blooddrive
01-07-2004, 10:51 PM
76352-76376
76352 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:18pm
Subject: [FS] Wanted 2.5 gal tank
Price: ?
Contact: FourxFrankb@aol.com
I was wondering were I can pick up a 2.5 Gal. tank for my on board air.
Frank Bell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
76353 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:19pm
Subject: [FS] chevy np 208 t case
Price: $100.00
Contact: chesely0101@aol.com
np 208 from chevy suburban good condition, slip yoke, bolts to th350
joseph chesley
76354 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:39pm
Subject: [FS] CJ7 project
Price: $1200 obo
Contact: Steve 602-482-2428
76 CJ7 rolling chassis $1000: had 304,TH400,Quadra trac
has model 30 frt, 20offset rear (centerset available)Powersteering, power brakes, roll bar (rear), half cab, tire carrier, seats
304,TH400 autotrans,QTrac $500
everything for $1200 or ? for part
Steve Olney
76355 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:31pm
Subject: RE: Re: Table Mesa shooting?
The parking lot at the end of pavement is State Trust Land. There is NO
shooting allowed on State Trust lands AT ANY TIME, FOR ANY REASON other than
hunting. With a hunting license in the designated season. A hunter cannot
"sight" his gun prior to hunting season while on State Trust Land.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don <weasel_ugs@h...> [mailto:weasel_ugs@h...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:31 PM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Table Mesa shooting?
>
>
> There is a sign posted where the road turns to dirt,one of the things
> on it is no shooting.Are we actually allowed to shoot there still or
> does everyone just break the rules?I used to shoot up there till we
> saw the sign get posted.We also cleaned up the area we used before we
> left. Don
>
> --- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "robert_j_rogers2
> <robert.rogers@h...>" <robert.rogers@h...> wrote:
> > Has the agencies thought about posting the area no shooting during
> > the clean-up. It would not be fun to "dodge lead" while picking up
> > the mess. Some of the shooters may not want to stop long enough to
> > let us clean the target area.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
76356 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:42pm
Subject: [FS] Commando MUST SELL!!!
Price: $1000
Contact: Steve 602-482-2428
72 Commando 304 V8, Th400 auto trans, dana 20 xfer; power steering, power brakes, runs, but very tired engine; spare core available; very little rust
CA title (easy to transfer, but not worth my time at this price)
Steve Olney
76357 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:44pm
Subject: [FS] 72 Commando
Price: $1000
Contact: Steve 602-482-2428
V8 304, TH400 auto trans, Dana 20 xfer, 30frt, 44 rear, PS,PB engine runs but very tired, spare available; lots of spare parts available
Steve Olney
76358 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:49pm
Subject: [FS] CJ7 project
Price: $1000
Contact: Steve 602-482-2428
76 CJ7 had 304 V8,TH400,Qtrac (see below);PS,PB roll bar, tire carrier, minor body damage; 30 frt,20 ofset rear (center set available) $1000
304 V8,Th400,Qtrac $500
Make offer for part or everything
Steve Olney
76359 From: Bill Witt <k7ant@t...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:35pm
Subject: MS Star Valley
I think it was Ross Skinner's nice monster CJ. Hi Ross, saw you about 5:45PM Thursday night. There was also a red TJ behind you, but don't know if he was with you. Here's another wave. (I was going north in the white tj.)
Bill W
K7ANT a.k.a. "Antman"
97 TJ with a few mods.
Up on the Mogollon Rim in Arizona.
God and 4 wheelers' country!
76360 From: Bill Witt <k7ant@t...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:19pm
Subject: Re: Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
Just for your info Larry, I'm still pissed about it!
Bill W
K7ANT a.k.a. "Antman"
97 TJ with a few mods.
Up on the Mogollon Rim in Arizona.
God and 4 wheelers' country!
----- Original Message -----
From: <highupjeep@q...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 2:03 PM
Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
> Stu (and all),
>
> I bring this up because it is my recollection that it was the pretty
> much the consensus of the group (or at least of those posting
> opinions at the time) once it was identified who it was that did the
> modifying and why it was done, that it was then somehow justified.
> When it was first posted that the ledge had been smoothed out, pretty
> much everyone expressed outrage (me too), then that seemed to change
> acceptance for that particular case (not me).
> At least that was my take on it.
>
> Larry
>
> --- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...> wrote:
> > Larry,
> >
> > The fact that some moron did it does NOT mean it was the right
> thing to
> > do.
> >
> > Stu
> >
> > Stu Olson
> > www.stu-offroad.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: highjeeps <highupjeep@q...> [mailto:highupjeep@q...]
> > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 11:58 AM
> > To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
> >
> > On the subject of modifying trails to make them easier and that
> being
> > the wrong thing to do, can someone explain to me why it was
> > apparently OK to smooth out the Ledge on the Crown King Trail? How
> is
> > that different from modifying any other trail to make it easier? (I
> > think I may be the only one that still disagrees with that trail
> > modification).
> > Thx,
> > Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
76361 From: Lachlan <jeepindog@y...> <jeepindog@y...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:01pm
Subject: Re: [LU] New Book Examines Impacts of Roads and Off-Road Vehicles]
I like the part where it says "written by *Roads Scholar*..." I
thought that the school was called Rhodes, and was in England. I
guess you learn something every day. And I thought Jimmi Hendirx
said "'Scuse me, while I kiss the sky." But according to many people
he said "Kiss this guy." Huh...
Lachlan "No speaka Inglissh" MacLean
>
>
> "No Place Distant: Roads and Motorized Recreation on America's
Public
> Lands"
> (Island Press, 2002, ISBN 1-55963-845-1)
>
> Written by Roads Scholar David Havlick...
76362 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:02pm
Subject: [FS] 33X12.50 MTR'S WITH CUSTOM ALLOY WHEELS-POWER TRAX FRONT LOCKER FOR DANA 30
Price:
Contact: 602-942-8503 ASK FOR STEVE
33X12.50 MTR'S 4 MONTHS OF LIGHT USE MOUNT WITH 15X8 ALUMINUM MOD ALLOY WHEELS
POWER TRAX FRONT LOCKER FOR DANA 30 VERY LITTLE USEAGE
MUST SELL!!!
SCOTT MCMILLAN
76363 From: dbkcs <dbkcs@y...> <dbkcs@y...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:23pm
Subject: Re: 33x12.5
How much and off of what?
76364 From: dbkcs <dbkcs@y...> <dbkcs@y...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:23pm
Subject: Re: 33x12.5
How much and off of what?
76365 From: Mitch Woodward <mitchwoodward@h...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:26pm
Subject: Re: Where to buy reamers?
These might be a snap-on item. I believe you need the correct sized tapered
ream to get the press fit with the tie rod ends. Home depot carries nothing
like it. Maybe a Napa or something like that would.
Mitch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Krieg" <rv6a@m...>
To: "Arizona Virtual Jeep Club" <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:20 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] Where to buy reamers?
> I need to ream the holes in my steering knuckles to accept the new 1
> ton ends I got. Are these available in places like Loews or Home Depot?
> Is there any specific type I need to buy?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
76366 From: highjeeps <highupjeep@q...> <highupjeep@q...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:28pm
Subject: Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
That makes a few of us anyway.
Larry
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Witt" <k7ant@t...> wrote:
> Just for your info Larry, I'm still pissed about it!
> Bill W
> K7ANT a.k.a. "Antman"
> 97 TJ with a few mods.
> Up on the Mogollon Rim in Arizona.
> God and 4 wheelers' country!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <highupjeep@q...>
> To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 2:03 PM
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
>
>
> > Stu (and all),
> >
> > I bring this up because it is my recollection that it was the
pretty
> > much the consensus of the group (or at least of those posting
> > opinions at the time) once it was identified who it was that did
the
> > modifying and why it was done, that it was then somehow justified.
> > When it was first posted that the ledge had been smoothed out,
pretty
> > much everyone expressed outrage (me too), then that seemed to
change
> > acceptance for that particular case (not me).
> > At least that was my take on it.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > --- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...> wrote:
> > > Larry,
> > >
> > > The fact that some moron did it does NOT mean it was the right
> > thing to
> > > do.
> > >
> > > Stu
> > >
> > > Stu Olson
> > > www.stu-offroad.com
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: highjeeps <highupjeep@q...> [mailto:highupjeep@q...]
> > > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 11:58 AM
> > > To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
> > >
> > > On the subject of modifying trails to make them easier and that
> > being
> > > the wrong thing to do, can someone explain to me why it was
> > > apparently OK to smooth out the Ledge on the Crown King Trail?
How
> > is
> > > that different from modifying any other trail to make it easier?
(I
> > > think I may be the only one that still disagrees with that trail
> > > modification).
> > > Thx,
> > > Larry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
76367 From: <AZICE626@a...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 3:30pm
Subject: Re: OT (?) Need a job to keep Jeep. If you can't help, please delete!
No flames here, Russ....I know the feeling....got laid off 17 months ago.....1 more week of unemployment left......tj gill
76368 From: BradP Kilgore <brad.kilgore@p...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:49pm
Subject: RE: [FS] 33X12.50 MTR'S WITH CUSTOM ALLOY WHEELS-POWER TRAX FRONT LOCKER FOR DANA 30
What bolt pattern are the wheels and would you sell the tires by themselves? If so, how much.
Thanks,
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: AzVJC Website [mailto:azvjc@a...]
Sent: Thu 1/23/2003 9:02 PM
To: AzVJC
Cc:
Subject: [az_vjc] [FS] 33X12.50 MTR'S WITH CUSTOM ALLOY WHEELS-POWER TRAX FRONT LOCKER FOR DANA 30
Price:
Contact: 602-942-8503 ASK FOR STEVE
33X12.50 MTR'S 4 MONTHS OF LIGHT USE MOUNT WITH 15X8 ALUMINUM MOD ALLOY WHEELS
POWER TRAX FRONT LOCKER FOR DANA 30 VERY LITTLE USEAGE
MUST SELL!!!
SCOTT MCMILLAN
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
76369 From: jeep_thing01 <kdberanek@c...> <kdberanek@c...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:58pm
Subject: Re: Rubicon VS H2
I was the driver of the TJ that got stuck the KIA strapped to it was
a joke. It actually took two jeap with winches and two or three more
as anchors to pull me out. It was more like wet clay than mud. I
want to thank those who lended a hand put I gotta say most "club"
members that were there were quite content to sit in lawn chairs next
to their jeeps and watch. In fact a few actually got mad because of
the time it took to pull me out. Fortunately this is not the first
club run I have been on or I would probably not go on one again.
Some of the comments made to me were pretty bad. I got the jeep 3
months ago and while it is no rock crawling monster I'm proud of it.
I won't comment to much on the driver ability part. Put I have 20
years of off road driving experience. Granted not in a TJ will take
sometime and a few more trips to totally get a feel for it's
ability. Driver error was thinking a totally open jeep with 3.07
gears and 33in tires could go thru what appeared to be a very shallow
mud hole that turned out was over 2 feet deep. BTW speaking of
gearing I just obtained a set of gears and carriers from a club
member but need help getting them put in. Any volunteers? or
recommendations on where to go and approximate cost. Cost is for
help from club member too.
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Kruize" <skruize@c...> wrote:
> Besides, how many of us wheel stock Jeeps anyway?
