Did the Endangered Species Act contributes to fire fighters deaths??
nee...@syix.com
Endangered Species Act may have played a major role in the recent fire
deaths in the state of Washington......
For more information see:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134324629_fishfire01m.html
LN
Jym Dyer
nothing more.
<_Jym_>
nee...@syix.com
When unable to argue a point, smear.... smear.... smear....
Lives were lost here, and Mr. Dyer's response is typical of the
socialist enviro's sentiments.....
Judge for yourself & don't just buy the enviro spin, read:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134324629_fishfire01m.html
which is but the tip of the iceberg.......
LN
Bubba
use of water from streams with protected fish.
How is this anti environmental spin?
The fact that fish are more important to the envirnmental nuts than people
scares me.
In these cases all evironmental regulations should be void to save the lives
of humans.
If a few fish get scooped up to save the lives of these people, so be it.
"Jym Dyer" <j...@econet.org> wrote in message
news:Jym.wzg0b...@econet.org...
Stan Rothwell
> nothing more.
No, Jym, your usual tactics won't work this time. 4 firefighters
(doing their best to save the environment) DIED when they
were boxed in by an out-of-control fire. Helicopters were
not able to get water from a nearby stream because the
enviro-weenies wouldn't give them permission until it was too
late. Now the firefighters are dead, and so is the forest.
The fish will be dead shortly, thanks to the river choking up
with carbon from burned wood.
Nutcases like you should not be allowed ANYWHERE
near policy-making roles, in the environment ot otherwise...
Stan Rothwell
<nee...@syix.com> wrote in message news:3b68a40...@news.syix.com...
Smearing is actually pretty mild for Jym. He will also
resort to physical assault to get his way, from what
research I have done about him. Don't ever ride
into his campsite when he and his buddies are in
a foul mood...
nee...@syix.com
his way to spin enviros clean no matter what the repurcusssions of
their draconian enviromental agenda produces, is once again attempting
to wash blood off the hands of the club by declaring the:
FACT THAT 4 PEOPLE DIED BECAUSE OF ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ROAD BLOCKS
IS NOTHING MORE THAN MEDIA SPIN.....
Well here's more FACT for the Sierra Club to try to wash clean:
Time-line information released by fire fighter officials regarding day
of fire-
5:30 am.... The firefighters called in for helicopter support.
10:00 am... Helicopters become available but are not yet permitted to
go fight the fire.
12:30 pm.... Dispatch refuses to allow water from the Chi-Walk (sp??)
due to ESA.
1:15 pm.... Due to desperation, firefighters request air tankers
suppot.
2:00 pm... Officials approve the helicopter are consulting
biologist....
3:00 pm... First helicopter water drop..
3:58 pm.... Fire explodes out of control sending debris 30,000 feet
into the air..
4:18 pm... Air tankers diverted
5:25 pm... Fire Fighter are declared DEAD....
So SPIN AS YOU WILL MR> DYER.... But at least due mention some facts
in doing so, eh....
And this is without mentioning the DEBACLE RESULTS wihich the ESA
produced in the Kalamath Basin in Southern Oregon....
Spin On Mr. Dyer.... But you can never spin the BLOOD CLEAN...
LN
Chris Clarke
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Smearing is actually pretty mild for Jym. He will also
> resort to physical assault to get his way, from what
> research I have done about him. Don't ever ride
> into his campsite when he and his buddies are in
> a foul mood...
You may want to do a little "research" into the libel laws of California
and whatever location you happen to live in before you make
reprehensible and demonstrably false assertions like the one above.
--
Chris Clarke | Editor, Faultline Magazine
www.faultline.org | California Environmental News and Information
Chris Clarke
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "Jym Dyer" <j...@econet.org> wrote in message
> news:Jym.wzg0b...@econet.org...
> > =v= This is just anti-environmental spin in the media,
> > nothing more.
>
> No, Jym, your usual tactics won't work this time. 4 firefighters
> (doing their best to save the environment) DIED when they
> were boxed in by an out-of-control fire. Helicopters were
> not able to get water from a nearby stream because the
> enviro-weenies wouldn't give them permission until it was too
> late.
Wrong. Even a cursory reading of the article cited at [http://]
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134324629_fishfire01m.html
shows that no Federal agency or regulation prevented the taking of water
from the creek in question. Neither NMFS nor FWS bar the removal of
water from endangered fish habitat in this sort of situation. To quote
from the article:
> A nearly two-hour delay did occur that day, but not because of the
> strictures of ESA, said Elton Thomas, fire-management officer for the
> Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests.
[...]
> Neither the National Marine Fisheries Service nor the U.S. Department
> of Fish and Wildlife, which manage the fish, must approve water
> removal in such a case, however, said spokesmen for both agencies.
> Nonetheless, there appeared to be confusion over whether approval was
> needed. "We don't want it to work that way," Thomas said. "We want to
> make sure folks aren't taking unnecessary time."
It looks as if this avoidable tragedy was caused by insufficient
training of the dispatchers. To use the deaths of these heroic
firefighters as a bloody flag to advance your own fanatical
anti-environmental cause is something close to an atrocity.
I think you owe the families of these brave people an apology.
nee...@syix.com
wrote:
>In article <9kahgd$ho4$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jym Dyer" <j...@econet.org> wrote in message
>> news:Jym.wzg0b...@econet.org...
>> > =v= This is just anti-environmental spin in the media,
>> > nothing more.
>>
>> No, Jym, your usual tactics won't work this time. 4 firefighters
>> (doing their best to save the environment) DIED when they
>> were boxed in by an out-of-control fire. Helicopters were
>> not able to get water from a nearby stream because the
>> enviro-weenies wouldn't give them permission until it was too
>> late.
>Wrong. Even a cursory reading of the article cited at [http://]
>seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134324629_fishfire01m.html
>shows that no Federal agency or regulation prevented the taking of water
>from the creek in question. Neither NMFS nor FWS bar the removal of
>water from endangered fish habitat in this sort of situation. To quote
>from the article:
WRONG.....
Get the FACTS.... The time line was nearly 12 hours after the request
was issued for helicopter support. Dispatch required environmental
clearance to utilized water from the a river where salmon (or other
spicies) was declared endangered. Finally a biologist approved & water
was air lifted. By this time the fire had gone on SOOOOOO long that it
was too late. Not long later, 12 hours after the request for
helicopter support, 4 fire fighters were declared DEAD....
HERE ARE THE TIME LINE FACTS....
BTW- "as released by the fire fighter officials"
5:30 am.... The firefighters called in for helicopter support.
10:00 am... Helicopters become available but are not yet permitted to
go fight the fire.
12:30 pm.... Dispatch refuses to allow water from the Chi-Walk (sp??)
due to ESA.
1:15 pm.... Due to desperation, firefighters request air tankers
suppot.
2:00 pm... Officials approve the helicopter are consulting
biologist....
3:00 pm... First helicopter water drop..
3:58 pm.... Fire explodes out of control sending debris 30,000 feet
into the air..
4:18 pm... Air tankers diverted
5:25 pm... Fire Fighter are declared DEAD....
Stan Rothwell
"Chris Clarke" <ccl...@faultline.org> wrote in message
news:cclarke-309BB8...@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com...
> In article <9kahk1$tsr$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Smearing is actually pretty mild for Jym. He will also
> > resort to physical assault to get his way, from what
> > research I have done about him. Don't ever ride
> > into his campsite when he and his buddies are in
> > a foul mood...
>
> You may want to do a little "research" into the libel laws of California
> and whatever location you happen to live in before you make
> reprehensible and demonstrably false assertions like the one above.
From the research I have done, there are some questions
about his behavior concerning a particular Barstow to
Vegas race he wasn't too fond of...
Stan Rothwell
I'm not "anti-environment". I'm against rolling over in submission
every time some asshole who assumes he is the ONLY true
spokesperson for the wilderness tries to suck money out of
the taxpayers, confiscate private lands, and encroach on our
personal freedoms.
>
> I think you owe the families of these brave people an apology.
Save the for the eco-freaks.
