When eco-science is attacked

[Mad Machinist]

This is a copy of an email I got from a friend who listened and attacked the science being used to run us out of everywhere. Names and areas have been deleted for obvious reasons.

Mike.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My meeting with ----- ----, the ------ Forest Supervisor last week was hilarious. It was one of those useless ‘Resolution’ meetings on an appeal, where you can’t resolve anything. I tied her up in knots, even though I was actually going easy on her than I could have. It was surprisingly cordial, I think she’s learned to have some respect for us since we kicked her butt in 2010. Got her EA remanded.



She kept asking me what I thought was wrong with her revised EA. I told her three things.



1. When Region - remanded the first EA, they told her to do the analysis over. Her staff didn’t do that. One reason they got remanded, is because the ADO tossed out their Water and Soils analysis, because I showed they used riparian science to estimate erosion caused by roads in a dry area. My winning appeal tore them apart for that Water and Soils analysis. The hydrologist’s ‘correction’ deleted the word ‘riparian’, but kept the methodology based on riparian studies. She added two citations. I read the cited studies and found that both explicitly contradict the arguments she made. And one of the studies is specifically about riparian areas. It’s like she snatched a citation (Belt, et al, 1992) out of some other document, and never even bothered to look at the title (Design of Buffer Zones for Riparian Areas). Helloooooo…haven’t you ALREADY had your butt kicked for using riparian science in a non-riparian area?



2. There is no statement anywhere (EA or specialist report) saying that there is anything substantially wrong in the district. Critters, soils, water etc. are all doing fine. And this good condition is the result of decades of unregulated motorized use in an ‘open’ forest. The maximum possible allowed motorized use has resulted in ‘no problems’. There IS NO PROBLEM that needs to be fixed, let alone a problem linked to use of roads



‘-----, your EA shows NO resource damage from anything, let alone roads or use of roads. There are NO reasons to close roads. So WHY are you closing roads?’



This pulled her up short, but then she rambled off into an excuse about having to close roads because of the ‘mandate’ to close roads in the TMR. I said ‘No, there is no mandate to close roads in the TMR. It tells you to manage motorized use.’ Then she veered off into saying that Washington mandated closing roads. I said “Who in Washington told you to close roads? The Forest Service?’ She got this startled look and started babbling about how Congress was mandating road closures because they had cut the road budgets.



I think she got dangerously close to telling me that there is a mandate, and W.O. is telling them to use the TMR decisions to achieve these massive closures.



3. I told her that they hadn’t analyzed the one topic that is the sole legitimate subject matter of the EA: motorized use. They’ve admitted they have no data, so they are using mileage as a proxy for use.

She said ‘Well, what’s wrong with that?’ (Seriously, I don’t think she knows what is wrong with that). I told her, first, it looks at existing conditions, and blames everything on motorized use, no matter what actually caused it or when. Second, your ‘mileage proxy’ method gives you results that are contrary to commonsense. Consider two roads. The one mile road has 10 OHV’s on it, and the 10 mile road has 1 OHV on it. Your methodology would say that there are more motorized use impacts on the 10 mile road, which is obviously exactly the opposite of what is happening. Third, the total lack of problems in your district proves there is no correlation between mileage, use and damage. You have 2 watershed out of 41 with impaired water, and they are NOT the ones with highest road density. Your highest road density watersheds have good water quality. There IS NO PROBLEM. She got a ‘far away’ look in her eye.



During the meeting, she said several times that it was possible that the EA would be remanded again. This is Son of EA, the Sequel, that we are appealing.

They made some truly stupid mistakes.



The Responses to Comments have statements that directly contradict statement in the Revised EA. Not very smart. (Not to mention that the Revised EA contradicts itself, and the Responses add two citations that are not in the EA.) They’ve dug themselves a hole, and then got into it and shot themselves in the foot.



