images/ceau120/Binding_s.gif
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]
Forest Service officials knowingly used faulty data of spotted owl habitat to block logging in a California forest, according to court documents obtained by The Washington Times.
The Forest Service did not have a "rational basis" for halting the timber sale to Wetsel-Oviatt Lumber Company, said the previously undisclosed ruling by Federal Claims Court Judge Lawrence S. Margolis.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
While he was singing "I got Yew, babe".
Chateaubriand for two... By definition, a chateaubriand IS a steak for two.
within my gestalt notion...
Gestalt "...any of the integrated structures or patterns that make up all experience and have specific properties which can neither be derived from the elements of the whole nor considered simply as the sum of these elements."
Translation: "I felt that there were owls there, so it must have been true.
whoop-de-doo.
"The Forest Service jerks and the Sierra Club etc should be forced to pay the judgement."
Who does pay a judgement against the government?
Is this our highway tax dollars at work?
Successful indoctrination is no accident.
One fellow. who stopped donating to Club Sierra during the blackouts, asked me to send him this data. He is so poed at CS. He is a doctor and gets very angry at anyone who uses bad science for an agenda. He feels that this report and others will wake up a lot people who have donated time and money to CS and other enviral outfits who falsify data.
I told him that as of now there was no proof that CS had falsied the data. He felt that they had done even worse in using what they had to know was bad data for their agendas.
He and 5 other guys got this report and a few others emailed to them this morning.
The fellow in charge of our monthly news letter in the Feb Newsletter put in the data re the Salmon fraud in Oregon re the Cohos and that all of them have the same basic dna. Two members got mad and haven't been at the Feb or Mar meetings. They are card carrying envirals. My friend challenged them that if they had some real data that would prove what he put in the Newsletter was wrong, he would run it in a newsletter. However, he would never believe any of their wild a$$ed claims anymore. The data had to come from legitimate sources outside of the enviral groups and not be their propaganda or agendas.
Let your non Freeper friends know about these decisions and the importance to them and other Americans!
I hear 'ya, but at least I got a letter back from the Resource Committee Chairman, signed by an actual person as well. James V. Hansen knows that there is at least one pi$$ed-off FReeper out here. Whether he cares or not is another matter, but my conscious is clear. I protested to someone other than the FReeper community.
That goes for you too, snopercod!!!
images/ceau120/Binding_s.gif
Let's dispense with the false and totalitarian concept of "The King's Land", get the government out of the business of property management, get them out of the business of telling us what we can do on our own property, and generally flipping them the Most Un-Endangered Bird they've ever seen.
I'm with you, Lumberjack. You seem to be the only one who here who's really identified the issue. As long as we allow the federal government to "protect endangered species," quite often in violation of the Constitution, this sort of thing will continue to occur. Retributions against the "scientists" who falsified the data will prove ineffective. It would be much better to put them and those like them out of business permanently.
But you have done a nice job of it here. So, I'll see if I can post a liberal response to it and the comeback. (My brother and I beat a liberal up on this one, and it was fun).
Tonight on Radio Free Republic we have "On Target" with host John Bender! Tonight, Johns guest is Charles Cunningham, Director of Federal Affairs for the NRA!
Following John at 7pm/10pm, we have a special edition of RFR hosted by ALOHA RONNIE! AR, a Veteran of the Battle of IA DRANG-1965 / Landing Zone Falcon (3 mins out from Landing Zone X-Ray), who will be reviewing "We Were Soldiers"! AR will taking lots of calls!
To listen in while you FReep, go to theFRN Homepage and scroll down the left side for the RadioFR button!
This story inspired a few e-mail messages and well, some show the liberal mind and some show the response to that. Here is an overview.
From Brian:
Matt thinks you just want to put forests off-limits to drive up the price of lumber because you're against poor people having homes.
From Dave;
Brian,
Sounds like Freeper logic to me. If I don't want businesses to slash and burn the environment. Makes perfect sense. I must be against poor people. Assuming the Moonie Times and Wall Street Urinal haven't spun the story they way they like it, a few caveats are in order - even within the stories as given.
The law of the land is that it is our duty to protect Endangered Species and their habitat . This presents two problems: Defining the species and defining their habitats. Both take studies which take money. Businesses couldn't get the ESA overturned in the courts and they couldn't get enough Congresspersons to repeal the legislation, so they took a different approach.
Since 1994, when the Republicans took over Congress, businesses have lobbied strongly to defund the departments responsible for certifying Endangered Species and habitats. According to a recent story on NPR, there is now a 30-40 year backlog of study requests. Practically all money available is being spent to settle questions raised in court cases - no money is left for regular scientific studies. The business approach is - if you can't prove I'm destroying a species, you can't stop me. The environmentalists response has been to declare large areas protected just to be safe, and then the issue has to be settled in court - usually after a court-ordered study.
The spotted owl case appears to be a matter of someone not finishing his job, not that there aren't spotted owls in the disputed area. At this point, we don't know because the work wasn't done – although the air survey showed possible habitat. That particular bureucrat should be fired and a new study of the potential habitat areas done.
The Canadian Lynx study was not invalidated because the erroneous data caused by some researchers submitting DNA samples from pelts could easily be removed from the study. If I remember correctly the data was removed before the final report was given and therefore did not skew the final conclusions.
I'm not familiar with the details of the other cases, but when faced with the insufficient resources to determine what specific salmon waterways needed protecting, I could see someone wanting to protect everything until the scientific work could be done.
In any case - there's usually more to it than meets the Freeper eye in these cases.
Dave
And Brian is having a whole lot of fun sending the liberal’s message back to him with comments in enclosed parentheses.
Brian,
Sounds like Freeper logic to me.
Since 1994, when the Republicans took over Congress, businesses have lobbied strongly to defund the departments responsible for certifying Endangered Species and habitats.
(Turns out it was a pretty good idea, since the people staffing these organizations have turned out to have agendas and no scruples!)According to a recent story on NPR
(THAT left-wing Commie Pinko organization? They can't move their LIPS without lying! If they say "Hello!" it's a lie! National PUBIC Radio? Everything you say from here on out is obviously invalid!), there is now a 30-40 year backlog of study requests. (Yeah, they wanted to study PUBIC lice to see if they were endangered, but mean old businesses wouldn't fund it, because POOR people have most of the PUBIC lice, probably....) Practically all money available is being spent to settle questions raised in court cases - no money is left for regular scientific studies. (You mean the kind where they drive by the forest and then write a report that says "Yeah, it's all critical habitat"?) The business approach is - if you can't prove I'm destroying a species, you can't stop me. (The Democrat approach is, until you find a nesting pair of owls, LIE.) The environmentalists response has been to (LIE) declare large areas protected (LIE) just to be safe, (if in doubt, lie---yep, that's the Democrat way, all right) and then the issue has to be settled in court - usually after a court-ordered study (Just like evil Insurance companies----reject every claim the first time, and then fight the rest in court. Then LIE there! Hey, worst that happens is you're disbarred!)
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.