http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...051410391.html

Today: May 14, 2003 at 15:17:20 PDT

GAO: Most forest thinning not seriously delayed by appeals
By ROBERT GEHRKE
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) - Few projects to reduce wildfire threats were long delayed
because of environmental challenges, congressional auditors say. The conclusion
runs counter to the case the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress
have made for scaling back studies and appeals.

The General Accounting Office found that three-fourths of the 762 Forest
Service projects to cut wildfire risk in the past two years went ahead without
any challenge. That allowed treatment such as logging or controlled burning on
3.8 million acres of national forests.

Projects that were challenged by environmental groups or other parties
generally move ahead within 90 days, according to the report by the
investigative arm of Congress.

The House is getting ready to consider legislation aimed at speeding up efforts
to reduce trees and brush from overgrown forests. The bill by Rep. Scott
McInnis, R-Colo., would streamline environmental studies and limit appeals on
as many as 20 million acres.

The administration is rewriting rules that would make it easier to conduct
forest treatments.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said the report shows such changes are not needed.

"A comprehensive reading of the report makes it clear that the vast majority of
forest-thinning projects move ahead without delay," he said.

Republicans note that the bulk of the forest projects were exempt from appeals,
and 59 percent of those that could be appealed were challenged, delaying
projects to treat 900,000 acres of forestland. They also noted that a 90-day
delay can make the difference when the threat of wildfire is imminent.

"This finding is nothing short of appalling, especially when you think of the
catastrophic losses suffered in last year's horrific fire season alone," said
House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif. "These were not only
losses of forest, endangered species and wildlife habitat, they were losses of
human life and family property."

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., vice chairman of the panel, said, "No one wants to
clear cut our forests.

"On the contrary, what we want to do is to protect them from devastating fires.
The bottom line is, as the GAO states, the legal hurdles and delays caused by
radical environmental groups are endangering our forests as well as our
communities, property and ecosystems," he said.

Republicans also stressed that appeals were filed in 18 percent of the projects
meant to reduce the risk of fire to homes near national forests - areas all
sides say should be a top priority. Fifty-two percent of such projects not
exempt from appeals were challenged. x "After all of the environmental spin
about focusing projects on protecting communities, now we find that
environmental groups are aggressively challenging community protection
projects, too," McInnis said.

A Forest Service report last summer said almost half of treatment projects were
appealed. It blamed environmental groups for the delays.

Huge fires in Arizona and Colorado burned forests where portions of projects
meant to reduce the fire threat were tied up in appeals.

A century of aggressive fire suppression has left forests thick with brush and
small trees that have put 40 million acres at risk for wildfires. More than 7
million acres across the West burned in the second-worst fire season in 50
years.

Most agree excess trees need to be cut down or areas burned in controlled
situations.

Mike Francis of the Wilderness Society said the GAO figures show "the
democratic process is working."

The GAO looked at 762 planned projects on 4.7 million acres of national
forests. Sixty percent of those projects had no environmental studies that
could be appealed. Of the remaining 305 projects that could be appealed, 180
were challenged.

Most were resolved within the Forest Service's required 90-day time frame, but
39 took longer because of staff shortages, a backlog of appeals, or to give the
parties time to negotiate a resolution.

And 133 of the 180 appealed projects went ahead without change, while 16
proceeded with some modifications, and 19 were blocked. Twelve others were
withdrawn by the Forest Service.

The GAO noted that the Forest Service chief can go ahead with treatment despite
appeals if the project is deemed an emergency. The Forest Service did not use
the exemption in the two years studied.

The study also said that just 23 of the 762 projects were challenged in court -
3 percent of the overall number. McInnis' legislation includes direction to
judges and deadlines the court must meet when it is considering challenges to
forest thinning projects to prevent the cases from bogging down.

---

On the Net:

Forest Service: http://www.fs.fed.us/

(Aozotorp) writes:

A century of aggressive fire suppression has left forests thick with brush and
small trees that have put 40 million acres at risk for wildfires.

You keep hearing this statement, but I'm getting less and less convinced
that it is true. Is there any evidence that fire danger is higher now
than it was a century ago?

As far as I can tell, the big difference today is that we no longer set
fires as often as we used to. Railroad locomotives used to throw sparks
profusely out of their stacks, and started fires every summer along the
right of way. Logging operations, smokers and campers also used to start
a lot more fires than they do today. A century ago, people were still
clearing land by burning it, and all those fires were in forested areas.

Nowadays they can just chase everyone out of the woods during high fire
danger, and forbid open campfires. That was not possible a century ago.

More than 7
million acres across the West burned in the second-worst fire season in 50
years.

