5 May 2008, 9:09am
Federal forest policy Saving Forests
by admin
1 comment

California Forests Are Being Converted to Tick Brush

The Forest Foundation of Auburn CA and the National Association of Forest Service Retirees have issued a joint review of California forests. Their finding is that the lack of reforestation following forest fires is responsible for converting an average of 30,000 acres per year of forest to brush.

Nearly 150,000 acres of forest has been converted to brush over the last seven fire seasons in CA, not including conversion that has occurred in wilderness areas.

Recent homilies about “renewing the forest” with wildfire as uttered by obsequious government functionaries  and power-grasping eco-terrorist BINGOs are supercilious, pusillanimous, and specious. Wildfires do not “renew” forests, they decimate and destroy forests and convert them to tick brush. Blood-sucking, disease-carrying tick populations thrive, but forest creatures lose their habitat when wildfires ravage forests. Those vegetation changes are permanent without intervention, because fire-type tick brush generates yet more fires that exclude trees.

But why should we wax eloquent on the subject, again and again and again? Let others carry some water. Kudos to the Forest Foundation and the National Association of Forest Service Retirees for their honesty and integrity. Here is the full text of the joint pronouncement:
more »

News Droppings

It has been a busy week for news already. Some of the highlights (or lowlights):

USFS Chief Gail Kimbell proffered an excuse for soaring fire costs and her agency’s failure to do a Congressionally ordered analysis of the nation’s aerial firefighting program following fatal crashes of planes working on wildfires: “We are a nation at war, and we’re a nation with a huge budget deficit.” [here].

Pretty cheesy. We can’t do our job because the nation is at war. It could be the war that Kimbell is talking about is the one the USFS is waging on forests and landowners throughout the West. Her agency did find $54 million to spend on conservation easements to stop homebuilding on private land. It “saved” the taxpayers money by curtailing private property rights and resident stewardship of the land in favor of holocaust megafires.

Weyerhaeuser was busted in another anti-trust case. A Portland jury on Monday ordered Weyerhaeuser to pay almost $28 million for unlawfully monopolizing the market for finished alder lumber [here].

U.S. Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey was in Missoula on Monday to answer questions about controversial secret meetings between the U.S. Forest Service and the Plum Creek Timber Company. Plum Creek is the country’s largest private landowner, with 8 million acres nationwide and 1.2 million acres in Montana [here].

More gravy for the Big Potato. Maybe Mark doesn’t realize that we’re a nation at war.

In wildlife news, a rabies outbreak is plaguing the Southwest. A rabid bobcat attacked two hikers, who had to kill it with a hammer [here]. Lesson: never go hiking without a hammer. For more rabies news see Wolf Crossing [here].

Speaking of disease-carrying animals, twelve “environmental” groups have sued to halt wolf delisting [here]. Nuff said.

On the climate front, the founder of the National Hurricane Center is being forced out for his failure to buy into Algore’s Inconvenient Lie [here]. Naughty, naughty. Here come the PC police.

And finally Friends of the Earth have been blamed for starving millions of poor to death after spreading ugly rumors about American food aid to Africa [here]. Guess that’s one way to deal with the overpopulation problem. Pin a medal on FOE.

Lovely news. Going outside now. Had my fill of it. If there were some way to dig the news into my garden, I’m sure I could grow pumpkins the size of Volkswagens. For big punkins, it’s all about the bull …

25 Apr 2008, 12:52pm
Federal forest policy Saving Forests
by admin

The Forest Incineration Conspiracy

Conspiracy theories abound in our day and age. There exists the general feeling that we are being scammed big time by some secret group, or not so secret group, for their benefit and to the detriment of the mostly powerless populace.

The list is lengthy: the Global Warming Hoax, the Communist Conspiracy, the AIDS epidemic, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the CIA, the Zionist Movement, Islamo-Fascism, the Ozone hole, Big Oil, the Salmon Hoax, spotted owls, etc, etc.

My “favorite” and the pet peeve of this blog is the conspiracy to incinerate America’s priceless heritage forests.

Many conspiracy theories border on the absurd, but some are blatantly evident. The Global Warming Hoax, for instance, is not secret but rather is trumpeted every day in the Media. We know the names of the conspirators; they are quite proud of their involvement and roles and have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure everybody knows their names.

