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

Skip to comments.

Bush Policies Prompt Aides to Leave (Extreme Whine Alert)
The Detroit News | Sunday, June 30, 2002 | Elizabeth Shogren

Posted on 07/01/2002 10:41:40 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER

Washington - James Furnish is hardly the kind of person you'd expect to quit his government job on principle during the Bush administration. A political conservative and an evangelical Christian, he voted for President Bush and plans to do the same in 2004.

As a deputy chief of the U.S. Forest Service, he was eager to give his new bosses the benefit of his more than 30 years of experience in the agency. He realized his conservationist ethic might not always prevail. But he was ready to say his piece and then accept the new administration's direction.

Instead, Furnish reluctantly left the government in the fall, at a substantial financial sacrifice, because he was frustrated by what he called the Bush team's strident pro-development philosophy and unwillingness to listen to his perspective.

That makes him one of a number of senior career officials across several environmental agencies who have quit since the Bush administration took over. They include senior lawyers from the Environmental Protection Agency, a state director for the Bureau of Land Management, scientists with years of experience and top bureaucrats in Washington.

Divergent views
In each case, the decision to leave a well-paid job after years or even decades of service reflected concern over the Bush administration's efforts to make environmental regulations more friendly to businesses and promote energy extraction from federal lands.

The departures also reveal that under the Bush team, divergent views in the top ranks of these agencies have been ignored and key career government officials who were seen to favor protecting natural resources over promoting their use have been removed from power.

Whether the number of departures is unusual is difficult to say. No one chronicles resignations on principle, and a Republican had not taken the White House from a Democrat for 20 years.

Eric Ruff, spokesman for the Interior Department, said staff changes are normal in a new administration. "This is not something that's unique to this administration," Ruff said.

Whether or not the departures are unusually numerous, Paul Light, vice president for governmental studies at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution, said they were very costly.

"A lot of these people came to government in the 1960s and 1970s because they beilieved in the mission," Light said. "It's very furstrating for someone who came into government for the mission to reach the top of their career and be told that doesn't matter, it's all about politics."

Although Furnish, for example, was one of the most senior career officials in the Forest Service, the new administration's political appointees did not invite him to any pivotal policy-making meetings.

Three times he was scheduled to testify before Congress; three times political appointees canceled his testimony at the last minute.

Out of the loop
Furnish did not expect to make policy for the new administration, but he did expect that his senior post would give him the right to express his views and be included in policy discussions. Instead, he was shut out.

In the Clinton administration, he played a key role in shaping the policy of banning road building and logging in almost 60 million acres of national forest land. He also was central to an initiative that would have required forest planners to consider environmental preservation above all other goals when deciding how national forests would be managed.

"I've been disappointed and somewhat embittered with how the (Bush) administration has sought to undo them or not defend them," Furnish said. "But I'm a realist and pragmatist and I understand it's their day now."

Furnish took a financial hit by leaving when he did. His retirement income will be about $10,000 less a year for the rest of his life than if he had waited about a year longer.

Forest Service Chief Dale N. Bosworth said Furnish was experiencing the predictable discomforts of a shift in administration.

"Every time we have a change of administration, we have a job of building trust between us and the new administration," said Bosworth, who is also a career government employee. "Until we build that relationship, there is going to be some uneasiness."

Like Furnish, other top career executives in the environmental agencies complain they were cut out of the loop. Some were abruptly reassigned from jobs they loved.

When the Bush administration took office, Martha Hahn, 47, was one of very few women who had reached the level of state director for the Bureau of Land Management. She was responsible for 12 million acres in Idaho, alomost one-quarter of the state.

In seven years on the job, she said she tried to balance preserving clean water, wilderness and wildlife with allowing multiple uses of the land, such as grazing.

EPA director quits
Soon after the Bush administration took over, things changed. Headquarters started making decisions on her turf without her. Some of her decisions, such as those on grazing plans, were overruled in Washington.

But even before the new BLM chief officially started work, Hahn received a letter from Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles telling her that she was being transferred to a previously nonexistent job in New York City. For a land manager who loves the Rocky Mountain West, it was the equivalent of being put out to pasture.