Which illustrates why I doubt that fire suppression does all that much.
Bad forest fire years are closely associated with drought. Add a little
wind, and there is no way to control a forest fire. You can set up fire
lines at major highways or rivers and start backfires, but without the
assistance of the terrain, and eventually moisture, you just won't stop
one. When fire conditions are right, there is no such thing as a
fireproof forest. Old growth and wilderness burn as merrily as christmas
trees. If conditions are not right, a forest fire won't go anywhere even
if you leave it alone.

As I see it, the only real change in the last 100 years comes from fire
prevention. The move to file felony arson charges against the idiots who
started forest fires last summer is another step in fire prevention.
Fifty years ago, those laws had not been written, and forest fires were
"accidental."

There were probably as many homesteads in forested areas then as there
are now, however the homesteaders would have burned everything around the
buildings for fuel and grazed off what was left. They solved the "urban-
forest interface" with an axe, a bucksaw and some sheep.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

(Aozotorp) wrote in message ...

I'll see your slanted "preservationist" news article and raise you one
slanted news article in the other direction. Americans deserve to be
shown both sides of the issue and decide for themselves. It's rather
interesting that both articles could include some of the real truth
but neither presents all the truth.

May 15, 2003 The Washington Times
Interest groups heavily appeal forest bills
Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Tree-thinning projects to prevent catastrophic forest fires and
widespread insect infestations are being widely appealed by
environmental groups but are rarely upheld, a federal audit released
yesterday said.
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.
The report demonstrates that the appeals needlessly delay federal
efforts to prevent wildfires, and if the process is not streamlined,
millions of acres will be lost this summer, said Sen. Pete V.
Domenici, New Mexico Republican and chairman of the Senate Energy
Committee.
"The American people will no longer tolerate management by
wildfire," Mr. Domenici said.
Rep. Richard W. Pombo, California Republican and chairman of the
House Resources Committee, said environmental groups are more
interested in preserving a political scare tactic than protecting
forests from wildfires.
"This finding is nothing short of appalling, especially when you
think of the catastrophic losses suffered in last year's horrific fire
season alone," Mr. Pombo said.
"These were not only losses of forest, endangered species, and
wildlife habitat; they were losses of human life and family property,"
he added.
Sean Cosgrove, national forest policy specialist for the Sierra
Club, a liberal environmental organization, called the report
"political spin" commissioned by Republicans to back up forest
legislation headed for a House vote next week.
The House is preparing to consider legislation Tuesday that seeks
to speed up efforts to reduce trees and brush from overgrown forests.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Scott McInnis, Colorado Republican
and chairman of the Resources subcommittee on forests and forest
health, would streamline environmental studies and curtail appeals on
as many as 20 million acres.
"We see these as outright commercial timber sales the Forest
Service wants to call fuel-reduction projects," Mr. Cosgrove said.
The yearlong healthy forest initiative supported by President
Bush would expedite the appeals process to begin thinning projects
throughout the West, particularly in areas designated at
"catastrophic" risk of wildfires.
Mr. Cosgrove said that the groups or individuals who file the
appeals is not the issue, "it's still the same law that allows
citizens ... to be able to have access to their government."
Limiting the appeals process, he said, would be "a ridiculous
abuse of public trust."
Republicans cite congressional testimony by the Forest Service
last year on one particular project as evidence that appeals need to
be limited.
The tree-thinning area was near a metropolitan city and a primary
source of water and was forced to endure an 800-step decision-making
process and took three years to implement.
"After all of the environmental spin about focusing projects on
protecting communities, now we find that environmental groups are
aggressively challenging community protection projects," Mr. McInnis
said.
Last summer's fires scorched nearly 7 million acres costing $1.6
billion, compared with nearly 4 million acres burned in 2001, which
totaled more than $900 million.
The GAO report is proof that national forests need to be more
actively managed, "although watching millions of acres of our precious
forests turned into charcoal last year should have been evidence
enough," said Rep. Jim Gibbons, Nevada Republican.

It's rather
interesting that both articles could include some of the real truth
but neither presents all the truth.

May 15, 2003 The Washington Times

Tilt!

(Aozotorp) wrote in message ...
It's rather
interesting that both articles could include some of the real truth
but neither presents all the truth.

May 15, 2003 The Washington Times

Tilt!

The real tilt is: WHY DID SOOOO MANY NEWSPAPERS choose to disregard
the fact that many of those projects were "non-appealable"? Yet, they
chose to include them in the numbers of projects that weren't
appealed. Totally irresponsible news reporting, putting "spin" where
there is none. What could be next for Aozotorp? Postings from the
Enquirer?

