Wall Street Journal vs the Greens



17 replies to this topic
  • mikeolichney

Posted July 02, 2002 - 07:18 AM

#1

"saw this article in the Wall Street Journal Opinion Page. Tuesday, July 2,
2002

Greens Go Up in Smoke
Will sensible forest policies rise from the ashes?

Fires continue to roar through the West, aided by drought and allegedly in
some cases by arson. But as the damage stretches into a million acres and
billions of dollars, other culprits are coming in focus--especially the
high-powered environmental groups that have dominated U.S. forest policy for
at least a decade.

"The policies that are coming from the East Coast, that are coming from the
environmentalists, that say we don't need to log, we don't need to thin our
forests are absolutely ridiculous," Arizona Governor Jane Dee Hull said
recently. "Nobody on the East Coast knows how to manage these fires and I
for one have had it."

Her frustration is shared by many Westerners, who have now seen far too
closely the consequences of environmentalist policy. If there's been any
benefit to these awful fires, it's the education they're providing to
suburban voters. Their anger is spilling over into this year's election
campaigns, and is causing the greens to deny their own handiwork. As
Colorado Governor Bill Owens told us recently regarding the need for more
forest management: "The debate is largely over."

What the fires have exposed is just how extreme even today's "mainstream"
environmental activists have become. Once upon a time the Sierra Club and
Wilderness Society were concerned with the wise human stewardship of natural
resources and wilderness. But in recent decades a view has taken hold among
these groups that often sees human beings as the scourge of pristine Mother
Earth.
This no-human philosophy lies behind the Big Green litigation and lobbying
that opposed the very thinning and road-building that would clean up forests
to protect them from fire. The result is that this fire year is now shaping
up as the worst on record: Some 2.7 million acres have already burned,
nearly three times the average acreage for this time of year.

All of this has put the leading environmental groups, accustomed to a free
media ride, on the defensive for the first time in decades. The Sierra
Club's Carl Pope has called any criticism a "disturbing display of cynical
politics," which is of course a way of changing the subject. Governor Hull,
by the way, is term limited and not running for re-election.

But for the most part, the Big Green groups have been retreating faster than
the Italian Africacorps. After these columns recently pointed out the "Fires
Are Good" headline on the National Wildlife Federation Web site, we went
back to the site for another look, but the words had ysteriously
disappeared. The Sierra Club, which used to praise the uses of fire, now has
a "guide" for homeowners to protect themselves from fire.

But none of this absolves the groups from their previous agitation. Only
last summer, for instance, residents of the Black Hills in South Dakota met
with the U.S. Forest Service to discuss protecting their homes from fire.
The contribution at the time from Brad Brademeyer, a local Sierra Club
official, was that "If [people]don't want to live with the forest or be with
the forest, then they should move."
Then there's the "science" the groups continue to ply on their Web sites to
justify opposition to forest management. The Sierra Club says that "the only
real environmental damage associated with forest fires comes from human
attempts to extinguish and prevent them." The Center for Biological
Diversity and the National Forest Protection Alliance inform us,
counter-intuitively to say the least, that logging is responsible for the
fires. And the National Wildlife Federation says that "In fact, many animals
and plants not only survive, but thrive, after fire." They don't manage to
explain how
thinning "destroys habitat," while burning it down in its entirety makes
animals "thrive."

Clinton-era Forest Chief Mike Dombeck recently sent us a letter objecting to
our editorial on this subject, but in the process he made our very point.
His letter said forest management would lead to "intensely managed
industrial forest plantations," as if this was the only alternative to
catastrophic fire. Mr. Dombeck spent his time at the Forest Service
insisting he was a moderate, but his letter shows otherwise.

Even worse are the continuing appeals and litigation. Environmental groups
swamp the Forest Service and other agencies with appeals and lawsuits each
year, in an attempt to block even modest cleanup efforts. Readers can visit
the Forest Service site <http://www.fs.fed.us/forests> to see for
themselves.

Last week, Mark Rey, Undersecretary of Natural Resources and Environment at
the Agriculture Department, requested that the Forest Service conduct a
detailed report of the environmental groups' role in big fires. It will look
not just at the legal appeals, but also at the money and time the Service
spends attempting to guard its plans from legal action in the first place.
Based on their track record, the people who should pay for that study are
the environmental groups that created the problem."

  • endurodog

Posted July 02, 2002 - 07:44 AM

#2

Thanks for the posting of this article. If there is a bright side to all of this maybe people will start seeing what the greenies are all about and instead support responsible forest policy.

  • oldasdirt

Posted July 02, 2002 - 08:23 AM

#3

I'm absolutly sure if you gothrough all of what was once rampart you will find many of these thrived carcasses burned to crisps. F**k the Sierra Club and the morons in it.oldasdirt :D :) :D

  • BrandonW

Posted July 02, 2002 - 08:48 AM

#4

If we could only get these Forest Service workers from starting these fires.

:)

Brandon

  • Merfman

Posted July 02, 2002 - 08:50 AM

#5

YES! Thanks for sharing that Mike!

Merf

  • R_Little

Posted July 02, 2002 - 08:54 AM

#6

It look like the Sierra Club is beginning to reap what it has sown.

Thanks for posting. We should get "Sierra Club destroys forests" T-shirts made up.

