Please help support Bill S.225

[Stoysluttie1]

"Currently , legislation sits before the US senate and House of Reps that could significantly imapct the overall effectiveness and future of Avalanche Centers throughout North America. The two bills, S.225 in the Senate and its companion bill in the house proposed by CO rep Mark Udall, are both awaiting their fate and you can help determine the outcome.

"The administration is opposed to these bills because the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been unable to clearly estimate the costs of these program increases. Without a clear understanding of where the money will come from, the Forest (Circus) opposes the bill because it does not want to have to cut other programs to create the cash. At the same time the OMB is opposed to using new funds as that will increase the national deficit." (How many other useless ways is the deficit increasing?)

"So, just like skiing new snow after a big storm, we are asking you to make the call. Write an email to all the reps in your state in support of S.225 and its companion bill in the house. Ask your rep to co-sponsor Udall's bill. The word is that S.225 in the Senate is fairly non-controversial, but the House bill needs a groundswell of support to help make it out of the committees and reach the floor. Constituent input is critical to let reps know these bills need the funding they deserve." Black Diamond

For more information go to

www.bdel.com/avibill

[Stoysluttie1]

FOR SOME REASON, THE LINK IS NOT WORKING NOR IS THE SITE UP TODAY. SORRY.
Here is a link for more info

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&

[Graupel]

I definitely support this cause, but I think this Act has a major oversight ... education. After reading the Federal Land Recreational Visitor Protection Act of 2005 I think there is a disconnect between the priority of the act, which I read as protection for individuals, and the drection of resources and grants, which seems focused on organizing a committee of bomb throwers, and howitzer shooters to protect transportation corridors and personal property. I support such protection, but why are we calling this a "recreational visitor protection act" if that's the case.

Seeing as how recreational users of the backcountry assume great personal risk, and, unless access to the terrain is regulated (which is not a good solution, seeing as how Maggots would revolt), the first weapon against this risk is user education. As far as I can see, this Act does not address this central issue. That fact is pretty clear if you look at ]Section 3(b)(2) Resources and 3(e) Grants . Although, the Act supports use of the National Avalance Center, the Forest Service, and "other resources" which would ideally use educational programs, there is no direct mention to the use of education programs to support this Act. There is plenty of support in stockpiling aummunition though, which we all know is useful in the backcountry.

If somebody else has a different understanding of this Act, please enlighten me.