Now the question is whether Region - has the balls or integrityto remand it a second time. I know, don’t gag, I said ‘Forest Service’ and ‘integrity’ in the same sentence.

[Mad Machinist]

90 views and not 1 comment. Come on people, forget your differences and unite under a common goal to save what is ours.

[MT4Runner]

Originally Posted by Mad Machinist

This is a copy of an email I got from a friend who listened and attacked the science being used to run us out of everywhere. Names and areas have been deleted for obvious reasons.

Mike.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My meeting with ----- ----, the ------ Forest Supervisor last week was hilarious. It was one of those useless ‘Resolution’ meetings on an appeal, where you can’t resolve anything. I tied her up in knots, even though I was actually going easy on her than I could have. It was surprisingly cordial, I think she’s learned to have some respect for us since we kicked her butt in 2010. Got her EA remanded.



She kept asking me what I thought was wrong with her revised EA. I told her three things.



1. When Region - remanded the first EA, they told her to do the analysis over. Her staff didn’t do that. One reason they got remanded, is because the ADO tossed out their Water and Soils analysis, because I showed they used riparian science to estimate erosion caused by roads in a dry area. My winning appeal tore them apart for that Water and Soils analysis. The hydrologist’s ‘correction’ deleted the word ‘riparian’, but kept the methodology based on riparian studies. She added two citations. I read the cited studies and found that both explicitly contradict the arguments she made. And one of the studies is specifically about riparian areas. It’s like she snatched a citation (Belt, et al, 1992) out of some other document, and never even bothered to look at the title (Design of Buffer Zones for Riparian Areas). Helloooooo…haven’t you ALREADY had your butt kicked for using riparian science in a non-riparian area?



2. There is no statement anywhere (EA or specialist report) saying that there is anything substantially wrong in the district. Critters, soils, water etc. are all doing fine. And this good condition is the result of decades of unregulated motorized use in an ‘open’ forest. The maximum possible allowed motorized use has resulted in ‘no problems’. There IS NO PROBLEM that needs to be fixed, let alone a problem linked to use of roads



‘-----, your EA shows NO resource damage from anything, let alone roads or use of roads. There are NO reasons to close roads. So WHY are you closing roads?’



This pulled her up short, but then she rambled off into an excuse about having to close roads because of the ‘mandate’ to close roads in the TMR. I said ‘No, there is no mandate to close roads in the TMR. It tells you to manage motorized use.’ Then she veered off into saying that Washington mandated closing roads. I said “Who in Washington told you to close roads? The Forest Service?’ She got this startled look and started babbling about how Congress was mandating road closures because they had cut the road budgets.



I think she got dangerously close to telling me that there is a mandate, and W.O. is telling them to use the TMR decisions to achieve these massive closures.



3. I told her that they hadn’t analyzed the one topic that is the sole legitimate subject matter of the EA: motorized use. They’ve admitted they have no data, so they are using mileage as a proxy for use.

She said ‘Well, what’s wrong with that?’ (Seriously, I don’t think she knows what is wrong with that). I told her, first, it looks at existing conditions, and blames everything on motorized use, no matter what actually caused it or when. Second, your ‘mileage proxy’ method gives you results that are contrary to commonsense. Consider two roads. The one mile road has 10 OHV’s on it, and the 10 mile road has 1 OHV on it. Your methodology would say that there are more motorized use impacts on the 10 mile road, which is obviously exactly the opposite of what is happening. Third, the total lack of problems in your district proves there is no correlation between mileage, use and damage. You have 2 watershed out of 41 with impaired water, and they are NOT the ones with highest road density. Your highest road density watersheds have good water quality. There IS NO PROBLEM. She got a ‘far away’ look in her eye.



During the meeting, she said several times that it was possible that the EA would be remanded again. This is Son of EA, the Sequel, that we are appealing.

They made some truly stupid mistakes.



