30-05-2003, 04:10 PM
|
|
|
GAO: Most forest thinning not seriously delayed by appeals
(Aozotorp) wrote in message ...
(Aozotorp) wrote in message
...
snip
Okay, You have the percentages that were "non-appealable"! O fthose
"appealable" = How many were appealed = I am waiting!
Maybe if you had read my initial response to your posting earlier in
this thread, you'd have seen those statistics, Mr. AOLnonomous. It's
no wonder that many others of your type of "spammers" don't come here
to post stuff they can't back up. It IS really sad that the
"preservationist community" has to stoop to misinformation, lies and
spamming to push their flawed beliefs. I'm thinking that science will
eventually prevail and we can go on in restoring our eco-systems, with
the trust of the general public (maybe not in my lifetime but....)
Larry, a true environmentalist
Nope was not there = Put it up!
Here is the "smoking gun":
Nearly 60 percent of all fuel-reduction activities in national
forests that could be appealed were done so by special interest
groups, according to the report of raw data prepared by the General
Accounting Office (GAO).
Of the nearly 800 decisions to reduce forest-fire fuels, 305
cases covering 1.7 million acres could have been appealed by the
public. More than 80 environmental groups and 39 private individuals
filed appeals on 180 projects.
Because decisions can be appealed multiple times, 267 appeals
were placed on those projects, the GAO said.
The 84 interest groups, which include the Sierra Club, Alliance
for Wild Rockies and Forest Conservation Council, appeared 432 times
as parties to the appeals.
"Of those appealed, 133 decisions required no change before
implementation; 35 required changes; and 12 were withdrawn and it is
unclear whether changes were required," the GAO findings said.
Didn't you comprehend what these words were saying? Tell me how this
isn't what you were asking for. Maybe that differs from the slanted
articles YOU read. Larry Caldwell was absolutely right about some of
those media folks. Truth doesn't always sell newspapers but, it seems,
that what THEIR public wants to hear is what really sells papers, even
if it ISN'T the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. When
Ton Knudson can win a Pulitzer Prize for slanted writing and
misrepresented photos, I started to discredit the media in their
reporting of environmental issues.
Larry
|