Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Environmentalism Helped Kindle Fires
Human Events ^ | 11/7/03 | Joseph A. D'Agostino

Posted on 11/07/2003 7:17:55 PM PST by Jean S

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

1 posted on 11/07/2003 7:17:55 PM PST by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JeanS; Carry_Okie
...66% of fuel reduction projects planned by the U.S. Forest Service for national forests in California were stalled by administrative appeals—mostly filed by environmental groups—in fiscal years 2001 and 2002.

"You can't point to a specific project that was appealed," he said, "but because so many of these projects are appealed, the Forest Service has stopped proposing them in areas where there is a lot of resistance."


? - Should said same groups who stand in the way of these fuel reduction projects not also be subject to legal recourse, etc?

Or, is that option of legal action agianst such orgs no longer available due to legislation that Clinton signed in the 90s that provided certain "environmental" orgs immunity from prosecution?

Just curious. Thanks

2 posted on 11/07/2003 7:44:08 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Or, is that option of legal action agianst such orgs no longer available due to legislation that Clinton signed in the 90s that provided certain "environmental" orgs immunity from prosecution?

It was Clinton EO 12986 that indemnified both environmental groups and government resource agencies from civil liability as members of the IUCN.

3 posted on 11/07/2003 7:50:59 PM PST by Carry_Okie (California! See how low WE can go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Somebody I worked with actually defended the forest fires as opposed to logging because he said they were "natural".

This is the mentality we are up against.

4 posted on 11/07/2003 7:52:39 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Thanks. An Executive Order, eh? Those can be rescinded, huh?
5 posted on 11/07/2003 8:01:32 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Yup, and Bush hasn't done it.
6 posted on 11/07/2003 8:16:39 PM PST by Carry_Okie (California! See how low WE can go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
That might be so but..nothing says they cant be sued each, one at a time, in small claims court by how many people?.
7 posted on 11/07/2003 8:18:39 PM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: crz
That might be so but..nothing says they cant be sued each, one at a time, in small claims court by how many people?.

How could you get a judgement against enviro groups when they were just exercising their right to bring a suit and some hairball judge agreed with them? The best thing to do, IMO, is to point out that donating money to these groups results in poor forest management, i.e. if you donate to enviro groups then you are responsible for forest fires.

8 posted on 11/07/2003 8:28:32 PM PST by randog (Everything works great 'til the current flows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: randog
. . if you donate to enviro groups then you are responsible for forest fires.

Fine as far as you go, randog, but I'm sure you realize that we the taxpayers also "donate" to these tax-exempt lobbying organizations.

That needs to stop, whether or not they can be held responsible for the fires.

9 posted on 11/07/2003 8:51:44 PM PST by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
I'm glad that the press is actually printing this stuff. It isn't like no-one has known it before it was just that the enviros had louder voices and more money.
10 posted on 11/07/2003 8:53:54 PM PST by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I honestly think they should be charged with manslaughter. And I think the homeowners should sue these groups for damages and then I think smarter and cooler heads could come up with a common sense protection of the environment that isn't so extreme.
11 posted on 11/07/2003 8:56:35 PM PST by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
"There's not enough money in the Interior appropriations bill to clear all the areas that need clearing. We need timber harvesting."

The President's "healthy forests initiative" calls for thinning 2.5 million acres of federal forests a year for 10 years. (Run this timber through sawmills and the Canadian dollar would sink like a lead weight.)

Anybody want to guess how many acres the fedgov has in forested land (and we can leave out Alaska, just to make it fair)?

Randal O'Toole is another critic of the Forest Service's record in managing the natural resources it is entrusted with. In a Cato Institute paper from last year, he observed:

The real problem with forest fire fighting is not a shortage of funds, but too much money. Congress has given the Forest Service a virtual blank check to put out fire and is now giving it a near-blank check to thin forestlands. When you have a blank check to do something, that becomes the only thing you want to do even if something else would work better at a far lower cost.

Similar perverse incentives can be found in the Forest Service timber program. Federal programs indirectly reward forest managers for losing money on timber sales while penalizing them for making money or doing good things for the environment. As long as these perverse incentives are in place, we can't trust the Forest Service to sell timber without the environmental safeguards that President Bush wants to remove.

No hard-and-fast rules can apply to all 600 million highly diverse acres of federal land. Commercial timber sales could improve forest health in some areas. Complete fire suppression may make sense in other areas. Yet the current incentives push the Forest Service to make the wrong decisions in most places.

The enviros want to keep everything untouched by humans, everyplace, at all all times, an any cost in lives and property.

Bush (and presumably Pombo) want to thin it all so it won't burn.

Seems to me there is a middle ground, and O'Toole is occupying it at the moment.

12 posted on 11/07/2003 9:12:05 PM PST by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: logician2u
The federal government wons roughly about the size of...take the west coast to the Mississippi. Thats roughly the area under federal control or just over half of the continental USA.
13 posted on 11/09/2003 9:06:21 AM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
It was Clinton EO 12986 that indemnified both environmental groups and government resource agencies from civil liability as members of the IUCN

If it began as an EO, cannot it be reversed with an EO from Bush?

Someone with some clout needs to bring this to the attention of Bush/Cheney.

Maybe a petition needs to be started here on FR?
14 posted on 11/09/2003 9:38:54 AM PST by ridesthemiles (ridesthemiles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles
If it began as an EO, cannot it be reversed with an EO from Bush?

Yup.

Someone with some clout needs to bring this to the attention of Bush/Cheney.

How many Clinton EOs ahs Bush rescinded?

Don't hold your breath.

Under Clinton, Federal agencies were also members of the IUCN, thus exempting the Federill grubbamint from liability as well. Bush promised to let those memberships lapse, but I don't know if in fact this has been done.

15 posted on 11/09/2003 10:38:56 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: backhoe; madfly; Stand Watch Listen; brityank; OldFriend; Grampa Dave; editor-surveyor; ...
bump
16 posted on 11/11/2003 7:59:30 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Those can be rescinded, huh? Not by this president. He doesn't want to offend anybody.

Either that, or he is in the pocket of big business. Not in the way the liberals think, but in the way that Carry_Okie proposes. Lock up the land to make his franchise worth more.

17 posted on 11/11/2003 8:05:49 AM PST by snopercod (Come beloved and fill the bowl that clears today of past regrets and future fears...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JeanS

18 posted on 11/11/2003 8:10:21 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
BTTT!
19 posted on 11/11/2003 8:10:55 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JeanS; AAABEST; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ApesForEvolution; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

For real time political chat - Radio Free Republic chat room

20 posted on 11/11/2003 8:16:25 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson