i have a 05 yfz with a brand new battery. There is an issue with it not starting now. You can hear the cliking noise but no turn over.Battery is charged fully but no start.HELP!!!!!!!!!!! What is the problem or anyadvice to fix and not go broke in the process
BLUERIBBON COALITION ACTION ALERT!
> IDAHO, Call your Senators on CIEDRA before they return to Washington * > DC
> Dear BRC Action Alert Subscriber in Idaho,
> What was your reaction to the news that Idaho Senators Mike Crapo * > and Jim Risch recently introduced Congressman Mike Simpson's Central * > Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA) in the Senate?
> Were you shocked? You should have been. Idaho has 5 million acres of * > Wilderness already. More than any other state except Alaska. * > Wilderness bans all mountain bike and motorized recreation. Yet, * > Idaho's entire congressional delegation is now supporting a bill * > that designates 332,775 new acres of wilderness in the Boulder White * > Clouds (BWC).
> I hate to say this, but the story on this CIEDRA bill is getting * > worse. A comparison between the 2009 House version and the 2010 * > Senate version will turn your shock into outrage.
> The Idaho Recreation Council recently put the two bills side-by-side * > and found the new 2010 version considerably worse than its * > predecessor. See: Comparison of the 2009 House CIEDRA VS 2010 Senate * > CIEDRA
> First of all, the new bill has more Wilderness. A lot more. Over * > 20,000 acres of "new" Wilderness has been added to the White Clouds * > Wilderness. The new bill also throws out language that gave * > permanent protection to the motorized routes in the Sawtooth * > National Recreation Area but outside the proposed Wilderness. Rep. * > Simpson started out with a basic premise of wanting to settle the * > issue once and for all and that is no longer being accomplished.
> The new bill also eliminates language that secures motorized access * > to the very popular and scenic Germania Creek-East Fork/Grand Prize * > trail. The new bill not only takes away the East Fork/Grand Prize * > section, it also allows closure of the entire route "for non- > motorized recreation purposes."
> Similarly, the new bill paves the way for the closure of the Frog * > Lake loop. In the "old" bill, Simpson included language that secured * > motorized access but the new bill says it will remain open only "if * > the Secretary allows motorized use."
> There's more. The OHV park near Boise was stripped out, as was * > authorization for $1 million to the Idaho Parks and Recreation to * > develop and manage it. And the trail between Redfish Lake and * > Stanley for non-motorized use in summer and snowmobiles in the * > winter, including parking areas at each end was stripped out.
> The only thing this bill protects the land from is YOU. Simply * > because you ride a mountain bike, enjoy snowmobiling or ride off- > highway vehicles, you don't have a right to view these lands.
> That's not Idaho. We can do better.
> Senator Risch and Crapo have scheduled June 16, 2010, for a Senate * > Subcommittee hearing on the new bill. Congress is in recess until * > June 4 for local district work sessions. That means the next few * > days is the best opportunity to contact the Senators with your * > concerns prior to the June 16 hearing.
> Please make your call today. We've put together some talking points * > you can use below. And tell you friends and family to make their * > calls by the end of the week.
> As always, thanks in advance for your action on this important * > issue. Please call or email if you have any comments or suggestions.
> Brian Hawthorne > Public Lands Policy Director > BlueRibbon Coalition > 208-237-1008 ext 102
> BRC ACTION ALERT: > Idaho Senators on board with a "new" Boulder White Clouds Wilderness * > Bill - that's even worse than previous versions. > Please call the senators during Memorial Day recess and express your * > concern.
> Situation: > Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch recently introduced Congressman * > Mike Simpson's Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act * > (CIEDRA) in the Senate. Idaho's entire congressional delegation is * > now supporting this bill that designates 332,775 new acres of * > wilderness in the Boulder White Clouds (BWC). > See: Boulder-White Clouds wilderness bill to be reintroduced today > IDAHO MOUNTAIN EXPRESS: Updated and breaking news > Simpson's wilderness bill gets Senate introduction > Simpson's wilderness bill gets Senate introduction - KHQ Right Now - News and Weather for Spokane and North Idaho |
> What you need to do: > The Memorial Day recess (May 31 - June 4) gives Idaho's * > recreationists a golden opportunity to express concerns about the * > new bill.
> Sen. Mike Crapo > * * *Boise Office: (208) 334-1776 > * * *Pocatello Office: (208) 236-6775 > * * *Idaho Falls Office: (208) 522-9779 > * * *Coeur d'Alene Office: (208) 664-5490 > * * *Lewiston Office: (208) 743-1492 > * * *Caldwell Office: (208) 455-0360 > * * *Twin Falls Office: (208) 734-2515
> Sen. Jim Risch > * * *Boise Office: (208) 342-7985 > * * *Coeur d'Alene Office: (208) 667-6130 > * * *Idaho Falls Office: (208) 523-5541 > * * *Lewiston Office: (208) 743-0792 > * * *Pocatello Office: (208) 236-6817 > * * *Twin Falls Office: (208) 734-6780
> Please be polite.
> With 5 million acres already set aside, Idaho has enough Wilderness. * > I oppose CIEDRA and I am calling to ask the Senator to reconsider * > his decision to promote this bill.
> There is no threat to these lands. No massive clear cutting project * > is in the works. No giant mining operation proposed. Mountain bikes, * > off-highway vehicles and snowmobiles are not harming these lands.
> CIEDRA will kick out motorized and mountain bike recreationists who * > will take their dollars with them, having a negative impact on the * > local economy.
> The Sawtooth National Recreation Areas provides protection and * > balanced management while still allowing recreational uses.
> I am opposed use of the Omnibus package to pass CIEDRA or any public * > lands bill. > The BlueRibbon Coalition is a national (non-profit) trail-saving * > group that represents over 600,000 recreationists nationwide The * > Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) season is beginning. Federal * > employees, please mark BlueRibbon Coalition and Check #11402 on your * > CFC pledge form to support our efforts to protect your access. Join * > us at 1-800-258-3742 BlueRibbon Coalition: Protecting your recreational access to public lands. > _______________________________________________________
> As a non-profit, grassroots organization funded primarily by * > membership dues and donations, we greatly appreciate your support. * > Visit Make a Difference Now - BlueRibbon Coalition to help fund * > our efforts to protect your trails!
Prescott National Forest to Hold Recreation Strategy Community Workshops
March 5th, 2010
BLUERIBBON COALITION PARTNER ACTION ALERT!
Prescott National Forest to Hold Recreation Strategy Community Workshops
Dear BRC members, supporters and action alert subscribers,
Sanford Cohen, from the Prescott Open Trails Association (POTA), just sent us a heads up about some "Recreation Strategy Community Workshops" Co-Sponsored by the Prescott National Forest and the Community Forest Stewardship Forum in partnership with: City of Prescott, Town of Prescott Valley, Town of Chino Valley and Yavapai County.
Recreational users are invited to share interests, concerns and ideas for recreational projects and "help create a Sustainable Recreation future" for the region.
Sanford suspects the "Sustainable Recreation" initiative will result in closing the remaining roads and trails on the Prescott National Forest. (Many hundreds of miles of roads and trails have been closed over the decades and few motorized trails remain.)
If you live in or near Prescott, please read Sanford's info below and take action. Also, please pass this information on to your friends and family, and please ask them take action as well.