The Responses to Comments have statements that directly contradict statement in the Revised EA. Not very smart. (Not to mention that the Revised EA contradicts itself, and the Responses add two citations that are not in the EA.) They’ve dug themselves a hole, and then got into it and shot themselves in the foot.



Now the question is whether Region - has the balls or integrityto remand it a second time. I know, don’t gag, I said ‘Forest Service’ and ‘integrity’ in the same sentence.

Nicely done!!

[Mad Machinist]

Youy've been shown the way, now go out there and get some.

[Mad Machinist]

MT,

I am just one of many who are involved in this. We quit fighting amongst ourselves and each to a piece to look over. We got back together and discussed this and what you see here is a collaborative effort among people who could not even agree on what to have for lunch.

[randii]

Originally Posted by Mad Machinist

Now the question is whether Region - has the balls or integrityto remand it a second time. I know, don’t gag, I said ‘Forest Service’ and ‘integrity’ in the same sentence.

Out here, Region 5 rolled right over the top of good appeals, in Forest after Forest. Verily, it *sucked*. There are a few lawsuits in the works, but damn, those buggers are expensive, and their chances for winning less than clear.

The suit I pursued, with Public Lands for the People, has not been a winner, but I'm damn certain that it has helped my interaction with USFS above the District Ranger level... this is not the 'win' I was hoping for, but it is a start at balancing the tilted playing field that the anti-recreation forces have run with their lawsuits. USFS is afraid of anti-recreationists lawsuits -- and they now have some OHV recreationist lawsuits to content with, as well. This should help drive more balanced decisions...

Randii

[Mad Machinist]

randii,

What you did is exactly what I have been preaching for years. Once the USFS and the BLM understand that we will sue, the decision will become much more balanced and even in our favor at times.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, neither Agency will take anyone seriously until a lawsuit is filed. Then and only then, do we have standing in their eyes. It sucks because this is PUBLIC land, but that is the way it has become. Too many people have been asleep at the wheel for far too long.

[Mad Machinist]

I have said this before and I will say it again. Considering there are somewhere around 60 million of us that use OHV's in one way or another, what we need to do is either put together a group or one of the current groups need to morph into a super litigous group who will sue at the drop of a hat.

If everybody would pull there heads out of the arses and kick in on average a 5 spot, we would end up with a fund with over $300 million in it. That is more than all but one eco group.

Now if what I posted here could be done with no money, what could we do if we could hire wildlife biologists or other necessary people to give us some REAL facts to fight with?

[yotasmob]

Originally Posted by Mad Machinist

I have said this before and I will say it again. Considering there are somewhere around 60 million of us that use OHV's in one way or another, what we need to do is either put together a group or one of the current groups need to morph into a super litigous group who will sue at the drop of a hat.

If everybody would pull there heads out of the arses and kick in on average a 5 spot, we would end up with a fund with over $300 million in it. That is more than all but one eco group.

Now if what I posted here could be done with no money, what could we do if we could hire wildlife biologists or other necessary people to give us some REAL facts to fight with?

I don't speak up much about what I do as a college student on here, because I feel the ecotards and econazis have done a great disservice to science in general. As an aspiring biologist (study entomology), an avid lover of the natural world, an offroading enthusiast and a public land use advocate, I am able to look at public land use battles from all angles. The CBD and Sierra Club rarely use sound science, or they bend the truth to fit their agenda.

The OP is exactly what we need to see happening more often. The ticket to fighting these most often times total BS econazi lawsuits is using legitimate science against them. The unfortunate thing is the econazis have left such a bitter taste for scientists in general with the 4WD/OHV community that most people here don't trust scientists at all. The anthropogenic global warming nuts haven't done science a favor either.

My personal opinion is that they use the ESA like a cash cow of excuses to close public land. I have my own issues with the ESA but that is another story. Point is, you could probably find a classified endangered, or about to be classified endangered critter anywhere across the USA. They might just be endangered because they have only been seen once. Or no one has studied them. And the SC and CBD know this and use it to their advantage.

