Burn Baby Burn - Sierra Club ECO-TERROR FREEP

Focus on Freedom ^

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!!

[American in Israel]

Jim Crouch, director of the Ouachita Timber Purchasers Group, said the temporary restraining order poses a minor inconvenience for timber companies. Crouch represents companies that buy and process timber from Arkansas national forests.

The temporary restraining order will cost the lumber company time and money. Just before the court case comes to docket, the sierra club will drop the case. That way it protects itself from getting charged with frivolous lawsuit charges, or getting fined for court costs. They have been doing this in California for years. In this way the Sierra Club brought the timber industry and State Forestry to its knees. The result was the biggest fires in California's history. I guess the Sierra Club, who single hand-idly wiped out many of the forests in the Sierras need to find new forests to play with.

If they are not "saving" forests, the donations don't come in and the multi-million dollar industry of bogus activism for bucks grinds to a halt.

[steplock]

I would be happy if the Healthy Forest Initiative provided some protection for homes but sadly, it is a ruse to harvest public timber and other resources without scrutiny or any consideration for biodiversity. I will be glad to discuss the case with you and even show you the logging sites....It is far too wet around here to have dry fuel on the ground pose any threat of fire to anyone but forest
inholders and they aren't for the logging!

D. Reagan

David Reagan
Ouachita Watch League
P. O. Box 1521
Hot Springs, Arkansas 71902
(501) 623-8425
email David Reagan at: dreagan@direclynx.net

[snopercod]

Buck Fiodiversity!

[Grampa Dave]

This legal bs stuff is the Watermelon Green Jihadist strategy coast to coast to slow down if not stop GW's healthy timber bill.

[Grampa Dave]

The reality is that the richest and most powerful group of Watermelon Jihadists in America don't want a single dead tree logged nor a single flamable bush harvested in America.

Who is Funding Club Sierra, the Canadian lumber companies that don't have to put up with this Economic Green Terrorism?

[American in Israel]

Considering the size of a logging project to the size of the forest I consider logging a part of bio-diversity. Humans are bio too.

Not sure what the trees in your area are like, but in the sierras a good ponderers pine comes to maturity in 60 or so years.

So a clear cut that takes less than a half of a percent of the forest at a time is bio-diverse. Of course a logging project takes less than .001 percent.

My favorite type of logging is the one practiced by landowner/loggers; Selective cut, but that is rarely cost effective in government projects as the land is not as good and healthy forest being not so carefully managed for tree output.

To me a clear cut is a small fire without the tree loss, and when the cost of Silva-culture is charged to the logging company it is a win/win for all but the religious gia worshipers.

Somehow humans are not part of their plan, like their god figured out everything except humans.

My wife worked with forestry for years, I have done a little "recreational" logging. Not totally ignorant on the subject.

it is a ruse to harvest public timber and other resources without scrutiny or any consideration for biodiversity

One thing no forestry would do is allow logging without enviromental impact statements, so I can not see how that is going to happen. Does this initiative cancel all the other bio-diversity laws, or is the battle just a ruse to duplicate more red tape in the name of the god "bio-diversity"?

There are hundreds of laws protecting the environment applying to logging, If this intuitive cancels all of them and does not replace them then what you are saying is true, and I would be against it too. But every time you say logging, you need not say bio-diversity like a knee jerk reaction. Sometimes you need to say access roads, and runoff containment, and fire prevention and replanting too. I just feel the "bio-diversity" nail has been hammered home so much so it has popped out on the other side of the tree.

It was bio=diversity that the Sierra Club used to halt the cutting of bug infested trees during the seven year drought in California. They used the pre-placed laws that standing dead trees must be left in place for bird habitats. So a emergency cut of 40 trees to halt a bug infestation in a single acre was halted till it could come to court. That bug infestation and about a dozen others spread so far and wide that it was impossible to stop by the time the court got around to it so forestry dropped the effort. That eventually caused a minor bug infestation to spread to the point we lost 40% of the high mountain pines. Most of that tree mass was waste, because all the logging company's in the world could not have harvested it, and the ones available the Sierra Club blocked to the best of their ability.

Most ecologists have a very small perspective on life, they cannot see the forest for the trees. This is what I mean. I have walked for miles in a forest without seeing humans, and lots and lots of trees. But a timber cut is measured in acres, not miles. So the effort to block a cut is measured in acres and hundreds of trees, not miles and millions of trees. In short, more trees fall over dead and rot in a day than the loggers ever cut.

"The forests are being cut down like a lawnmower" is a perspective born of city dwelling. The land I lived on for twenty years was harvested three times in a selective cut, and the only difference a city dweller could see between it and the adjacent national forest was that those trees were over there and these trees were over here.

But to my eyes I could clearly see that my trees were bigger and healthier than those trees over there. When the bugs came, we had one tree catch bugs in 250 acres, but the forest looked like it was autumn all around our area. Which by the way is a very bad thing in an evergreen forest.

