Jim

OK. I had to jump back in to respond to Muffy. Without sounding too much like a wonk here, let me explain this. It often comes up on contentious issues that once science guy says this, another says that. In complicated issues, that can be true, but most often it isn’t so, that argument is pulled up for political reasons. Science is an iterative process. If some research publishes his idea in a peer-reviewed journal (not Audubon or American Lumberman) then other folks can further study the issues and report their findings. The problem when politicians or other with an ax to grind is that they will pick and choose what they want to present to bolster their argument. While public policy needs vigorous debate and can be heated, good science is not slanted. It’s just science, which is hypothesis, experiment, analysis, and conclusion. Throwing the environmentalist label around is a way of discrediting an argument. If you have some facts to back up an opinion share those. If not, it’s arm-waving.

Muff, You beat my post. I leave it on this point. If basing conclusions on facts and not political arm-waving is an environmentalist then I'm a card carrying member. Later. Have a good weekend.

Whatever. Have a beer and unwind a little.

While your entitled to your opinion I think of myself as an ecologist, which is my job. If the science doesn't add up I don't support it. But I base my conclusions on fact, not knee jerk reactions. If you agree with the facts in this case, what's the problem? Without a specific issue using the branding iron of environmentalist or developer type is posioning the well logic and serves no purpose.

Well, I think I'm there dude. Last two weeks ago I hammered out a grazing agreement on BLM and Reclamation land outside Bend that pulls the cattle out of wetlands and stream corridors and institutes improved rotations and monitoring. Cattle guys happy, bio folks happy (most anyway). The missing link in many of the logging, grazing, etc. issues on public land is costs, both economic and to public (your) resources. While benefits are often reaped by a few (logging mills, etc) the costs are distributed to the public via destruction of habitat, streams, places to hike, etc. Everyone should look at these issues with a critical eye. Saying that timber harvest for local communities is a valid point, but if that what you mean, don't present it in a way to distort the facts.

I think that's an oversimplification. I would say that I prefer a critical look at resource use to make sure whatever policy is being pushed is up to snuff. Meaning that it is scienticically based, the costs and benefits are not concentrated to a limited user group, and that there is adequate public input. Facts and openess go a long way in establishing integrity.

Yes, the infamous "salvage rider" was not a good thing either. It bugs me when natural resource policy is so political. And when groups hide their real intent. If you want to cut more timber to satisfy local timber jobs then just say so. Don't try and throw a cloak of unscientific "fire control" over the issue. It's a public relation ploy. I think Robbob was asking about who the scientists were in the NYT article. I think the posted section mentions two Forest Service guys, who are funded by you, the taxpayer, and another out of UC Berkley, most likely a NSF grant. The Fire Research Center in Missoula is ahead of the curve on this issue, I was suprised to see them quoted in the article and not yet muffled by the Administration.

Here's an exerpt of an NY Times article in August 2002. Though thinning is not a bad idea in limited circumstances, it's safe to say that with Bush's track record, and the timberheads he's put in charge of the Forest Circus and Interior, that this is a ploy for bigger and better ideas. Even as President Bush urges increased thinning of national forests, some scientists caution that there is little evidence to show that thinning will prevent fires at the catastrophic scales seen in the West this summer. Moreover, some scientists say they believe that "one size fits all" thinning, performed without adjusting for differences in soil and vegetation, could damage ecosystems and actually make forests more vulnerable to fire. Last week, at the site of the worst fire in Oregon, Mr. Bush announced that he would ask Congress to streamline rules to expedite thinning projects. The Forest Service has spent more than $400 million in the last two years to reduce fuel loads in the forests. To drive home the benefits of the agency's programs, Mr. Bush pointed to two areas along a road, one unthinned and devastated and the otherthinned and relatively unharmed. But scientists point out that other factors, like shifting winds or different kinds of fuel, may have influenced the outcomes. Although a few studies have shown that thinning reduces fire intensity on asmall scale, no controlled studies have been conducted on whether large-scale thinning works or how best to carry it out. "A forest scale is so big, you don't just thin and then you're done,"said Dr. Don Erman, an emeritus professor of ecology at theUniversity of California at Davis and the leader of a 1996 federalstudy, the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, that extensively examinedthe role of fire. When thinning a forest, Dr. Erman said, "you are creating new growthof all kinds, and you create a situation that encourages fires." Judging from that research, he said, thinning may need to be repeatedas often as every two years to be effective. That grace period couldbe extended with prescribed burns." It's a treadmill you have to be on all the time," he said. "And realistically, that can't be done. Agencies can't carry it on in perpetuity." Jerry Williams, director of fire and aviation for the Forest Service,said the agency's plans did not end with thinning. "The key torestoration is the reintroduction of low-intensity fires," he said. "To get there you have to take some of the heat out of the woods. Noone is talking about thinning and walking away." But cost could get in the way of proper thinning. A recent Forest Service study put the cost of thinning 1.6 million acres of forest in the Klamath Mountain region of southwestern Oregon at $2.7 billion, an average of more than $1,685 an acre. Other research calls into question a main justification for thinning: protecting the housing that has proliferated around the edges of federal forests. The Fire Sciences Laboratory in Missoula, Mont., the premier laboratory to study fire behavior, recently found that the only thinning needed to protect houses ^× even in the most tinder-dry forest ^× was within a "red zone" of 150 to 200 feet around the building. "Regardless of how intense the fire is, the principal determinant isbased on the home and exterior characteristics," said Jack D. Cohen, a research scientist with the fire laboratory, which is part of the Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Research Station. Mr. Cohen has studied houses burned in Los Alamos, N.M., the Bitterroot and other large blazes.

