"Healthy Forests" bait and switch?
replyto at group.only
Thu Mar 4 12:55:30 EST 2004
Larry Harrell wrote:
> "Le Messurier" <Churchill at cox.net> wrote in message news:<9a24e52ed3e382238755155e71499239 at news.teranews.com>...
>>Bush's original request in Healthy Forests was for 2 billion; he got $760
>>mil. Now he won't even fund that! What a travesty. I can't in good moral
>>conscience vote for Kerry, but now my vote for Bush is very doubtful. I
>>hope all of us here will write to our Senators and Congressmen to protest.
> That may not be needed, as they should be just as angry about being
> hoodwinked. In the end, it's going to be the taxpayers that will
> suffer. A likely scenario will be that projects will be proposed, work
> will be done preparing the project and then courts will shut down the
> project. Everyone loses except the lawyers. Would Kerry implement
> "Healthy Forests" as President? I'm pretty sure that he voted for it.
> Anyone know?
> Larry, hoping Congress will fully fund forest restoration
Well I guess timber sales will just have to accent the "timber" part to
pay for themselves and the service contracts will just not happen, as
detractors always thought. I HAD wondered how they were going to get
all that new labor trained and in the field so quick. Looks like a last
minute reprieve for the big guys.
Really trying hard not to be sarcastic. ;-(
Washington DNR just decided to up the next decade's cut in what appears
to a fit of nostalgia for the old days of fat forest budgets. Here's
hoping they actually DO some of that variable intensity thinning they've
been bragging about.
Maybe another CCC is the only realistic answer.
More information about the Ag-forst