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

Skip to comments.

CATTLEMEN PROD FOREST SERVICE: Federal land-use policies to come under review, again
The San Francisco Chronicle ^ | July 5, 2002 | By Glen Martin, Chronicle Environment Writer

Posted on 07/06/2002 8:38:10 AM PDT by madfly

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:30 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Sierra National Forest -- Everything old is new again for California's national forests, where Bush administration officials have signaled a move away from the conservation-based policies of the Clinton administration to the ""multiple use'' concept that characterized U.S. Forest Service policy in earlier decades.


(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: enviralists; esa; landgrab; sierranevada; spottedowl; wildnernesssociety

1 posted on 07/06/2002 8:38:10 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Free the USA; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Libertarianize the GOP; Stand Watch Listen; freefly; expose; ...
ping
2 posted on 07/06/2002 8:39:22 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly
BTTT!!!!!
3 posted on 07/06/2002 8:45:29 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Thanks for the ping!
4 posted on 07/06/2002 8:47:59 AM PDT by countrydummy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly

CATTLEMEN PROD FOREST SERVICE

Why did I suspect this was a San Francisco story when I saw the headline?
5 posted on 07/06/2002 8:50:39 AM PDT by TC Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly
"It's becoming increasingly clear that (the forest service's) goal is to maintain or even increase stocking levels,'' Buckley said. ""It's unconscionable. I live near the Stanislaus National Forest, which gets 5 million visitors a year. Those people come for the scenery, for the water quality of the streams and lakes, for the forests and meadows all values degraded by grazing. Meanwhile, the beneficiaries of the forest's grazing program are very few 25 families.''

This of course, assumes that no one, anywhere benefits by eating beef, wearing leather, .....

The result of widespread anti-human activity policies is, ultimately, anti-human.

Are these lands degraded by utilizing the resources there wisely? Is a forest degraded by harvesting mature trees so they don't die and contribute to a massive burn-off?

As if 5 MILLION people per year trampling through some place doesn't degrade it! Sheesh!

6 posted on 07/06/2002 8:58:33 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TC Rider
ROFLMAO, what a visual!!
7 posted on 07/06/2002 9:16:23 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: *Enviralists
Index Bump
8 posted on 07/06/2002 9:17:30 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Free the USA
bttt
9 posted on 07/06/2002 9:39:49 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Good post; excellent headline:

"Cattlemen "PROD" Forest Service."

Having used an electrified cattle prod on cattle, the image is wholy attractive.

10 posted on 07/06/2002 9:58:25 AM PDT by FReethesheeples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples
Sounds like a South Park Episode! lmao
11 posted on 07/06/2002 10:22:41 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All
bump
12 posted on 07/06/2002 10:23:20 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: madfly
From Paragon Newsletter,6/25/02;

Karl vs. Cows

By Jonathan DuHamel, president, People for the West - Tucson

Karl Hess, Jr. has a problem with "pampered cows." Under his misapplied guise of free market environmentalism, Hess wants to drastically change grazing practices on federal land in the Western U.S.

So what, you ask? The "what" is that Hess is an advisor to Lynn Scarlett, Undersecretary for the Department of the Interior, and is in a position to influence public policy.

Hess has impressive credentials. He is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute (a conservative think tank); he is (or was) a senior associate of the Thoreau Institute; and he is president of The Land Center in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Of late, however, Hess has teamed up with radical preservationist groups such as the National Resources Defense Council, Forest Guardians, the Sky Island Alliance, and The Wildlands Project to write a series of papers against current grazing practices. Even Dave Foreman of EarthFirst! quotes him favorably. In a 1998 paper Hess wrote, "The Wildlands Project is in the envious position of being the first American environmental organization to apply, on a global scale, the principles of conservation biology. Within that global framework, the Sky Island ecosystem is an ideal laboratory to test the ecological underpinnings of conservation biology and to explore the public policy tools needed to make conservation biology a reality on the North American continent."

Do you like living in a laboratory? Is he the kind of person you want guiding natural resource policy?

Throughout his prolific writing there is a common theme. Hess complains that cattle and sheep are the source of degradation of millions of acres of public lands; that almost 200 million acres of federal grass are devoted to producing less than 3.5 percent of the nation's beef; and that government loses money because grazing fees don’t cover administrative costs. He also advocates that non-ranchers be allowed to bid on grazing allotments.

Hess’s contention that grazing causes degradation is out of date. To encourage settlement of the west, Congress passed the Homestead Act of 1862, which provided for homesteads of 160 acres. Back east, 160 acres could support a family but not in the arid west. Those who tried dry dirt farming soon went bust or converted to stock raising. In Arizona, a single cow-calf unit requires twenty-five to seventy-five acres of natural forage, depending on the terrain. The ranchers had no choice but to run their cattle on open public range.