Hahn quit instead. "It's been a shock," she said. "I'm going through mental anguish right now. I felt like I was at the prime of my career. I was really clicking along, and I was tossed out."

The career official who made the most waves when he left was Eric Schaeffer, the former head of the EPA's enforcement office. He quit in March after 12 years at the agency, accusing the new administration of endangering public health by failing to aggressively pursue pending lawsuits against coal-fired power plants.

He and his staff could almost taste the victory from agreements in principle with two utilities to make massive pollution reductions. He said the administration undermined those settlements by waffling on the policy behind the lawsuits.

His departure was covered widely by the news media, and he testified about his complaints before Congress.

New blood leaves
Younger government employees who became government servants to help protect the environment also have quit.

After just three years as an EPA staff attorney, Michele Merkel, 34, was convinced of the essential role that lawsuits and fines lay in forcing companies to abide by environmental regulations.

She was discouraged when Christie Whitman, the EPA's new administrator, told her unit she wanted to play down enforcement and instead lure companies to stop polluting voluntarily.

She was further disappointed when Whitman proposed cutting the enforcement budget and reducing the enforcement staff through attrition.

"Ultimately what drove me out of the agency was the anti-enforcement philosophy of the current administration," Merkel said.

Merkel and the other officials who quit said they left many disgruntled colleagues behind.

Jeff Rook, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said his agency has talked with at least 20 Interior employees weighing quitting.

"They find themselves increasingly despairing; they're being asked to undo the work they've spent the bulk of their careers doing," Rook said.


TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: forestservice; liberalpuke; strategery; whining
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last
Long read, but worth it. The title of this article should really be "Do you want some cheese with that whine?" Thank goodness people of this ilk are leaving.
1 posted on 07/01/2002 10:41:40 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER; madfly; CedarDave; AAABEST; Carry_Okie; Grampa Dave; B4Ranch; SierraWasp; brityank
Big mass exodus from EPA/BLM PING
2 posted on 07/01/2002 10:47:27 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
He realized his conservationist ethic might not always prevail. But he was ready to say his piece and then accept the new administration's direction.

Judging by the facts alone, the man is a liar.

He probably just got a better job offer, and decided a little political grandstanding would make him a semi-celebrity at his next wine-and-brie social.

3 posted on 07/01/2002 10:50:18 AM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pegita; TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!; EternalVigilance; floriduh voter
Cleaning up government PING
4 posted on 07/01/2002 10:50:44 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
Great find! What this country NEEDS is more government beauracrats leaving! Fewer syncophants that we the people have to support! Pro-liberty BTT!!!

5 posted on 07/01/2002 10:54:24 AM PDT by =Intervention=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
He probably just got a better job offer, and decided a little political grandstanding would make him a semi-celebrity at his next wine-and-brie social.

I'd be willing to bet a lot that you are right on the money.

6 posted on 07/01/2002 10:55:06 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: =Intervention=
What this country NEEDS is more government beauracrats leaving!

Agreed. The quicker the better.

7 posted on 07/01/2002 10:56:55 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
Kind of encouraging that they are rerunning this. This was initially reported months ago, so if they haven't been able to come up with anything new in the mean time, they are showing signs of desperation.
8 posted on 07/01/2002 10:57:26 AM PDT by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
A lot of these people came to government in the 1960s and 1970s because they beilieved in the mission

Well it's about time they left

9 posted on 07/01/2002 11:04:06 AM PDT by paul51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Just the man to sue if you are a burned out homeowner in the fires of Colorado and NM.
10 posted on 07/01/2002 11:05:51 AM PDT by Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
His retirement income will be about $10,000 less a year for the rest of his life than if he had waited about a year longer.

Thus saving US $10,000 per year for the rest of his life. May many others follow him out the door.

11 posted on 07/01/2002 11:10:28 AM PDT by mombonn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
In the Clinton administration, he played a key role in shaping the policy of banning road building and logging in almost 60 million acres of national forest land. He also was central to an initiative that would have required forest planners to consider environmental preservation above all other goals when deciding how national forests would be managed.

