DecreaseChanceOfForestFires...LogThem'Th arHills

“I know how much the environmental industry (and some posters here) hate being exposed to any viewpoint that doesn't match their myopic politically correct tunnel vision of the world, so here's another site to reference:

www.perc.org

Not all enviro groups march in lockstep to the same liberal groupthink.

Now go to www.newsmax.com and really go ballistic.”

“I gather that you have declined to back up your rhetoric or claims Gordon.”

“what do YOU think should be done about this problem of forrest fires and mans possibility of lessening the danger? what should the president do, if anything?"


stratdewd
10:27:36 PM
08/26/02”

“source

Oregon-based Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE) has introduced its new mascot, Reddy Squirrel. The rake-toting red squirrel was FSEEE's response to the U.S. Forest Service and Ad Council's recently revamped Smokey Bear fire-prevention campaign. To reflect increased dangers faced by homeowners living near forests, Smokey Bear's 58-year old motto has been changed to "Only you can prevent wildfires."

FSEEE maintains that since forest fires are not preventable, the Forest Service should emphasize how to prepare for the inevitable wildfires. Reddy's motto is "No one can prevent forest fires. Be ready!"

Reddy Squirrel will make her debut September 1 in Forest Magazine. Andy Stahl, executive director of FSEEE, said the Reddy Squirrel campaign will target people who live in or near forests, and the insurance companies that underwrite their homes. Although the group has only spent $25 on the character, a Web-based cartoon, television and radio spots, and packets of information for homeowners are also planned.


I'm just wondering if the "web-based cartoon" is kleetn's well hung pet.”

“i think psycho-squrrell would be more likely to start fires than to put them out.”

“SURE... after the Sex Change, LOL

and I quote:

"Reddy Squirrel will make her debut September 1..."

A well-hung squirrel is kindof an oxymoron anyway, isn't it? <G>”

“I'd just like to point out once again that Gordon has been challenged to provide evidence to support his views, and has been unable.

There is no meat to this argument, apparently.”

“gordon has as much as admitted to being a single issue troll. I always enjoy his posts.”

“I just want to give Gordo a big liberal hug, with lots of emotion.”

“where's yours?

Anything posted here that does not align with your preset ideology is automatically dismissed as 'corporate propaganda' while you accept at face value and childlike faith anything the environmental industry says (oh yeah, there is no environmental industry. I take it from your statement you are also a member of the flat earth society and a UFO abductee). Any journalist, researcher or scientist that questions the claims made by the enviro industry is attacked viciously. The steady stream of harassing lawsuits against Bjorn Lomborg, the whisper and smear campaign against Patrick Moore, public attacks on George Gruell, and the death threats against Tom Knutsen are signs of a cabal that tolerates no dissent.

So when the Religious Center for Forest Conservation posted on their website that Mt. St. Helens erupted because of logging you believed it. I wonder what caused the Northridge earthquake -- too many SUV's on the freeways?”

“Another excellent example of lots of typing with no content. Allow me to expand on that:

"Anything posted here that does not align with your preset ideology is automatically dismissed as 'corporate propaganda' while you accept at face value and childlike faith anything the environmental industry says (oh yeah, there is no environmental industry. I take it from your statement you are also a member of the flat earth society and a UFO abductee)."

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.

Of course, one fallacy in a paragraph is not enough for Ole' Gordo. (yes this is ad hominem, but I'm irritated, so please forgive me)

"Any journalist, researcher or scientist that questions the claims made by the enviro industry is attacked viciously. The steady stream of harassing lawsuits against Bjorn Lomborg, the whisper and smear campaign against Patrick Moore, public attacks on George Gruell, and the death threats against Tom Knutsen are signs of a cabal that tolerates no dissent."
Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .
Therefore events of type X are likely to occur.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the mere fact that an event is particularly vivid or dramatic does not make the event more likely to occur, especially in the face of significant statistical evidence.

In other words, even if we believe YOU about the death threats and "whisper smear campaign", how does that relate to the question at hand: logging? It doesn't.

"So when the Religious Center for Forest Conservation posted on their website that Mt. St. Helens erupted because of logging you believed it. I wonder what caused the Northridge earthquake -- too many SUV's on the freeways?"

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Gordon, do you have a single original thought on this matter? You were touting reason and critical thinking to me a few weeks ago. Let's hear some from you.”

“See, I was so irritated I mispoke myself in the second paragraph there. I meant to say that your vivid examples (which may or may not be true) of smear campaigns and death threats are not evidence of a "environmental industry" or a "cabal". Further, it has little, if anything to do with the argument.”

“I think we've all been had!