>
> Scott K
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lachlan <jeepindog@y...> [mailto:jeepindog@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:12 PM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Rubicon VS H2
>
>
> KIA is not a bad manufacturer. In fact, they make some pretty
> decent vehicles. Remember when a Honda was the cheapest piece of
> ****e you could find on the road? (I do.) KIA never made a cheap
> car, but they do make some very inexpensive cars. The fact that
they
> make one with a two-speed transfer case that did pretty well in the
> 4x4 of the Year comparison (the actual 'wheelin part) that is
> actually affordable and well-made should earn it some well-deserved
> respect. Jeep Jeep Jeep. Don't you guys ever get tired of eating
> the same thing for lunch? I will always own my Jeep, and love it
and
> all Jeeps. There are other vehicles out there that are very good
at
> some of the things that Jeeps are good at. Not *as* good, but
> close. And if a Jeep driver just happens to get the Jeep stuck
> (won't mention driver's ability) who cares who pulls it out? Maybe
> DC should start charging extra for the God Complex that comes with
> owning a Jeep!
>
> Lachlan
>
>
> In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Clint Ramsey" <cwramsey@t...> wrote:
> >
> > I almost vomited when I opened that picture
> >
> > Clint
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BADAZXJ XJArizona [mailto:BadAZXJ@m...]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:22 AM
> > To: Joe-CJ7@J...; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com;
> > arizonaXJ@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Rubicon VS H2
> >
> >
> > Kia pulling TJ....
> >
> > (if you cant get the attachment, its in the www.azbackcountry.com
> oops
> > section. And I think there is a link on the azvjc trips page from
> > sunday)
> >
> > Frank
> > BadAzXJ@m...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "Joe Kearney" <Joe-CJ7@J...>
> > >To: "BADAZXJ XJArizona" <BadAZXJ@m...>
> > >Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Rubicon VS H2
> > >Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:13:14 -0700
> > >
> > >Frank,
> > >
> > >Where can I find the pictures?
> > >
> > >Joe Kearney
> > >Joe-CJ7@J...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "BADAZXJ XJArizona" <BadAZXJ@m...>
> > >To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> > >Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:04 AM
> > >Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Rubicon VS H2
> > >
> > >
> > > > I have converted quite a few TJ guys over to the XJ
side......
> > > > Come wheel with the XJ club some week....you will be too.....
> > > >
> > > > We wheeled with a Kia last week that didnt do too
bad...... :) The
>
> > > > nice thing about a rig like that is if you get stuck..people
> > just
> > >say
> > > > "what the hell did you expect? its a kia or a rav 4." But I
get
> my
> > junk
> > > > stuck....I will never hear the end of it.
> > > > Speaking of which...a TJ got stuck in the mud and we got a few
> good
> > >shots
> > >of
> > > > the kia trying to pull him out (look at the fr42 pics from
> > Sunday).....
> > > >
> > > > Frank
> > > > BadAzXJ@m...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: "Martin Ward" <martinida@c...>
> > > > >To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Rubicon VS H2
> > > > >Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:56:51 -0700
> > > > >
> > > > >With enough money a Rav4 could become a trail worthy rig. I
love
> > > > >my TJ, but after wheeling with 4 XJ's I want one. The
> H2
> > would
> > >be
> > > > >ok
> > > > >to tow stuff with...but I think if I was given an H2 for
> free...I'd
> >
> > >sell
> > >it
> > > > >and keep my F250 for that purpose.
> > > > >
> > > > >Martin
> > > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: "BADAZXJ XJArizona" <BadAZXJ@m...>
> > > > >To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:30 AM
> > > > >Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Rubicon VS H2
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The jeep wins hands down...but to be fair...it is JP
> magazine
> > doing
> > >the
> > > > > > review. The only thing the hummer wins at is in the sand
> due to
> > the
> > > > >rubicons
> > > > > > low gearing. If I had the cash and the H2 didnt have the
> stupid
> > IFS,
> > >I
> > > > > > wouldnt turn it down either........
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I would take a Cherokee over a wrangler anyday
anyway. I
> > have
> > >kids
> > > > >that
> > > > > > love to four wheel, plus I can go on a trip without
worrying
> > about
> > > > >people
> > > > > > jackin my junk or having to pull a trailer with my gear.
> Plus I
> > like
> > >my
> > > > > > music and there isnt much room in a wrangler for a sound
> system.
> > >Before
> > > > > > everyone gets all crazy comparing XJs to TJ's, I will
admit
> that
> > a
> > >stock
> > > > > > cherokee needs some help..but I dumped enough time and
cash
> into
> > my
> > >rig
> > > > >to
> > > > > > hang in.
> > > > > > (The H2 seems like a big *** luxury cherokee that might be
> too
> > wide
> > >but
> > > > >if
> > > > > > you have that kind of cash laying around you can just
pull a
> > rock
> > >buggy
> > > > > > behind you anyway.Most people who buy these will never
> engage
> > the
> > >locker
> > > > > > anyway)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Preparing flame retarding suit..........
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Frank
> > > > > > BadAzXJ@m...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >From: "Lachlan <jeepindog@y...>" <jeepindog@y...>
> > > > > > >To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > >Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Rubicon VS H2
> > > > > > >Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:13:59 -0000
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A stock H2 comes with 35" tires, doesn't it? A
> Rubicon
> > gets
> > >31"
> > > > > > >rubber. An H2 has a lot more cargo and passenger room,
> > probably
> > > > > > >rides a lot less choppy, and has four doors. It also
has a
> > bigger
> > > > > > >engine than any Wrangler option to date, and probably
gets
> more
> > > > > > >envious looks (without a single modification) than most
> Jeeps
> > that
> > > > > > >are built for bear usually get. (If attention really
> > matters...)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Clearance issues are probably about equal, except
> under
> > the
> > > > > > >diffs, where the H2 obviously wins with taller tires.
That
> > "road
> > > > > > >grader" t-case skidplate on the Rubicon makes me
nauseous.
> > What a
> > > > > > >disappointment. Leave it to DaimlerChrysler to take a
> special
> > > > > > >project like the Rubicon and screw it up a little bit
with
> a
> > lack
> > >of
> > > > > > >attention to detail. The H2 was built from the ground
up,
> and
> > the
> > > > > > >Rubicon was adapted from and existing model; basically
> only
> > >upgraded
> > > > > > >with a beefier t-case with 4:1, front Dana 44, front and
> rear
> > > > > > >lockers, (the rear being L/S when not locked) and some
> badass
> > > > > > >aluminum rocker trim. (A definite example of an improper
> use
> > of AL
> > > > > > >on a trail Jeep. Now if it had been an AL tierod...) :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If I could choose either one for free, I would
have a
> > hard
> > >time
> > > > > > >turning the H2 down. "Why?" you ask. Ever sat in one?
> Ever
> > >ridden
> > > > > > >in one? Ever been offroad in one? Me neither. But I
have
> > done
> > >all
> > > > > > >of those things in a monster 2.5L Wrangler, and the H2
> might be
> > a
> > >fun
> > > > > > >alternative. Sure, fabbing a suspension that will ft 38s
> on
> > the H2
> > > > > > >would be expensive, but what isn't expensive on a Jeep?
> > (Besides
> > >the
> > > > > > >cheap guy driving it?) I think it's time to start giving
> other
> >
> > >rigs
> > > > > > >that are worthy of their intended use some respect.
Yeah,
> we
> > all
> > > > > > >love Jeeps. But I wouldn't turn down a Porsche Cayenne,
> would
> > you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lachlan "Variety is the spice of life" MacLean
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, cowboy7575@a... wrote:
> > > > > > > > Well I havent seen the issue yet but I got a good look
> at an
> > H-2
> > >in
> > > > > > >TX on
> > > > > > > > Saturday and with all those fancy running boards,
didnt
> look
> >
> > >like
> > > > > > >it was too
> > > > > > > > trail ready to me........it might have nice clearance
> in the
> > >middle
> > > > > > >but none
> > > > > > > > to speak of on the sides, hell my soon not to be stock
> ZJ
> > looks
> > > > > > >like it has
> > > > > > > > more clearance on the sides.........as to the Rubicon,
> I saw
> > one
> > >at
> > > > > > >4Wheelers
> > > > > > > > in Phx yesterday and I wasnt that impressed with that
> either
> > for
> > > > > > >the price,
> > > > > > > > but I wouldnd buy one anyway I am perfectly satisfied
> with
> > my YJ
> > > > > > >and CJ.
> > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > __________________________________________________ _______________
> > > > > > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> > > > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> __________________________________________________ _______________
> > > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________ _______________
> > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
76370 From: John Stewart <landuse@u...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:59pm
Subject: Fwd: 2nd Annual Off Road Riders Foundation Charity Poker Run (Southern California)
From: "SDORC" <info@s...>
To: "SDORC e-mail list" <info@s...>
Subject: 2nd Annual Off Road Riders Foundation Charity Poker Run
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:35:08 -0800
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Join us for the 2nd Annual Off Road Riders Foundation Charity Poker Run to
be held in Ocotillo Wells on Saturday, 15 February 2003. Follow this link
for more details: http://www.sidewindersmotorsports.com/orrfpokerrun.html
******
This mailing has been sent to people who have asked to be included in the
SDORC mailing list. If you have received this message in error or no longer
wish to remain on our mailing list please accept our apologies, and reply to
this message with the word "remove" in the body of the message. If you have
a change of e-mail address please reply to this message with the word
"change" in the body of the message, along with both your old and new
address.
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
76371 From: Allan Alexander <ajalex15@c...> <ajalex15@c...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:10pm
Subject: Re: Table Mesa Cleanup wheeling?
Is anyone planning on running some easier/beginner trails?
Allan
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "The Acuna Family" <mkacuna@c...>
wrote:
> DOH!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...>
> To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 4:54 PM
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Re: Table Mesa Cleanup wheeling?
>
>
> > >> That's kinda like going to a Mexican food restaurant and
ordering a
> > hamburger. It's just wrong.
> >
> > No it's not....I do it all the time!
> >
> > Stu <hold out for the Norge domination of the earth> Olson
> > www.stu-offroad.com
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tomas2691 <tomasr@a...> [mailto:tomasr@a...]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 2:09 PM
> > To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Table Mesa Cleanup wheeling?
> >
> > I plan on running something. I don't think I could bring myself
to
> > go out to Table Mesa and not do any wheeling.
> >
> > I was thinking about leading a Judgement Day run. If anyone's
> > interested in this, let me know. I'd also be happy hooking up
with
> > others to do a different run if there's one already planned.
> >
> > -Roger
> >
> > --- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "cj4rox <cj4rox@y...>"
<cj4rox@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > Is anyone planning on running any trails after the cleanup?
Or, is
> > > that the point, to pick a trail & clean it? Or are we just
doing
> > the
> > > parking & wash areas around the entrance?
> > > Trying to figure out what I need to pack for gear.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Dan Siegel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
76372 From: John Stewart <landuse@u...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:11pm
Subject: Fwd: Funding rejected for Southern California off-road dunes site
The California State Parks OHV Commission continues its attack on
recreation....
<http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/politics/5016908.htm>http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/politics/5016908.htm
Funding rejected for Southern California off-road dunes site
Associated Press
SACRAMENTO - A state commission on Thursday rejected $1.1 million for
operating far southeastern California's Imperial Sand Dunes
Recreation Area, which draws 200,000 or more often rowdy off-road
enthusiasts and party-seekers on holiday weekends.
Denial of the funds "will have a significant impact" on the dunes and
the more than 3 million people who visit there annually, said the
federal Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the site. The money
was to be used for visitor services including sanitation, trash
removal and environmental monitoring.
The BLM said it may have to raise fees, cut services, or divert money
from other desert recreation areas.
Thursday's decision was criticized by off-road advocates but praised
by environmental groups that say the Algodones area's popularity
threatens the desert habitat.
The decision comes a month after the same state panel approved the
entire $292,000 law enforcement budget the BLM sought for the site.
The BLM has increased patrols and citations over recent holidays for
frequent violations involving public nudity, riding in open truckbeds
and organized parties.
Over Thanksgiving 2001, activities culminated in a fatal shooting,
several stabbings and more than 150 injuries, though a slightly
smaller crowd was relatively more subdued last year.
"It looks like public services are going to suffer and recreation is
going to be impacted by this," said Don Amador, western
representative of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, an off-road group. "It
doesn't bode well for management of our public lands for off-road
recreation."
Under the Bush administration, however, the BLM is expected to
release this spring or summer new rules opening 49,000 previously
closed acres of the desert to a number of off-roaders with permits.
The new land management plan includes no provision limiting the
overall number of visitors to the dunes.
Motorists can now freely roam 68,000 acres, or 106 square miles.
Daniel R. Patterson, desert ecologist with the Center for Biological
Diversity in Idyllwild, said a new environmental majority on the
Off-Highway Motorized Vehicle Commission was concerned about the
plan. The BLM's request was rejected on a 4-3 vote.
The same panel last fall rejected a U.S. Forest Service request for
$400,000 for winter recreation programs in the Lake Tahoe Basin and
along California 88 both east and west of the Kirkwood ski resort and
Carson Pass.
ON THE NET
BLM Imperial Dunes News:
<http://www.ca.blm.gov/elcentro/sandnews.html>http://www.ca.blm.gov/elcentro/sandnews.html
Imperial Dunes online guide:
<http://www.desertusa.com/sandhills/sandhills.html>http://www.desertusa.com/sandhills/sandhills.html
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
76373 From: Rob Williams <g_rob_williams@y...> <g_rob_williams@y...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:22pm
Subject: Re: [FS] 33X12.50 MTR'S WITH CUSTOM ALLOY WHEELS-POWER TRAX FRONT LOCKER FOR DANA 30
the powertrax just replaces the spider gears right? What gears did
you have it for? -Rob
76374 From: John Stewart <landuse@u...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:54pm
Subject: Fwd: LA Times - Jan. 21 - Bush Road/RS2477 Plan
*Quotes from BRC/Collins/Amador, HDMUC/Schiller, Greens, Agency, etc.
Bush Opens Way for Counties and States to Claim Wilderness Roads
Policy could allow vehicles into vast areas of wilderness, some in
national parks. Critics fear harm by miners, off-roaders and others.
By Julie Cart
Times Staff Writer
<http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-roads21jan21004430.story>http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-roads21jan21004430.story
January 21 2003
MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE -- From most perspectives, this windblown
landscape is the definition of off the beaten path. Sandy hummocks
give way to flinty mountain ranges and a seemingly impassable expanse
that is home to herds of bighorn sheep, desert tortoises and a
universe of heat-loving plants.
But others see the preserve's 1.6 million acres of creosote bushes
and ribbed desert washes and envision thousands of miles of roads.
Ditto for Death Valley and Joshua Tree national parks, along with
wilderness areas in the Sierra Nevada and along California's rugged
northern coast.
That vision -- of unfettered motorized access to remote country that
has for decades been the province of wild animals and a few hardy
backpacking humans -- is a lot closer to reality thanks to a Bush
administration policy quietly adopted earlier this month.
Bowing to long-standing pressure from several Western states and
counties, the Interior Department's new policy gives local
decision-makers the opportunity to lay claim to tens of thousands of
miles of rights of way across federal land. Ultimately, it will be up
to the Interior Department to determine the validity of the claims.
Enacted through a rules change, the new policy has the potential to
open millions of acres of land in national parks and federally
designated wilderness areas to motorized transportation. By providing
access to isolated holdings, it could also open remote country to
drilling for oil and gas and other commercial development.
The policy does not automatically convey rights of way to local
jurisdictions. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management must rule on the
validity of each claim. The agency is virtually certain to face legal
challenges to any rights of way granted through parks or wilderness
areas where motorized transportation is now prohibited.
Nonetheless, wilderness advocates have cause for alarm. The Bush
administration has made its preference clear for granting state and
local authorities increasing say in the way federal lands are used.
Deputy Interior Secretary Steve Griles recently told a group of
Alaska mining and energy executives that the administration would
soon approve rights-of-way claims from that state.
Alaska, Utah and other states, as well as a handful of Southern
California counties, are asserting the rights-of-way claims under a
little-known 1866 law titled RS 2477, which was designed to encourage
the development of the rural West. The law was repealed in 1976, but
states and counties were still able to make claims if the roads
existed before 1976.
Wagon Trails
In many cases, what authorities are claiming as roads amount to
little more than wagon tracks, livestock paths and even dogsled
routes in Alaska. But with muscular, four-wheel-drive vehicles, even
the most primitive routes can allow access to untrammeled places.
The issue heated up during the 1990s as off-road vehicle enthusiasts,
hunters, ranchers and mining and energy interests became increasingly
concerned about the Clinton administration's efforts to curtail road
building in national forests, restrict mining near national parks and
create parks and monuments.
The new policy does not take effect until Feb. 5, but already its
implications are being felt across the West.
In California, San Bernardino County has indicated its intent to
claim nearly 5,000 miles of rights of way -- more than twice the
total mileage of maintained roads in the entire county. The county is
pressing claims to 2,567 miles of roads within the Mojave National
Preserve, acting at the behest of off-road enthusiasts, ranchers and
mining interests.
Riverside and other counties have documented claims to rights of way
in Joshua Tree and Death Valley national parks and 21 wilderness
areas in the Southern California desert.
Counties such as San Bernardino say they are simply securing
legitimate claims that they may or may not intend to exercise.
"These are blanket assertions," said Brad Mitzelfelt, chief of staff
for San Bernardino County Supervisor Bill Postmus. "It's a matter of
defending local prerogatives and local rights. If you have a
once-in-a-lifetime chance to protect rights that you may lose
forever, you've got to take it."
Park and wilderness advocates fear it will disrupt wildlife habitat,
turning 19th century wagon ruts into paved roadways, allowing cars
and their pollution into unspoiled places.
"We're concerned about highways, but in a way that's just the tip of
the iceberg," said Heidi McIntosh, conservation director for the
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which has been monitoring RS 2477
claims for more than a decade.
McIntosh said one of the right-of-way claims in Utah leads down a
waterfall and another through a 4-foot-wide slot canyon.
"With roads comes pollution, wildlife fragmentation, off-road
vehicles, the loss of solitude and quiet. Multiply that by 10,000,
the number of claims here in Utah, and you have a mess. I can't think
of an issue the Bush administration is working on that can have a
longer or more serious impact on public lands."
Impact Assessed
Ten years ago, the National Park Service evaluated potential RS 2477
claims and found that if the roads were allowed, the impact would be
devastating. The report noted that the claims could cross many miles
of undisturbed fish and wildlife habitat, historical and
archeological resources, and sensitive wetlands.
"If a court were to decide that the law says the right-of-way roads
have precedence over legally designated wilderness, that would have a
catastrophic effect on wilderness," said David Graber, senior science
advisor at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks and a member of
the park service's wilderness steering committee.
The Clinton administration proposed a rule that would have prevented
footpaths, dogsled tracks and other primitive routes from being
turned into roadways but met resistance from Congress, and the issue
went unresolved.
Today, Interior officials say the change is needed to streamline
time-consuming disputes and lengthy legal proceedings. The new rule
removes public comment and judicial review from the process and gives
the Bureau of Land Management sole authority to validate right-of-way
claims.
Nationally, some of the most celebrated public landscape could be
affected. Alaska has asserted claims over 22,000 waterways and 2,700
miles of roads in 13 national parks and preserves, including Denali
National Park and the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
In Utah, many of the rights of way crisscross southern Utah's
spectacular red rock country -- where local officials contend that
the cluster of half a dozen national parks and proposed wilderness
areas stand in the way of access to cattle grazing, minerals, and oil
and gas deposits.
There and elsewhere, off-road enthusiasts as well as cattle, mining
and ranching groups and hunters have lobbied hard for the rights of
way, in some cases filing claims themselves.
"It's been a long and arduous fight because the previous
administration wasn't cooperating. Now, we've found willing ears,"
said Clark Collins, executive director of the Blue Ribbon Coalition,
a Pocatello, Idaho-based organization representing motorized
recreation interests.
"In rural areas, people are very interested in this issue, it means
so much to all of us," said Ron Schiller, who heads a recreation
group in Ridgecrest, Calif., that supports rights-of-way claims. "Up
here in the high desert, this is what we have to recreate. We don't
have a lot of miniature golf courses or big theaters or theme parks."
In the Mojave Preserve, hunters drive abandoned mining roads and hike
to get closer to their quarry: bighorn sheep and deer. For much of
the preserve, the old routes weave through low brush and serve to
keep visitors from more sensitive desert areas.
The Blue Ribbon Coalition's California chapter has made three
rights-of-way claims, pushing for motorized access across hundreds of
miles of wilderness in Sequoia National Forest, through the King
Range National Conservation Area on the north coast and in
non-wilderness tracts in the Six Rivers National Forest.
"We don't want to undo vast sections of wilderness, that's not our
intent. We do intend to protect our access," said Don Amador, the
group's Western states representative.
But access carries implications for altering landscapes. Roads
through wilderness create traffic corridors and make adjacent areas
more accessible. Miners or others who own land within federal
preserves may decide that new roads will make it economically
feasible to develop their land commercially, or explore for oil and
gas.
"Once Interior opens the door, it's a free-for-all," said Keith
Hammond of the California Wilderness Coalition, whose volunteers are
walking thousands of miles of RS 2477 claims in the state to
inventory the condition of the routes.
Mitzelfelt said San Bernardino County doesn't know which of its
current claims would be pressed. With a budget of $30 million for
maintaining the county's existing roads, Mitzelfelt said, he was
unsure what the cost would be for new roads or how to pay for them.
Across the country there is no indication how many claims will be
validated, and critics acknowledge their concern, at this point, is
based on the potential for damage.
So far the Interior Department has offered no clear direction on the
rule's most potentially explosive aspect -- what to do about rights
of way that cross the borders of wilderness. Under a federal law,
motorized travel is not allowed in wilderness areas.
"We're wondering how this is going to work out," said BLM spokesman
Jeff Holdren.
He said the nitty-gritty details of implementation of the rule change
have not been worked out, including how to deal with right-of-way
claims in wilderness areas.
"We didn't expect anyone to want roads in wilderness, but technically
it can be done. I suspect we will be in court pretty soon over such a
situation. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there pulling their
hair out."
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
76375 From: John Stewart <landuse@u...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 10:06pm
Subject: Re: The compromised Sierra Club, a cheap political prostitute
http://www.boulderweekly.com/coverstory.html
The compromised Sierra Club
Once a bold defender of the planet, America's largest environmental
group has become a cheap political prostitute
- - - - - - - - - - - -
by Ron Bain (Editorial@b...)
Locally and nationally, the Sierra Club is dying. It has a pulse, but
has lost its wit, forgotten who it is and has no idea what it stands
for. Next it will start drooling in public, until someone hides it
away to salvage whatever dignity it once had.
If the Democratic party's in a slump, Sierra Club's on life support.
In Boulder, the Sierra club has for decades been the most influential
organization in local politics-hands down. Before the city or county
makes a move that has environmental implications, elected leaders
look to the Sierra Club for its approval. The Club's official stand
sways government decisions about everything from prairie dog
preservation, to leash laws to land use policy.
