Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intended Consequences: Natural Process v. Environmental Arrogance
The Sierra Times ^ | 8-19-02 | Sean Finnegan

Posted on 08/20/2002 9:09:04 AM PDT by madfly

Intended Consequences: Natural Process v. Environmental Arrogance
By Sean Finnegan
Published 08. 19. 02 at 18:58 Sierra Time

Sean Finnegan, who reported regularly from Klamath Falls for The Sierra Times, will be providing exclusive coverage of the Sawgrass Rebellion - the convoy headed toward Florida. As expected, The Sierra Times will provide regular coverage of this event. Finnegan begins his series on the battles in the Western States.


· In the early morning of October 18, 1998, fire destroyed five buildings and four ski lifts in Vail, Colorado. Two days later an underground terrorist group known as the Earth Liberation Front claimed responsibility for the arson that caused an estimated $12 million in damages.

· Grand Jury Indicts Four Accused Eco-terrorists in Firebombing of Log Trucks; Three Suspects Arrested, One Remains At-large

· The deceased firefighters, all members of the Naches Ranger District Crew on the Wenatchee National Forest, are:

Tom L. Craven, age 30, of Ellensburg, WA
Karen L. Fitzpatrick, age 18, of Yakima, WA
Devin A. Weaver, age 21, of Yakima, WA
Jessica L. Johnson, age 19, of Yakima, WA

· Lawmakers want an investigation into whether government wildlife biologists reported finding lynx fur in two national forests to keep people out of the areas.

· Forest Service Worker Charged in Colorado Fire.

· A Mexican spotted owl survey taker employed by the Mescalero Apache Tribes natural resources agency was arrested Wednesday for arson.

· The man charged with starting one of the blazes that has blackened a huge swath of Arizona forest and destroyed hundreds of homes was a part-time firefighter.

· Environmental Activists Claim Wildfires Sparked by Global Warming

· Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell castigated environmentalists Thursday for advocating land-management policies he said have left Western lands more vulnerable to wildfires.

· The nation has 812 million acres of federal forests, and a devastating fire could break out in just about any state.

· Request to fight fire was denied

· "Now that land we were on, was not a park, it was not a roadless area, it was not a wilderness area. It was a multiple use forest service property. In other words, YOUR PROPERTY!" [Carson Helicopter pilot, Or.]

· Defiant firefighters snub feds: 'Renegades' broke law to save homes

· The National Forest Service has withdrawn a plan to log part of the White Mountain National Forest because of a successful challenge by an environmental group.

· Nearly half the projects designed to reduce fire risks in national forests since 2001 were stalled by appeals, usually by environmentalists seeking to stop logging, an internal Forest Service report says.

· With nearly 769,000 acres burned so far this year in Oregon, both groups [Environmentalists and Timber industry representatives] are already pressuring land management agencies to commit, one way or the other, to take a stand of salvage logging.

· "I know this country and I have never seen anything like this fire," [Arizona Gov. Jane] Hull said on Sunday. "Mother Nature is saying to Arizona, to the West, that we have to clean up these forests."

· As of mid-August, according to the National Interagency Fire Center, 5,766,158 acres have been affected by fires.

· It could be all dark on the western front if a small group of Loudon County [Va.] activists gets its way and forces residents and businesses to shut off their lights as early as 9 p.m. to preserve the night sky.

· The Army Corps of Engineers' dumping of toxic sludge into the Potomac River protects fish by forcing them to flee the polluted area and escape fishermen, according to an internal Environmental Protection Agency document.

· Nearly half of America is now owned by the government. How can free enterprise exist if government owns the land and the resources?

[Various press clippings]


The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

In his book "Natural Process: That Environmental Laws May Serve the Laws of Nature" Mark Edward Vande Pol takes on the myth of public land or "the commons" and exposes the true intent of environmentalists while providing a practical way to deal with land ownership and management.

The key to understanding his logic is the simple matter of acknowledging who truly is the best steward of the land. Is it the environmentalists? Is it the government? Or is it you, the person who spends more time there than anyone? That is unless it's a "commons" like the national forests when they aren't burning.

The book is broken up in to five parts and deals primarily with a firsthand case study in the rural-suburban forest interface in Santa Cruz County, California, but it could be any county, especially yours. The principles and experience Mark dealt with could be applied anywhere.

