Posted on 08/02/2002 11:43:32 AM PDT by hattend
Daschle's Green Lobby and WorldCom Executives Belong in the Same Jail Cell
By J.J. Johnson - Sierra Times Editor & Chief
Published 08. 1. 02 at 20:07 Sierra Time
The Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society has felt the heat and decided to try a little spin control. They write: "Amid the current epidemic of forest fires burning across the West -- fires exacerbated by a combination of factors including severe drought and a century of aggressive fire suppression -- the Forest Service, some elected officials, and newspapers such as the Washington Times and Wall Street Journal have attempted to turn the issue against environmental groups in general and the Sierra Club in particular. The following is our (The Sierra Club) response to the latest allegations made by the Wall Street Journal. Guess what guys, Your Western Media Nemesis - The Sierra Times has only just begun to tear your hide -
Let's Roll…
Dear Editor:
Let's set the record straight on Senator Daschle's amendment on the Black Hills National Forest.
Yes, Let's, shall we?
Years of poor management by the US Forest Service have left the Black Hills National Forest a mess. Local communities and homes face serious fire danger as the result of excessive logging and suppression of small fires. The same practices have severely damaged environmental quality and wildlife habitat.
I can't believe educated people could even write such drivel, or worse, expect you to believe it. Back to grade school we go: If there were 'excessive logging', there would be fewer logs, hence less to burn (pay attention - you'll see them validate this statement later). And the quote of "The same practices have severely damaged environmental quality and wildlife habitat." Is a sick attempt to lead readers to believe that wildlife living in that 'habitat' dances with glee when everything around them is suddenly a blazing inferno. And another thing: How much money did either of these organizations donate to help save the wildlife in Arizona and Colorado while hunting and outdoor organizations gave plenty? Answer: Zero. Green men speak with forked tongue.
Faced with this problem the Sierra Club and The Wilderness Society sat down with the Forest Service, the Governor of South Dakota and other local stakeholders. Together we hammered out a deal that will both alleviate the fire danger to the communities around Sturgis, South Dakota, and improve environmental values by increasing protected wilderness areas in the Black Hills. This approach is utterly different than proposed by Representative John Thune, which would simply allow one party, the Forest Service, which created the problem, to exacerbate fire danger by removing still more of the fire resistant large trees and leave behind the logging slash and brush that increases fire risk.
No, folks like the Sierra Club created the problem with their silly lawsuits and lobbying. That's why they're in so much hot water and they know it. It's also nice to know who the other guilty parties are in this conspiracy. Hey Sierra Club: Since you admit sitting down with the Governor of South Dakota, there's a woman down in the Phoenix, Arizona Governor's Mansion that would love to sit down with you as well. But if you take her up on that invitation, I'd suggest wearing a bullet proof vest.
Our agreement, which was intended to be a revision to an existing court order, would have allowed fire prevention measures to begin immediately. However, the Bush administration walked away from the table and sent the issue to Congress.
Oh, which court order? Last time we check, the Sierra Club and Wilderness society are at this time STILL pushing lawsuits in courts around the west to BLOCK fire prevention actions. Instead of trying to blame Bush, how about simply getting out of the way to allow local groups and the USFS to clear the bushes?
The majority of the Daschle amendment is based on our agreement. This is a unique solution to a very unique situation on the Black Hill National Forest that is strictly limited in size and magnitude. The amendment would help to reduce hazardous fuel loads in a manner that protects communities and the benefits of recreation, clean water and fish and wildlife habitat on the Black Hills National Forest.
And I want the folks who give money to these green organizations to read this carefully: This so-called 'solution' is unique because it is unconstitutional (as if that's ever stopped them before). The clause in the Constitution that says, "laws passed by Congress must be uniform among the states" doesn't apply here. And the clause inserted into the bill about 'no-judicial review': Now just why would that clause (also unconstitutional) need to be in such a bill?? Because you never know which GREEN group will fire off another lawsuit. More Hypocrisy: Here's ya go: "…The amendment would help to reduce hazardous fuel loads.." Meaning - Logging helps to reduce hazardous fuel loads. America: You just read the official position of the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society.
The Wilderness Society and The Sierra Club did not agree to and do not support exemptions from environmental laws and judicial review that were contained in the legislative language passed by the Congress. This language was not necessary to carry out the activities put forth in the revised settlement. However, we want to emphasize that this language only restricts environmental laws and judicial review of those specific fire prevention projects that all parties - Forest Service, local government and environmental groups - have agreed to.
