Bikernet Banner

NCOM Coast To Coast Biker News for April 2017

  
THE AIM/NCOM MOTORCYCLE E-NEWS SERVICE is brought to you by Aid to Injured Motorcyclists (A.I.M.) and the National Coalition of Motorcyclists (NCOM), and is sponsored by the Law Offices of Richard M. Lester. If you’ve been involved in any kind of accident, call us at 1-(800) ON-A-BIKE or visit www.ON-A-BIKE.com.
 
 
 
NCOM BIKER NEWSBYTES
Compiled & Edited by Bill Bish,
National Coalition of Motorcyclists (NCOM)
 
 
FIRST-EVER MOTORCYCLE CAUCUS FORMED IN U.S. SENATE
In a rare bipartisan effort, motorcyclists are getting a very special form of representation in the U.S. Senate as two Senators are reaching across the aisle to establish the first Senate Motorcycle Caucus. Kickstarting this unique legislative road trip, Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Gary Peters (D-Michigan), both lifelong motorcyclists, will serve as co-chairs of the caucus, which will advocate on behalf of both motorcycle riders and manufacturers.

Sen. Ernst said her concern for motorcycles and motorcyclists started when she was a child. “Some of my most cherished memories include motorcycles, from delivering messages as a young girl to my dad while he was working out in the fields, to riding through the rolling hills of Northeast Iowa with family and friends,” Ernst said. “Throughout my 99 county tour of Iowa, I have heard from many of these folks about some of their priorities, including improving safety, infrastructure and energy efficiency. These concerns are shared by folks across our great state and country, and I look forward to working with Sen. Peters toward solutions.”

Sen. Peters bought his first motorcycle at age 11. “I’ve loved motorcycles since I was a kid, and I started a newspaper route to buy my first motorcycle at age 11. To this day, I believe there is no better way to see Michigan’s beautiful scenery than by bike, whether I’m riding to meet with constituents and small businesses or taking my bike out on the weekend,” Peters said. “Motorcyclists come from all walks of life, and I can’t think of a better way to bring together a diverse and dedicated group of advocates to discuss everything from safety concerns to manufacturing. I’m looking forward to working with Sen. Ernst as co-chair of the bipartisan Senate Motorcycle Caucus to foster these important discussions and find common ground with motorcycle lovers across the country.”

 
SECURITY AND PRIVACY IN YOUR (SPY) CAR STUDY ACT
With motorcyclists sharing the road with a growing number of Smart vehicles, security from cyber-intrusion is a significant safety concern, and U.S. Reps Joe Wilson (R-SC) and Ted Lieu (D-CA) have introduced H.R. 701; the Security and Privacy in Your Car Study Act of 2017 (“SPY Car Study Act”) to address automotive software safety, cybersecurity and privacy regulations.

This bill would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to conduct a study to determine and recommend standards for the regulation of the cybersecurity of motor vehicles manufactured or imported for sale in the United States. The study shall identify:- isolation measures that are necessary to separate critical software systems that can affect the driver’s control of the movement of the vehicle from other software systems;- measures that are necessary to detect and prevent or minimize anomalous codes, in vehicle software systems, associated with malicious behavior;- techniques that are necessary to detect and prevent, discourage, or mitigate intrusions into vehicle software systems and other cybersecurity risks in motor vehicles; and- best practices to secure driving data about a vehicle’s status or about the owner, lessee, driver, or passenger of a vehicle that is collected by the electronic systems of motor vehicles; and- a timeline for implementing systems and software that reflect such measures, techniques, and best practices.


 
POLICE MOTORCYCLE HIT BY AUTOPILOT TESLA
According to a report in the Arizona Republic, a Phoenix police motorcycle was hit by a Tesla Model X operating on autopilot. Police said the officer and the Tesla exited a freeway with the motorcycle in front. When the rider stopped for a light, the car stopped as well, but then started moving forward. The officer jumped off the bike, which was struck at low speed by the car.

The driver reported having the car on autopilot at the time. The officer was uninjured and the car driver wasn’t ticketed.

Tesla has warned customers in the past that its autopilot mode does not mean a driver can completely disengage, but increasingly it seems customers are unwilling to listen. Tesla’s website specifically states that drivers are in command of their vehicles after exiting freeways.

The company announced in October that it would soon begin including hardware in its vehicles that could make them fully autonomous. Currently, the vehicles are simply equipped with driver aids like forward collision warning, automatic braking and auto steering.
 
“AUTOCYCLES” NO LONGER CONSIDERED MOTORCYCLES IN TWO MORE STATES
Colorado and Wyoming are the latest states to reclassify their licensing requirements which allow drivers of so-called “Autocycles”, such as the Polaris Slingshot, to operate the vehicle with a valid state driver’s license instead of requiring a motorcycle endorsement or license. Drivers under the age of 18 will still be required to wear a helmet, in accordance with the states’ motorcycle helmet laws.

Because of the three-wheeled configuration and characteristics of autocycles, determining how to classify them has been a challenge for state governments. Polaris calls the Slingshot a “three-wheeled moto-roadster.” Initially, when it was introduced to the market in 2014, consumers were required to have a motorcycle endorsement or license to operate the Slingshot, which offers a distinct ride through its open cockpit and side-by-side seating.

Currently, 30 states, including the District of Columbia, require only a driver’s license to drive an autocycle. The remaining states require a motorcycle endorsement, but Polaris says efforts are being made to reclassify the vehicle to gain full conformity throughout the United States.

“As we educate state officials on the unique attributes of this category-creating Slingshot, they are realizing that the licensing requirement for the roadster are more similar to that of a driver’s license than of a motorcycle endorsement or license,” said Rachael Elia, Slingshot Marketing Manager. “Our goal is to gain a unified classification across the country to provide more opportunity and driving freedom for consumers looking for the ultimate thrill experience.”
 
 
DRIVER WHO “DIDN’T CARE” HE HIT MOTORCYCLIST GETS 15 YEARS
Remember the Texas driver who was filmed deliberately swerving across centerline into a passing motorcyclist and then said “I don’t care” that he’d knocked the rider and his girlfriend to the ground?

The heartless car driver is 69-year-old William Crum and following a two-day trial at 355th District Court in Hood County, Texas, he’s been sentenced to 15 years in prison after being convicted on one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon causing bodily injury.

The 15-year sentence means that Crum, who was arrested soon after the incident in Granbury, TX in October 2015, will be in prison until he’s 84.

 
HARLEY PULLED INTO POLITICAL FIGHT OVER LEATHER PRODUCTS
Many challenges face motorcycle manufacturers selling their products in other countries; and a strange example of this is Harley-Davidson facing a public relations issue in India over leather, something as closely associated with bikers as the bikes they ride.

Leather comes from cows, which are revered and even worshiped by many in the Hindu community, and according to the Hindustan Times a well-known Bollywood actor is taking on the iconic American motorcycle-maker over religious principles.

Popular actor and producer Ajaz Khan is urging India’s Prime Minister to impose a ban on Harley-Davidson products, claiming they’re made from cow hide. “I just bought a leather belt from Harley Davidson,” Khan is quoted by the Hindustan Times as saying. “This is a cow leather belt. It’s being sold in the entire world. If you really consider yourself men, then I request [the Prime Minister] shuts down Harley Davidson.”
 
MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS RALLY PUT ON HOLD AFTER LONDON TERROR ATTACK
A mass London “Awareness Ride-Out” to be held a day after a deadly terrorist attack in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster, seat of the British Parliament, had to be rescheduled in the wake of the Wednesday, March 22 car attack that killed four and injured more than 50 pedestrians.

The campaign group “We Ride London,” which aims to be the “main lobby group for riders of motorcycles, scooters and mopeds in London,” had invited thousands to join a ride at 1pm on Thursday April 23, from Regents Park through central London to City Hall, but had to call the event off. A statement on the group’s Facebook page said: “We have decided to cancel tomorrow’s awareness ride in light of the terrible events in our capital today. Now is not the time to be hindering the emergency and security services as they investigate and recover from this.”
 
 
ROLLING INTO RENO FOR NCOM CONVENTIONWith the 32nd Annual NCOM Convention in Reno just weeks away, the National Coalition of Motorcyclists is requesting that MROs, Motorcycle Clubs, & riding associations submit the names of those members & supporters who have died this year, so that we may honor their memories during the traditional “Ringing of the Bell” tribute to fallen riders during the opening ceremonies. Dedications can be hand-delivered at the Convention to “Doc” Reichenbach, NCOM Chairman of the Board, or e-mailed in advance to Bill Bish at NCOMBish@aol.com.

Attendees are also encouraged to bring an item on behalf of their organization for the Freedom Fund Auction, with proceeds benefiting the motorcyclists’ rights movement nationwide through Getting Our People Elected donations, NCOM Speaker Program, lobbying activities & other pro-motorcycling projects as determined by the NCOM Board of Directors.

The 32nd annual NCOM Convention will be held Mother’s Day weekend, May 11-14 at the Silver Legacy Resort-Casino, 407 N. Virginia St. in Reno, NV, so reserve your room now for the special NCOM rate of $99 by calling (800) 687-8733 and mention “GNCOM17”. Pre-register for the 2017 NCOM Convention at (800) 525-5355 or visit www.ON-A-BIKE.com.

 

QUOTABLE QUOTE:
“Among individuals, as among nations, respect for the rights of others is peace.”~ Benito Juárez (1806-1872), President of Mexico
Read More

The 2017 Handbuilt Motorcycle Show by Revival Cycles

Revival Cycles throws one of the best indoor motorcycle shows around. The show is in Austin, TX, and is focused on the ingenuity and fabrication put into the machines more than just the brand of motorcycle. At Hand Built, bikes of every ilk show up ready to impress the onlookers.
 
Paulie of J&P Cycles was on hand and filed this video report of the event. Enjoy…
 
 
 
Read More

Bikernet Road Stories: Hollywood Scotty

It was years ago, while staying with an eccentric entrepreneur who surrounded himself with old motorcycles and ragged biker types in Milwaukee Wisconsin, that I experienced a very unique adventure. In fact, the situation was so outrageous I’ve thought of writing it but have no idea where to start. The Compound, as JP’s place was sometimes called, was a big piece of property by the river. It held three large brick buildings, his beautiful but strangely eccentric home, single-story plastics factory that sat atop three more stories below it, and a huge sort of garage with machine shop where ancient/custom bikes were built and maintained by scraggly young biker types on the left, while an ocean ready cigar boat waited in a corner at right. One of this show’s characters was a guy named Joe Hart. For a time Joe lived in the Greyhound bus/motor home conversion JP kept in the yard. Joe was a wild, young, and I think it’s safe to say, jet setter who rode Harleys, tended to stay out all night, endure hung over mornings, knew all the people, and always had his foot deeply embedded in the action. For whatever reason we took a liking to each other and came to bomb around town together a lot. At one point Joe had us out on a yacht with a bunch of drunk friends and me the only sober person. There was other stuff too. One night Joe asked to hear the story of a book I was working on at that time. I told him. It seems he liked the idea more than I’d realized.
 
At some point Joe moved to Hollywood California and I lost track. As of late though, he’d contacted me with some crazy ideas about getting that, as yet unpublished, book published. Well, winter was closing in and I hadn’t visited California in three years anyway. I decided to drop by and show some face.

A course was set for the heart of West Hollywood.

 

 City concrete was everywhere as I passed the seemingly endless wall of storefronts and businesses that line Santa Monica Boulevard. Although it was late evening with rush hour long past, traffic still clogged the streets as multitudes of pedestrians held down sidewalks and crosswalks. Eventually I turned uphill onto La Cienega Boulevard and began looking for the driveway described over the phone. It soon led past two car parking at left, between two large double story houses, then downhill some short distance to driveway’s end and a garage at left. Joe greeted me in the driveway and, after re-acquaintance, I was led past the pool and inside to tour of one of Joe’s two houses. Six bedrooms and, of course, the place was quite nice. The house seemed devoid of much activity, which I’d soon learn was uncommon around here.

 
After introductions to a couple of passing roommates, Joe and I wandered outside for a better look at the garage—which sat down and behind the pool. After moving a few things I set up camp and deemed the place home. Unbeknownst to me, this would be my pad for the next month.

Aside from the house Joe lived in, he also had the place directly next door. It offered seven bedrooms and was filled with roommates as well. Although that place had no pool, it had a freestanding structure in the yard that was being converted into a music studio but, and this time, was not quite finished. In the fence that separated these houses Joe’d installed a large gate so residents of his Hollywood party community might wonder easily back and forth.

 

As the days passed I came to know some of our residents. Micky “Memphitz” Wright is some kind of a rap star. Although I’m told his past is jaded (I know nothing of rap), for whatever reasons, we got along very well. On the living room wall a red album boasted sales on one of his albums at 10,000,000 copies, and a gold one boasting 500,000. A picture of him and Oprah Winfrey accompanied them, and I saw him once on TV while here. At least partially for his presents, as well as the Hollywood party atmosphere, there were always hot young groupies hanging around and seldom less than three in Micky’s bedroom at any given time. Imagine the ego trip. Next we had a small time producer, then Shawn who made music videos, and most everyone else in residence was either looking to make it big, or already had their foot in some kind of show business door. I guess that’s what folks come Hollywood for.

 

Joe had originally arrived with $350 to his name then built this little empire with the profits from various business ventures I didn’t ask much about. But Joe likes to stick his foot in a lot of different, and sometimes unorthodox, business doors. The publishing of my book, and another written on the subject of Tupac (a dead rap star), was just another of his crazy, and occasionally profitable, ideas. In truth though, I didn’t put a lot of stock in anything coming of it.

On the second night, of my life here, we attended a big crazy drunken party next door. At Joe’s places it was the same, if not far more constant. The drunken antics, naked people in the pool, etc. etc. were an endless source of entertainment to me. On occasion someone would point out a television star in attendance, but of course I’d not know of them because I have no TV. 

 

Almost all residents were young and this nutty scene seemed reminiscent of life back in my 20s. But along with a great love of the party scene, Joe was ambitious to succeed in business and sought to keep the craziness limited only to weekends. For if left unchecked the insanity wouldn’t stop even for a day.

 

L.A. traffic was always horrible but most everything one needed, except a grocery story, was two blocks walking distance on Santa Monica Blvd. Subway Sandwich, Starbucks, bars, restaurants, ice cream, you name it. So it was some errand, or just wanting to get out of the house, that brought me to that area regularly. Now I’ve stayed in some gay areas—Key West, Palm Springs, etc.—but this place took the cake. In fact, if I was gay, I could have attended an orgy at least everyday and never gone without. In time I became acquainted with a few of these guys. One told me that, for sex, men are the gas and women the breaks so when two men are attracted to each other it’s all gas. In fact, almost all those I talked to had problems with way to much frivolous, meaningless, sex. This seemed to pose a serious problem. Quite a few had, or were trying to, abstain. Us heteros should have such problems huh? But gay areas lean toward an uncommon acceptance of most anything in general, which also means that almost any other manner of weirdness goes, and it was there that I saw other strange and interesting Hollywood sights as well.

One day Joe told me a production company would be shooting a movie scene in the backyard that evening. Sounded interesting. One scene would be shot with a bunch of supposedly unruly teenagers in the pool. Even though this is southern California, it was winter and the nights were downright chilly. All afternoon Joe fought tooth and nail with the pool heater, which would come on then shortly thereafter turn itself back off. He said the pool guy had recently replaced it but was unable to come look at it today. By the time evening rolled around, cameras, crews, equipment, and lighting was assembled and shooting began first on the street. By now Joe was running around going nuts with that damn pool heater! Eventually shooting moved to the backyard (my yard) then the pool. Still no heater. Joe was livid. 

 

One scene portrayed a bunch of supposedly drunken kids who’d snuck into some unsuspecting citizen’s yard for a little fun in their pool. With the hour growing later, time eventually came for those kids to embrace their “fun time” in the ice water. I couldn’t help but laugh as they stood shivering until the director called “Action” whereupon all would start splashing it up and having such a good time! Price of fame I guess. For me however, it was just a great comedy show.

  

Although my garage offered some sanctuary, by the time one walked to driveway’s end he was completely immersed in crowded, high traffic, fast paced city. For one more used to the freedom of small towns and open highways the constriction of this place became oppressive rather quickly. Although this city goes on seemingly forever, the quickest sanctuary is into the nearby hills above Malibu, along Mulholland Drive and the other small twisting roads that sometimes offer a view of the Pacific Ocean far below; or simply to ride hwy-1 up the coast. Many local bikers also seek weekend escape to these places and there are two staple hangouts. One is Neptune’s Net along the coast, and the other the Rock Store up on Mulholland. Since none of the party-house residents rode motorcycles I missed the company of other riders and this was a welcomed reprieve. I also began taking overnight trips out of the city; a simple task for one with the ability to easily make his home anywhere.

 

One day a local Shovelhead guy made contact on the net. John lives in the nearby suburbs and wanted to drop by and take me to lunch. I gladly accepted. He and the old Shovel soon showed up. From my garage we walked to some swanky, high priced restaurant and had a wonderful meal on the deck at street-front. After that John and I began getting together to ride the hills quite frequently. We visited hangouts, beaches, mountains and, on one occasion John, his wife Janie, and I made a trip to the less glittery town of Oxnard. Some nights John and I would go back to his house where he’d grill steaks while Janie made fixens’ in the kitchen. Next we’d hang in the hot tub and bullshit. I soon learned of John’s violent past and his many years in prison. But you’d never know it now, for these days John owns a pool businesses, lives in a regular home, and is anything but an outlaw. On many occasions I’ve seen time and age mellow a man as the dark memories of his youth fade to the distant past.

 

But some of the greatest segments of this adventure were still yet to come, for my time in Hollywood was far from finished…

Read More

CONTROL FREAKS’ CLIMATE CALAMITY

Editor’s Note: I’m going to devote this page to news and views regarding Climate Change and the excuse it gives government agencies to regulate the population.

It’s incredible. There has been a 20-year PR campaign to convince the government and the public that we are all bad, killing the planet, and need to be severely regulated. This is costing our industry millions and it just could be bullshit.

What if we could prove that global warming is a hoax, the climate is changing as it has for millions of years, but the man-made aspect is not even close to harmful. What if we could prove Oil isn’t the Bad Guy. What if a few grubby bikers, an old attorney and some young environmentalists could blow a hole in the EPA, control freak, and anti-freedom mentality. What if they could improve the planet in the process, and we restore freedom where it belongs?

More and more our findings prove this contention in a massive way.

 But you decide:

Climate Hustle: The film that changes the climate of debate on global warming
Concerns about man-made global warming have consumed nearly all other environmental issues as proponents claim increasing carbon dioxide will result in a global catastrophe unless nations drastically reduces emissions.

Global warming has evolved to be blamed for a range of issues beyond just rising temperatures or sea levels. Now rising CO2 emission are said to cause floods, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes and even maladies like prostitution, bar room brawls, airline turbulence and less snow or more snow, depending on the season.

More than a year in the making, Climate Hustle is now smashing onto the scene to rock the climate debate and set the record straight. Produced by “CFACT Presents” and hosted by Climate Depot publisher Marc Morano, the film features prominent scientists from around the world, who used to warn about the dangers of man-made global warming but have reexamined the evidence and have now grown more skeptical or become outright skeptics of man-made climate change fears.

The film is not a one-sided documentary with only one narrative presented. Instead, Climate Hustle comes alive to the viewer with archival video clips and news footage spanning over 40 years.

The film presents both sides of the climate debate in an engaging and pop
culture-friendly way that walks viewers through the dire climate claims being made and examines them one by one.

Viewers of Climate Hustle will get an informative, humorous and entertaining journey through seven key sections that lay waste to the media-promoted climate claims.

For example: One powerful segment, called “Stacking the Deck,” shows how the notion of a “scientific consensus” on climate change is pure fabrication and is simply a political tool used to stifle debate.

Another segment, entitled “Sleight of Hand,” examines whether CO2 is really the villain it’s made out to be and shows viewers some of the crucial facts that Al Gore omitted from his famous propaganda documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

Viewers are taken on a journey back in time to reveal centuries – yes centuries – of climate panic and fear. The film shows rarely seen clips of 1970s global cooling newscasts and how “stagecraft” was employed to juice the narrative of man-made global warming fears in the1980s.

Sea level rise scares? Polar bears? Polar ice melts? Climate Hustle offers viewers a virtual A-Z examination of the evidence for man-made climate fears. The film features expert opinions and data to reveal that on virtually every claim in the climate debate, climate activists have either greatly exaggerated the issue or are flat out wrong.