The story is told from the antithesis/thesis logic.

The first part of the book begins with the principles justifying existing environmental management:

1. People abuse resources for which they don't have to pay, and
2. Regulations prevent harmful behavior.

While redefining a number of principles, namely what the "commons" or community property are, it exposes several logical fallacies in the existing management system and opens the opportunity for an alternative.

One option of management is the "proposal of preservation with the goal of producing conditions approximating those 500 years ago, [which] is a passive restoration of an infected body with altered genetic composition to a moving target of poorly understood properties, operating under unprecedented conditions while still subject to human interference." In other words, no people.

How do we preserve and how will we know if it's working? Essentially, the concept is called "deep ecology" and it involves subjective inference and is based on the logical fallacy known as a Type II error or "if we don't do anything to nature it will get better." Take the land, fence it, off and keep the people out.

The second and third parts of the book show the alternative to preservation which is regulation and this is the area that most of us deal with on a more personal level and where the practical knowledge of the author kicks in. Santa Cruz County contains every aspect of environmental regulation from forests to rivers to the ocean and everything in between. There's neighbors who sue for a view, there's a forester trying to make a living while being manipulated by city, county, state and federal regulations enhanced by the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, there's environmental NGO's (non-governmental organizations) pushing junk-science and unproven data to support even more regulation taken directly from UN Agenda 21, there's greedy developers who manipulate zoning laws to get favorable lot sizes fully supported by county officials hungry for increased property taxes. It's bad.

To see it in one county is to see it as a whole. Which begs the question: Is there an alternative? Yes.


"The first person that any dishonest person lies to is oneself. It is an essential step in the justification of any unethical act."

The current environmental management system is inherently flawed and corrupt at every level. As Mark says, "To restate the current system: NGO's accept grants from foundations to foist regulations on the landowners reducing asset value and adding both liabilities and overhead. They and the colluding bureaucrats of the acquiring agency harass the owner with fines for failure to comply with ambiguous and conflicting requirements until they sell or die. The inheritors (who wisely chose another source of income) have to choose between and ongoing fight or estate taxes. Sellers of conservation easements (financed by foundations) circle overhead with briefcases offering a way out."

The information or data to create or augment regulations is based on "science" from established sources like academics living off of grants from either NGO's or governments or both, or from NGO's themselves. This is the acorn that grows in to the mighty oak of certain wholly tyrannical "laws" that are the ESA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and other "weapons" used by environmental useful idiots to steal land for other uses. Whether it's "preservation" by groups like the Nature Conservancy (12 million acres), or confiscation, by regulation, to local or federal government the use is determined by the real value of the land.

The real value, of course, is the reason the original owner purchased the land. It could be water "rights", it could be a view, it could be access to a body of water or any number of reasons the property is attractive. However, just because the land is now protected doesn't mean it won't be exploited at the hands of its new benevolent environmentally conscience owners. In most cases of land taken at the state level the use becomes development of homes or businesses to increase property taxes. In the case of land taken at the federal level the land is set aside for preservation and possibly selected for "use" contracts to be determined later.

The only way to break through this system is to prove that the individual property owner, not only understands and manages his environment, but can prove it. That means compiling data to support a claim that not only is your way sound but better for the environment than the current system. Can one person do this?

Mark did. Over ten years he took his own property in Santa Cruz and converted it from an overgrown tangle of forest in to a viable and vibrant home. Using proven forestry methods and his own developed understanding and skill he systematically brought the land back to life.

This meant clearing out exotic and predatory species of plants that were choking the ground and trees and either burned them or sprayed them with pesticides (cutting them just spreads the seeds). He cut down sick and dying trees to give the healthy ones space to grow. Naturally the benefit of the clearing and select cutting was that the fuel load was decreased to a manageable level should a fire occur. The by-product of the cutting was wood that could have been sold were it not for regulations on the sale of redwoods.

In the process of restoring the forest floor to optimum conditions he discovered that the threat of landslides from over-logging hillsides (as maintained by environmentalists) was wrong. In fact, select cutting of dying or sick trees at the ground level promotes better runoff and if trees are left to die and fall they pull more soil and hillside in to the riparian tributaries. This is the kind of information that is invaluable.

