1990's was due to immigration. California now has 35 million, and is larger than most countries of the world.


So what will this do to California's wilderness? I'm not quite as ignorant as you claim, eh vet?

I love nature and wilderness. Nothing will lead to the destruction of the land that I love quicker than what this link shows.