There seems to be 2 sides that people argue for in this issue:
You'll hurt the environment
You'll hurt industry

Guess what? Toilet paper is still cheap... the lumber industry grows their own trees and it costs them money... if they use National Forests WE pick up the bill. Lumber companies expenses go down because they can use less of their resources to growing their own... I wonder where they've allocated the savings? Lobbying Government maybe??

I firmly believe if a company or industry cannot stand on its own 2 feet it should fail. Letting the Federal Government pump my tax dollars into it directly or indirectly is stealing”

“This one is a hard one for me to call. After all, I have a job that supports my little family, due to logging. I think the mill's logger and my boss are responsible stewards of the land the co. has paid (a pretty penny I might add) to log. They both have extensive knowledge on forestry and a healthy respect for the land. On the other hand, it is sad sometimes to look out the office window and see huge stacks of dead Ponderosa and Doug. Fir. My boss is also the Fire Chief here and has been a fire fighter for yrs. and yrs. I think he probably understands what happens when the forest gets "messy" (for lack of a better term). I know when I file paperwork for a large timber purchase, that he and our logger are going to go look at that land and carefully decide what to cut, when to cut it, how to impact the area as little as they can, and how to clean up. However, I've been to lots of clear cut areas in MT, that are heart breaking. There are alot of very irresponsible loggers and mills out there, who aren't making well thought out decisions on how to do the logging. Hard one to call. Right now I'm glad I have a job though.”

“Newgirl: I think one part of the solution is to have wood processed where it is cut. A lot of jobs have gone oversees when raw lumber is shipped for processing elsewhere.”

“Here is an interesting article I came across while reading through AOL's recent science news. The results don't semm conclusive, but they throw a new wrinkle into the debate.


Study: Benefit of Trees Misjudged

By ANDREW BRIDGES
.c The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Scientists have overestimated the potential of trees and shrubs to soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, according to a new study.

The reassessment casts doubt on whether planting trees is always a positive step in the fight against global warming, as President Bush and others have suggested.

In the study, published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, Duke University scientists say trees and shrubs growing in areas of abundant rainfall are less effective storehouses for carbon than native grasslands they have steadily replaced across much of the western United States.

Vegetation stores carbon that otherwise might trap heat in the atmosphere, driving up temperatures and leading to climate change. Previous studies have ignored what was going on below ground, said Robert Jackson lead author of the study and an associate professor of biology at Duke University.

In wet locations, replacing grass with shrubs and trees actually can lead to a decrease in the amount of carbon locked up in organic matter mixed in the soil, Jackson said. The amount can be enough to offset any gains achieved above ground.

``The study suggests that we need to look very closely at what's below ground before we add up just what's stored above ground in tree trunks,'' Jackson said.

Scientists studied six pairs of adjacent western grasslands. In one of each pair, trees and shrubs had cropped up sometime in the last 100 years.

In the drier sites, the invasive growth led to an increase in the amount of carbon locked up in the soil. In wetter areas, however, the opposite was the case, Jackson said. It is not clear what caused the change.

``Grasses are deceptively productive,'' Jackson said. ``You don't see where all the carbon goes so there is a misconception that woody species store more carbon. That's just not always the case.''

Previously, studies estimated that U.S. shrublands contain about 440 million tons of carbon. The number may be closer to 280 million tons, Jackson said.

That result suggests shrublands, by absorbing carbon from the atmosphere, do less to balance emissions from the burning of fossil fuels than previously thought, Jackson said.

``It would not surprise me at all if they were absolutely spot-on right,'' said Steve Pacala, a Princeton University professor ecology, who wasn't involved in the study. However, he said he didn't consider the study definitive, given uncertainties in its measurements of the carbon contained in woody roots.

The study helps dispel the notion that humans can plant their way out of global warming, said Daniel Becker, director of the Sierra Club global warming and energy program.

``We are going to need to tackle the industrial sources of emissions head-on rather than just plant a bunch of trees,'' Becker said.

As part of his administration's strategy for curtailing carbon dioxide emissions, Bush has proposed tax incentives for farmers who plant trees.”

“Ped, we don't process right at the site, but pretty close. We are such a tiny operation, that it is impractical and very expensive for us to bring lumber to the mill from more than say a 100 miles round trip.”

“DOH!”

“Well, don't worry, Newgirl. I don't think the debate really revolves around whether to log or not. It revolves around, as you have pointed out, HOW and WHEN to log. There is nothing inherently wrong with using lumber as a resource. However, I strongly side with Donman when he disagrees with heavy subsidies, (read welfare here, Gordon), going to the timber companies to cut OUR trees.
I fear, (read emotion, Gordon), that in the name of worshiping the "conservative" point of view, that we will throw out good legislation, such as the NEMA standards passed in the Nixon administration, because Bush is exploiting the fear of fires, (read conservative emotion, Gordon).”

“As part of his administration's strategy for curtailing carbon dioxide emissions, Bush has proposed tax incentives for farmers who plant trees

pedxing
04:57:30 PM
08/28/02


he's promoting the planting of trees. pedxing is my source phaed, you dink. try adding to the conversation dood, geesh.”

“?

1) A disparaging term for a North Vietnamese soldier or guerrilla in the Vietnam War.

2) A dinghy or tender.

3) A drop shot.

4) Acronym for 'Double Income, No Kids.

4a) A member of such a couple.

5) #&%!$, "slightly cute form of 'cock, pecker'."

6) Gang slang for a member of a rival gang.”

“i meant # 5 tilt.”

“I kinda figured, LOL


Although I did give some consideration to #6, <G>...

Gang Warfare on the Internet! Only instead of switchblades and lead pipes, we have... The Alphabet!

Instead of Crips and Bloods (Sharks and Jets?), we've got Baptists and Heathens, Neo-Nazis, Liberals(!), Conservatives, Greens, Socialists, Folks on the Fence...

All "dukin' it out with diction" LOL”

“The overwhelming majority (95%+) of commercial timber from National Forests is sold at competitive auction to the highest bidder. By definition, the highest bid is the fair market price of the timber for that particular location, value of timber to be harvested, and the terms of the timber sale contract. If the Forest Service requires additional purchaser requirements like using only specified types of equipment or only operating certain times of the year, then the additional operating expenses of the purchaser will be reflected in his bid amount. Oral auctions are open to the public and it is not uncommon to see local environmental activists 'monitoring'. Sealed bids may have non-interested parties at the bid openings, but few have ever asked. There is almost no hanky-panky in the bidding. The bidders all know the penalties for collusion or bid rigging range up to permanent debarment from any future Federal timber sale, so they tend to be real honest in the bid process.

Calling the fair market value of timber 'welfare' is playing fast and loose with definitions. Especially when backpacking and backcountry recreation are the most subsidized uses of the public lands.

Less than half of the timber sold over the last 5 years from National Forest has been for commercial purposes. The majority has been for stewardship projects where the goal is a resource benefit like forest health, wildlife habitat, watershed, etc. In some of these cases the needs of the project means larger size trees are removed to achieve the objectives. Most intelligent people would agree wasting the material by burning or hauling to a landfill is wrong when it could be sold to a mill for a financial return to the taxpayers, maintain jobs, and produce a consumer product.


BTW -- an editorial in the NY Times recently lambasted 'logs being sold for pennies and shipped overseas', and you still see similar statements on various websites. By law, raw logs from Federal lands west of the 100th meridian are prohibited from export.”

“But you have no professional interest in this industry... it's just a hobby of yours?”

“Well, I guess everyone’s http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=interior31&date=20020831&query=Ecosystem were completely unfounded.



New wildfire plan watchdog has unorthodox views
By Faith Bremner
Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON — The man chosen to head the Bush administration's wildfire prevention program doubts the existence of ecosystems and says it would not be a crisis if the nation's threatened and endangered species became extinct.

Allan Fitzsimmons was named yesterday to be in charge of reducing fire danger on lands managed by the Interior Department. But Fitzsimmons' background as a free-market policy analyst and his writings for libertarian and conservative think tanks have alarmed environmental groups across the West. The groups say Fitzsimmons' appointment confirms their fears that the recently announced program the administration calls the Healthy Forests Initiative is a smokescreen for a return to unfettered logging. "How can a man who doesn't understand ecological systems and community values for wildlife run a program that's supposed to protect forests and communities?" asked John McCarthy, spokesman for the Idaho Conservation League. "People won't have confidence in this guy. He'll be divisive, it will all be based on junk science."

For the past 10 years, he has operated his consulting firm, Balanced Resource Solutions in Woodbridge, Va. Between 1983 and 1992, he held a series of policy-setting jobs in the Interior and Energy departments. He holds a doctorate in geography.
He said his goal in forest policy is not to tilt toward either heavy logging or excessive protections.

"The intent is to get that pendulum as close to the center as you can," he told The Oregonian. "It's not devious. It's certainly not a cynical attempt to turn chain saws loose from sea to shining sea with smoke from forest fires as a cover," as some environmentalists charge.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, is expected to introduce legislation next week that would carry out at least some of President Bush's forest-management ideas. Bush wants to have logging companies thin the forests in exchange for the right to harvest larger, commercially valuable trees.

His plan would suspend environmental rules and make it harder for the public to sue to stop thinning work from going forward. Environmentalists support thinning forests around homes and communities, but only if loggers keep their saws away from the large trees.