As more and more homesteads were settled, more cows were grazing the range and he who got there first with the most cattle made money. This practice of common grazing, together with a series of droughts, caused overgrazing and degradation of the range. As a result of this "tragedy of the commons," ranchers petitioned the government to establish "forest reserves" which could not be homesteaded. These reserves eventually turned into National Forests which were mandated to be managed for forage, water and timber production.

Congress was not willing to substantially increase the size of homesteads, so they established a system of grazing "allotments" where a rancher would have exclusive right to forage in a specific area for a specific number of cattle. The rancher had to fence the area and provide water and other infrastructure at his own expense. This practice gave the rancher a strong economic incentive for good stewardship of his allotment. Now, each homestead, the base ranch of fee land, has a number of associated allotments. These allotments are bought, sold, inherited, and taxed along with the ranch, i.e., they are property rights. Currently, when a ranch is purchased, the allotments cost, on average, about $2000 per cow-calf unit, depending on the condition of the range and improvements.

Has modern grazing practice hurt the natural range? Apparently not, since even Bruce Babbitt admitted that our ranges are in better shape now than in the past. In most areas, all the same grasses that were here 300 years ago when the Spaniards first began grazing (more than thirty species of perennial grass in southern Arizona), are still here, along with additional introduced species. One place to observe the effects of grazing is on the Santa Rita Experimental Range (SRER), a tract of 53,159 acres, thirty-five miles south of Tucson. SRER was established in 1903, first as a Forest Service reserve; then in 1988 it was transferred to State Trust Land. It is currently administered by the University of Arizona (see their website at for voluminous data). At SRER, the range is divided into several pastures where various grazing methods are used. Some land has been left ungrazed since 1903. The most verdant and healthy range is that which received pasture rotation, but even the pastures that have been continuously grazed are in better shape that those that have had no cattle at all.

Modern ranching also benefits wildlife and "biodiversity." The case of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in the Altar Valley of southern Arizona is a telling example. The area was lush grassland when private ranchers managed it. After the feds bought out the ranchers to establish a game refuge, they destroyed the manmade water sources to let the land go back to nature. Except nature left. Much of the wildlife migrated to adjacent operating ranches.

It has long been a contention of grazing foes that western grazing produces an insignificant amount of our total beef, and that we could easily get along without federal lands grazing. But the small production percentage is a myth. It just depends how you count. Western ranches generally do not produce cattle for the slaughterhouse. Instead, they raise yearlings to approximately 500 pounds by feeding them natural forage, which is indigestible by humans. The yearlings are then shipped east to Midwest farmers’ fields where these "solar energy converters" feed on crop residues and fatten to about 800 pounds. From there they go to feedlots and gain another 300 pounds or so on corn, molasses, and crop residue. These cows get counted at the slaughterhouse and the Midwest farmers get the credit for beef production. In reality, 20 percent of the nation’s beef is produced in the west. Ranches in the Arivaca-Altar Valley area of Arizona alone produce nearly two million pounds of beef annually.

Hess complains about a "government subsidy" to ranchers in the form of increased management costs. Whose fault is that? Although past practice of predator control benefitted ranchers at government expense, ranchers do not welcome the ever-increasing bureaucracy with its New Age ecosystem management. However, as government predator control has dwindled, so has the deer population in the Ironwood Monument. Obviously, not only ranchers benefitted from the practice. How would urban and suburban dwellers fare if county animal control ceased to exist? Isn’t that a government subsidy too?

Finally, should anyone be able to bid on grazing allotments even if they don’t ranch? The problem, of course, is that the rancher can’t afford competitive bidding against well-funded anti-ranching activists, and without the allotments, the ranch is no longer economically viable and becomes ripe for sale to developers.

Remembering that allotments are property rights, Arizona rancher Sue Chilton likes to use the analogy of the automobile. You buy and own your car, but you have to pay an annual registration fee. Suppose the registration system went up for bid. Then someone coveting your new Lexus or ‘55 Chevy could offer a higher registration fee for use of your car. Not nice is it? But that is the same thing happening with the property right of ranchers’ allotments. There are additional attacks on allotments. Many ranchers have had some or all of their allotments taken or devalued due to overzealous enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and other government regulations.

As Nevada rancher Wayne Hage wrote in response to a Hess article, "The constant attack on Western ranchers, loggers, and miners is an attempt to extinguish private property rights without compensation. Where direct attempts to extinguish these property rights without compensation have been restrained by the courts, extinction through strangling regulations has succeeded to a large degree. Many Westerners have abandoned their property rights in federal land rather than bear the burden and expense of protracted court battles."