But long-time grass roots activists are abandoning the nation's
largest environmental organization in droves, and others are
demanding internal reform if they're to continue paying dues. They're
pissed off, feeling betrayed and they're making lots of unpleasant
noise about it. They believe there's more to saving the planet than
helping Democratic Party candidates win office, and no one feels that
more strongly than the former Green Party candidate for Colorado
attorney general, Allison "Sunny" Maynard. She quit the Sierra Club
during her 2002 campaign because it endorsed her Democratic opponent,
incumbent Ken Salazar.
"I've been going after real estate developers and Ken Salazar has
been enabling them," Maynard says. "That's what made me become a
Green-the problem is Democrats who paint themselves as
environmentalists but they're actually helping real estate
developers."
For example, she says, Salazar has supported the proposed Las
Animas/La Plata dam project since he served on the Colorado Water
Board. She has been fighting the Four Corners area water development
project for an equal number of years.
The Sierra Club was founded by a buddy of Teddy Roosevelt's named
John Muir, who established early on the Club's tradition of
straightforward, up-front, balls-to-the-wall environmental activism.
Former executive director David Brower disdained political compromise
almost as much as he did oil extractors and loggers. Amid accusations
that the Sierra Club has sold out to big-money politics and
"environmentalism lite," an internal civil war is brewing, pitting
Sierra Club's national leadership against rebellious local chapters
and its most outspoken members.
Count Utah residents Patrick Diehl, Tori Woodard, John Weisheit and
Dan Kent-the Glen Canyon Four-among the growing resistance. The
Moab-area residents united to fight the Glen Canyon Dam, but now find
themselves fighting the Sierra Club's national leadership.
Boulder activist Brian Andreja, a former national and local board
member, abandoned the Sierra Club about four years ago over the issue
of immigration. The division started back then, according to Andreja,
between the hard-core "think globally, act locally" environmentalists
and others who wanted to tackle global issues like overpopulation and
excessive immigration.
Today, the Glen Canyon Four are part of a growing reform movement
within the Sierra Club that is loosely organized and has no official
leaders. It's simply a gathering-mostly via e-mail-of like-minded
individuals who are upset with the politically calculated direction
the Club has taken in the past 15 years.
Andreja thinks the real problem lies with the notedly upscale
demographic of the Sierra Club, which-less so than the Green
Party-includes SUV-driving yuppies who tear up terrain with their
snowmobiles.
"The lifestyles don't match," Andreja says. "From what I saw, the
Sierra Club was unwilling to support the Green Party."
Many Sierra Club members have adopted the
gain-political-power-and-influence philosophy of yuppie leader Jerry
Rubin.
"This puts the Sierra Club in a difficult position... as a mainstream
grass roots organization where the power flows from the bottom up,"
Andreja explains. "You run into the same problems you have in the
Democrat and Republican Parties."
As a mainstream organization, the Sierra Club has bought into the
entrenched, national, two-party political system, according to
Andreja. "They've got to play by the rules of the major parties," he
observes.
Unlike Maynard and Andreja, who quit, there remains within the Sierra
Club a core group of less political, activism-oriented environmental
preservationsists calling themselves the John Muir Sierrans.
Weisheit, for now the executive director of the Glen Canyon Group, is
a John Muir Sierran. Like many reformers, he believes the Club's
willingness to compromise politically has weakened the Sierra Club's
environmental message.
"I think what the Sierra Club has become is a garden club or a hiking
club," says Weisheit. "People want to do nice things for the
environment, and they think if they join a national group and pay
money, they think they're doing their part."
But what many members and most of the general public don't realize is
that the Sierra Club might not always do its part to save the planet.
Battle in the Black Hills
Take for example the national Sierra Club's sleep-with-the-devil deal
with Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) that permitted logging in the Black
Hills for political points at the expense of national forests,
wilderness and, ultimately, the club's ability to influence
environmental policy.
"Staff and national club members have a lot of access to
politicians," says David Orr, a long-time Sierra Club member and an
early John Muir Sierran who lives in Tennessee. "The theory has been
to play this political in-game, but the politicians can end up
playing the Sierra Club. Theoretically, it gives the club more clout
in the next Congress. But we can't say what we really want because if
we do say what we really want or what we believe in, it makes us less
politically viable."
One of those political games occurred last summer, when Daschle and
Tim Johnson, another Democratic senator from South Dakota, attached a
timber rider to a Defense appropriations bill. With Johnson's
re-election campaign sagging amid accusations from his opponent that
he was "too green," Daschle and Johnson helped engineer a plan that
would allow the commercial logging of large trees in the Black Hills'
Norbeck Wildlife Preserve and the Beaver Park Roadless Area under the
guise of "fire protection." The rider also shielded timber sales in
the area from environmental lawsuits.
An unlikely player in this summer's backroom deals was the Sierra
Club, which supported the rider. Denise Boggs, now the executive
director of the Utah Environmental Congress, was on the front lines
of the Black Hills battle. She got involved with the decade-long
struggle to prevent commercial logging in the Black Hills while she
lived in Montana. Boggs and a group of grass roots environmentalists
filed a lawsuit in 1992, which eventually made its way to the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. Astonishingly, the greens won,
putting a stop to the chainsaws.
But then Daschle, the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society stepped
in with a plan to reverse the court's decision with new legislation
which allayed conservative fears in South Dakota and eventually
helped Johnson get re-elected in what would be an extraordinarily
close vote.
"We worked for 10 years to protect that area," Boggs says. "And after
all that hard work, the Sierra Club and Daschle go in with a sweep of
a pen and undo it all. When they cut that deal, they basically sold
out every national forest in the country."
Dirty Words
Repeated efforts to contact Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope
were unsuccessful. However, national Sierra Club President Jennifer
Ferenstein said she appreciates the no-compromise passion of people
like Boggs and the Glen Canyon Four. But she says it's sometimes
crucial to take a pragmatic approach to delicate issues like the
Black Hills logging debate.
Ferenstein, a four-year mbmer of the Sierra Club's board of
directors, campaigned on a reform platform with a heavy emphasis on
passing strong conservation policies. She concedes that the Black
Hills deal is anything but a strong conservation policy, yet it
doesn't seem to bother her.
"It's hardball, and you don't always get what you want," she says.
"Compromise doesn't have to be a dirty word. When you want something,
you rarely get it in one fell swoop."
The Green Party's Maynard says Ferenstein's "compromise" explanation
represents a politically naive position. She argues that Ferenstein
and other more mainstream members of the Sierra Club have begun to
confuse the act of conceding a war with "political compromise."
"Democrats don't run good candidates, they don't stand for anything
and they provide only token opposition to the Republicans,"
Ferenstein says.
Critics like Maynard and Boggs say that the Club is as big a
hindrance to environmental protection as the U.S. Forest Service and
the other drag-their-feet government agencies that the Club finds
itself in bed with.
"The Sierra Club has lost its foundation at the national level and is
out of touch with its grass roots people," Boggs says. "We spend a
lot of time battling the deals cut by the Sierra Club that are bad
for the environment, deals that stem from the leadership of the
Sierra Club, beginning with Carl Pope. A lot of people think he needs
to go."
Weisheit is one of them, even though saying so likely means he will
be removed from his own leadership position. He doesn't care anymore.
"They're going to remove me for doing what they should have done,"
Weisheit says.
Weisheit's latest beef with the club came in November. Members of San
Francisco-area chapters approached the national board of directors
with a proposed resolution regarding the impending war against Iraq.
Concerned with Bush's apparent willingness to use nuclear weapons,
and fearful of another environmental catastrophe in the Middle East
just a decade after retreating Iraqi armies set fire to oil rigs and
dumped oil into the Persian Gulf, volunteers asked the club to
condemn U.S. invasion plans. A radical request? Not when one
considers that Boulder and other municipalities-entities that are
supposedly less politically motivated than an environmental advocacy
group-have passed resolutions condemning the war.
But the request was viewed by mainstream members as something too
extreme-something that's not in the spirit of compromise. What
resulted were three separate national Club resolutions: one that
condemned Iraqi aggression and called for the dismantling of Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction; another that encouraged club members to
focus on energy policies; and a third that forbade club members from
using the club's name to make public statements about war.
"Local chapters took a stance on something and got stomped on by
national," Maynard says. "Why are they so concerned about their own
membership being active and expressing itself?"
It isn't a stretch to think of the Club's war resolutions as another
political calculation involving self-censorship. After all, in the
wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, the Sierra Club asked its members to
refrain from criticizing the president and also scaled back anti-Bush
advertisements, a move that some believe led to Bush's move into the
Alaskan oil fields.
So the Glen Canyon group launched a revolution on Nov. 26 with a
press release. In it, the four eviscerated the national club for its
failure to condemn Bush's plans to invade Iraq and for attempting to
silence dissent. The Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle
and the Associated Press jumped on the story, and before the Sierra
Club knew it, those resolutions the leadership didn't think were
worthy of media attention were getting tons of it. The press release
also ripped the board of directors' perceived attempt to impose a
"gag order" on club members.
"That [third] resolution stifles free expression," says Dan Kent, of
the Glenwood Four. "They said basically that if you want to say
anything about the war, you have to pass it with the club first."
Sierra Club National Press Secretary Eric Antebi says the club needs
to "speak with one voice." What that means, exactly, remains unclear.
It's also impossible, since Sierra Club members can't even reach
consensus on immigration policy, let alone on war, zero-cut forest
initiatives and wilderness preservation.
"We are one club," Antebi says flatly. "At some point the club has to
come to a decision on national issues."
Diehl just doesn't get it, and he definitely doesn't buy that PR crap.
"That bothered us a whole lot," he adds. "The club has to speak with
one voice on everything? Why?"
Another question Diehl and other grass roots members have is why the
resolutions were watered down, and why that one voice is so
increasingly mealy-mouthed. He thinks he has an answer, and-no
surprise-it involves politics.
"The donors and whoever Carl Pope is talking to in the Democratic
Party have a big influence on club policy. How do you explain what
happened to this resolution in November? The word from below wanted
something that criticized Bush and the war and then we got a bunch of
stuff about Iraqi aggression and disarming them of their weapons of
mass destruction," Diehl says.
Voices in the Wilderness
Woodard wonders if the grass roots will ever dictate Club policy or
if the Club will ever lead again. Maynard says she has joined SINAPU
to work locally on wolf reintroduction into Colordo.
Weisheit laughs at how he ran into David Brower a few years before he
died in 2000. The renegade former national executive director gave
Weisheit an important bit of advice. Weisheit was upset with Brower's
political compromise-not even Brower was immune from politics-which
prevented the destruction of Dinosaur National Monument but allowed
for the creation of the Glen Canyon Dam, built between 1960 and '63.
"I was angry about the Glen Canyon Dam and the Sierra Club's
compromise. I met David Brower and talked to him about it and he said
'Why don't you do something about it?'"
Weisheit took that advice and applied it not to just fighting the
Glen Canyon Dam but to struggling for the soul of the Club itself.
But that long tradition of selling out, whether to save a national
treasure at the expense of another or selling old-growth trees for
Beltway access, keeps getting in his and the grass roots' way.
Weisheit still dreams of a day when he can run the Colorado from Moab
all the way down to the Grand Canyon, and if the Sierra Club isn't
going to help him achieve that goal, so be it. But he can't quit,
because he says he still hears Brower's advice.
He also remembers other words from Brower, spoken in the early 1980s
when Brower helped spark the nuclear-freeze movement: "If we greens
don't broaden our thinking to tackle war, we may save some wilderness
but lose the world."
Shane McCammon contributed to this story
Respond: letters@b...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
76376 From: rustydunmire <rustydunmire@m...> <rustydunmire@m...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 10:20pm
Subject: Lift kit
I was wondering if any one has installed an add-a-leaf lift?
If so if I could get some feedback I would appriciate it.