The Forest Incineration Conspiracy is less obvious regarding its chief manipulators, but like all the other blatant and non-absurd conspiracies, the root goal is the same: money.

How, you ask, can destroying forests possibly make anyone rich? There is some push to increase fire suppression outlays, and that leads to more profits for firefighters and firefighting equipment suppliers, but their increased income is minimal and widely distributed. Nobody is making enormous windfall profits by burning down forests, at least not within the fire community. Nor are the Federal land management agencies profiting by ruining natural resources. Nor are enviro groups expanding their memberships by advocating abandonment of responsible stewardship in favor of habitat destruction.

The case could be made that all these special interests are shooting themselves in the foot by promoting Let It Burn. Indeed, I have made that case again and again.

So who profits by burning down millions of acres of public forests every year?

Private commercial forest owners, that’s who.
more »

20 Apr 2008, 10:58pm
Climate and Weather
by admin

World’s Oldest Tree Discovered?

The BBC and the London (UK) Telegraph announced last Thursday that the World’s Oldest Tree had been discovered in Sweden. While this is not precisely correct (as I will explain below), nevertheless it is an important and significant finding with implications for our modern times.

From the BBC [here]

Swedes find ‘world’s oldest tree’

A tree said to be the oldest on the planet - thought to be nearly 10,000 years old - has been found in Sweden.

Scientists from Umeaa University discovered the spruce [Picea abies, commonly Norway spruce] on Fulu Mountain in Dalarna province while carrying out a census of tree species there in 2004.

The age of its genetic material was recently calculated using carbon dating at a laboratory in Miami, Florida.

World’s Oldest Tree?

Scientists had believed the world’s oldest trees were 4,000-year-old pine trees found in North America.

The oldest, a bristlecone pine [Pinus longaeva] named Methuselah located in California’s White Mountains, is aged 4,768, according to the Guinness Book of World Records.

The new record contender, which would have taken root just after the last ice age, was found among a cluster of around 20 spruces believed to be more than 8,000 years old at an altitude of 910m (2,985ft) on Fulu Mountain.

The visible portion of the spruce was comparatively new, but analysis of four “generations” of remains - cones and wood - found underneath its crown showed its root system had been growing for 9,550 years, Umeaa University said.

more »

19 Apr 2008, 12:07pm
Politics and politicians
by admin

Attention Oregon Global Warming Alarmists

Here it is: Global Cooling. How do you like it?

Coldest Winter on record. Just what you wanted. Enjoying the April snow?

Attention Far Left Socialist voters. Governor Dumb Bunny Ted is holding GW Alarmist meetings, trying to orient the entire State government to combating global warming by shutting down all economic activity, tearing down dams, and encouraging megafires. Are you pleased?

The moron you elected twice reached down to OSU and forced out the only academic with the guts to tell the truth about the impending global cooling. Do you like that kind of interference in academic freedom? Are you satisfied now that freedom of thought has been curtailed at your university, and no one but sycophantic twits are left there? Twits that are dead wrong about climate change?

Did you get tire chains for your Priuses?

Don’t worry. Next summer will be the nicest day of the year. You won’t need chains to drive out to your favorite incinerated forest and gaze lovingly at the miles and miles of blackened snags.

You wanted change. Don’t worry. You’ll soon be out on the sidewalk begging for some.

Let’s elect some more extreme leftist bonehead Stalinists. Keep Oregon Charcoal Grey. It’s all about “quality of life” right? Huddle in the dark and cold and tell yourself that the quality of your life is vastly improved.

Vote lefty-freeze the planet. Give up your freedoms; it’s worth it. Abort your babies, euthanize your parents. You’re saving the planet!!

Let’s all sing some Communist anthems. Maybe that’ll keep us warm.

Ban homes; we can all live under the urban bridges. Drink right out of the sewer discharge pipes that pour filth into the estuary in Portland. We’re Dreamers here. Dream on.

Thank There Is No God that the Religious Right doesn’t have a single rep in the Legislature. Make Oregon safe for wolves. Burn Baby Burn. The only good forest is dead, burned, tick brush. Fight Global Warming. We like it cold as ice.

So strap on your jackboots and goosestep down the avenue. You won the battle! Universal death care! Sing the Happy Slave Song. Freeze your brains. Be as Left as you can be. Save the planet from humans such as yourself. If everybody else is jumping off the cliff, might as well join them. Ban the board! And don’t leave any carbon footprints on your way out.