In "The Illusion of Ecosystem Management," published in 1999 by the Political Economy Research Center, which says it applies market principles to environmental problems, Fitzsimmons says ecosystems exist only in the human imagination and cannot be delineated. Federal policies, therefore, should not be used to try to manage or restore them, he wrote.

In another paper, entitled "Ecological Confusion among the Clergy," Fitzsimmons criticizes religious leaders who encourage their parishioners to worship God by protecting the environment. He singled out Catholic bishops who issued their own paper in 1997 in support of protecting and restoring the Columbia River watershed. The paper was published in 2000 by the Center for Economic Personalism, which advocates limited government and promotes religion and "economic liberty."

"By urging the public to make changes in their lives to accommodate nonexistent ecosystem needs, one wonders if the bishops are beginning inadvertently to make an idol out of their own creation, what they call the Columbia Basin ecosystem," he writes.
He added that the biodiversity crisis religious leaders often point to is not a crisis at all. There are between 250,000 and 750,000 species in the United States and 1,201 are on the Fish and Wildlife Service's endangered and threatened list.

"If each of these species were to become extinct tomorrow, our total biological endowment would decline by less than 1 percent, which would be a disconcerting loss but would not constitute a crisis," Fitzsimmons writes. "Conversely, at least 4,500 non-indigenous species have established free-living populations in the United States over the past few hundred years, so that on balance, this part of the world has seen an increase in biological diversity."

Timothy Ingalsbee, executive director of the Western Fire Ecology Center, said many of those non-indigenous species — like cheatgrass — are taking over native landscapes with devastating results. Cheatgrass is highly flammable, has little nutritional value for livestock and chokes out native plants.

"Making the argument that non-native species are increasing the biological diversity is pure bunk."”

“Here, here to that last quote. A major reason (of many) that a lot of species are endangered is due to encroachment from non-natives.

Again, I think it's gonna come down to a "my science is better than your science" shoving match.”

“I guess that's, hear, hear :)”

“Eeeek that is way skeery! Bush is playing with loaded dice (folks designed to lie on a particular side).”

“I got this in an email from a former TT'er:

Bush on Fire
By PAUL KRUGMAN


Round up the usual suspects! George W. Bush's new "Healthy Forests" plan
reads like a parody of his administration's standard operating procedure.
You see, environmentalists cause forest fires, and those nice corporations
will solve the problem if we get out of their way.

Am I being too harsh? No, actually it's even worse than it seems. "Healthy
Forests" isn't just about scrapping environmental protection; it's also
about expanding corporate welfare.

Everyone agrees that the forests' prime evil is a well-meaning but
counterproductive bear named Smokey. Generations of fire suppression have
led to a dangerous accumulation of highly flammable small trees and
underbrush. And in some - not all - of the national forests it's too late
simply to reverse the policy; thanks to growing population and urban
sprawl, some forests are too close to built-up areas to be allowed to burn.

Clearly, some of the excess fuel in some of the nation's forests should be
removed. But how? Mr. Bush asserts that there is a free lunch: allowing
more logging that thins out the national forests will both yield valuable
resources and reduce fire risks.

But it turns out that the stuff that needs to be removed - small trees and
bushes, in areas close to habitation - is of little commercial value. The
good stuff, from the industry's point of view, consists of large, mature
trees - the kind of trees that usually survive forest fires - which are
often far from inhabited areas.

So the administration proposes to make deals with logging companies: in
return for clearing out the stuff that should be removed, they will be
granted the right to take out other stuff that probably shouldn't be
removed. Notice that this means that there isn't a free lunch after all.
And there are at least three severe further problems with this plan.

First, will the quid pro quo really be enforced, or will loggers simply
make off with the quid and forget about the quo? The Forest Service, which
would be in charge of enforcement, has repeatedly been cited by Congress's
General Accounting Office for poor management and lack of accountability.
And the agency, true to Bush administration form, is now run by a former
industry lobbyist. (In the 2000 election cycle, the forest products
industry gave 82 percent of its contributions to Republicans.) You don't
have to be much of a cynic to question whether loggers will really be held
to their promises.

Second, linking logging of mature trees to clearing of underbrush is a
policy non sequitur. Suppose Mayor Mike Bloomberg announced that Waste
Management Inc. would pick up Manhattan's trash free, in return for the
right to dump toxic waste on Staten Island. Staten Island residents would
protest, correctly, that if Manhattan wants its garbage picked up, it
should pay for the service; if the city wants to sell companies the right
to dump elsewhere, that should be treated as a separate issue. Similarly,
if the federal government wants to clear underbrush near populated areas,
it should pay for it; if it wants to sell the right to log mature trees
elsewhere, that should be a separate decision.

