Preservationists running out of ammo?
Daniel B. Wheeler
dwheeler at ipns.com
Sat Sep 21 23:21:46 EST 2002
lhfotoware at hotmail.com (Larry Harrell) wrote in message news:<7a90c754.0209210616.3fe15dd2 at posting.google.com>...
> wolfbat359 at mindspring.com (Donald L Ferrt) wrote in message news:<b9eb3efe.0209200354.58b7b81b at posting.google.com>...
> > lhfotoware at hotmail.com (Larry Harrell) wrote in message news:<7a90c754.0209191502.2d88c0cb at posting.google.com>...
> > > I see that the "no-cut" crowd is thinning and not actively (or
> > > effectively) arguing in these newsgroups much anymore. In other
> > > groups, the extremeists continue to flail against each other, using
> > > the same old false arguments and flat out lies. Have the
> > > "middle-of-the-roaders" won the moral high-ground? I'd like to think
> > > so. I'd also like to think that we're having an effect on opening
> > > people's eyes, as well.
> > > Will we win the "War on Drought", beating down the "evildoer
> > > extremists"?
I was unaware that "war" had been declared. BTW, _who_ are the
nebulous "we" you refer to above? This inuendo and obfuscation must
> > I beleive that the return of adequate amounts of rain and snow will
> > defeat a drought = talk about fanatcism!
Hmm. That generally does end most droughts that I have heard of.<G>
> What if this drought goes on for 6 more years? It HAS happened before
> and will happen again. It IS inevitable! Along with the overcrowding
> of our forests, that will make the "100-year drought" that much more
That it "has happened" and "IS inevitable" does not mean that _this_
drought will be the next six year drought. SHEESH! The only thing more
flammable than this retoric is the Bush Forest "plan".
> I should have included a <G> in my original post for those who
> couldn't see through my twisted sense of humor. Most here who are
> familiar with my posts see that I do have a sense of humor to go along
> with my middle-of-the-road philosophy.
> > Scrapping NEPA or frivolous appeals and lawsuits only
> > > lead to more environmental damage. I still see that the media is
> > > spreading their bear scat around, though. Let's make our newsgroups
> > > the voice of truth and reason in good forest management.
> > >
> > > Larry, champion of forest liberty
> > I see scrapping the rights of Citizens to petition and address their
> > Government = sounds like extremeism to me:
> If you read a little more carefully, you'll see that I am AGAINST
> removing the current system of NEPA and appeals. Revamping them
> without removing the public is the real way to go. A co-worker had a
> great idea for the appeals process. Requiring appellants to attend an
> on-the-ground session with the "ID Team" members ( "ologists" and
> officials involved with the specific projects) to voice and\or show
> their concerns specifically. This would lessen the effects of gridlock
> while still involving the public by keeping "blanket appeals" out of
> the system. Many USFS units currently involve the public with "town
> I totally encourage all of the public to get involved with the process
> in a "hands-on" way instead of just using the old system to gum things
> up. The delay tactics have got to go!
Well, since you've mentioned it, I _have_ met several of the
"ologists" involved. More importantly, I understand their concerns.
Perhaps the basics of forestry should be stressed once again. (That's
forestry as in how to grow forests, not forestry as in how to cut
Those "delay" tactics you mentioned are the public's access rights.
Last time I checked even in a representative form of government, the
people still have a right to be heard.
As for "delay" tactics, isn't that what the conservation-less
conservatives have been practicing since Nixon? (You do remember that
great paragon of virtue, the one who said "I am not a crook." I
suppose that depends on what your definition of "crook" is, huh?)
Daniel B. Wheeler
More information about the Ag-forst