Thanks Rusty
rustydunmire@m...
76352 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:18pm
Subject: [FS] Wanted 2.5 gal tank
Price: ?
Contact: FourxFrankb@aol.com
I was wondering were I can pick up a 2.5 Gal. tank for my on board air.
Frank Bell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
76353 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:19pm
Subject: [FS] chevy np 208 t case
Price: $100.00
Contact: chesely0101@aol.com
np 208 from chevy suburban good condition, slip yoke, bolts to th350
joseph chesley
76354 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:39pm
Subject: [FS] CJ7 project
Price: $1200 obo
Contact: Steve 602-482-2428
76 CJ7 rolling chassis $1000: had 304,TH400,Quadra trac
has model 30 frt, 20offset rear (centerset available)Powersteering, power brakes, roll bar (rear), half cab, tire carrier, seats
304,TH400 autotrans,QTrac $500
everything for $1200 or ? for part
Steve Olney
76355 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:31pm
Subject: RE: Re: Table Mesa shooting?
The parking lot at the end of pavement is State Trust Land. There is NO
shooting allowed on State Trust lands AT ANY TIME, FOR ANY REASON other than
hunting. With a hunting license in the designated season. A hunter cannot
"sight" his gun prior to hunting season while on State Trust Land.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don <weasel_ugs@h...> [mailto:weasel_ugs@h...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:31 PM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Table Mesa shooting?
>
>
> There is a sign posted where the road turns to dirt,one of the things
> on it is no shooting.Are we actually allowed to shoot there still or
> does everyone just break the rules?I used to shoot up there till we
> saw the sign get posted.We also cleaned up the area we used before we
> left. Don
>
> --- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "robert_j_rogers2
> <robert.rogers@h...>" <robert.rogers@h...> wrote:
> > Has the agencies thought about posting the area no shooting during
> > the clean-up. It would not be fun to "dodge lead" while picking up
> > the mess. Some of the shooters may not want to stop long enough to
> > let us clean the target area.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
76356 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:42pm
Subject: [FS] Commando MUST SELL!!!
Price: $1000
Contact: Steve 602-482-2428
72 Commando 304 V8, Th400 auto trans, dana 20 xfer; power steering, power brakes, runs, but very tired engine; spare core available; very little rust
CA title (easy to transfer, but not worth my time at this price)
Steve Olney
76357 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:44pm
Subject: [FS] 72 Commando
Price: $1000
Contact: Steve 602-482-2428
V8 304, TH400 auto trans, Dana 20 xfer, 30frt, 44 rear, PS,PB engine runs but very tired, spare available; lots of spare parts available
Steve Olney
76358 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:49pm
Subject: [FS] CJ7 project
Price: $1000
Contact: Steve 602-482-2428
76 CJ7 had 304 V8,TH400,Qtrac (see below);PS,PB roll bar, tire carrier, minor body damage; 30 frt,20 ofset rear (center set available) $1000
304 V8,Th400,Qtrac $500
Make offer for part or everything
Steve Olney
76359 From: Bill Witt <k7ant@t...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:35pm
Subject: MS Star Valley
I think it was Ross Skinner's nice monster CJ. Hi Ross, saw you about 5:45PM Thursday night. There was also a red TJ behind you, but don't know if he was with you. Here's another wave. (I was going north in the white tj.)
Bill W
K7ANT a.k.a. "Antman"
97 TJ with a few mods.
Up on the Mogollon Rim in Arizona.
God and 4 wheelers' country!
76360 From: Bill Witt <k7ant@t...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:19pm
Subject: Re: Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
Just for your info Larry, I'm still pissed about it!
Bill W
K7ANT a.k.a. "Antman"
97 TJ with a few mods.
Up on the Mogollon Rim in Arizona.
God and 4 wheelers' country!
----- Original Message -----
From: <highupjeep@q...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 2:03 PM
Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
> Stu (and all),
>
> I bring this up because it is my recollection that it was the pretty
> much the consensus of the group (or at least of those posting
> opinions at the time) once it was identified who it was that did the
> modifying and why it was done, that it was then somehow justified.
> When it was first posted that the ledge had been smoothed out, pretty
> much everyone expressed outrage (me too), then that seemed to change
> acceptance for that particular case (not me).
> At least that was my take on it.
>
> Larry
>
> --- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...> wrote:
> > Larry,
> >
> > The fact that some moron did it does NOT mean it was the right
> thing to
> > do.
> >
> > Stu
> >
> > Stu Olson
> > www.stu-offroad.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: highjeeps <highupjeep@q...> [mailto:highupjeep@q...]
> > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 11:58 AM
> > To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
> >
> > On the subject of modifying trails to make them easier and that
> being
> > the wrong thing to do, can someone explain to me why it was
> > apparently OK to smooth out the Ledge on the Crown King Trail? How
> is
> > that different from modifying any other trail to make it easier? (I
> > think I may be the only one that still disagrees with that trail
> > modification).
> > Thx,
> > Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
76361 From: Lachlan <jeepindog@y...> <jeepindog@y...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:01pm
Subject: Re: [LU] New Book Examines Impacts of Roads and Off-Road Vehicles]
I like the part where it says "written by *Roads Scholar*..." I
thought that the school was called Rhodes, and was in England. I
guess you learn something every day. And I thought Jimmi Hendirx
said "'Scuse me, while I kiss the sky." But according to many people
he said "Kiss this guy." Huh...
Lachlan "No speaka Inglissh" MacLean
>
>
> "No Place Distant: Roads and Motorized Recreation on America's
Public
> Lands"
> (Island Press, 2002, ISBN 1-55963-845-1)
>
> Written by Roads Scholar David Havlick...
76362 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:02pm
Subject: [FS] 33X12.50 MTR'S WITH CUSTOM ALLOY WHEELS-POWER TRAX FRONT LOCKER FOR DANA 30
Price:
Contact: 602-942-8503 ASK FOR STEVE
33X12.50 MTR'S 4 MONTHS OF LIGHT USE MOUNT WITH 15X8 ALUMINUM MOD ALLOY WHEELS
POWER TRAX FRONT LOCKER FOR DANA 30 VERY LITTLE USEAGE
MUST SELL!!!
SCOTT MCMILLAN
76363 From: dbkcs <dbkcs@y...> <dbkcs@y...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:23pm
Subject: Re: 33x12.5
How much and off of what?
76364 From: dbkcs <dbkcs@y...> <dbkcs@y...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:23pm
Subject: Re: 33x12.5
How much and off of what?
76365 From: Mitch Woodward <mitchwoodward@h...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:26pm
Subject: Re: Where to buy reamers?
These might be a snap-on item. I believe you need the correct sized tapered
ream to get the press fit with the tie rod ends. Home depot carries nothing
like it. Maybe a Napa or something like that would.
Mitch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Krieg" <rv6a@m...>
To: "Arizona Virtual Jeep Club" <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:20 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] Where to buy reamers?
> I need to ream the holes in my steering knuckles to accept the new 1
> ton ends I got. Are these available in places like Loews or Home Depot?
> Is there any specific type I need to buy?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
76366 From: highjeeps <highupjeep@q...> <highupjeep@q...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:28pm
Subject: Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
That makes a few of us anyway.
Larry
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Witt" <k7ant@t...> wrote:
> Just for your info Larry, I'm still pissed about it!
> Bill W
> K7ANT a.k.a. "Antman"
> 97 TJ with a few mods.
> Up on the Mogollon Rim in Arizona.
> God and 4 wheelers' country!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <highupjeep@q...>
> To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 2:03 PM
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
>
>
> > Stu (and all),
> >
> > I bring this up because it is my recollection that it was the
pretty
> > much the consensus of the group (or at least of those posting
> > opinions at the time) once it was identified who it was that did
the
> > modifying and why it was done, that it was then somehow justified.
> > When it was first posted that the ledge had been smoothed out,
pretty
> > much everyone expressed outrage (me too), then that seemed to
change
> > acceptance for that particular case (not me).
> > At least that was my take on it.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > --- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...> wrote:
> > > Larry,
> > >
> > > The fact that some moron did it does NOT mean it was the right
> > thing to
> > > do.
> > >
> > > Stu
> > >
> > > Stu Olson
> > > www.stu-offroad.com
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: highjeeps <highupjeep@q...> [mailto:highupjeep@q...]
> > > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 11:58 AM
> > > To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
> > >
> > > On the subject of modifying trails to make them easier and that
> > being
> > > the wrong thing to do, can someone explain to me why it was
> > > apparently OK to smooth out the Ledge on the Crown King Trail?
How
> > is
> > > that different from modifying any other trail to make it easier?
(I
> > > think I may be the only one that still disagrees with that trail
> > > modification).
> > > Thx,
> > > Larry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
76367 From: <AZICE626@a...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 3:30pm
Subject: Re: OT (?) Need a job to keep Jeep. If you can't help, please delete!
No flames here, Russ....I know the feeling....got laid off 17 months ago.....1 more week of unemployment left......tj gill
76368 From: BradP Kilgore <brad.kilgore@p...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:49pm
Subject: RE: [FS] 33X12.50 MTR'S WITH CUSTOM ALLOY WHEELS-POWER TRAX FRONT LOCKER FOR DANA 30
What bolt pattern are the wheels and would you sell the tires by themselves? If so, how much.
Thanks,
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: AzVJC Website [mailto:azvjc@a...]
Sent: Thu 1/23/2003 9:02 PM
To: AzVJC
Cc:
Subject: [az_vjc] [FS] 33X12.50 MTR'S WITH CUSTOM ALLOY WHEELS-POWER TRAX FRONT LOCKER FOR DANA 30
Price:
Contact: 602-942-8503 ASK FOR STEVE
33X12.50 MTR'S 4 MONTHS OF LIGHT USE MOUNT WITH 15X8 ALUMINUM MOD ALLOY WHEELS
POWER TRAX FRONT LOCKER FOR DANA 30 VERY LITTLE USEAGE
MUST SELL!!!
SCOTT MCMILLAN
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
76369 From: jeep_thing01 <kdberanek@c...> <kdberanek@c...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:58pm
Subject: Re: Rubicon VS H2
I was the driver of the TJ that got stuck the KIA strapped to it was
a joke. It actually took two jeap with winches and two or three more
as anchors to pull me out. It was more like wet clay than mud. I
want to thank those who lended a hand put I gotta say most "club"
members that were there were quite content to sit in lawn chairs next
to their jeeps and watch. In fact a few actually got mad because of
the time it took to pull me out. Fortunately this is not the first
club run I have been on or I would probably not go on one again.
Some of the comments made to me were pretty bad. I got the jeep 3
months ago and while it is no rock crawling monster I'm proud of it.
I won't comment to much on the driver ability part. Put I have 20
years of off road driving experience. Granted not in a TJ will take
sometime and a few more trips to totally get a feel for it's
ability. Driver error was thinking a totally open jeep with 3.07
gears and 33in tires could go thru what appeared to be a very shallow
mud hole that turned out was over 2 feet deep. BTW speaking of
gearing I just obtained a set of gears and carriers from a club
member but need help getting them put in. Any volunteers? or
recommendations on where to go and approximate cost. Cost is for
help from club member too.
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Kruize" <skruize@c...> wrote:
> Besides, how many of us wheel stock Jeeps anyway?