Hage adds, "Attacking the citizens of the sparsely populated West makes sense politically. Recent attempts by government to gain control of property rights on the patented lands of the Eastern two-thirds of the country have raised many red flags. Politicians are acutely aware that the current property rights movement in the United States is largely a response to the taking of private property in the urban East through the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and the high-handed tactics of the Environmental Protection Agency and Corps of Engineers. The taking of private lands in heavy population centers gains comparatively little at great political risk. On the other hand, there are only 28,000 ranchers in the West with grazing rights on federal lands. There are comparable numbers of miners and loggers whose property rights are being taken by the regulatory policy of federal agencies and the environmental groups allied with those agencies. At worst, the political risk in attacking the West involves throwing a quarter-million Westerners to the wolves. The gain in wealth for the central government with those rights extinguished is incalculable."

In spite of his impressive credentials, Hess seems to have a blind spot with regard to the facts of ranching and property rights. As the West becomes more urbanized, proponents of the "New West" movement seem to think we should run the place as a recreational park and a dude ranch for city dwellers and Easterners. They seem to forget our basic constitutional principles and traditional values.

 

13 posted on 07/06/2002 10:25:02 AM PDT by hammerdown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HAMMERDOWN
Good fine. Bttt
14 posted on 07/06/2002 10:30:01 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: HAMMERDOWN
Your post is extremely informative, and I thank you for it.

EV
15 posted on 07/06/2002 10:34:05 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: HAMMERDOWN; Jeff Head; BOBTHENAILER; Carry_Okie; SierraWasp; Miss Marple; hchutch; nicmarlo
Thanks for you input!

This was the scariest part for me:

Hess has impressive credentials. He is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute (a conservative think tank); he is (or was) a senior associate of the Thoreau Institute; and he is president of The Land Center in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Of late, however, Hess has teamed up with radical preservationist groups such as the National Resources Defense Council, Forest Guardians, the Sky Island Alliance, and The Wildlands Project to write a series of papers against current grazing practices. Even Dave Foreman of EarthFirst! quotes him favorably. In a 1998 paper Hess wrote, "The Wildlands Project is in the envious position of being the first American environmental organization to apply, on a global scale, the principles of conservation biology. Within that global framework, the Sky Island ecosystem is an ideal laboratory to test the ecological underpinnings of conservation biology and to explore the public policy tools needed to make conservation biology a reality on the North American continent."

So is Hess, an enviral Rat Mole playing the role of a Cato so called conservative. He reminds me of Bill Kristol, whom to me and many is nothing but a Rat/Mole pretending to be a conservative Repubilican?

One final question: Who appointed Hess and when to his position>: Hess is an advisor to Lynn Scarlett, Undersecretary for the Department of the Interior, and is in a position to influence public policy.

16 posted on 07/06/2002 10:53:57 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; HAMMERDOWN
My Response:

Follow the money.

17 posted on 07/06/2002 11:01:26 AM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
bump for later read.....must disconnect from internet and rejuvenate my brain for a bit, lol.
18 posted on 07/06/2002 11:06:42 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: madfly
bttt

Happy Birthday Mr.President!

Don't miss this one.

19 posted on 07/06/2002 11:07:49 AM PDT by lodwick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
You and my Black Conservative Friend, both of you keep saying follow the money! How boring! :)

Of course it is the best thing to do to understand who are behind the envirals and the left wingers who work arm in arm with the envirals to push their agendas.

Do you know who appointed this Hess to his position in the interior department?
20 posted on 07/06/2002 11:08:04 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

bttt
21 posted on 07/06/2002 2:20:46 PM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Stop the attacks by the wacko, extreme left-wing, enviro-nazis terrorist's on our Freedoms !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

Molon Labe !!

22 posted on 07/06/2002 2:25:11 PM PDT by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; Grampa Dave; madfly
source
Tides Foundation & Tides Center

Finances

Finances for tax year 2000

Income

$144,823,348.00

Expenditures

$109,984,211.00

End-Of-Year Net Worth

$177,153,419.00

Tax Status

501(c)3



 Selected Grants

Donor

Albert A. List Foundation

Grant

$9,000.00 in 1998

Source

IRS Form 990 or 990-PF

Details

Activist Training. Vallecitos Mountain Refuge

Donor

John Merck Fund

Grant

$28,500.00 in 1995

Source

The Foundation Center

Details

For media and public education campaigns for reports about pesticides and food safety, including shoppers' guide highlighting safer alternatives to produce with greatest risk of toxic residues.