The "ecologists" are not ecologists, they do not get trained in ecology in college, they know nothing about the scientific management of forest bio-diversity, they are a leftists religious cult that leaves its "offerings" in the hands of hucksters and magazine media groups that drive BMW's with birkenstocks for shoes. It is nothing but a Political Action Group bent on using democracy to force their vision of Gia on the rest of mankind.

I have spent thousands of hours prospecting for gold in the mountains of the Sierras, and I saw a lot of loggers, and hunters and Goldprospectors, and Bike Riders and hikers and campers. Didn't see to many ecologists. I think we should relocate them from the city and force them to live in the forest in the name of bio-diversity. It would after all make for far healthier forests. When they learn that cute mountain kittys kill bambi for dinner, and if they run out of bambi will come on your porch for your dog or worse yet your kid, perhaps they might understand the workings of life in nature, instead of trying to describe a Bambi movie in American bio-diversity laws.

Mountains lions can't read...

[Eva]

From Frontpage Magazine:


Environmentalism Trashed Again
By James K. Glassman
AEI | December 22, 2003


The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation today severely repudiated a board which, a year ago, had judged The Skeptical Environmentalist, the best-selling book by Bjorn Lomborg, "objectively dishonest" and "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice."
Lomborg's book--with 2,930 footnotes, 1,800 bibliographical references, 173 figures and nine tables--powerfully challenged the conventional wisdom that the world's environment was going to hell. When it was published in English in 2001, the book, published by the distinguished Cambridge University Press, was praised in the Washington Post, the Economist and elsewhere.

That reception provoked panic among radical greens. In early 2002, the Economist reported that "Mr. Lomborg is being called a liar, a fraud and worse. People are refusing to share a platform with him. He turns up in Oxford to talk about this book, and the author . . . of a forthcoming study on climate change throws a pie in his face."

In January 2002, Scientific American magazine published a special section titled "Science Defends Itself Against 'The Skeptical Environmentalist.'" Articles by perfervid critics of Lomborg covered 11 pages. All this attention, however, served merely to boost sales of the book, which nearly two years after its publication still ranked first in its category on Amazon.com.

Then, in January, came what enviros figured would be the coup de grace: a report by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSC). The report was, to be charitable, a piece of junk, but its conclusions, coming from an official body, were nonetheless given prominent display in world media. The New York Times headlined its page 7 story by Andrew Revkin, "Environment and Science: Danes Rebuke a 'Skeptic.'"

Now, the Danes have issued a well-deserved rebuke to the rebukers.

The Ministry of Science characterized the DCSC's treatment of the case as "dissatisfactory," "deserving criticism," and "emotional." It found that the ruling was "completely void of argumentation."

No kidding. The DCSC simply relied on excerpts from the Scientific American smears. The only other evidence came from Time magazine.

In its conclusion, the Ministry sent the case back to the DCSD "with an injunction that the DCSD should allow itself to be advised by the Danish Social Science Research Council in matters regarding good scientific practice. In summary, the Ministry must also state that, in its opinion, the treatment by the DCSD of this case deserves criticism."

The ministry's decision is the latest in a series of setbacks for environmental radicals in recent months. I just returned from COP-9, the big United Nations conference on global warming, held in Milan. Never have I seen enviros so dispirited or in such disarray. The Kyoto Protocol, which requires severe cutbacks in carbon-dioxide emissions, is clearly dead. The Europeans are still waiting for the Russians to ratify the treaty. Instead, the Russians are making the most cogent case, intellectually and economically, against it.

Meanwhile, new reports have repudiated Michael Mann's "hockey stick" theory of sharply rising temperatures, a mainstay of warming enthusiasts; have shown that the last century was not particularly warm in comparison with other, pre-industrial periods; and have made a strong case for solar activity, not human intervention, as the main factor in warming.

Earlier, the U.S. Senate soundly defeated the McCain-Lieberman bill, which would have foisted a "Kyoto Lite" on the United States. The bill lost despite the fact that Sen. McCain sold it as costing just $20 per family (a study by Charles River Associates found otherwise, but the green propaganda made the bill sound not disruptive at all, and still it lost).

And now, the vindication of Lomborg--the mild-mannered statistician who simply said that the emperor had no clothes.

[longtermmemmory]

Remember the eccology movement? It was supposed to be how people can USE the resources of the world without poluting.

The wackos have shifted to don't use at all.


By the way, developers use the Sierra Club just like environmentalists.

[Grampa Dave]

Wise use or conservation use now with Club Sierra means no use.

Some developers, Canadian timber and oil producers, the Opecker Princes/Thugs and others use Club Sierra like a very expensive call girl.

[Chewbacca]

"I have spent thousands of hours prospecting for gold in the mountains of the Sierras, and I saw a lot of loggers, and hunters and Goldprospectors, and Bike Riders and hikers and campers."

I hope your gold prospecting picks up this coming summer.
With all the land burned away it should improve the level of gold bearing dirt flowing into the streams and rivers when the rains start. More nuggets to find.

