Forest Service says activists played role in fires

Washington Times ^ | 7/11/02 | Valerie Richardson

[kattracks]

DENVER

[Libertarianize the GOP]

.

[madfly]

ping

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Environmental activists "can't see the forest for the trees."

[BOBTHENAILER]

With 3.1 million acres burned so far this summer, calls for more thinning and for streamlining the appeals process are growing louder.

Yup, I'll believe the GAO, uh, huh.

With 3.1 million so far this summer, some 3 million last summer, that's over ten per cent of that pristine, untouched 60 million acres the greenie's used to brag about.

[MileHi]

Ted Zukoski, staff attorney for the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies in Boulder, Colo.

Tar and feathers?...

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!

[countrydummy]

Let us not forget, ever foreget that the Los Alamos fire that came so close to the nuke site, WAS a prescribed burn!!!!!!!! The fuel load should have been mechanically removed, at least part of it! Let's face it, one would not (if they had any sense at all) go out and strike a match to leaves just laying on the ground, one would rake them up into small enough areas that they would burn only and nothing else around them! Not the whole dang floor of the ground and the trees around them!

[B4Ranch]

This year isn't over, yet!

[lady lawyer]

Why burn the trees if they can be used? The price of lumber is out of sight.

[Nick Danger]

The report only includes "mechanical" fire-suppression projects, or those that rely on logging, not burning. Such projects are much more likely to be appealed by environmentalists, who see thinning as a sop to the timber industry.

This is a revealing peek into the true agenda of the environmentalist left. God forbid some use should be made of these trees; better to burn them than to allow the dreaded timber industry to turn them into useful products.

No one should pay attention to these people. They are not what they say they are. They are anti-human luddites who are using our courts to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us... with catastrophic results.

If our liberal activist judges will not take themselves out of day-to-day management of the national forests, then Congress should remove the area from their jurisdiction. No one expected judges to substitute their own forest management skills for those of the Forest Service, and to the extent they have been arrogant enough to do so, this is the result.

Congress has the power to take away their toys, and it should do so. Taxpayers should not have to pay the salaries of trained forest management professionals, and then have some jackass with a law degree overrule them and burn down half the state because he's too full of himself to do otherwise.

Judges share with all Americans the right to pursue their religious beliefs in private. When they start imposing their religion from the bench, it's time to rein them in.

[aruanan]

With 3.1 million so far this summer, some 3 million last summer, that's over ten per cent of that pristine, untouched 60 million acres the greenie's used to brag about.

Well, as of the mid-1980's the amount of forested land in the U.S. was well over 600 million acres. When you figure in vastly increased fuel loads compared to what the land used to support in the earlier part of the century, the effective forested land is vastly in excess of 600 million acres.

[tubebender]

The next law suits will be to halt any salvage logging until the trres are totally useless. (about 3 years here in Humboldt County)

[B4Ranch]

Saving West from fires carries big tab

[hattend]

BTTT

[countrydummy]

No, I don't mean the trees, I mean the dead trees, branches, bushes, etc. that acts like kinniling(sp), that sets the bigger wood (trees) on fire. This kinniling(sp) needs thinned out first, gathered into small areas, and secured before a prescribed burn and of course that would take mechanical means to do so.

Now would someone teach me how to spell kinniling! lol

[lady lawyer]

kindling

[Zon]

Exposing the failed psychology of
self-proclaimed environmental authorities

From a similar article reporting on the same flawed numbers followed by today's report of much more accurate numbers I make the below identifications which starts beneath the italicized text. But do read the italicized text first.

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.

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.
Truth Under Fire [Libs Lie Again on Forest Fires]

One person commented that it would be nice if the enviros would admit to their numbers error.

An eye-opening account of why self-proclaimed authorities of the environment avoid at almost all cost admitting their own errors.

Not only is it in their eyes a sign of weakness to admit their own errors, it is to demonstrate a demarcation point wherein an observer can delineate that the person does in fact have honor and integrity to act honestly.

The importance of that is overwhelming. Once a person has shown that degree of maturity -- that degree of honesty and integrity -- it is expected that they will continue to demonstrate a similar high degree of that character trait.

Thus, it is not a one time event of showing weakness they most fear, rather, it is an ongoing condition of honest charter development that they fear the observer will hold them to.

You see, they know how often they intentionally deceive and to demonstrate the honest character of freely admitting one's own error would thwart their future deceptions. ...They would be called to the matt -- their feet held to the fire -- to again demonstrate mature character development to acknowledge/admit their error. For the alternative is far more destabilizing to their authority (which is really just their self-proclaimed authority). That would be for them to defend their argument, to defend an argument that is indefensible. So they avoid at all cost demonstrating a mature character trait that the vast majority of adults take for granted in themselves.

Also, a person over time can admit to only so many errors before they become discredited. Admitting errors and position oneself  as "everyone makes errors" only goes as far as people make a few errors, not several errors in their field of expertise. So that can't take that route either.

In effect, they chose to pigeon hole themselves into continued irrationality that leads to deceptions and dishonesty. All in effort to support their "authority" status. Which again is merely their self-proclaimed authority status.

Bottom line, they have sullen self-esteem and envy others that have earned their self-esteem based on rational, honest and mature charter development. Those positive charter traits are the properties of the value creator -- the workers of the world that create the goods and services that increase the well-being, health and prosperity of self, others and society. They hold real and valid power. They create the sustenance for enhancing human life. They are the envy of self-proclaimed authorities.

The above identifications are wider in scope than to include just bogus environmentalist. It encompasses all self-proclaimed authorities and especially politicians and bureaucrats with their supporting/complicit media and academia "authorities".

Thank you. I needed a "sounding board" to collect my thoughts in forming a somewhat complex psychological structure to deliver a coherent message deconstructing an unfortunate and unnecessary everyday occurrence -- self-proclaimed authorities harming or destroying honest value creators and their work.

[countrydummy]

it is that WV accent, we tend to spell like we talk, thus I should have written as such: kin'lin! lol lol

[Billthedrill]

Don't hold your breath for an apology - these guys think houses burning is a good thing.