Donor

Rockefeller Foundation

Grant

$50,000.00 in 2000

Source

Foundation Annual Report

Details

for its work on intellectual property issues in the development of agricultural biotechnology

Donor

Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation

Grant

$25,000.00 in 1993

Source

The Foundation Center

Details

To organise and train college and high school students to be environmental activists on their campuses and in their communities.

Donor

John Merck Fund

Grant

$245,000.00 in 1999

Source

The Foundation Center

Details

For continued support for Environmental Media Service's programs regarding genetically engineered foods and Environmental Working Group's media campaign for Internet site about pesticides in the American diet

Donor

Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund

Grant

$60,000.00 in 2000

Source

The Foundation Center

Details

For the Center for Ethics and Toxic Substances -- To raise awareness of risks posed by biotechnology



 Top Funders and Grantees

Funding From Foundations & Corporations

 

Total Donated

 

Time Frame

Pew Charitable Trusts

$98,098,400.00

 

1990 - 2002

Ford Foundation

$24,636,869.00

 

1989 - 2002

California Endowment

$20,450,139.00

 

1997 - 2000

W. Alton Jones Foundation

$6,634,638.00

 

1988 - 2000

John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

$5,883,796.00

 

1990 - 2000

Open Society Institute

$5,826,050.00

 

1997 - 2002

Florence & John Schumann Foundation

$5,407,500.00

 

1992 - 1998

David & Lucile Packard Foundation

$5,206,959.00

 

1988 - 2001

William & Flora Hewlett Foundation

$4,855,000.00

 

1990 - 2000

Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund

$4,518,000.00

 

1991 - 2000

Charles Stewart Mott Foundation

$4,447,450.00

 

1990 - 2002

James Irvine Foundation

$4,278,500.00

 

1993 - 2002

Howard Heinz Endowment

$3,455,000.00

 

1995 - 2000

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

$3,262,095.00

 

1993 - 2001

Nathan Cummings Foundation

$3,209,075.00

 

1991 - 2000

Rockefeller Foundation

$2,685,670.00

 

1993 - 2000

Joyce Foundation

$2,661,260.00

 

1988 - 2000

A Territory Resource Foundation

$2,500,000.00

 

2000 - 2000

W. K. Kellogg Foundation

$2,495,867.00

 

1991 - 2001

Carnegie Corporation of New York

$2,262,000.00

 

1992 - 2002

Funding From Other Activist Organizations

 

 

 

 

Western Organization of Resource Councils

$6,000.00

 

1999 - 1999

Environmental Defense

$1,000.00

 

1999 - 1999

Wilderness Society

$690.00

 

1997 - 1997

Grants To Other Activist Organizations

 

 

 

 

Environmental Working Group

$331,826.00

 

1997 - 2000

Western Organization of Resource Councils

$287,763.00

 

1991 - 1999

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

$265,778.00

 

1992 - 2000

Natural Resources Defense Council

$216,937.00

 

1991 - 2000

Greenpeace

$158,567.00

 

1991 - 2000

Northern Plains Resource Council

$143,000.00

 

1992 - 2000

Center for Food Safety

$60,000.00

 

1997 - 1997

Dakota Rural Action

$60,000.00

 

1996 - 2000

Idaho Rural Council

$37,500.00

 

2000 - 2000

Dakota Resource Council

$30,000.00

 

2000 - 2000

Ruckus Society

$23,400.00

 

1999 - 2000

EarthSave International

$6,000.00

 

1991 - 1998

 

23 posted on 07/06/2002 2:43:47 PM PDT by hammerdown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HAMMERDOWN
A most familiar list of perps. The funny thing is, I've never heard of the Tides Foundation. Where do they focus their cash? If it's so heavy with Pew money, is a lot of it in the Pacific Northwest?
24 posted on 07/06/2002 3:42:27 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Gee, they seem like such helpful folks!!!!They'll do all your bookkeeping for your 501(c) group, and you can be an NGO tooooo! Harassment prevention included, lmao.

Tides Center helps reduce the complexity of operating a successful nonprofit program and enables committed individuals to concentrate on their programs and goals.

By bringing quality management services to creative social innovators, Tides helps social change initiatives move forward with financial integrity.

If you become a Tides Center project, you acquire the organizational infrastructure that frees you to conduct your work in an effective, prudent, and results-oriented way. Our staff provide core services such as financial and personnel administration, while you focus on your program, planning, fundraising, and outreach strategies.

You can become a project as an interim step before creating your own organization or, like many of our projects, enjoy the efficiencies and cost savings of our support for an extended period of time.