Here is an example of a CBD lawsuit against the Forest Service which I was able to prove is total BS while bored on a Friday night a while back.

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...042&highlight=

[Invert'D]

Interesting and eye opening. Thank you.

[mannysouza]

Thanks X2

[chicago]

Originally Posted by Mad Machinist

I have said this before and I will say it again. Considering there are somewhere around 60 million of us that use OHV's in one way or another, what we need to do is either put together a group or one of the current groups need to morph into a super litigous group who will sue at the drop of a hat.

If everybody would pull there heads out of the arses and kick in on average a 5 spot, we would end up with a fund with over $300 million in it. That is more than all but one eco group.

Now if what I posted here could be done with no money, what could we do if we could hire wildlife biologists or other necessary people to give us some REAL facts to fight with?

AMEN TO THIS STATEMENT!!!
A friend of mine Presented this very same idea to me and compared it to the NOW very powerful NRA.
Whatever you opinions are on NRA, the is no denying that they were a small struggling organization that is NOW a force to be reckoned with in the political arena. Why?!? They organized, focused and got funded!!!
Think of ALL the various memberships we support to DIFFERENT organizations... Now think if it all were one in the same.
This fight requires MONEY to play at their level!!
I agree that all of the major land use orgs. Need to align, pool resources and money and start working from there.

[Mad Machinist]

Originally Posted by yotasmob

I don't speak up much about what I do as a college student on here, because I feel the ecotards and econazis have done a great disservice to science in general. As an aspiring biologist (study entomology), an avid lover of the natural world, an offroading enthusiast and a public land use advocate, I am able to look at public land use battles from all angles. The CBD and Sierra Club rarely use sound science, or they bend the truth to fit their agenda.

The OP is exactly what we need to see happening more often. The ticket to fighting these most often times total BS econazi lawsuits is using legitimate science against them. The unfortunate thing is the econazis have left such a bitter taste for scientists in general with the 4WD/OHV community that most people here don't trust scientists at all. The anthropogenic global warming nuts haven't done science a favor either.

My personal opinion is that they use the ESA like a cash cow of excuses to close public land. I have my own issues with the ESA but that is another story. Point is, you could probably find a classified endangered, or about to be classified endangered critter anywhere across the USA. They might just be endangered because they have only been seen once. Or no one has studied them. And the SC and CBD know this and use it to their advantage.

Here is an example of a CBD lawsuit against the Forest Service which I was able to prove is total BS while bored on a Friday night a while back.

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...042&highlight=

That is exactly what I have been preaching for years, but is actually very nice to her it from someone who has a degree.

You've no doubt seen the results of the Wallow Fire here in AZ. And now we have had the Whitewater-Baldy Complex Fire in the other part of the watershed. Now that we have got some rain, the river here runs like chocolate milk and has killed everything in the river. So much for the endangered Spikedace and Loach minnows, or the Chiracahua Leopard Frog. And don't even get me started on the 73 out of 145 known nesting sites for the Mexican Spotted Owl that were destroyed in this fire.

All because they wanted to stop "old growth" logging. I wouldn't consider an 80 year old tree old growth, now a 4000 year old tree is a different story. Funny thing is after nearly 100 years of logging here in AZ, there are more trees now than then.

Basal inventory towards the bottom.
http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/Research/...rn_forests.htm

[broncdawg]

Very nice work Crazy Millwright! Another example of how they are using NEPA to kill us with their silly science. How many know that every Forest has a full slate of these liberally indoctrinated scientists who need to justify their salaries and they do so by declaring motorized recreation as unsustainable!! One team of scientists for each region would be sufficient and they might actually have some money for road maintenance!

When I challenge them that the valley we live in between the White Mtns and the Sierra Nevada used to be 4,000 feet deeper than it is now, because it filled with erosion long before we got here, I'm met with blank stares and the subject is changed!!!! Pathetic!

