catbirdseat Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 US House Representative Jay Inslee from the First Congressional District will visit my workplace sometime next week. He has been a supporter of the Roadless Rule and has introduced legislation to maintain it. There's a chance I might have a few moments to speak with Mr. Inslee. Does anyone have any questions they would like for me to ask, or concerns to raise (in addition to the usual Fee Demo complaints)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 REMOVING LARRY THE TOOL AND THE ENTIRE WENATCHEE FOREST DISTRICT RULING PARTY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted December 10, 2003 Author Share Posted December 10, 2003 Get serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Yes, this thread cries out for spray. If you want to make a joke of it, start a spray thread. If anybody has any comments regarding access issues, or suggestions of topics that might be past on to Inslee, post here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toast Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Closure of Middle Fork Snoqualmie Road be a moot issue now, but what's his position on increasing funding of USFS for maintenance of roads like this? Forgive me if I'm totally ignorant and if the answer to my question above is implicit in his stand on the Roadless Rule. I'm not familiar with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted December 10, 2003 Author Share Posted December 10, 2003 The roadless rule was created under the Clinton Administration. It basically says that if an area doesn't already have roads through it, then new roads shall not be built. It recognizes that road building is very expensive for one thing and that it facilitates the destruction of the last pristine areas in our forests. From Inslee's web site: Inslee and Boehlert Re-introduce Roadless Legislation to Protect America's Last Pristine Forests Thursday, 6 June, 2003 U.S. Reps. Jay Inslee (D-WA), Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and other Members and environmental groups announced today the introduction of the National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Act at a "Roll-Out" event on Capitol Hill. This bi-partisan legislation, supported by over 150 original cosponsors, will make the “Roadless Rule” into federal law. U.S. Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John Warner introduced companion legislation in the Senate today as well. “The National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Act ensures strong protection for America’s last pristine forest lands,” said Inslee. “Loud and clear, Americans have called on the federal government for strong protection of their national forests, yet from Alaska to Virginia, the Roadless rule is under threat on a number of fronts. Whether it be from threat of judicial action or administrative ruling, protecting America’s Roadless areas should continue to be the law of the land, unwavering under political winds from Washington, D.C. Congress cannot allow the Roadless rule to be undermined.” Inslee further explained, “Roadless areas make up only two percent of the lands in the continental U.S. but provide incalculable benefits. These lands preserve our nation's vital sources of clean water; provide critical wildlife habitat to more than 1,600 threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant and animal species; and offer unparalleled recreational opportunities. Our bi-partisan legislation provides lasting protection for America’s Roadless areas. We look forward to ensuring America’s Roadless areas remain protected.” The administration has indicated it plans to propose changes to the Roadless rule; Inslee’s and Boehlert’s legislation would ensure that the Roadless rule remains the law of the land. This environmental legislation would protect nearly sixty million acres of pristine National Forest lands from logging, mining, and drilling, except in cases where the logging is necessary to protect forest health, to improve habitat for endangered species or to reduce fire danger. The lands will remain open for recreational use including hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, and the use of snowmobiles and dirtbikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 catbirdseat said: The lands will remain open for recreational use including hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, and the use of snowmobiles and dirtbikes. I don't believe this is true. Even if it is true at present, what assurances do we have that environmental lawyers will not attempt to twist the language of The Rule and impose more restrictions on recreational uses? What assurances can Mr Inslee give that The Roadless Rules won't be the "first step" in a larger push to decomission existing trailhead access by letting more roads fall into disrepair each year for the sole purpose of expanding roadless forests? Until I can be assured that existing access will be preserved, I do not support the Roadless Rule. Will you be passing my concerns and opinion along to Mr Inslee, Catbird? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 fairweather...i think that if the f.s didnt buy suvs and semi automatic weapsons and night vision cameras...they might be able to afford to keep more trail heads open...and anyways with more closed trail heads the f.s. is able to heard the people into tollbooths much easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 Tell him that his support of offshore IT (primarily India)is the single reason I will never vote for him again ( I always have so far). If you think I am disconnected, think it through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted December 11, 2003 Author Share Posted December 11, 2003 Fairweather said: catbirdseat said: The lands will remain open for recreational use including hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, and the use of snowmobiles and dirtbikes. I don't believe this is true. Even if it is true at present, what assurances do we have that environmental lawyers will not attempt to twist the language of The Rule and impose more restrictions on recreational uses? What assurances can Mr Inslee give that The Roadless Rules won't be the "first step" in a larger push to decomission existing trailhead access by letting more roads fall into disrepair each year for the sole purpose of expanding roadless forests? Until I can be assured that existing access will be preserved, I do not support the Roadless Rule. Will you be passing my concerns and opinion along to Mr Inslee, Catbird? First of all Fairweather you are not quoting me, you are quoting something I quoted from Inslee's site. Let's make that clear. I don't see a connection between the Roadless Rule and the issue of maintenance of existing roads. I just don't. In fact, if the FS is spending money on new roads, they will have even less money to maintain existing ones. The cost of road building has consistently been greater than the value of the timber sales enabled by their construction. Maintenance of existing roads is a more cost effective way of supplying timber in the long term. It seems your issue is one of distrust. I will tell Mr. Inslee that we support maintenance of FS Roads that we climbers use to access trailheads. An example that comes to mind is the Middlefork Snoqualmie Road beyond Dingford Creek. Although that one is a lost cause, I am afraid. I do think it is unreasonable to think that the FS will not decommission some roads. There are a huge number of them and they are very costly to maintain. Some of them lead into areas that have, since their construction, received protected status. That is there will never be another timber sale in that area. That road becomes a long term drain on FS resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted December 11, 2003 Author Share Posted December 11, 2003 Bug said: Tell him that his support of offshore IT (primarily India)is the single reason I will never vote for him again ( I always have so far). If you think I am disconnected, think it through. I am not familiar with the issue. Please elaborate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 catbirdseat said: Bug said: Tell him that his support of offshore IT (primarily India)is the single reason I will never vote for him again ( I always have so far). If you think I am disconnected, think it through. I am not familiar with the issue. Please elaborate. Inslee has supported connections between Indain corporations and US corporations that create loss of Computer jobs in the US. Indian programmers are well educated and willing to work for one tenth the money. There goes half of Seattle's economy. AT&T is doing it, WA Mutual is laying off 800 to offshore hiring. The list goes on. There is also HB1 that Clinton started when we were short on programmers. Now that we are all looking for jobs, HB1 is still importing just as many high tech workers. All of this is bad for the middle class and good for the stockholders. Middle class tends to vote for wilderness and access issues more than out of state stockholders. The ripple effect will hit everyone. It is about the same as having Boeing shut down a plant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted December 13, 2003 Author Share Posted December 13, 2003 I agree. HB1 sucks. But tell me how can you through legislation prevent software phone support jobs from fleeing overseas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 roadless: keep at it Middle Fork: either keep the road open, or buy out the inholders and annex the arm that is the Mfk road into the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Storm Damage: The MBSNF and neighboring NFs need a bunch of emergency funding so that they can get started on repairing the massive sorm damage from last month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 I agree. HB1 sucks. But tell me how can you through legislation prevent software phone support jobs from fleeing overseas? Preventing and promoting are two different things. Jay is promoting outsourcing and it is not just phone support jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted December 16, 2003 Author Share Posted December 16, 2003 What bills has he supported that have promoted outsourcing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Ask him about his trip to India. Bills are not the only way to get things done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted December 17, 2003 Author Share Posted December 17, 2003 On Monday, Mr. Inslee paid a visit to our laboratory on a sweep through several high tech firms in the Canyon Park area. He was only here for 30 min, and