Climate Hustle viewers will also get a look at the increasingly outlandish claims of activists
who, in a form of “climate astrology,” want to blame every bad weather event – and societal evil – on man-made global warming.

The film has its moments of hilarity as comical climate change “tipping points” are exposed as utter nonsense and more suited to a stand-up comedy act. Viewers are walked through previous doomsday predictions on topics ranging from Y2K to the Mayan Calendar.
Perhaps the most poignant moment of the film comes when viewers are told there is literally no difference between holocaust deniers and climate “deniers.”

Exclusive interviews reveal activists who call for skeptics to be thrown in jail. By contrast, scientists are profiled who have reversed themselves on global warming fears, and far from profiting from their dissent, they
explain how their careers have been negatively impacted just for daring to challenge the so-called consensus.

Politically Left scientists are interviewed who reveal how “lonely” it is for them to dissent on man-made global warming. Climate Hustle is premiering in Paris during the UN’s COP21 climate summit, and will be scheduled for theatrical and home video release in 2016.

To view a link to the film’s trailer visit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXBzjBE9l5Q

To view a clip from the movie visit: https://app.box.com/s/tbzjfq0r5a7dicl6nn6g18bqo453bb73

ACTION FROM THE CLIMATE CALAMITY FRONT–I did communicate with Hardtail, president of the MRF, and he wanted to talk by phone last week but we didn’t hook up. He’s in Europe most of December on business (he’s an engineer for Ocean Spray Cranberries).

He stated that the MRF is all over the EPA issue and they have released many press releases on the subject. My opinion is they have voiced concerns, and report occasionally on the ethanol standards, production increases and dispute over production waivers pursuant to the Clean Air Act and congress’ promulgations, but I haven’t seen any strategy or direction on how to combat any of this to date other than their plea to write to your congressman to express concerns over blended fuels and increase in E-15 reserves.

The quandary, as I see it, is we as a people are caught between the battle of the experts once again. The standards, CO2 emissions concerns, greenhouse gases, 2017 volume requirements for Ethanol, climate warming and more are so technical that a layperson cannot understand it all.

When you have scientists and other so-called experts disagreeing on climate change, what is causing it if it’s actually happening, what is the greater danger contributing to CO2 emissions and so on, what chance do we have of knowing what is real and what is fantasy?

It’s like belief in God. Some have an unyielding devotion to believe in the existence of God, without tangible proof that he exists. Other’s call it an illusion or belief in a superstition. Those sides can argue to eternity, with neither having real proof to verify the argument.

With regards to our situation, we are stuck in the middle with each side arguing more on belief than “real evidence.” I don’t want to believe the planet is warming like some claim, and I don’t want to believe that man is the major contributor to this claim. But not being an expert, I can only cling to belief and faith that it isn’t so.

The one thing I do know as fact, is the EPA working in concert with European nations on Global Harmonization, is regulating business into submission through increased standards (some of which cannot be reached because technology doesn’t exist yet to meet those standards), punishing fines that cripple small manufacturers, Swat-team raids that violate constitutional protections and destroy business, families and bank accounts, and total refusal to co-ordinate planning on initiatives to meet these problems with local, non-governmental committees or agencies, as was mandated in the original clean air acts decades ago.

Without someone in congress to champion the cause of reining in the EPA, we are spinning in circles without an end in sight. Looking at the open comments document the EPA posted concerning the 2017 Ethanol volume requirements, it was clear that most comments were in favor of increasing the volumes and opposed waivers that allowed for lower volumes or retaining current levels.

Most of the comments came from interested parties, as expected, like corn growers and ethanol manufacturers. I could only find three submissions from our friends in the motorcycle community: ABATE of Michigan, ABATE of Illinois and ABATE of Pennsylvania.

There were a few other organizations that opposed the increased Ethanol production, most notably some antique car organizations, but most comments were in favor of increased production levels of E15.

The arguments for the most part were of a technical nature and included comments by manufacturers and gas station/service plaza owners and organizations, that were beyond my understanding, since they alluded to business practices and manufacturing technology. These are stakeholders representing huge companies. My other concern is how big of an impact is the motorcycle after-market industry and motorcycle riders in general going to have on this global stage?

–Tony Pan Sanfelipo
Investigator
Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
1-800-800-5678

My Response to Tony’s Report:
I agree regarding the highly technical aspects of this argument and I get a kick out of your equating it to the God debate. Regarding the God debate, don’t we have something in the constitution about this? You can debate and believe all you want for or against, but don’t pass laws. The question remains. Can we give up or give in? And what we hope to fight for goes way beyond the performance motorcycle industry to cars and trucks, anything performance.

I would rather equate the global science discussion and over regulation to the McCarthy Era. Can we allow the government to control everything with an exhaust pipe and put half of these industries out of business, only to discover tomorrow or a year from now that the transportation sector has a very small climate change footprint.

Plus, there is science and scientist who don’t agree with the regulators’ contentions. In fact, Australia, through scientific conclusions threw out recent regulations. Watch the documentary “Climate Hustle.” Plus, over the 40 some years we’ve been in this game, every time the government threw another law at the Biker’s Rights community, our band of grubby bikers stepped up, found the data, researched the facts and came back fighting with Freedom on our side.

–Bandit

Chiming in to offer up my two cents on all of this rhetoric.

Firstly, lets make it explicitly clear that the MRF is actively engaged on two fronts with the EPA:

1. The first is combatting the EPA’s instance that they have the authority to regulate the car and motorcycle racing industry, specifically the “tampering” of motorcycles which is what they call it when you add high performance parts to your bike that affects the amount of CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere. Our strategy in combatting this is to address the agency’s overreach through legislation. This is the RPM Act, which we have made great progress on this year and I do expect to advance at some point though the chances of passage this year are looking increasingly slim.

2. The second area that we are engaging with the EPA is in regards to the RFS Standard – this is a law passed by Congress in 2007 that REQUIRES the EPA to issue mandates of how much biofuel (like ethanol) is used in the nation’s fuel supply. Like the RPM Act, our strategy here is with Congress. The EPA is simply fulfilling their congressionally mandated obligation – no amount of public comment is going to change that. The problem must be dealt with at the Congressional level via legislation. The MRF is involved with a larger coalition “Smarter Fuel Future” to push for larger RFS reform but is also working within a smaller spinoff group that is trying to make specific and targeted changes to the RFS standard that will satisfy BIKERS (but likely not the oil and gas industry – their lobbyists can fight that fight).

In both of these areas our strategy is to force the hand of Congress to reign in the EPA. I will tell you from experience, that going to the head of the EPA and pressuring her to “pull back” is an absolutely worthless exercise. Congress controls the purse strings of the agency and the authority of the agency. This is why we need the motorcycle community (10 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE U.S.) to tell their Congressperson about what changes they want made. This is called grassroots, folks.

Under the Obama Administration the EPA was advised to “push boundaries” and they did exactly that. Things will most certainly be different under a Trump Administration and will present an opportunity to help limit the agency’s jurisdiction. Again – this will have to be achieved via legislation and “regulatory reform” – the MRF has and will be present in these discussions. Though please be advised that a Trump Administration will not solve all of our problems. As a reaction to the Trump Administration, we will see more progressive states like California in particular, really push the envelope on state and local environmental regulations. This is where we need to be most diligent over the next 4 years.

Lastly, I would encourage us to not get lost or caught up in the bigger questions like the authenticity of climate change. There are far too many players with voices larger than ours. Instead, my advice is to decide specifically what we want to achieve and then formulate a plan to do that. Maybe it’s pass the RPM Act, maybe it’s to promulgate a new law mandating that E10 is legally required to be sold at all gas stations, maybe it’s that EPA emissions regulations supersede those of a state (i.e. California). Whatever it is that you want, now is the time to have that conversation.

But be forewarned – whatever it is we decide to try and get achieved will involve grassroots (that would be the “plea to write your Congressmen”) and $$$$$$. And unless I am mistaken, our MRF funding comes from RIDERS. Not from high performance parts manufacturers and not the aftermarket industry but the people who ride their bikes – and that’s who I’m working for.

-Megan
MRF

Response from the Investigator: Pretty much to the point, and I’m not in disagreement with a lot of what she says; I know the EPA is working under mandate, and we cannot, nor do we have the power or ability to force EPA to do anything. I think we all knew that already, so I feel a little “talked down to” from her comments.

Despite Trump making statements during his campaign that he would eliminate the EPA, I also know he doesn’t have the power to do that either, only Congress, as Megan assuredly scolded us, has the power to reign in the EPA.

My concern was some of the issues with the Tenth Amendment, which on first glance, would tend to reinforce our and the MRF’s position that the powers not given to the federal government should remain with the states on issues like this. The problem is some years ago, while sovereignty of the states was recognized and they were recognized as having the power to enforce regulations dealing with things like emissions, the actually policy making authority where these regulations originate was reserved for the federal government.

Thus, Congress can and hopefully will recognize that the over-regulation on companies and business is killing jobs and the economy. Megan realizes, as I did, that fighting the climate change theory is extremely difficult. Where we differ is she wants to totally abandon that argument, whereas I think it must be addressed as a driving force behind current and expanded regulation, based on questionable science.

You can’t effectively argue against something without some qualifying argument. It’s how I describe the disagreement I have over the helmet issue. Some, like the MRF, say we don’t have anything against helmets; we just want the choice to wear one. It’s become the mantra of the current rights leadership, and sounds good and makes the members smile. After all, we’re not the anti-helmet people. We’re the pro-choice people.

Well to me, that reminds me of my mother telling me to eat my greens, they’re good for me. But in defiance, I say, I don’t have anything against greens, I just don’t want to eat them. We all know who won that argument. Because just saying we want the choice to wear or not wear a helmet isn’t the same as saying we don’t want to wear a helmet because we don’t see positive proof that they’re effective or reduce fatality rates.

The government has tried to be our mother and say, “Shut up and just eat your greens,” but we’ve been successful in at least half the states in telling them we don’t want to wear them. But that could change in a heartbeat, and if we had to fight helmet laws nationally again, how do you tell congress you don’t want to wear a helmet without giving a reason? Fat chance now, since most of the states have said repeatedly we don’t have anything against helmets. Get my point?

Same holds true for the emissions problem, and the Ethanol reserves, etc. We can argue to Congress that we want the EPA to be pulled back, and certainly job loss and killing off some small businesses in the mix is a good argument, but it won’t outweigh the climate change greenies, who have a huge lobby, a lots of money (Ethanol plants, corn growers, and a host of supporting industry all making money off the production of Ethanol).

I’m not completely sure Trump will be compliant with hurting Ethanol and others, and I know he had some interests in some of the oil pipelines and cronies in the oil business, so I’m reserved on what, if any help we can count on from him.

Finally, Megan claiming that the MRF needs grass-roots activism (lobbying Congress) and $$$$ is interesting. She claims the SMRO’s are where the MRF gets its money, and that’s mostly true, and that’s who she works for.

Well, the amounts of money they get can’t be all that much, since they’re always working at fund raising, especially at conferences, and I can understand that. But the amount they raise is a pittance compared to the money that will be used to forward the other sides’ arguments. I may be misreading her intent, but to me it appeared she was disrespectful to the many motorcycle accessory companies, racers and builders out there. Those high performance parts manufacturers and aftermarket accessory makers are who their membership relies on, and if they go away, so will the bikes MRF riders enjoy.

I thought that a surprising way to end her letter. Just my two cents worth.

–Tony Pan Sanfelipo
Investigator
Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
1-800-800-5678

Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret is a groundbreaking feature-length environmental documentary following intrepid filmmaker Kip Andersen as he uncovers the most destructive industry facing the planet today – and investigates why the world’s leading environmental organizations are too afraid to talk about it.

Animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation, water consumption and pollution, is responsible for more greenhouse gases than the transportation industry, and is a primary driver of rainforest destruction, species extinction, habitat loss, topsoil erosion, ocean “dead zones,” and virtually every other environmental ill. Yet it goes on, almost entirely unchallenged.

As Andersen approaches leaders in the environmental movement, he increasingly uncovers what appears to be an intentional refusal to discuss the issue of animal agriculture, while industry whistleblowers and watchdogs warn him of the risks to his freedom and even his life if he dares to persist.

As eye-opening as Blackfish and as inspiring as An Inconvenient Truth, this shocking yet humorous documentary reveals the absolutely devastating environmental impact large-scale factory farming has on our planet, and offers a path to global sustainability for a growing population.

ABOUT THE FILMMAKERS

Kip Andersen’s environmental awakening came as a result of An Inconvenient Truth. After seeing the film, he began to recycle religiously, turn off lights constantly, shower infrequently, and ride a bike instead of driving. Andersen believed he was doing everything he could to help the planet by following the guidelines of national and international environmental organizations, but his life took a different direction when he found out animal agriculture is the leading cause of environmental destruction.

He is the founder of AUM Films and Media, a 501c3 non-profit focused on creating films and media that promote thrivability, compassion, and harmony for all life. He is also an entrepreneur, as well as a certified Jivamukti and Kundalini yoga teacher. He is a graduate of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo school of business and has called San Francisco home for more than a decade.

Keegan Kuhn is a videographer, award-winning documentary filmmaker, and professional musician living in the east bay of San Francisco. He has worked with nonprofit organizations and been involved in social justice movements for virtually his entire life. As a filmmaker, he helps organizations reach an ever-greater community of supporters with the highest possible quality films and videos. His film career has taken him as far as the remote interior of Alaska to document modern homesteaders, to the high deserts of the American west filming the nation’s remaining wild horses, to rural agricultural communities and dirty urban streets. He is motivated by a deep desire to shed light on untold stories of the most downtrodden in our society, and to raise to awareness through greater visibility of social justice issues.

COWSPIRACY FACTS

DIRECTOR’S NOTE:
The science and research done on the true impacts of animal agriculture is always growing. The statistics used in the film were based on the best information we had available while producing the film. We will continually update this list with further resources as they become available

– GREENHOUSE GASES –
 
Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation. [i]
 

Fao.org. Spotlight: Livestock impacts on the environment.

Transportation exhaust is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions. [.i]
Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector primarily involve fossil fuels burned for road, rail, air, and marine transportation.

Fao.org. Spotlight: Livestock impacts on the environment.

Environmental Protection Agency. “Global Emissions.”

Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
 

Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”

WorldWatch, November/December 2009. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, USA. Pp. 10–19.

Animal Feed Science and Technology “comment to editor” Goodland, Anhang.

The Independent, article Nov. 2009.

Methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 on a 20 year time frame.
 

“Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions.” Science Magazine.

Methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of CO2 on a 20 year time frame.
 

“Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions.” Science Magazine.

Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years.
 

“Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006.

Emissions for agriculture projected to increase 80% by 2050.
 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7528/full/nature13959.html

Energy related emissions expected to increase 20% by 2040.
 

Energy Global Hydrocarbon Engineering

IEA, World Energy Outlook 2014

US Methane emissions from livestock and natural gas are nearly equal.
 

EPA. “Overview of Greenhouse Gases.”

Cows produce 150 billion gallons of methane per day. [xi]
 

Ross, Philip. “Cow farts have ‘larger greenhouse gas impact’ than previously thought; methane pushes climate change.” International Business Times. 2013.

250-500 liters per cow per day, x 1.5 billion cows globally is 99 – 198.1 billion gallons. Rough average of 150 billion gallons CH4 globally per day.

Converting to wind and solar power will take 20+ years and roughly 43 trillion dollars.
The Cost Of Going Green Globally

Even without fossil fuels, we will exceed our 565 gigatonnes CO2e limit by 2030, all from raising animals.
 

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Source: calculation is based on http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294 analyses that 51% of GHG are attributed to animal ag.

Reducing methane emissions would create tangible benefits almost immediately.
 

U.N. Press Release, Climate Summit 2014.

A RESPONSE FROM THE INVESTIGATOR

As for giving up or giving in, I think you know me better than to think I would Never throw the towel in when matters of rights or personal liberties are concerned.

You are right when you say the issue is much deeper than our niche in the scheme of things. As usual, two things loom large; money and control. Money comes from the huge business of alternative fuels and renewable energy. ??The greenhouse scare has helped to create new industries endeavoring to capitalize on alternative fuels. Ethanol seems to be king at the moment, with manufacturing plants popping up across the mid-west an elsewhere.

Corn crops are being devoted to Ethanol to meet the demands of volume dictated under the Renewable Fuel Standard. The greenhouse scare/conspiracy fuels the acquiescence is increased regulation, not only on car, diesel and motorcycle emissions, but also coal powered energy plants.

Since its creation in 1970, under Richard Nixon, the EPA has declared war on industry in America. Bolstered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the war on coal powered energy plants and coal mining in general has cost thousands of jobs. By 2030, it’s predicted 34,000 jobs lost. The coal industry itself has already lost over 47,500 jobs. 37 percent of coal mining jobs in Kentucky have vanished since 2008, yet America relies on fossil fuel energy for 2/3rds of its electricity.

We tend to think of the assault on emissions as singular attack. But farming, mining, ranching and logging are all under attack from the EPA. This is costing jobs and eliminating small business altogether.

In California, independent truck drivers are going out of business because of the EPA and CARB. Standards and regulation on diesel particulate emission make older trucks illegal. Newer trucks or some able to convert have installed Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF), which are suspected in numerous semi-truck fires of questionable origin. These fires are not a consequence of crashes but rather spontaneous affairs. Interestingly, many of the original reports point to the filters but final incident reports exclude the cause and only refer to undetermined heat source. Was the EPA behind the exclusion of first opinion conclusions of origin of the fires?

Exhaust emission regulation has been at the heart of most of our problems dealing with after-market accessories. Before establishing any regulations or restrictions, federal agencies were required to “coordinate” with local government agencies, according to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Any federal agency action had to be submitted to environmental study and for coordination with local governments affected by such action. To be considered was the impact on society, culture and the economy. Recent hearings attended by independent truck drivers in Redding, California, indicated that local government was not contacted by or coordinated with the EPA or CARB on any of the regulations suppressing that industry. The fact that EPA and CARB continue to create more regulations and enforce existing ones, seemingly without regard to local government concerns, is most disturbing.

Even more disturbing is the move toward Harmonization of Motorized Vehicles based on European standards. That should scare the hell out of our industry.

It’s no secret that the EU, headed by Germany, has set a target of 2030 to eliminate all fossil fuel vehicles. The EU envisions an all-electric or at least alternative fuel motor vehicle culture.

The consequences of global harmonization reawaken all the fears of the “One World Government” that so many of us oppose. It goes so far beyond vehicles when you consider land acquisition, deforestation and the so-called reliance of foreign oil.

I suspect the reliance on foreign oil should be blamed partly on the EPA and its regulations. Regulations, not environmentalists, have slowed down or halted oil drilling operations in the U.S.

Our refineries are operating at capacity, and building new, more technologically advanced refineries, are stifled by EPA regulation. Just like coal burning energy plants, the regulations promulgated by the EPA make meeting those standards impossible because the technology to meet emission demands doesn’t exist yet.

So, instead of investing in our own domestic oil program, congress invested billions of dollars (taxpayers money) to explore alternative energy sources like wind turbines, solar panels and Ethanol. We know how the first two experiments turned out, and the jury is still out on Ethanol as a viable alternative to fossil fuels. As it stands, despite pouring billions of dollars into the search for alternative fuels, no technology or alternative fuels come close to replacing fossil fuel systems in place.

Sweden sought a 100 percent carbon-free emission for its power supply, relying on a combination of hydroelectric and nuclear power, and exchanging power with neighboring Scandinavian countries. It investigated substituting its nuclear power with wind power in order to reduce the demand for hydroelectricity. It found that it would have to supplement the system with power from fossil fuel (gas) to meet the demand, resulting in doubling the CO2 emissions.

Can the EPA also have a role in Second Amendment Rights? Consider the closing of the last lead smelting plant in America and the stockpiling of ammunition by federal agencies like Homeland Security. Why did the EPA also stockpile millions of rounds of ammunition after regulating lead smelting in the U.S. out of business.

I could go on, but I think finding allies in congress is essential. The Tenth Amendment was based on federalism, in which the power of government was possessed by independent sovereign states, as opposed to a centralized government with power reserved for a central authority.

To preserve the autonomy or sovereignty of the states, we have to have a Supreme Court made up of justices to understand and support the original intention of the Tenth Amendment to limit the powers of the federal government. In that respect, the Supreme Court is a more important player than even congress in our goal to reduce the regulatory powers of the EPA.