Good Riddance!

12 posted on 07/01/2002 11:23:08 AM PDT by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
Furnish took a financial hit by leaving when he did. His retirement income will be about $10,000 less a year for the rest of his life than if he had waited about a year longer.

And we are supposed to trust the JUDGEMENT of this fool??

What a whimp to not consider his family and the input he could have had, had he stayed. What a friggin crybaby.

I say good ridance.. especially considering this about him "In the Clinton administration, he played a key role in shaping the policy of banning road building and logging in almost 60 million acres of national forest land. He also was central to an initiative that would have required forest planners to consider environmental preservation above all other goals when deciding how national forests would be managed."

Gee,.. could it be that with all the FIRES going on thanks to the environmental idiots like this guy... that he was POLITELY asked to leave?

He probably was allowed to stay on for the sake of his retirement benefits. That he stomped out of his job like this..and now is crying to the press.. is proof he was a trouble maker!!

Good ridance..and don't let the door hit ya in the _ _ _!!!

13 posted on 07/01/2002 11:24:29 AM PDT by Vets_Husband_and_Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
These guys are the ones who have been trying to choke out landowners in areas they covet. They have arrested people for using the only access road into their property. In California, in one case they shut down the mule train that was the only means for bringing groceries into a community, this after closing the only road to motor vehicles.

They have closed quite a few roads in the area where I live, forcing people to go hours out of their way to get in or out.

I am still upset about the Wildlife folks arresting the farmer for plowing his own land. They have harrassed people for plowing firebreaks on their own land, during fire season.

They have shut down industries of long standing, putting people out of work, with out batting an eye.

Honestly, these people are fascists and need to go.

14 posted on 07/01/2002 11:24:59 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
We have career envirals who planted lynx hair and fudged scientific studies, lied about the spotted owls, the salmon, the effects of clear cutting and spot burns, are now coming under fire for years of shoddy junk science resulting in new, unnecessary regulations and just set two of the biggest fires in US history...yet the leftist journalist with the Detroit News gives these paragons the microphone, no questions, investigations, comments for balance. Press's lying for the activists without a moral core in government and cost to tax payers and developers???? Priceless.
15 posted on 07/01/2002 11:26:15 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
10th Ammendment. Now. Let these people answer to the people who live there.
16 posted on 07/01/2002 11:28:18 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
Someone posted the other day that 40% of the U.S. Forest Service budget was spent in lawsuits. Anybody have a link?
17 posted on 07/01/2002 11:30:39 AM PDT by CJinVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
I'm trying to figure out why this is suppose to upset me.
18 posted on 07/01/2002 11:33:03 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
. They include senior lawyers from the Environmental Protection Agency, a state director for the Bureau of Land Management, scientists with years of experience and top bureaucrats in Washington.

Klintoon's people pure and simple, i.e. EPA , Bureau of Land Grabbings, scientists with their accompanying "the sky is falling because of Republican policies", and other leftists left over from the x42 administration.

19 posted on 07/01/2002 11:34:40 AM PDT by zip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vets_Husband_and_Wife
Furnish took a financial hit by leaving when he did. His retirement income will be about $10,000 less a year for the rest of his life than if he had waited about a year longer.

So, he didnt quit.. he retired. Maybe he had cashed in his global crossing shares and just didnt feel like working anymore.
20 posted on 07/01/2002 11:35:23 AM PDT by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Vets_Husband_and_Wife; Mike Darancette; marron
What a friggin crybaby.

Honestly, these people are fascists and need to go.

I've heard from a truly credible source that the policy of the Bush Admin is to slowly replace all department heads they can, transfer to virtual Siberia those they cannot and install their people in all vacancies. Looks like its working.

21 posted on 07/01/2002 11:35:26 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
In the old days, when a new Chief Executive was elected, executive branch employees went out the door with their boss.

I understand that that situation caused a certain number of problems in terms of cronyism and a lack of continuity...but it had its advantages as well.

I would have liked to see thousands of career bureaucrats gone when Bush took office...the Clintons had done plenty of damage in eight years, not the least of which was in the area of personnel.

But if it takes political pressure to make them leave, I'm all for it.