Larry, the truth is out there.....in the woods....not in your
newspaper.

(Larry Harrell) writes:

The real tilt is: WHY DID SOOOO MANY NEWSPAPERS choose to disregard
the fact that many of those projects were "non-appealable"? Yet, they
chose to include them in the numbers of projects that weren't
appealed. Totally irresponsible news reporting, putting "spin" where
there is none. What could be next for Aozotorp? Postings from the
Enquirer?

Reporters are not interested in forestry. They are interested in doing
their jobs, which means providing their editor with their quota of column
inches every day. That generally means rewriting information that is
spoon fed to them by one interest group or another. Usually, the
interest group tries to conceal the signs of bias in slanted statistics
that the reporter can't analyze and still make deadline. Once it makes
print in a newspaper, the special interest group can point to the
publication as independent verification of their statistics, when they
made them up in the first place.

Larry, the truth is out there.....in the woods....not in your
newspaper.

Not since William Randolph Hearst.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

(Larry Harrell) writes:

The real tilt is: WHY DID SOOOO MANY NEWSPAPERS choose to disregard
the fact that many of those projects were "non-appealable"? Yet, they
chose to include them in the numbers of projects that weren't
appealed. Totally irresponsible news reporting, putting "spin" where
there is none. What could be next for Aozotorp? Postings from the
Enquirer?

Reporters are not interested in forestry. They are interested in doing
their jobs, which means providing their editor with their quota of column
inches every day. That generally means rewriting information that is
spoon fed to them by one interest group or another. Usually, the
interest group tries to conceal the signs of bias in slanted statistics
that the reporter can't analyze and still make deadline. Once it makes
print in a newspaper, the special interest group can point to the
publication as independent verification of their statistics, when they
made them up in the first place.

Larry, the truth is out there.....in the woods....not in your
newspaper.

Not since William Randolph Hearst.


Okay, You have the percentages that were "non-appealable"! O fthose
"appealable" = How many were appealed = I am waiting!

(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

(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!

(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

(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

It is becoming exceedling difficult to ascertain who exactly, has the facts.
It seems to me that there aren't many people such as myself who exist out there in
the world. The most common viewpoints on here are either from the hard-core
tree-hugging, baja-burger eating, vegan wood sprite-worshiping preservationist
or from the gung-ho rape-and-pillage biodiversity-is-differing-stump-heights
deforesters.

Why can't you all chill out and realize that you gotta keep a few and take a few
and that
it is a balancing act based on good judgement of values that keeps our forests
healthy?

Later,
Geoff Kegerreis

Aozotorp wrote:


(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

Geoff Kegerreis wrote in message ...
It is becoming exceedling difficult to ascertain who exactly, has the facts.
It seems to me that there aren't many people such as myself who exist out there in
the world. The most common viewpoints on here are either from the hard-core
tree-hugging, baja-burger eating, vegan wood sprite-worshiping preservationist
or from the gung-ho rape-and-pillage biodiversity-is-differing-stump-heights
deforesters.

Why can't you all chill out and realize that you gotta keep a few and take a few
and that
it is a balancing act based on good judgement of values that keeps our forests
healthy?

Later,
Geoff Kegerreis

The intent of the appelants is to shut down ALL tree cutting, despite
the fact that so few were "delayed". The few projects that were
withdrawn or "corrected" were so miniscule, it makes me think of
"frivilous appeals". The USFS has to pay so much money in preparing
projects that will be appealed and/or taken to court. Personally, I
not from either of those groups you spoke of. I am straight down the
middle of the road, not wanting to "destroy" forests and also not
wanting to "preserve them to death". I'm also NOT for shutting out the
public, gutting NEPA or eliminating the Endangered Species Act. Does
that still make me a timber beast?

The timbermarking I'm doing now is not something I agree with but, I
have to follow essential parts of the prescription to the letter.
There are plenty of areas where I do have some leeway but, I might be
too conservative for our clients. We'll see if they are OK with our
work when they come out and look at the mark. I'm just not convinced
that suppressed P. pine can take over after an "overstory removal"
(Yes, they're unfortunately still being used).

I mainly post to the newsgroups to fight the lies posted by
"spammers". I've even seen them admit to "flooding" groups with
"stuff" published by newspapers, and not be able to back up or explain
what they post. Most commonly, they'll change the subject title to
something totally slanted and not having anything to do with the
actual article.

Since I am the only USFS employee brave enough to fight back, I
provide some additional insight into the agency, different from the
"official party line" offered by PAO's. Someday, I will have to
disappear because I ****ed off the wrong person. I do have to be
careful because, if my boss finds out that I am posting again, I'll
have some serious explaining to do.