–Tony Pan Sanfelipo
Investigator
Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
1-800-800-5678

FROM THE FRONT: I’ll comment on Tony’s comments later this week

The core problem with the global warming movement is the whitewash/ lack of facts when questioning anything they say is the rule. The core of this is to create a global tax on carbon administered by the UN to transfer $ to other nations while they cut a slice off the top.

The UN is active in motorcycle emissions, they want a 78db limit worldwide on m/c and many other things that would make you and I sick to our stomach.

Keep an eye on Morano web site Climate Depot, sounds like he would be interesting to interview.

–anonymous supporter

INDUSTRY EMMISSIONS SEMINAR—

Some of the core issues holding our industry back are stifling EPA and CARB regulations. We want to bring shops and the industry up to speed on efforts to curb regulation.

In addition we will show a short film titled, “Climate Hustle.”

Keith R. Ball, from Bikernet.com and members of the industry will share their findings and efforts exclusively at the V-Twin Expo.

“The motorcycling, auto and truck performance industries are under fire,” said Keith. “But there is hope. Come and find out what’s happening.”
 

 
ALREADY SOME GOOD NEWS
 
 
Several sources are now officially reported what we have speculated over the last day or so:  Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is being named head of EPA by President-Elect Donald Trump. 
 
My colleague Scott Segal, Head of Bracewell’s Policy Resolution Group, shared the following thoughts for the record:
 
I have watched Scott Pruitt develop over his six years as Oklahoma attorney general into a measured and articulate student of environmental law and policy.  The office he headed was present and accounted for in the battle to keep EPA faithful to its statutory authority and respectful of the role of the states in our system of cooperative federalism.  These skills will serve him well not only in leading EPA but also in participating meaningfully in the legislative and regulatory reform efforts promised by the next Administration.
 
 Given that we are almost two decades overdue for an overhaul of the Clean Air Act, there is interest on both sides of the aisle to look at that statute.
 
Some have suggested that Pruitt hands might be tied because he participated in litigation against the Agency.  This is a silly position.  When you add up all the states that have participated in litigation on the Clean Power Plan alone it amounts to almost the entire United States.  Further, Gina McCarthy herself sued the EPA as a Massachusetts state official only to eventually lead the Agency herself.  There is no conflict in representing your state on litigation dealing with rules of general applicability and then serving your nation as a federal official.
__
 
You can reach Scott (202-262-5845), Jeff Holmstead (202-828-5852) or me if you have additional questions.
 
Frank Maisano
(202) 997-5932
 
 
 
Ethanol, another stupid idea mandated by Washington
 
 “Global warming is the biggest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it.”– Meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman.
I swear that if you gave a group of lawmakers a lawnmower they would assemble a snow-blower that stalled every 30 seconds. Such is the case of ethanol, an idea whose time should have never come.
 
When I was the editor for Outstanding Investments in the early 2000s, I sat down with my uncle who operated a mixed farm for decades. With the internet, a piece of paper, a pencil and his 42 years of farming experience, we set about finding the then-current price of ethanol. We did the same with oil from the pump jack to the gas tank and even included the average discovery cost. According to our numbers, a gallon of ethanol was twice as expensive as a gallon of gasoline. Well worth it, the hardcore greens would say, if you stopped them on their bicycles and asked them.
 
Late last month the Government Accountability Office (GAO) announced that biofuels, the major one being corn, are costly, take a long time to produce (a growing season to be exact) and will neither make America less dependent on Middle Eastern oil or lower CO2 emissions. For the price of a phone call I could have told them this 15 years ago.
But the last thing the government wants is input from the public, even if it is correct. Their way creates a whole new program, in this case the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, which has set a grandiose target of 857 billion barrels by 2022, something that the GAO now says is impossible. 
 
You would have thought somebody would have said you would need to plant 80 percent of cropland in the United States to hit that target, but nobody did. The GAO’s conclusion: “There is not nearly enough of this fuel to meet the program’s targets — nor will there likely be enough in the near future.”
 
But this is the kicker; research by the government found out that biofuels emit more carbon dioxide than gasoline!
 
Nowhere could I find the number of people working for the RFS, but they are eating high off the taxpayer’s hog. From 2013 through 2015 the federal government plowed more than $1.1 billion into research and development of advanced biofuels. 
 
It is mind boggling to think about how much money the RFS has gone through since its creation in 2005. Enough money that it would help rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure or, as a neocon would measure it, enough to buy an aircraft carrier, planes and all. And that is not even the worst of it. 
 
More than half the corn grown in America is used for ethanol, taking up 50,000 acres that could be used for corn, which makes up 95 percent of the total feed grain consumed by livestock. More corn thrown into the gas tank makes for higher corn prices at the table. And it is not just corn; the vast acreage for growing fuel, increases the price of beef, pork, poultry and even fish. Inflation across the country is offset by the deflation resulting from the $10 billion a year charged to motorists to pump watered down gasoline into the fuel tank.
 
If you didn’t think it could get any worse, it does. Ethanol added into gasoline results in up to 10 percent lower mileage. And as any hot rod driver will tell you, gas mixed with ethanol causes a noticeable reduction in performance.
 
Chet Thompson, president of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, stated the obvious; that the EPA plan is “completely detached from market realities and confirms once again that congress must take immediate action to remedy this broken program.”
 
This will be an early test for President-elect Donald Trump. Either he supports grain growers or the petroleum producers. If he is honest in making the best deals he can for America, the dollars and cents equation and not lobbyist arguments will dictate the cessation of biofuels immediately.
 
This dog won’t hunt
 
Unfortunately biofuels are just one chink in the Green’s armor. The fundamental fact would strip them naked if there is no man-made climate change. This should be borne out by the fact that temperatures have not risen in the past 15 years and the temperatures that over the past couple of decades are well within the ranges earth has had over the past millennial.
 
If you have had the misfortune to see Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, for which he has received every award except the Medal of Honor, you might remember the segment where, across this gigantic screen behind him, CO2 levels and the earth’s temperatures going back 900,000 years is said to be shown. Gore points out that as CO2 increases so does the earth’s temperature. Not so say many scientists, most of them retired and therefore not in fear of losing their jobs if they speak out against climate change.
 
What they point out in Gore’s two lines is that it is temperatures that lead CO2 levels. This is such a small inconvenient truth for the former vice president who is a perfect crusader for the globalists to push their agenda for less independence and greater interdependence around the globe. For the past eight years he has had a lot of support from the world’s most powerful voice, President Barack Obama. Just weeks after ISIS had murdered 130 people in a series of attacks in France in 2015 Obama said: “Today, there is no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”
 
Funny, but most people would think that someone with a black balaclava and an AK-47 is a little more worrisome than a government-spun weather fantasy.
 
On its face climate change is nothing but a ridiculous fairy tale and people would know that if they invested less than an hour in reading the facts.
 
According to Skeptical Science, Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. Ian Pilmer, renown Australian geologist and a professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, contends that, “Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day.”
 
None of which distracts Gore who has a complete ignorance of science but is well-informed on building personal wealth. Gore grew up rich on Washington’s Embassy Row and then went on to Harvard where he avoided not only the Vietnam draft but also math. After losing an election he went on to make $200 million selling his sky-is-falling routine. And it’s an easy sell.
 
Obama pulls a number out of a hat that says that 99.5 percent of scientists agree that there is man-made climate change. I doubt you can get 99.5 percent of any group to agree on anything, even the best way to make toast. It is a made up number.
It was a questionnaire mailed to several hundred scientists or quasi scientists, of which only a third replied.
 
And consider this, one that even the Greens cannot dispute, are the facts stated in the March 27, 2009, issue of The Daily Signal:
 
Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to?
 
The truth is climate change has become a religion and an extremist one at that. Some of the behavior of hard core environmentalists is similar to Islam.
 
According to a March 11 article in London’s Sunday Telegraph:
 
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning man’s impact on climate change. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges.” Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”
 
But you will not find these facts on climate change because the mainstream media, like Obama and other former presidents, answer to the globalists.
 
It is hard to believe that 45 years after Watergate we trust the president of the United States. I suppose it is easier that way and, after all, society provides enough narcotics in pills, booze, weed, gambling and sports we just don’t care. Like the Jews that must have known they were being taken to their death, it had to help that they believed Germany would not do such a thing.
 
Soon we will know which side of the road Trump is on. Will he be independent and sign laws that make things better for Americans, or will he be a figurehead for the nefarious globalists? Two things should tell us the answer early next year: Trump’s decision on the Keystone Pipeline and whether the Trump administration allows for the spending of billions of dollars combating climate change, something that exists but has nothing to do with man.
 
Yours in good times and bad,
 
— John Myers
 
Sources:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/28/govt-admits-ethanol-mandates-are-expensive-and-failing/
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/supercut-obama-calls-climate-change-not-terrorism-our-greatest-threat/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

 
 

 
THIS JUST IN FROM THE CLIMATE DEPOT– Princeton physicist William Happer says that “if global warming were any other branch of science it would have been abandoned a long time ago.” 
Climate scientists are, of course, obsessed with man’s carbon dioxide emissions. But Happer says this is essentially nonsense. 
“All of the geological evidence indicates that CO2 is a minor player” in previous eras of warming, he said last week in a Climate Depot podcast. “We’ve had ice ages with 10 times more CO2 than we have today. That’s not supposed to happen, according to current computer models, but it did happen.”
–Climate Depot.com
 
[page break]
 
 
 
A MEMO FROM FRED KELLY GRANT
December 21, 2016
 
MARK:
It appears to me that CARB has its eyes set on ridding CA of motorcycles in favor of all electric vehicles just as it has set its sights on diesel trucks.  The time for use of coordination is now before any regulations become final—and I have not verified that they haven’t been made final.  My instincts are that they are still in the development stages, which is where local governments should be involved.
      Yesterday I attended a water control  board hearing for my two clients, the Roseville trucking company and the Tracy dairyman and I was astounded by the local elected officials who testified, almost begging, the Board not to impose the restriction that will ruin their economy—–when they should be demanding coordination.
      California is a hardnosed state, witness its determination in legislature to be a sanctuary state and to fight Trump on every step of the staircase.  But, it can be stopped in INDIVIDUAL CASES WHERE the right process is followed.
      My client was fined $800,000, but after three hearings, I got it down to $31,000 where I recommended they settle because of the cost to me in fees of winning the case outright.
      My dairyman is almost free of the contempt citation that he was faced with when I entered  my pro hac vice appearance.   I am confident now that I can save his dairy and keep him from contempt.
       The first was a victim of CARB and the second the Water Control Board, the two most autocratic of the agencies.
 
–Fred
 
 
 
WHAT IS THE COORDINATION PROGRAM?
 
COORDINATION IS THE PROCESS DEVELOPED AND ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS AS A MANDATE TO ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES TO USE ALL PRACTICABLE MEANS TO REACH CONSISTENCY BETWEEN FEDERAL ACTIONS AND PLANNING AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
 
By Fred Kelly Grant, JD, University of Chicago School of Law; BA College of Idaho; Member, Maryland State Bar Association since 1963
 
(Preface:  In developing this Brief, I obviously did not work alone.  This version became a real tool with the help of Staci Grant, Jon Grant and members of the Board of Directors of Trademark America where I served as a member of the Board.   The person who “put me onto” coordination as a strong principle of law that could work through local government, and on to the true importance of such local governments in framing policy for the federally managed lands was Bert Smith on a cold, snowy day in Jordan Valley when I was deprived of a warm afternoon of football to do a good deed for friend Dick Bass and learn what I could about a process that could save the ranchers of Owyhee County, Idaho.  The legendary Chuck Cushman taught me how “coordination” could be used as a political tool in behalf of local governments.  Much of the background was developed when I served as Member of the Board and then President of Stewards of the Range, then when I served as President of American Stewards of Liberty, and then as President of Trademark America where I worked when I put together this first formal brief.  In all those assignments I worked on and smoothed the edges of the argument with aid from  Margaret Hage Byfield, Dan Byfield, Mike Dail (Chairman of the American Stewards Board), other members of the various Boards, Sean Curtis and Carolyn Carey who listened, learned and brought coordination to Modoc County In California, Katherine  Lehman who fought a herculean fight to persuade Jackson County of Oregon to help its citizens by forcing agencies to follow the law and who travelled endlessly with me in our almost thespian tour to convince people that Congress enacted the laws—they just had to ask. As preparations for the originally slated lawsuit moved along, the Sheriffs of Northern California participated in conferences, learning the operational methods of coordination, so that they could do their duties as local law enforcement heads to protect their counties:  Sheriffs Dean Wilson of Del Norte, Jon Lopey of Siskiyou, Gil Gilbertson of Grant, and others followed in the footsteps of Sheriff of Owyhee County, Idaho Gary Aman who worked with me and with Owyhee County’s Commissioners and Coordination Planning Commission to make the Owyhee County program a model.   Finally, but by no means least helpful in the work leading up to the point at which this brief was drafted, were Nick Dranias, Constitutional Director of the Goldwater Institute who picked coordination as one of the ten top principles that can be used by local governments to restore an actual, working federalism.  Nick and I presented the coordination concept to the American Legislative Exchange Council which adopted it and offered it as a Model State Statute.)
 
 
THIS DOCUMENT BEGAN AS A WHITE PAPER TO BE SENT TO CHIEF OF THE FOREST SERVICE TOM TIDWELL.  
 
The Chief appeared as a guest speaker at the Andrus Symposium on Public Policy and Lands a few years ago in Boise at Boise State University.  I was also asked to speak at that meeting on the reasons why I thought the Owyhee Initiative Process had worked as a coalition in Idaho; Craig Gehrke was my co-speaker, he had served as vice chairman of the Owyhee Initiative Board.  I had suffered a severe head injury during an auto accident just a few days prior to the event, and even though I had been released from the hospital, I didn’t feel up to par and was considering not appearing, but to let someone else make my presentation.
 
I did go to the reception the night before the scheduled presentation and met the Chief with Governor Andrus who I had served as counsel prior to his being named Secretary of Interior.   Then I spoke with Rocky Barker, the famed writer on the environment for the Idaho Statesman, and he told me that one of Tidwell’s high level staff had come out just to find out how we managed to make the Owyhee Initiative work—-the Initiative brought to the table ranchers, most all the environmentalist groups in the State, local governments and recreation users to draft a workable plan that was enacted in and as part of the 100 land use bills that Senator Reid patched together.  It was one of the first bills that President Obama signed.
 
When I presented that morning at the Symposium I made a very specific, pointed statement that the Forest Service DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW WHEN IT CAME TO WORKING WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS—by comparison, I said that the BLM had learned something about the law, at least in Idaho, and had become a good coordination partner.  I made the point looking right at the Chief and I saw the look of interest that said to me it was time to one-on-one discuss the concept with him.
  
He sought me out at the lunch break, and obviously we did not have time to go over the entire concept and what it means to the agencies, but I told him that several people working with me had requested that I put together  a white paper on coordination and how it works. I explained my intention to do so with the Chief and offered to send him a copy.  He gave me his personal card and asked me to send it to his personal email so that he would be sure to see it.   I did explain that it is a concept that is well known by all the federal agencies because they all have provisions made for coordination in their own rule books.
 
Things were left that way for several weeks without my getting back to  finishing the paper.  In the meantime, the Counties of Shasta, Del Norte, Siskiyou and Modoc decided that they wanted to sue the Forest Service for non-compliance with the coordination requirement regarding the opening of (or restraint from closing) roads in the National Forests—the Service was using maintenance shortages to justify closing of roads that Shasta County, for one had detailed closely as having been open on a Forest Service map.  The Four Counties’ county counsel met and requested that I take lead counsel role with them in the lawsuit.  One of counsel said “If I’m stuck on a question from the Court, I want the guy who started all this right there with me to answer.”  I agreed to take on the assignment, and then it became clear that there were two counties in New Mexico who would want to join, two in Idaho, three in the rest of the west, and an Irrigation District in Montana.
 
So, I suggested to the Shasta County Board which had been the one whose county counsel persuaded to be number 1 in the project, that before filing suit I submit to Chief Tidwell the White Paper I had told him about, and advise him that the document didn’t persuade him, then we were going to sue in the District of Columbia for at least 20 national forest counties.
 
By the time I got around to the “White Paper” , thus, it had become time to convert it into a brief format.  I did so and explained the fact of imminent litigation unless the Forest Service gave in to the law.
 
I submitted the brief to Tidwell and after he read the brief, he asked me to meet with his director of planning and his head of ecosystem forest planning.   I was delighted because it was ecosystem planning that stood as the base for what was happening in closing down the forests.
 
After about a one and a half hour meeting—they had both read the brief prior to the meeting, they asked me to speak with the Regional Forester over the five national forests that would have to be involved in the lawsuit: Randy Moore.    I had a very difficult time getting an appointment set up.  But once it was set, my assistant, Stacy Grant, and I arrived for the meeting only to be told that the meeting room had not been reserved and Mr. Moore was engaged in phone calls all morning.  We were told that it would be impossible to see him even though we had traveled from Boise, Idaho to Sacramento just to see him.
 
Staci got on the telephone and called the Chief’s office in DC and was quite surprised when Chief Tidwell answered his extension.  He said his secretary was off copying so he was answering the telephone.  She told him of our plight and he said not to worry it, that he would take care of it.   We sat down and read some Forest Service Magazines for a few minutes, and then were escorted up to see Supervisor Moore who “has been anxiously awaiting the opportunity to visit with you.  There must have been a mixup in the instructions to the front desk.”
 
We met with Moore for two hours, and during that time he tried several times to promote the use of cooperation through cooperative agreements.  I said we would be interested in that ONLY IF THE COOPERATION AGREEMENTS WERE WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY INCLUDED THE SAME RESULT THAT WOULD BE REACHED IN COORDINATION:  using all practicable reasons to find justification to reach consistency between the federal action and local handling of land issues.  We did not budge, and finally I said “I know you’ve spoken to either the Chief or one of his sub-Chiefs and know that you’ve been told to “coordinate”, and I know that you’ve read the brief you have in front of you and have had plenty of chance to ask your counsel to review it,  so I don’t know why we are still talking in terms of cooperation.  The statutes say, and your rules say, and the cases say, that you MUST, you ‘SHALL’ COORDINATE.”
 
Finally as our session wound down, he said that he would direct all his forest supervisors to coordinate in the terms of the statute with any local government that wanted to coordinate and to the extent they wanted to coordinate.  Those Counties that wanted to coordinate saw Travel Management Plans being called back in for meetings with the Boards of Supervisors for purposes of review of roads and trails that the Service had just arbitrarily closed.  As a result, the law suit was not needed and was never filed.  I simply changed the White Paper title to the following:
 
A WHITE PAPER comprehensively describing the coordination process as it is mandated by Congress and by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, prepared in the format of a brief to be filed in any litigation necessary to enforce the coordination mandates.
 
By:  Fred Kelly Grant
November 19, 2010*
 
*Even though the brief was written in 2010, the only things that have changed have been to the advantage of local governments.  During the 10 years that the Owyhee Initiative was in progress, the material became dated, and Congress had many opportunities to diminish, rescind, water down, or completely throw out the statutory language that makes coordination with local governments a MANDATE.  It did not do so; and in fact several agencies strengthened their rule requirements.  In addition, the Goldwater Institute has now introduced Coordination as one of Ten Principles that can be used to restore federalism to local governments.  For that reason, the following brief is still the beginning point, and must be expanded to include additional citations.
FKG  November 28, 2014
 
FEDERAL STATUTES AND AGENCY REGULATIONS  REQUIRE THAT FEDERAL AGENCIES COORDINATE WITH UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS BETWEEN LOCAL AND FEDERAL PLANS AND POLICIES.
 
A.THE COORDINATION PROCESS IS DEFINED BY CONGRESS AS A GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION PROCESS BETWEEN FEDERAL AGENCIES AND UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
 
B.THE CONGRESSIONAL DEFINITION AND THE AGENCY DEFINITIONS PRESCRIBE ELEMENTS OF COORDINATION WHICH MUST BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE AGENCIES TO ASSURE A MEANINGFUL INVOLVEMENT OF LOCAL OFFICIALS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANS AND POLICIES.
 
C.THE ELEMENTS REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF CONFLICTS BETWEEN LOCAL AND FEDERAL PLANS AND POLICIES AND METHODS FOR RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICTS.
 
D.THE ELEMENTS REQUIRE IN NEPA PROJECTS THAT THE DEIS DISPLAY FOR PUBLIC REVIEW THE CONFLICTS THAT EXIST AND THE POTENTIAL RESOLUTION OF SUCH CONFLICTS.
 
