[Egregious Philbin]

From the 2nd article on the "Rural Cleansing" list:

Citing a General Accounting Office report on fuel reduction in 2001, the Wilderness Society found that only 1 percent of 1,671 proposed projects were "appealed by any interested party, including recreation groups, conservationists, industry interests or individuals."

The same report, the group said, was critical of the Forest Service for tending to focus its fuels-reduction plans in areas where commercially valuable timber was located rather than on areas that had the highest fire hazards.

[Grampa Dave]

Well, that was the big lie of the Envirals on this GAO report, but you knew that it was a big lie, didn't you?

Here is the rebuttal of this Enviral Lie from the Wall Street Journal:

Truth Under Fire [Libs Lie Again on Forest Fires]
Wall St. Journal ^ | July 11, 2002 | Editorial


Posted on 07/11/2002 1:28 AM Pacific by The Raven


Talk about starting a fire in your own backyard.

Last month, environmental groups across the country hollered like banshees when politicians and local communities began taking them to task for the massive wildfires that are today gutting the West. The crescendo came when Arizona's Gov. Jane Dee Hull, watching half a million acres of her state go up in smoke, flatly blamed greenies for obstructing work to clean up national forests. She was talking about the never-ending stream of appeals and lawsuits they file to halt thinning, road building and firebreaks.

The only thing was, just as the enviros were taking some richly deserved heat, they suddenly surfaced with what looked like an ironclad defense -- in the form of a General Accounting Office report. According to that paper, of the 1,671 Forest Service projects to reduce hazardous fuels in 2001, outside groups had objected to only 20 -- less than 1%. "It would have been good if the governor had gotten her facts straight before spouting off," spat Sandy Bahr, of the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter.

The report quickly became the news in the forest-fire debate. The Sierra Club pasted Ms. Bahr's quote beneath the GAO numbers on its Web site. The Center for Biological Diversity and the Wilderness Society feted the document, claiming exoneration. The New York Times editorial page howled that the report showed accusations against environmental groups to be "absurd."

Western politicians, scientists and forest officials, in the meantime, were mystified: Everyone unlucky enough to own a tree in his backyard knows from experience that environmental groups appeal projects faster than bunnies reproduce. So what was up with this GAO report?

What was up was the report itself. And the environmental groups, who knew it all along, now have some serious egg on their all-natural faces.

In a three-page letter sent this week to Congress, Barry Hill, the director of natural resources and the environment at the GAO, set the record straight. He delicately explained the methodology used to count up appeals and litigation. The details are dense, but the message was clear: The GAO didn't have the whole story.

His letter just happens to coincide with a new Forest Service report with the correct numbers. And guess what? It turns out nearly half (48%) of all the Service's plans for getting rid of hazardous fuels were appealed by outside groups. In the Northern Region, one of nine the Service administers, every single one of its projects for fiscal year 2001-02 -- 53 in total -- was appealed. Other regions saw anywhere from 67% to 79% of their plans put on hold through appeals.

But here's the real kicker: The Forest Service report also names those groups that launch the most appeals. Surprise, surprise, they include the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Wilderness Society and others -- the very same folks who held up the (obviously) incorrect GAO report and claimed it was true. "These numbers are . . . a harsh reminder of just how relentlessly ideological some environmental litigants have become," said Rep. Scott McInnis (R., Colo.).

That comment just about sums it up. For years, radical environmentalists have twisted and fabricated facts in their desire to keep humans out of the forests. Most of the time, they get away with it. This time, they've been caught with their loincloths down.

It'd be nice to think that Ms. Bahr, the Sierra Club and other groups will now post the real numbers on their Web sites -- seeing, after all, as how we should all "get our facts straight before spouting off." Then again, if that's the standard, perhaps we just won't be hearing anything from these groups for a very long time to come.

When do enviralists, phoney conservatives who are enviralists lie about their tactics, strategies and goals?