Talk about doublespeak! Hey guys, the hypocrisy is so obvious in that paragraph there's no need to highlight it.
The Revised Settlement Agreement does the following:
- Strictly limits the amount of acreage that would be treated to no more than 8,000 acres of the Black Hills National Forest
- Allows for fuel breaks along existing roads surrounding the Beaver Park roadless area.
- Preserves the roadless character of the Beaver Park Roadless Area
- Keeps in place the goshawk protections from the original settlement agreement
- The Needles and Grizzly Timber Sales within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve will proceed only after the Forest Service incorporates modifications recommended by the South Dakota Game Fish and Parks Department to benefit game birds and animals.
- Finally, the agreement and bill language immediately designates 3,600 acres of the Norbeck area as an addition to the existing 9,800-acre Black Elk Wilderness.
Yes, that's correct - expose even more areas to burn, with no way to reach the fires.
We appreciate the work of Senators Daschle and Johnson to bring all the parties to the table to hammer out a deal that would ensure the safety of South Dakotans and continued protections for America's National Forests. This is how these matters should be addressed. It is unfortunate that a solid settlement agreement, worked out by local stakeholders, had to go to the Congress for resolution because the Bush Administration pulled out of the agreement.
Get this people: "…protections for America's National Forests.." If this measure did that, heck, even I'd be applauding these people. The point - the reason for this heated, national debate - is because it's only protects the forest in ONE STATE. C'mon - am I the only one seeing through this crapola?
The claims by the Wall Street Journal that it is somehow new or out of character for the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society to support fire prevention activities on the National Forests is a blatant falsehood. We have consistently urged more spending by the Forest Service to reduce brush, create firebreaks around homes and communities and expand controlled burning…
No - stop right here. Please wait for me to finish gagging myself with a spotted owl…thank you.
Look, if The Sierra Times were to make the same statements about these things to leftist organizations, they could sue ME for libel and slander. The only thing they want more than the forests burning is the loss in prestige and the subsequent revenue stream.
We have opposed commercial logging practices which remove large, healthy, fire resistant stands of old growth and replace them with slash, brush, and overly crowded small trees. We favor appropriate thinning practices with a priority being near or around homes and communities. Protecting lives and communities by implementing fuel reduction projects around homes and communities should be the focus of Forest Service activities.
Sincerely,
William H. Meadows
President
The Wilderness Society Carl Pope
Executive Director
Sierra Club
And to Mr. William H. Meadows and Carl Pope:
Tell your attorneys to hit the law libraries. Your statements above are just what we needed to help stop forest fires around America. You see, the next time your organizations try to sue any local community or forestry outfit for clearing dangerous brush anyway they see fit, we'll have your own words to throw right back in your face in open court.
The Sierra Times earlier this year called upon local communities to defy federal regulations and take the necessary steps to protect their homes against forest fires. Many local communities in Arizona and Colorado did just that, and those actions were the only thing that saved their towns. With the fire season 10 times worse than the national average, we folks out west will take it from here, thank you.
It is strange that we see WorldCom and Adelphia Executives in handcuffs for causing less damage than your polices. Your commentary to the Wall Street Journal hopefully will soon throw your organizations onto the ash heap of history. So thank you, Sierra Club. Thank you Wilderness Society. Your insane, dangerous, and unconstitutional policies have all but assured a Republican majority returning to the U.S. Senate, and given The Sierra Times a new battle cry for Real America:
Ladies and Gentlemen: Start your Chain Saws!
© 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)
You are kinder than I. My opinion is they are nothing but thieves. Socialism, communism, fascism are just other words for organized crime.
The wannabes and the left's deceived lemmings, such as the brainless twits in the media, the movies, in unions and government bureaucracies, are people who want everyone THINK they are what they think they are.....'special', precious, deserving of everyone kowtowing to them. They are the small fish, the 'respectable' mob-mouths, but need to be deprived of OUR consumer-purchase funding, union dues, and votes.
This statement is not correct. Congress has the constitutional authority to withdraw jurisdiction from the federal courts over whatever issues it chooses. This is a very broad power. It could, for example, withdraw all issues regarding constitutionality from the federal courts.
Sounds radical, but read your constitution. Its there.
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.