E.COURT DECISIONS HAVE HELD THE DEFINITION OF COORDINATION FOUND IN STATUTES AND REGULATIONS BINDING ON THE AGENCIES.
A.THE COORDINATION PROCESS IS DEFINED BY CONGRESS AS A GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION PROCESS BETWEEN FEDERAL AGENCIES AND UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
 
1.WHAT COORDINATION “IS”
Congress has required that the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest Service “coordinate” with units of local government within the planning process that is used to develop federal plans, policies and management actions.   The definition that Congress provides for the term demonstrates that “coordination” is in fact a form of mutual intergovernmental communication between federal management agencies and units of local government on a government to government basis.
 
The Congressional definition, the legislative history of the section of the Federal Land Policy Management Act that contains the definition, and the interpretation given to the Congressional definition by the Secretary of Interior (through the Interior Planning Rules) and the Secretary of Agriculture (through the 1982 Planning Rules, and the Travel Management Rules) all make it clear that the goal envisioned by Congress and the Secretaries was that the coordination process would resolve conflicts between federal and local government.
 
To that end, the agencies are directed by Congress and the Secretaries to involve local officials in a meaningful way in the development of federal plans and policies.  The agencies are directed to begin the coordination process at the earliest possible time in the development, so that conflicts can be taken into account and resolution can be attempted before the plan or policy is ever put into place.
 
The Congressional mandate and the Secretaries’ implementation regulations set forth very specific steps that must be followed in the intergovernmental coordination process.  Those steps include review and analysis by the federal agencies of any relevant local plans or policies early in the development process.  During that review and analysis if the federal agency personnel discover conflicts between what the federal agency proposes and an existing local policy or plan, those conflicts must be discussed with the local government.  The agency personnel must weigh the impact of the federal plan or policy in on local government in view of the conflicts.  After this analysis is complete, the federal agency must review possible alternative measures that could be used to resolve the conflicts.
 
The rationale for the Congressional mandate that was enacted into federal law in 1976 is certain:  it is for the best of the federal government, for local government, and for the people who use the public lands and forests if conflicts are resolved at the governmental communication table.  If the conflicts have to be taken to a court for decision, the waste of money and time is absurdly damaging.  The agencies are already involved in multiple lawsuits brought by those who oppose multiple uses of the forests and public lands.  Staff personnel have been removed from quality field management work to become paper pushers to ready court files. The ultimate goal Congress has set for the “coordination” process is CONSISTENCY between federal and local plans, policies and actions.
 
The Owyhee Initiative Project that was enacted as the Owyhee Public Lands Management Act of 2009, is hailed as a successful collaborative project that resolved decades old land use conflicts.  The Project that will be described herein was formed by a County that had been involved in a successful coordination process with the Boise District and Twin Falls District of the Idaho State BLM office for two decades.  Through those two decades, relationships between the BLM offices and the County Commissioners had vastly improved because of engagement of the County and BLM in the coordination process.  The improved governmental relationship resulted in a closer relationship between permittees and the BLM managers than had ever been experienced in Owyhee County in southwestern Idaho.
 
The success of the government to government coordination relationship demonstrated to conservation groups that the best way to resolve many existing conflicts in land use was to attempt to join the planning table with the County.  Joint and cooperative work associations were formed under and within the Initiative Project.  BLM participation in the coordination process made possible the working collaborative team that developed the Initiative Project.
 
In those areas in which the federal agencies have made a good faith effort to follow the law as to coordination, amicable resolution of issues can be reached.  In many cases such resolution has been made as to issues that have been divisive for decades.  If the process is used and followed as directed by Congress and the Secretaries, it becomes a means to amicably resolve conflicts.  All citizens of the nation are benefited by civil resolution of land use issues.
 
2. COORDINATION IS NOT COUNTY SUPREMACY!       
 
Point A 1 describes what coordination “is”.  Before developing the law found in statutes, regulations and case decisions, as to what the parameters of coordination are and what the obligations of the agencies are, we must take time to set one thing straight for this Record and for the meaning of coordination that is being put forward by the Counties and units of local government.
 
What local government commissioners, supervisors and other elected officials have found is that often agency personnel will balk at suggestions that the coordination process be established.  Agency personnel have often opposed coordination because they understand it to be just another way for expressing the defunct and discredited “county supremacy” concept that was promulgated in the early 1990s.
 
Coordination is not COUNTY SUPREMACY.  None of the local governments signing on to this Brief urge establishment of county supremacy.  They are well aware that the old county supremacy proposals were and are unconstitutional.  None of the local governments signing on to this Brief ever urged, relied on, or even suggested adoption of the county supremacy concept.
 
It perhaps seems unusual that time will be taken to explain what the coordination process is “not” in the eyes of the local governments signing on to this Brief.   They do however believe that the sooner the disclaimer of county supremacy concepts is furnished to the agencies and the court, the quicker the parties can become focused on what is the law that is being urged by the local government signators to this Brief.  It is not County Supremacy.
 
A fuller discussion of “county supremacy” will be set forth herein in order to demonstrate the difference between “coordination” and the concepts of “county supremacy”, “cooperation” and “consultation”.  But, that fuller discussion will take place after discussion of what coordination is.  We simply wanted to get the “county supremacy” red herring out of the way before even beginning to discuss the elements of coordination.
 
3. THE COORDINATION PROCESS IS ENACTED BY CONGRESS IN THE FEDERAL LAND POLICY MANAGEMENT ACT
 
a. The statute and the legislative history of the statute.      
The first Congressional mandate of coordination appeared in the Federal Land Policy Management Act passed and signed into law in 1976.  
 
Until the early 1970s the policy of the federal government was that the vast western rangelands would be disposed of through sale or exchange.  Administrations prior to that of Richard Nixon and Congress considered the ownership and management of those lands to be temporary.  That position was symptomatic of the Colonial view that the western lands were a burden, a burden to be shed in order to save money and management time.
 
The Taylor Grazing Act was enacted to provide temporary management in a form designed to bring some order to the method of claiming and grazing the lands.  But, the Act made it clear that the federal government would eventually dispose of those lands.
When the Nixon administration and the leadership of Congress agreed that the federal government should retain permanent ownership of the lands, it became necessary to develop a comprehensive management protocol.  Through the early 70s Congress worked on that management protocol, considering through two sessions whether to put the lands under the Forest Service, or put the lands and the forests under the Bureau of Land Management.  The chess game for management authority continued for several years until the decision was made to place the rangelands under the BLM and maintain management of the Forests and Grasslands under the Forest Service.
 
As the debate continued, Congress considered many changes to management of the National Forests and a brand new protocol for the rangelands.  Changes to the Forest acts and consideration of the contents of FLPMA occurred simultaneously within the committee structure of the Congress.
 
        FLPMA PROVISIONS REQUIRING COORDINATION
 
Senator Robert Packwood of Oregon sponsored an amendment to the FLPMA version proposed by the Committee, an amendment that required the BLM to “coordinate” with local governments.  His amendment was basically the language as it appeared in, and continues today in the law at 43 United States Code Section 1712:
  
“The Secretary shall, with public involvement and consistent with the terms and conditions of this Act, develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands. Land use plans shall be developed for the public lands regardless of whether such lands previously have been classified, withdrawn, set aside, or otherwise designated for one or more uses. 
(b) Coordination of plans for National Forest System lands with Indian land use planning and management programs for purposes of development and revision 
In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary of Agriculture shall coordinate land use plans for lands in the National Forest System with the land use planning and management programs of and for Indian tribes by, among other things, considering the policies of approved tribal land resource management programs. 
(c) Criteria for development and revision 
In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall— 
(1) use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield set forth in this and other applicable law; 
(2) use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences; 
(3) give priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concern; 
(4) rely, to the extent it is available, on the inventory of the public lands, their resources, and other values; 
(5) consider present and potential uses of the public lands; 
(6) consider the relative scarcity of the values involved and the availability of alternative means (including recycling) and sites for realization of those values; 
(7) weigh long-term benefits to the public against short-term benefits; 
(8) provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal air, water, noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans; and 
(9) to the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public lands, coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning and management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the States and local governments within which the lands are located, including, but not limited to, the statewide outdoor recreation plans developed under the Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 897), as amended [16 U.S.C. 460l–4 et seq.], and of or for Indian tribes by, among other things, considering the policies of approved State and tribal land resource management programs. 
 
In implementing this directive, the Secretary shall, to the extent he finds practical, keep apprised of State, local, and tribal land use plans; assure that consideration is given to those State, local, and tribal plans that are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands; assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal Government plans, and shall provide for meaningful public involvement of State and local government officials, both elected and appointed, in the development of land use programs, land use regulations, and land use decisions for public lands, including early public notice of proposed decisions which may have a significant impact on non-Federal lands. Such officials in each State are authorized to furnish advice to the Secretary with respect to the development and revision of land use plans, land use guidelines, land use rules, and land use regulations for the public lands within such State and with respect to such other land use matters as may be referred to them by him. Land use plans of the Secretary under this section shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act. 
 
The fact that Congress was considering the coordination process for both the Forest Service and the BLM simultaneously slips into this section of the statute through the inclusion of the “Secretary of Agriculture” coordinating with Indian Tribes.
The Legislative history of FLPMA shows that at least the BLM opposed the “coordination” language and urged Congress to delete it because it would make their job of managing the federal lands more difficult.  Obviously Congress thought that was the objective of the language, by insisting that the management agencies work closely with local governments.  There is language in the legislative history that makes it clear that Congress believed that federal land management was critical to the economic well being of local governments reliant on property taxes for revenue. So the Packwood amendment became law.
 
 Clearly the Congressional goal was consistency.
        NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT MANDATE
 
Because the work on developing the comprehensive management protocol of FLPMA took much longer than did the revisions of the Forest management process already in place, the National Forest Management Act was passed prior to enactment of FLPMA.  The NFMA, in 16 United States Code, section 1604(a) requires that the Secretary of Agriculture “shall develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System, coordinated with the land and resource management planning process of State and local governments and other federal agencies.” Sub section (e) of Section 1604 provides that in developing, maintaining and revising plans for units of the National Forest System the Secretary “shall assure that such plans…include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness.”
The section 1604(a) coordination requirement is completely distinct from the “public participation” element of plan review referred to in sub section(d). In the “coordination” sub-section there is no mention of the “public” or “interested public”. There is a distinct process directed for the relationship between the Forest Service and local governments.
Congress did not spell out the long, detailed definition of “coordination” in the National Forest Management Act as it did in FLPMA, but simply required “coordination” by the Service with local governments.  There is absolutely nothing in the legislative history to show that Congress intended a different definition of “coordination” to bind the Forest Service.  In fact, after adopting the definition of “coordination” in FLPMA, Congress later  passed the Range Land Renewable Resources Planning Act which states that the Secretary “shall develop, maintain and, as appropriate, revise land use and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System coordinated with the land and resource management planning processes of State and Local governments.”
 
     THE 1982 FOREST SERVICE PLANNING RULES MANDATE
 
The Secretary of Agriculture obviously believed that the Congressional definition of “coordination” bound the Forest Service, because when he issued the 1982 Planning Rules, he laid out the duty to “coordinate” in a manner at least as inclusive as Congress had in FLPMA. 
The 1982 planning rules are the rules that the Forest Service must follow until new rules and regulations are issued in compliance with NEPA. On December 8, 2009 the Secretary published in the Federal Register a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for issuance of new planning rules. The Federal Register notice stated: “The agency’s expectations based upon its experience with the 2000 rule is that National Forest and Grasslands will use the 1982 rule provision, as permitted by the transition provisions of the 2000 rule, to revise and amend plans until a new planning rule is issued.” So by order of the Secretary of Agriculture the 1982 planning rules are applicable.
 
In those rules, 32 CFR Section 219.1 states the purpose and principles guiding the “process for developing, adopting, revising land and resource management plans for the National Forest System.” Sub-section B of Section 219.1 provides that “Regional and forest planning be based on the following principles:
 
…(9) Coordination with the land and resource planning efforts of other Federal agencies, State and Local governments, and Indian Tribes;
(10) Use of a systematic, inter disciplinary approach to ensure coordination and integration of planning activities for multiple-use management;
  
Section 291.7 of the 1982 planning rules is entitled “Coordination with other public planning efforts.” Sub section (a) requires that “The responsible line officer shall coordinate regional and forest planning with the equivalent and related planning effort of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes.” 
The remaining portion of section 291.7 then defines the elements of coordination which must be followed by the responsible officer of the Forest Service. Sub paragraph (c) requires that “The responsible line officer shall review the planning and land use policies of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes.” 
The Secretary provided that the Service’s review “shall include” all of the following:
 
 “ (1) Consideration of the objectives of other Federal, State and local governments, and Indian tribes, as expressed in their plans and policies;
(2) An assessment of the interrelated impacts of these plans and policies;
(3) A determination of how each Forest Service plan should deal with the impacts identified; and
(4) Where conflicts with Forest Service planning are identified, consideration of alternatives for their resolution.”
 
Sub section (d) of 219.7 requires that in “developing land and resource management plans” the responsible line officer “shall meet with…representatives of other Federal agencies, local governments, and Indian tribal governments at the beginning of the planning process to develop procedures for coordination.” The rule also requires that in developing the forest plan, the responsible line officer shall seek input from “local governments…to help resolve management concerns in the planning process.” 
Finally, sub section (f) of 219.7 requires that “A program of monitoring and evaluation shall be conducted that includes consideration of the effects of National Forest management on land, resources, and communities adjacent to or near the National Forest being planned and the affects upon National Forest management of activities on nearby lands managed by…other government agencies or under the jurisdiction of local governments.”
 
Even more recently, when the Forest Service began its round of transportation route considerations, the Secretary issued Travel Management Rules that required coordination with local government in “designation of roads, trails and areas for motor vehicle use”  Travel Management Rules, 37 CFR Section 212.253.
 
          THE BLM RULES MANDATE COORDINATION
 
The Secretary of Interior issued a regulation that clearly defined what steps BLM responsible officers must take in order to comply with the FLPMA mandate of coordination with local government.
In 43 CFR Section 1610.3-1 the Secretary issued the following regulation:
1610.3-1   Coordination of planning efforts.
(a) In addition to the public involvement prescribed by §1610.2, the following coordination is to be accomplished with other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and federally recognized Indian tribes. The objectives of the coordination are for the State Directors and Field Managers to:
(1) Keep apprised of non-Bureau of Land Management plans;
(2) Assure that BLM considers those plans that are germane in the development of resource management plans for public lands;
(3) Assist in resolving, to the extent practicable, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal government plans;
(4) Provide for meaningful public involvement of other Federal agencies, State and local government officials, both elected and appointed, and federally recognized Indian tribes, in the development of resource management plans, including early public notice of final decisions that may have a significant impact on non-Federal lands; and
. . . . . .
 (d) In developing guidance to Field Manager, in compliance with section 1611 of this title, the State Director shall:
(1) Ensure that it is as consistent as possible with existing officially adopted and approved resource related plans, policies or programs of other Federal agencies, State agencies, Indian tribes and local governments that may be affected, as prescribed by §1610.3–2 of this title;
(2) Identify areas where the proposed guidance is inconsistent with such policies, plans or programs and provide reasons why the inconsistencies exist and cannot be remedied; and
(3) Notify the other Federal agencies, State agencies, Indian tribes or local governments with whom consistency is not achieved and indicate any appropriate methods, procedures, actions and/or programs which the State Director believes may lead to resolution of such inconsistencies.
 
In the succeeding section, 1610.3-2, the Secretary made it quite clear that coordination was not to be mere cooperation or discussion, was not to be mere listening to the words of the local government officials.  He mandated that coordination was to be focused on reaching consistency between federal and local policies to the “maximum extent” permitted by federal law.
 
He also made it clear that absence of a formal local plan did not permit the federal agency to evade the reach for consistency.  The second paragraph in the following section states clearly that when there is no formal local plan, the federal agency must seek consistency with any local policy on the issue being addressed by the federal government.
 
Further, the Secretary made it clear that this obligation of reaching for consistency is so important that the State Director of BLM must submit to the Governor of the State any discrepancy or inconsistency between the federal plan and the local policy.  The rule provides that if the inconsistency cannot be resolved, there is an appeal to the National Director of the BLM.  
 
With these provisions it is clear that the Secretary of Interior put the greatest possible emphasis on the need to seek consistency between federal and local policies, plans and actions.
 
The specifics of 43 CFR 1610.3-2 are as follows:
“§ 1610.3-2   Consistency requirements.
 
a) Guidance and resource management plans and amendments to management framework plans shall be consistent with officially approved or adopted resource related plans, and the policies and programs contained therein, of other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes, so long as the guidance and resource management plans are also consistent with the purposes, policies and programs of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands, including Federal and State pollution control laws as implemented by applicable Federal and State air, water, noise, and other pollution standards or implementation plans.
 
(b) In the absence of officially approved or adopted resource-related plans of other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes, guidance and resource management plans shall, to the maximum extent practical, be consistent with officially approved and adopted resource related policies and programs of other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes. Such consistency will be accomplished so long as the guidance and resource management plans are consistent with the policies, programs and provisions of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands, including, but not limited to, Federal and State pollution control laws as implemented by applicable Federal and State air, water, noise and other pollution standards or implementation plans.
 
(c) State Directors and Field Managers shall, to the extent practicable, keep apprised of State and local governmental and Indian tribal policies, plans, and programs, but they shall not be accountable for ensuring consistency if they have not been notified, in writing, by State and local governments or Indian tribes of an apparent inconsistency.
(d) Where State and local government policies, plans, and programs differ, those of the higher authority will normally be followed.
 
(e) Prior to the approval of a proposed resource management plan, or amendment to a management framework plan or resource management plan, the State Director shall submit to the Governor of the State(s) involved, the proposed plan or amendment and shall identify any known inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies or programs. The Governor(s) shall have 60 days in which to identify inconsistencies and provide recommendations in writing to the State Director. If the Governor(s) does not respond within the 60-day period, the plan or amendment shall be presumed to be consistent. If the written recommendation(s) of the Governor(s) recommend changes in the proposed plan or amendment which were not raised during the public participation process on that plan or amendment, the State Director shall provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the recommendation(s). If the State Director does not accept the recommendations of the Governor(s), The State Director shall notify the Governor(s) and the Governor(s) shall have 30 days in which to submit a written appeal to the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. The Director shall accept the recommendations of the Governor(s) if he/she determines that they provide for a reasonable balance between the national interest and the State’s interest. The Director shall communicate to the Governor(s) in writing and publish in theFederal Registerthe reasons for his/her determination to accept or reject such Governor’s recommendations.
 
[48 FR 20368, May 5, 1983, as amended at 70 FR 14567, Mar. 23, 2005]”
 
SUMMATION:  The Statutes require that the Forest Service and the BLM coordinate with local government in a real, good faith, meaningful effort to reach consistency between federal and local plans, policies, and management actions.  The Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior implemented the statutory requirements with specific regulations specifying the steps that their responsible officers must take to comply with the law’s requirement to work toward consistency through the defined “coordination” process.
 
WHAT COORDINATION IS “NOT”
 
1.Coordination is NOT ‘COOPERATION’ OR ‘COOPERATING AGENCY’
Had Congress intended that the BLM and Forest Service only “cooperate” with local governments, it certainly would have said so.  The word “cooperate” is not unknown to Congress; in fact it is used many times in the text of the statutes governing the BLM and the Forest Service.  Instead, Congress ordered the agencies to “coordinate” and spelled out the steps that must be taken as part of “coordination”.  The Secretary of Agriculture did not define “coordination” as being mere “cooperation”.  The term “cooperation”  does not require a reach toward consistency, in fact it does not even contemplate or infer that consistency must be reached in order for agencies to “cooperate”.  But, “coordination” does require the reach toward consistency.
 
Throughout the west local governments are experiencing a tendency on the part of Forest and Regional Supervisors to hesitate, to the point of refusal, to coordinate as mandated by Congress and the Secretary of Agriculture.  The Service encourages local governments to accept a much lesser role called “cooperating agency” status.  Local governments which succumb to this insistence lose the opportunity to negotiate for “consistency”.  In fact, they lose the opportunity to negotiate at all, giving up their status in favor of sitting at a planning table with no leverage whatever.
 
Coordination as mandated by Congress, and spelled out by the Secretary in the 1982 Planning Rules is NOT THE SAME AS COOPERATION OR COOPERATING AGENCY.
 
