dhogaza at pacifier.com
Sun Apr 19 00:18:10 EST 1998
In article <1998041903425500.XAA04813 at ladder03.news.aol.com>,
BACKCUT <backcut at aol.com> wrote:
>5) Instead of both of you getting your hackles raised about something that
>neither one of you seems to know everything about, get your heads together and
>FIND OUT what exactly is going on. Personally, I would like me to know.
>Please enlighten me with accurate facts.
Haven't I said all along that I don't know what reasonable costs or details
are? I have said emphatically that Staples first assertion - the nothing
needs to be done because unmaintained roads do no harm - is directly
contravened by USFS, Oregon Department of Forestry, and independent studies
in my state. His assertion that costs are too high is based in part on
this, in one post he stated that ANY amount of money spent to remove such
roads is too much because we should just let "nature take its course".
(if you doubt me, you do the Deja News search, I'm not going to do it
Now, I have been asking Staples for some solid road deconstruction
figures, as he claims to have done this work. So far - no numbers.
Even with numbers, we need to know what the money covers. For
instance, Dombeck has said "we're going to study all of our roads
to see which should be removed, which should be kept". That implies
that some, if not most, or at least a lot, of this money might simply
be in an assessment. As Larry Caldwell pointed out, there's a lot
more than 3,500 miles of road to study.
I personally don't have data one way or another. All I've said is
that Staples is waving his hands and saying "it's a boondoggle, it's
a boondoggle, because I say so!!!".
I've not said it's NOT a boondoggle, only that statements of faith by
Staples hardly carry the weight of statements of faith by, say, God,
just to mention one source I might listen to. I don't want a
statement of faith by Staples that it's too expensive, I want numbers.
If he holds to his claim that any amount is too expensive because
we shouldn't be removing roads from National Forests because they never
do any harm. well, that's been refuted by a bunch of studies and there's
no point in talking to him.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
More information about the Ag-forst