Judge Margolis ruled the Forest Service action was "arbitrary, capricious and without rational basis." He also found that the officials knew their findings were faulty when they ordered the sale canceled.
Posted on 03/13/2002 9:24:45 PM PST by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:38:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
If we did that, then what would the government give the U.N. to do in this country?
Act as 100 yard downrange target holders at all public shooting ranges?
Why not pass laws that make bureaucrats liable for their decisions?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahah! Oh man, stoppit, you're making my ribs hurt!
There already is a law which covers this you know. Look at the Amendment directly after the 1st in the Bill of Rights to locate it.
Hmmmmmm....not THERE'S a thought...
From what I read there, no backing and filling possible. The survey method was apparently insufficient to establish a sound basis for the action.
Despite what you might think, my first concern in addressing questions with scientific data is that the scientific data being used is good. GIGO is usually correct. Or as Sherlock Holmes said (paraphrased): "Reasoning from insufficient evidence almost invariably leads to erroneous deductions."
I'd eat owl, but NEVER their stats.
You see, I have a personal friend who almost lost everything he had, merely because he moved some frogs to a better habitat.
Move a Frog, Go To Jail
Regards,
The entire Rural Cleansing since the 1970's by the evil enviral Nazis has been based on bad science, lies, frauds and judges in the back pocket of the enviral Nazis!
"I said to a couple of fellows there, 'If there's not a pair of spotted owls occupying this site, I'll spring for a Chateaubriand for two.' I was that convinced that there's a pair of owls in there that has not, at this point, been detected yet," Mr. Verner said.
I dunno sounds like sound science to me...driving around in the forest (not in an SUV, fer sure) to see if you can get a feeling for whether there are spotted owls in the area...
I have a friend in N. Kali (place will be not named to prevent the Ribbit Nazis from shooting him with their lugers) who owns an office building whose parking lot sometimes gets flooded from a season creek.
My friend and other property owners wanted to sand bag the area of the creek that ran past the parking lots. They were not trying to divert this season creek, just keep it in the creek bed during season flooding.
Apparently Fish and Game heard about and said no because this could be a habitat of the Red Legged Frog. The owners hired a Ribbit expert to come out and see if the Red Legged Frog lived in that area.
The Ribbit expert found no live frogs nor did he find any skeletons of any dead ones in several sites in which he dug holes and look for Ribbit skeletons.
However the state and federal Enviral Nazis prevented any sand bagging because the area by the seasonal creek looked like something the red legged ribbits might like to visit and live in!
I don't interpolate. Or extrapolate.
Judge Margolis ruled the Forest Service action was "arbitrary, capricious and without rational basis." He also found that the officials knew their findings were faulty when they ordered the sale canceled.
This week, Audrey Hudson of the Washington Times, wrote an article revealing that, according to court documents, the US Forest Service officials knowingly used faulty data of spotted owl habitat to block logging in a California forest. This one case cost the government $9.5 million. Other recent studies have shown that there is no proof that the Northern spotted owl requires old growth forests or that the Northern spotted owl is any different than any other spotted owl anywhere in the country.
This is just the latest revelation in a string of other questionable actions taken by environmental interests using junk science to prove endangered species rulings, mostly in the Pacific Northwest.
Earlier this year, we learned of the phoney lynx hair in the forestry study, the deregulation of coho salmon due to lack of reliable proof and the cutting off of water to farmers due to a bogus ruling of endangerment of suckerfish and salmon. We also learned that the Harvard study on Global warming was funded by Enron, whose natural gas interests would have been greatly boosted by the Kyoto treaty.
We need to ask ourselves, "Why are the environmentalists pushing actions that cannot be backed up by reliably, accurate science?" "What is their agenda, if not to preserve the environment?" "Can we trust what environmentalists tell us about arsenic in the water?" "About drilling in ANWR?" Probably not.
This week, it was announced that Whatcom County would be reviewing its growth management plan with a view to expansion. Environmental interests have already destroyed much of the economy of this county. They have stopped the logging, reduced the fishing to a minimal level, forced the closing of a large part of the Georgia Pacific plant and closed down the Intalco aluminum smelter with higher electricity prices. We need to be very careful to listen to both sides, private interests, as well as the environmentalists before we make any more decisions which might potentially restrict the growth of our economy.
What do you think?
On the leeward side, on a windy day I suppose? :o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.