I was only able to introduce myself and shake his hand before he had to go. However, a poster went up about a "Brown Bag Lunch" Community Conversation for today at the Puget Sound Center. I showed up for the lunch and it turned out that there were only about 7 or 8 people there and except for two of them, they were rather shy, but I wasn't. I got to ask several questions. Several of us introduced ourselves and I mentioned that I was a member of cc.com and that I had questions from you that I wanted to address. He said he had just been to a meeting with members of the Access Fund. I asked if they brought up Cave Rock and he said no. He brought up the Roadless Rule and said he was in favor of the rule, and he was "in favor of more money for maintenance of existing roads", that money spent on new roads takes away funding that would otherwise go to the road currently used by various backcountry users like climbers and hikers. On behalf of Bug, I brought up H1B which is the program by which foreign workers can obtain work visas for jobs at high tech companies. He said that he has looked at the paperwork that these companies must submit and he believes that they are being honest about not being able to find qualified workers in the US. He says the process is very costly and time consuming for companies and that they don't go through it without a definite need. He said that no one has yet brought up to him an abuse of the system and that if there is, he would like to hear about it. One of his aids mentioned that this year the number of visas was reduced from 165,000 to 60,000. He brought up the issue of "outsourcing" on his own and that it is something he is concerned with and is looking at ways to deal with it, but it sounded like it is a trend that is hard to reverse. I asked about his position on Fee Demo and he said that "I really hate it! Why should a family who wants to go for a picnic have to pay $30 for the priviledge." Funding for trails maintenance should come from the General Fund. He voted against the recent House Bill that would make the Fee Demo program permanent. The bill passed, unfortunately. It turns out that one of his aids is a climber who lives on the east coast. I talked with him about problems with FS administrators in the Leavenworth Ranger District. He asked me to send him an e-mail detailing our concerns. I really think this is a great opportunity to see about getting Larry the Tool fired. I do intend to follow up on this. It would help if people like Mattp, who have written letters of complaint in the past would forward the information to me. Other issues he talked about: Iraq, SBIR loans, Patent Fees, Medicare (against GOP bill), Reimportation of drugs (for) and how the US subsidizes the rest of the word on drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Good work Catbird! I owe you a beer. As for expenses in finding qualified workers, how about checking the lists of the 800 WA Mutual IT workers who recently got layed off due to outsourcing, or the estimated 2500 Boeing IT workers layed off over the last 3 years. Or the 15% who have left Premera and SAFECO in the last 1 year alone. If that doesn't lead anywhere, how about the organization called 'Tech Workers Unite!' that has been pummeling him with letters, demonstrations and petitions. It is not your fault. I will send him a copy of this thread. I think he appraised your knowledge of the issue and sidestepped it like a professional politician. Watch what happens when we start importing carpenters and plumbers during the next building boom. He has sold out to the corporations that payed for his campaign. Washington IT workers are not a concern of his anymore. He will sell out anybody he has to to keep getting the corporate donations to his campaign. BLAH BLAH BLAH. Just go to TechWorkersUnite.com. I am just blathering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted December 22, 2003 Author Share Posted December 22, 2003 The squeaky wheel get's the grease. Tech Workers Unite should make a campaign contribution. It will get his ear and I think it would be more effective than supporting the opponent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 The squeaky wheel get's the grease. Tech Workers Unite should make a campaign contribution. It will get his ear and I think it would be more effective than supporting the opponent. As most of them are now unemployed, the squeak would be pretty small. It is too bad that plain old democracy no longer works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 25, 2003 Share Posted December 25, 2003 The squeaky wheel get's the grease. Tech Workers Unite should make a campaign contribution. It will get his ear and I think it would be more effective than supporting the opponent. Wow! That is an incredible suggestion. Especially given your expressed disdain for Republicans who take money from 'special interests'. I won't say it, but you know the word that applies here.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted December 25, 2003 Author Share Posted December 25, 2003 You are putting words in my mouth. I don't have a problem with special interests contributing to campaign coffers. What I do object to the ways in which certain contributors conceal their true identities and manage to go around limits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.