Full funding for Healthy Forests?
lhfotoware at hotmail.com
Mon Mar 22 22:50:50 EST 2004
"Joe Zorzin" <abc at xyz> wrote in message news:<105upbpmnj0btb5 at corp.supernews.com>...
> Maybe it should be called the "Healthy Forests and Keep Larry Harrell Busy
> Act". <G>
Actually, we're currently very busy, even though it's only March.
We're doing some OHV mapping projects and we've gotten so good at them
that we're turning money back to the Forests. That's where we're not
really operating like a business. We're not allowed to make "too much
money", since we ARE the government. The money we make (and keep) is
"OUR" money, to buffer mistakes we make during the year. Again, we
don't get ANY Congressional funding, directly.
I fear that there will be some corruption as to where the re-allocated
monies will go for "Healthy Forests". Some "favored" Forests may get
more of that money than they really need while another needy Forest
gets the shaft. I hear that some National Forests will get next to
nothing for their timber budgets. Some employees have been told to
look for detail assignments because their funding has dried up. PLUS,
this is all happening before the fire season, which could be severe
again. All told, it looks like we have only 80 million new dollars to
implement "Healthy Forests" this year.
I'm sure that many Forests will be using private contractors to do
some of their work. If there are savings to be had by paying private
contractors, those Forests will jump at the chance to save some bucks.
If Bush says he's throwing 760 million dollars at the Forest Service
for "Healthy Forests", I wonder if the public will be satisfied with
what that can buy in the reality of this situation ( whatever THAT is
Larry, a timber cruising fool, of late
More information about the Ag-forst