Re: Mission Statement

DCR,

Thanks for your feedback. I agree with every one of the issues you mention. I do feel that this statement is a little long and does not necesarily establish and clear overall priority, but is much more complet than my initial proposal. For example by first indicating that we are working with USFS to try and lower the impact of visitor, then saying that the "main focus" is to is protection, preservation and conservation of the area, and only then indicating that we wish "to keep the springs open and available to everyone so our children and grandchildren can enjoy them in their present state", I feel that we are setting ourselves in a awkward position. If one day the USFS decided that the best way to preserve, conserve and reduce the impact of visitors would be to close the area to public access, I would like our group to be able to oppose such a closure. In order to do so I feel that "keeping our springs open and available for our children and grand children should be in the openning statement.

I also feel that working with the USFS and the part about sharing information has to do with the how, but if the mayority are comfortable with it I am fine. I would prefer though to put this within our goals.

However, I would very much like to know how others feel? Paul P, Ryan, Viejo Bill, Jobe, Mike A., Naked Man, et all, any thoughts?