>
> Scott K
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lachlan <jeepindog@y...> [mailto:jeepindog@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:12 PM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Rubicon VS H2
>
>
> KIA is not a bad manufacturer. In fact, they make some pretty
> decent vehicles. Remember when a Honda was the cheapest piece of
> ****e you could find on the road? (I do.) KIA never made a cheap
> car, but they do make some very inexpensive cars. The fact that
they
> make one with a two-speed transfer case that did pretty well in the
> 4x4 of the Year comparison (the actual 'wheelin part) that is
> actually affordable and well-made should earn it some well-deserved
> respect. Jeep Jeep Jeep. Don't you guys ever get tired of eating
> the same thing for lunch? I will always own my Jeep, and love it
and
> all Jeeps. There are other vehicles out there that are very good
at
> some of the things that Jeeps are good at. Not *as* good, but
> close. And if a Jeep driver just happens to get the Jeep stuck
> (won't mention driver's ability) who cares who pulls it out? Maybe
> DC should start charging extra for the God Complex that comes with
> owning a Jeep!
>
> Lachlan
>
>
> In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Clint Ramsey" <cwramsey@t...> wrote:
> >
> > I almost vomited when I opened that picture
> >
> > Clint
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BADAZXJ XJArizona [mailto:BadAZXJ@m...]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:22 AM
> > To: Joe-CJ7@J...; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com;
> > arizonaXJ@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Rubicon VS H2
> >
> >
> > Kia pulling TJ....
> >
> > (if you cant get the attachment, its in the www.azbackcountry.com
> oops
> > section. And I think there is a link on the azvjc trips page from
> > sunday)
> >
> > Frank
> > BadAzXJ@m...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "Joe Kearney" <Joe-CJ7@J...>
> > >To: "BADAZXJ XJArizona" <BadAZXJ@m...>
> > >Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Rubicon VS H2
> > >Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:13:14 -0700
> > >
> > >Frank,
> > >
> > >Where can I find the pictures?
> > >
> > >Joe Kearney
> > >Joe-CJ7@J...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "BADAZXJ XJArizona" <BadAZXJ@m...>
> > >To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> > >Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:04 AM
> > >Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Rubicon VS H2
> > >
> > >
> > > > I have converted quite a few TJ guys over to the XJ
side......
> > > > Come wheel with the XJ club some week....you will be too.....
> > > >
> > > > We wheeled with a Kia last week that didnt do too
bad...... :) The
>
> > > > nice thing about a rig like that is if you get stuck..people
> > just
> > >say
> > > > "what the hell did you expect? its a kia or a rav 4." But I
get
> my
> > junk
> > > > stuck....I will never hear the end of it.
> > > > Speaking of which...a TJ got stuck in the mud and we got a few
> good
> > >shots
> > >of
> > > > the kia trying to pull him out (look at the fr42 pics from
> > Sunday).....
> > > >
> > > > Frank
> > > > BadAzXJ@m...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: "Martin Ward" <martinida@c...>
> > > > >To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Rubicon VS H2
> > > > >Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:56:51 -0700
> > > > >
> > > > >With enough money a Rav4 could become a trail worthy rig. I
love
> > > > >my TJ, but after wheeling with 4 XJ's I want one. The
> H2
> > would
> > >be
> > > > >ok
> > > > >to tow stuff with...but I think if I was given an H2 for
> free...I'd
> >
> > >sell
> > >it
> > > > >and keep my F250 for that purpose.
> > > > >
> > > > >Martin
> > > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: "BADAZXJ XJArizona" <BadAZXJ@m...>
> > > > >To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:30 AM
> > > > >Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Rubicon VS H2
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The jeep wins hands down...but to be fair...it is JP
> magazine
> > doing
> > >the
> > > > > > review. The only thing the hummer wins at is in the sand
> due to
> > the
> > > > >rubicons
> > > > > > low gearing. If I had the cash and the H2 didnt have the
> stupid
> > IFS,
> > >I
> > > > > > wouldnt turn it down either........
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I would take a Cherokee over a wrangler anyday
anyway. I
> > have
> > >kids
> > > > >that
> > > > > > love to four wheel, plus I can go on a trip without
worrying
> > about
> > > > >people
> > > > > > jackin my junk or having to pull a trailer with my gear.
> Plus I
> > like
> > >my
> > > > > > music and there isnt much room in a wrangler for a sound
> system.
> > >Before
> > > > > > everyone gets all crazy comparing XJs to TJ's, I will
admit
> that
> > a
> > >stock
> > > > > > cherokee needs some help..but I dumped enough time and
cash
> into
> > my
> > >rig
> > > > >to
> > > > > > hang in.
> > > > > > (The H2 seems like a big *** luxury cherokee that might be
> too
> > wide
> > >but
> > > > >if
> > > > > > you have that kind of cash laying around you can just
pull a
> > rock
> > >buggy
> > > > > > behind you anyway.Most people who buy these will never
> engage
> > the
> > >locker
> > > > > > anyway)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Preparing flame retarding suit..........
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Frank
> > > > > > BadAzXJ@m...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >From: "Lachlan <jeepindog@y...>" <jeepindog@y...>
> > > > > > >To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > >Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Rubicon VS H2
> > > > > > >Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:13:59 -0000
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A stock H2 comes with 35" tires, doesn't it? A
> Rubicon
> > gets
> > >31"
> > > > > > >rubber. An H2 has a lot more cargo and passenger room,
> > probably
> > > > > > >rides a lot less choppy, and has four doors. It also
has a
> > bigger
> > > > > > >engine than any Wrangler option to date, and probably
gets
> more
> > > > > > >envious looks (without a single modification) than most
> Jeeps
> > that
> > > > > > >are built for bear usually get. (If attention really
> > matters...)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Clearance issues are probably about equal, except
> under
> > the
> > > > > > >diffs, where the H2 obviously wins with taller tires.
That
> > "road
> > > > > > >grader" t-case skidplate on the Rubicon makes me
nauseous.
> > What a
> > > > > > >disappointment. Leave it to DaimlerChrysler to take a
> special
> > > > > > >project like the Rubicon and screw it up a little bit
with
> a
> > lack
> > >of
> > > > > > >attention to detail. The H2 was built from the ground
up,
> and
> > the
> > > > > > >Rubicon was adapted from and existing model; basically
> only
> > >upgraded
> > > > > > >with a beefier t-case with 4:1, front Dana 44, front and
> rear
> > > > > > >lockers, (the rear being L/S when not locked) and some
> badass
> > > > > > >aluminum rocker trim. (A definite example of an improper
> use
> > of AL
> > > > > > >on a trail Jeep. Now if it had been an AL tierod...) :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If I could choose either one for free, I would
have a
> > hard
> > >time
> > > > > > >turning the H2 down. "Why?" you ask. Ever sat in one?
> Ever
> > >ridden
> > > > > > >in one? Ever been offroad in one? Me neither. But I
have
> > done
> > >all
> > > > > > >of those things in a monster 2.5L Wrangler, and the H2
> might be
> > a
> > >fun
> > > > > > >alternative. Sure, fabbing a suspension that will ft 38s
> on
> > the H2
> > > > > > >would be expensive, but what isn't expensive on a Jeep?
> > (Besides
> > >the
> > > > > > >cheap guy driving it?) I think it's time to start giving
> other
> >
> > >rigs
> > > > > > >that are worthy of their intended use some respect.
Yeah,
> we
> > all
> > > > > > >love Jeeps. But I wouldn't turn down a Porsche Cayenne,
> would
> > you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lachlan "Variety is the spice of life" MacLean
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, cowboy7575@a... wrote:
> > > > > > > > Well I havent seen the issue yet but I got a good look
> at an
> > H-2
> > >in
> > > > > > >TX on
> > > > > > > > Saturday and with all those fancy running boards,
didnt
> look
> >
> > >like
> > > > > > >it was too
> > > > > > > > trail ready to me........it might have nice clearance
> in the
> > >middle
> > > > > > >but none
> > > > > > > > to speak of on the sides, hell my soon not to be stock
> ZJ
> > looks
> > > > > > >like it has
> > > > > > > > more clearance on the sides.........as to the Rubicon,
> I saw
> > one
> > >at
> > > > > > >4Wheelers
> > > > > > > > in Phx yesterday and I wasnt that impressed with that
> either
> > for
> > > > > > >the price,
> > > > > > > > but I wouldnd buy one anyway I am perfectly satisfied
> with
> > my YJ
> > > > > > >and CJ.
> > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > __________________________________________________ _______________
> > > > > > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> > > > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> __________________________________________________ _______________
> > > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________ _______________
> > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
76370 From: John Stewart <landuse@u...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:59pm
Subject: Fwd: 2nd Annual Off Road Riders Foundation Charity Poker Run (Southern California)
From: "SDORC" <info@s...>
To: "SDORC e-mail list" <info@s...>
Subject: 2nd Annual Off Road Riders Foundation Charity Poker Run
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:35:08 -0800
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Join us for the 2nd Annual Off Road Riders Foundation Charity Poker Run to
be held in Ocotillo Wells on Saturday, 15 February 2003. Follow this link
for more details: http://www.sidewindersmotorsports.com/orrfpokerrun.html
******
This mailing has been sent to people who have asked to be included in the
SDORC mailing list. If you have received this message in error or no longer
wish to remain on our mailing list please accept our apologies, and reply to
this message with the word "remove" in the body of the message. If you have
a change of e-mail address please reply to this message with the word
"change" in the body of the message, along with both your old and new
address.
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
76371 From: Allan Alexander <ajalex15@c...> <ajalex15@c...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:10pm
Subject: Re: Table Mesa Cleanup wheeling?
Is anyone planning on running some easier/beginner trails?
Allan
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "The Acuna Family" <mkacuna@c...>
wrote:
> DOH!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...>
> To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 4:54 PM
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Re: Table Mesa Cleanup wheeling?
>
>
> > >> That's kinda like going to a Mexican food restaurant and
ordering a
> > hamburger. It's just wrong.
> >
> > No it's not....I do it all the time!
> >
> > Stu <hold out for the Norge domination of the earth> Olson
> > www.stu-offroad.com
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tomas2691 <tomasr@a...> [mailto:tomasr@a...]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 2:09 PM
> > To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Table Mesa Cleanup wheeling?
> >
> > I plan on running something. I don't think I could bring myself
to
> > go out to Table Mesa and not do any wheeling.
> >
> > I was thinking about leading a Judgement Day run. If anyone's
> > interested in this, let me know. I'd also be happy hooking up
with
> > others to do a different run if there's one already planned.
> >
> > -Roger
> >
> > --- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "cj4rox <cj4rox@y...>"
<cj4rox@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > Is anyone planning on running any trails after the cleanup?
Or, is
> > > that the point, to pick a trail & clean it? Or are we just
doing
> > the
> > > parking & wash areas around the entrance?
> > > Trying to figure out what I need to pack for gear.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Dan Siegel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
76372 From: John Stewart <landuse@u...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:11pm
Subject: Fwd: Funding rejected for Southern California off-road dunes site
The California State Parks OHV Commission continues its attack on
recreation....
<http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/politics/5016908.htm>http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/politics/5016908.htm
Funding rejected for Southern California off-road dunes site
Associated Press
SACRAMENTO - A state commission on Thursday rejected $1.1 million for
operating far southeastern California's Imperial Sand Dunes
Recreation Area, which draws 200,000 or more often rowdy off-road
enthusiasts and party-seekers on holiday weekends.
Denial of the funds "will have a significant impact" on the dunes and
the more than 3 million people who visit there annually, said the
federal Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the site. The money
was to be used for visitor services including sanitation, trash
removal and environmental monitoring.
The BLM said it may have to raise fees, cut services, or divert money
from other desert recreation areas.
Thursday's decision was criticized by off-road advocates but praised
by environmental groups that say the Algodones area's popularity
threatens the desert habitat.
The decision comes a month after the same state panel approved the
entire $292,000 law enforcement budget the BLM sought for the site.