So if you have the data compiled through exhaustive effort of stewardship can you change the current system? Yes. It's simply a matter of getting insurance companies to certify combined systems under the guise of collective understanding and management. What would you call it? InsCert is the name and it circumvents government measures with proven techniques.

Simply put, get a community, no matter how large, to agree to a standard that is more rigorous than government or NGO standards and prove they are wrong. I know it sounds complicated but it's actually quite simple. People, landowners, compile data at the most basic level and submit their findings to a representative group who is willing to put cash behind results and insure, at their peril, to support a system that is unproven by current standards.

Once these measured standards are compiled they are presented as data or fact in defiance to the normal standards, academia, and presented to support a free market system that not only proves the failure of current systems but also proves that another system, outside of current regulation is more productive and beneficial to the environment. And then watch the heads roll.

In short, you the landowner, takes the time out of your day to compile evidence to support a position that the current standards are flawed and sue the current power structure for evidence of damages and failure to perform its prescribed duties.

Still too convoluted?

If you own a farm, ranch, riparian property, or coastal land prove that your practices are sound and use the regulations, laws, and measures that have been used against you to take your land are flawed and destructive. This means that you the individual will have to take the time out of your day to gather evidence of you sound practices. It's not like it will take more time. Simply a matter of writing down data and conditions to support what you already know.

That's all they are using against you. Evidence based on data to get regulations to enforce the taking of your land. Do you have anything to lose for the time? You know the answer.

The model doesn't excuse the smallest property owner. If you can, as a property owner, prove that you have a better way to manage your small plot, do it. And then use existing associations or form a new association. Form an alliance. These alliances can start from small affiliations and grow to a consensus based upon individual observation and failure of the current system. It takes work but not much. How much time does it take to take measurements of conditions and factors that you are working with day in and day out?

Here's the program: Gather evidence or data to support your claim that your are doing better than the current system, gather support for your program based on certified inspectors who validate your claims and are supported by insurance companies who believe in the most efficient system. Present your findings, as a whole, to the current power structure and provide an alternative to the status quo. And when they laugh at you sue them.

That's right. Use the laws that the environmentalists have shackled us with and turn them on their heads. For years they have sued the federal government and won based on "settlements" and gained control of land. Every time the government loses it wins. In control, taxes and land grabs. Talk about a swindle.

Here's how to change it. Prove them wrong. Take it to court. Gain stewardship and shut down the money machine and put the power back in to the hands of the people who spend the most time on the land. Take the data to support a claim of proper stewardship of the land. Make the power structure submit to your claim for authority over the land.

Here's examples:

Environmentalists (based on the Sierra Club claims) have decided that it's better to claim that the forest is better served to burn in the event of a fire. Free market property owners prove that reducing fuels diminishes the possibility of fires and protects, not only homes, but endangered species and the forest. Most wildlands firefighters already know this. Get them to support your claims and back your underwriters.

The Everglades is not better served being flooded to preserve its former state under
Everglades Restoration. Free market property owners can prove that the swallow mentioned to preserve the region under the ESA is better protected by those who would rather see the land support the birds, by individual conservation rather than state sponsored efforts that will drive out land owners.

Citizens of the Delmarva Peninsula can prove that corridors established under the Wildlands Act don't conform to nature's norms of migratory patterns and ecological systems understood by farmers and property owners. Watermen can prove that nitrate runoff from corporate poultry farms do in fact affect the bay and their harvest.

The people of New River, WV. can prove that a highway will have significant impact on the environment and that county planning and zoning acts to provide a view are unsound.

The Sawgrass Rebellion would could be a good time and place to begin to form these alliances and come up with a plan that not only addresses the problems but provides a solution by the people.

If the environment is everything between a blade of grass to an ecosystem, streams, lakes, mountains, forests, farms, ranches, etc., it's up to us to show our knowledge of stewardship as proof of the so called environmentalist's failures and show them how it should be done.

This book is our Walden Pond. It's dangerous.

Samuel Adams said, "It does not take a majority to prevail..but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men"

Light the spark. And foster it.