A real life example of the difference between the terms can be found in Fremont County, Wyoming.  For several years, the Fremont County Commissioners were involved with the Forest Service’s interdisciplinary planning team as a “cooperating agency”.  The County grew frustrated and concerned because their input during planning sessions never saw the light of day in the Service’s drafts.  Not only was the County position not adopted, it was never even discussed; no reasons were given for discounting the County’s input.
 
Ultimately, the Commissioners, with help from the American Stewards of Liberty, advised the Forest Supervisor that the County intended to engaged in the “coordination process”.  At a meeting with the Supervisor the Commissioners agreed that they would continue at the planning table, but that the provisions of “coordination” must be strictly followed.  The Commissioners made it clear that they understood that the coordination process placed local government on a higher, separate plain than the position given to the general public.
 
As a result of the County’s action, its input began to be really considered.  When a draft of the plan was finished, the Supervisor told the Commissioners that the draft was off to D.C. for approval and then would be released to the Commissioners and the general public at the same time.  The Commissioners objected to that, insisting that inconsistencies between local and federal positions must be worked through before public release.  When the Forest Supervisor balked, the Commissioners sent a letter to the Department of Justice that was a basic notice of intent to sue.
 
 Within days, the Supervisor reconsidered and presented the draft and underlying data to the Commissioners for mutual review and consideration of alternatives for resolution of conflicts.  
 
THEREIN LIES THE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COORDINATION AND COOPERATION.
 
 
In California Resources Agency v. United States Department of Agriculture,(September 29, 2009), the federal district court for the Northern District of California held firmly that the Forest Service is obligated under the National Forest Management Act as well as its own planning rules to “coordinate” with local and state government. In that case, the state of California sued, charging that the plans issued for the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forests were issued without coordination with the state as required by law.  The Court found in favor of the State even though there had been lengthy discussions between the Service and the State.  The Court found that just one element of coordination had not been met, and therefore put on hold the Service plans.
 
In that case the Service put forward the same arguments that are currently used by Forest and Regional Supervisors who refuse to “coordinate” with local governments in the same state, California, in which the decision was issued.  The Service argued that it had talked with the State and listened to the State’s position, thus coordinated.  The Court disagreed that coordination had been accomplished.  The Court pointed out that the Service had failed to discuss the State’s Roadless Rule in its ROD, and thus failed to point out the inconsistencies between the State’s rule and the ROD.  The Court held that this failure to perform an element of coordination “significantly prohibits the public’s ability to understand the competing priorities of the Service and State”.  The Court held that coordination requires far more than just listening to the position of the state or local government, that it requires the Service to analyze the inconsistent positions, discuss them and consider alternatives for resolving them.
 
Had the Service been required only to “cooperate” with the State, the result of the decision would have been immensely different.  “Cooperation” or the “cooperating agency” status does not include and require performance of all the specific elements spelled out in the definition of “coordination”.  “Cooperation” does not meet the statutory requirement of coordination.
2.COORDINATION IS NOT MERELY “CONSULTATION”
 
A variety of commonly used dictionaries define the term “consultation” to mean “to ask the advice or opinion of another” or to “deliberate together”.  The Forest Service could “consult” with a local government simply by talking to the governing body and listening to its position, opinion or advice.  But, that would not satisfy the definition of “coordination”.  As used by Congress and spelled out by the Secretary of Agriculture, “coordination” means far more than “consultation”.  So said the Northern District federal court in California Resources Agency v. United States Department of Agriculture, supra. 
In California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordero, 172 Cal. App. 4th 603, 91 Cal Rptr 3d 571 (Certified for publication May, 2009) the California Appellate Court rejected an argument that a “coordination” requirement was satisfied by “consultation.”
 
 In that case the City of Rancho Cordero argued that “coordination” was satisfied when the city consulted with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.  It argued that it met its coordination responsibility by “trying to work together with [fish and wildlife] by soliciting, carefully considering, and responding to comments from the [Service].”
The Court disagreed, holding that coordination means more than mere cooperation or consultation.  It held that “coordination” means more than trying to work together with someone else.  The court said that to “coordinate” is:
“to bring into a common action, movement, or condition”;  it is synonymous with “harmonize.” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dict., supra, at p. 275, col. 1.)
 
Indeed, the very dictionary the City cites for the definition of the  word “coordinate” defines the word “coordination” as “cooperative effort resulting in an effective relationship.”  (New Oxford Dict., supra, at p. 378, col. 3.)  Although the City suggests “coordination” is synonymous  with “consultation” — and therefore the City satisfied its “coordination” obligation under the general plan at the same  time it satisfied its “consultation” obligation under the plan– that is not true. While the City could “consult” with the Service by soliciting and considering the Service’s comments on the draft EIR, the City could not “coordinate” with the Service by simply doing those things. The City may be correct in asserting “[c]onsultation is not a synonym for ‘agreement,’” but Action NR.1.7.1 required more than “consultation” with the Service; it required “coordination,” and by definition “coordination” implies some measure of cooperation that is not  achieved merely by asking for and considering input or trying to work together.
 
Had the City intended the obligation under Action NR.1.7.1 to be one of mere “consultation,” it could have used that word, as it did in Action NR.1.1.3. The fact that it did not do so supports the conclusion that the City intended “coordination” to have a different meaning than “consultation,” consistent with the dictionary definitions of those words.
 
As in California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordero, and California Resources Agency v. United States Forest Service, had Congress and the Secretary of Agriculture intended only cooperation or consultation, they could have said so.  Both the Congress and the Secretary used the terms “cooperate” and “consultation” at other points in the text of the statutes and rules.  But, as to the relationship of the Service with local government, they both required “coordination”.
 
3.COORDINATION IS NOT “COUNTY SUPREMACY”
 
The concept of County Supremacy, that County Government can dictate management to the federal agencies is Unconstitutional Because It Is In Conflict With the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
 
COORDINATION IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM COUNTY SUPREMACY BECAUSE IT IS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL STATUTES THAT COMPRISE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.  IT IS CONSISTENT WITH, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH, FEDERAL LAW. 
 
It is important once and for all to dispel any notion that the “coordination process” is in any way connected with the “county supremacy” movement of the early 1990s.  “Coordination” is not even consistent with “county supremacy”.
 
     The difference between “coordination” and “county supremacy” has repeatedly been pointed out by American Stewards of Liberty, many local governments and I.  But, even to this day, some recalcitrant Forest Service employees try to link the two concepts together in order to avoid coordinating as required by Congress and the Secretary of Agriculture.
 
            The “county supremacy” concept argued for supremacy of county government over the federal management agencies.  Clearly that concept violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution that provides that the Constitution and any law made “pursuant thereto” is the supreme law of the land.
 
  “Coordination” does not challenge federal law, it is based on federal law.   The Constitution charges Congress with management of the federal lands.  In the exercise of its management mandate, Congress has delegated duties to the Forest Service to manage the National Forest lands and to the Bureau of Land Management to manage the federal rangelands.  The delegations are stated in the National Forest Management Act and subsequent statutes related to the Forests,  and in the Federal Land Policy Management Act and subsequent statutes related to the rangelands.  Those statutes are made “pursuant to” the Congressional provision for management by Congress.  So, they are the supreme law of the land.  And, “coordination” is included in those statements of the supreme law, thus “coordination” is mandated by the “supreme law of the land.” 
          
      “The Sage Brush Rebellion” leads to county supremacy.
 
The County supremacy movement no doubt was a direct result of the western rebellion against federal management known famously as the “Sage Brush Rebellion.” The “rebellion” by western  ranchers, loggers, miners, and recreation users sprang from the major enlargement of federal regulations of western lands during the administration of President Jimmy Carter.  Federal controls nearly tripled as the President and Congress took control of of lands that had been used for revenue production and for recreation use from the time the western states entered the Union.
 
The so-called “Rebellion”, was a movement described by United States News and World Report on December 1, 1980 as:
 
            “a 20th-century conflict…[that] pits ranchers, loggers, miners and others against Washington bureaucrats in a fight over the West’s land, water and mineral resources.”
 
            . . . .During President Carter’s years in the White House, relations between the West and the federal government have deteriorated to the point where widespread resentment has flared into open conflict.
 
            Named for the fragrant bush that abounds in the area, the Sagebrush Rebellion began as a fight over the federal government’s vast land holdings and now encompasses almost any issue that causes friction between Washington and the West.
 
            During a campaign stop in Idaho Falls, Idaho, [Ronald Reagan] pledged: ‘The next administration won’t  treat the West as if it were not worthy of attention.  The next administration will reflect the values and goals of the Sagebrush Rebellion.  Indeed, we can turn the Sagebrush Rebellion into the Sagebrush Solution.
. . . . .
 
“Westerners hope, with Reagan sitting in the White House the conflicts between Washington’s bureaucrats and the West will end. “ 
 
Of course, the conflicts did not end; they continued even though Congress had mandated coordination as a means of conflict resolution in 1976.  But, the “coordination” provisions were ignored by the federal agencies and went undiscovered by local governments for another decade and a half.
 
As the Sage Brush Rebellion began to wane, the conflicts between western citizens and users of the federal lands did not diminish. Rather, the conflicts became more and more inflamed.   Citizens turned to their local governments, mainly county commissioners, for a solution to the impact of regulatory policies on their incomes and livelihoods.  Since the economic stability of a county depends on the economic stability of its citizens, the counties began to seek a means to equalize the power or authority of the federal agencies.
Catron County New Mexico adopted what became known as a county supremacy ordinance.   In the ordinance, Catron County declared its superiority of sovereignty over the lands lying within its boundaries.  The ordinance restricted the manner in which federal employees could perform their duties, and even over their entry into the county to perform their duties.  The ordinance even sought to impose criminal penalties on federal agents who violated the terms of the ordinance. Enactment of the county supremacy ordinance created a fire storm throughout the west.
 
           With a glimmer of hope that through such ordinance local interest could be protected, one county after another began to mimic the Catron County ordinance. One such county was Boundary County in northern Idaho where the major federal management agency was the United States Forest Service. Boundary County commissioners enacted the Catron County ordinance almost verbatim.
 
Soon after Catron County enacted its supremacy ordinance, the commissioners of Owyhee County Idaho sought my assistance in preparing to defend the county and its ranchers from a proposed BLM resource management plan that would have instantly reduced grazing by Forty percent. The Plan would have put every rancher in the County out of business.
 
My opinion was that the Idaho Supreme Court would strike down any ordinance even similar to that of Catron County.  I believed that the Boundary County ordinance would be declared unconstitutional as soon as it reached court.  But, after reviewing the language of FLPMA, I suggested that Owyhee County pursue a “coordination” process that would give them a seat at the table, and impose on the BLM an obligation to seek consistency.  Certainly, a forty percent reduction in grazing would be inconsistent with any economic policy of the County. 
 
          The Owyhee County commissioners initiated the “coordination process”.
 
          As I suspected, both the Idaho District Court and then the Idaho Supreme Court struck down the Boundary County ordinance.  In Boundary Backpackers vs. Boundary County, 128 Idaho 371, the  Court held that Congress holds the exclusive right to manage the federal lands, a power that cannot be thwarted by state or local law.  The decision was so direct and clear that it never had to be repeated in another state court.
 
       The  Idaho decision frames the real difference between the coordination process and county supremacy. Congress does have exclusive management power over the federal lands.  That power granted by the Constitution has been upheld many times by the United States Supreme Court.  In the exercise of its exclusive power over the federal lands Congress has mandated that its management designees, the Forest Service and the BLM, “coordinate” their planning and management processes with local government. This coordination mandate is included in federal statutes enacted under Congress’ exclusive power, thus  it is part of the supreme law of the land.
         Peter Copellman, who was deputy assistant attorney general in the division of environmental and natural resources division in the department of justice, pointed out the unconstitutionality of the county supremacy ordinance in a paper that was published in the American Judicature Journal.  In that same paper, he pointed out that county government did in fact have authority to initiate the “coordination process” set forth in FLPMA.  He correctly stated that this process would give local government a meaningful role in management of the federal lands.  Copellman was co-counsel to Lois Schiffer representing the federal government in the lawsuit that set aside the Nye County assertion of ownership of the federal lands.  Schiffer made the statement during the court proceeding “we welcome local participation in the land management decision.” That statement was made on July 28, 1995. Unlike the county supremacy position, the coordination communication process is based on federal law and is “the local participation in land management decisions” referred to by both Schiffer and Coppelman.
 
      As the county supremacy position was winding its way toward destruction, certain anti-grazing, anti-logging environmental groups used the Boundary County decision to scare counties away from any process that gave local government an economic lift. At least one,  perhaps more, of those groups sent copies of the Boundary County decision to every county government in the Pacific Northwest with a letter claiming that it was unlawful for any county to try to interact with the federal management agencies.  
Of course, the letter was misleading because it did not distinguish between county supremacy and the “coordination process”.
 
The anti-grazing and anti-logging environmentalist organizations  were upset with the fact that local government had found a way to sit at the table, a relationship which the environmental groups had enjoyed for many years. The environmental organizations had and still have paid staff that can spend hours and days in the offices of the management agencies—time that cannot be spared by ranchers, loggers, farmers, recreation users and water users.  Coordination provides the means by which local government can represent these multiple users in an even handed negotiating manner—and in a government to government process that excludes the environmentalists.  The reason Congress provided this unique government to government process is clear:  local governing boards have the responsibility of funding public services with revenue from property taxes.  Because of the masses of federal land from which no tax revenue is drawn, it is important to local elected officials to have some meaningful input into management of the federal lands to try to deter adverse impact on the use of private land and on the economy of the government.   Through coordination, the local governing boards can place emphasis on the “human environment” that is often ignored by those interested only in the “natural environment”.  The environmentalist organizations have no  responsibility to fund necessary public services, no responsibility to protect the economic stability of the people or the local government.
 
 From the time the Boundary County decision was sent to the Pacific Northwest Counties through today, there are units of local government which believe that it is unconstitutional to insist on intergovernmental coordination.  In Montana, the first response of the Forest Service to a request for coordination by the Glen Lake Irrigation District, clearly a unit of local government under Montana law, was that coordination violated the supremacy clause.  The Service relied on an old opinion of the Montana Attorney General that focused on the Boundary County case.  The same response was made to the request for coordination by Fremont County in Wyoming.  In each case, the local government explained the difference between the county supremacy concept and coordination.  Such explanation should not have been necessary—the Service’s own Planning Rules spelled out the meaning of coordination.  
 
So, I have to believe that in each case the Service was simply bluffing in an attempt to avoid what the law requires.
 
As I pointed out at the Andrus Conference on Public Lands and Public Policy in the Spring 2010 Symposium at Boise State University, over the years the BLM has begun to lessen its resistance to coordination while the Forest Service continues to resist complying with the law.  The position of some higher and mid management of the Service is ironic in view of the clarity of the Secretary’s instructions in the 1982 Planning Rules.
 
Some Forest Service personnel are willing to comply with the law.  In Custer County, Idaho, Frank Guzman, Supervisor of the Challis-Salmon Forests has agreed to coordinate with the County Commissioners without threat of lawsuit.  He promptly responded to a County letter requesting coordination, met in a very successful and amiable first meeting and readily scheduled a second.  In Wisconsin, in the  Forest, the Supervisor readily agreed to coordinate with the towns of
In Wrangle Alaska, the District Ranger was fully open to the coordination process upon the first request from the Borough Assembly.  In Modoc County, California, the Supervisor of the Modoc Forest and the Ranger have worked coordinately with the County Supervisors for nearly two decades. 
 
But, in California, the Supervisor of the Trinity-Shasta Forests Sharon Heywood has steadfastly resisted complying with the law; and her violations are backed apparently by Randy Moore, the Regional Forester.  From Siskyeu County in the North through Shasta County Supervisors are ready to file lawsuits to force compliance.  The waste of time and money on such lawsuits is an absolute shame in view of the clear mandate of Congress that was designed to prevent such waste.
    
CASE DECISIONS IN BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS IMPLEMENT THE STATUTORY AND REGULATORY MANDATE OF COORDINATION
Several times federal agencies have resisted the Congressional and regulatory mandated of coordination with local government to the point at which litigation became necessary.  Each time the federal agency has lost.  Each time the court has said that coordination means just what this Brief points out in Part, a meaningful relationship that is far more than mere cooperation or consultation.  The courts have ruled that the agency must reach out toward consistency between local and national positions, the exact point being urged by a great number of counties and districts against Forest Service personnel at this very moment.
  
Even though the main cases have  been referred to hereinbefore,  this section of the brief will set forth the specific facts and law related by the decisions in order to demonstrate that they are on all fours with the issue of coordination with the Forest Service in the cases joined in this lawsuit.  These decisions, and others the deciding courts relied on, implement the statutes and regulations set forth in _________hereinabove.  The decisions in each case require the non-coordinating agency to follow the law, and they prohibit moving forward on a decision not coordinated in accordance with the statutes and regulations.
 
A. Utah County v. Gale Norton, Sec. of Interior
 
This case involves the failure to coordinate by the Bureau of Land Management, not the Forest Service.  But when Forest Service officials shrug the case off for that reason, as many have, they not only miss the mark, they miss the entire target.   The case decision is important because it demonstrates that “consistency” is the goal of coordination which the federal agency has to attempt to reach.  We have already demonstrated how Congress intended the consistency requirement to be included whenever it used the term “coordination” regarding a federal agency’s  performance in intergovernmental affairs.  We have also demonstrated how the Secretary of Agriculture has recognized Congressional intent by requiring a reach for consistency in the 1982 Planning Rules.
 
 So, it would behoove the Forest Service and this Court to recognize the applicability of Uintah to these combined cases.
 
In the Utah case decision,  the federal district court in Utah made clear that the BLM would not be allowed to issue and implement a management decision that had not been preceded by “coordination” that tried to reach consistency with local policy. In the case styled Uintah County and the Ute Indian Tribe v. Gale Norton, Secretary of Interior and the United States Department of Interior and Bureau of Land Management,  Civil Case No. 2:00-CV-0482J, the decision was issued by United States Senior District Judge Bruce S. Jenkins on September 21, 2001, and filed on the same date.
       
1.Facts in the Case:
In June, 2000, the BLM issued a Record of Decision calling for the release of 80 wild horses into what was known as the Bonanza Herd Area on federally owned and managed rangeland located in Uintah County, Utah.  
 
The Resource Management Plan for the area in which the Bonanza Herd Area is located was issued by the BLM in 1985.  That Plan called for zero wild horses to be maintained in the Bonanza Herd Area.  The District Court however found that the BLM had never adhered to that Plan. In fact, by 1999 there was a herd of at least 250 wild horses in the Bonanza.  In that year, after an outbreak of Equine Infectious Anemia, the BLM gathered and tested that number of horses.  The infected horses were euthanized and the “negative testing” horses were put under quarantine by the Utah State Veterinarian until April 4, 2000.
 
Once the quarantine was lifted, the BLM issued an Environmental Assessment containing the decision to release 80 “negative-test” horses back into the Bonanza Herd Area.
 
It should be noted that this was a “management decision” not a plan or planning effort.  It was a management decision based on the existing Resource Management Plan, even though the Plan called for zero wild horses in the Bonanza Herd Area.
2.Allegations of the Plaintiffs
a. Uintah County
   
After unsuccessfully trying to get the BLM to alter its decision, Uintah County filed the lawsuit in which the District Court applied the coordination provision of FLPMA to set the decision aside.  The County charged that the BLM failed to follow the process of coordination outlined in the Federal Land Management and Policy Act, thus failed to allow the County’s “procedural rights” “including consistency review requirements under 43 USCA Section 1712 ( c) (9) and 43 C.F.R. Section 1610.3-2.”
 
The statutory provision, set forth hereinabove, provides that the BLM “shall” “coordinate the land use inventory, planning and management activities [for federal lands]…with the land use planning and management programs of. . .local governments”.
 
The statute also provides, as pointed out hereinbefore, that the coordination process concludes with the objective of reaching consistency between federal and local plans:  “Land use plans of the Secretary under this section shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act.”
 