As a matter of fact, I think I'll just let the lies go unanswered and
let you all decide for yourselves. Yep, I know it's selfish but.......

Larry, a brave/stupid true environmentalist

Yeah, Larry! You go, man!

I wasn't whole-heartedly serious when I wrote all those
adjectives in front of foresters and preservationists, it
was mostly for fun. In the past I have joked around about
the forest circus too, but all in all they do a pretty good job
despite what monumental objects they have to climb over
in order to get any work done (and the teams thing isn't a
bad idea - but it shouldn't be compared to private consultantcies,
because it is a whole different ballgame).

I don't think that all appeals are based on stopping all logging
on federal lands, but many of them are. I know that the
native forest league, or whatever they call themselves now are
against any harvesting whatsoever on federal land, but I don't believe
that most forest groups support that kind of radicalness.

As far as the ponderosas go, I'll bet you'll be suprised if you get to
come back to those trees after a few years and check out the new
candles. I've never worked with P. pine, but they remind me of our
red pines on steroids. Depending on the site conditions, I'll bet they
take off like greyhounds after a rabbit when they're able to see the
sun again. Most hard pines like those respond pretty well to
overstory removals, but you're working in the place, and I'm not,
so maybe you have a better idea of what's there vs. what could be there?
Just curious, where are you at (region only-don't give the peckerwads
too much info) and what are you removing from them?

One last thing, don't worry about your boss. After you get so much experience
working all over the country, that adds weight to a very impressive
resume. There are good timber marking jobs on the private side if you
want them, and I guarantee that the pay is higher if you take the risk and
get out on your own. Say what you want. That is the reason for the 1st amendment!
USA rocks as long as we keep our liberties (which seem to have a tendency
to be slipping out of our fingers via politicians) KEEP ON FIGHTING!

Warm regards,
Geoff Kegerreis

Larry Harrell wrote:

Geoff Kegerreis wrote in message ...
It is becoming exceedling difficult to ascertain who exactly, has the facts.
It seems to me that there aren't many people such as myself who exist out there in
the world. The most common viewpoints on here are either from the hard-core
tree-hugging, baja-burger eating, vegan wood sprite-worshiping preservationist
or from the gung-ho rape-and-pillage biodiversity-is-differing-stump-heights
deforesters.

Why can't you all chill out and realize that you gotta keep a few and take a few
and that
it is a balancing act based on good judgement of values that keeps our forests
healthy?

Later,
Geoff Kegerreis

The intent of the appelants is to shut down ALL tree cutting, despite
the fact that so few were "delayed". The few projects that were
withdrawn or "corrected" were so miniscule, it makes me think of
"frivilous appeals". The USFS has to pay so much money in preparing
projects that will be appealed and/or taken to court. Personally, I
not from either of those groups you spoke of. I am straight down the
middle of the road, not wanting to "destroy" forests and also not
wanting to "preserve them to death". I'm also NOT for shutting out the
public, gutting NEPA or eliminating the Endangered Species Act. Does
that still make me a timber beast?

The timbermarking I'm doing now is not something I agree with but, I
have to follow essential parts of the prescription to the letter.
There are plenty of areas where I do have some leeway but, I might be
too conservative for our clients. We'll see if they are OK with our
work when they come out and look at the mark. I'm just not convinced
that suppressed P. pine can take over after an "overstory removal"
(Yes, they're unfortunately still being used).

I mainly post to the newsgroups to fight the lies posted by
"spammers". I've even seen them admit to "flooding" groups with
"stuff" published by newspapers, and not be able to back up or explain
what they post. Most commonly, they'll change the subject title to
something totally slanted and not having anything to do with the
actual article.

Since I am the only USFS employee brave enough to fight back, I
provide some additional insight into the agency, different from the
"official party line" offered by PAO's. Someday, I will have to
disappear because I ****ed off the wrong person. I do have to be
careful because, if my boss finds out that I am posting again, I'll
have some serious explaining to do.

As a matter of fact, I think I'll just let the lies go unanswered and
let you all decide for yourselves. Yep, I know it's selfish but.......

Larry, a brave/stupid true environmentalist

Geoff Kegerreis wrote:
Yeah, Larry! You go, man!

I wasn't whole-heartedly serious when I wrote all those
adjectives in front of foresters and preservationists, it
was mostly for fun. In the past I have joked around about
the forest circus too, but all in all they do a pretty good job
despite what monumental objects they have to climb over
in order to get any work done (and the teams thing isn't a
bad idea - but it shouldn't be compared to private consultancies,
because it is a whole different ballgame).