FTSC - Hypocrites who clear-cut their own land and
get special access to land off-limits to the rest of us...
Chris Clarke
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2001 13:57:57 GMT, Chris Clarke <ccl...@faultline.org>
> wrote:
> >Wrong. Even a cursory reading of the article cited at [http://]
> >seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134324629_fishfire01m.html
> >shows that no Federal agency or regulation prevented the taking of water
> >from the creek in question. Neither NMFS nor FWS bar the removal of
> >water from endangered fish habitat in this sort of situation. To quote
> >from the article:
>
> WRONG.....
>
> Get the FACTS.... The time line was nearly 12 hours after the request
> was issued for helicopter support. Dispatch required environmental
> clearance to utilized water from the a river where salmon (or other
> spicies) was declared endangered. Finally a biologist approved & water
> was air lifted. By this time the fire had gone on SOOOOOO long that it
> was too late. Not long later, 12 hours after the request for
> helicopter support, 4 fire fighters were declared DEAD....
>
> HERE ARE THE TIME LINE FACTS....
>
> BTW- "as released by the fire fighter officials"
I don't suppose you have verification of this? especially given the
quote in the Seattle Times article from Elton Thomas, the National
Forest Service "fire-fighter official" in which he said the ESA had
nothing to do with the delay? Again I quote:
> >> A nearly two-hour delay did occur that day, but not because of the
> >> strictures of ESA, said Elton Thomas, fire-management officer for the
> >> Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests.
> 12:30 pm.... Dispatch refuses to allow water from the Chi-Walk (sp??)
> due to ESA.
May well be true, but the fact is that this was not necessary under
current law. It's a dispatch mistake, not a flaw in the ESA.
> 2:00 pm... Officials approve the helicopter are consulting
> biologist....
This is unintelligible.
You haven't presented any evidence that supports your claims, nor have
you countered the overwhelming evidence against them. Only someone with
severely impaired reading comprehension could conclude otherwise.
I maintain that in callously using the tragic deaths of these
firefighters to advance the extremist anti-environmental agenda you and
Rothwell have consistently espoused on Usenet over the last few years,
you do violence to their memory, and you each owe their families an
apology.
Chris Clarke
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> From the research I have done, there are some questions
> about his behavior concerning a particular Barstow to
> Vegas race he wasn't too fond of...
Facts, figures, witnesses. Put up or shut up.
Jym Dyer
> Smearing is actually pretty mild for Jym. He will also resort
> to physical assault to get his way, from what research I have
> done about him.
=v= I admit that I'm intrigued. Whatever are you referring to?
Research? Source?
> Don't ever ride into his campsite when he and his buddies
> are in a foul mood...
=v= Isn't it rude to ride into a campsite in any event? I admit
that we might sing a little too loud, and howl like wolves and
such, but I don't think that qualifies as a foul mood.
<_Jym_>
P.S.: Advance warning: my buddies and I are going camping this
weekend. Better be prepared (bring earplugs if you don't like
singing and howling). Or stay home and wax your SUV.
Jym Dyer
=v= Oh my, I'm really being accused of quite a bit in these
newsgroups lately.
=v= For the record, I'm not even currently a member of the
Sierra Club. I resigned in disgust over something or other
(as is my tendency). I may rejoin at some point when I think
there's an inkling of hope again, but then again, I could
resign in disgust a few years later. At any rate, you can't
blame the Sierra Club for anything I do. Or anything you
imagine that I've done.
<_Jym_>
P.S.: I reckon this is as good a time as any to repost the
following disclaimer, which the Sierra Club insisted that I post
(calling me at home, at work, and via my ISP within days after
I created the alt.org.sierra-club newsgroup):
The Sierra Club did not participate in the set-up of this news
group and the use of its name does not imply any connection to
the Sierra Club.
This newsgroup is an unmoderated forum; nothing here is
necessarily endorsed or approved by the Sierra Club or any of
its local chapters.
(The Sierra Club does have offical information available online:
This is the Sierra Club's world-wide web page.)
Stan Rothwell
> In article <9kc64m$np3$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > From the research I have done, there are some questions
> > about his behavior concerning a particular Barstow to
> > Vegas race he wasn't too fond of...
>
> Facts, figures, witnesses. Put up or shut up.
I just may do that (the former, that is).
nee...@syix.com
wrote:
>In article <3b69714c...@news.syix.com>, nee...@syix.com wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2001 13:57:57 GMT, Chris Clarke <ccl...@faultline.org>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Wrong. Even a cursory reading of the article cited at [http://]
>> >seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134324629_fishfire01m.html
>> >shows that no Federal agency or regulation prevented the taking of water
>> >from the creek in question. Neither NMFS nor FWS bar the removal of
>> >water from endangered fish habitat in this sort of situation. To quote
>> >from the article:
>>
>> WRONG.....
>>
>> Get the FACTS.... The time line was nearly 12 hours after the request
>> was issued for helicopter support. Dispatch required environmental
>> clearance to utilized water from the a river where salmon (or other
>> spicies) was declared endangered. Finally a biologist approved & water
>> was air lifted. By this time the fire had gone on SOOOOOO long that it
>> was too late. Not long later, 12 hours after the request for
>> helicopter support, 4 fire fighters were declared DEAD....
>>
>> HERE ARE THE TIME LINE FACTS....
>>
>> BTW- "as released by the fire fighter officials"
>
>I don't suppose you have verification of this? especially given the
>quote in the Seattle Times article from Elton Thomas, the National
>Forest Service "fire-fighter official" in which he said the ESA had
>nothing to do with the delay? Again I quote:
August 1, 2001 Hannity & Colmes had a segment of this very topic.
See a partial transcript at:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,31191,00.html
or follow their links to order a full transcipt.
There you will see they disclosed the time line listed below.
5:30 am.... The firefighters called in for helicopter support.
10:00 am... Helicopters become available but are not yet permitted to
go fight the fire.
12:30 pm.... Dispatch refuses to allow water from the Chi-Walk (sp??)
due to ESA.
1:15 pm.... Due to desperation, firefighters request air tankers
suppot.
2:00 pm... Officials approve the helicopter are consulting
biologist....
3:00 pm... First helicopter water drop..
3:58 pm.... Fire explodes out of control sending debris 30,000 feet
into the air..
4:18 pm... Air tankers diverted
5:25 pm... Fire Fighter are declared DEAD....
Actually I recorded this edition and followed it when posting in order
to correctly note the time lines.
If you FEEL it's unintelligible or anything else, blame Fox News and
their Washington Firefighting contacts.....
However, since you assert otherwise, PLEASE CITE YOUR SOURCE!
>> >> A nearly two-hour delay did occur that day, but not because of the
>> >> strictures of ESA, said Elton Thomas, fire-management officer for the
>> >> Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests.
>> 12:30 pm.... Dispatch refuses to allow water from the Chi-Walk (sp??)
>> due to ESA.
>May well be true, but the fact is that this was not necessary under
>current law. It's a dispatch mistake, not a flaw in the ESA.
If this assertion is true then dispatch officials WALK ON EGG SHELLS
when it comes to repurcussions of the ESA, even when human lives are
at STAKE. But FIRST YOU NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF YOUR CLAIM THAT
DISPATCH SCREWED UP and weren't just following propocol as they were
directed to do so....
>> 2:00 pm... Officials approve the helicopter are consulting
>> biologist....
>This is unintelligible.
Sorry you don't like the FACTS, but that's the way it went down
according to officials in Washington......
>You haven't presented any evidence that supports your claims, nor have
>you countered the overwhelming evidence against them. Only someone with
>severely impaired reading comprehension could conclude otherwise.
Now I have...... Do you have evidence to support your assertion or
were you just SPOUTING THE USUAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMIST LINE....
>I maintain that in callously using the tragic deaths of these
>firefighters to advance the extremist anti-environmental agenda you and
>Rothwell have consistently espoused on Usenet over the last few years,
>you do violence to their memory, and you each owe their families an
>apology.
This is the USUAL TRIPE of the ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMIST.... They
proclaim evil forces from Anti-Environmental movement are at
work...... This is similar to Hillary's proclamation that her & Bill's
whoas were all due to a Right Wing Conspiracy.....