9 Apr 2008, 10:56am
Climate and Weather Saving Forests
by admin
1 comment

Theory, Empiricism, Forests, and Global Warming Models

A popular statement, usually attributed to George Box, is that “all models are wrong, but some are useful.” The usefulness of models fall into two broad classes: theory and prediction. Theoretical models attempt to map known physical, chemical, and biological relationships. Predictive models (sometimes called “black box”) attempt to make accurate predictions.

There is a strong tendency to confuse or combine these utilities, and that is true in any modeling (my specialty is forest growth and yield models). Proponents of theoretical models are often adamant that their models are best (a value judgment) and insist that they be used in predictive situations. Predictive modelers, in contrast, may use crude rules of thumb that are unattractive to theoreticians, but predictive modelers emphasize that their goal is accurate prediction.

Hence Box’s assertion that models are wrong must also be bifurcated. Theoretical models are wrong if the theories behind them are invalid. Predictive models are wrong if they make poor predictions. It is easy (but not useful) to confuse these wrong-itudes.

Predictive models are generally empirical, that is, data-driven. Predictions are validated (or invalidated) by the data on actual outcomes. Theoretical models are validated (or invalidated) by tests of theory, which may or may not be empirical. Experiments (empiricism) are used to test theories, but theoretical models do not rest on predicted outcomes because theoretical models are not predictive by design.

The best weather prediction models are more empirical than theoretical. They look at current conditions (fronts, pressure gradients, jet streams, etc.) as they are cadastrally arrayed across the globe, and compare those to past dates when the same or very similar arrays occurred. Then the weather outcomes of the similar past conformations are examined, and used to predict the immediate future weather. Not much theory to that, more of a data mining of the past; hence the descriptor “empirical.”
more »

18 Mar 2008, 8:05am
Climate and Weather Saving Forests
by admin

Answering Some Questions About Smoke

Janet writes:

I noticed in news stories about Mr. Bonnicksen study that it was not peer reviewed and the study was funded by a foundation that gets money from logging companies. Also, some other experts who were interviewed for a story said Bonnicksen’s estimates were on the high end. Seems like you folks had a problem with a certain study out of OSU that wasn’t peer reviewed so I’m wondering why you are fine with this latest Bonnicksen study not being peer reviewed?

Janet, Holy cow! Did you ever get all that backasswards and twisted around! Let me try to straighten you out so you won’t be so desperately confused and disoriented.

1. Dr. (not Mr.) Bonnicksen, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Forest Science at Texas A&M University, Visiting Scholar at The Forest Foundation, and the author of the greatest book ever written about our forests, America’s Ancient Forests – From the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery.

Dr. Bonnicksen holds a bachelor’s degree in forestry, and master’s and doctorate degrees in wildland resource science (he studied under Drs. Harold Biswell and Ed Stone at UC Berkeley). He has researched the history and ecology of ancient forests for more than 30 years, and has authored more than 80 papers and articles on forest ecology and resource management.

2. Dr. Bonnicksen is the originator of restoration forestry. His work has emphasized the fact that Native Americans were an integral part of America’s forests. The forests and the people who lived here formed an inseparable whole that developed together over millennia. He has endeavored to return our forests to sustainable, historical conditions and to protect, maintain, and perpetuate America’s forests.

3. Yes, Dr. Bonnicksen’s recent work was supported by the Forest Foundation, and that organization includes a timber company among its benefactors. But did you ever stop to think that every academic pursuit in California is supported by timber companies, through taxes, grants, and by the lumber that holds up the buildings on campus as well as your house?

more »

12 Mar 2008, 9:55am
Climate and Weather
by admin
leave a comment

The Pro-Human Faction

[Note: I wrote the following comment in response to another comment at W.I.S.E. Forest and Fire News, but am so enamored of my own writing that I am placing it here as a post.]

Re the “alarmist” appellation [as in Global Warming Alarmist]: the climate debate was declared over by political types. Those who disagree with the UN [IPCC] conclusions were (are) labeled “deniers” in reference to Holocaust deniers. Vast Draconian “solutions” have been subsequently adopted worldwide, with more to come.

Yet the debate is not over. Numerous scientists, including over 100 top experts who attended the NY Climate Conference, make the claim that recent global warming is minor, natural (not human caused), largely over, and a good thing (warmer is better).