Here is a look at what Tides Center provides:

  • Fiscal Sponsorship - the legal infrastructure of a 501(c)(3) entity, with appropriate legal incorporation, IRS exemption, and charitable registration.

  • Complete Financial Services - oversight of all revenues and expenditures, monthly financial reports, budgetary tracking, payment of all invoices, audit and governmental reporting, all tax returns, and training in budget preparation and financial management.

  • Comprehensive Employee Benefits - standard vacation and sick pay compensation, health, dental, life and disability insurance coverage, and a retirement plan.

  • Innovative Administrative Support - an array of administrative services, from liability insurance to grant and contract management, designed to serve your needs.

  • Expert Human Resources Policies, Training, and Intervention - assistance to project directors in personnel matters and annual training in human resources, from supervisory skills to harassment prevention.

For a more complete description of Tides Center services and costs please see our Chart of Services.


25 posted on 07/06/2002 4:29:22 PM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
http://www.tides.org/tides-directions.cfm

Tides Foundation and Tides Center
at The Thoreau Center for Sustainability
Presidio Building 1014 (Lincoln Blvd. & Torney Ave.)
San Francisco, CA 94129
415. 561. 6400

26 posted on 07/06/2002 4:34:53 PM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: HAMMERDOWN; Grampa Dave; EternalVigilance
In reality, 20 percent of the nation’s beef is produced in the west. Ranches in the Arivaca-Altar Valley area of Arizona alone produce nearly two million pounds of beef annually.

That answers the old question, "Where's the beef"?

A very good post hammer. The agenda of these people must constantly be exposed. They are everywhere and their pressure and damage is incalcuable.

27 posted on 07/06/2002 4:57:37 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: madfly; Grampa Dave
Presidio Building 1014

Well, well, well, right down the garden path from Mr. Gorbachev. Dave says we be should worrying about the "enviralists." Just who the hell does he think cuts their checks?

It's simply organized crime on a grand scale.

28 posted on 07/06/2002 5:16:22 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: madfly
bump
29 posted on 07/06/2002 6:03:16 PM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
"It's simply organized crime on a grand scale."

Damn straight! It gets sicker by the minute.

Have you heard of these freaks?

EarthSave International
1509 Seabright Avenue
Santa Cruz, CA 95062

Background
EarthSave began in 1988 as a pet project of John Robbins, one-time heir to the Baskin-Robbins ice cream fortune. His book Diet for a New America had just been published, and he intended for the new organization to pick up where his writing left off. Just as Robbins’ book outlined an ideological connection between food activists (vegetarians/animal rights zealots) and the more “mainstream” environmentalism (what used to be known as “ecology” and “conservation”), EarthSave sits at the nexus of these two worlds.

Ex-Montana-cattle-rancher Howard Lyman is currently EarthSave’s president, and its incoming chairman is Jeffrey Armour Nelson, heir to the Armour meatpacking empire. Add Robbins to the mix, and you have a triumvirate with one common link: they came from “the other side,” and they constantly remind their followers of this (as though the fact of their conversion should grant their ideology instant gravitas and validity).

EarthSave’s web site is hosted by Jeff Nelson’s “VegSource.com” empire, and its board members overlap heavily with the animal rights activists and dispensers of questionable dietary advice that “VegSource” features daily.

Advisory Board Member     Ingrid Newkirk

Co-founder, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; Advisory Board member, EarthSave International; Advisory Board member, United Poultry Concerns; Director, The Foundation to Support Animal Protection; animal rights activist

30 posted on 07/06/2002 6:10:09 PM PDT by hammerdown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe; Grampa Dave
"So is Hess, an enviral Rat Mole playing the role of a Cato so called conservative. He reminds me of Bill Kristol, whom to me and many is nothing but a Rat/Mole pretending to be a conservative Repubilican?"

I agree with you completely about Kristol. He has a smirk that looks like it's glued on, and looks like a Cheshire Cat as he knifes the Conservative viewpoint in the back.

Also, look closely at that "5 million visitor" figure. If they're counting the numbers like the NPS does, they have counters on any road that passes through the territory, and any car on those roads is counted as a "non-recreational visitor" and then multiplied by some phoney factor (2.6 people per car where I am) and that's how they inflate the figures. Up here they say Olympic National Park has 4 million visitors per year, but the truth is, they count every car, school bus, mail man, delivery truck, logging truck and everything else on Highway 101 which encircles the Olympic Peninsula, as if they were park visitors, and in truth, the park has only a small number of visitors, and most of those only on 3 main weekends a year: Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor Day. Bottom line: The attendance figures are LIES!!!!!

31 posted on 07/06/2002 11:33:48 PM PDT by holyscroller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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