The BLM has increased patrols and citations over recent holidays for
frequent violations involving public nudity, riding in open truckbeds
and organized parties.
Over Thanksgiving 2001, activities culminated in a fatal shooting,
several stabbings and more than 150 injuries, though a slightly
smaller crowd was relatively more subdued last year.
"It looks like public services are going to suffer and recreation is
going to be impacted by this," said Don Amador, western
representative of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, an off-road group. "It
doesn't bode well for management of our public lands for off-road
recreation."
Under the Bush administration, however, the BLM is expected to
release this spring or summer new rules opening 49,000 previously
closed acres of the desert to a number of off-roaders with permits.
The new land management plan includes no provision limiting the
overall number of visitors to the dunes.
Motorists can now freely roam 68,000 acres, or 106 square miles.
Daniel R. Patterson, desert ecologist with the Center for Biological
Diversity in Idyllwild, said a new environmental majority on the
Off-Highway Motorized Vehicle Commission was concerned about the
plan. The BLM's request was rejected on a 4-3 vote.
The same panel last fall rejected a U.S. Forest Service request for
$400,000 for winter recreation programs in the Lake Tahoe Basin and
along California 88 both east and west of the Kirkwood ski resort and
Carson Pass.
ON THE NET
BLM Imperial Dunes News:
<http://www.ca.blm.gov/elcentro/sandnews.html>http://www.ca.blm.gov/elcentro/sandnews.html
Imperial Dunes online guide:
<http://www.desertusa.com/sandhills/sandhills.html>http://www.desertusa.com/sandhills/sandhills.html
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
76373 From: Rob Williams <g_rob_williams@y...> <g_rob_williams@y...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:22pm
Subject: Re: [FS] 33X12.50 MTR'S WITH CUSTOM ALLOY WHEELS-POWER TRAX FRONT LOCKER FOR DANA 30
the powertrax just replaces the spider gears right? What gears did
you have it for? -Rob
76374 From: John Stewart <landuse@u...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:54pm
Subject: Fwd: LA Times - Jan. 21 - Bush Road/RS2477 Plan
*Quotes from BRC/Collins/Amador, HDMUC/Schiller, Greens, Agency, etc.
Bush Opens Way for Counties and States to Claim Wilderness Roads
Policy could allow vehicles into vast areas of wilderness, some in
national parks. Critics fear harm by miners, off-roaders and others.
By Julie Cart
Times Staff Writer
<http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-roads21jan21004430.story>http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-roads21jan21004430.story
January 21 2003
MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE -- From most perspectives, this windblown
landscape is the definition of off the beaten path. Sandy hummocks
give way to flinty mountain ranges and a seemingly impassable expanse
that is home to herds of bighorn sheep, desert tortoises and a
universe of heat-loving plants.
But others see the preserve's 1.6 million acres of creosote bushes
and ribbed desert washes and envision thousands of miles of roads.
Ditto for Death Valley and Joshua Tree national parks, along with
wilderness areas in the Sierra Nevada and along California's rugged
northern coast.
That vision -- of unfettered motorized access to remote country that
has for decades been the province of wild animals and a few hardy
backpacking humans -- is a lot closer to reality thanks to a Bush
administration policy quietly adopted earlier this month.
Bowing to long-standing pressure from several Western states and
counties, the Interior Department's new policy gives local
decision-makers the opportunity to lay claim to tens of thousands of
miles of rights of way across federal land. Ultimately, it will be up
to the Interior Department to determine the validity of the claims.
Enacted through a rules change, the new policy has the potential to
open millions of acres of land in national parks and federally
designated wilderness areas to motorized transportation. By providing
access to isolated holdings, it could also open remote country to
drilling for oil and gas and other commercial development.
The policy does not automatically convey rights of way to local
jurisdictions. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management must rule on the
validity of each claim. The agency is virtually certain to face legal
challenges to any rights of way granted through parks or wilderness
areas where motorized transportation is now prohibited.
Nonetheless, wilderness advocates have cause for alarm. The Bush
administration has made its preference clear for granting state and
local authorities increasing say in the way federal lands are used.
Deputy Interior Secretary Steve Griles recently told a group of
Alaska mining and energy executives that the administration would
soon approve rights-of-way claims from that state.
Alaska, Utah and other states, as well as a handful of Southern
California counties, are asserting the rights-of-way claims under a
little-known 1866 law titled RS 2477, which was designed to encourage
the development of the rural West. The law was repealed in 1976, but
states and counties were still able to make claims if the roads
existed before 1976.
Wagon Trails
In many cases, what authorities are claiming as roads amount to
little more than wagon tracks, livestock paths and even dogsled
routes in Alaska. But with muscular, four-wheel-drive vehicles, even
the most primitive routes can allow access to untrammeled places.
The issue heated up during the 1990s as off-road vehicle enthusiasts,
hunters, ranchers and mining and energy interests became increasingly
concerned about the Clinton administration's efforts to curtail road
building in national forests, restrict mining near national parks and
create parks and monuments.
The new policy does not take effect until Feb. 5, but already its
implications are being felt across the West.
In California, San Bernardino County has indicated its intent to
claim nearly 5,000 miles of rights of way -- more than twice the
total mileage of maintained roads in the entire county. The county is
pressing claims to 2,567 miles of roads within the Mojave National
Preserve, acting at the behest of off-road enthusiasts, ranchers and
mining interests.
Riverside and other counties have documented claims to rights of way
in Joshua Tree and Death Valley national parks and 21 wilderness
areas in the Southern California desert.
Counties such as San Bernardino say they are simply securing
legitimate claims that they may or may not intend to exercise.
"These are blanket assertions," said Brad Mitzelfelt, chief of staff
for San Bernardino County Supervisor Bill Postmus. "It's a matter of
defending local prerogatives and local rights. If you have a
once-in-a-lifetime chance to protect rights that you may lose
forever, you've got to take it."
Park and wilderness advocates fear it will disrupt wildlife habitat,
turning 19th century wagon ruts into paved roadways, allowing cars
and their pollution into unspoiled places.
"We're concerned about highways, but in a way that's just the tip of
the iceberg," said Heidi McIntosh, conservation director for the
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which has been monitoring RS 2477
claims for more than a decade.
McIntosh said one of the right-of-way claims in Utah leads down a
waterfall and another through a 4-foot-wide slot canyon.
"With roads comes pollution, wildlife fragmentation, off-road
vehicles, the loss of solitude and quiet. Multiply that by 10,000,
the number of claims here in Utah, and you have a mess. I can't think
of an issue the Bush administration is working on that can have a
longer or more serious impact on public lands."
Impact Assessed
Ten years ago, the National Park Service evaluated potential RS 2477
claims and found that if the roads were allowed, the impact would be
devastating. The report noted that the claims could cross many miles
of undisturbed fish and wildlife habitat, historical and
archeological resources, and sensitive wetlands.
"If a court were to decide that the law says the right-of-way roads
have precedence over legally designated wilderness, that would have a
catastrophic effect on wilderness," said David Graber, senior science
advisor at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks and a member of
the park service's wilderness steering committee.
The Clinton administration proposed a rule that would have prevented
footpaths, dogsled tracks and other primitive routes from being
turned into roadways but met resistance from Congress, and the issue
went unresolved.
Today, Interior officials say the change is needed to streamline
time-consuming disputes and lengthy legal proceedings. The new rule
removes public comment and judicial review from the process and gives
the Bureau of Land Management sole authority to validate right-of-way
claims.
Nationally, some of the most celebrated public landscape could be
affected. Alaska has asserted claims over 22,000 waterways and 2,700
miles of roads in 13 national parks and preserves, including Denali
National Park and the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
In Utah, many of the rights of way crisscross southern Utah's
spectacular red rock country -- where local officials contend that
the cluster of half a dozen national parks and proposed wilderness
areas stand in the way of access to cattle grazing, minerals, and oil
and gas deposits.
There and elsewhere, off-road enthusiasts as well as cattle, mining
and ranching groups and hunters have lobbied hard for the rights of
way, in some cases filing claims themselves.
"It's been a long and arduous fight because the previous
administration wasn't cooperating. Now, we've found willing ears,"
said Clark Collins, executive director of the Blue Ribbon Coalition,
a Pocatello, Idaho-based organization representing motorized
recreation interests.
"In rural areas, people are very interested in this issue, it means
so much to all of us," said Ron Schiller, who heads a recreation
group in Ridgecrest, Calif., that supports rights-of-way claims. "Up
here in the high desert, this is what we have to recreate. We don't
have a lot of miniature golf courses or big theaters or theme parks."
In the Mojave Preserve, hunters drive abandoned mining roads and hike
to get closer to their quarry: bighorn sheep and deer. For much of
the preserve, the old routes weave through low brush and serve to
keep visitors from more sensitive desert areas.
The Blue Ribbon Coalition's California chapter has made three
rights-of-way claims, pushing for motorized access across hundreds of
miles of wilderness in Sequoia National Forest, through the King
Range National Conservation Area on the north coast and in
non-wilderness tracts in the Six Rivers National Forest.
"We don't want to undo vast sections of wilderness, that's not our
intent. We do intend to protect our access," said Don Amador, the
group's Western states representative.
But access carries implications for altering landscapes. Roads
through wilderness create traffic corridors and make adjacent areas
more accessible. Miners or others who own land within federal
preserves may decide that new roads will make it economically
feasible to develop their land commercially, or explore for oil and
gas.
"Once Interior opens the door, it's a free-for-all," said Keith
Hammond of the California Wilderness Coalition, whose volunteers are
walking thousands of miles of RS 2477 claims in the state to
inventory the condition of the routes.
Mitzelfelt said San Bernardino County doesn't know which of its
current claims would be pressed. With a budget of $30 million for
maintaining the county's existing roads, Mitzelfelt said, he was
unsure what the cost would be for new roads or how to pay for them.
Across the country there is no indication how many claims will be
validated, and critics acknowledge their concern, at this point, is
based on the potential for damage.
So far the Interior Department has offered no clear direction on the
rule's most potentially explosive aspect -- what to do about rights
of way that cross the borders of wilderness. Under a federal law,
motorized travel is not allowed in wilderness areas.
"We're wondering how this is going to work out," said BLM spokesman
Jeff Holdren.
He said the nitty-gritty details of implementation of the rule change
have not been worked out, including how to deal with right-of-way
claims in wilderness areas.
"We didn't expect anyone to want roads in wilderness, but technically
it can be done. I suspect we will be in court pretty soon over such a
situation. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there pulling their
hair out."
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
76375 From: John Stewart <landuse@u...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 10:06pm
Subject: Re: The compromised Sierra Club, a cheap political prostitute
http://www.boulderweekly.com/coverstory.html
The compromised Sierra Club
Once a bold defender of the planet, America's largest environmental
group has become a cheap political prostitute
- - - - - - - - - - - -
by Ron Bain (Editorial@b...)
Locally and nationally, the Sierra Club is dying. It has a pulse, but
has lost its wit, forgotten who it is and has no idea what it stands
for. Next it will start drooling in public, until someone hides it
away to salvage whatever dignity it once had.
If the Democratic party's in a slump, Sierra Club's on life support.
In Boulder, the Sierra club has for decades been the most influential
organization in local politics-hands down. Before the city or county
makes a move that has environmental implications, elected leaders
look to the Sierra Club for its approval. The Club's official stand
sways government decisions about everything from prairie dog
preservation, to leash laws to land use policy.