Those points of view are roundly excoriated by the worldwide Media. Those of us who hold those views feel very marginalized and deeply insulted by the alarmists’ lack of open mindedness. Friends of mine have lost their jobs for holding “contrarian views” on this issue, by purely political witch-hunting.

The “solutions” offered have driven up the prices of energy and food. Great suffering has resulted in the poorer countries of the world. None of the “solutions” will affect the Earth’s temperature one iota, but the suffering is now and it is real.

Those who would starve the poor are indeed heartless. Those who would impose a new world order regardless of the pain they inflict are indeed authoritarian and totalitarian. Megalomania has not miraculously disappeared. It is alive and expanding on this planet.

It is a common thing to blame one’s fellow man for “problems” real and imaginary. That is the thread that has run through totalitarian movements throughout history, with horrendous repercussions. Blame Humanity is popular these days, just as it was in fascist dictatorships prior to World War II. “Too many people” is an old and deeply corrupt philosophy!

The corollaries to that philosophy are profoundly anti-human, racist, and evil. It the philosophy that created Auschwitz.
more »

5 Mar 2008, 10:38pm
Saving Forests
by admin

Burn, Baby, Burn

I highly recommend that you read Wyoming Attorney Harriet Hageman’s exposition on Clinton’s Roadless Rule [here]. She discusses the origins of the Roadless Rule:

It was developed in the waning days of the Clinton administration to deny access, management and use of, 58.5 million acres of National Forest lands (30% of the National Forests; 2% of the total land mass of the United States; 3.2 million acres in Wyoming). It was adopted following what was arguably the most truncated, superficial and scientifically-devoid NEPA rulemaking in history. The alleged “public process” associated with the Roadless Rule was politically driven rather than scientifically supported…

She discusses how NEPA lawsuits forced a suspension of the Roadless Rule. This is important. The Bush Administration did not suspend the Rule, federal judges did, responding to suits that arose outside the federal government. Bush’s Justice Department defended Clinton’s Rule, but lost in court:

The current dispute is a continuation of the State of Wyoming’s 2001 lawsuit, and stems from Judge Brimmer’s 2003 decision (found at 277 F.Supp.2d 1197 (D.Wyo. 2003)) to enjoin enforcement of the Roadless Rule based on the fact that it violated NEPA and the Wilderness Act.

Despite the injunction, the USFS has continued to uphold the Rule. Tearing out roads continues to take place on every National Forest in the country. The effect of this contempt of court is to decrease fire protection and increase the size of forest fires:

At the time that the Roadless Rule was being considered, the Federal Governmental Accounting Office (GAO) and numerous National Forest Managers warned that, because of its prohibition on treatment and management, the Roadless Rule substantially increased the risk of catastrophic forest fires and devastating insect infestations within the National Forests, as well as within the adjacent State and private lands.

Indeed, the largest forest fires in recorded history have happened since the imposition of the Roadless Rule. A prime example is the 2002 Biscuit Fire in Oregon.

more »

3 Mar 2008, 8:36am
Saving Forests
by admin

Eco-Terrorists in Our Midst

The American domestic eco-terrorist network is alive and well, and they present a greater danger to this country than Al-Qaida. Eco-fascism imperils the U.S. vastly more than Islamo-fascism, illegal immigration, and “climate change” combined.

Make no mistake about it. The Far Left espouses an eco-theology more fanatical than any major religion, including Islam. Theirs is not a humanist religion either, but one in which the entire human race is seen as evil and deserving of destruction. Eco-terrorists are not tree-hugging nature lovers despite what their propaganda cloak implies; they seek destruction of nature as well as civilization.

Eco-terrorist organizations in the U.S. today include Earthjustice, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, the Humane Society of the United States, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands Project, Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, Audubon Society, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and hundreds of others. The largest of these are the big, international NGO’s: the Nature Conservancy, the Wilderness Society, Conservation International, the World Wildlife Fund, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and others.

These eco-terrorist organizations are well-funded by large globalist foundations motivated by power, greed, and an endless lust for more. Large capitalist foundations such as the Rockefeller Fund, Pew Trusts, Packard Foundation, and the Ford Foundation that fund eco-terrorism are not acting out of guilt or shame for amassing obscene fortunes; on the contrary they are acting to expand their profits and control over the wealth of the world.