And this gets us to the last point: In fact, the government doesn't make
money when it sells timber rights to loggers. According to the General
Accounting Office, the Forest Service consistently spends more money
arranging timber sales than it actually gets from the sales. How much
money? Funny you should ask: last year the Bush administration stopped
releasing that information. In any case, the measured costs of timber sales

capture only a fraction of the true budgetary costs of logging in the
national forests, which is supported by hundreds of millions of dollars in
federal subsidies, especially for road-building. This means that,
environmental issues aside, inducing logging companies to clear underbrush
by letting them log elsewhere would probably end up costing taxpayers more,

not less, than dealing with the problem directly.

So as in the case of the administration's energy policy, beneath the
free-market rhetoric is a plan for increased subsidies to favored
corporations. Surprise.

A final thought: Wouldn't it be nice if just once, on some issue, the Bush
administration came up with a plan that didn't involve weakened
environmental protection, financial breaks for wealthy individuals and
corporations and reduced public oversight?”

“Thanks, Ped. It's difficult not to cast a jaundiced eye on the USFS with a history involving things like this.”

“Good info Tilt!
(and this ain't just Bush bashing, USFS under Clinton was less than exemplary)”

“the sky i falling! the sky is falling! no doupt we will be a dustbowl again in no time.


someone check into Faith Bremmer, the author of this "article". i'll betcha 20 acres of old groth forest that she's a leftist enviro-nazi, as opposed to an objectie journalist. her agenda is obvious.


ped, here's to you. at least you try to be fair...kindof....usually....for the most part, lol”

“EXACTLY, Ped.

If you trust some of these guys to protect the outdoors, you won't have a pot to piss in, Strat. You'll be camping in a parking lot.

(Still quoting Limbaugh, I see.)”

“tilt wrong dood, he never entered my mind. dont know why you think that. i do have a brain ya know. try responding to my point......but bfd if i did, ,you quoted someone.......explain that to me?”

“It's right off his page o' Standard Lines, that's why. How should one respond to namecalling like that? I say it's pretty lowbrow.

I don't know anything about Faith Bremner. I didn't post anything by Faith Bremner. Gannett owns a TON of newspapers all over the country.

Gannett News Service”

“New wildfire plan watchdog has unorthodox views
By Faith Bremner
Gannett News Service



i say you did”

“low blow? name calling?

this is not an objective news story. it is a severly slanted attack on an entire admistration as well as a political point of view. you cannot deny it. there is no link to disprove my sentiments. it's pure propaganda designed to mislead and influence peoples political views, not inform people of the entire story. worst of all, the masses of feble minded, ambivalent people will buy this clever disguise. slight of hand dood. dirty pool.


what say you?(try not to attack me personally but instead make a logical argument adressing my points specifically)”

“Well I know that Tilt and aero were confused by some but now I’m part of the collective? I was the one who posted the Faith Bremner story.

You coined the term “enviro-nazi”, dewd? Pretty good one. You better trademark it quick. Some pumpkin headed loudmouth is liable to start using it and claiming it as his own. <Grin>

What point do you expect people to respond to? That you declare her to be someone who cannot be believed? Ad hominem attacks are dead ends. Please provide an alternative point of view that could be debated. You know - the "entire story".”

“once again...jus like phaed, you are unable to have a philosophical disscussion. i'm sure he could tell you the the latin name for style of argument ya'll use, but i just call it weak.


oh ...and rush uses the term enviro-whacko, not enviro-nazi. maybe if you actually listened to him you'de know that. amazing how someone can be so critical of something they don't understand.



what say you?”

“Empty name-calling does not take the place of rational discourse. Stratdewd understands this well but he doesn’t care because he is a bloodthirsty, mass-murdering, goose-stepping Nazi.”

“G00SE is gonna be pissed if somebody steps on him!

Yeah... it's "FEMI-nazi, enviro-WACKO"... But it doesn't surprise me that you would know that, Strat, LOL. But you were just trying to be original.

And I do know a little about Limbaugh. His study of Public Policy consists of parrotting the op-ed page of the Washington Times while peppering the patter with epithets. He came up as a radio DJ.

He's a lot like Jesse Helms in that respect. Jesse was a (relatively) fast-talking DJ before Phillip Morris put him on the payroll and set him on the road to Washington.”

“once again...jus like phaed, you are unable to have a philosophical disscussion. i'm sure he could tell you the the latin name for style of argument ya'll use, but i just call it weak.


Okay, since you called me into the discussion:
As best I can tell Violin's argument was that your were attacking him, rather than debating the point at hand. When he pointed this out, you attacked him, then me and called the whole thing weak.

I'd have to agree with you: weak.

Also, strat, it seems as if you are challenged when it comes to trying to reason with your opinions. You state them, and attack anyone who posts opposing views while challenging you to back up your claims.