Thanks in advance for your involvement, Ric Foster Public Lands Department Manager BlueRibbon Coalition 208-237-1008 ext 107
From Sanford Cohen, Prescott Open Trails Association
Read this attachment and if YOU DON'T SHOW UP to at least one of these meetings, you will have only yourself to blame for the loss of our trails.* The anti-motorized group is trying to get empowered and a small turnout from us will insure our defeat. * This comes from the "save the Verde" people.* They are launching an all out assault on motorized trails.* Our Forest Supervisor is out of town on assignment and the local head of the Wilderness Coalition is in charge of OUR trails program. * We MUST ALL SHOW UP and we MUST BE PREPARED with the following talking points: * 1)* The Prescott is managed as a multiple use forest.* Motorized Trails and Roads are also open to hikers, bicyclists and equestrians.* The miles of roads and trails are being mis-represented as for MOTORIZED ONLY. * 2)* The average Motorized Hiker covers much longer distances on average, so in terms of time spent on the trail, they need to have longer distances to keep even with the non-motorized trail user. * 3)* With food, fuel and lodging and connections between communities, motorized hikers contribute more to the financial picture of Cities and Towns and provide more monetary help to Prescott National Forest for all types of trail construction and maintenance than any other activity. * 4)* Wilderness areas containing trails where motorized vehicles are off-limits number in the millions of acres.* The areas where hikers on foot are not allowed on the trail forest-wide is ZERO.* We do not need to add more wilderness. * 5)* Off highway vehicle use has grown 357% since 1996.* You do not respond to a greater demand for an activity by providing less of it. * When you do go to one of the sessions, make sure you identify yourself as a member of Prescott Open Trails Association.* There is strength in numbers, but only if you show up and be heard. * Thanks! * Sanford Cohen POTA
Upcoming Recreation Strategy Community Workshops (Zone 2)
You're invited!!! To share your interests, concerns and ideas for recreational projects And to help create a Sustainable Recreation future for our region
Western/Northern Prescott National Forest and surrounding communities, including Prescott, Prescott Valley, Chino Valley, Paulden and Drake (see attached map) http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PNF_Recreation_Strategy_Zones_Map.pdf*
Chino Valley March 10th* 6:00-8:30 PM Activity Center (1527 N. Road 1 East) * Prescott March 11th* 12:00-2:30 PM Yavapai Community College* (Bldg 19, Rm 147) * Prescott Valley March 10th** 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM Prescott Valley Library Chrystal Room March 11th* 6:00-8:30 PM Stone Ridge Golf Course (1601 N. Bluff Top Drive) * We want to hear from everyone! -* Refreshments will be provided - * Co-Sponsored by: Prescott National Forest and the Community Forest Stewardship Forum In Partnership With: City of Prescott Town of Prescott Valley Town of Chino Valley Yavapai County * For more information, please contact: Linda Jackson, Prescott National Forest (928) 777-2230 or [email protected] * Kelly Schwartz, Backcountry Horsemen (928) 533-2213 or [email protected] * Melissa Jackson, City of Prescott (928) 777-1588 or [email protected]
BRC NATION-WIDE ACTION ALERT - IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED
US FOREST SERVICE DEVELOPING NEW PLANNING REGULATIONS
WILL GLOBAL WARMING TRUMP MULTIPLE USE?
Dear BRC Action Alert Subscriber,
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is beginning the process of revising their regulations that govern how the agency prepares Forest Plans. Known as the "Planning Rule," these regulations will be the driving force behind how the agency develops, amends and revises their Land Use Plans.
This is a big deal.
The FS is proposing a planning rule that will shift what is left of any emphasis toward multiple use/sustained yield to such things as global warming, ecosystem management and their new buzz word - restoration. Our action alert below gives a brief analysis and explains why BRC is concerned, and why we are encouraging our entire membership to respond.
For those of you who don't want to know the details, or are busy with work and family, you can use our letter generator. For those of you who wish to send your own email to the USFS, we put together another one of our INSANELY EASY 3- step action items below.
Please send your comment email today. The comment deadline is February 16, 2010!
As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please contact BRC.
Thanks in advance for your support,
Brian Hawthorne Ric Foster
Public Lands Policy Director Public Lands Department Manager
208-237-1008 ext 102 208-237-1008 ext 107
BRC NATION-WIDE ACTION ALERT - IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED
US FOREST SERVICE DEVELOPING NEW PLANNING REGULATIONS
WILL GLOBAL WARMING TRUMP MULTIPLE USE?
SITUATION: The U.S. Forest Service is beginning the process of revising their regulations that govern how the agency prepares Forest Plans. Known as the "Planning Rule," these regulations will be the driving force behind how the agency prepares Land Use Plans and will guide land managers in developing, amending, and revising land management plans for the 155 national forests and 20 grasslands in the National Forest System (NFS).