It is global warming alarmism that has quadrupled the price of oil in the last five years, not global warming skepticism. When millions of acres of U.S. public forests burn to the ground every year, globalist multinational timber interests benefit.

more »

Bipartisan House Coalition Introduces Legislation to Fix Biomass Definition in Renewable Fuels Standard

We previously discussed the language in the new Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, in particular those clauses that eliminate federal forests as a source of biofuels material [here, here]. The protests in that regard by numerous involved citizens has borne fruit.

Last week a bipartisan coalition of representatives introduced H.R. 5236 to correct the language in the Energy Act. The following is taken in its entirety from Greg Walden’s website [here].

Herseth Sandlin - Walden Bill Would Promote Development and Use of Cellulosic Ethanol Derived from Wood Waste on Federal Lands

February 7, 2024 - WASHINGTON, D.C.

Last night, Rep. Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) and Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) introduced the Renewable Biofuels Facilitation Act (H.R. 5236), legislation that would promote the development and use of cellulosic ethanol derived from woody biomass on federal lands. The bill would significantly broaden the definition of cellulosic ethanol within the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) to include more biomass gathered from federal lands.

The Herseth Sandlin – Walden bill addresses a flaw included in The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which included an historic 36 billion gallon renewable fuels standard (RFS). Unfortunately, the legislation’s definition of renewable biomass prevents almost all federal land biomass, such as trees, wood, brush, thinnings, chips, and slash, from counting toward the mandate if it is used to manufacture biofuels. This provision not only discourages the use of such biomass, but in doing so could result in a decrease in responsible forest management by denying land managers an important outlet for the excessive biomass loads that often accumulate on public lands. The Herseth Sandlin – Walden bill would promote the use of energy from waste products gathered on federal lands, including those that are byproducts of preventive treatments and are removed to reduce hazardous fuels, to reduce or contain disease or insect infestation, or to restore ecosystem health.

The Renewable Biofuels Facilitation Act was co-sponsored by a geographically diverse and bipartisan group including Representatives Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Bart Stupak (D-MI), Mike Ross (D-AR), Chip Pickering (R-MS), Emerson (R-VA), Emerson (R-MO), Goodlatte (R-VA), Bonner (R-AL), J. Peterson (R-PA).

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.):

“The energy bill recently signed into law does a great deal to advance America toward a smarter energy future,” Walden said. “Unfortunately, it woefully underappreciated the role biomass must play in our energy portfolio by excluding biomass produced in federal forest health projects from the country’s new 36 billion gallon renewable fuels standard. Additionally, the energy bill placed onerous restrictions on the use of biomass from private lands.”

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD):

“Currently, the energy bill provides great incentives for innovative entrepreneurs, often working in conjunction with government and academia, to create new ways to make clean, homegrown renewable biofuels in this country,” Herseth Sandlin said. “Unfortunately, current law prevents biofuels made from biomass that originates on public lands or any biomass from private land that is not ‘planted’ and ‘actively managed’ from being counted toward the RFS. This is unfortunate, unnecessary, and unjustified.”

The Renewable Biomass Facilitation Act would change the definition to clarify that federally sourced biomass is eligible for consideration under the renewable fuels standard and is identical to the language included in the Senate’s version of the Farm Bill which passed 79-14 on December 14, 2007. Additionally, the bill would allow RFS credit for broad categories of biomass from non-federal and tribal lands including agricultural commodities, plants and trees, algae, crop residue, waste material (including wood waste and wood residues), animal waste and byproducts (including fats, oils, greases, and manure), construction waste, and food and yard waste.

more »

22 Jan 2008, 2:07pm
Federal forest policy
by admin

Global Cooling Sets In

There has been no global warming since 1998. The solar cycle that lifted the planet out of the Little Ice Age is over. That worm has turned, and we are headed back into a cooling cycle. This year, 2008 is expected to be the coolest since the early 1990’s. And 2009 will be cooler yet.

Global temperatures are not affected by atmospheric carbon dioxide. The planet is cooling despite “record” levels of CO2 (today’s CO2 concentrations are minuscule compared to paleo-atmospheric concentrations). Humanity has not warmed the planet. Temperatures are dipping despite everything humans do.

