| It
has become apparent to me that Los Padres Forest Watch is just a small
brigade in the War on America. Which is the war waged by radical
enviromental groups against the culture and activities of rural
America. It is the war against the user of our public lands whether for business or for recreation. This is a widespread conspiracy against traditional Americans and traditional American activities. In this website I will illustrate what groups like Los Padres Forest Watch, Center for Biological Diversity, High Sierra Hikers Association are doing to us, paid for by us. Their weapon is litigation supported by the Equal Justice for All Act, which has cost the taxpayers of America $37 million dollars. This war is being waged by "outsiders" urban people with urban senses. More on this in my poem in the Forest Watch column. |
| Regarding the Forest Watch threat to sue me, two things are apparent, 1. Los Padres Forest Watch is just part of the attack on America. 2. It is part of soul less eco litigation for profit. I have a fairly bad poem here, but the sentiments are reasonable; The College Boys from big towns dreaming of city parks not wild land They brought their city science and beat against the heart of the wild land They closed the roads they threw out the cows the mines the horses the camps They thought they were saving wildness, but they killed the wild heart of man They killed the heart of wildness which is after all, only the dream of man The men and women who carved their lives out of mountains, meadows and wild water The boys came in from cities with nylone and capilene and gore-tex with science and lawsuits They tore the heart out of man/out of wild land Now the land lies still, choked with brush and dead falls impassable to man and cows and horses no campfires light the tree trunks no flyrods cast the creek no creak of leather or smell of sweat of man or beast Yep, the land is safe, behind a wall. Dear Reader, (which apparently is only the Forest Watch staff) Shocked, shocked I tell you. I received a 13 page letter from Forest Watch signed by the Executive Director, Mr. Jeff Kuyper and the President of the Board, a Mr. Brad Monsa, via the vehicle of overnight FEDEX, paid for, no doubt with funds donated for the purpose of protecting the environment, not threatening critics. I had several conversations around campfires recently. The question we proposed and ruminated over; who or what gets Forest Watch's next lawsuit? Well, danged if it doesn't look like they are lining me up in their gun sights. I imagine they will be reviewing this site for my compliance with their demands, I can save the cost of a stamp by placing information addressing their points, others reading this site (all 4 of them) won't know exactly what is being addressed, but, let us see how this goes. The letter began with this phrase, plus much more; Request to Cease and Desist Publication of Defamatory Statement. Along with this phrase; "Please note that this disclaimer does not absolve you of your responsibility under defamation law of guaranteeing the accuracy of information on your website". The disclaimer Jeff Kuyper denies the validity of, is highlighted in red above these paragraphs. The balance of the letter noted my various sins in relation to Forest Watch and its actions. I will address their contentions throughout this website, now, in most instances I will not quote from the letter, it would have been much nicer of them to email the thing, I would then be able to cut and paste, so Jeff, when you read this, would you please go ahead and email me the text? Thanks in advance (03/01/2012, I guess he is pretty busy, I never have gotten an emailed copy). The wording of the letter indicates that it is the opening move in a "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition." Slapp Lawsuits are usually filed by developers against those who oppose a development. Its use to silence an individual critical of a radical environmental group may be a new use. "The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat (the letter received by me yesterday). The difficulty, of course, is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims." SLAPPs take various forms but the most common is a civil suit for defamation. cite My conjecture that this letter is preparatory to a SLAPP suit is based on the repetitious use of the following words: false, defamatory, malicious, malice. Of course, in questioning my integrity, Forest Watch is making malicious defamatory statements about me, anyone who knows me, knows that I am an ethical person. As the dear reader reads the data on this website it should be apparent that ourtask is to redirect Forest Watch, not to defame it. Their text here; "Page 11, section 14. Your WTW website mischaracterizes Forest Watch's use of litigation as a last resort". As I read this letter sent to me via overnight FEDEX, the legalese, the constant repetition of the words defamatory and malicious. They "demand" I retract, This indicates to me that this is a pre litigation letter, that despite their protests to the contrary, they plan to sue without any courtesies extended unless I kowtow. This indicates the mindset of Forest Watch far more than any words. Los Padres Forest Council has a list of expectations for Forest Watch, never at any time has Forest Watch indicated any interest in even considering our requests. They have a big hammer, and they like using it. The Los Padres National Forest would be far better served if Forest Watch became what we have requested it to do, that is become Los Padres Forest Assistance. For instance, the Los Padres Forest has three staff biologists. It would be much better for the Forest if Forest Watch assisted the Forest Service in their biological surveys, instead of stamping their feet that three biologists are not keeping up with their immense work load. It is important for the reader to understand, that a year and a half ago I was a supporter of Forest Watch, but that their actions over the past