there is hope! nklr

[Joe Percival]

Great in the dirt, very short pavement life. I've also been warned about being very careful on wet pavement. Joe -----Original Message----- From: Shepard,Brian [SMTP:shepard@...] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 5:44 AM To: 'DSN_KLR650@egroups.com' Subject: [DSN_klr650] Pirelli MT21 After researching, I've decided to go with Pirelli MT21 front & rear. Anyone have any comments before I buy? -Brian Shepard A13 Visit the KLR650 archives at http://www.listquest.com/lq/search.html?ln=klr650 Support Dual Sport News... dsneditor@... Let's keep this list SPAM free! Visit our site at http://www.egroups.com/group/DSN_klr650 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@egroups.com

[Jason Lutz - ISDX]

From my experience with these tires... Awesome on dirt! I also agree with the previous reply, very short road life. As for the wet weather performance, I bet they perform poorly. I wouldn't know, because when I'm in the rain I ride slow and take it easy on the turns. In my head I can just imagine that the knobbies make very little contact and can slip out at any time. But then again, I'm the most paranoid rider in the world! Jason '98 KLR650 Phoenix, AZ

[Tumu Rock]

I've got about 1500 miles on mine and they seem to be holding up well. Front still looks new. Rear has worn a little but I attribute that to spinnin' on rocks more than to the pavement. I haven't had any bad experiences in the rain but I do take it easy (regardless of what tires I'm running). I've been able to drag a peg on dry pavement, and absolutely love these tires in the dirt. FWIW, dat brooklyn bum _______________________________________________________ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html

[Russell Scott]

> Senator Larry Craig's Response to the Chief Mike > Dombeck's > letter to all USFS Employees > > July 17, 2000 > > Mr. Mike Dombeck > Chief > U.S. Forest Service > Department of Agriculture > 14th & Independence Ave, SW > Washington, DC 20090-6090 > Dear Mike: >

Given the number of Forest Service employees who were

> kind enough to send me a copy. I could not help reading your > June 30th letter to all employees. I suppose that it is > appropriate for you to send such a letter immediately before the > Independence Day holiday, because you seem to be > declaring the Forest Service's independence from the balance of the > federal government, the laws governing federal agency > activities, and the utilization of simple common sense. > > Under the Provisions of the Administration Procedures > Act, The National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest > Management Act, we have allowed you to propose > regulations, but required you to accept public comments > thereon, and to use those comments to evaluate how and > whether to best proceed. The public comment period is supposed > to provide agencies with necessary information to modify >the direction and substance of rule-making. > > To be sure, over the years some elements of the public > have become jaded about the sincerity of one or another agencies' > effort to hear their reviews. But agency heads have, at > a minimum, at least tried to give the pretense that the public's views > are important. You do not. > > Your statement in the letter that "collaboration, > however, does not alleviate our responsibility to make decisions that we > believe in the best long-term interest of the land or > the people who depend on and enjoy it,"represents the height of > arrogance. Such a clearly decisional pronouncement > during the middle of the comment period on the roadless area rule > emphatically demonstrates that your mind is closed. > Combined with previous pre-decisional statements by the > President, the Vice President, the Secretary, and

yourself, your actions are fatally tainting both this rule-making, and the

> Forest Service's reputation for integrity for years to come. > > Worse yet, this statement strongly indicates that you > are either unwilling, or perhaps unable, to appreciate what is required > to successfully practice collaborative stewardship.

That is especially distressing, because it calls into direct question your

> sincerity on a number of other matters that we have > previously discussed. The-we're willing to chat, but we know best-tone > of your June 30 letter is both unhelpful and a > throw-back to pre-NEPA agency behavior. > > I also fear that the hubris evident in phrases such as > "we have changed the tenor of the debate;" has left you at least slightly > delusional. I can find no other explanation for the > statement immediately following that "no longer is our agenda dictated by > litigation, lawsuits, and controversial appropriations' > [sic] riders." > > In case you have not been following closely, your > proposed roadless area rule is the subject of three pending lawsuits > already. Your Northwest Forest Plan is mired in > litigation and dead in the water. As a consequence of recent litigation,

you have lost the ability to conduct de-minimis timber sales

> using a Finding of No Significant Impact under NEPA. Last month, > you lost a lawsuit over your cancellation of the Alaska > Pulp Corporation's timber sale contract that exposes you to $1.4 > billion in liability - an amount that represents 50% of > the total budget appropriated to the Forest Service last year. Last week, > environmental litigants filed suit to try to stop timber > harvesting completely in the Forest Service's southern region. I suggest > you spend some quality time with your Office of General > Counsel in the very near future. > > As to appropriations riders, I will be going to the > Senate floor later today to defend your forest management budget once > again from the annual raid attempted by national > environmental groups and their allies. Nothing has changed on this front. > With respect to my interest in an amendment to assure > that you comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), > you should understand that I have decided to forebear > from acting for the time being. I have not foresworn from > congressional action indefinitely. For now, I am content > to await court proceedings scheduled in August. Depending upon > the outcome of those proceedings, Congress may not be > required to act to correct these FACA violations, or I may take this > matter up again when the Interior Appropriations bill > reaches Conference later this year. It may well be that you are, as your > letter boastfully suggests, "at the forefront of the > public lands debate." Only time will tell whether the political front lines > are the best place to secure scientifically sound, balanced > and stable, long-term resource management goals. > > Mike, I found your letter both arrogant and offensive.

I look forward to discussing this with you at our oversight hearing later this week.

> > Sincerely, > > Larry E. Craig > > Chairman, > Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management