The USFS has released a proposed action that includes several so-called "Principles" that will be used to formulate the new regulations. The agency is asking for comments on these principles, and is asking the public to identify important issues and alternatives. (Read the Notice of Intent HERE)
BRC'S CONCERNS - WHY THIS MATTERS TO YOU
Land management planning is one way the USFS complies with requirements under such laws as the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA) as well as laws like the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Sadly, planning regulations can also be used to dilute the requirements under NFMA and MUSYA and expand the requirements of other laws, such as the ESA and the Wilderness Act.
By including such nebulous guidance as, "restoration and conservation to enhance the resilience of ecosystems to a variety of threats" and "proactively address climate change through monitoring, mitigation and adaptation, and could allow flexibility to adapt to changing conditions and incorporate new information," the proposed emphasis will further shift the agency away from multiple use management.
If that's not bad enough, the agency's proposal does virtually nothing to address the analysis paralysis problem. Current regulations provide multiple levels of seemingly never-ending environmental analysis. The result is a series of one-way procedural gates for litigious environmental groups. We often describe the situation by saying the environmental groups have executed a corporate takeover of the US Forest Service.
The agency has several problems with its planning. But the key problem is that the agency assumes it has the authority to change the policy that was established in Congress. The agency is attempting this via their planning regulations, which are supposed to be all about the procedures for revising land management plans, not the policy those plans will implement. As a result, the planning rules are unworkable. Plans take years to complete, are unbelievably expensive, totally unresponsive to public input and often include conflicting management guidance. By the time all the levels of environmental analysis are completed on a project, it's time for a new land use plan. Sadly, this new proposal will likely make things worse.
More info on the web:
The FS has a website with all the information and links to other background documents.
We have reformatted the Notice of Intent for easy reading. Take a good look.
BRC'S THREE-STEP ACTION ITEM
STEP-BY-STEP INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO EMAIL YOUR COMMENTS:
NOTE: Please be polite and, if possible, make your comment letter as personal as you can.
STEP 1: Open your email program and start a draft email. Address the email to
Put "New Planning Rule" in the Subject Line.
STEP 2: Use the comments below as a guideline for comments in your email.
Cut and paste is okay, but try to make your comment letter as personal as possible.
STEP 3: Take just a minute to add a bit about where you live, where you like to ride
and how much trail-based recreation means to you. Be certain to include your
name and address. A return email address is NOT sufficient! ("anonymous" emails
are often discarded).
Forest Service Planning NOI
C/O Bear West Company
172 E 500 S
Bountiful, UT 84010
RE: New Planning Rule
To whom it may concern,
1. The Importance of Recreation to the American Public should be emphasized in the planning regulations.
A diverse range of recreational activities should be identified as one of the key "Ecosystem Services" that Land Use Plans should address. According to the National National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, the popularity and importance to USFS visitors of off-highway vehicle and snowmobile recreation has drastically increased in recent years. Ditto for mountain bike and equestrian use. Conversely, the amount of USFS lands available for motorized, mountain bike and, on some Forests, even equestrian trails, have been reduced via legislation, implementation of Forest Plans and site- specific recreation plans. Therefore, there is a need to emphasize a diverse range of recreation in the planning regulations.
Please identify the need to emphasize a diverse range of trail- based recreation as a formal planning issue and develop at least one alternative where the planning regulations identify motorized and non- motorized recreation as a key ecosystem services and provides direction to enhance and expand opportunities for these popular activities.
2. Planning regulations should focus on procedures for developing, amending and revising land management plans.
The Notice of Intent (NOI) states that this new rule will "consist of procedures for developing, amending, and revising land management plans" and it lists several "principles" that could be used in the development of a new planning rule. Note that none of the "Substantive Principles" have anything to do with procedures for developing land management plans. And only one of the "Process Principles" directly addresses the planning process.
The agency says its existing planning regulations are costly, complex, and procedurally burdensome. I believe this is because the previous regulations attempted to address policy instead of planning procedures. Congress sets the policies for management of federal lands, and administrative agencies must act within those legislative limits. The new planning regulations should focus exclusively on planning procedures, not policy direction.