I've seen this before, and it's been from people who are getting their answers given to them by some source that doesn't HAVE to back up its claims.

So, you listen to Rush Limbaugh, huh?”

“ecosystems exist only in the human imagination
"Well, I guess everyone’s http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=interior31&date=20020831&query=Ecosystem were completely unfounded.



New wildfire plan watchdog has unorthodox views
By Faith Bremner
Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON — The man chosen to head the Bush administration's wildfire prevention program doubts the existence of ecosystems and says it would not be a crisis if the nation's threatened and endangered species became extinct.

Allan Fitzsimmons was named yesterday to be in charge of reducing fire danger on lands managed by the Interior Department. But Fitzsimmons' background as a free-market policy analyst and his writings for libertarian and conservative think tanks have alarmed environmental groups across the West. The groups say Fitzsimmons' appointment confirms their fears that the recently announced program the administration calls the Healthy Forests Initiative is a smokescreen for a return to unfettered logging. "How can a man who doesn't understand ecological systems and community values for wildlife run a program that's supposed to protect forests and communities?" asked John McCarthy, spokesman for the Idaho Conservation League. "People won't have confidence in this guy. He'll be divisive, it will all be based on junk science."

For the past 10 years, he has operated his consulting firm, Balanced Resource Solutions in Woodbridge, Va. Between 1983 and 1992, he held a series of policy-setting jobs in the Interior and Energy departments. He holds a doctorate in geography.
He said his goal in forest policy is not to tilt toward either heavy logging or excessive protections.

"The intent is to get that pendulum as close to the center as you can," he told The Oregonian. "It's not devious. It's certainly not a cynical attempt to turn chain saws loose from sea to shining sea with smoke from forest fires as a cover," as some environmentalists charge.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, is expected to introduce legislation next week that would carry out at least some of President Bush's forest-management ideas. Bush wants to have logging companies thin the forests in exchange for the right to harvest larger, commercially valuable trees.

His plan would suspend environmental rules and make it harder for the public to sue to stop thinning work from going forward. Environmentalists support thinning forests around homes and communities, but only if loggers keep their saws away from the large trees.

In "The Illusion of Ecosystem Management," published in 1999 by the Political Economy Research Center, which says it applies market principles to environmental problems, Fitzsimmons says ecosystems exist only in the human imagination and cannot be delineated. Federal policies, therefore, should not be used to try to manage or restore them, he wrote.

In another paper, entitled "Ecological Confusion among the Clergy," Fitzsimmons criticizes religious leaders who encourage their parishioners to worship God by protecting the environment. He singled out Catholic bishops who issued their own paper in 1997 in support of protecting and restoring the Columbia River watershed. The paper was published in 2000 by the Center for Economic Personalism, which advocates limited government and promotes religion and "economic liberty."

"By urging the public to make changes in their lives to accommodate nonexistent ecosystem needs, one wonders if the bishops are beginning inadvertently to make an idol out of their own creation, what they call the Columbia Basin ecosystem," he writes.
He added that the biodiversity crisis religious leaders often point to is not a crisis at all. There are between 250,000 and 750,000 species in the United States and 1,201 are on the Fish and Wildlife Service's endangered and threatened list.

"If each of these species were to become extinct tomorrow, our total biological endowment would decline by less than 1 percent, which would be a disconcerting loss but would not constitute a crisis," Fitzsimmons writes. "Conversely, at least 4,500 non-indigenous species have established free-living populations in the United States over the past few hundred years, so that on balance, this part of the world has seen an increase in biological diversity."

Timothy Ingalsbee, executive director of the Western Fire Ecology Center, said many of those non-indigenous species — like cheatgrass — are taking over native landscapes with devastating results. Cheatgrass is highly flammable, has little nutritional value for livestock and chokes out native plants.

"Making the argument that non-native species are increasing the biological diversity is pure bunk.""
Violin
04:49:07 PM
09/03/02

I used to be able to hyperlink
"link to story"
Violin
04:50:19 PM
09/03/02

"Here, here to that last quote. A major reason (of many) that a lot of species are endangered is due to encroachment from non-natives.

Again, I think it's gonna come down to a "my science is better than your science" shoving match."
roseymonster
05:43:51 PM
09/03/02

"I guess that's, hear, hear :)"
roseymonster
05:47:00 PM
09/03/02

"Eeeek that is way skeery! Bush is playing with loaded dice (folks designed to lie on a particular side)."
pedxing
07:21:14 PM
09/03/02

"I got this in an email from a former TT'er:

Bush on Fire
By PAUL KRUGMAN


Round up the usual suspects! George W. Bush's new "Healthy Forests" plan
reads like a parody of his administration's standard operating procedure.
You see, environmentalists cause forest fires, and those nice corporations
will solve the problem if we get out of their way.