HAH.....
The TRUTH IS the ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY is well organized, EXTREMELY
POLITICAL and WELL FUNDED....
PROPAGANDA ARE THE TOOLS OF THEIR TRADE and as soon as any... ANY
THING at all is said which they want to dispute, they put their
spin-doctors into action.... Just follow any enviro newsgroup,
especially regarding an issue which is close to your own home...
FOLLOW THE SPIN & THE TRUTH.....
BUT ENVIRO ARE ON DEFENSE MORE & MORE cause the TRUTH IS CATCHING UP
WITH THEM and THEY KNOW IT.....
TRUTH AND FACTS ARE ENVIROS ENEMY....
I encourage anyone who follows these threads to check out enviromental
issues completely and don't just buy the sound bites touted by these
WELL FINANCED Anti-American ENVIRO LIARS....
LN
nee...@syix.com
>> Spin On Mr. Dyer.... But you can never spin the BLOOD CLEAN...
>
>=v= Oh my, I'm really being accused of quite a bit in these
>newsgroups lately.
>
>=v= For the record, I'm not even currently a member of the
>Sierra Club. I resigned in disgust over something or other
>(as is my tendency). I may rejoin at some point when I think
>there's an inkling of hope again, but then again, I could
>resign in disgust a few years later. At any rate, you can't
>blame the Sierra Club for anything I do. Or anything you
>imagine that I've done.
> <_Jym_>
>
The Sierra Club remains commited to the ESA and have not attempted to
revise it in order to prevent situations (DEATHS) like those in
Washington.
Also, they are committed to the ESA even though in the EXTREME, it
would have BANKRUPT Southern Oregon farmers in the Kalamath Basin.....
Many provisions of the ESA are EXTREME AND DRACONIAN... The Club knows
it and support it as such....
LN
Jym Dyer
>>> From the research I have done, there are some questions
>>> about his behavior concerning a particular Barstow to
>>> Vegas race he wasn't too fond of...
>> Facts, figures, witnesses. Put up or shut up.
> I just may do that (the former, that is).
=v= I continue to wait with bated breath.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> The Club knows it and support it as such....
=v= What could be extreme and draconian than extinction itself?
<_Jym_>
Stan Rothwell
Stan Rothwell
> > Many provisions of the ESA are EXTREME AND DRACONIAN...
> > The Club knows it and support it as such....
>
> =v= What could be extreme and draconian than extinction itself?
Fish are for eating.
Millions of species died out long before you got here.
Dring around with armed explosives in your car is dumb.
Chris Clarke
> August 1, 2001 Hannity & Colmes had a segment of this very topic.
>
> See a partial transcript at:
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,31191,00.html
Your inability to comprehend the material you advance as citations
astounds me. This transcript offers an uncited timeline credited to an
unnamed "forestry official" by Fox journalist William LaJeunesse. This
is not compelling. You've wound up supporting my argument, not yours.
After the timeline, your citation goes on to support what I said. Since
you're apparently having difficulty in comprehending the material you
read, I have inserted note to explain what your source means. Here's
what the Hannity and Colmes transcript quotes Scott McInnis, an anti-ESA
Republican Representative as saying:
> HANNITY: So is the federal government going
> too far to keep fish alive?
> Joining us from Washington, Colorado
> congressman Scott McInnis.
>
> Congressman, the most -- we see the timeline
> in this -- a great piece by William La
> Jeunesse. We see the timeline here. What's so
> disturbing to me -- they requested this water
> at 5:30 in the morning! They had the ability
> to distribute the water to the firefighters.
> They had -- they had four dispatchers and a
> supervisor, but none of them could approve the
> water! These men very well died unnecessarily!
>
> REP. SCOTT MCINNIS (R), COLORADO: Well, let me
> tell you that I think the problem is not so
> much the Endangered Species Act because the
> Endangered Species Act contains within its
> borders the ability for an emergency to take
> place. You have to have somebody, however,
> who's going to stand up and give the order.
> And so I think the problem, when all the dust
> settles here, is going to be that there was no
> field authority to actually...
Note: the Wise-Use backed Repunlican congressman says it wasn't the ESA
that caused the deaths, but rather a bureaucratic snafu.
> COLMES: It's an incredible and sense -- it
> could have been a senseless
> tragedy. How do you prevent this from
> happening in the future? Where do you point
> the blame here? I mean, you said a bureaucrat,
> but how could this have been prevented?
>
> MCINNIS: Well, it could have been prevented by
> having field authority, somebody, regardless
> of the size of the crew, somebody there that
> can say to the dispatch center without
> question, "Put that helicopter in the air
> now."
>
> COLMES: But where in the food chain of
> authority, though, does the problem lie?
>
> MCINNIS: Well, that's what we're trying to
> figure out. I think it got locked up in the
> dispatch center.
>
> COLMES: And they -- there are those who are
> blaming the environmental protection, the
> Environmental (sic) Species Act, blaming the
> Clinton administration because of what they've
> done in the past. Do you -- do you subscribe
> to any of those theories?
>
> MCINNIS: Well, no.
Note: McInnis was asked whether he agreed with those who blame the ESA
for the deaths. His answer? "Well, no."
> I'll tell you what it is.
> It is simply a lack of command down at the
> field level. Those firemen ordered water. It
> got to the dispatch center...
>
> COLMES: Right.
>
> MCINNIS: ... and it appears that's where it
> locked up. That's where our problem is. The
> endangered species, the Wilderness Act, the
> Roadless Act, they all allow you to go in
> and...
>
> COLMES: Right.
>
> MCINNIS: ... perform this kind of emergency.
> Actually I recorded this edition and followed it when posting in order
> to correctly note the time lines.
Fair enough.
> If you FEEL it's unintelligible or anything else, blame Fox News and
> their Washington Firefighting contacts.....
I imagine it's my fault I didn't know what " Officials approve the
helicopter are consulting biologist" means.
> However, since you assert otherwise, PLEASE CITE YOUR SOURCE!
Reading comprehension problem again, I take it. I did cite my source:
the Seattle Times article your fellow traveler Stan Rothwell cited.
Seems you and he both have literacy problems.
> Sorry you don't like the FACTS, but that's the way it went down
> according to officials in Washington......
You don't happen to know any of those officials's names, do you?
> >You haven't presented any evidence that supports your claims, nor have
> >you countered the overwhelming evidence against them. Only someone with
> >severely impaired reading comprehension could conclude otherwise.
>
> Now I have...... Do you have evidence to support your assertion or
> were you just SPOUTING THE USUAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMIST LINE....
The only evidence I've come into this discussion with is the evidence
you and Rothwell brought into it.
> >I maintain that in callously using the tragic deaths of these
> >firefighters to advance the extremist anti-environmental agenda you and
> >Rothwell have consistently espoused on Usenet over the last few years,
> >you do violence to their memory, and you each owe their families an
> >apology.
> This is the USUAL TRIPE of the ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMIST.... They
> proclaim evil forces from Anti-Environmental movement are at
> work...... This is similar to Hillary's proclamation that her & Bill's
> whoas were all due to a Right Wing Conspiracy.....
I didn't say there was a conspiracy. I said in a previous message that I
feel you are a reprehensible person. I'm saying in this message that I
think your intellect is sub-par and that you're advancing citations that
actually undermine your argument.
There is a network of groups that share your agenda, but I doubt they'd
ever have anything to do with you other than to cash your check.
> I encourage anyone who follows these threads to check out enviromental
> issues completely and don't just buy the sound bites touted by these
> WELL FINANCED Anti-American ENVIRO LIARS....
For the record, Faultline Magazine is funded at the moment out of my own
pocket, with proceeds from a 19K/year job.
nee...@syix.com
wrote:
>In article <3b69ec6f...@news.syix.com>, nee...@syix.com wrote:
>
>> August 1, 2001 Hannity & Colmes had a segment of this very topic.
>>
>> See a partial transcript at:
>>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,31191,00.html
>Your inability to comprehend the material you advance as citations
>astounds me.