The current and former Chiefs of the USFS, Gail Kimbell and Dale Bosworth, both blame global warming for record forest fire acreage during their tenures. The Association of Fire Ecologists went so far as to issue a Declaration calling for direct and immediate conversion of forests to brush via a No Touch, Let It Burn, Watch it Rot, No Regrets policy.

The Wildland Fire Leadership Council, the federal advisory committee that oversees federal firefighting and is dominated by special interest groups, specifically the Nature Conservancy and the Wilderness Society, has launched a “Black, Dead, Burned Forests Are Beautiful” campaign. The propaganda effort is in support of their WFU program, the Let It Burn policy that encompasses most of the western U.S., public and private land alike.

Yes, in December the USFS formally extended its Let It Burn directive to hundreds of millions acres of private land, an official acknowledgment of their de facto policies of the last 15 years.

That announcement comes on the heels of a government-wide “Blame the Victims” approach to addressing the tens of thousands of private homes the USFS has incinerated during the last 15 years. Nearly 90 million acres have burned in wildfires in the last decade and a half, including the largest fires in the history of every western state.

The destruction of America’s public forests has been horrific. Trillions (with a “t”) of dollars in resource values have been lost. Regional economies have been crippled. Wildlife populations have crashed. Millions of acres of heritage old-growth forests have been converted to brush.

But hark! That’s all over now. Since global warming was the cause, now that global cooling has set in the problem has been solved. Right?

Wrong. Global warming was never the cause; bad land management was and is. And since the bad land management promulgated by the USFS and WFLC is getting worse, expect fire seasons to get worse, too, regardless of “climate change.”

Expect more acres, more forests, more homes to be incinerated this year. Your watershed, neighborhood, property has been targeted. It does not matter whether you live in a rural, urban, or suburban setting. Fire does not discriminate. And megafires arising from the deliberate actions (and inactions) of the federal government especially do not discriminate.

The time to act is now. The time to reintroduce stewardship into the landscape is now. The federal government needs to hear that message and get it in gear, now. The mistakes of the last 15 years must be corrected, now.

Regardless of global warming, cooling, or “climate change.”

31 Dec 2007, 6:04pm
2007 Fire Season
by admin

The 2007 Fire Season: A Year-End Recap

With over 9.3 million acres burned in wildfires nationally, the 2007 fire season was the second worst fire season in over fifty years (the 2006 fire season was the worst with over 9.7 million acres burned).

In terms of total acres burned, seven of the worst ten fire seasons since the early 1950’s have occurred in the last 12 years.

Average acreage per wildfire was nearly 110 acres, again the second worst in over fifty years (the 2005 was the worst averaging 131 acres per fire).

In terms of average acres per wildfire, nine of the worst ten fire seasons since the early 1950’s have occurred in the last 12 years.

The preceding graphs are based on data provided by the National Interagency Fire Center Wildland Fire Statistics [here]. The following is a recap of some of the high and low lights of the 2007 Fire Season.

more »

7 Dec 2007, 8:18pm
Politics and politicians
by admin
leave a comment

The Dog Races

It’s semi-official: not one candidate for President from either party has taken any stance or issued any analysis regarding forests, forest fires, predator control, or any environmental problem, except for global warming.

All the candidates, except for Fred Thompson and Ron Paul, are going to “fix” the global warming “problem” by taxing the American people through the roof and other vicious nonsense brutalities. Fred and Ron are Skeptics (somewhat less opprobrious than a Denier). Osama Obama, on the other hand, has promised to “reduce the amount of carbon in gasoline.” Poor Obama; he is evidently physics-challenged. I wonder what kind of grades he got in science.

But as for our forest crisis, the Pack is completely in the dark, out to lunch, and struck dumb. Not one of them has a clue in creation that we are experiencing the worst fire seasons in 50 years, that the USFS is crumbling to ashes, that our National Forests are being destroyed by holocaust, and that federal fires are jumping legal boundaries and burning into rural and urban property that DOES NOT BELONG to the Feds.

And no improvement is expected. No matter who wins the election, our forests and Rural America lose.

And what a bitch of a situation that is, again. For my part, I am boycotting all races where both or all candidates are clueless imbeciles. Voter Boycott. I’m not going to vote, and I plan to make a Big Stink about it, too.

  • Colloquia

  • Commentary and News

  • Contact

  • Follow me on Twitter

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Meta