Much of the damage to the West that these yahoos have caused in the last decade is irreversible...but it is way past time to stop the hemorraging.

EV

22 posted on 07/01/2002 11:38:34 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
I've heard from a truly credible source that the policy of the Bush Admin is to slowly replace all department heads they can, transfer to virtual Siberia those they cannot and install their people in all vacancies. Looks like its working.

This piece would sure seem to confirm that.

Hurrah!!

23 posted on 07/01/2002 11:40:54 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Press's lying for the activists without a moral core in government and cost to tax payers and developers???? Priceless

I really hated to post anything from the Detroit Free Press, which is as liberal a rag as any.

I couldn't resist this one though. The reporter's attempts to glorify these high minded, noble crybabies only serves to make them look worse.

24 posted on 07/01/2002 11:41:15 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I would have liked to see thousands of career bureaucrats gone when Bush took office

Amen to that, brother.

25 posted on 07/01/2002 11:43:25 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
The reporter's attempts to glorify these high minded, noble crybabies only serves to make them look worse.

Hey, maybe the demise of their high priests will make the whole church of Gaia fold...

;-)

(I can hope, can't I?)

26 posted on 07/01/2002 11:45:07 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: operation clinton cleanup
Regardless.. quitting LESS than a year away from an extra 10 thousand dollars a year is idiocy at its finest!! Not exactly a bright move!! I wouldn't want someone who makes these kinds of decisions making ANY decisions regarding any kind of policy whatsoever!!!
27 posted on 07/01/2002 11:46:00 AM PDT by Vets_Husband_and_Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: marron
Now. Let these people answer to the people who live there.

Now that would TRULY be poetic justice. However, if that were to occur, I'm sure the justice served up to these people would be more along the lines of wild west justice.

28 posted on 07/01/2002 11:48:43 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/104cong/esa/fees.htm
Long, but gives the big picture of the Closed Door methods of Clinton and BBBABBITT.

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION CLOSES COURTHOUSE DOOR -- HON. DON YOUNG (Extension of Remarks - September 25, 1996)

[Page: E1679]