And this is your ARGUMENT??? Smear & innuendo....
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAaa........
>This transcript offers an uncited timeline credited to an
>unnamed "forestry official" by Fox journalist William LaJeunesse. This
>is not compelling. You've wound up supporting my argument, not yours.
For a Self Promoting Objective Environmental Journalist like yourself,
You Qite Handily Depend On Ad Hominems in Bolstering Your Argued
Positions.
I suppose these newsgroup Postings are but a samplling of what YOU
CALL UNBIAS reporting..... EH???
>After the timeline, your citation goes on to support what I said.
The timeline IS MY Major Point....
What happened in the dispatch office or actually discussed without a
diary of the events would be nothing more than conjecture anyway....
>Since
>you're apparently having difficulty in comprehending the material you
>read, I have inserted note to explain what your source means. Here's
>what the Hannity and Colmes transcript quotes Scott McInnis, an anti-ESA
>Republican Representative as saying:
Notice how this SELF PROMOTING Enviro Journalist's uses SMEAR of a
congress member in order to promote his Environmental Agenda. He
doesn't prove or provide EVIDENCE of this assertion that the
Congressman is Anti-ESA. Mr. Clarke instead fabricates this SMEAR!!!
>
>> HANNITY: So is the federal government going
>> too far to keep fish alive?
>> Joining us from Washington, Colorado
>> congressman Scott McInnis.
>>
>> Congressman, the most -- we see the timeline
>> in this -- a great piece by William La
>> Jeunesse. We see the timeline here. What's so
>> disturbing to me -- they requested this water
>> at 5:30 in the morning! They had the ability
>> to distribute the water to the firefighters.
>> They had -- they had four dispatchers and a
>> supervisor, but none of them could approve the
>> water! These men very well died unnecessarily!
>>
>> REP. SCOTT MCINNIS (R), COLORADO: Well, let me
>> tell you that I think the problem is not so
>> much the Endangered Species Act because the
>> Endangered Species Act contains within its
>> borders the ability for an emergency to take
>> place. You have to have somebody, however,
>> who's going to stand up and give the order.
>> And so I think the problem, when all the dust
>> settles here, is going to be that there was no
>> field authority to actually...
>Note: the Wise-Use backed Repunlican congressman says it wasn't the ESA
>that caused the deaths, bureaucratic snafu.
Below, I include a portion of the transcript you decidely left out.
But regarding the single point you did make. Above the Congressman,
WHOM YOU'VE SMEARED WITH INNUENDO, states an OPINION you happen to
agree with. In the portion of the transcript I've pasted below, he
opines in the opposite view.
"HANNITY: Had they gotten that water, isn't it likely...
MCINNIS: Well, clearly...
HANNITY: ... they'd be alive today, Congressman?
MCINNIS: Clearly, that was a contributing factor and could have been
the major factor. The key here was not the endangered species, it was
the failure for an order to take place to pick that water up ASAP,
regardless of environmental concerns."
Notably in this instance, your argument depends on your concurrence
of Congressman MCINNIS' opinion. You've also made it quite obvious
your hatred and disdain for the Congressman & his opinionated
positions.... So as a Self Proclaimed Environmental Journalist, do you
agree with his OPINION this time when he CONCURS with Your Agenda or
when he states (in your words) Anti-Environmental sentiments???
I wonder, if you, Mr. Clarke, understand the difference between an
OPINION AND A FACT SIR??
Note Mr. Clarke, OPINION by Congressman MCINNIS.
>> I'll tell you what it is.
>> It is simply a lack of command down at the
>> field level. Those firemen ordered water. It
>> got to the dispatch center...
>>
>> COLMES: Right.
>>
>> MCINNIS: ... and it appears that's where it
>> locked up. That's where our problem is. The
>> endangered species, the Wilderness Act, the
>> Roadless Act, they all allow you to go in
>> and...
>>
>> COLMES: Right.
>>
>> MCINNIS: ... perform this kind of emergency.
>
>> Actually I recorded this edition and followed it when posting in order
>> to correctly note the time lines.
>Fair enough.
SO you capitulate MY ARGUMENT COMPLETTELY which is the below time
line, AS REPORTED ON FOXNEWS as having credibility:
5:30 am.... The firefighters called in for helicopter support.
10:00 am... Helicopters become available but are not yet permitted to
go fight the fire.
12:30 pm.... Dispatch refuses to allow water from the Chi-Walk (sp??)
due to ESA.
1:15 pm.... Due to desperation, firefighters request air tankers
suppot.
2:00 pm... Officials approve the helicopter are consulting
biologist....
3:00 pm... First helicopter water drop..
3:58 pm.... Fire explodes out of control sending debris 30,000 feet
into the air..
4:18 pm... Air tankers diverted
5:25 pm... Fire Fighter are declared DEAD....
How Humble of you Mr. Clarke!
>> If you FEEL it's unintelligible or anything else, blame Fox News and
>> their Washington Firefighting contacts.....
>
>I imagine it's my fault I didn't know what " Officials approve the
>helicopter are consulting biologist" means.
A little research on your part would have prevented you from jumping
to an erroneous opinion.....
>> However, since you assert otherwise, PLEASE CITE YOUR SOURCE!
>
>Reading comprehension problem again, I take it. I did cite my source:
>the Seattle Times article your fellow traveler Stan Rothwell cited.
>Seems you and he both have literacy problems.
No reading comprehension here Mr. Clarke. But careful consideration of
the circumstances and FACTS surrounding the deaths will lead one to
QUESTION whether or NOT the Endangered Species Act was at the heart of
the decision making process which lead to those 4 deaths.
Surely it is HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE whether or not officials were
concerned about VIOLATING ESA and were requesting PROTOCOL clearance
in order to utilize a nearby stream where fish were protected under
the ESA.
What you call a BUREAUCRATIC SNAFU, UNQUESTIONABLY resulted in 4 DEAD
BODIES.
So just perhaps, my questioning the ESA is reasonable and valid.....
>> Sorry you don't like the FACTS, but that's the way it went down
>> according to officials in Washington......
>You don't happen to know any of those officials's names, do you?
If you had watched the August 1, 2001 Hannity & Colmes edition, you
would have witnessed those OFFICIALS who have stated MY POINT
COMPLETELY..... You still could see the clip by following thi link I
sourced for you previously. It's available in video.
But being the OBJECTIVE JOURNLIST that you are (NOT), you've argued a
position which you've admittedly done little or no research into.
Whereas, I've merely reiterated timeline points sourced by FowNews,
and then I've asked THE logical questions....
>> >You haven't presented any evidence that supports your claims, nor have
>> >you countered the overwhelming evidence against them. Only someone with
>> >severely impaired reading comprehension could conclude otherwise.
Even in your past post, you depended on SMEAR & INNUENDO. But I baste
in comfort for having enlighted your knowledge base in some small
measure on the issue being discussed.
>> Now I have...... Do you have evidence to support your assertion or
>> were you just SPOUTING THE USUAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMIST LINE....
>The only evidence I've come into this discussion with is the evidence
>you and Rothwell brought into it.
WHOA, I'M IMPRESSED.... A BREATH OF HONEST REPORTING......
>> >I maintain that in callously using the tragic deaths of these
>> >firefighters to advance the extremist anti-environmental agenda you and
>> >Rothwell have consistently espoused on Usenet over the last few years,
>> >you do violence to their memory, and you each owe their families an
>> >apology.
>> This is the USUAL TRIPE of the ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMIST.... They
>> proclaim evil forces from Anti-Environmental movement are at
>> work...... This is similar to Hillary's proclamation that her & Bill's
>> whoas were all due to a Right Wing Conspiracy.....
>I didn't say there was a conspiracy.
From your post (2 paragraphs above), YOU PROMOTE, without providing
facts or evidence the ideology of some Grand AN ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL
AGENDA. But by who Mr. Clarke. Do provide names, cite quotes, sources
and evidence of this assertion, or do you rely on INNUENDO AND OBVIOUS
OPINION BEING A LOW BUDGET USENET ENVIRONMENTAL BIASED
JOURNALIST......
What you call ANTI-ENVIRONMENTALISM could also be touted as those who
are in QUEST OF PROOF and TRUTHFUL SCIENCE regarding ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES......
So in order for you to retain a morsel of credibility in your highly
profitable journalistic endeavors, FIRST show evidence of your use of
inflamatory consternations, OR EXPOSE YOUR ASSERTIONS FOR WHAT THEY
REALLY ARE; YOUR OPINIONS........
>I said in a previous message that I
>feel you are a reprehensible person.
Your OPINION is duly noted......
> I'm saying in this message that I
>think your intellect is sub-par and that you're advancing citations that
>actually undermine your argument.
Then you ARE EITHER UNABLE TO COMPREHEND MY ARGUMENT or prefer to Side
Steps my Points in preference of YOUR BIASED ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA.....
Additionally as a jounalist, your use of Ad Homineins in order to
debate an argument is clearly evident since the points you've made are
very feeble & weak in deed.....
>There is a network of groups that share your agenda, but I doubt they'd
>ever have anything to do with you other than to cash your check.
As there are groups which support your Environmental Agenda too....
BFD......
The rest of your tripe is nothing more than that of a whining low
budget journalist attempting to gain some credibility without the use
of FACTS or EVIDENCE.....
>> I encourage anyone who follows these threads to check out enviromental
>> issues completely and don't just buy the sound bites touted by these
>> WELL FINANCED Anti-American ENVIRO LIARS....
>For the record, Faultline Magazine is funded at the moment out of my own
>pocket, with proceeds from a 19K/year job.
Yes... this is quite evident....
>--
>Chris Clarke | Editor, Faultline Magazine
>www.faultline.org | California Environmental News and Information
Bantering on Usenet in cognito may be one thing; however, when one
signs off as a journalist, you attempts to add credence to your post.
Your prose though, sir, has zero, zip, NADA credibility in spite of
your Self Promoting Jounalistic Endeavors.....
And for the record regarding my POINTS, I will sum them up verly
quickly and concisely:
The timeline between these Firefighters requesting helicopter support
and receiving it was nealy 12 hours. At the core of the issue was
whether or NOT allowing the helicopter support into action was a
violation of the Endangered Species Act. This was reported on FoxNews.
Also, after period of time and many attempts to gain the necessary
clearance (this NOT SO LARGE fire got out of control). Finally
approving the use of helicopter support was a biologist who gave the
OK in using water from a river harboring an endangered fish.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS AS REPORTED ON FOXNEWS. I'M NOT SUPRISED THAT YOU
DON'T LIKE THEM MR. CLARKE or that YOU PREFER TO DISPUTE THEM because
of your obvious BIASES.....
In HIGHLIGHTING these INDISPUTABLE FACTS, I QUESTION the Validity of
the ESA. It surely appears (TO ME) the dispatch officials were quite
affraid of repurcussions from ENVIROMENTAL EXTREMIST GROUPS in
execution of their duties when dealing with such issues. SO much so,
this BUREAUCRATIC SNAFU as you conveniently dismiss it resulted in 4
DEAD BODIES......
4 DEAD BODIES UNNECESSARILY AT THAT.....
So when you label me as some part of a BIGGER GRANDER
Anti-Environmental movement Mr. Clarke, you could at least do so
utilizing debate without inflammatory Ad Hominem Attacks.
On the other hand, MAYBE YOU CANNOT Mr. Clarke???
Just another valid question to ponder, I suppose....
LN
Chris Clarke
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2001 03:10:16 GMT, Chris Clarke <ccl...@faultline.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Your inability to comprehend the material you advance as citations
> >astounds me.
>
> And this is your ARGUMENT??? Smear & innuendo....
On this one point, you're right. I apologize for the insulting tone. It
detracts from my argument.
But you've got a funny definition of the word "smear." You seem to think
that your calling anyone who supports the ESA an "extremist" or a
"socialist" or saying they have "blood on their hands" is permissible
political discourse, while my describing a Congressional Representative
who's opposed enforcement of the Enadangered Species Act as "anti-ESA"
is "smear."
> Below, I include a portion of the transcript you decidely left out.
> But regarding the single point you did make. Above the Congressman,
> WHOM YOU'VE SMEARED WITH INNUENDO, states an OPINION you happen to
> agree with. In the portion of the transcript I've pasted below, he
> opines in the opposite view.
>
> "HANNITY: Had they gotten that water, isn't it likely...
>
> MCINNIS: Well, clearly...
>
> HANNITY: ... they'd be alive today, Congressman?
>
> MCINNIS: Clearly, that was a contributing factor and could have been
> the major factor. The key here was not the endangered species, it was
> the failure for an order to take place to pick that water up ASAP,
> regardless of environmental concerns."
Explain exactly how this contradicts what I said.
> Notably in this instance, your argument depends on your concurrence
> of Congressman MCINNIS' opinion. You've also made it quite obvious
> your hatred and disdain for the Congressman & his opinionated
> positions....
Where'd you get "hatred and disdain"? McInnis has done a few wonderful
things for the environment, especially in the arena of land acquisition
for national parks. I disagree with his position on a number of things,
and I say so. I'd also be glad to have a beer with the guy.
> So as a Self Proclaimed Environmental Journalist,
I do so proclaim, but the fact is I've worked in the field for about a
decade. Whether or not I'm any good at it is another matter.
> do you
> agree with his OPINION this time when he CONCURS with Your Agenda or
> when he states (in your words) Anti-Environmental sentiments???
I don't get your point here. Are you saying that if you agree with
someone on one issue, you need to agree with him on everything else?
My point was that even someone who's ofetn on the other side of the
fence from me agrees on this issue.
> I wonder, if you, Mr. Clarke, understand the difference between an
> OPINION AND A FACT SIR??
Yes, and I understand that people who loudly claim possession of
all-caps FACTS are quite often less clear on that difference.
> But careful consideration of
> the circumstances and FACTS surrounding the deaths will lead one to
> QUESTION whether or NOT the Endangered Species Act was at the heart of
> the decision making process which lead to those 4 deaths.
A far more valid point to make would be that the dispatchers had an
exaggerated notion of ESA's power, and that activists who oppose the ESA
routinely exaggerate the reach of this piece of law, and so it's
> Surely it is HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE whether or not officials were
> concerned about VIOLATING ESA and were requesting PROTOCOL clearance
> in order to utilize a nearby stream where fish were protected under
> the ESA.
> What you call a BUREAUCRATIC SNAFU, UNQUESTIONABLY resulted in 4 DEAD
> BODIES.
> So just perhaps, my questioning the ESA is reasonable and valid.....
Questioning any piece of law is always reasonable and valid, in my
opinion. Intruding on the grief of people who've lost loved ones so as
to use those dead bodies to promote an agenda they may not have agreed
with is an atrocity. In my opinion.
> >> >I maintain that in callously using the tragic deaths of these
> >> >firefighters to advance the extremist anti-environmental agenda you and
> >> >Rothwell have consistently espoused on Usenet over the last few years,
> >> >you do violence to their memory, and you each owe their families an
> >> >apology.
>
> From your post (2 paragraphs above), YOU PROMOTE, without providing
> facts or evidence the ideology of some Grand AN ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL
> AGENDA. But by who Mr. Clarke. Do provide names, cite quotes, sources
> and evidence of this assertion, or do you rely on INNUENDO AND OBVIOUS
> OPINION BEING A LOW BUDGET USENET ENVIRONMENTAL BIASED
> JOURNALIST......
I never said "grand," either.
Here's a cite:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_uauthors=nee...@syix.com
here's one for the other person we're talking about:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_uauthors=roth...@ix.netcom.com
Is it really that much of an error to say that you both have a
well-documented track record of newsgroup posts expressing opposition to
environmental laws?
As Californians and (I presume) US Citizens, you each have the
Constitutional right to your opinions, and to expressing them in this
forum. As I have a right to state that I think your methods of
expressing those opinions show hideous disrespect to the families of the
firefighters.
> What you call ANTI-ENVIRONMENTALISM could also be touted as those who
> are in QUEST OF PROOF and TRUTHFUL SCIENCE regarding ENVIRONMENTAL
> ISSUES......
And if you look up the actual definition of "touted" in the dictionary,
you'll find that it is.
> So in order for you to retain a morsel of credibility in your highly
> profitable journalistic endeavors, FIRST show evidence of your use of
> inflamatory consternations, OR EXPOSE YOUR ASSERTIONS FOR WHAT THEY
> REALLY ARE; YOUR OPINIONS........
I think you mean something like "conjecture" or "accusations".
Or maybe not. From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: con·ster·na·tion
Pronunciation: "kän(t)-st&r-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Latin; French, from Latin consternation-,
consternatio, from consternare to throw into confusion, from com- +
-sternare, probably from sternere to spread, strike down -- more at STREW
Date: circa 1611
: amazement or dismay that hinders or throws into confusion <the two...
stared at each other in consternation, and neither knew what to do --
Pearl Buck>
> The timeline between these Firefighters requesting helicopter support
> and receiving it was nealy 12 hours. At the core of the issue was
> whether or NOT allowing the helicopter support into action was a
> violation of the Endangered Species Act. This was reported on FoxNews.
The law is very clear here. Using the water would not in any way have
been a violation of the ESA. Proper training of the dispatcher would
have prevented this tragedy.
> Also, after period of time and many attempts to gain the necessary
> clearance (this NOT SO LARGE fire got out of control). Finally
> approving the use of helicopter support was a biologist who gave the
> OK in using water from a river harboring an endangered fish.
Approval from this biologist was never needed. The dispatching agency
should have known this.
> So when you label me as some part of a BIGGER GRANDER
> Anti-Environmental movement Mr. Clarke, you could at least do so
> utilizing debate without inflammatory Ad Hominem Attacks.
In fact, if you reread what I said, you'll see I do not in fact think
you're part of any movement. In my opinion, your posts are persuasive
only to those who already agree with you. If I were sitting on the
fence, I'd be inclined to disregard what you say due to your tone, your
readiness to hit the caps lock key and your <opinion> sloppiness in
reading and reasoning. </opinion> It's much the same feeling I have
about Mike Vandeman's posts, andI agree with much (well, some anyway) of
what Mike says.
> On the other hand, MAYBE YOU CANNOT Mr. Clarke???
> Just another valid question to ponder, I suppose....
I will admit the temptaion is hard to resist. Can you discuss
environmental law without labeling people like Jym and myself
"extremists" or "socialists"?
Chris Clarke
Chris Clarke <ccl...@faultline.org> lamely followed up to his own post:
Whether or not I'm in command of facts or opinion, I seem to need some
practice in not hitting the delete key.
> > But careful consideration of
> > the circumstances and FACTS surrounding the deaths will lead one to
> > QUESTION whether or NOT the Endangered Species Act was at the heart of
> > the decision making process which lead to those 4 deaths.
>
> A far more valid point to make would be that the dispatchers had an
> exaggerated notion of ESA's power, and that activists who oppose the ESA
> routinely exaggerate the reach of this piece of law, and so it's
I accidentally deleted:
"[and so it's] anti-ESA activists' fault these people died.
But that would be a spurious argument, and would miss the point that
need to be made to prevent further tragedies: public lands managers need
thorough training in all facets of Federal law as it affects the
performance of their duties. A proper understanding of the ESA in the
dispatcher's office might have prevented this tragedy. (note "might
have." It might not have.)
nee...@syix.com
wrote:
>In article <3b6a9e9...@news.syix.com>, nee...@syix.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2001 03:10:16 GMT, Chris Clarke <ccl...@faultline.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Your inability to comprehend the material you advance as citations
>> >astounds me.
>>
>> And this is your ARGUMENT??? Smear & innuendo....
>
>On this one point, you're right. I apologize for the insulting tone. It
>detracts from my argument.
As I too can apologize for any insults, if any taken that way....
>But you've got a funny definition of the word "smear." You seem to think
>that your calling anyone who supports the ESA an "extremist" or a
>"socialist" or saying they have "blood on their hands" is permissible
>political discourse, while my describing a Congressional Representative
>who's opposed enforcement of the Enadangered Species Act as "anti-ESA"
>is "smear."
I can concede another point here: smear may be abit strong and
actually incorrect. But it is an eye catcher and sometimes the only
way for some to take notice.
However, you started off your first post in response to Stan Rothwell
(whom I'm sure can defend his own words himself). you started off with
the usual environmental rhetoric. Your inflammatory rhetoric was:
********************************************************************************
"It looks as if this avoidable tragedy was caused by insufficient
training of the dispatchers. To use the deaths of these heroic
firefighters as a bloody flag to advance your own fanatical
anti-environmental cause is something close to an atrocity.
I think you owe the families of these brave people an apology."
********************************************************************************
You've errored in that your premise totally dismisses any possible
validity to his argument, and you do so WITHOUT superior knowedge of
all the facts.....
As inflamatory as my tone was, I DID POSE MY ASSERTIONS AS QUESTIONS,
leading questions maybe but questions not absolutions which I could
not prove....
PORTIONS SNIPPED FOR BRIEVITY....
>> HANNITY: ... they'd be alive today, Congressman?
>>
>> MCINNIS: Clearly, that was a contributing factor and could have been
>> the major factor. The key here was not the endangered species, it was
>> the failure for an order to take place to pick that water up ASAP,
>> regardless of environmental concerns."
>
>Explain exactly how this contradicts what I said.
PULEASE........
>> Notably in this instance, your argument depends on your concurrence
>> of Congressman MCINNIS' opinion. You've also made it quite obvious
>> your hatred and disdain for the Congressman & his opinionated
>> positions....
>
>Where'd you get "hatred and disdain"? McInnis has done a few wonderful
>things for the environment, especially in the arena of land acquisition
>for national parks. I disagree with his position on a number of things,
>and I say so. I'd also be glad to have a beer with the guy.
Same place you get the ANT-ENVIRONMENTAL RHETORIC....
When you say something as ridiculas (or when I do for that fact), it
postulates an assumption which may or may not be true.
Without proof or evidence, such rhertoric paints the picture which
assumes the opponent is on the defense (whether true or not). Such
immature premise presumes the author is not required to debate his
points since his opponent is first put into a potentially defensive
position.
I think it would be much more ernest to argue your position without
rhetorical name calling; also without attempting to devalue ones point
by such ridiculas antics.
It is, however, compelling to argue your position by debating the
merits of the points made or the argument as you percieve the author
intends. Even spelling or grammitical flames are pointless unless you
are into them for stroking your own ego. I think if one can discern
the authors intent and wants to debate, it should be done so with
respect for the that person's point of view....
Insomuch, I'm no whipping post. So what comes around goes around Mr.
Clarke.
In the future if you want to argue a point, I can do so on the merits
of the debate without casting espersion upon someone's integrity just
because my ideology differs from theirs.....
It is my opinion, this very tactic is ubiquitous throughout the
environmental community..... They prefer to start off with name
calling, which assumes to elevate put them onto some fictious higher
plane....
>> So as a Self Proclaimed Environmental Journalist,
>
>I do so proclaim, but the fact is I've worked in the field for about a
>decade. Whether or not I'm any good at it is another matter.
>
>> do you
>> agree with his OPINION this time when he CONCURS with Your Agenda or
>> when he states (in your words) Anti-Environmental sentiments???
>
>I don't get your point here. Are you saying that if you agree with
>someone on one issue, you need to agree with him on everything else?
Which is my point too..... You may disagree with him sometimes, but to
label him ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL is ludicrious, not to mention a feeble
attempt to diminishes any of his points if you don't agree with some
of his point(s).
>My point was that even someone who's ofetn on the other side of the
>fence from me agrees on this issue.
No argument here.....
>
>> I wonder, if you, Mr. Clarke, understand the difference between an
>> OPINION AND A FACT SIR??
>
>Yes, and I understand that people who loudly claim possession of
>all-caps FACTS are quite often less clear on that difference.