Uintah County also relied on 43 C.F.R. Section 1610.3-2, also set forth hereinbefore.  In that rule the Secretary of Interior specified that the coordination process MUST be focused on reaching consistency between federal and local policies, plans and actions.  The rule, quoted by the Court states, as set forth hereinbefore:
“a) Guidance and resource management plans and amendments to management framework plans shall be consistent with officially approved or adopted resource related plans, and the policies and programs contained therein, of other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes, so long as the guidance and resource management plans are also consistent with the purposes, policies and programs of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands, including Federal and State pollution control laws as implemented by applicable Federal and State air, water, noise, and other pollution standards or implementation plans.
(b) In the absence of officially approved or adopted resource-related plans of other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes, guidance and resource management plans shall, to the maximum extent practical, be consistent with officially approved and adopted resource related policies and programs of other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes. Such consistency will be accomplished so long as the guidance and resource management plans are consistent with the policies, programs and provisions of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands, including, but not limited to, Federal and State pollution control laws as implemented by applicable Federal and State air, water, noise and other pollution standards or implementation plans.”
 
The rule makes it clear that consistency must be sought unless there is federal law that prohibits the consistency.  The Secretary places such emphasis on reaching consistency that he requires that the State Director submit any known inconsistencies to the Governor for resolution prior to issuance of a plan.  When resolution is not reached, the Secretary provides that an appeal shall be taken to the national director of the BLM. (Fn 1)
b.The Ute Indian Tribe
The Tribe charged that “the BLM failed to consult adequately with the Tribe before implementing the Decision, and. . .failed to review the Decision for consistency with tribal and local land management plans.”  (Page 15 of Slip Opinion, attached to the Brief for convenience.)  
Even though the Tribe has vast authority to require consultation on a constitutional level as a sovereign nation under United States Supreme Court interpretations, the Court decided the case in favor of the Tribe and County just on the “coordination” provisions of FLPMA.  Because it decided for the Tribe on the “coordination” ground, it did not have to reach the constitutional “consultation” ground.
3.The Response and Assertions of the BLM.
a. The BLM first tried to evade the issue by denying that either the Tribe or the County had “standing” to sue. 
The BLM attempted to dodge being forced to respond to the charges by relying on a procedural claim that neither the County nor the Tribe had “standing” sufficient to file their complaints.
The Court disagreed.  As to the County, the Court said that the County had a legitimate interest “in the implementation of its own land management plan.”  The Court buttressed its decision on a prior Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in American Motorcyclist Association v. Watt, 714 F.2d 962 (9th Cir. 1983}. 
Judge Jenkins pointed out that in that case “the court [Ninth Circuit] recognized that the county had standing to bring an action against the BLM based on  its allegations of injury concerning inconsistencies between the resource management plan and the Inyo [California] County Plan.”
The Court also pointed out that the County had “raised valid health, safety, and environmental concerns:  the Decision is not only inconsistent with the County plan, it adds a threat of EIA infection to private horses and limits the amount of available forage. . .and poses an imminent risk of harm. . .to the health and welfare of livestock within the County’s jurisdiction.”  (Page 13 of the Slip Opinion)
The Court’s somewhat lengthy discussion of the “standing” issue demonstrates that “standing” will be found whenever a local government or Tribe alleges failure to coordinate (or consult) regarding “any revision to the [Resource Management Plan], by amendment, or by a decision to change or modify management practices”.  
Because of the importance of this issue to an attempt to persuade a federal management agency that it must coordinate or be successfully sued, the Court’s discussion is set forth at length:
     
B. California Resources Agency v. United States Department of Agriculture
On September 29, 2009, United States District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel in the Northern District of California, issued a decision implementing the coordination mandates of the National Forest Management Act and the 1982 Planning Rules, both of which have been set forth at length hereinabove.
The case decision resulted from a complaint filed by the State of California alleging a failure by the Forest Service to coordinate with the State regarding the State’s land and resource management processes.  The plaintiffs were the California Resources Agency, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and the People of California represented by then Attorney General, and now Governor-elect Edmund G. Brown.
The State also claimed violations of the National Environmental Policy Act by adopting a forest plan for four national forests without adequate environmental review.
 
The case turned on the holding by the Court that the Forest Service did in fact commit a procedural violation of the National Forest Management Act and the Planning Rules by failing to “coordinate” in every aspect prescribed by the Act and Rules.  
a. The facts of the case
 
In 2001 the Forest Service issued a notice of intent to revise the forest plans for four southern California forests.  In 2004 the Service requested public comment on a draft Environmental Impact Statement related to the revision.  In November, 2004, the California Secretary of Resources wrote to Secretary Ann Veneman emphasized the need for “closer partnerships with states.”  He also emphasized specific points on which the State insisted that the Service observe principles consistent with State policy.  He sent the same list of specifics to Forest Regional supervisor Jack Blackwell in early 2005.
Throughout the next few months the California Secretary advised the Service several times that California’s interests were not being meaningfully considered.
 
The Forest Service response was that it had adequately covered California’s concerns.
After the Final Environmental Impact Statement was issued, California filed the lawsuit, claiming violations because the FEIS did not include “any discussion of California’s policy on roadless areas”.  The State claimed that by failing to describe the California policy so that the conflicting positions of the State and the Forest Service were evident to the public, the Service violated the coordination requirements of the statute and Planning Rules.
 
The Forest Service throughout claimed that it had adequately coordinated.
 
b.The California allegations
 
The State alleged that the Service “ignored the State’s roadless policy by not placing it in the FEIS and discussing the inconsistencies between the State’s policy and the Service’s conclusions in the FEIS.
 
The State also alleged that the Service failed to adequately study the environmental impacts of the preferred alternative.  It claimed that the Service did not include a sufficient range of alternatives, and that the Service did not adequately address the impacts of oil and gas exploration on the California Condor.
 
c.The Forest Service Response
 
As in the Uintah County case, supra, the federal agency attempted to evade the issue by challenging the right of the State to file the lawsuit.  The Service claimed that the State could show no sufficient imminent harm or injury.
 
As to the merits of the “coordination” claim, the Service asserted that the statutory and regulatory requirement did not “require the Forest Service to adopt the State’s position and that the coordination was adequate.”  The Service contended that the “coordination” requirement only created “an amorphous duty to ‘talk to state entities and consider their views.’” (In the words of the Court at page 15 of the opinion).
 
The Service claimed that its interpretation of the statutory requirement of “coordination” must be given deference by the Court under the doctrine of Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resource Defense Council, 467 U.S.  837, 842-45.  As this Court knows, the Chevron doctrine calls for deference to agency interpretations of facts within its primary jurisdiction, and of agency rules issued for guidance in applying facts.
 
The Service also contended that it did in fact coordinate with the State by talking with it and discussing its position, and that the State failed to take a specific policy position on which the Service could react.  Thus, the Forest Service contended that the State had absolved it of any technical violation of the coordination rule.
d.The Court’s Decision
 
The Court ruled against the Forest Service on each of its points. 
First, it found that California did in fact have standing to bring the lawsuit, a standing that allows each of the plaintiffs in this case to challenge the Service’s failures to coordinate.
 
The Court emphasized the geographical proximity of California to the Forest involved in the dispute.  The Court concluded that “geographical proximity to and use of areas that will be affected by the agency’s policy” is sufficient to create standing to sue.  The Court said:
        “California is not merely geographically proximate to the areas of issue—those areas are within its boundaries.  In a case involving a challenge to a Forest Service decision to allow logging in the Sierra Nevada Forest, the Ninth Circuit held that ‘special solicitude’ should be afforded California’s stake in its natural resources’. Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 516 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2008)”. . .
 
         “Congress plainly recognized and endorsed the respective states’ interests in the management of national forests by enacting the provision of the NFMA requiring the Forest Service to coordinate forest planning with state resource management processes.  See 16 USC Section 1604(a).  In light of this statutory recognition, it would be odd indeed to hold that California has no concrete interest in activities in the national forests.  California has a concrete interest in the management of national forests within its borders.” (Fn. 2)
 
This decision applies equally to each of the local government entities in this Case.  Each is directly proximate to the areas of the Forest that lie within its boundaries.  Each has the same “special solicitude” as to its stake in the condition of its natural resources.  And as to all plaintiffs, Congress “recognized and endorsed” their interests by requiring the Service to coordinate with “local government”.  The same statute relied on by California recognizes the same standing of local governments—in the very same section of the statute.
 
The Court also ruled against the Forest Service on its argument that under Chevron, the Court should defer to its position that coordination requires only that the Service “talk to state entities and consider their views.”  First, the Court said that Chevron did not require deference to the Forest Service’s interpretation of a statute or a statutory term, citing Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204 (1988). 
 
Further, the Court held that even if the Service were to be allowed to interpret the statutory meaning of “coordination”, the interpretation would not be that given by counsel in litigation, but that given in regulatory fashion by the Secretary of Agriculture.  It held that the 1982 Planning Rules provided an interpretation of coordination that far exceeded the mere duty to “talk. . .and consider. . .views.”
 
The Court held that it would follow what the Rules say about “coordination”, not what the Service alleged it to mean.  In “endnote” 7 to the decision, page 32 of the opinion, the Court says that it “looks to agency regulations, which are entitled to Chevron deference, for guidance about what it means to ‘coordinate with’ the states [or local governments which are included in the same rules on the same basis as state government]”
The Court pointed to the Rules, particularly 36 C.F.R. Section 219.76, cited extensively hereinbefore, and acknowledged that the rule requires far more than just “talking and considering”:  prior notice to the state or local government (subsection b); reviewing the state or local policies and documenting the results of its review (subsection c); meeting with responsible state or local officials (subsection d); seeking state or local input regarding management concerns and areas where additional research is needed (subsection e); and “giving consideration to the effects of the National Forest management on nearby lands” (subsection f).  (Page 16 of the opinion)
The Court referred extensively to the portion of the Rules that explains what the Service’s “review” of state or local policies must include:
 
1.Consideration of the objectives of state, local governments and Tribes as stated in their policies;
2.Assessment of the interrelated impacts of these local policies with federal;
3.Determination of how the Service’s plan should deal with the “interrelated impacts” [which would include “inconsistencies”]; and
4.“Where conflicts with Forest Service planning are identified, consideration of alternatives for their resolution.” (Page 16 of Opinion, emphasis added)
The plaintiff local government entities rely on the same rule provisions:  the Forest Service has not followed the rules emphasized by the Court in California Resources Agency as to each of the Plaintiffs.  It has not demonstrated in Travel Management Plans the four elements required by the Secretary of Agriculture and emphasized by the Court: consideration, assessment, determination of how to deal with “interrelated impacts”, and consideration of alternatives to resolve conflicts.  The Plaintiffs have pointed out the inconsistencies to the responsible Forest Service officials in their respective areas, and those officials have refused to follow these rules and to DEMONSTRATE IN THEIR EIS DOCUMENTS HOW THEY HAVE COMPLIED.
 
It is the latter failure that caused the Court in California Resources Agency to prohibit further use of the Forest Service plan.  The Court held that the specific violation of the Service was that it did not “display” in its EIS the results of its “review” which must include “display” in the EIS of each of the four elements of the review set forth above.
The Court relied heavily on the importance of the demonstration of compliance with these elements of “review” by displaying compliance in the EIS:
 
             “Even if the Forest Service’s review of California’s policy was impeded by California’s failure to fully engage in the planning process, the rule nevertheless required the Forest Service to display the results of its review, however impeded. . . .The results of the Forest Service’s review of state input should have been displayed in the FEIS, even if part of the discussion would have consisted of noting that the State had not fully engaged in the process….
 
          “The failure to provide any discussion of input from the State, or at least of the State’s failure to fully engage in the planning process, was a violation of the NFMA.  This is more than a merely technical violation, as it significantly inhibits the public’s ability to understand the competing priorities of the Forest Service and the State.”
These plaintiff local governments have not “impeded” the Service by failing to “fully engage in the planning process”.  In fact, these plaintiffs have repeatedly urged the Forest Service to engage with them.  These plaintiffs have taken energetic steps in their own planning process, and have attempted to engage the Service to consider the conflicts and inconsistencies between the local plans and policies and those being put in place by the Service.  In these cases it has been the Forest Service that has impeded coordination by absolutely refusing to engage with the local government plaintiffs.
So, when the Court in California Resources Agency granted summary judgment to the State and concluded that the “final environmental impact statement at issue. . .was issued in violation of the NFMA and NEPA” it did so on a case far less favorable to the State than are the facts presented to this Court by these local government Plaintiffs.
What the Forest Service failed to do in that case it has failed to do in the instant cases in spades!  In these cases the Forest Service has totally and completely refused to engage in coordination as spelled out in the statute and Secretary of Agriculture’s 1982 Planning Rules.
D.  California Native Plants Society v. City of Rancho Cordordovo, 172 Cal. App. 4th 603, 91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 571 (Cal. App. 3rd District, 2009)
1.The facts of the case.
This case centered on challenges to the city’s approval of a residential and commercial land development project known as the Preserve at Sunridge.
The project site of over 500 acres was located in a “Vernal Pool Region” which contained vernal pools [“seasonally inundated shallow depressions underlain by an impermeable layer of soil, generally hardpan or bedrock”, “inundated with water for various periods of times depending on the depth, extent and duration of rainfall and ambient temperatures” ] that provide habitat for two threatened and endangered species: vernal pool fairy shrimp (threatened) and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (endangered).
In 2004 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers formulated a “conceptual level strategy” for avoiding and minimizing harm to aquatic resource habitat in the area of the project.
The City of Rancho Cordero’s General Plan provided that the City must design mitigation of impact on the species and vernal pools “in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game”.  The City’s Zoning law required that any project approved must be consistent with the General Plan.  In order to approve a project lawfully under the zoning law, the City would have had to “coordinate” with the Fish and Wildlife Service as required by the General Plan.
2. The Allegations of the Plaintiff Native Plant Society.
 
The Plaintiff Society alleged that the city did not “coordinate” with the Service, rather that it approved the project “over the [Service’s] repeated objections that the [mitigation measures] were inadequate.”
 
3. The City Defendant’s Response
 
The City claimed that it did satisfy the coordination requirement because it “consulted” with the Fish and Wildlife Service and made its views known in the Environmental Impact Review. (prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act)
The City claimed that “to ‘coordinate’ means to ‘negotiate with others to try to work together effectively’”  The City argued that it did so by “trying to work together [with the F & W Service] ‘by soliciting, carefully consulting, and responding to comments from [the Service]’”.
 
4. The Court’s decision
 
The Court rejected the City’s definition of what the Plan means when it requires “coordination”.  The Court said that “the concept of ‘coordination’ means more than trying to work together with someone else.”
 
To further its point, the Court set forth the meaning of “coordinate” in specific terms.  The Court’s emphasis on the fact that “coordinate” means far more than cooperate or trying to work together, has already been set forth in Section ____________of this Brief.  But Plaintiffs repeat it here because it is imperative that this Court understand that the meaning of “coordination” in even the generic use of the term is consistent with what Congress has intended for “coordination”, an intention implemented by BLM and Forest Service rules.  The Court said that:
 
     “to bring into a common action, movement, or condition”;  it is synonymous with “harmonize.” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dict., supra, at p. 275, col. 1.) Indeed, the very dictionary the City cites for the definition of the  word “coordinate” defines the word “coordination” as “cooperative effort resulting in an effective relationship.”  (New Oxford Dict., supra, at p. 378, col. 3.)  Although the City suggests “coordination” is synonymous  with “consultation” — and therefore the City satisfied its “coordination” obligation under the general plan at the same  time it satisfied its “consultation” obligation under the plan– that is not true. While the City could “consult” with the Service by soliciting and considering the Service’s comments on the draft EIR, the City could not “coordinate” with the Service by simply doing those things. The City may be correct in asserting “[c]onsultation is not a synonym for ‘agreement,’” but Action NR.1.7.1 required more than “consultation” with the Service; it required “coordination,” and by definition “coordination” implies some measure of cooperation that is not  achieved merely by asking for and considering input or trying to work together. Had the City intended the obligation under Action NR.1.7.1 to be one of mere “consultation,” it could have used that word, as it did in Action NR.1.1.3. The fact that it did not do so supports the conclusion that the City intended “coordination” to have a different meaning than “consultation,” consistent with the dictionary definitions of those words.”
The City contended that the Court’s view of “coordination” would subjugate the City’s authority to that of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  The Court disagreed, but again pointed out that “coordination” means far more than mere “solicitation and rejection of input from the agencies with which the City is required to coordinate.”
 
The Court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to issue a mandate that the project was approved in violation of the Zoning law of  the City that required consistency with the General Plan, a Plan that required “coordination” that was not engaged in by the City.
 
The Plaintiff units of local government have called on the Forest Service to do no more and no less than “coordinate”.  The California case makes it clear that “coordinate” means more even in general usage than the “cooperation”, “cooperating agency”, and “consultation” often urged on local governments by the Forest Service.
 
The Forest Service has not “coordinated” with these plaintiffs within the general meaning of “coordination” as set forth in California Native Plants Society.  It has not coordinated within the definitions provided by the Congress and the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture.  In fact, in these cases, it has not even engaged the Plaintiffs in any effort of meaningful discussions of the differences between local policies and federal.  It has openly and deliberately refused to follow the law.
 
CONCLUSION
 
For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiff ______________County requests that the Court grant its motion for summary judgment requiring the Forest Service to enter into the coordination process fully as expressed in the National Forest Management Act, the Federal Land Policy Management Act and the 1982 Planning Rules issued by the Secretary of Agriculture (optional request: requests that the Court enter a declaratory judgment declaring that the statutory and regulatory requirements of coordination as outlined by the County in its complaint and affidavits are in fact a correct statement of the law binding on the Forest Service defendant).
 
 
 
 SOME OF THE CAMPAIGNS OF COORDINATION THAT HAVE BEEN VICTORIOUS AGAINST AGENCY ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ACTIONS
1.   Victory for 4 tiny Texas towns against the  powerful Texas Department of Transportation and EPA and Federal Highway Department to stop Rick Perry’s Trans Texas Corridor, a toll road that would be the first leg of the NAFTA Superhighway
     Four  small Texas towns of total population of 6000 stopped planning and construction of  Governor Perry’s Trans Texas Corridor which was the first leg of the NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY;  The Corridor was taken off the table when we proved over  27 months that EPA and Texas Department of Transportation had failed to coordinate.
     Hundreds of Thousands of Texans had protested the building of the toll road, all tolls would have been paid to a Spanish company, Cintra, in perpetuity and the company would have owned every business built along the entire toll road from Mexico to Oklahoma; the highway began at a Chinese port city on the Mexican coast and passed through Texas with no US Customs inspections anywhere; it was a quarter mile wide and physically divided the towns and school districts—but Perry was unrelenting and said “no is not an option.”; 
      The lead NEPA lawyer for Regional EPA came from Houston to tell the 4 unpaid mayors that they did not have to coordinate under NEPA, but after I spent twenty minutes going through the law, he sat back and let the coordination begin.
       We brought them to a standstill and after 27 months, the Highway Department told EPA and Texas that we would beat them in court so they should withdraw the plan and they did.
2.5 California National Forests were reopened for a re-do of travel management plans with coordination with the counties this time around.
     I represented five California counties in forcing the forest service to reopen their travel management plans for 5 national forests in order to coordinate those plans with the counties, without going to court.  The Forests had shut down the travel management plan process without coordination with the counties. I wrote the Tidwell brief, shared it with him and his two top planners in DC: the eco-system planner and the NEPA planner and they had me visit with the regional supervisor in California who then advised the forest supervisors to reopen and coordinate to the extent that the counties wanted.  In the process, sheriff Jon Lopey of Siskiyou told the Service they would close no road or trail unless he specifically said it was safe to do so.
3.The Secretary of Interior (Salazar) stood down from an expected decision to destroy the dams on the Klamath River.
For Siskiyou County in northern California stopped Salazar, from issuing order to destroy the 4 dams on the Klamath River that provide flood control and extra water for a profit making extra crop of hay for the farmers and ranchers  Accompanied two supervisors to DC to raise the non-coordination argument but he had decided not to take on that battle.
 