[Mad Machinist]

Got one better for ya. Ask them how an aquafier is formed. Even better yet ask them about this one.

http://phys.org/news196255219.html

Canyon Lake in Texas. A canyon 7 meters deep and over 2 kilometers long was carved in just three days through solid bedrock by water. I would think we pale by comparison.

[Mad Machinist]

boncdawg,

If you really want to melt some minds, start looking into basin and rift geology. This is basically what most of the Western States are.

[Coverbuster]

She's just an employee, following orders. Why do you have to be such a dick??

[Mad Machinist]

Originally Posted by Coverbuster

She's just an employee, following orders. Why do you have to be such a dick??

Let's see here. Joined Dec 2011 with 24 posts to your name. And you are here calling me a dick for fighting for public use of public lands.

Did I strike a nerve? Are you afraid of people understanding and seeing the truth? I'll bet you are.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by Coverbuster

She's just an employee, following orders. Why do you have to be such a dick??

If "she" is the Forest Supervisor mentioned in the first post . . .

Originally Posted by Mad Machinist

This is a copy of an email I got from a friend

"She" also has a responsibility to do her job properly, we are not talking about a degree of precision required to perform brain surgery after all.

[yotasmob]

Originally Posted by Mad Machinist

That is exactly what I have been preaching for years, but is actually very nice to her it from someone who has a degree.

I don't have my BS yet, but hoping to graduate this upcoming spring 2013. Putting yourself through college, let alone a University of California isn't easy, fast or cheap. But I agree, the science has long been diluted by radicals. I look forward to being able to bring sound science and logic back to the table. It may be hard to believe, but radical groups like the Sierra Club are actually frowned upon by most scientists. Unfortunate thing is, most legitimate scientists are too wrapped up in their own research to delve into politics. Those that see politics as a tool to expand their research are the ones to worry about.

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by yotasmob

I don't have my BS yet, but hoping to graduate this upcoming spring 2013. Putting yourself through college, let alone a University of California isn't easy, fast or cheap. But I agree, the science has long been diluted by radicals. I look forward to being able to bring sound science and logic back to the table. It may be hard to believe, but radical groups like the Sierra Club are actually frowned upon by most scientists. Unfortunate thing is, most legitimate scientists are too wrapped up in their own research to delve into politics. Those that see politics as a tool to expand their research are the ones to worry about.

I'm thinking we need to prop you up with a College Fund. Cal4 used to have an education grant process. You sound like the perfect candidate

[Bebe]

This kind of stuff is maddening to me.....
http://www.uniondemocrat.com/News/Lo...no-fish-danger

Muddy water no fish danger


Written by Alexander MacLean, The Union Democrat August 22, 2012 08:14 am

Rivers running through the Stanislaus National Forest may appear unusually murky this summer, but biologists say native aquatic species have adapted to withstand it.

Muddy conditions seen in many of the forest’s rivers can likely be attributed to a combination of a dry winter and recent monsoonal activity in the High Sierra, according to meteorologists and U.S. Forest Service officials.

A high-pressure ridge that lingered over the Great Basin earlier this month brought consistently hot temperatures to the Central Valley and allowed moist monsoonal weather systems into the higher elevations, said Tom Dang, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service.

“We had a good stretch there for several weeks,” he said. “Frequently hot temperatures and monsoonal moisture can come hand-in-hand.”

He said the high-pressure ridge pushed systems that typically stay in Arizona northward, dumping loads of rain in areas that typically experience mostly dry thunder and lightning storms this time of year.

The exact amount of moisture received over the past several weeks and how it compares to other years won’t be known until a monthly report is completed in early September, Dang noted.

Forest Service spokesman Jerry Snyder said the soil in the high elevation areas is drier than normal due to the winter’s low snowpack. The rain is causing dirt and sediment erosion into streams and rivers, he explained.