3. The concern over the trend away from Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Management should be identified as a planning issue.
Each year more and more USFS lands are removed from multiple use management. Past planning activities and litigation have significantly expanded preservation- oriented management and significantly reduced areas available for multiple use. The reduction of multiple- use, sustained- yield management has been identified as a key problem affecting the health and economic well-being of States and local communities.
The issue of "cumulative loss of multiple use sustained yield management" should be identified as a formal planning issue and brought forward for analysis. At least one alternative should include planning direction to enhance multiple- use, sustained- yield management. All Alternatives should include a complete analysis of the history of the MUSY Act and its sociopolitical importance to states with large areas of federally- managed lands.
4. There is a need to streamline the planning and appeal process.
I agree with the agency's assessment that current regulations are costly, complex, and procedurally burdensome. However, incorporating many of the "Substantive Principles" are likely to exacerbate this problem.
The issue of cost and complexity of planning should be brought forward for analysis and incorporated as a formal planning issue. At least one alternative should be formulated to streamline the planning process. The agency may also wish to ask Congress to clarify its intent on both policy and requirements for environmental analysis.
5. There is a need to clarify the distinction between programmatic and site- specific planning, as well as what level of environmental analysis is required for both.
The proper relationship between Forest Planning and project planning is a topic of frequent discussion. In the past, the agency asserted the "programmatic" or "general" nature of Forest Plans. However, recently completed Forest Plans blur the line, viewing subsequent site-specific processes as mere reiteration or "implementation" of the Forest Plan decisions. In addition, the agency seems to suffer from a multiple and often redundant requirements for environmental analysis.
All alternatives should clarify the distinction between programmatic and site- specific planning and at least attempt to describe what level of environmental analysis is required in each.
6. It is unwise to "proactively address climate change" in the planning regulations.
The agency's own "Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis" (January 13, 2009) states that the effects of climate change are unknown, will vary regionally and will range the gamut from increased droughts to increased flooding. The document states: "It is not currently feasible to quantify the indirect effects of individual or multiple projects on global climate change and therefore determining significant effects of those projects or project alternatives on global climate change cannot be made at any scale." The only thing that is certain is the climate will change from its current and/or its historical condition.
Effects of climate change are unknown. Impacts to the climate from human activities occurring on the forest, as well as the impacts of climate change on the forest, cannot be made at any scale. Please remove this issue from consideration as a "Substantive Principle."
In addition, incorporating "climate change" into planning will be redundant. For example, the NOI says
"Responsible officials will also need flexibility to be able to adjust plan objectives and requirements where there are circumstances outside of agency control: For example, where increasing water temperatures resulting from climate change make it impossible to maintain a sensitive fish species in its native habitat." However, such "flexibility" is already embedded in land use planning, and specific management prescriptions, standards and guidelines already address important issues such as "increasing water temperature." Indeed, existing Forest Plans contain very specific guidance regarding the monitoring of and management for sensitive fish habitat.
7. I strongly oppose the "alllands" approach. Please remove this from consideration as a "Substantive Principle."
The agency has this exactly 180 degrees backward. Instead of trying to force adjacent landowners to abide by the agency's wishes, it should be mindful not to let the deteriorating condition of its own forest to result in damage to adjacent lands.
8. Generally, recreationists like green forests.
No one can deny that a very large percent of the agency's forests are unhealthy. There is agreement that moving to a historic range of variability, at least in as much as we understand it, is probably wise. However, the only tool available to manipulate those variables in designated Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) is prescribed fire.
This will be a big problem for the new focus on Restoration. Unlike what the general public believes, IRA's include lands that are highly modified, and not just by decades of fire suppression. Many have been commercially logged in the past and these "plantations" are susceptible to unnatural wildfire, insect and disease. The agency's current Roadless area management severely restricts any attempt to restore these lands to the historic range of variability.
Therefore, it is logical to develop an alternative that emphasizes a more aggressive approach to achieving the historic range of variability outside Roadless areas and Wilderness. This should include commercial logging where appropriate, which achieves the agency's mandates for community health and prosperity, and also protects against so-called "fatal fires," and insect and disease outbreak.