4.STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REVERSED A DECISION TO REROUTE WARREN BUFFET’S RAILROAD THROUGH THE TWO BUSINESSES THAT SUPPORTED THE ECONOMY OF LINCOLN COUNTY COLORADO.
Margaret Byfield and I went to  Lincoln County Colorado  to assist the county board in a coordination show down with the state department of transportation.  The department had already approved the concept of rerouting Buffet’s newly purchased railroad in order to placate the wealthy suburbs on the Denver front.  The  rails would run right through the site on which sat the two businesses (a trucking company and a sales yard) that supplied the economic stability of the county.  The director of  the department came from Denver to explain why they did not have to coordinate because they were a state agency and this was not a federal action.  I got from him a semi-reversal as soon as I went through the connections of law and showed I was prepared for a total affirmative action.  Reason it applied is that the company had used funds from  federal agencies and programs, so NEPA applied.  Before I finished, and I was citing language from the rules I had handed them, he stopped me and said they were wrong, he could see they had to coordinate and they would set aside their decision and coordinate with Lincoln County about the route.   
5.KEPT OPEN CAMP GROUNDS IN FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING WHICH WERE CHIEF SOURCE OF ECONOMIC STABILITY FOR THE COUNTY                                                                       
  Through the coordination  process Margaret Byfield and I attended a meeting of the Board of Fremont County Wyoming to assist them in their confrontation with the forest service which had announced that it would be closing all campsites in the County because of diseased trees—afraid that tourists would be harmed when the trees collapsed.  The camp grounds were crucial to the economy of a county next to west Yellowstone which has lost all commerce except tourism.  The Forest Supervisor did not like it, but did coordinate, including reaching consistency with the county policy which we wrote:  cut down diseased trees so they do not constitute harm or danger to tourists and campers.
 
6.“PERSUADED” BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION TO CEASE BUYING PRIVATE LAND AND DONATING IT TO THE TRIBES OR THE GOVERNMENT THUS REMOVING IT FROM BENEWAH COUNTY, IDAHO’S TAX BASE.
 
  As with Texas and Colorado, the BPA did not want to coordinate and came in prepared to argue that they didn’t have to.  I went through the statutory structure step by step to demonstrate that the  pseudo federal agency had the obligation to coordinate with the County before buying or selling any property which could form part of the tax base of the county.  
 
They acknowledged that they would consult with the Benewah board before buying any more property, denied that they had to coordinate, until I produced President Obama’s Executive Order directing all agencies and organizations using federal dollars to coordinate with local governments.  They announced that they would make no more unilateral purchases.
 
7.GLEN LAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT PRESERVED ITS EASEMENT FOR MOVEMENT OF ITS WATER SUPPLY FROM THE FOREST, SAVED ITSELF FROM RIGID PLAN FOR BULL TROUT, AND FORCED THE FOREST SERVICE TO REOPEN ITS TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ITS PLANNING CYCLE
Lincoln County, Montana has a board that is dead to the realities of life.  
 
They refused to use coordination to help the irrigation district, so I was paid to help the District use the coordination process.   In the process the Forest Service ended up giving in to the extension in perpetuity of the easement for the District’s water because of the need to be consistent with the District policy which we wrote that said that the easement was necessary to deliver water rights benefits; and opened its travel management plan and utilized a road by road designation prepared by the District’s coordination committee.
 
 Then Fish and Wildlife came over a hundred miles to a coordination meeting to tell us they did not have to coordinate, but did “collaborate”, and then they did the same two more times before finally saying that we should writ our own bull trout plan and submit it for approval on the coordination consistency basis even though they did not have to coordinate.
 
8. “PERSUADED” IDAHO POWER COMPANY TO PLACE ITS POWER LINES FOR FEDERAL PROJECT ON PUBLIC LANDS RATHER THAN PRIVATE LANDS
BLM was the managing agency for the Wyoming to Boardman Oregon booster power line that Idaho Power was putting in.  Idaho Power had issued a plan to put their lines on private ground rather than on the federally managed lands.  It was far easier because the private ranch and farm lands are flatter, better maintained and easier for construction.  Owyhee County required BLM to coordinate as to the line, and I explained to Idaho Power that it was subject to BLM’s ultimate decision, so they took part in the coordination meeting.  The result was that in Owyhee County the lines went on public land and stayed on private land in the other counties in Idaho and Oregon. Four other Idaho counties then hired me to help them and Idaho Power put their lines on private lands throughout Idaho in all those counties that joined in the coordination demand.
 
9. HELPED WINKLEMAN SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN ARIZONA PRESERVE GRAZING RIGHTS WITHIN THE DISTRICT FOR RANCHERS WHEN FEDS WERE GOING TO STOP THE GRAZING TO PROTECT THE DESERT TORTOISE.
 
The District, as a unit of local government, demanded coordination and developed a local plan that called for a symbiotic relationship between ranchers and the tortoises.  Utilizing the data quality act in the coordination process, Winkleman was able to show that the tortoises used the ground broken up by hooves to nest in.  US Fish and Wildlife backed down from its restrictive demands.
 
10.For Modoc County in California prevented the Forest Service and BLM from restricting grazing to such an extent that it would have put ranchers out of business
 
11.     For Owyhee County in Idaho prevented the BLM from placing a 45 per cent restriction on livestock grazing which would have put over 100 ranchers out of business in a county where ranching is the only economic producer
 
     For the same county in Idaho prevented EPA from imposing minimum stream flows on intermittent streams, creeks and rivers which would have deprived cattle of water and farmers of irrigation 
 
Service to withdraw its demands for  protection of bull trout and allow the District to prepare its own plan for protection if needed, all for failure to coordinate
     For Owyhee County against the Fish and wildlife Service to  protect against any loss of irrigation water on the basis of listing the Bruneau hotsprings snail as endangered because did not coordinate
 
    For Owyhee County worked with Fish and Wildlife to show that spotted frog was not endangered, so defeated the BLM which had not coordinated with the county over the frog’s protection
 
12.For Custer County in Idaho used coordination to force BLM and Forest Service to honor the RS 2477 nature of several roads that were on “close”plans but were kept open because county identified them as important to health and safety of citizens.
 
13.For Three Creek Good Road District in Owyhee County, Idaho, used coordination to force BLM to honor RS 2477 nature of a main road that the agency wanted to close.  Road stayed open  because of need to be consistent with district plan that called the road important to public health and safety.
 
 
 
 A LETTER FROM A BIKERNET CLIMATE CALAMITY TEAM MEMBER
 
The coordination rule is very important, because it was mandated that the EPA must “coordinate” with any local government agencies, committees, etc. on any rule making that effected stakeholders, culture, environment and economy. 
 
To date, I’m unaware of any city or municipality in California that was consulted with and asked to coordinate with the EPA, CARB or anyone on rules effecting the small trucking industry. That’s just a tip of the iceberg. 
 
The EPA is running rough shod over the country and it appears to be toward the goal of fulfilling the U. N. Security Council’s goal of destroying independent nations and sovereignty in lieu of a One World Order. 
 
This is in direct step with the communist theory of using global environmental crisis scares as a way of destroying free enterprise and replacing it with socialism and a central world government.
 
–Pan
 

 

 
Tony Pan Sanfelipo
Investigator
Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
1-800-800-5678
 
 
[page break]
 
 
 
A WRAP-UP REPORT FROM THE EDITOR OF BIKERNET TRIKES: 
 
No one likes politics and those who don’t talk politics avoid talking religion as well. I have been following the Bikernet.com reports on global warming and various regulations regarding motorcycles. Here is a piece of my penny. 
 
1.     “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” – Tacitus (born 55 AD, Senator in ancient Roman Empire)
 
2.     How many American citizens drive a custom built motorcycle or hotrod car?
 
3.     Almost 97% of the vehicles on the road all over the world are from major branded automotive companies such as Ford, Toyota, Volvo, Harley-Davidson, Suzuki, Yamaha, etc. They all meet strict regulations and Euro pollution norms. So why target vehicles as the whole source of global warming?
 
4.     Volvo even paid a ridiculous amount of penalty fines for its pollution fiasco in USA. How many cattle farmers and animal meat farmers paid fines for pollution from methane and other bio-fuel caused in animal farming? Forget the fact that farmers use 90% of the water supply in every agricultural state while resident citizens who drive cars or bikes have to suffer water supply cuts and price hikes in water tariff because of the wastage of water in animal farms. Cowspiracy indeed.
 
5.     So the Arctic ice is melting and penguins are drowning and polar bears are sleeping the eternal sleep of death (wait, there are more polar bears than ever before). Blame the average American citizen won’t you? Do you know who is the world’s biggest consumer of petrol, diesel and natural fuels? Yes, the various Military Industrial Complex of all nations of planet Earth. All nations including American Government spends a trillion plus dollars on fuel to run military trucks, fighter jets and test missiles – all for world peace. So taste those apples Mr. Patriot. 



Why blame the average hardworking, family feeding, beer drinking citizen for the global climate changes?

 
–Ujjwal
Emperor Editor Bikernet Trikes 
 
 
 
From DR Allen Lipkin comment regarding Chris Callen’s article The Climate Hustle–
 

I’m a Ph.D. Organic Chemist and am a foamy-mouthed liberal. Human climate warming has some serious scientific flaws.

Just sayin’…. The climate has been warming for 12,000 years, completely melting over a mile of ice that used to cover Canada. It’s still warming and will do so for another century or so.

The human contribution to global warming is minimal at best. Curious? Check out Malankovitch Cycles.

–from Rogue 
 
 

 
 
CLIMATE CALAMITY UPDATE: Climate Change Alert
 
THIS REPORT SHOULD CLEAR UP ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
 
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen, Norway.
 
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
 
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
 
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.
 
* * ** * * * * *
I must apologize.  I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 93 years ago.

This must have been caused by the Model T Ford’s emissions or possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.
 
 
 
–Tony Pan Sanfelipo
Marketing
Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
1-800-800-5678
 
 
 
 
Read More

A review of Drayko Jeans

Recently I received a pair of Drayko Kevlar jeans to wear around town as I do my normal daily motorcycle riding. I wore them both in the heated temperatures of the fall in the North East, and again waited until the temperatures turned in late November. I found the jeans to breathe well, not too hot when the sun was beating and in the cold winds, equally as comfortable. But that’s not where they shine, the light weight Kevlar inner lining is the key. While I haven’t had the experience of laying my bike over and skidding across the ground with the jeans on, there are images on the Drayko web site showing just that.

grag

Drayko is the future of casual motorcycle protection. Designed for the modern rider, and engineered with revolutionary fiber technology, Drayko delivers the ultimate in freedom of choice.The Drayko lining features Dyneema®, the World’s Strongest Fiber;™ and is soft, breathable, flexible, non-allergenic and vastly superior to basic woven or knitted lining alternatives.

drayko-renegade-riding-jeans-both-colorways

Check out this product, no matter if a casual rider or a daily high mile rider. Drayko offers many different colors and styles to meet any riders needs. I GIVE THEM A BIG THUMBS UP, and like I said, I did this review over a few months of travels & temperatures and the jeans provided comfort and a sense of safety. CLICK HERE to visit the DRAYKO website.

maxresdefault

JACK MCINTYRE

Co-Editor of Bandit’s Cantina

Read More

5-Ball Racing Salt Torpedo Chapter 10

This has been one of the most challenging years of my life and the Salt Torpedo was one of them. The Paughco team stepped up to save the day and we have more progress on what could be the first streamlined trike. Actually there wasn’t a streamlined trike category until I picked up the phone and called Dennis Manning.

“If you’re going to build one we better find a category,” Dennis said and went in search. He found a workable solution with the FIM sanctioning body. As you can imagine, the Paughco team, lead by Steve Massicotte had to get a handle on what I slipped into the back shop.

Fortunately, they have a customer, Darrel, who builds dragsters and understands hot rod chassis and steering. Since Paughco’s head quarters are in Carson City, Nevada I couldn’t run over every other day with resources and suggestion. The staff would tire of the bastard Bandit Ball showing up all the time.

Darrel and Steve put their heads together and of course Ron Paugh, the boss had to make the space and the time for his guys to work on it. The poor economy helped toward the end of the year. Actually, about the beginning of the year, during riding season the Paughco crew was busier than ever making their classic springers and custom frames.

Steve had numerous notions to take off the rear Progressive shocks and build a mono-shock system to keep it narrow. He was concerned about chassis length and if I would fit. “The front axle may need to reside outside the front of the belly tank,” Steve said, and I cringed. Streamlining is all about cool and sleek. Only the minimum can reside outside the chassis.

It’s bad enough to sport two wheels in the front but almost nothing else can be allowed to stick out. Originally we studied a front swingarm, with dual shocks inside the body, but Steve came up with a very cool notion to use more Paughco components and build a dragster leaf spring system.

At one time Kent weeks talked about placing the gas tank in it’s stock position, and again I cringed. It would have meant a bigger body. There’s a rule about streamlining and aerodynamics. The bigger the surface the more horsepower you need to push it. That’s why I chose the smallest belly tank configuration I could order from Class Glass in New Jersey.

A couple of times folks have said, “Maybe we need a larger tank.” Each time I would cringe and reach for my flask of Jack Daniels.

Let’s see what Steve has for us:

At this point my smile returned. I know we were going to have serious aerodynamic issues with the two front wheels sticking out the sides.

“I have an idea for front suspension,” Steve added, “so will talk to Daryl and get back to you.”

“We have been welding up the front suspension today using our Indian leaf springs- left & right,” Steve said.

“We are doing 2-3 hours a day now on it so we should have a bunch to show you in the near future,” Steve added.

Here are some more images of the new front suspension and some partial roll cage picks.
“Very cool if we do say so ourselves,” Steve added.

“I have the machine shop making a new mount to hold both L & R leaf spring sets,” said Steve.

The following came from Drew Gatewood an official Bonneville inspector:

Please see enclosed link for current AMA Supplemental Regulations.

This should be provided to your builder:
 

http://bonnevillespeedtrials.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/AMA-LSGC-SR-2016v13.pdf

Though your 3-wheeled machine would be considered a “cyclecar,” and eligible for F.I.M. entry only, it will also be considered
a streamliner, as it appears you will be enclosing the chassis with a type of belly tanker covering.

The AMA rules regarding streamliners are what we point entrants towards even if entering in F.I.M. only. They are similar, and easier to interpret.
I highly suggest you and your builder fully understand the following…

Chapter 2 – MINIMUM STANDARD EQUIPMENT

Chapter 9 – STREAMLINER CLASS
Article 9.M. discusses all chassis/roll bar tubing requirements.

Lastly, streamliners of all types go through the most in-depth and lengthy scrutineering/tech. inspection process of all the motorcycle entries, so please keep in mind while constructing your machine.

Best of luck with your build, and please stay in contact if and when further questions arise.

–Drew Gatewood
tel/fax: 219-926-5647
email: gears55@frontier.com

I opened the PDF from the AMA and started reading. We will refer to this document as we mover through this process. We still may miss something, but we’ll be close and safe. Here are a couple of items from the rules as we discuss building the frame.

9. M. ROLL CAGE
It is required that streamliners have a minimum of two roll bars, one forward of the riders’ head and one behind the riders’ head.
The protective cage shall extend past the riders’ feet and shall protect the rider from all sides and directions. Roll bars shall have
a minimum outside diameter of 1 ¼-inch, a .090” nominal wall thickness, steel cap, .090” thick covering the upper 140-degrees,
riders head and braced on each side to mainframe.

Gussets are required at the junction of the roll cage and chassis tubes. The rider, with helmet on, shall not have more than 2-inches of head movement within the roll bar.

Foam padding, which has a minimum 1/4-inch compression and meets SFI 45.1 or Federation Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) specification shall be installed around the head hoop or head area, as well as all head hoop supports in the roll cage assembly.

Seats are an integral part of the rider restraint and protection within
the roll cage. Seats shall be welded or securely bolted to the
chassis and be constructed of .060 steel or .120 aluminum.

Seat backs shall be supported by chassis members or equivalent strength structure. All non-metal seats shall maintain rider seating
position and restraint belt tension during a loss of control event.

The riders’ leg area shall be inside the chassis and the cage structure on the top, sides, and bottom. If there is removable cross member above the rider’s legs it shall be constructed of the material similar in strength to the tube requirement.

Hinge and securing hardware shall be a minimum of 3/8-inch diameter grade
eight fasteners at four points minimum. Any other roll cage design shall be tested for strength and have a finite element study to prove its strength by a qualified expert or a person holding qualifications of a recognized institute (Engineering Firm, etc).

9. O. RIDER RESTRAINT AND SYSTEMS
Installation of shoulder and seat belts shall be to the manufacturers specifications, labeled with the date of manufacturer, and no more than five years from the date of inspection.

Shoulder and seat belts shall be attached to the protective cage
tubing. Bolt in restraint belts shall use belt manufacturer supplied or similar hardware.

Mounting plates welded to the chassis shall be a minimum .125-inch thickness with a minimum 1-inch radius material in the load path outside the bolt circumference.

Belts shall be attached to the tubing in line with the direction of pull as close to the rider as is practicable. Shoulder belts passing over tubing and remotely attached to a different distant chassis member will
not be allowed.

Aluminum hardware as a component of any belt system is not permitted. Latch type belt release systems shall be resistant to and protected from arm restraints releasing the latch. Arm restraints are mandatory with anchor points to the harness assembly secured to the frame. Rider released leg restraints are compulsory for any streamliner that does not have a welded or bolted structure over the leg area.

Rider releasable leg restraints are recommended in all cockpits. Net type leg restraints are acceptable as long as the net will allow the rider to exit the streamliner
without assistance.

Do not expose belt and harness mounting hardware on the outer plane of the chassis.
All streamliners require a 7-point harness to hold the rider.

A SFI 38.1 type helmet restraint system is strongly recommended for over 200mph closed cockpit motorcycles.

Since we got this far, we had a meeting with Duncan Keller, who is a master with vintage motors and knows a few things about trikes and Bonneville. He pointed out a problem. We need more weight in the front end. We’ll bring you more news in the very near future. We may have a major solution.

5-BALL RACING SPONSORS

PAUGHCO

JIMS

BIKER’S CHOICE

LOVE JUGS

LUCKY DEVIL METALWORKS

Read More

Hazardous Cycles Comes to Bikernet

This ‘49 Panhead built by Kenny D. the owner of Hazardous Cycles, started out as a purchased basket case from Mississippi. Kenny hauled it back to Taylor, Michigan, stripped it down, cut and raked the neck and the project started.

“I wanted to build an old school chopper,” Kenny said. “It’s the original wishbone frame and original ‘49 motor, even the production belly numbers match.”

Kenny makes his living as a Harley mechanic and currently the owner of Hazardous Cycles in Taylor, Michigan. He’s been into bikes for 35 years, after he got hooked by some wild long choppers from the ‘70s.

He built the custom oil tank and mounted it tight to the top of the frame and wanted to build a rear fender strong enough to ride without struts. “I welded steel bungs to support it,” Kenny said, “so it would look like it floated without struts above the rear tire, for the cleanest look with the classic frame.”

Over his history in the biz, he’s owned a ’69 Shovelhead, ’72 Sporty, ’73 FLH, and now he also owns a ’99 Road King. “I made it into a sweet bagger.”

His riding style is fast and hard as makes bike runs or just while hitting local bars, hanging out with his riding partners and listening to the sounds of wild pipes echoing freedom across the land.

We look forward to more bikes by Kenny D. as his foray into Chopperdom continues. As he hones his skills, and broadens his knowledge and creative approach to Chopperville we are sure the sparks of inspiration and ingenuity will fly.

Bike Feature Spec Sheet

Owner: Kenny D.
City: Taylor, Michigan


GENERAL

Designer: Hazardous Cycles
Year/Make: 1949 Panhead
Model: Harley-Davidson
Time: 1 year

 

ENGINE

Builder: Hazardous Cycles
Year/Make: 1949 Pan
Displacement: 1200 cc
Bottom End: stock
Pistons: wisco 10:1 compression
Heads: stock Panheads
Cams: mild Andrews
Lifters: hydraulic
Induction: S&S Super E
Air Cleaner: Carl’s Speed Shop
Pipes: drag pipes

TRANSMISSION

Year/Make: 1953 H-D
Gears: 4-speed Andrews close ratio
Shifting: ratchet top

PAINTING

Painter: jeff “wacko”rush
Type/Color: House of Kolors, metal flake green into metal flake silver
Other: also crushed glass used in this paint

FRAME

Year/Make: 1949 H-D
Type: wishbone rigid
Rake: 45 degree rake

ACCESSORIES

Bars: prison bars
Handlebar Controls: jaybrake
Fenders: Jesse James rear
Headlight: Headwinds
Taillight: works
Speedo: no
Electrics: basic
Gas Tank: dished Sporty tank
Displacement: 1200 cc
Oil Tank: Hazard Cycles
Oil System: stock
Seat: Chopper Shox
Grips: Ness
Mirrors: no

FORKS

Type: Custom
Extension: 6 over

WHEELS
Size: 16 rear and 21 front
Brakes: drum in the rear and Performance Machine in front

 

 
Read More

NCOM Coast To Coast Biker News for December 2016

  
THE AIM/NCOM MOTORCYCLE E-NEWS SERVICE is brought to you by Aid to Injured Motorcyclists (A.I.M.) and the National Coalition of Motorcyclists (NCOM), and is sponsored by the Law Offices of Richard M. Lester. If you’ve been involved in any kind of accident, call us at 1-(800) ON-A-BIKE or visit www.ON-A-BIKE.com.
 