But long-time grass roots activists are abandoning the nation's
largest environmental organization in droves, and others are
demanding internal reform if they're to continue paying dues. They're
pissed off, feeling betrayed and they're making lots of unpleasant
noise about it. They believe there's more to saving the planet than
helping Democratic Party candidates win office, and no one feels that
more strongly than the former Green Party candidate for Colorado
attorney general, Allison "Sunny" Maynard. She quit the Sierra Club
during her 2002 campaign because it endorsed her Democratic opponent,
incumbent Ken Salazar.
"I've been going after real estate developers and Ken Salazar has
been enabling them," Maynard says. "That's what made me become a
Green-the problem is Democrats who paint themselves as
environmentalists but they're actually helping real estate
developers."
For example, she says, Salazar has supported the proposed Las
Animas/La Plata dam project since he served on the Colorado Water
Board. She has been fighting the Four Corners area water development
project for an equal number of years.
The Sierra Club was founded by a buddy of Teddy Roosevelt's named
John Muir, who established early on the Club's tradition of
straightforward, up-front, balls-to-the-wall environmental activism.
Former executive director David Brower disdained political compromise
almost as much as he did oil extractors and loggers. Amid accusations
that the Sierra Club has sold out to big-money politics and
"environmentalism lite," an internal civil war is brewing, pitting
Sierra Club's national leadership against rebellious local chapters
and its most outspoken members.
Count Utah residents Patrick Diehl, Tori Woodard, John Weisheit and
Dan Kent-the Glen Canyon Four-among the growing resistance. The
Moab-area residents united to fight the Glen Canyon Dam, but now find
themselves fighting the Sierra Club's national leadership.
Boulder activist Brian Andreja, a former national and local board
member, abandoned the Sierra Club about four years ago over the issue
of immigration. The division started back then, according to Andreja,
between the hard-core "think globally, act locally" environmentalists
and others who wanted to tackle global issues like overpopulation and
excessive immigration.
Today, the Glen Canyon Four are part of a growing reform movement
within the Sierra Club that is loosely organized and has no official
leaders. It's simply a gathering-mostly via e-mail-of like-minded
individuals who are upset with the politically calculated direction
the Club has taken in the past 15 years.
Andreja thinks the real problem lies with the notedly upscale
demographic of the Sierra Club, which-less so than the Green
Party-includes SUV-driving yuppies who tear up terrain with their
snowmobiles.
"The lifestyles don't match," Andreja says. "From what I saw, the
Sierra Club was unwilling to support the Green Party."
Many Sierra Club members have adopted the
gain-political-power-and-influence philosophy of yuppie leader Jerry
Rubin.
"This puts the Sierra Club in a difficult position... as a mainstream
grass roots organization where the power flows from the bottom up,"
Andreja explains. "You run into the same problems you have in the
Democrat and Republican Parties."
As a mainstream organization, the Sierra Club has bought into the
entrenched, national, two-party political system, according to
Andreja. "They've got to play by the rules of the major parties," he
observes.
Unlike Maynard and Andreja, who quit, there remains within the Sierra
Club a core group of less political, activism-oriented environmental
preservationsists calling themselves the John Muir Sierrans.
Weisheit, for now the executive director of the Glen Canyon Group, is
a John Muir Sierran. Like many reformers, he believes the Club's
willingness to compromise politically has weakened the Sierra Club's
environmental message.
"I think what the Sierra Club has become is a garden club or a hiking
club," says Weisheit. "People want to do nice things for the
environment, and they think if they join a national group and pay
money, they think they're doing their part."
But what many members and most of the general public don't realize is
that the Sierra Club might not always do its part to save the planet.
Battle in the Black Hills
Take for example the national Sierra Club's sleep-with-the-devil deal
with Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) that permitted logging in the Black
Hills for political points at the expense of national forests,
wilderness and, ultimately, the club's ability to influence
environmental policy.
"Staff and national club members have a lot of access to
politicians," says David Orr, a long-time Sierra Club member and an
early John Muir Sierran who lives in Tennessee. "The theory has been
to play this political in-game, but the politicians can end up
playing the Sierra Club. Theoretically, it gives the club more clout
in the next Congress. But we can't say what we really want because if
we do say what we really want or what we believe in, it makes us less
politically viable."
One of those political games occurred last summer, when Daschle and
Tim Johnson, another Democratic senator from South Dakota, attached a
timber rider to a Defense appropriations bill. With Johnson's
re-election campaign sagging amid accusations from his opponent that
he was "too green," Daschle and Johnson helped engineer a plan that
would allow the commercial logging of large trees in the Black Hills'
Norbeck Wildlife Preserve and the Beaver Park Roadless Area under the
guise of "fire protection." The rider also shielded timber sales in
the area from environmental lawsuits.
An unlikely player in this summer's backroom deals was the Sierra
Club, which supported the rider. Denise Boggs, now the executive
director of the Utah Environmental Congress, was on the front lines
of the Black Hills battle. She got involved with the decade-long
struggle to prevent commercial logging in the Black Hills while she
lived in Montana. Boggs and a group of grass roots environmentalists
filed a lawsuit in 1992, which eventually made its way to the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. Astonishingly, the greens won,
putting a stop to the chainsaws.
But then Daschle, the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society stepped
in with a plan to reverse the court's decision with new legislation
which allayed conservative fears in South Dakota and eventually
helped Johnson get re-elected in what would be an extraordinarily
close vote.
"We worked for 10 years to protect that area," Boggs says. "And after
all that hard work, the Sierra Club and Daschle go in with a sweep of
a pen and undo it all. When they cut that deal, they basically sold
out every national forest in the country."
Dirty Words
Repeated efforts to contact Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope
were unsuccessful. However, national Sierra Club President Jennifer
Ferenstein said she appreciates the no-compromise passion of people
like Boggs and the Glen Canyon Four. But she says it's sometimes
crucial to take a pragmatic approach to delicate issues like the
Black Hills logging debate.
Ferenstein, a four-year mbmer of the Sierra Club's board of
directors, campaigned on a reform platform with a heavy emphasis on
passing strong conservation policies. She concedes that the Black
Hills deal is anything but a strong conservation policy, yet it
doesn't seem to bother her.
"It's hardball, and you don't always get what you want," she says.
"Compromise doesn't have to be a dirty word. When you want something,
you rarely get it in one fell swoop."
The Green Party's Maynard says Ferenstein's "compromise" explanation
represents a politically naive position. She argues that Ferenstein
and other more mainstream members of the Sierra Club have begun to
confuse the act of conceding a war with "political compromise."
"Democrats don't run good candidates, they don't stand for anything
and they provide only token opposition to the Republicans,"
Ferenstein says.
Critics like Maynard and Boggs say that the Club is as big a
hindrance to environmental protection as the U.S. Forest Service and
the other drag-their-feet government agencies that the Club finds
itself in bed with.
"The Sierra Club has lost its foundation at the national level and is
out of touch with its grass roots people," Boggs says. "We spend a
lot of time battling the deals cut by the Sierra Club that are bad
for the environment, deals that stem from the leadership of the
Sierra Club, beginning with Carl Pope. A lot of people think he needs
to go."
Weisheit is one of them, even though saying so likely means he will
be removed from his own leadership position. He doesn't care anymore.
"They're going to remove me for doing what they should have done,"
Weisheit says.
Weisheit's latest beef with the club came in November. Members of San
Francisco-area chapters approached the national board of directors
with a proposed resolution regarding the impending war against Iraq.
Concerned with Bush's apparent willingness to use nuclear weapons,
and fearful of another environmental catastrophe in the Middle East
just a decade after retreating Iraqi armies set fire to oil rigs and
dumped oil into the Persian Gulf, volunteers asked the club to
condemn U.S. invasion plans. A radical request? Not when one
considers that Boulder and other municipalities-entities that are
supposedly less politically motivated than an environmental advocacy
group-have passed resolutions condemning the war.
But the request was viewed by mainstream members as something too
extreme-something that's not in the spirit of compromise. What
resulted were three separate national Club resolutions: one that
condemned Iraqi aggression and called for the dismantling of Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction; another that encouraged club members to
focus on energy policies; and a third that forbade club members from
using the club's name to make public statements about war.
"Local chapters took a stance on something and got stomped on by
national," Maynard says. "Why are they so concerned about their own
membership being active and expressing itself?"
It isn't a stretch to think of the Club's war resolutions as another
political calculation involving self-censorship. After all, in the
wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, the Sierra Club asked its members to
refrain from criticizing the president and also scaled back anti-Bush
advertisements, a move that some believe led to Bush's move into the
Alaskan oil fields.
So the Glen Canyon group launched a revolution on Nov. 26 with a
press release. In it, the four eviscerated the national club for its
failure to condemn Bush's plans to invade Iraq and for attempting to
silence dissent. The Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle
and the Associated Press jumped on the story, and before the Sierra
Club knew it, those resolutions the leadership didn't think were
worthy of media attention were getting tons of it. The press release
also ripped the board of directors' perceived attempt to impose a
"gag order" on club members.
"That [third] resolution stifles free expression," says Dan Kent, of
the Glenwood Four. "They said basically that if you want to say
anything about the war, you have to pass it with the club first."
Sierra Club National Press Secretary Eric Antebi says the club needs
to "speak with one voice." What that means, exactly, remains unclear.
It's also impossible, since Sierra Club members can't even reach
consensus on immigration policy, let alone on war, zero-cut forest
initiatives and wilderness preservation.
"We are one club," Antebi says flatly. "At some point the club has to
come to a decision on national issues."
Diehl just doesn't get it, and he definitely doesn't buy that PR crap.
"That bothered us a whole lot," he adds. "The club has to speak with
one voice on everything? Why?"
Another question Diehl and other grass roots members have is why the
resolutions were watered down, and why that one voice is so
increasingly mealy-mouthed. He thinks he has an answer, and-no
surprise-it involves politics.
"The donors and whoever Carl Pope is talking to in the Democratic
Party have a big influence on club policy. How do you explain what
happened to this resolution in November? The word from below wanted
something that criticized Bush and the war and then we got a bunch of
stuff about Iraqi aggression and disarming them of their weapons of
mass destruction," Diehl says.
Voices in the Wilderness
Woodard wonders if the grass roots will ever dictate Club policy or
if the Club will ever lead again. Maynard says she has joined SINAPU
to work locally on wolf reintroduction into Colordo.
Weisheit laughs at how he ran into David Brower a few years before he
died in 2000. The renegade former national executive director gave
Weisheit an important bit of advice. Weisheit was upset with Brower's
political compromise-not even Brower was immune from politics-which
prevented the destruction of Dinosaur National Monument but allowed
for the creation of the Glen Canyon Dam, built between 1960 and '63.
"I was angry about the Glen Canyon Dam and the Sierra Club's
compromise. I met David Brower and talked to him about it and he said
'Why don't you do something about it?'"
Weisheit took that advice and applied it not to just fighting the
Glen Canyon Dam but to struggling for the soul of the Club itself.
But that long tradition of selling out, whether to save a national
treasure at the expense of another or selling old-growth trees for
Beltway access, keeps getting in his and the grass roots' way.
Weisheit still dreams of a day when he can run the Colorado from Moab
all the way down to the Grand Canyon, and if the Sierra Club isn't
going to help him achieve that goal, so be it. But he can't quit,
because he says he still hears Brower's advice.
He also remembers other words from Brower, spoken in the early 1980s
when Brower helped spark the nuclear-freeze movement: "If we greens
don't broaden our thinking to tackle war, we may save some wilderness
but lose the world."
Shane McCammon contributed to this story
Respond: letters@b...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
76376 From: rustydunmire <rustydunmire@m...> <rustydunmire@m...>
Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 10:20pm
Subject: Lift kit
I was wondering if any one has installed an add-a-leaf lift?
If so if I could get some feedback I would appriciate it.
Thanks Rusty
rustydunmire@m...