Wilsons Sandbox

Weaver, Mark wrote:

> if i lived in slc, i might consider showing up with a sign supporting > reasonable public access to public land. > mw

I hear you........Indeed, this initiative, was created from the Top to trickle down. No one does anything, and the mandate will come down. In other words 'voting against this issue' is an action to support the American process When you look at maps of all existing USFS land and see the wilderness areas already in them.......they cover about half the total Forest area already! In consideration of the Forest Service Employee Union position, the needs of the various and diverse communities and local business dependent on local Forest access..........in view of the Los Padres Nat'l Forests Supervisor opinion, the importance of these areas to all future Handicapped, elderly, and others that for whatever reason may not be able to hike miles to get to back country........realising that this is a 'one step' cure-all that indeed foresteps the 'local' process for determining future forest management and therefore has more detriment than positive impact........for 'ALL' the diverse people and individual Forest needs...........and, because there is a 'wilderness movement' already in place that has 'isolated immense public regions' over the past 30 years........ ......I cannot suppport this initiative as part of the responsible multiple use community, their friends and family. Therefore, I oppose it.......... Tobin S. Lampson (Cal Posse)

> > > > Official FS roadless site: > > http://roadless.fs.fed.us/

shucks. you shoulda taken a picture of it lowered. i been thinking about making a chopper out of mine and would have liked to have seen what it would look like. james in s.c.

> collapsed to a

seat height of about 2 feet.