 
 

NCOM BIKER NEWSBYTES
Compiled & Edited by Bill Bish,

National Coalition of Motorcyclists (NCOM)
 
DUMP TRUMP EFFORT IN THE DUMPS

In a last-ditch effort by Democratic strategists and the Hollywood elite to derail President-Elect Donald J. Trump’s ascension to the presidency, U.S. Electoral College delegates have been swamped with requests to ignore their pledge and “vote your conscience,” but longtime bikers’ rights advocate Jim Rhoades of ABATE of Michigan, one of that state’s 16 electors, says they’re cries are falling on deaf ears because he’s obligated to speak for the voters of his state.

Appearing on FOX News network’s “Your World” wearing his ABATE shirt, Rhoades revealed that he’s gotten over sixty thousand emails, phone calls and basketfuls of form letters calling on him to vote against Trump, as well as some threats, but believes fellow electors also feel steadfast about their duty and will support the will of their states’ voters when they cast their ballots on Monday, December 19th.

Calling the pressure tactics a “waste of time,” Rhoades told FOX News host Neil Cavuto in the nationally televised interview on December 15 that “I’m not intimidated by any of this stuff,” and added “I’ve been riding Harleys since the sixties, so I’ve been around a long time, I’m a grass roots political animal… and I love what Trump says, and he’s got me fired up looking for great things and looking to make America great again.”

In the aftermath of a norm-busting 2016 Presidential campaign, Trump won 306 Electoral College votes to Hillary Clinton’s 232, but if 36 “faithless electors” changed their ballots it would send the election to the U.S. House of Representatives to be determined, where Republicans hold a majority. In the past, some electors turned “faithless” in nine out of the last 17 elections, and a total of 179 times throughout American history, but no electors have ever changed the outcome of an election by voting against their party’s designated candidate.


 

ANALYSTS ADVISE INVESTORS TO BET ON MOTORCYCLES AND PIZZA
Every U.S. presidential transition brings a change in priorities, forcing market gurus to bet on which sectors of the economy might benefit from the new administration, but with corporate analysts admittedly baffled by Donald Trump, prognosticators are doing some intellectual gymnastics.

Joseph Spak, a Royal Bank of Canada analyst, thinks Donald Trump’s $1 trillion plan to rebuild American infrastructure will ultimately provide construction workers with extra cash. And what do construction workers like to spend money on? Motorcycles, of course.

“If the economy is stimulated and construction jobs increase,” Spak recently predicted that Harley-Davidson Inc. “could see some better demand.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, another firm advises investors that pizza-delivery companies that benefited from a high-drama campaign that kept many diners glued to their televisions might continue to profit from the drama of a Trump transition.
 

FEDS SEEK TO REQUIRE NEW VEHICLES TO TALK TO EACH OTHER
U.S. auto-safety regulators have proposed new rules requiring automakers to adopt crash-avoidance technology that allows all new vehicles to communicate with each other, a move that could help accelerate the development of self-driving cars.

The requirement of so-called vehicle-to-vehicle connectivity (“V2V”) on all consumer vehicles within the next five years is viewed as central to the development of a new age of cars that can avoid accidents by wirelessly monitoring each other. V2V technology uses short-range radio communication to allow vehicles to identify each other’s speed, location, direction and acceleration or braking, within a radius of about 300 meters.

The move marks a concrete step by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration toward its goal of eliminating roadway deaths within 30 years, and agency officials told USA Today that vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure technology could eliminate or greatly reduce the seriousness of up to 80% of crashes that don’t involve driver impairment.

NHTSA pledges that the new technology would not divulge any personal information regarding drivers.


 

EUROPEANS TO TEST AUTONOMOUS CARS WITH MOTORCYCLES
Vehicle authorities will cooperate with European motorcyclists’ organizations to conduct their own test program with different brands of semi-autonomous cars. “The Dutch are authorizing further testing to see if these ‘semi-autonomous’ cars can operate safely with motorcycles on the road,” says Oregon A.I.M. (Aid to Injured Motorcyclists) and COC (Confederation of Clubs) Attorney Sam Hochberg, who alerted the National Coalition of Motorcyclists (NCOM) about this important issue here and abroad. “This is going to be a real issue here in the USA in the not-too-distant future.”

In response to a letter motorcyclists’ organizations FEMA (Federation of European Motorcyclists Associations), MAG NL (Motorcycle Action Group – Netherlands) and KNMV (Dutch Motorcycle Association) sent to RDW, with regard to the European type approval of the Tesla by RDW, a meeting took place recently where the motorcyclists’ worries were addressed. RDW is the Netherlands Vehicle Authority that issued the European type approval for Tesla.

A driver of a Tesla – and other advanced cars – can leave key actions to the vehicle itself, while in the opinion of the motorcyclists’ organizations this equipment is not, or not sufficiently, tested with motorcycles. In the discussion about the concerns that motorcyclists have with admitting (semi-) autonomous vehicles on the roads, it soon became clear that many of the concerns of the motorcyclists’ community are shared by RDW.

RDW proposes – in cooperation with the motorcyclists’ organizations – to conduct their own test program with different brands of cars with Advanced Driver Assistance Systems. RDW also believes – as do the riders – that testing with motorcycles should be part of the test protocol for European type approval.

Dolf Willigers, General Secretary of FEMA: “We are very pleased with the outcome of this first meeting with the experts of RDW. We are going to act together and we will see in the field tests to which extent the technique takes motorcyclists into account.”


 

NEW YEAR, RENEWED EFFORTS IN D.C.
With the 114th Congress set to adjourn, and a new congressional session beginning in January, some federal bills that motorcyclists have been advocating will expire and need to be reintroduced.

House Resolution 831 was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on July 13, 2016 to “Promote awareness of motorcycle profiling and encourage collaboration and communication with the motorcycle community and law enforcement officials to prevent instances of profiling.”

The National Coalition of Motorcyclists (NCOM) is working with other state and national motorcycle organizations to address profiling legislatively, and with Washington State enacting the first anti-profiling law in 2011, followed by Maryland this year, a national motorcycle anti-profiling measure would advance the efforts in every state to prevent discriminatory enforcement.

HR 4715 & S 2659, the RPM Act (Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports Act of 2016), would ensure that the American tradition of modifying vehicles into dedicated racetrack competitors is not only continued for today, but will be protected for future generations of race fans as well.

Although the federal EPA bowed to political pressure and public outcry this past April by removing provisions from proposed regulations that would have prohibited street-legal vehicles, including motorcycles, from being modified for racing, members of both chambers of Congress have introduced bipartisan legislation to protect the sport of racing by blocking the EPA from over-regulating the industry and ensuring that it remains legal to convert street legal motor vehicles for racing purposes.

Responding to the controversy over the proliferation of E15 fuel, which is not approved for use by any motorcycle manufacturer and can invalidate warranties, Congress is considering HR 5108 (the “Food and Fuel Consumer Protection Act of 2016) “to alleviate the ethanol blend wall under the renewable fuel program.” Specifically, the bipartisan bill would cap the ethanol content of fuel at 9.7%, and would also effect the EPA’s Renewable Volume Obligations under the Renewable Fuel Standard.

In addition, in January Congress banned the use of federal funds for controversial Motorcycle-Only Checkpoints as part of a $305 billion highway bill called the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, as well as allocating more than $4 million towards motorcycle safety programs, and going forward into the next Congress and an all new Administration bikers must work to protect those advancements we’ve already made.


 

ANTI-MASK LAWS USED AGAINST BANDANAS
During the Confederation of Clubs (COC) meeting at the NCOM Region I Seminar in Irvine, California in November, as an example of discriminatory profiling, attendees were notified of motorcyclists in Louisiana who have allegedly been arrested for wearing bandanas over their faces while riding because police claim that covering your face in public violates the state’s anti-mask law against concealing your identity.

According to Louisiana statute (LSA-R.S. 14:313) – “No person shall use or wear in any public place of any character whatsoever, or in any open place in view thereof, a hood or mask, or anything in the nature of either, or any facial disguise of any kind or description, calculated to conceal or hide the identity of the person or to prevent his being readily recognized…Whoever violates this Section shall be imprisoned for not less than six months nor more than three years.”

It was further noted that many states have similar anti-mask laws on the books, so be aware.

“THE TWIN PEAKS AMBUSH”

On the fateful day of May 17, 2015, hundreds of motorcyclists and rights activists met in Waco, Texas to discuss current events and motorcyclist rights issues at a meeting of the Texas Confederation of Clubs and Independents (COC&I), and many subsequently had their lives changed forever. Nine people died, another 17 were injured that day after police opened fire on the gathering. Before the dust settled, 192 people were arrested, and charged with cookie cutter charges of participation in organized crime and held on $1 million bail each. Ultimately 106 were indicted on felony charges of “engaging in organized criminal activity.”

A recent post from Easyriders Scuttlebutt announces that Donald Charles Davis, who runs the popular Aging Rebel biker news site “has penned this interesting book (titled “The Twin Peaks Ambush: A True Story About The Press, The Police And The Last American Outlaws”) including far reaching interviews with people who were there on the scene, and attempts to make sense of it all, a tall order. He has done a good service, and we recommend the book to anyone who has an open mind and a heart. Bikers lives do matter.”


WEIRD NEWS: WITCHDOCTOR SUMMONS BEES TO STOP MOTORCYCLE THIEF
Local news reports from Mbooni, Makueni in Kenya claim that a motorcyclist has managed to recover his bike from a thief after asking the local witchdoctor for help.

The witchdoctor allegedly contacted a large swarm of bees that had already begun to invade a local market, and sent them to track down the stolen motorcycle instead.

According to motofire.com, the spell worked, and the thief is said to have run off ‘for dear life’ as the bees began settling onto the yoke and tank of the bike, as depicted in photographs of the scene. The reports then go on to suggest that the bees “also protected the bike from any further interruption for over half an hour until the owner could arrive, who then took his motorcycle home.”

Some say the swarm was merely an act of nature and nothing supernatural at all, and Assistant Chief Patrick Mwanzia said that the swarm simply arrived after the queen of the hive got stuck within the bike’s handlebars. And, in fact, “a similar incident had happened just days before when another bike was covered in a swarm for over two hours”… but how does that explain how the queen bee just happened to get stuck in that particular stolen bike?

 
 


QUOTABLE QUOTE:
 “MERRY CHRISTMAS!”

~ PEOTUS Donald J. Trump, 45th U.S. President
 
Read More

Bikernet Road Stories: Hollywood Scotty Part 2

It was the winter of 2015 and, having lived at Hollywood houses for better than two weeks, I’d become almost used to this strange world of constant parties, movie sets with filming in the back yard, the occasional visiting celebrity, and the making of music and music videos.

For me however, life in the relative solitude of my garage had fallen to a general routine of writing by morning, walking to the nearby gym in afternoon, then enjoying whatever happened after that. But my private garage/bedroom was about to get a bit smaller.

Chris “Naco” (From Naco New Mexico) had pieced together an old Shovelhead with his own hands and almost no money then struck out to see the country. He’d been on the road all summer. Naco was now in Southern California and had hit me on the internet to inquire if we might hook up.  I’d never met this guy before, but he certainly sounded interesting. So I asked Joe—the ruler of this twin mini-mansion party empire—if I could invite this Naco guy to make camp in my garage for a while. Joe enjoys a genuine love of wild and interesting times so his reply was, “I’d like more bikers here. Tell him to bring it on.” I did.

 

A few days later, Naco’s ratty Shovelhead pulled in and we made acquaintance. He’s a young guy with long hair who is just “Naco” and obviously doesn’t particularly give a shit about impressions and appearances. His positive and uncommonly easygoing manner had earned him admiration and acclaim across the country (I’d seen it on social media), and so it was again here. After setting camp beside my own, and probably because of his age (late 20s I’d guess), Chris Naco fell face first into this Hollywood party scene then swam naturally as the others. Everybody, and especially Joe, took a fast liking to this our newest resident. I did too. Naco played a little guitar and it became common to see him hanging in the music studio with our resident famous rap star, Micky “Memphis” Wright, or simply staying up partying with the crowd till all hours of the night.

For me, and although there were many here who adored city life and cared to be nowhere else, I appreciated countryside as well. For respite, my overnight and sometimes multiple day forays to other places continued.

 

Long ago, I’d worked on the set of a porn shoot in Sturgis. Adam and Eve productions had been making a series titled “Sex Across America”, and if one pulls up the Sturgis addition they’ll see, along with the others, my photo on the cover. For this shoot I was hired as a Production Assistant—which translates to: grunt, go-fer, chauffeur, Sturgis tour guide, pussy lamp, etc. In other words, I was not one of the actors. While on the set I’d become friends with the producer and his wife. Both live in the nearby suburbs of LA and I decided to pay a visit.

 
The home of Raymond (Luc Wylder) and his wife Tamar was set in a rather quiet upper middle class neighborhood. After ringing the doorbell, I was led inside for re-acquaintances. It had been quite some time and we were all older now. With it’s two stories and large beautifully landscaped backyard with pool, this was the kind of house I’d come to expect from the monetarily successful in this area.
 

 
I sat at the kitchen table while Raymond manned the blender to whip up some very healthy green smoothie drink (delicious), while Tamar stood at the counter putting together small munchies. Eventually, we settled at the kitchen table to eat, drink, and talk. I was told that, with the internet now giving away free porn in large quantities, the bottom had dropped out of the industry. Because of this, my friends were now moving into other business ventures. I asked Tamar what would become of porn now and she told me it would probably go mostly to the homemade armature stuff.

As I’d long ago been told by those who’d worked for them then, these were very kind and thoughtful people which, Rio Maria (porn star) had said, was unusual in the porn world. Anyway, it was a good visit and I actually slept in an upstairs bedroom that night.

By the following evening I was back in West Hollywood.

As time had passed, the home-front party scene was increasing to an almost daily activity while Joe, who loved the parties but was also very ambitious in his business ventures, fought to keep this action limited to only weekends. It was a battle that, in the coming weeks, he would almost loose. 

 

It was one otherwise mellow weeknight when a couple of party girls showed up at the front door and Joe voiced his protest. But, being a sucker for a weird time, he listened as they offered to do a face painted, fire eating, skimpy lingerie dance out by the pool. This funky idea quickly won him over. Although the place had been quiet that night, those of us present, me included, got a big kick outta that show.

Although the constant flow of groupies and party girls who frequented this place were too young for me, I met a girl elsewhere. Lisa’s a Jewish lawyer and I began spending time at her condo. We attended gatherings (At one I saw Steven Tyler with his companions Ringo Star and Joe Walsh. Lisa told me Ringo and Joe are married to sisters, both of whom were present, and this trio hangs together a lot. I refrained from shooting photos however, because I am no paparazzi), and watching movies at her place. Although we enjoyed each other’s company very much, our relationship was mostly a physical thing mutually agreed upon. It had been quite a while and I appreciated this girl very much.

 

Although some distance beyond the city, my dad Robert, and his wife Robin, live in this area and it had been years since I’d seen them. I decided to pay a visit. The little house lay some distance outside the high desert town of Palmdale and, if the desert can be considered countryside, dad’s place is defiantly out in the country. In his 70s now, and for as long as I’ve known him, my old man has raised almost all of his own food. After setting camp in the back yard, I asked for a tour of the place.

There were more turkeys living with the chickens than on my last visit. Always ardently attuned to the ways of animals, when I asked dad why he kept that old turkey who wasn’t good for much anymore he replied, “It’s best for their society to keep some of all ages among them.” The rabbit pens were empty now. They’d been full last I’d visited. Dad said rabbits became pets, which made him not want to eat them. But farm animals cannot be pets and so he’d let them go. The horses were boarded elsewhere now. Goats were gone as well. Dad told me that as he’s gotten older it’s become to much work to keep so many animals. These were all he really needed anyway. Although it was winter and the garden lay pretty brown, dad’s bright green thumb kept those remaining winter plants in fine condition. By evening we sat near a wood fire drinking tea and, as always, I enjoyed a very natural plate filled with wonderful foods.

 

Thanksgiving was close and next day I helped catch the turkey that would soon give its all for this holiday. Dad took him far from the others, petted his feathers for a while, then set him upon the chopping block. And as it had been in childhood, I helped to pluck the thanksgiving bird.

Later, in conversation, dad told me he was having heart problems and they wanted to do surgery which, in his opinion, was ridiculous for a man of his age. I could not argue. Shunning doctor’s drugs, he uses only the natural herb so common to California these days. Dad said he didn’t expect to live as long as his mother, who’d died at 86, and I noted his obvious peace with this idea. It seemed to me that, because he’s lived a more natural life and seen death frequently in his own backyard, he may simply have a greater understanding and acceptance than those of us more isolated from such things.

Robin’s rather erratic and sometimes quarrelsome family was coming for thanksgiving so I was okay with the idea of not returning for that. After four days I was back in Hollywood. What a stark contrast it was to my father’s seemingly hillbilly ways.

 

It was late evening as Naco and I sat in the dark music studio with a handful of others. The smokey party atmosphere was quite buzzed and a little drunk as conversation rambled on. Then, as I watched, one very fine young girl pulled down here pants, shot a sly smile at Shawn, then turned ’round and bent into the microphone both. Shawn looked at me, shrugged his shoulders, then unbuckled his belt and grabbed her hips. Around the room others began to follow suit and the place slowly settled into one big fuck fest. What a trip. I turned to Naco. I’m old and he’s ratty so we had nothing. I said, “Shall we go?”, and off to the garage we strolled to then sit in conversation while sounds of the city carried on all around.

A very unusual woman, Little Laura loves to travel almost constantly and, in order to achieve this goal without encumbrance, chooses to live in her pickup truck with camper shell. Although she often wonders much farther, Laura’s main base is all of southern California. I’ve known her since high school and she’s always been like that. By my invitation, Laura showed up at the Hollywood house. From there she’d leave the truck behind and accompany me to the Easyriders Chopper Show; which would soon take place at the Oxnard fairground. Our attendance would require a 50 mile ride through Malibu then up the coastal hwy-1. I’d been anticipating this event since before coming to Hollywood. 

The day finally arrived and, bike now packed for two, we started north.

Although I’d no idea then, my time at the Hollywood houses was about to end rather abruptly. But this Hollywood adventure was not yet finished. It would, in fact, only move into the next chapter of travel with a man who’s lived from only the back of his Panhead for 33 years, and our stay at the home of a well known actor/motorcyclist…

 

 
Read More

YOKOHAMA MOONEYES SHOW BIKES

 
I have hundreds of photos I shot at Mooneyes 25th Anniversary Yokohama show. I was there shooting for Hot Rod and Road Kill, but they don’t use bikes much, so… Let’s use them on Bikernet.

See what you can do.
 
–Mike Morgan 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
We will. The wheels are turning and the bikes were cool. Thanks for thinking of Bikernet, Mike.–Bandit
 

 

 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
We announced last month at the end of the year that the date for the 25th Annual Yokohama Hot Rod Custom Show 2016 was confirmed for Sunday December 4, 2016. That didn’t change and the show rocked.  The organizers continued the campaign to keep the noise pollution down around the vicinity of the event area. 
 

 

 
  
 

 

 
 
Two years ago, we began the campaign with “Be Calm Not Loud – SHIZUKANI” and last year we use the slogan “SAVE THE YOKOHAMA HOT ROD CUSTOM SHOW”. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The campaign slogan this year is, “Respect Our Kulture – MAMOROH!” which you may have seen posted on Mooneyes Express Blog by Shige Suganuma. The Japanese word MAMOROH means to honor and protect or abide by the rules, hence respect the kulture we care about. We will carry this campaign through the year until our show next December.

 
 
  
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Planning has already started for the 26th HCS2017 as well. It was posted today on Mooneyes Express Blog by Shige Suganuma.
 
This year for automobiles, they kept it simple and stick to their title with the theme “Hot Rod & Custom.” For motorcycles, the theme was “Triumph Chopper.” 
 
 

 

 
 
 

 

 
 

More details will come later. See below.

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 
  
 
 
 

Mooneyes Express Blog: http://www.mooneyes.co.jp/express

 

 

 
 

 
 

HCS2016: http://yokohamahotrodcustomshow.com/

 

 
 

 
Read More
Scroll to Top