Am I being too harsh? No, actually it's even worse than it seems. "Healthy
Forests" isn't just about scrapping environmental protection; it's also
about expanding corporate welfare.

Everyone agrees that the forests' prime evil is a well-meaning but
counterproductive bear named Smokey. Generations of fire suppression have
led to a dangerous accumulation of highly flammable small trees and
underbrush. And in some - not all - of the national forests it's too late
simply to reverse the policy; thanks to growing population and urban
sprawl, some forests are too close to built-up areas to be allowed to burn.

Clearly, some of the excess fuel in some of the nation's forests should be
removed. But how? Mr. Bush asserts that there is a free lunch: allowing
more logging that thins out the national forests will both yield valuable
resources and reduce fire risks.

But it turns out that the stuff that needs to be removed - small trees and
bushes, in areas close to habitation - is of little commercial value. The
good stuff, from the industry's point of view, consists of large, mature
trees - the kind of trees that usually survive forest fires - which are
often far from inhabited areas.

So the administration proposes to make deals with logging companies: in
return for clearing out the stuff that should be removed, they will be
granted the right to take out other stuff that probably shouldn't be
removed. Notice that this means that there isn't a free lunch after all.
And there are at least three severe further problems with this plan.

First, will the quid pro quo really be enforced, or will loggers simply
make off with the quid and forget about the quo? The Forest Service, which
would be in charge of enforcement, has repeatedly been cited by Congress's
General Accounting Office for poor management and lack of accountability.
And the agency, true to Bush administration form, is now run by a former
industry lobbyist. (In the 2000 election cycle, the forest products
industry gave 82 percent of its contributions to Republicans.) You don't
have to be much of a cynic to question whether loggers will really be held
to their promises.

Second, linking logging of mature trees to clearing of underbrush is a
policy non sequitur. Suppose Mayor Mike Bloomberg announced that Waste
Management Inc. would pick up Manhattan's trash free, in return for the
right to dump toxic waste on Staten Island. Staten Island residents would
protest, correctly, that if Manhattan wants its garbage picked up, it
should pay for the service; if the city wants to sell companies the right
to dump elsewhere, that should be treated as a separate issue. Similarly,
if the federal government wants to clear underbrush near populated areas,
it should pay for it; if it wants to sell the right to log mature trees
elsewhere, that should be a separate decision.

And this gets us to the last point: In fact, the government doesn't make
money when it sells timber rights to loggers. According to the General
Accounting Office, the Forest Service consistently spends more money
arranging timber sales than it actually gets from the sales. How much
money? Funny you should ask: last year the Bush administration stopped
releasing that information. In any case, the measured costs of timber sales

capture only a fraction of the true budgetary costs of logging in the
national forests, which is supported by hundreds of millions of dollars in
federal subsidies, especially for road-building. This means that,
environmental issues aside, inducing logging companies to clear underbrush
by letting them log elsewhere would probably end up costing taxpayers more,

not less, than dealing with the problem directly.

So as in the case of the administration's energy policy, beneath the
free-market rhetoric is a plan for increased subsidies to favored
corporations. Surprise.

A final thought: Wouldn't it be nice if just once, on some issue, the Bush
administration came up with a plan that didn't involve weakened
environmental protection, financial breaks for wealthy individuals and
corporations and reduced public oversight?"
pedxing
08:02:07 PM
09/03/02

"Thanks, Ped. It's difficult not to cast a jaundiced eye on the USFS with a history involving things like this."
Tilt
08:42:58 PM
09/03/02

"Good info Tilt!
(and this ain't just Bush bashing, USFS under Clinton was less than exemplary)"
pedxing
08:51:57 PM
09/03/02

OMG!
"the sky i falling! the sky is falling! no doupt we will be a dustbowl again in no time.


someone check into Faith Bremmer, the author of this "article". i'll betcha 20 acres of old groth forest that she's a leftist enviro-nazi, as opposed to an objectie journalist. her agenda is obvious.


ped, here's to you. at least you try to be fair...kindof....usually....for the most part, lol"
stratdewd
07:44:16 AM
09/05/02

"EXACTLY, Ped.

If you trust some of these guys to protect the outdoors, you won't have a pot to piss in, Strat. You'll be camping in a parking lot.

(Still quoting Limbaugh, I see.)"
Tilt
10:58:25 AM
09/05/02

"tilt wrong dood, he never entered my mind. dont know why you think that. i do have a brain ya know. try responding to my point......but bfd if i did, ,you quoted someone.......explain that to me?"
stratdewd
02:54:48 PM
09/05/02

"It's right off his page o' Standard Lines, that's why. How should one respond to namecalling like that? I say it's pretty lowbrow.

