(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implementation; 35 required changes; and 12 were withdrawn and it is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
Try again:
http://www.nativeforest.org/press_room/goa_5_15_03.htm
New GAO Report Shows that 95% of Forest Service Fuel Reduction Projects Get
Green Light within Standard 90 day Review Period
GAO report is just latest in long line of reports showing Forest Service public
appeals process isn't interfering with home protection efforts or forest
management as Bush Administration claims.
For More Information:
Matthew Koehler, Native Forest Network: (406) 542-7343
Mike Petersen, The Lands Council: (509) 838-4912
MISSOULA, MONTANA - A General Accounting Office (GAO) report, released to
Congress today, shows that 95% of the 762 Forest Service fuels reduction
projects it analyzed were ready for implementation within the standard 90 day
review period.
The latest GAO report is consistent with findings from a 2001 GAO report and an
April 2003 report from researchers at Northern Arizona University. All three of
these independent reports seriously contradict Bush Administration's claims of
"analysis paralysis."
"This latest GAO report shows without a doubt that efforts to protect homes and
communities from wildfire are not being hampered by the public appeals
process," stated Matthew Koehler with the Montana-based Native Forest Network.
"In truth, it's Congressman McInnis and the Bush administration who are
hampering home protection efforts with their radical plans to spend scarce
resources increasing logging in America's national forests."
Mike Petersen, executive director of The Lands Council, a Spokane, Washington
conservation group that has helped hundreds of rural homeowners craft
individual home protection plans, said, "This new GAO report is just latest in
long line of independent reports showing that the public appeals process isn't
interfering with home protection efforts or the management of our national
forests. Let's only hope that the public and Congress begins to see right
through the false claims of 'analysis paralysis' coming from anti-environmental
members of Congress and Bush Administration officials."
Congressman McInnis' (R-CO) "Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003" is before
the House Judiciary Committee today and is expected to be voted on by the full
house next week. Like the Bush Administration's "Healthy Forests Initiative,"
McInnis' bill falsely claims "analysis paralysis" in an effort to dramatically
limit citizen participation and undermine key environmental laws in an effort
to increase logging in America's national forests.
The McInnis bill also does not include any specific measures to protect rural
homeowners from wildfire. The Forest Service's own research shows that the
protection of a home depends entirely on treatment of the Home Ignition Zone
— the home itself and the area within 200 feet of the home.
BACKGROUND:
The General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed 762 Forest Service fuel reduction
projects. Of these projects:
457 were categorical exclusions (CEs), meaning they were not open to appeals,
but were still open to litigation.
Of the 305 projects open to appeal, only 180 were appealed.
However, of the 180 appealed projects, 79% or (142 projects) were processed
within the standard 90 day review period.
A SIMPLE MATH EXERCISE:
Take the 457 CE projects not appealable and therefore able to be implemented
immediately, add to that the 125 projects that were open to appeals (but not
appealed), and finally add the 142 projects that were processed by the Forest
Service within the standard 90 day review period. The total is 724 projects.
Divide 724 by total number of reviewed projects (762) and you come up with 95%.
CONCLUSION:
95% of the 762 Forest Service fuels reduction projects analyzed by GAO were
ready for implementation within the standard 90 day review period. The GAO
report also found that only 23 of the 762 projects (3%) were litigated.
Click here to view a copy of the GAO report, “Forest Service: Information on
Decisions Involving Fuels Reduction Activities”
http://www.nativeforest.org/press_ro...GAO_report.pdf