“Those soils break up and are easily moved by moisture coming down,” Snyder said. “As rain comes down swiftly, it will move the surface dirt right into the waterways.”

That excess dirt and sediment in the water won’t bother the native aquatic creatures such as rainbow trout and various species of frogs and toads, according to Forest Service biologist Crispin Holland.

“Our natives species are adapted to these kinds of natural disturbances,” he said. “It’s not unusual for us in the Sierra Nevada to have thunderstorms, downpours and sometimes even hail storms during this time of year.”

Fish like the German brown trout and brook trout that are bred in fisheries and introduced to the rivers could be affected, Holland said.

There may be “a little more erosion” than a normal year due to the recent monsoonal moisture, but according to Holland, the sediment runoff from the rain helps maintain the balance of coarse and fine material in the rivers and streams that certain species depend on.

“There’s a proper balance that’s needed, and that includes these late summer thunderstorms,” he said.

Contact Alex MacLean at amaclean@uniondemocrat.com or 588-4530.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by yotasmob

Those that see politics as a tool to expand their research are the ones to worry about.

The University of California at Davis and other institutions of high(er) education were started by Politics and Government.

They receive the majority of their funding for scientific research and other forms of education from private grants but do derive a small percentage (relatively speaking) of State and Federal Government funding as well. The rules governing the receipt and use of grant funding is overseen by various Government agencies.

End results of the research conducted at such institutions can sometimes end up in the hands of those who would profit or benefit from it in some way, for good or evil.

Who sits on the Board of Regents for the Universities here in CA jacking tuition fees out of reach for most? Why it is Feinstein’s husband Richard C. Blum and a whole cast of other nefarious characters!

Please don’t get me wrong, I’m VERY HAPPY this gentleman intends to use his education for good instead of evil but it’s hard to divorce politics and scientific research.

Were it not for Government (political) funding of scientific research we’d all be speaking German.










Ladies and gentlemen welcome to the disclaimer, that's right, the disclaimer. This American apple pie institution known as parental discretion will cleanse any sense of innuendo or sarcasm from the text that might actually make you think and will also insult your intelligence at the same time. So protect yourself. This post contains explicit depictions of things that are real. These real things are commonly known as life. So, if it sounds sarcastic, don't take it seriously. If it sounds dangerous, do not try it at home or at all. And if it offends you, just don't read it!

[fermentor]

Originally Posted by Bebe

This kind of stuff is maddening to me.....
http://www.uniondemocrat.com/News/Lo...no-fish-danger

Especially when the "scientist" doesn't even have the facts right.

"That excess dirt and sediment in the water won’t bother the native aquatic creatures such as rainbow trout and various species of frogs and toads, according to Forest Service biologist Crispin Holland."

Really? Near as I can detect, 100% of planted trout are rainbows and probably outnumber native fish by a bunch.

"Fish like the German brown trout and brook trout that are bred in fisheries and introduced to the rivers could be affected, Holland said."

Again, German Browns are rarely bred in California (first introduced in Michigan in 1884 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_trout). Gerle Creek Reservoir is a natural fishery for Browns.

AND, Brook trout are native to Eastern states. "Partially as a result of its popularity as a game fish, the brook trout has been introduced in some areas to which it was not originally native, and has become established widely throughout the world. In some parts of the world, it has had a harmful effect on native species, and is a potential pest." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brook_trout

Like California, where the daily limits for Brook are double that of other trout. Can't imagine they're being bred and introduced when we already have too many. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/regulations/Fr...-ch3-art2.html

[randii]

Originally Posted by Bebe

I'm thinking we need to prop you up with a College Fund. Cal4 used to have an education grant process. You sound like the perfect candidate

Agreed. Cal4 Foundation still does educational grants, check it out:
http://www.cal4wheel.com/ca4wdc-foundation

Heck, check with Rubicon Trail Foundation for internship opportunities. Ya never know until you ask!

Randii