To learn more about the book go to:

And to buy a copy go to:

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: agenda21; biscuitfire; cleanairact; cleanwateract; environment; esa; kalmiopsisburnt; landgrabs; markvandepol; ngos; oregonstillburning; propertyrights; ruralcleansing; sawgrassrebellion; seanfinnegan; watermelonjihadists; watermelons
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
We should all be proud of this article by a couple of hardworking Freepers. Sean Finnegan (nunya bidness) and Mark Edward Vande Pol (Carry_Okie).

This is a MUST PRINT OUT document for study and application, and distribution to others.

1 posted on 08/20/2002 9:09:05 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Stand Watch Listen; freefly; expose; ...
Super Ping!!!!
2 posted on 08/20/2002 9:10:36 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly
3 posted on 08/20/2002 9:15:33 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cdwright; D Joyce; Inspector Harry Callahan; Jeff Head; kristinn; Libertina; Lucky; M1991; ...
4 posted on 08/20/2002 9:15:45 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Scuttlebutt; MedProf; LadyX; Vigilant1; AnnaZ; Lazamataz; Sir Gawain; Mercuria; hogwaller; ...
5 posted on 08/20/2002 9:25:37 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agitator; Congressman Billybob; The Shrew; governsleastgovernsbest; Neil E. Wright; ALOHA RONNIE; ..
6 posted on 08/20/2002 9:26:50 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly; EBUCK; Granof8; Archie Bunker on steroids; AuntB; wanderin; justshe; blackie; ...
Thanks for posting this, and Sean thanks for writing it.

I have bookmarked this thread for future use, and I would recommend all of us to bookmark it. The lying Green Jihadists will be lying about their Good Fire Agendas to cover up for the massive fires in Oregon and other states. This is a great documentation of their agendas/actions and the terrible results like the massive uncontrolled fires in Oregon since July, 2002.

Here is the link to the newest of over 30 threads about the massive fires burning in Oregon since over a month ago. These fires are the result of the Pro Fire Agendas of the Watermelon Green Jihadists. (Latest FR Thread about Oregon Still Burning)

The end goal of the Watemelon Green Jihadists is Rural Cleansing of all Americans from and around their Druid Cathedrals. Go to the rural cleansing key words in this post and click it for just some of the vile results of these Criminally Insane Green Jihadists. (Link to Key Word, Rural Cleansing)

7 posted on 08/20/2002 9:40:00 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carenot; chantal7; citizenK; Clemenza; Commie Basher; Common Tator; cricket; DeaconBenjamin; ...
8 posted on 08/20/2002 9:42:11 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly; Carry_Okie
I've got a question about the excerpt below. I was previously involved in a dialogue with the author (Carry_Okie), but we didn't follow up on this part.

In the process of restoring the forest floor to optimum conditions he discovered that the threat of landslides from over-logging hillsides (as maintained by environmentalists) was wrong. In fact, select cutting of dying or sick trees at the ground level promotes better runoff and if trees are left to die and fall they pull more soil and hillside in to the riparian tributaries. This is the kind of information that is invaluable.

It seems to me that there's a difference between "over-logging" (it's not clear what that means -- does it mean clear-cutting?) and select cutting of dying or sick trees. Part of the problem with clear cuts is that the logs are dragged over the ground surface, taking the ground cover along with them. That has to increase erosion. If logging is done to remove individual trees and not ground cover, I don't see the problem.

9 posted on 08/20/2002 9:53:58 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Stop Rural Cleansing!
10 posted on 08/20/2002 10:02:40 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
From the 2nd article on the "Rural Cleansing" list:

Citing a General Accounting Office report on fuel reduction in 2001, the Wilderness Society found that only 1 percent of 1,671 proposed projects were "appealed by any interested party, including recreation groups, conservationists, industry interests or individuals."

The same report, the group said, was critical of the Forest Service for tending to focus its fuels-reduction plans in areas where commercially valuable timber was located rather than on areas that had the highest fire hazards.
11 posted on 08/20/2002 10:07:24 AM PDT by Egregious Philbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: madfly


12 posted on 08/20/2002 10:10:25 AM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly; nunya bidness; Carry_Okie; All
Wahoo!! I can't wait to read it all !I wondered where our darling Sean has been lately....LADIES.....This is the sweetest, most handsome, darling young man you've ever put eyes on....too bad I'm old enough to be his mother!!:<)

On Thursday President Bush is visitng burned out So. Oregon and I have a ticket to attend his speech announcing his forest policy......I think I'll take some copies of this fine article. Thanks Sean and Mark!!!!!