Wish I could join you.

[oldironsides]

I am told that the Sierra Club has a plush office building in Washington DC. The Sierra Club never made mention of the "Lynx Lie" told by government employees. They rubbed lynx fur on trees to create a lie so that more land could be placed off limits to humans. The liars working under Clinton still work for the agency. They had a letter placed in their file. They all got raises.

[Trteamer]

Let me tell you all a true story about the Sierra Club:

One of my best friends won a whistle-blower lawsuit against the Colorado State Forest Service. He blew the whistle on them for burrying motor oil and pesticides on state land in Fort Collins, Colorado when he worked for them. The EPA will not touch this with a 10 foot pole, and the toxic waste remains in the ground to this day.

Out of frustration we contacted the local Sierra Club and met with their leaders to discuss some action to get it cleaned up. The leader kept on spouting BS about how evil big business is. Blah,Blah,Blah (I don't think he liked my tie). We showed them the proof, in court testimony, and had the eyewhitness right there to meet with them.

Well, what came of it was NOTHING. This did not fit into their extreeme leftist view that all bad things must come from big business, (also the fact that most of them worked for Colorado State University of which the Colorado State Forest Service is part of). The government can pollute all it wants and it doesn't bother the Sierra Club one bit. The EPA doesn't want to embarrass it's fellow beauracracy, so the toxic waste remains in the ground (and groundwater).

The Sierra Club has a specific political agenda, that is what they exist for. It is all about the politics of the extreeme left.

It cares nothing about the moral duty to properly manage our natural resources. To all you leftist Sierra Club lurkers: THANK A LOGGER FOR YOUR LUMBER! (and go have a drink of some of the Spring Creek groundwater in Fort Collins).

[SierraWasp]

Man-O-man! Do I ever like that tagline of yours!!!

[SierraWasp]

"A Merry Christmas rant to my friends on FR"

And a dang fine "World Class" rant it was, too!!!

There's enough "righteous indignation" and genuine passion in that rant to "drive the moneychangers out of the temple (forest)!!!

See there Grampa? Don't you think this one belongs in the FR Ranter's Hall of Fame? I sure do!!!

[forester]

Thanks for the encouragement. The tone of that article was so bass ackwards that I had to vent.

[SierraWasp]

I had hoped it would be a rant instigator and I sure liked the way you tore into it and ripped it to shreds!!! I read every word and could feel the burning rage... so to speak.

[Grampa Dave]

This is the rant of the year!

I would love to be out with these watermelon socialists as they stagger through the burnt out reality with Forester in tow.

Then, whenever, these watermelon jihadists utter their mantras, Forester could b*tch slap them and then nail them with an appropriate rant. We could video tape the entire process to use at universities to deprogram those who have been brain washed with the green lies.

[forester]

I would love to be out with these watermelon socialists as they stagger through the burnt out reality with Forester in tow.

Just when I was second guessing myself for posting that rant, you guys give me an atta boy. Thank you. And to show my appreciation, here is a little story along the lines you outlined above Dave.

About ten years ago, one of my logger friends ran into some trouble on a USFS roadside salvage timber sale. Seams the local environmentalist was upset that the USFS was actually cutting dying and diseased trees as well as dead ones. Our local enviro was so upset that he scheduled a press tour of the timber sale area to show the local press the alleged environmental damage.

I got there early and walked the area before the entourage showed up. I was sitting on a stump watching them walk up the skidtrail when our self-proclaimed savior of the earth saw me. His press tour consisted of the local District Ranger, and a local reporter - nobody else showed up.

Upon reaching me, he immediately started to criticize the job, "Trees like that should be left for wildlife" he said, pointing to broken off fir snag, "they are important for cavity nesting species." "Like what?" I asked, "Furbearers like fishers and martins." I played along, "Really? Fishers nest in trees like that?" "Yes" he replied, "I didn't know that! That's just great!" I said. "Why is that great? he asked suspiciously.

"Well that tree is right next to a paved road and is less then 100' from the busiest trailhead to the Marble Mountain Wilderness. I'm glad that fishers have adapted to these conditions, now we don't have to set aside 5,000 acres for each one."

This was not the conclusion he wanted to hear. The Ranger was delighted, the newspaper man was amused. The rest of the day went pretty much like that exchange.

After that, our local savior of the earth avoided me like the plague.

[Richard-SIA]

In Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, people have left alfalfa hay in burned meadows, close to roads. But deer cannot digest alfalfa, so they become bloated and actually starve to death, said Brennan, the UC-Davis researcher.

---

Um, I guess he has never seen all the fat healthy Mule Deer cropping the Alfalfa fields in Nevada?

Either this guy bought his degree on eBay, or the article is sloppily written. I KNOW deer digest green Alfalfa, not certain about the baled variety. I do know I see them grazing Alfalfa fields after they have been harvested, with abundant "natural" feed readily available nearby.
Deer only eat indigestible feed when the habitat leaves them nothing else.