Actually, I don’t mind paying some fee. Snow parks have to be plowed; summer trails are maintained, etc. It’s just that it seems to be filtering down to a lower layer such as state lands that local folks use, who might not have the bucks to shell out. And there’s the priority question. The feds don’t mind shoveling funds into land management agencies for natural resource extraction for instance. A good example is the Powder Basin in Wyoming where funding for the local BLM has substantially increased to cover the work needed for permitting natural gas extraction. It’s public land that should be funded from the general tax funds. It there are some narrow user groups, snowshoers, climbers, skiers, that need to pony up some access funds, I have no problem with that. But to have to fork out money just to access trails or picnic for the day in the national forests seems a stretch.

I’d have to agree with previous posters that, for the state at least, the chickens are coming home to roost. Seems like for the past 10 years under the initiative process the trend has been to reduce taxes. There’s been some big holes blown through the budget in the past couple years. Much of the budget is allocated towards non-discretionary spending, so when the budget ax falls parks and open space get hit hard. But we do have two nice publicly financed stadiums downtown. On the federal end, things have changed. While it’s true that timber sales are way down, most of Federal timber sales lost money when you figure the funds spent on designing roads, building roads, marking the sale, working up the environmental documents. The difference was that even thought he sales were losing money, the feds were willing to fund the Forest Circus as long as the logs were rolling out. Now that production is down it’s a lower priority. Again its priorities - we are funding that wonderful missile defense system.

There is a memorial service set for Friday, I don't know where yet. Unfortunately his fiancee may not return in time from China. I recently met Don at a slide show of a trip in Peru of mutual friends. Seemed like a great guy, very friendly. Things can go wrong out there, even with the best training. I'd encourage those without avalanche training to get it. Those that have, use it. Don't be shy about digging a snow pit. I always do it if I'm in doubt, and at least once a trip to learn more about the snowpack. Ski safely.

Outta here now! Off to Bend for a couple days of work - and get in a couple of pitches at Smith. Then to Montana to tele-ski and search for ice. Belieze in February, JTree in March.

And shovels of cash to some some well-heeled industries. Why do folks yelp so much when money is wasted on the low end of the scale (health and human services) but not when billions are involved for the military? I'm for a strong military to protect us, but this is one big boondoggle.

Just for the record, I ain't no gv'ment employee.

FG - Now don’t go ruining an unsubstantiated tirade with facts

Let me slow down for you. I was addressing two seperate issuse the first was agriculture vs residential water use in the US, which agriculture uses the greater amount by far for much lest cost and greater environmental damage. The second was an example of historic use of depletion of aquifers by agriculture. While you are correct that residential and commercial growth, especially in places in the SW, have recently increased the drain, throughout the US the primary problem is agriculture.