year and a half have killed that off. It is also important for the reader to understand that I am far from the only one who has become severely disappointed by the actions of Forest Watch. This disappointment and frankly, disapproval is why this website was created. If Forest Watch does actually sue, I will send press releases to dozens of media, print, TV, radio, and internet. To other user groups such as CORVA and the Blue Ribbon Coalition, and to all political figures which have an interest in free speech and environmental issues, pro or con. Ted Williams the author of the piece critical of CBD I quote on the site would be interested, and to every donor to Forest Watch I can come up with. I will create a Facebook page, a Twitter account, and a great Youtube Video which one of my kid's media savvy friends can help me put together. It would be like the "Arab Spring" except this would be the "Los Padres Autumn". The press release would read read much like this; Radical Environmental group sues old retired guy because he dared to criticize them. Forest Watch is using funds donated by the public to protect the environment to stifle free speech. To continue; I found a website harshly critical of Forest Watch, quite independent of any thing I have done, as it dates from a few years ago. One phrase stuck in my mind, Eco Litigator. The author of that website called Forest Watch an "Eco Litigator". I received an email the other day that contained these two lines, among others: "Sir; I am thrilled and amazed to find your website" and " I too feel that the extreme groups have lost sight of what is best for the management of public lands. They appear to see only what is best for their own chosen type of recreation." More criticisms from others can be found here. What I have found is that disapproval of Forest Watch and its actions, and its two primary directors is not limited to me, by a long shot. What they have done is to move me from a supporter of Forest Watch two years ago, to an implacable opponent of Forest Watch, I find their actions reprehensible and an affront to those who actually care about our public lands. | SEKI Lawsuit. Fresno Bee Article on lawsuit This concerns a lawsuit brought by High Sierra Hikers Association, HSHA, a 600 member organisation based in South Lake Tahoe against the Sequoia Kings Canyon National Park Ostensibly the lawsuit seeks to address procedural errors by the National Park Service NPS in its General Management Plan. In actuality the same procedural errors probably exist with all commercial uses, whether REI guided hikes or mountain guide and ski guide services. HSHA is not concerned about those services, but have addressed solely commercial horse and mule packing operations. That all commercial services in American wilderness areas from Maine to San Diego could be eliminiated or curtailes will be merely a side effect to the HSHA goal, which I believe is to eliminated all pack stock from all wilderness. They, like most radical environmental groups follow a particular pattern, they sue over procedural errors, not the science of a particular issue. They use an urban law firm, and state that the representation is pro bono. They seldom add that it is pro bono only if they lose, which they seldom do. If they prevail, the agency sued must pay all costs, that is, us taxpayers foot the bill for the lawsuit brought by these environmental groups based on the equal access to justice act, information on it is found here In a previous lawsuit by HSHA involving the HSHA and Sierra National Forest and Inyo National Forest over the commercial packing operations the packers spent over $400,000. on legal fees while the HSHA spent nothing. Us taxpayers footed their bill. Here is an article on the lawsuit from HSHA's own website; lawsuit The article is disengenous in that it brings up many issues that are not supported by the science. Remember, lawsuit is not about environmental damage, but about procedural errors on the part of NPS. The article states that their research shows environmental degradation due to stock use. Yet, that is not what the lawsuit is about. The lawsuit concerns the section of the Wilderness act that ""largely prohibits commercial enterprises in wilderness areas, authorizing them only 'to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or wilderness purposes of the areas.'" 16 USC § 1133(d)(5)" A prior lawsuit by HSHA; Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630, 649 (9th Cir.2004 "the statutory scheme requires, among other things, that the assigned agency make a finding of 'necessity' before authorizing commercial activities in wilderness areas." ...."finding must be 'specialized' and permit commercial activities 'no more than [is] necessary to achieve the goals of the Act." This clearly states that all commercial activities in all Federal Wilderness may be curtailed or shut down if necessity is not established. In the case of the current lawsuit, NPS stated that the finding of necessity was not required as they were not introducing new business, but merely extending current permits. The court denied the validity of their position and upheld the requirement to show necessity. Here is the court order; Judgment The NPS has two choices now it appears to me, to either do the required procedure to show necessity of commercial packing operations. Or not, and let the court ruling stand. Either way, it can be assumed that there will be no commercial packing permits issued for SEKI this year. Causing loss of jobs and livlihoods to all those involved with commercial packing in the park. We can assume a couple more things: Yosemite commercial packing operations are next in the sights of HSHA. National Forest commercial packing in Federal Wilderness will also come under threat. Recreational stock use in Federal Wilderness will be attacked. Any and all commercial activities in Federal Wilderness areas may be attacked, curtailed or shut down. This is a big deal. Looks like the Sierra Club and REI