I knew you know the difference. That's why there's no excuse for
stating opinion as fact, now is there????
You'll have to prove your assertion about the ALL CAPS theory though.
>> But careful consideration of
>> the circumstances and FACTS surrounding the deaths will lead one to
>> QUESTION whether or NOT the Endangered Species Act was at the heart of
>> the decision making process which lead to those 4 deaths.
>
>A far more valid point to make would be that the dispatchers had an
>exaggerated notion of ESA's power, and that activists who oppose the ESA
>routinely exaggerate the reach of this piece of law, and so it's
Actually the entire issue was on a follow up segments of Hannity &
Colmes on August 2 edition. Then FOX News Reporter William La Jeunesse
provided the following information:
He reported after having spoken with two fighter fighters that NO
WATER WAS EVER DROPPED..... Of course maybe that was from their
vantage point eh??
Then he reiterates the time line I previously noted.......
Mr. La Jeunesse also reported there was an amendment to the ESA in
1995 as applied to the Northwest forest which requires an OFFICIALLY
DECLARED EMERGENCY STATUS in order for an exemption to apply. Without
the emergency status an exemption to ESA cannot be given and therefore
approval by an official is required. Based on this, I'd say the
dispatchers followed ESA protocol as they CORRECTLY understood it.
This pretty much dismisses your asserted OPINION. It also bolsters my
point that ESA should be revised, as a minimum.....
Now will you cite Foxnews as misreporting this fact??? If you do so,
you should provide backup cite supporting any such assertion.....
>> Surely it is HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE whether or not officials were
>> concerned about VIOLATING ESA and were requesting PROTOCOL clearance
>> in order to utilize a nearby stream where fish were protected under
>> the ESA.
>> What you call a BUREAUCRATIC SNAFU, UNQUESTIONABLY resulted in 4 DEAD
>> BODIES.
>> So just perhaps, my questioning the ESA is reasonable and valid.....
>
>Questioning any piece of law is always reasonable and valid, in my
>opinion.
I agree...
>Intruding on the grief of people who've lost loved ones so as
>to use those dead bodies to promote an agenda they may not have agreed
>with is an atrocity. In my opinion.
BUT YOU DISMISS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE MAY BE MERIT IN THE
ARGUMENT. And now it appears there is validity to it.....
SINCE APPROVAL WAS NEEDED (as the amended ESA required), THEN ESA IS
OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY....
In that case it would be you who is INTRUDING ON THE GRIEF OF THE
FAMILY OF THE DEAD, now isn't it???
>> >> >I maintain that in callously using the tragic deaths of these
>> >> >firefighters to advance the extremist anti-environmental agenda you and
>> >> >Rothwell have consistently espoused on Usenet over the last few years,
>> >> >you do violence to their memory, and you each owe their families an
>> >> >apology.
>>
>> From your post (2 paragraphs above), YOU PROMOTE, without providing
>> facts or evidence the ideology of some Grand AN ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL
>> AGENDA. But by who Mr. Clarke. Do provide names, cite quotes, sources
>> and evidence of this assertion, or do you rely on INNUENDO AND OBVIOUS
>> OPINION BEING A LOW BUDGET USENET ENVIRONMENTAL BIASED
>> JOURNALIST......
>
>I never said "grand," either.
No I did....
>Here's a cite:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?as_uauthors=nee...@syix.com
>
>here's one for the other person we're talking about:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?as_uauthors=roth...@ix.netcom.com
>
>Is it really that much of an error to say that you both have a
>well-documented track record of newsgroup posts expressing opposition to
>environmental laws?
FOR ME, yes it is..... Typically I dish out just as ridiculas
assertions as those posulated by the environmental community...
I'll go back to my previous point. Which is, I believe it is encumbent
upon the person asserting a point to back it up with verifable
evidence.
For example, for those who attack GW BUSH on the Kyoto Accord, they
dismiss the FACT that Just About every other county (surely all the
similarly developed ones) have NOT also adopted Kyoto. If they want to
argue that Bush should, they should also say the same about France,
Germany and the rest too, don't you think?
They should also argue the global climate change issue by discussing
all the facts, not just those which they feel support their ideology.
Let me also remind you, if you did not know, of the hypocrisy the
Sierra Club exercised regarding the MTBE issue. They once supported it
without substantive facts to do so. Now look at the mess, we're in and
the club has egg all over them on this issue. They run when MTBE is
mentioned instead of fessing up to their mistake.....
There are other issues too where the club has compromised
themselves....
I truthfully don't know who or what to believe on the cliamte change
issue since it's been so political. In the 60s, it was the ice age
coming, then global warming. Now to cover their butts, enviros
proclaim claimate change. I SAY BULLSHIT. They've compromised their
intergity way too many times over.....
When the environmental community bases their positions on junk
science, it discredits them almost entirely....
>As Californians and (I presume) US Citizens, you each have the
>Constitutional right to your opinions, and to expressing them in this
>forum. As I have a right to state that I think your methods of
>expressing those opinions show hideous disrespect to the families of the
>firefighters.
>
>> What you call ANTI-ENVIRONMENTALISM could also be touted as those who
>> are in QUEST OF PROOF and TRUTHFUL SCIENCE regarding ENVIRONMENTAL
>> ISSUES......
English lessons snipped...
>> The timeline between these Firefighters requesting helicopter support
>> and receiving it was nealy 12 hours. At the core of the issue was
>> whether or NOT allowing the helicopter support into action was a
>> violation of the Endangered Species Act. This was reported on FoxNews.
>
>The law is very clear here. Using the water would not in any way have
>been a violation of the ESA. Proper training of the dispatcher would
>have prevented this tragedy.
See the updated report I noted above. ESA Protocol mandated the
dispatchers procure approval before the helicopter could utilize water
drops from the subject stream....
>
>> Also, after period of time and many attempts to gain the necessary
>> clearance (this NOT SO LARGE fire got out of control). Finally
>> approving the use of helicopter support was a biologist who gave the
>> OK in using water from a river harboring an endangered fish.
>
>Approval from this biologist was never needed. The dispatching agency
>should have known this.
NOT TRUE..... And this is what I'm referring to when YOU STATE A
POSITION WITHOUT KNOWING ALL THE FACTS. You are once again
compromising yourself....
>> So when you label me as some part of a BIGGER GRANDER
>> Anti-Environmental movement Mr. Clarke, you could at least do so
>> utilizing debate without inflammatory Ad Hominem Attacks.
>
>In fact, if you reread what I said, you'll see I do not in fact think
>you're part of any movement. In my opinion, your posts are persuasive
>only to those who already agree with you. If I were sitting on the
>fence, I'd be inclined to disregard what you say due to your tone, your
>readiness to hit the caps lock key and your <opinion> sloppiness in
>reading and reasoning. </opinion> It's much the same feeling I have
>about Mike Vandeman's posts, andI agree with much (well, some anyway) of
>what Mike says.
Tripe.... (Oh yeh- my opinion)
>> On the other hand, MAYBE YOU CANNOT Mr. Clarke???
>> Just another valid question to ponder, I suppose....
>
>I will admit the temptaion is hard to resist. Can you discuss
>environmental law without labeling people like Jym and myself
>"extremists" or "socialists"?
When you can do the same... Remember, starting an argument by calling
someone ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL is not debating an issue from a level
playing field.....
LN
Jym Dyer
> Van.
=v= This one word is so far the only response Stan Rothwell has
made to in support of his false and malicious allegations. I
wonder when he'll present this "research" he purports to have.
<_Jym_>
John S. Watson
>
> P.S.: Advance warning: my buddies and I are going camping this
> weekend. Better be prepared (bring earplugs if you don't like
> singing and howling). Or stay home and wax your SUV.
Don't warn us.
Warn the poor people that camp nearby, that you plan
on being inconsiderate neighbors.
At least then they'll have a chance of moving somemplace else.
Or maybe ask the campground host to put you in an campsite
far away from other campers,
so at least you'll be minimizing your disturbing them.
Maybe they'll have a special loop in the campground for
all the other noise polluters ... boom boxes, generators,
crying babies and loud intoxicated jerks ...
