Replies

Here's something from Jon Kyl's website that mentions the 40% lawsuit statement.

Senator Jon Kyl has lambasted the Southwest Center for Biodiversity in his statement at Show Low last week. Here is something from his website:

http://www.senate.gov/~kyl/#statmnt

"Environmentally-sound strategies such as forest thinning and controlled burns clear away small, dry, and disease-prone trees and underbrush that serve as kindling for fires and prevent healthy growth. Arizonans can see the results of such proper forest-management techniques firsthand. The White Mountain Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Mount Trumbell, and other places in our state prove that properly-thinned forests are not only healthier and fire-resistant, but much more attractive. "Yet standing in the way of these efforts are radical environmentalists who file litigation and seek to otherwise obstruct forest treatment. They would rather the forests burn than to see sensible forest management. As of last month, there were 5,000 legal challenges pending against the U.S. Forest Service, which devotes nearly 40 percent of its resources to defending against lawsuits and complying with environmental regulations. This is time and money taken away from fighting fires.
"Along with other Western Senators, I am proposing legislation shortly to establish an ecological research institute in Arizona that will work with land managers to implement forest-restoration treatments throughout the state. As it happens, my request for $1 million in federal funding for a pilot program to treat Apache-Sitgreaves through forest thinning was granted shortly before this wildfire broke out. We will work to fund more pilot programs throughout the state, because as long as we leave our forests untreated, we will guarantee catastrophic damage."

HOW TO CONTACT SEN. JON KYL
I welcome your comments and questions. You can get a message quickly to me by:

calling one of my offices,
sending me a letter,
or filling out an online comment form.

I would like to hear your thoughts and suggestions about this website. The online webmaster comment form will get your message directly to my webmaster.
Washington, D.C.
730 Hart Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-4521
Fax: (202) 224-2207

Phoenix
2200 East Camelback, Suite 120
Phoenix, Arizona 85016-3455
Phone: (602) 840-1891
Fax: (602) 957-6838

Tucson
7315 North Oracle Road, Suite 220
Tucson, Arizona 85704
Phone: (520) 575-8633
Fax: (520) 797-3232

A little bit here about the early origins of the madness we are dealing with today.

http://moxnix2.homestead.com/global2.html

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (Part 4 of 9)

By Henry Lamb

THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT (1970s)

Not a single vote was cast against the Wilderness Act of 1964 when it

finally reached the Senate. Congress thought it was setting aside nine

million acres of wilderness so posterity could see a sample of what their

forefathers had to conquer in order to create America. The new law was the

crowning achievement of the Wilderness Society, to which its Director,

Howard Zahniser had devoted five years of constant lobbying. Though

unnoticed at the time, the new law signaled an end to the traditional

"conservation" movement and the beginning of a new environmental

"preservation" movement. The conservation movement might be characterized

by the idea that private land owners should voluntarily conserve natural

resources; the environmental preservation movement is characterized by the

notion that the government should enforce conservation measures through

extensive regulations. By this distinction, the Wilderness Society brought

the environmental movement to Congress. Robert Marshall, Benton MacKaye,

and Aldo Leopold -- all avowed socialists -- organized the Society in the

early 1930s and proclaimed their socialist ideas loudly. Marshall's 1933

book, The People's Forests, says:

"Public ownership is the only basis on which we can hope to protect the

incalculable values of the forests for wood resources, for soil and water

conservation, and for recreation . . . . Regardless of whether it might be

desirable, it is impossible under our existing form of government to

confiscate the private forests into public ownership. We cannot afford to

delay their nationalization until the form of government changes."37

This significant event failed to register a blip on the radar screen of

public awareness. Instead, public attention focused on the racial strife,

the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, and the Viet Nam War which tore

apart the convention, the party, and the nation. The First "Earth Day" in

1970, which perhaps coincidentally was celebrated on Lenin's birthday,

April 22, was viewed as little more than a festival for flower children.

The anti-war fervor, again, brought a quarter-million protesters to the

Mall, and Watergate brought down the Nixon Presidency. The Clean Water Act

of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 served as beacons to attract

the energies and idealism of a generation of young people who had

successfully forced the world's most powerful government to abandon a war

they saw to be unjust. The 1970s witnessed an unprecedented explosion in

the number of environmental organizations and in the number of people who

joined and supported these organizations.