will have to cancel an outing; Sierra Club SeKi trip REI Mt Whitney trip Here is a statement from HSHA as reported; "...The Court has not yet issued any injunction against packing this summer at Sequoia-Kings. The NPS read the Court's preliminary (January) ruling on the merits of the case, and instead of waiting to see what the Court would order as remedy, NPS knee-jerked and sent letters to all the SEKI packers saying that their permits are invalid. FYI, we consistently have pushed for the earliest possible court date in hopes that the matter could be settled before the summer season - it is NPS that has repeatedly acted to delay the proceedings of this case. After numerous delays, the court has set a hearing date of May 23 (nearly three years after we filed our suit). Meantime, NPS has thrown more gasoline on the fire by sending vague and bureaucratic letters to packers (and to Rep. Nunes) saying that no commercial packing is authorized in SEKI until further notice - even though NPS knows full well that we have all along told the court that we don't want to shut down the packers; we simply want reasonable limits. (Prior to the recent letters, NPS had no limits at all on the number of commercial packers, no limits on the number of commercial pack trips, no limits on the total number of clients served, no limits on the total number of commercial stock used or grazed each year in the Sequoia-Kings Wilderness. All a packer needed to do was pay a $200 permit fee, and s/he could run as many trips at they wanted. They don't pay anything toward trail maintenance, they don't reimburse any NPS costs for meadow monitoring, and they are almost never fined when they break the rules. This free-for-all by commercial outfits has gone on for decades while wilderness permits for non-commercial visitors are tightly controlled and trailhead quotas for hikers are strictly enforced. The following is a list of lawsuits filed by HSHA, I have not read through all of them, but I shall. HSHA lawsuits | Los Padres Forest Council News. Los Padres has finally posted their 2010 tax returns on the California State Attorney Generals registry of charitable trusts. As of December 31 they had not done so as required by law. As of the last time I had checked, February 25, they had not, I sent a notice to the registry of charitable trusts notifying them, they sent a letter of deliquency to Forest Watch, and gosh darn, it is up now. Some interesting information, if I am reading it right. Last May at a meeting of the Backcountry Horsemen Los Padres Chapter one member was told that Los Padres Forest Watch had a budget of $280,000. Since then, Jeff has vociferously denied that. Well he was right, sort of. They had for that 2010 a revenue of $264,340, up from $183,091 the year before. I wonder how much of that came from us taxpayers through the Equal Justice for All act. Compensation of current officers, directors trustees and key employees was $52,000, yet "other salaries" was $86,434 lord knows what that is all about. You can view their 2010 returns here Draft of the Wilderness Bill, which includes the Lake Piru land swap which certain radical environmental groups have denied were in the bill. It also includes expanded OHV routes which appear problematic, more on that as I match the route numbers to the map. Link Here Los Padres Forest Council Redirects Los Padres Forest Watch as per Mission Statement. Los Padres Forest Council actions have resulted in a positive change in what Los Padres Forest Watch does in our forest changing Forest Watch policies is the sole purpose of Los Padres Forest Council. Los Padres Forest Watch has now committed to do trail maintenance, in addition, due to our efforts they state they are planning to address the issue of power tool use in Wilderness Areas.. I do doubt they will be coming to us for pack mule support:) The truth of this is that a few of the FW members showed up on a work project organized by a different group altogether. So the article is basically propaganda. "Trail Maintenance Program Volunteers ready to tackle a new task in the forest Last weekend, December 10th and 11th, a group of dedicated volunteers from various local groups including Los Padres Forest Watch took on some much needed trail maintenance work in the Santa Barbara backcountry. " Los Padres Forest Watch has a major error on webpage Forest Watch needs to correct an error on their website. It states; "Forest Watch is the only nonprofit organization focused solely on protecting wildlife and wild places throughout the Los Padres National Forest and the Carrizo Plain National Monument." This statement is not factually accurate Los Padres Forest Council is also a non profit focused solely on protecting wildlife and wild places throughout the Los Padres National Forest and the Carrizo Plain National Monument by redirection of Forest Watch. Our mission is to protect our public lands and wildlife from overreaching environmental groups. Backcountry Horsemen, Los Padres Unit, opposes new Wilderness BCH, Los Padres voted at the November General Meeting to oppose the creation of more wilderness areas in the Los Padres Forest. When the Forest Service can maintain the wilderness trails they already have, then it is time to take a look at more wilderness, but for now, no mas. The reason for the Wilderness proposals, and the proposed Forest Service, United Water Conservation District land swap is, drum roll....Water inundates the Forest Service land, which requires United Water Conservation District to adhere to strict, federal environmental rules. The swap would take away those federal restrictions. Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/oct/08/ large-swaths-of-national-forest-proposed-as/#ixzz1ahaaiUUP - vcstar.com Lawsuits by Radical Environmental groups are paid for by us, taxpayers LiTiGATiON: Forest Service paid $6.1M in groups' legal fees over six years -- study The Forest Service paid $6.1 million in legal fees to groups that sued it over a six-year period, according to an academic study that casts new light on a politically charged issue. The new report -- published in the latest issue of the Society of American Foresters' Journal of Forestry -- includes data from the Forest Service and Justice Department obtained through Freedom of information Act requests. The payments cover the period 1999 to 2005. The researchers Michael Mortimer, an assistant professor at the College of Natural Resources and Environment at Virginia Tech University, and Robert Malmsheimer, a professor at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. it is estimated that in the past 5 years that figure has been exceeded. I can estimate that these lawsuits have cost us taxpayers in excess of $12,000,000. |