I don't know anything about Faith Bremner. I didn't post anything by Faith Bremner. Gannett owns a TON of newspapers all over the country.

Gannett News Service"
Tilt
07:13:07 PM
09/05/02

"New wildfire plan watchdog has unorthodox views
By Faith Bremner
Gannett News Service



i say you did"
stratdewd
12:02:22 AM
09/06/02

get over limbaugh already dood...
"low blow? name calling?

this is not an objective news story. it is a severly slanted attack on an entire admistration as well as a political point of view. you cannot deny it. there is no link to disprove my sentiments. it's pure propaganda designed to mislead and influence peoples political views, not inform people of the entire story. worst of all, the masses of feble minded, ambivalent people will buy this clever disguise. slight of hand dood. dirty pool.


what say you?(try not to attack me personally but instead make a logical argument adressing my points specifically)"
stratdewd
12:13:24 AM
09/06/02

"Well I know that Tilt and aero were confused by some but now I’m part of the collective? I was the one who posted the Faith Bremner story.

You coined the term “enviro-nazi”, dewd? Pretty good one. You better trademark it quick. Some pumpkin headed loudmouth is liable to start using it and claiming it as his own.

What point do you expect people to respond to? That you declare her to be someone who cannot be believed? Ad hominem attacks are dead ends. Please provide an alternative point of view that could be debated. You know - the "entire story"."
Violin
10:04:33 AM
09/06/02

weak man, weak
"once again...jus like phaed, you are unable to have a philosophical disscussion. i'm sure he could tell you the the latin name for style of argument ya'll use, but i just call it weak.


oh ...and rush uses the term enviro-whacko, not enviro-nazi. maybe if you actually listened to him you'de know that. amazing how someone can be so critical of something they don't understand.



what say you?"
stratdewd
11:26:50 AM
09/06/02

"Empty name-calling does not take the place of rational discourse. Stratdewd understands this well but he doesn’t care because he is a bloodthirsty, mass-murdering, goose-stepping Nazi."
Violin
11:57:18 AM
09/06/02

"G00SE is gonna be pissed if somebody steps on him!

Yeah... it's "FEMI-nazi, enviro-WACKO"... But it doesn't surprise me that you would know that, Strat, LOL. But you were just trying to be original.

And I do know a little about Limbaugh. His study of Public Policy consists of parrotting the op-ed page of the Washington Times while peppering the patter with epithets. He came up as a radio DJ.

He's a lot like Jesse Helms in that respect. Jesse was a (relatively) fast-talking DJ before Phillip Morris put him on the payroll and set him on the road to Washington."
Tilt
12:39:41 PM
09/06/02

"once again...jus like phaed, you are unable to have a philosophical disscussion. i'm sure he could tell you the the latin name for style of argument ya'll use, but i just call it weak.


Okay, since you called me into the discussion:
As best I can tell Violin's argument was that your were attacking him, rather than debating the point at hand. When he pointed this out, you attacked him, then me and called the whole thing weak.

I'd have to agree with you: weak.

Also, strat, it seems as if you are challenged when it comes to trying to reason with your opinions. You state them, and attack anyone who posts opposing views while challenging you to back up your claims.


i dint call you(phead) or violin a name. can you show me where it was? maybe i missed that.


fowl ball dood, try again. everyone can read here, right?”

“did i just c/p the entire thread? OOOPSIE! my bad.

"Empty name-calling does not take the place of rational discourse. Stratdewd understands this well but he doesn’t care because he is a bloodthirsty, mass-murdering, goose-stepping Nazi."
Violin


i never called you a name violin, just thought we could debate this. i'm starting to think your beeing contrary, if you dont wanna talk about it, that's cool.

my point..... that article you posted was a fraud. not that it wasn't really published, , but that the author has a politicol axe to grind & no interest of truely informing the public of a balanced news story. she is extremely biased. i would lay odds that shes a card carrying member of earth first, seirra club, democratic party, etc. limbaugh is biased too, ,but he doesn't PRETEND to be unbiased. he tells you where he's coming from.


anybody?”

“& father goose is my biotch!


^5 fatherGEE!”

“dewd -

We seem to be talking different languages here. Of course my post was a joke. Sometimes I like to be a jackass.

The name calling I was referring to was what you did to the author, Faith Bremner. So far you have only called her names and made unsupported assumptions about her political affiliations.

Why do you feel she is wrong? What is the real story that she is hiding from us?

What about ped's post? It makes sense to me that if the government typically loses money on timber sales, it would be even more expensive if those sales also required the loggers to clear unmarketable brush even if they could be counted on to fulfill their end of the bargain. Is this a poor argument? Why?”