JW
Jeff Strickland
There are other issues that contributed to the deaths of these men and
women, stupidity being high on the list. It seems that they did not follow
proper protocol and procedures, and this contributed greatly to them being
killed. But it is also true that the water dropping air craft could not
collect water from a nearby lake or river for fear of violating the ESA.
"Jym Dyer" <j...@econet.org> wrote in message
news:Jym.wzg0b...@econet.org...
> =v= This is just anti-environmental spin in the media,
> nothing more.
> <_Jym_>
Jeff Strickland
utility right of ways, and the enviros have no right to harrass the
participants or spectators, but they do anyway.
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9kc64m$np3$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
Lneedham
into their location, trying to do their job then making the decision
to call for aerial support.
Maybe somewhere in the chain, procol was not followed, but blaming
their deaths on themselves is like blaming those who died in the WTC
on themselves too. IT'S UTTERLY RIDICULAS...
Also, as reported on Fox News back when this fire occurred, they
clearly pointed out that recent amendments to ESA in Washington
required Biologist's Approval for utilizing water from the stream and
Approval that the emegency was clearly declared.
The problem then was had they dropped the water when FIRST requested,
there may not have been an emegency, or 4 firefighter deaths.
When ESA adds bullshit red tape to situations like this, IT IS CLEARLY
OUT OF TOUCH WITH REAL WORLD NEEDS of both endangered spicies and
mankind alike....
LN
Tom Wilson
may be circumvented. Interior Secretary Gale Norton stated this clearly and
repeatedly on national TV to dispel the popular myth that the ESA caused
these deaths, or that they were denied life saving water out of fear of
violating the ESA. It was an accident, plain and simple; not the first
firefighter accident in the world, but apparently a convenient target for
anti-ESA lobbyists.
Interior Secretary Norton rejected the allegation that the ESA was to blame.
"Lneedham" <nee...@syix.com> wrote in message
news:3bc863e4...@news.syix.com...
Lneedham
who challege draconian ESA regs to task.
You obviously didn't see the Fox news reports when this tragendy
occurred. They spelled out CLEARLY that ALTHOUGH- true ESA could be
waived. But not until an AUTHORIZED BIOLOGIST had officially declared
the burn an emergency. By the time the red tape unfolded, SOME 12
HOURS AFTER the REQUEST FOR HELICOPTER SUPPORT, the burn was out of
control, the burn declared an emergency, helicopter support was on its
way & FOUR FIRE FIGHTERS WERE DEAD...
Spin it however you like, BUT THOSE ARE THE FACTS....
LN
BTW- I'm no lobbyist... ARE YOU???
Tom Wilson
you disagree, write her a stern letter scolding her "environmental
extremism."
"Lneedham" <nee...@syix.com> wrote in message
news:3bcf7b7d...@news.syix.com...
Lneedham
LN
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:15:51 -0700, "Tom Wilson"
Jym Dyer
> It should be noted that a significant portion of the B to V
> Race is run on utility right of ways, and the enviros have no
> right to harrass the participants or spectators, but they do
> anyway.
=v= Interesting, but totally irrelevant to the subject line and
to the discussion. The discussion was about a maliciously false
statement by Stan Rothwell claiming that I "resort to physical
assault" and hinting that I did so in connection with this race.
What is the point of quoting a maliciously false statement and
then chiming in with disapproval?
=v= Stan Rothwell, it should be noted, said he "just might" back
up his claim. Then he fled these newsgroups and hid, not having
the courage to admit that he was lying or even just mistaken.
<_Jym_>
Tom Wilson
Sec. Norton went on record to refute what they said. A biologist is not
required to determine whether lives are at risk.
"Lneedham" <nee...@syix.com> wrote in message
news:3bd0cda...@news.syix.com...
Jeff Strickland
is an offroad motorcycle race, for the readers that don't know about it, and
B to V means Barstow to Vegas) is run on utility rights of way. It is also
common knowledge that the enviros are deadset against this sporting event (I
am not taking a position on the appropriatness of the designation as a
sport.), and they make a concerted effort to disrupt the race every year
that it takes place.
If this is true, and I know it to be true, then it is germain to the
discussion about the treatment of spectators and contestants alike that the
event takes place primarily on utility rights of way. I don' tknow that you
do or do not harrass the spectators or participants, but I wonder why you
might feel that harrassment is justified when the event is taking place on a
right of way.
I did not quote anything, I simply hit the Reply button and posted a
comment. My comment was neither a comdemnation of your alleged activity nor
an attempt to align myself with Stan. I don't know one way or the other that
you harrass B to V specators or participants, but I do know that most, if
not all, of the race is run with permission of the property owners. The
environmentalist community has no right to interfere.
"Jym Dyer" <j...@econet.org> wrote in message
news:Jym.wzhes...@econet.org...
Lneedham
<tom.w...@medcenter.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Replace the word "facts" with "what I saw on Fox News" and you're right.
Correct.... Obviously you didn't see the report though.
>Sec. Norton went on record to refute what they said. A biologist is not
>required to determine whether lives are at risk.
Since you didn't see the report, you couldn't have seen the local
officials who were involved.
OTOH, Norton, a figure-head public relations spokesperson, wasn't
there and doesn't know first hand how the operation went down as those
who were interviewed in the Fox report did, now does she???
LN
Jeff Strickland
fire officials havd stated on at least one occasion that the dead
firefighters did not follow proper protocol. Add to that, the fact that they
were exhausted and undertrained, the recipe for disaster was set in place.
So, the individual firefighters did make mistakes, but they are hardly to
blame for their deaths. I blame the environmental activist community.
If they (the firefighters) could have scooped water from the river, then it
is likely that the emergency would have been averted, but it was
environmental rules that prevented this action. Then the untrained, or at
best inexperienced, firefighters that had been operating for many more hours
than they should have, are out in very rough terrain with no air-support,
and the results are death. The water drops could have avoided the emergency,
but since they were withheld, then the water drops could have helped the
firefighters, but they were withheld then too, so the water drops did
nothing. Indeed the water drops did not exist. We should all be thirlled
that we might have saved a few fish. Yea.
I, for one, am not thrilled in the least. It is one thing to protect fish,
or any habitat for that matter, from the impact of development. But to
protect one habitat at the expense of another is an ill defined mission. Who
decides which habitats get saved and which are expendable. Who plays God? If
we have to pull some water from a river to save a forest, then lets do it.
The river will be refilled when it rains again, and in Oregon that happens
to the tune of about 40+ inches per year, so recapturing the water is a
mangement issue, but re-growing the forest can take decades, even in the
best of conditions. Now, we add the loss of life, or weigh the loss of human
life against the loss of fish life, and the decision becomes clear. Go get
some water and drop it over there ...
"Lneedham" <nee...@syix.com> wrote in message
news:3bc863e4...@news.syix.com...
Jeff Strickland
am ascribing blame for these deaths to the victims themselves. I did not
mean for my comments to look like that.
Thhere are things that the firefighters could have done differently that
might have made the situation turn out better, but if they had air support
from water dropping aircraft, then the things that they did would not have
become a factor. I was not there, so I can not address the appropriateness
of the actions taken by the firefighters, but the accounts of the events
that day seem to point to them not taking cover in the best available
location. That said, if they had the air support that was denied by the ESA,
they would probably be alive today.
"Lneedham" <nee...@syix.com> wrote in message
news:3bc863e4...@news.syix.com...
Jeff Strickland
that was determined, the lives were already taken.
"Tom Wilson" <tom.w...@medcenter.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:9r28vv$222$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
Jeff Strickland
speaks. A "public relations figurehead" would not be very effective if he or
she didn't have the facts before attempting to publicly relate.
I suspect our environmentalist friends are misquoting, but that is only a
suspicion. It is alos possibe that the ESA is so poorly written that nobody
could possibly know what it says.
"Lneedham" <nee...@syix.com> wrote in message
news:3bde1bbb...@news.syix.com...
Doug Anderson
"Tom Wilson" <tom.w...@medcenter.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:9ql2gj$ci0$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...