---

HON. DON YOUNG

in the House of Representatives

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1996

Court Cases
Case name Suit number District Attorney fees paid
1. Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Babbitt 95-601 Colorado $1,000.00
2. Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Babbitt 95-382 Colorado 8,000.00
3. Restore: The North Woods v. Babbitt 95-37 New Hampshire 5,400.00
4. Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Babbitt 95-1815 Colorado 3,500.00
5. Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Babbitt 95-816 Colorado 500.00
6. The Bay Institute of San Francisco, et al. v. Babbitt 94-0265 California, East 5,000.00
7. National Audubon Society v. Babbitt, et al. 94-0105 California, South 7,540.61
8. Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc., Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Inc., et al. v. Babbitt 94-0246 District of Columbia 4,500.00
9. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Morgenweck. 94-717 Colorado 4,200.00
10. Environmental Defense Center v. Babbitt. 94-0743 California, Central 4,074.75
11. Biodiversity Legal Foundation, et al. v. Babbitt 94-1086 Colorado 1,408.19
12. Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Babbitt 94-0920 District of Columbia 5,000.00
13. Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Babbitt 94-0920 District of Columbia 3,815.00
14. Greater Gila Biodiversity Project v. USFWS 94-0288 Arizona 2,048.91
15. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. USFWS 94-0696 Arizona 1,665.00
16. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. USFWS 94-0739 Arizona 1,000.00
17. Environmental Defense Center v. Babbitt 94-0788 California, Central 3,815.00
18. Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Babbitt 94-666 Oregon 4,000.00
19. Mountain Lion Fountain v. Babbitt 94-1165 California, East 6,500.00
20. Dr. Robin Silver, et al. v. Babbitt 94-0337 Arizona 4,000.00
21. Dr. Robin Silver, et al. v. Babbitt 94-0337 Arizona 102,418.86
22. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt 94-1034 Arizona 5,145.00
23. The Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Babbitt 94-02441 District of Columbia 4,000.00
24. Idaho Conservation League v. Babbitt 94-0351 Idaho 5,000,00
25. Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides v. Babbitt 94-6339 Oregon 10,500.00
26. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt 94-1946 Arizona 1,971.01
27. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt 94-2036 Arizona 40,000.00
28. Native Plant Society of Oregon v. U.S. DOI 93-180 Oregon 13,046.19
29. National Audubon Society et al. v. Babbitt et al.. 93-1152 District of Columbia 22,500.00
30. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game v. National Marine Fisheries Service 93-1603 Oregon 8,405.06
31. Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Dept. of Commerce 93-293 Oregon 16,200.00
32. Clemmys Karmorata v. USFWS 93-6135 Oregon 2,522.30
33. Environmental Defense Center v. Bruce Babbitt 93-1847 California, Central 4,700.00
34. Environmental Defense Center v. Bruce Babbitt 93-1848 California, Central 4,700.00
35. Environmental Defense Center v. Babbitt 93-3379 California, Central 4,300.00
36. Desert Tortoise, et al. v. Lujan 93-0114 California, North 69,000.00
37. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bruce Babbitt 93-2376 Colorado 8,500.00
38. Greater Yellowstone Coalition, et al. v. F. Dale Robertson (Chief, USFWS) 93-1495 District of Columbia 32,750.00
39. Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Bruce Babbitt, Sec. DOI 93-0301 California, North 262,096.76
40. Sierra Club, et al. v. Bruce Babbitt, et al. 93-1717 California, South 11,368.76
41. Greater Gila Biodiversity Project v. USFWS 93-1913 Arizona 11,000.00
42. Sierra Club, et al. v. David Garber, et al. 93-069 Montana 55,000.00
43. Bay Institute of San Francisco v. Lujan 92-2132 California, East 60,000.00
44. Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas 92-1322 Oregon 165,000.00
45. Colorado Wildlife Federation v. Turner 92-884 Colorado 31,351.90
46. Colorado Wildlife Federation v. Turner 92-884 Colorado 5,000.00
47. Environmental Defense Center v. Lujan 92-6082 California, Central 7,500.00
48. Idaho Conservation League v. Manuel Lujan, et al. 92-0260 Idaho 21,166.00
49. Canadian Lynx, Greater Ecosystem Alliance v. Lujan 21-1269 Washington, West 2,000.00
50. Canadian Lynx, Greater Ecosystem Alliance v. Lujan 92-1269 Washington, West 9,500.00
51. Friends of Walker Creek Wetlands v. Dept. of the Interior 92-1626 Oregon 12,000.00
52. Idaho Conservation League, et al. v. Lujan 92-0406 Idaho 8,000.00
53. Fund for Animals v. Manuel Lujan, et al. 92-800 District of Columbia 67,500.00
54. National Audubon Society v. Lujan 92-209 California, South 7,348.75
55. Wendell Wood, et al. v. Manuel Lujan, et al. 91-6496 Oregon 14,547.05
56. Wendell Wood, et al. v. Manuel Lujan, et al. 91-6496 Oregon 550.00
57. California Native Plant Society v. Manuel Lujan, Jr. 91-0038 California, East 16,678.25
58. Earth Island Institute, et al. v. Manuel Lujan, Jr. 91-6015 Oregon 32,338.70
59. The Fund for Animals ein., et al. v. Turner 91-2201 District of Columbia 36,000.00
60. West Snowy Plover v. Lujan 91-1421 Washington, West 7,710.92
61. Edward Wilkinson Mudd Jr. v. William Reilly, Admin., EPA 91-1392 Alabama, North 39,000.00
62. Hawaiian Crow v. Manuel Lujan 91-00191 Hawaii 195,000.00
63. Sierra Club v. Lujan 91-069 Texas, West 666,666.67
64. Sierra Club v. Lujan 91-069 Texas, West 666,666.67
65. Sierra Club v. Lujan 91-069 Texas, West 666,666.66
66. Sierra Club v. Lujan 91-069 Texas, West 1,550,000.00
67. Marbled Murrelet, et al. v. Manuel Lujan 91-522 Washington, West 43,519.49
68. Marbled Murrelet, et al. v. Manuel Lujan 91-522 Washington, West 17,589.98
69. Dioxin/Organichlorine Center and Columbia River United v. Dana Rasmussen 91-1442 Washington, West 61,500.00
70. Colorado Envtl. Coalition v. J. Turner 91-1765 Colorado 5,168.40
71. Florida Key Deer, et al. v. Robert H. Morris 90-10037 Florida, South 130,000.00
72. Conservation Council for Hawaii, et al. v. Manuel Lujan and John F. Turner 89-00953 Hawaii 44,635.25
73. National Wildlife Federation, et al. v. Robert Mosbacher, Sec. of Commerce 89-2089 District of Columbia 42,500.00
74. Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund v. Manuel Lujan, Jr., Sec. of Interior, et al. 89-1140 District of Columbia 9,000.00
75. Sierra Club, et al. v. James A. Baker, et al 89-3005 District of Columbia 18,583.72
76. Resources Limited Inc., et al. v. F. Dale Robertson, et al. 89-41 Montana 90,000.00
47,000.00
77. Environmental Defense Fund v. Lujan 89-2034 District of Columbia 2,237.50
78. Silver Rice Rat, et al. v. Manuel Lujan 89-3409 District of Columbia 19,500.00
79. Northern Spotted Owl, et al. v. Donald Hodel, et al. 88-573 Washington, West 56,718.00
80. World Wildlife Fund v. Donald P. Hodel, et al. 88-573 56,000.00
81. Sierra Club and League for Coastal Protection v. John Marsh, et al. 86-1942 California, South 44,774.16
82. Greenpeace v. Baldrige 86-0129 Hawaii 88,794.01
83. Sierra Club, et al. v. Richard Lyng 85-69 Texas, East 149,647.50
84. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Donald Hodel (Kesterson) 85-1214 California, East 518.000.00
85. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Donald Hodel (Kesterson) 85-1214 California, East 57.000.00
86. Natl. Wildlife Foundation, et al. v. Endangered Species Committee, et al. 79-1851 District of Columbia 20,000.00
87. Defenders of Wildlife v. Thomas Strychnine Minnesota 122,500.00