13 posted on 08/20/2002 10:12:14 AM PDT by AuntB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuntB
See if you get a tape recorder in. Or even better would be a video of it all.

too bad I'm old enough to be his mother!!:<)

There's something to be said for "experience".


14 posted on 08/20/2002 10:21:38 AM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: madfly
I did a short little interview with Carry_Okie on Saturday. You should be able to find it in the first hour here:

Radio FreeRepublic Archives

and the archive of the live show from FRIVA
can be launched directly from these links:

  Windows Media Player RealPlayer
020817 Friva Las Vegas! Friva Las Vegas!


Unspun will probably have Carry_Okie and nunya bidness on, on this topic and The Sawgrass Rebellion, relatively soon.

15 posted on 08/20/2002 10:23:36 AM PDT by AnnaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Time to dig thru the book again!

Excellent Article here!

16 posted on 08/20/2002 10:24:14 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
It seems to me that there's a difference between "over-logging" (it's not clear what that means -- does it mean clear-cutting?) and select cutting of dying or sick trees.

First, "over-logging" is a term I have never used. From a technical perspective, there are situations where clear-cuts are appropriate and others where the practice would be an outrage.

Part of the problem with clear cuts is that the logs are dragged over the ground surface, taking the ground cover along with them. That has to increase erosion.

This has nothing at all to do with which or how many trees are felled, but instead how they are "yarded" out of the forest. For example, helicopter yarding belies that assertion as does "high lead" cable yarding where the logs are carried in the air from a suspended cable. A rubber-tired loader moves less dirt than a crawler. Both can be used to improve conditions on the forest floor. Sometimes the cat can stir up the dirt to accelerate the return of native plants. If it isn't used carefully, it can bring weeds or accelerate erosion as you suggest. It all depends upon circumstances and methods.

If logging is done to remove individual trees and not ground cover, I don't see the problem.

Most often (as in the case of many National Forests) forest stands are so thick that there isn't any groundcover because they were shaded out or destroyed by the acumulation of acidic duff.

You would have to understand the type of situation Sean refers to in the book. I'll post an excerpt to make it clear:

From what I have seen, the environmentalists have it dead wrong. They demand no logging on steep slopes because the soils would be disturbed, which might cause a little sluffing that they call erosion. This may be true, but the real question is, how much erosion is caused by thinning compared to the alternative? If we don’t log those slopes, we’ll get trees, large and heavy enough to apply sufficient load to the slope to break loose, just like that tree 250 years ago on my place. If it’s winter, that falling tree could start a chain reaction in a saturated alluvium. It’s called a landslide. Landslides like that are all over these mountains. They choke with weeds, weep silt for years, and the mud can again become unstable slopes when they saturate while still full of rotting logs. By contrast, a large redwood stump cut to the ground line with a small tree on it makes a living retaining wall.

The biggest risk of sedimentation in streams is if we DON’T thin the stands. If the forest burns too hot in a cataclysmic crown fire, the trees WILL die to a greater degree than if it had been clearcut. It will be no mosaic burn; the disturbed area will be huge. There will be no surface plants to slow the water. There will be no duff to filter the soils. When it rains, the suspended solids will act like abrasive slurry to cut the soil and destabilize slopes. There will be 0% canopy for nearby streams, but then they will likely be so full of mud it won’t matter to the fish.

On the other hand, if the cluster that grows from the old stump is thinned, and the weaker trees are removed, those that remain will sprout new branches into the gaps on the side that needs the weight. They will thicken and straighten. The bark will continue to thicken to protect the trees from future fires. They will be more capable of forcing roots around their perimeter.

Here is a photo of such a slope:

You will note that there is little groundcover where we yarded the logs. It did cause a little sluffing where there was only duff. That material was captured and retained where it will do some good. Most important, note the pocket created by the tree that fell some 250 years ago. Consider the difference: Hundreds of yards that came down with the tree or perhaps two to three yards of compost that was used to reshape the drainage so that it reduced downcutting by the adjacent stream.

Logging is a tool. The impact depends upon how you do it.