I don't think that all appeals are based on stopping all logging
on federal lands, but many of them are. I know that the
native forest league, or whatever they call themselves now are
against any harvesting whatsoever on federal land, but I don't believe
that most forest groups support that kind of radicalness.

As far as the ponderosas go, I'll bet you'll be surprised if you get to
come back to those trees after a few years and check out the new
candles. I've never worked with P. pine, but they remind me of our
red pines on steroids. Depending on the site conditions, I'll bet they
take off like greyhounds after a rabbit when they're able to see the
sun again. Most hard pines like those respond pretty well to
over story removals, but you're working in the place, and I'm not,
so maybe you have a better idea of what's there vs. what could be there?
Just curious, where are you at (region only-don't give the peckerwads
too much info) and what are you removing from them?

One last thing, don't worry about your boss. After you get so much experience
working all over the country, that adds weight to a very impressive
resume. There are good timber marking jobs on the private side if you
want them, and I guarantee that the pay is higher if you take the risk and
get out on your own. Say what you want. That is the reason for the 1st amendment!
USA rocks as long as we keep our liberties (which seem to have a tendency
to be slipping out of our fingers via politicians) KEEP ON FIGHTING!

Warm regards,
Geoff Kegerreis

Larry Harrell wrote:


Geoff Kegerreis wrote in message ...

It is becoming exceedling difficult to ascertain who exactly, has the facts.
It seems to me that there aren't many people such as myself who exist out there in
the world. The most common viewpoints on here are either from the hard-core
tree-hugging, baja-burger eating, vegan wood sprite-worshiping preservationist
or from the gung-ho rape-and-pillage biodiversity-is-differing-stump-heights
deforesters.

Why can't you all chill out and realize that you gotta keep a few and take a few
and that
it is a balancing act based on good judgement of values that keeps our forests
healthy?

Later,
Geoff Kegerreis

The intent of the appelants is to shut down ALL tree cutting, despite
the fact that so few were "delayed". The few projects that were
withdrawn or "corrected" were so miniscule, it makes me think of
"frivilous appeals". The USFS has to pay so much money in preparing
projects that will be appealed and/or taken to court. Personally, I
not from either of those groups you spoke of. I am straight down the
middle of the road, not wanting to "destroy" forests and also not
wanting to "preserve them to death". I'm also NOT for shutting out the
public, gutting NEPA or eliminating the Endangered Species Act. Does
that still make me a timber beast?

The timbermarking I'm doing now is not something I agree with but, I
have to follow essential parts of the prescription to the letter.
There are plenty of areas where I do have some leeway but, I might be
too conservative for our clients. We'll see if they are OK with our
work when they come out and look at the mark. I'm just not convinced
that suppressed P. pine can take over after an "overstory removal"
(Yes, they're unfortunately still being used).

I mainly post to the newsgroups to fight the lies posted by
"spammers". I've even seen them admit to "flooding" groups with
"stuff" published by newspapers, and not be able to back up or explain
what they post. Most commonly, they'll change the subject title to
something totally slanted and not having anything to do with the
actual article.

Since I am the only USFS employee brave enough to fight back, I
provide some additional insight into the agency, different from the
"official party line" offered by PAO's. Someday, I will have to
disappear because I ****ed off the wrong person. I do have to be
careful because, if my boss finds out that I am posting again, I'll
have some serious explaining to do.

As a matter of fact, I think I'll just let the lies go unanswered and
let you all decide for yourselves. Yep, I know it's selfish but.......

Larry, a brave/stupid true environmentalist




"Overstory removal" -- they really are calling it that? That's
refreshingly honest and free of PC... Is this the last stage of a
shelterwood or a mistletoe infected stand? Or a silvicultural solution
to some odd problem?

There have been amazing shake ups in forestry over the last couple
decades. Many big companies are doing a fair job of environmental
forestry at last, mixing harvest zones with ample bufffers and set
asides. The Feds, when they can do it, do some of the best. The worst
practices are those of the forest owner with less than 80 acres. This is
the bread and butter segment for consultants, but most of what I've seen
has never been touched by one.

The small land owner, in political compensation for large timber owners
increased environmental restrictions, is free to practice the worst of
forestry. With a dismal timber market, some are forced to do their
worst, but this may be over generous. These are the guys that cut timber
to the edges of creeks, up unstable slopes and don't replant or follow
up when more work is needed after the cutting permit expires. These are
the shmucks that don't think a real forester is necessary. Some of
these are inexperienced land owners getting taken by unscrupulous
loggers, but on the whole, the owners are happy with practices that give
them the biggest short term payout. This is the type of forestry that
has slipped through the cracks.