[Page: E1680]

29 posted on 07/01/2002 11:51:50 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
(I can hope, can't I?)

Sad to say but with every new fire, with each home destroyed, as tragic and needless as that is, the general public seems to be growing in its distaste for thse loonies and their disastrous policies.

Your hope is a lot closer to reality than we may think.

30 posted on 07/01/2002 11:53:17 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Thanks a million for this find.
31 posted on 07/01/2002 11:55:56 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: vigl
Check out madfly's post #29, and then imagine what has gone on since then. I saw the same thing you were asking about, but can't remember the name.
32 posted on 07/01/2002 11:59:07 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking; BOBTHENAILER; CedarDave
Right on, this is a re run, and that shows the leftist editors are really hard up.

If this clymer was a conservative, I'm a leftist!

This clymer needs to be subpoenaed by Ben Lighthorse and Senator Super K from Arizona to find out how involved he and his enviral Nazis buddies were re the no roads policies.

Out of the loop Furnish did not expect to make policy for the new administration, but he did expect that his senior post would give him the right to express his views and be included in policy discussions. Instead, he was shut out.

In the Clinton administration, he played a key role in shaping the policy of banning road building and logging in almost 60 million acres of national forest land. He also was central to an initiative that would have required forest planners to consider environmental preservation above all other goals when deciding how national forests would be managed.

This Druid Clymer is the walking smoking gun re setting up our forests to become the tinder boxes they are now!

He and any of his Druid Organizations should be sued in Civil Court for damages due their agendas of no roads and no harvesting of trees.

33 posted on 07/01/2002 11:59:29 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Free the USA; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Libertarianize the GOP; freefly; expose; .30Carbine; 4Freedom; ..
Ping to post #29. Long read, but very informative of what was going on in 1996.
34 posted on 07/01/2002 12:00:15 PM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
Thanks. I saved it as a text file on a floppy last year. Been looking all morning. Then, surprise, the link still works. Bona fide evidence!
35 posted on 07/01/2002 12:02:58 PM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: vigl; BOBTHENAILER
Here's something from Jon Kyl's website that mentions the 40% lawsuit statement.