  • Gee

Posted July 02, 2002 - 09:09 PM

#7

Great article, the greens are master spin doctors but this one is going to be hard for them to run from.

  • oldasdirt

Posted July 02, 2002 - 09:19 PM

#8

RLittle where do I order from XXXL pay what you think is fair. get it made. oldasdirt :D :) :D

  • Dodger

Posted July 02, 2002 - 10:08 AM

#9

"the only real environmental damage associated with forest fires comes from human
attempts to extinguish and prevent them."

WHAT!!....oh oh yeah, yup, that's right, I forgot, it's all our fault........we shouldn't be in the forests if we don't want to get burned up, oh excuse me, we shouldn't "be with the forests" if we don't want to get burned up........ what a bunch of fricken morons!!!

Sorry, this whole topic just set's me off.....

Dodger :D :)

Visit the ThumperTalk Store for the lowest prices on motorcycle / ATV parts and accessories - Guaranteed
  • SMD

Posted July 02, 2002 - 06:52 PM

#10

Bravo Bravo!!! I can only hope this is just the begining :)

  • tripod

Posted July 03, 2002 - 07:06 AM

#11

R little. put me down for a couple of XL T-shirts. Great idea, run with it.

  • Dramus

Posted July 03, 2002 - 07:47 AM

#12

Typical greenie tactic, duck and cover when the heat is headed back your way. I love the way the greenies defend their positions by saying that its all our fault that the forests are burning.

  • Team_Oatmeal_Pie

Posted July 03, 2002 - 05:03 PM

#13

I personally would like to wear a shirt that says the Sierra Club destroys forests, or the Sierra Club is a lie, or perhaps Hang Carl Pope,
Now before any soft hearted individuals get all sensative on the 3rd part, remember this is a joke. I would not advocate harm to people, but maybe we could pull him behind our motorcycles with a buddy tow.
But the not the the first part, get the shirt made and I'll buy one.

  • Dan_from_HB

Posted July 03, 2002 - 05:52 PM

#14

FINALLY!!! Some mainstream media types are finally getting the point! We need to take advantage of this. The greenies would.
Consider me for one XL.
Dan

  • Dodger

Posted July 03, 2002 - 06:32 PM

#15

Oh Oh Oh........no seriousely........I live in the heartland of greenies.......I need one of these shirts just for laughs on Pearl Street.......!!!!!!!

Dodger :D :)

  • Dan_from_HB

Posted July 04, 2002 - 06:23 PM

#16

This is a religion to the greens. They follow the teachings of Carl Pope as if he WERE the Pope!
They speak reverently about being "with the forests" as a taliban soldier speaks of being with the 70-odd virgins.
They pursue their agenda with the commitment and fervor of Osama bin Laden does his agenda.
Come to think of it, the greens are a lot like the radical fundamentalists that want to bring down the tried and true institutions of the United States. They have many things in common.
The most obvious of which is a "by any means necessary" policy (remind me.....what exactly is the difference between eco-terrorism and islamic fundamentalist terrorism?). That is dangerous, and our mainstream media needs to see them in that light! Keep up the pressure. I'll buy one of those t-shirts. Especially if it refers to them as the ENVIRO-TALIBAN.
Dan

  • Dodger

Posted July 09, 2002 - 04:54 AM

#17

On a rather interesting side note, I was riding up a long North Fork/South Fork/Middle Fork this weekend, just north of Breckenridge with some buddies of mine. We ended up on Georgia Pass later in the day, and found ourselves amongst 2 national guard personel in a Hummer, and 2 forest service personel in a forest service truck. They were up on the pass to keep an eye on the forest for fires, and to make sure people stayed out of Pike National forest.

Out of the 4 of us, two of us had our 2003 OHV stickers on our bikes. All of us have our bikes Colorado street legal, and all are paid up on our registration dues. One of the forest service guys was hassling my buddy about not having his OHV stickers (in a friendly way). Now, Matt was pretty sure that he didn't need to purchase the OHV stickers if the bike was registered in the state, and my other buddy Brian was under the same impression. So, does anyone from CO know if this is true or not?? BTW, after the Forest service folks headed off, we were joking with the National Guard guys about this particular debate. Matt chimed in that he should have given them a little crap about how the Forest service personnel should be more worried about keeping their own from setting fires than about weather or not OHV stickers are required if the vehicle is registered in the state. We were promply told by the National Guard guys that that would probably been a bad idea..........beside poor taste, we asked why..........turns out that the lady that started the Hayman fire was out of their office :) :D !

Good thing we know enough to keep our mouths shut :D .

Dodger :D :D

  • endozen

Posted July 09, 2002 - 08:40 AM

#18

You and your buddies are right, you do NOT need an OHV sticker/registration if the bike is already licensed for street legal riding. While a remark like what you had in mind might not have been the best thing to do, I would still give you all high fives. Because of what a Forest Service employee did, about 3/4 of my favorite riding area has burnt. What are the odds that some bogus excuse will be used to keep that area closed? ie- concern about erosion damage. Makes me want to come up short on a jump over 20 greenies laid head to toe, waaay short.




 
x

Join Our Community!

Even if you don't want to post, registered members get access to tools that make finding & following the good stuff easier.

If you enjoyed reading about "" here in the ThumperTalk archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join ThumperTalk today!

The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the author, and have not been reviewed or approved by ThumperTalk.