Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Trump Opens Spotted Owl Habitat in the PNW to Timber Harvesting
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
brineal
Snarky Master



Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 97 | TRs

brineal
  Top

Snarky Master
PostFri Jan 22, 2021 2:35 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
trestle wrote:
brineal wrote:
your objection to the nomenclature is boring; if you are A-OK with subsidizing groups who are just looking to fund themselves with the money you send to Uncle Sam, then that is your prerogative

Not that Tom needs anyone to defend him, but he is one that always seeks to understand.

Fair enough, getting caught in the weeds of semantics rather than the point. I get it.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 2006 | TRs
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
  Top

Member
PostFri Jan 22, 2021 2:38 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
altasnob wrote:
We’ve been here before.

I know people (multiple) who still openly brag about deceiving the biologists during the owl counts that you refer to.

--------------
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 466 | TRs
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
  Top

Member
PostFri Jan 22, 2021 2:39 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
brineal wrote:
#brainstem

Personal insults violate the posting terms.


brineal wrote:
No, they removed protections which would allow the POSSIBILITY of logging in those areas.

The agency increased the possibility of logging areas from 200,000 to 3.4 million acres specifically to benefit the logging companies. If Trump had won, it is logical to assume some of these 3.4 million acres would have been logged. And with Biden, there is no guarantee that it will be reduced back to the original proposed 200,000 acres.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 2006 | TRs
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
  Top

Member
PostFri Jan 22, 2021 2:41 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
brineal wrote:
getting caught in the weeds

I hear you and was just offering a little reminder elbow nudge.

--------------
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 2006 | TRs
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
  Top

Member
PostFri Jan 22, 2021 2:44 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
altasnob wrote:
logical to assume some of these 3.4 million acres would have been logged

Treeswarper has offered multiple examples of how the logging on federal land process works. Your assumation implies you ignore the current reality, or have ignored their posts. One doesn't just fire up a chainsaw and a feller-buncher and go harvest old-growth; the process is onerous and likely very expensive.

--------------
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16669 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostFri Jan 22, 2021 3:00 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
brineal wrote:
Tom wrote:
Forgive me for trying to use logic to understand how Judgment Funds result in a double dip.  Sounds like the issue is that taxpayers pay to defend lawsuits against the government but I guess that doesn't sound as good as a double dip narrative.

Call it what you want, your objection to the nomenclature is boring; if you are A-OK with subsidizing groups who are just looking to fund themselves with the money you send to Uncle Sam, then that is your prerogative.

Nomenclature seemed to matter otherwise not sure why that piece warranted linking.  In addition to the claim of double dipping there was quite a bit of conspiracy rhetoric intimating lack of disclosure, secrecy, etc.  I'm sorry if you found my question regarding nomenclature boring.  I guess I wasn't missing much.  There are a lot of things I don't like my taxpayer dollars going to, but this isn't high on my outrage scale given that it's relatively small peanuts in the bigger picture.  What is your alternative if environmental groups can't sue the government?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 466 | TRs
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
  Top

Member
PostFri Jan 22, 2021 3:21 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
trestle wrote:
altasnob wrote:
logical to assume some of these 3.4 million acres would have been logged

Treeswarper has offered multiple examples of how the logging on federal land process works. Your assumation implies you ignore the current reality, or have ignored their posts. One doesn't just fire up a chainsaw and a feller-buncher and go harvest old-growth; the process is onerous and likely very expensive.

So let me get this straight. The reason Trump increased the area that is available to log was not to help timber companies, it was to give environmental groups something to complain about to drum up financial support from their gullible supporters. Trump actually is working for the environmentalist. Elections don't matter. The National Forest in the PNW will never get logged no matter what. Got it.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
brineal
Snarky Master



Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 97 | TRs

brineal
  Top

Snarky Master
PostFri Jan 22, 2021 3:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:
brineal wrote:
Tom wrote:
Forgive me for trying to use logic to understand how Judgment Funds result in a double dip.  Sounds like the issue is that taxpayers pay to defend lawsuits against the government but I guess that doesn't sound as good as a double dip narrative.

Call it what you want, your objection to the nomenclature is boring; if you are A-OK with subsidizing groups who are just looking to fund themselves with the money you send to Uncle Sam, then that is your prerogative.

Nomenclature seemed to matter otherwise not sure why that piece warranted linking.  In addition to the claim of double dipping there was quite a bit of conspiracy rhetoric intimating lack of disclosure, secrecy, etc.  I'm sorry if you found my question regarding nomenclature boring.  I guess I wasn't missing much.  There are a lot of things I don't like my taxpayer dollars going to, but this isn't high on my outrage scale given that it's relatively small peanuts in the bigger picture.  What is your alternative if environmental groups can't sue the government?

Since they are suing on "principles" to block what is described as damaging actions, let them pay their own "righteous" legal fees and leave the taxpayers out of it.