Senator Jon Kyl has lambasted the Southwest Center for Biodiversity in his statement at Show Low last week. Here is something from his website:

http://www.senate.gov/~kyl/#statmnt

"Environmentally-sound strategies such as forest thinning and controlled burns clear away small, dry, and disease-prone trees and underbrush that serve as kindling for fires and prevent healthy growth. Arizonans can see the results of such proper forest-management techniques firsthand. The White Mountain Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Mount Trumbell, and other places in our state prove that properly-thinned forests are not only healthier and fire-resistant, but much more attractive. "Yet standing in the way of these efforts are radical environmentalists who file litigation and seek to otherwise obstruct forest treatment. They would rather the forests burn than to see sensible forest management. As of last month, there were 5,000 legal challenges pending against the U.S. Forest Service, which devotes nearly 40 percent of its resources to defending against lawsuits and complying with environmental regulations. This is time and money taken away from fighting fires.

"Along with other Western Senators, I am proposing legislation shortly to establish an ecological research institute in Arizona that will work with land managers to implement forest-restoration treatments throughout the state. As it happens, my request for $1 million in federal funding for a pilot program to treat Apache-Sitgreaves through forest thinning was granted shortly before this wildfire broke out. We will work to fund more pilot programs throughout the state, because as long as we leave our forests untreated, we will guarantee catastrophic damage."

HOW TO CONTACT SEN. JON KYL

I welcome your comments and questions. You can get a message quickly to me by:

I would like to hear your thoughts and suggestions about this website. The online webmaster comment form will get your message directly to my webmaster.

Washington, D.C.
730 Hart Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-4521
Fax: (202) 224-2207

Phoenix
2200 East Camelback, Suite 120
Phoenix, Arizona 85016-3455
Phone: (602) 840-1891
Fax: (602) 957-6838

Tucson
7315 North Oracle Road, Suite 220
Tucson, Arizona 85704
Phone: (520) 575-8633
Fax: (520) 797-3232

 


36 posted on 07/01/2002 12:09:09 PM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Thanks for the ping.

I suppose any admin has policies that irk some - and they leave, for reasons stated or otherwise.

One here said that the Govt. failed to pursue penalties. that's believable. Another complains about "fire roads." That's quite overly sensitive. There seems to be an ongoing debate about forest management and fires. As for the road issue, that's pathetic.

37 posted on 07/01/2002 12:09:51 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Incredibly solid post...thank you very kindly.

It's folks like you that make FR so great.

EV

38 posted on 07/01/2002 12:11:15 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
That makes him one of a number of senior career officials across several environmental agencies who have quit since the Bush administration took over. They include senior lawyers from the Environmental Protection Agency, a state director for the Bureau of Land Management, scientists with years of experience and top bureaucrats in Washington.

Some of the best news I've heard lately. The Bush people are doing their job. Great.

I'm having a hard time remembering the articles about Bush Sr. people that left when the Clintonistas took power.

I know the media wasn't too worried when Hillary fired all of the US Attorneys.

39 posted on 07/01/2002 12:27:46 PM PDT by TC Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER; Carry_Okie
The Bush administration wants to shift funding for the 33 cleanup projects to the government's general fund, meaning taxpayers would pay. But such a shift requires congressional approval and will slow down the work and likely halt it entirely is some cases.

Anything the a government does is paid for initially or eventually by taxpayers! Merkel and the other officials who quit said they left many disgruntled colleagues behind.

I raise my glass in praising their decision to leave. May they soon suffer the same as the people who have lived under their decisions while they were with environmental agencies

40 posted on 07/01/2002 12:30:19 PM PDT by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
As for the road issue, that's pathetic.

I posted this on another thread earlier and it points out in graphic detail, your road thoughts.

Just a little math to ponder: 60' (timber fire break) times 5280' (mile) times 100 miles, divided by 43560 (sq ft in acre) equals 727.27 acres cleared. At close to 500,000 acres burned to the ground, cleared, wasted and wiped out for at least 10-20years, I would call the trade-off quite good. Bear in mind that 100 miles of a sixty foot timber break is only my guess as to what would be sufficient for a safety margin. Even if it's double or triple that, the tradeoff is more than good. Then again, common sense does not exist with Enviro/nazi's!!!

41 posted on 07/01/2002 12:32:56 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
Thanks, Bob, for the ping and the read. It's appropriate to insert here THE admonition given to Adam and Eve at their creation:

Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every livng thing that moves upon the earth.'"

Our President knows these words, I'm sure ...

42 posted on 07/01/2002 1:10:32 PM PDT by Pegita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Pegita
'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every livng thing that moves upon the earth.'"

Very nice. Most enviros probably haven't got that far in the bible.

43 posted on 07/01/2002 1:21:12 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
Most enviros probably haven't got that far in the bible.

ROFL!! ;-)

44 posted on 07/01/2002 1:30:24 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
> 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds
of the air and over every livng thing that moves upon the earth.'"

> Very nice. Most enviros probably haven't got that far in the bible.

They probably think that passage is addressed to lawyers... Who are succeeding...
45 posted on 07/01/2002 1:45:33 PM PDT by Axenolith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
Another in the plus column for Bush. Dang..if he keeps this up my score card may tie.
46 posted on 07/01/2002 2:00:40 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly
BTTT!!!!!
47 posted on 07/01/2002 2:04:55 PM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave; AAABEST; BOBTHENAILER; brityank; farmfriend
A little bit here about the early origins of the madness we are dealing with today.

http://moxnix2.homestead.com/global2.html

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (Part 4 of 9)
By Henry Lamb


THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT (1970s)

Not a single vote was cast against the Wilderness Act of 1964 when it
finally reached the Senate. Congress thought it was setting aside nine
million acres of wilderness so posterity could see a sample of what their
forefathers had to conquer in order to create America. The new law was the
crowning achievement of the Wilderness Society, to which its Director,
Howard Zahniser had devoted five years of constant lobbying. Though
unnoticed at the time, the new law signaled an end to the traditional
"conservation" movement and the beginning of a new environmental
"preservation" movement. The conservation movement might be characterized
by the idea that private land owners should voluntarily conserve natural
resources; the environmental preservation movement is characterized by the
notion that the government should enforce conservation measures through
extensive regulations. By this distinction, the Wilderness Society brought
the environmental movement to Congress. Robert Marshall, Benton MacKaye,
and Aldo Leopold -- all avowed socialists -- organized the Society in the
early 1930s and proclaimed their socialist ideas loudly. Marshall's 1933
book, The People's Forests, says:

"Public ownership is the only basis on which we can hope to protect the
incalculable values of the forests for wood resources, for soil and water
conservation, and for recreation . . . . Regardless of whether it might be
desirable, it is impossible under our existing form of government to
confiscate the private forests into public ownership. We cannot afford to
delay their nationalization until the form of government changes."37

This significant event failed to register a blip on the radar screen of
public awareness. Instead, public attention focused on the racial strife,
the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, and the Viet Nam War which tore
apart the convention, the party, and the nation. The First "Earth Day" in
1970, which perhaps coincidentally was celebrated on Lenin's birthday,
April 22, was viewed as little more than a festival for flower children.
The anti-war fervor, again, brought a quarter-million protesters to the
Mall, and Watergate brought down the Nixon Presidency. The Clean Water Act
of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 served as beacons to attract
the energies and idealism of a generation of young people who had
successfully forced the world's most powerful government to abandon a war
they saw to be unjust. The 1970s witnessed an unprecedented explosion in
the number of environmental organizations and in the number of people who
joined and supported these organizations.


48 posted on 07/01/2002 2:07:25 PM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
. Dang..if he keeps this up my score card may tie.

By the time he's through, if we can get the senate in Nov., your scorecard may be a lot better than a tie.

49 posted on 07/01/2002 2:16:50 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: madfly; petuniasevan
Been brewing way too long. Another good find. Petuniasevan, check out this thread.
50 posted on 07/01/2002 2:19:48 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 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