Greg, Well, the states rights thing has some merit, and in some cases it has actually worked out ok. But those cases are where the Feds keep the fire to the feet of the states regarding some standards. The problem with this particular rule is that, IMO, it allows too much flexibility by tweaking the standard itself. I think a good compromise would be to keep the standard rigid -with good oversight, and allow the states to meet those standards. What is likely to happen in this case is that cattle producing states will side with the big money cattle guys and water quality will suffer. Gotta go.

For those who want to wade in, here's the new rule: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafofinalrule.cfm The problem in assessing how this will work is that if you never worked with the the old rule you will not be able to figure out what this means. Or if you don't know how 401 CWA water quality certification, or NPDES permits related to agriculture work, it just sounds like a bunch of government mismash. RobBob - my point was that you're totally missing the point. The main issues affecting this rule have nothing to do with hog operations and are more applicable to other livestock operations. Hog farms have their problems but the one benefit they have is that they are most often contained in buildings - for a bunch of reasons. One interesting one is that pigs like to poop where they have an outside view - so waste collection systems can be developed in regular places in the pens by providing a view point for the hogs (honest!). The primary issue with this new rule is how some states will take the flexibility and run with it regarding other livestock, such as cattle. Some states may not change much. But you can bet your boots that Texas, Iowa, Kansas, among others will loosen the apply the regulations in a looser manner. The problem is that Clean Water Act implementation (of some sections) is given over to the state authority, such as Dept. of Ecology in WA. But there are Federal standards to uphold. For the sake of "flexibility" the Bush administration is allowing "flexibility" in the way the states apply the standard, or don't apply the standards. It's more often a surface water problem than a ground water problem. Agricultural chemicals is a real ground water threat that has nothing to do with this rule. One other side note - while RobBob comment on the increasing use of residential water is true, it's a half truth. Agricultural water still uses 50 times the residential use. Take a look a the subsidized water used in CA in the Central Valley and the SanJouquin. And out in Nebraska, Kansas, northern Texas - pumping of geologic ground water (doesn't get replinished by rain) by farms has reduced the water table by over 100 ft and at this rate they will run out in another 50 years. No very sustainable.

So now that everyone's resume is on file, I'll still go on my post. RobBob's post shows a lack of experience in the issue he's trying to make a strong point about. I apologize for the crack about the 5.4 thing. Everything else was a real assessment of fact. And I'll agree with that Greg guy if he doesn't try and send me an electronic NRA membership form.

BS Natural Resource Mgmt, MS Wildlife Ecology. 22 Years experience in natural resource mgmt, wildlife ecology, wetlands, riparian ecology, water quality permiting issues, field assessments. About 35 papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, 30 papers given at natural resource conferences, and a lot of time spent mucking around in the field. And yea, I don't mind an honest difference of opinion if the facts are put forth. What gets my dander up is slanting of the basic facts, to the right or left, to pad an argument. Cheers.

RobBob, Just from field experience and experience with implementing 401 Water Quality Permits, NPDES Permits, water quality sampling, riparian vegetation assessments, etc. etc, regarding agricultural discharge into surface waters in about 7 different states. What I'm talking about is acutually reading the Admistrative Rule that you're talking about. You may be a smart guy and may be able digest all the information. My main point is that your post shows that you don't know the issues and have not read the Administrative Rule that your spouting off about (hate ending sentences in prepositions).

Your right Trask. Sorry about the tag line. It's is very frustrating to see either uninformed opinions, or blatant lies put forth as first hand knowledge. Well, just human nature and the internet coming together I guess.

RobBob, Sorry dude but you obviously have no real connection to these issues or you wouldn't be spouting off such hogwash (heh-heh). Have you even read the Administrative Rule that you're talking about? Do you have any concept how CWA 401 rules are inacted regarding agriculture? From your posts, I doubt it. There's often a few curve balls tossed out like this with no grain in truth by armchair critics with no real-world experience in the issues. While in some cases residential water users are putting greater demands on ground water it is the historical, inefficient use of agriculture water that has depleted large aquifers such as the Olgala. I'd suggest you stick to asking questions about how to boldly lead your next 5.4.

It's me, me, me, me first. I think the quote I saw was "We are becoming an increasingly cruel, greedy, and selfish society."

Now Greg - you're crying about gettin' govmnt off our backs, yet you're getting quite the handout if you're writing off business expenses. There's one fat subsidy. Able to write off expenses such as luch, travel, etc? Why not just let the market decide who's most efficient and lob off all these write-offs?