| A complaint of Forest Watch is that the website discussion of Monterey oil leases was in error. My answer to that is; Page 2 Section 2. is taken directly from http://www.thebusinessjournal.com/environment/ Any questions of accuracy should be directed to it. |
| Forest Watch Santa Barbara, CA 93102 We had told you last week during our telecon that we would get back to you after the meeting that would occur regarding the activities of Forest Watch Our group did meet, we wound up with more questions than answers, for the present, we can refer to the group as "The Council". It is the judgment of all in the group, and a judgment shared by a wide spectrum of forest users that the majority of road closures are indeed a result of your lawsuit despite the protestations of Forest Watch and the Los Padres Forest. Now, you may contest this, but, the perception that Forest Watch actions resulted in the road closures is widespread. The lawsuit may ill be a PR debacle for Forest Watch. I, representing both my family's interests, and the interests of the Council, request the following: 1. How does the current wilderness proposal/land swap differ from the wilderness/land swap outlined here? http://lospadres.sierraclub.org/newsletter/2006-04_Aug_Sep.pdf 2. it appears that Forest Watch was against this proposal before it was for it. Please clarify this for us: http://www.lpfw.org/docs/PiruLandExLetter.pdf 3. Please give us copies of your budgets for the last two years in addition to your balance sheets, showing details of compensation. 4. Please give us information on the board members and contact numbers. 5. Please give us a list of funding sources and amounts. 6. Please provide us with a copy of the lawsuit with the LPNF, AND specific results of the negotiated settlement. 7. How much was paid to whom for litigation. 8. How much was paid by the LPNF under the settlement? if you will not provide this information, what is the method for us to get this information? Forest Watch; the interest of my family in the Los Padres Forest is aligned with the interest of The Council, but not identical. We have farmed in the Santa Maria and Arroyo Grande Valleys for over 100 years, our farms are utterly dependent on the watersheds protected by the Los Padres National Forest for our irrigation water. We take seriously any threat to those watersheds. Fire is the single biggest threat, we feel and this is backed up by the stack of letters we have from various sources that the Forest Watch actions have, for a number of years reduced the ability of the Forest Service to prevent and to suppress wildfire. The current road closures resulting from your lawsuit. in our opinion the actions of Forest Watch are simply irresponsible. Sincerely, Richard Waller |
| His response; Hi Richard, Most of the information you are requesting is available through a variety of public sources. However, please be aware that some parts of your request – like employee salaries – are personal and confidential, and releasing them would violate state and federal law as well as our employees’ rights to privacy. Our Board President and we would like to sit down and meet with you in person so that we can listen to your concerns and try our best to address them. Maybe we'll reach agreement on some things, and maybe well disagree on others, but iIthink that beginning a dialogue with you is important. if you are open to it, please let me know your availability over the next couple of weeks and we can figure out a place to meet. Cheers, Forest Watch Santa Barbara, CA 93102 |
| Another member of the council's email to Forest Watch; Forest Watch, I think that what our Council of Nonprofits really wants to know is just the basics of budget finances with Forest Watch. What portion of your $280,000 budget goes to salaries? That is not unreasonable to ask. What other basic expenditures, such as outside consultants, legal, fund raising, etc. are budgeted? Who got paid how much in a negotiated settlement with the LPNF. Our six nonprofits are all operated by volunteers. Our concerns are about a group of paid individuals of a nonprofit that are seemingly working at cross purposes to what i are trying to do. Basically, SG is aggressively hindering the LPNF from brushing back forest roads, creating a situation where it is more expensive and time consuming for the LPNF to open small sections of existing roads that need only minor repairs, taking time from LPNF employees by forcing them to respond to, in our opinion, frivolous lawsuits, costing the Los Padres National Forest money for your legal fees, and Forest Watch's support of expanded Wilderness which ALL do not want to see happen. I want to see more transparency from your organization. And since i work at the same issues in the LPNF expect to provide you with input before you proceed in such assertive efforts. After you give us some details then it would be good to meet with you and your board president and clear up some of these issues. Any place that is halfway betien SLO and SB. Rich and I are both pretty flexible in our schedules and would invite other council members. |
| To my knowledge there has been no reply. |
| Contact Richard at greatbasinguide@gmail.com for comments or questions on either content or the website itself. |