17 posted on 08/20/2002 10:34:15 AM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Egregious Philbin; raven; BOBTHENAILER; MadIvan
Well, that was the big lie of the Envirals on this GAO report, but you knew that it was a big lie, didn't you?

Here is the rebuttal of this Enviral Lie from the Wall Street Journal:

Truth Under Fire [Libs Lie Again on Forest Fires]
Wall St. Journal ^ | July 11, 2002 | Editorial

Posted on 07/11/2002 1:28 AM Pacific by The Raven

Talk about starting a fire in your own backyard.

Last month, environmental groups across the country hollered like banshees when politicians and local communities began taking them to task for the massive wildfires that are today gutting the West. The crescendo came when Arizona's Gov. Jane Dee Hull, watching half a million acres of her state go up in smoke, flatly blamed greenies for obstructing work to clean up national forests. She was talking about the never-ending stream of appeals and lawsuits they file to halt thinning, road building and firebreaks.

The only thing was, just as the enviros were taking some richly deserved heat, they suddenly surfaced with what looked like an ironclad defense -- in the form of a General Accounting Office report. According to that paper, of the 1,671 Forest Service projects to reduce hazardous fuels in 2001, outside groups had objected to only 20 -- less than 1%. "It would have been good if the governor had gotten her facts straight before spouting off," spat Sandy Bahr, of the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter.

The report quickly became the news in the forest-fire debate. The Sierra Club pasted Ms. Bahr's quote beneath the GAO numbers on its Web site. The Center for Biological Diversity and the Wilderness Society feted the document, claiming exoneration. The New York Times editorial page howled that the report showed accusations against environmental groups to be "absurd."

Western politicians, scientists and forest officials, in the meantime, were mystified: Everyone unlucky enough to own a tree in his backyard knows from experience that environmental groups appeal projects faster than bunnies reproduce. So what was up with this GAO report?

What was up was the report itself. And the environmental groups, who knew it all along, now have some serious egg on their all-natural faces.

In a three-page letter sent this week to Congress, Barry Hill, the director of natural resources and the environment at the GAO, set the record straight. He delicately explained the methodology used to count up appeals and litigation. The details are dense, but the message was clear: The GAO didn't have the whole story.

His letter just happens to coincide with a new Forest Service report with the correct numbers. And guess what? It turns out nearly half (48%) of all the Service's plans for getting rid of hazardous fuels were appealed by outside groups. In the Northern Region, one of nine the Service administers, every single one of its projects for fiscal year 2001-02 -- 53 in total -- was appealed. Other regions saw anywhere from 67% to 79% of their plans put on hold through appeals.

But here's the real kicker: The Forest Service report also names those groups that launch the most appeals. Surprise, surprise, they include the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Wilderness Society and others -- the very same folks who held up the (obviously) incorrect GAO report and claimed it was true. "These numbers are . . . a harsh reminder of just how relentlessly ideological some environmental litigants have become," said Rep. Scott McInnis (R., Colo.).

That comment just about sums it up. For years, radical environmentalists have twisted and fabricated facts in their desire to keep humans out of the forests. Most of the time, they get away with it. This time, they've been caught with their loincloths down.

It'd be nice to think that Ms. Bahr, the Sierra Club and other groups will now post the real numbers on their Web sites -- seeing, after all, as how we should all "get our facts straight before spouting off." Then again, if that's the standard, perhaps we just won't be hearing anything from these groups for a very long time to come.

When do enviralists, phoney conservatives who are enviralists lie about their tactics, strategies and goals?
18 posted on 08/20/2002 10:37:28 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ

Unspun will probably have Carry_Okie and nunya bidness on, on this topic and The Sawgrass Rebellion, relatively soon.

Wow, this is great news. We'll have to make a lot of noise promoting the broadcast. This could inform more freepers, people on FR who have other interests and don't read the enviro and Sawgrass threads.

seeing a nice graphic with both of their handsome pictures....

19 posted on 08/20/2002 10:40:03 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Leftist politicians and wacko environmentalists made nuclear power available to other countries yet refuse to deal with the same technology in America. How long have these same people been parading our forestry positions to the remainder of the world?
20 posted on 08/20/2002 10:40:07 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 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
Topics · Post Article

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