Page 1 of 2
Posted on March 28 at 7:21 p.m.
Lawsuits are a source of income for environmental groups. Two good reads: http://www.hcn.org/wotr/extreme-greenhttp://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/07/...
Remember that the tactic is to freeze agencies, to flood them with paperwork to prevent them from doing their job, as Andrew Madsen says.
After you read the second page, remember, they are discussing the time period 1999, to 2005, 6 mil, I think it is safe to say that another 6 mil has been spent in the past 6 years. That is $12,000,000 of your tax dollars going to support private groups.
On Fuel Break Squabble
Posted on July 25 at 6:56 p.m.
Why do you think that the Chumash ever entered a sea cave?
On A Venture into the World’s Most Porous Island
Posted on July 19 at 1:17 p.m.
Please visit http://wanderingthewest.com/landissue...
There is a forum there, I would like very much to hear your views, if there are issues that you think are not covered or not covered accurately please let me know.
I am not interested in "venting" I am interested in helping make the Los Padres National Forest a better place for us, the forest users.
On Making the Los Padres Even More Wild
Posted on July 12 at 3:23 p.m.
In in other areas Forest Watch like outfits have run over the FS until a counter group like our Council was formed and called them to account. If you agree with us, we welcome you.
From 1999 to 2005 the FS spent 6 million bucks fighting these "environmental" law suits and it is estimated that from 2006 to 2011 that number is even higher, so 12 million bucks of taxpayer money or more has gone into the pockets of the attorneys and "environmental' groups.
Apparently the FS staff, trying to do the mandated paperwork for projects is overwhelmed and they make mistakes, the Forest Watch staff reviews all FS public documents looking for those errors, and calls them on it.
And yes, contrary to protestations of innocence from Forest Watch and the FS,; Forest Watch shut down the roads and locked the gates. Until all FS paperwork is in and reviewed by Forest Watch the roads will remain closed.
Also, the demand that a biologist be on site throughout all work, there are three forest biologists with full work schedules, the FS cannot meet that demand. .
We have been asked, "the Forest Service has broken its own rules and the law, Forest Watch is right to hold them accountable".
We have found that in most of these cases it has been incomplete or missing paperwork, not bad field work, or an intent to mislead, but, missing or incomplete paperwork. Which is sloppy, and is largely due to a very overworked staff, dealing with more paperwork with less people to do that work.
Yes, the FS has failed to follow procedures, but to what end? It is as if you let your drivers license lapse. By driving without a current license, you have broken the law, but, no person and no thing has suffered from that.
Forest Watch goes through all public documents issued by the Forest Service looking for such errors. Their motivation is not the health of the forest, but their motivation is to prevent the Forest Service from managing the forest according to their mandate.
Posted on July 11 at 1:49 p.m.
"Its all turning to weeds now so the idea of creating a firebreak seems to have backfired."
Not at all, now I cannot speak for that location as I have not seen it, but, a fireline can be cut much faster through "weeds" than through a brushfield.
Much of our chaparral lands were once grassland. The Chaparral has come in due to fire suppression. If we could return to a natural fire regime, the areas that are now chapparal would be greatly reduced in size.
"Chaparral should be cleared to create defensible space around homes for wildfire protection. " Just what is defensible space, having seen 200 foot flame heights, and fires jumping 8 lane freeways, it seems that defensible space is open to some interpretation.
On Hidden Wonders of Our Threatened Chaparral Forest
Posted on July 9 at 6:44 p.m.
Tabitha, it appears that you did not understand my post. I am not at all sure where you got your personal attack idea. Your reference to road ecology had nothing to do with anything under discussion near as I could tell.
I doubt you have been into burned over areas and seen the crispy critters, from rattlesnakes to bears. I have.
Posted on July 5 at 4:22 p.m.
""These lands are generally trail less and road less and little visited except by those who like to crawl through chaparral. " and that is where the difference lies. Protecting it now will prevent conditions developing to where critters will be impacted." What possible conditions do you foresee? When it burns, the critters will be impacted, what else?
Posted on July 4 at 9:22 a.m.
" This is great news, one of the main reasons I hike and ride in the forest is to be surrounded by wildlife and wild landscapes - the true essence of freedom. I give the Forest Service credit for doing the best it can to protect the forest, but sometimes we need nonprofit groups to keep 'em real. It's all about checks and balances."
The National Forests are not parks, and were never intended for preservation, they are multiple use and were designated for that purpose. The primary reason for the Los Padres is watershed protection so that down stream users will benefit.
Anything that makes it harder to manage for protection of the watershed should by law be prohibited. One of the effects of this lawsuit and the anti brushing lawsuit is to make Fire Prevention and Suppression more difficult, that is unconscionable.
On Rare Species to Get More Protection in Forest
Posted on July 4 at 9:18 a.m.
"I do think Toiyabe has a legitimate question about Gallegly. However, I disagree with his comment about the wilderness areas making no difference to critter habitat. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary"
Within these proposed extensions, wilderness designation or no wilderness designation will make little difference to the critters. These lands are generally trail less and road less and little visited except by those who like to crawl through chaparral. The land is likely to remain is this condition as there are no resources of note, nor budget to build access.
It may be true that in other areas the management designation would impact critters in one way or another, but, in the chaparral, not much difference, until it burns, which it will one day.
Posted on July 4 at 7:47 a.m.
There will be closures.Those of you who applaud this decision, remember, the objective of CBD is not to "protect" the critters, but to hamstring the agencies, they do this by filing lawsuits.It was reported to me at a recent meeting that the Inyo National Forest can no longer afford back country Rangers. 60% of their budget now goes to fighting lawsuits.
The Center for Biological Diversity senior staff is composed of 58 people, 18 of which are attorney's plus to paralegals. There are only a couple of scientists on staff.
Los Padres Forest Watch is closely aligned with it. The function is not to assist the FS, but to oppose it.