Or is the mantra "save the environment...but only at the cost of the taxpayer"?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
brineal
Snarky Master



Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 97 | TRs

brineal
  Top

Snarky Master
PostFri Jan 22, 2021 3:29 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
altasnob wrote:
brineal wrote:
#brainstem

Personal insults violate the posting terms.


brineal wrote:
No, they removed protections which would allow the POSSIBILITY of logging in those areas.

The agency increased the possibility of logging areas from 200,000 to 3.4 million acres specifically to benefit the logging companies. If Trump had won, it is logical to assume some of these 3.4 million acres would have been logged. And with Biden, there is no guarantee that it will be reduced back to the original proposed 200,000 acres.

It's clear you don't have a point, you're talking in circles.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 11569 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostFri Jan 22, 2021 4:00 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
altasnob wrote:
"...that does not mean mankind should give nature a helping hand..."

^ This part of your statement ignores the FACT (well documented by a plethora of academics) that man was "giving nature a helping hand" all across the North American continent for millennia (see previous thread here for citations: http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7963729 ), and serves to support the MYTH that the entirety of the North American continent was at some point in the pre-Columbian era covered with an endless sea of verdant old growth forest.

I appreciate that you are able to endlessly source various newspaper articles in an attempt to support your harrangue, but none of that changes facts, which are, if you care to do the research necessary, readily available and to which you have been directed multiple times by several members here.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16669 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostFri Jan 22, 2021 4:49 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
brineal wrote:
Tom wrote:
brineal wrote:
Tom wrote:
Forgive me for trying to use logic to understand how Judgment Funds result in a double dip.  Sounds like the issue is that taxpayers pay to defend lawsuits against the government but I guess that doesn't sound as good as a double dip narrative.

Call it what you want, your objection to the nomenclature is boring; if you are A-OK with subsidizing groups who are just looking to fund themselves with the money you send to Uncle Sam, then that is your prerogative.

Nomenclature seemed to matter otherwise not sure why that piece warranted linking.  In addition to the claim of double dipping there was quite a bit of conspiracy rhetoric intimating lack of disclosure, secrecy, etc.  I'm sorry if you found my question regarding nomenclature boring.  I guess I wasn't missing much.  There are a lot of things I don't like my taxpayer dollars going to, but this isn't high on my outrage scale given that it's relatively small peanuts in the bigger picture.  What is your alternative if environmental groups can't sue the government?

Since they are suing on "principles" to block what is described as damaging actions, let them pay their own "righteous" legal fees and leave the taxpayers out of it.

Or is the mantra "save the environment...but only at the cost of the taxpayer"?

Hmm, am I missing something else?  Is there a double standard where environmental plaintiffs are exempted from paying legal fees relative to other litigation?  Or are you asking for a double standard?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 14939 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
  Top

Member
PostFri Jan 22, 2021 5:21 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Some statutes include a fee provision it  is deliberate to encourage public participation where previously private interests controlled the courts because litigation is expensive. Governmental bodies are pressured by local interests which are almost always for exploitation. If you have a problem with the system lobby to change it. IT IS THE LAW

--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
brineal
Snarky Master



Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 97 | TRs

brineal
  Top

Snarky Master
PostFri Jan 22, 2021 5:45 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:
Hmm, am I missing something else?  Is there a double standard where environmental plaintiffs are exempted from paying legal fees relative to other litigation?  Or are you asking for a double standard?

I’m not asking for anything, just shining light on the fact that environmental groups are merely a front for a money making scheme which targets taxpayer dollars and that they play on people’s emotional reactions to such issues to hide behind.  They are scum for the business model that they employ, in my opinion.  Their existence and the resulting cash flow is not happenstance or by accident or in consequence, it is purpose designed for the end result that they enjoy.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16669 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostFri Jan 22, 2021 5:55 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant wrote:
Some statutes include a fee provision it  is deliberate to encourage public participation where previously private interests controlled the courts because litigation is expensive. Governmental bodies are pressured by local interests which are almost always for exploitation. If you have a problem with the system lobby to change it. IT IS THE LAW

Ah ok, that makes more sense.  It wasn't at all clear in that long winded oped what the "double dip" was which is why I asked the question.  Seems it might be more pertinent to the Equal Access to Justice Act?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Access_to_Justice_Act
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16669 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostFri Jan 22, 2021 6:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
brineal wrote:
I’m not asking for anything, just shining light on the fact that environmental groups are merely a front for a money making scheme which targets taxpayer dollars and that they play on people’s emotional reactions to such issues to hide behind.  They are scum for the business model that they employ, in my opinion.  Their existence and the resulting cash flow is not happenstance or by accident or in consequence, it is purpose designed for the end result that they enjoy.

Sure, I hate these groups when they advocate for road closures, access restrictions and other things I don't necessarily agree with.  That said it's hard to blame them for using tools they have at their disposal.  Their end goal isn't to line their pockets, and scum in some cases might better depict those they advocate against.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Trump Opens Spotted Owl Habitat in the PNW to Timber Harvesting
  Happy Birthday Nisquaww, DRSpalding, highwalker!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy