PDA

View Full Version : 2007 GAO Report on Forest Thinning is Out!



S0Noma
12-28-2007, 10:37 PM
Guess what the GAO thinks is the real problem the forestry service faces with 'thinning the forests'? If you guessed environmental lawsuits - you guessed WRONG! Seems that the principal issue is inefficient allocation of funding and lack of focus. I especially liked the part about Southern California (hey Smokey the Dumb! Read it and weep!)

Meaning that while the forestry apparently has lots of money to spend 'husbanding the forests to help prevent or reduce fires' they are struggling to decide how to prioritize which forests need it and what part of which forests need it. Meanwhile, some places get neglected, but hey, that's just how it is.

<font color="green">Why GAO Did This Study

Accountability Integrity Reliability September 2007

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
Better Information and a Systematic Process Could Improve Agencies’ Approach to Allocating Fuel Reduction Funds and Selecting Projects

Recognizing that millions of acres are at risk from wildland fire, the federal government expends substantial resources on thinning brush, trees, and other potentially hazardous fuels to reduce the fire risk to communities and the environment. However, questions have been raised about how the agencies responsible for wildland fire management—the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and the department of the Interior’s (Interior) Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS)—allocate their fuel reduction budgets and select
projects. GAO was asked to report on the agencies’ processes for allocating funds and selecting projects, and on how, if at all, these processes could be improved to better ensure that they contribute to the agencies’ overall goal of reducing risk. </font color>

<font color="blue">Although the agencies recognize the importance of measuring the effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments—that is, how much risk reduction is achieved through a given treatment and for how long—none of the agencies considered effectiveness when allocating funds in 2007 because they have not yet developed a method for measuring it.

Without understanding the potential effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments, the agencies cannot ensure that funds are allocated appropriately, because not all areas that rank high in a risk assessment can be treated with the same degree of success.

For example, parts of southern California are dominated by chaparral ecosystems, which feature plants with fire-resistant roots, enabling the plants to re-sprout quickly. Some of the plants also encourage fire because their leaves are coated with a flammable resin.</font color>

<font color="red">Although these areas of chaparral ecosystems would score high on a risk assessment—because there is a high vegetation hazard near populated areas with considerable values at risk—agency officials told us that fuel reduction treatments in chaparral may be effective for only a short time because the vegetation often grows back quickly.

In addition, many of the damaging fires in southern California chaparral have been fanned by the warm, dry, and extremely powerful Santa Ana winds, making it difficult for fuel treatments to affect fire severity, according to some Forest Service officials.

As a result, some of these areas, though at high risk from fire, might not be designated as high priority for fuel treatments.</font color>

<font color="blue">In general,understanding the expected effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments under different conditions can help the agencies target their funds toward treatments that will achieve the most risk reduction for a given cost.
</font color>

Sept 2007 GAO REPORT: WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071168.pdf) <font color="red"> </font color>

Unlike the GAO, in his infinite wisdom El Dumb blamed 'neo-leftist insanity' for the SoCal fires:

http://i23.tinypic.com/2z4db4h.jpg

<font color="blue"> Apparently, it was logic that left LWW's tent around 1966 - but we already knew that, right? </font color>

S0Noma
12-29-2007, 10:15 AM
Bumpski! Still waiting on you El Dumb.

Tells us what Smokey the Wingnut has to say about forest husbandry and enviro-lawsuits, now?

LWW
12-29-2007, 11:06 AM
Dude?

Did you even read that shiite you posted?

It's nothing but a confirmation that the US Forestry Service is as mismanaged financially as most gubmint agencies are.

Now, this agency is particularly afflicted because it must:

A-Defend itself in court against moonbat litigation of why they don't protect the forest.

B-Defend itself against moonbat litigation when it is protecting the forest.

C-Defend itself against moonbat litigation over why it listened to the moonbats and let the forest burn.

LWW

LWW
12-29-2007, 11:23 AM
Now now now SODumba, within mere seconds I can retrieve hard data from actual science ... versus moonbat gubmint officials who lament they don't have enough money to spend even though in this case, and many others, they don't even know what they did or need to spend it on ... to disprove your little rant . Behold SODumba, the cold harsh light of TRUTH! : (http://www.eri.nau.edu/joomla/content/view/126/152/lang,en/)

[ QUOTE ]
One of the goals of restoration in southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems is to reduce the risk of unnaturally severe wildfires. Many factors influence fire behavior – including drought, topography, insect infestation, and weather – but fuels are the only factor that people can realistically manage ... Today most of these same forests are much denser (Covington et al. 1997) and the majority of fires, whether ignited by people or lightning, are suppressed to protect natural resources, human communities, and structures. The result has been an accumulation of fuels that greatly increases the likelihood of wildfires of unprecedented severity...Treatments that combine thinning with prescribed fire and that focus attention on a wide range of post-treatment conditions (including herbaceous vegetation, wildlife habitat, watershed benefits, and recreation) do the best job of reducing fire danger and improving forest health in the long term (Covington et al. 2001; Omi and Martinson 2004). Restoration treatments that focus on healthy forest structure allow low-severity fire to easily and inexpensively shape forest conditions in the future – and this, in turn, reduces the need for future maintenance thinning.<hr /></blockquote>


http://www.brutallyhonest.org/photos/pictures_worth_a_1000_wor/gorered.jpg

SODumba finally learns the two main threats to the
US forest and ecology:

1-Saint Albert of Green Acres.
2-Moonbats that listen to him.

LWW

PS: El Dubb Dubb gives a shout out to my man LAMas for the KDR.

S0Noma
12-29-2007, 12:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> Dude?

Did you even read that shiite you posted?

It's nothing but a confirmation that the US Forestry Service is as mismanaged financially as most gubmint agencies are.

Now, this agency is particularly afflicted because it must:

A-Defend itself in court against moonbat litigation of why they don't protect the forest.

B-Defend itself against moonbat litigation when it is protecting the forest.

C-Defend itself against moonbat litigation over why it listened to the moonbats and let the forest burn.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Funny how the GAO Report never mentions the enviro litigation issue? Perhaps because there IS NO ISSUE?

Except in your little right wing propaganda filled pin head of course - it exists there alright - no two ways about it.

S0Noma
12-29-2007, 12:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> Now now now SODumba, within mere seconds I can retrieve hard data from actual science ... versus moonbat gubmint officials who lament they don't have enough money to spend even though in this case, and many others, they don't even know what they did or need to spend it on ... to disprove your little rant . Behold SODumba, the cold harsh light of TRUTH! : (http://www.eri.nau.edu/joomla/content/view/126/152/lang,en/)

<hr /></blockquote>

That's hilarious - AS IF this argument has EVER been about whether the forests need thinning or not.

Try to keep up, otherwise I'm going to have to face the fact that I'm talking to a complete idiot instead of a half-wit.

You originally argued that so-called eco-nuts and their lawsuits were preventing the Forestry Service from thinning the forests - thus, without this critical thinning, massive fires were occurring that could have been prevented or more readily contained. (and by the way the rules of argumentation say that once you've lost a debate it's NOT OK to go back and pretend you were in fact arguing something entirely other - no matter how many links LAMeASS provides you.)

You used the fires in Tahoe as an example of 'where it akk started in California this year' (although you couldn't and still haven't provided an iota of proof that there were any such enviro-lawsuits. Seems to me that's a missing link in your argument but, hey I'm particular that way. When a blowhard like you makes a claim I'd kind of like to see him back it up or STFU. You've done neither - which means that you are unethical as well as stupid. After your moronic efforts to blame the fires in Tahoe on your pet whipping boy 'environmental lawsuits) you then followed with blaming the massive damage of the SoCal fires for the same reason.

Now we know that lawsuits had nothing to do with impeding proper forest husbandry in either area and you were simply trying to use horrendously tragic events to further your selfish political agenda.

Typical of right-wing propagandists.

Just as typically, you are now acting as if you never said any such thing.

&amp; you wonder why we all think you're full of $hit and not worth listening to?

You reap what you sow -

Hope this helps.

BTW: Your little help group is going to have to work a whole lot harder if they're going to help you salvage this one. Right now I'm betting that they can't. That last link you referenced says NOTHING about environmental lawsuits and their alleged impediment to proper forest husbandry - or didn't you notice?

LWW
12-29-2007, 01:04 PM
That's because they live in the same intellectual CandyLand as you grasshopper, where it is imagined that the time, money, and delay in all of this has no impact whatsoever in spite of overwhelming evidence.

I used to wonder where you moonbats came up with this stuff. Well, I called a buddy at Homeland Security and had an illegal wiretap on your phone. All we picked up was some high pitched shrieking measurable only by machine as it was beyond the range of human hearing.

Next they used an illegal search warrant and found the following flyer from a correspondence course it seems you have taken:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/BaghdadBobSCHOOL.jpg

LWW

S0Noma
12-29-2007, 01:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> That's because they live in the same intellectual CandyLand as you grasshopper, where it is imagined that the time, money, and delay in all of this has no impact whatsoever in spite of overwhelming evidence.


LWW

<hr /></blockquote>

Sorry, digression and personal attack won't change the fact that you were dead wrong in your assertions.

Here ya go buddy, explain your way out of this?

http://i5.tinypic.com/87l3y4x.jpg

LWW
12-29-2007, 01:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> Now now now SODumba, within mere seconds I can retrieve hard data from actual science ... versus moonbat gubmint officials who lament they don't have enough money to spend even though in this case, and many others, they don't even know what they did or need to spend it on ... to disprove your little rant . Behold SODumba, the cold harsh light of TRUTH! : (http://www.eri.nau.edu/joomla/content/view/126/152/lang,en/)

<hr /></blockquote>

That's hilarious - AS IF this argument has EVER been about whether the forests need thinning or not. <hr /></blockquote>

"Gitcha cameras ready, here it comes, don't miss it!"

HEY MOONBAT BOY! (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=npr&amp;Number=261794&amp;Forum=np r&amp;Words=wildfire&amp;Match=Entire%20Phrase&amp;Searchpage= 0&amp;Limit=25&amp;Old=3months&amp;Main=261424&amp;Search=true#Pos t261794)

That's what it's always been about.

http://www.monroegallery.com/showcase/images/ali_knockout.jpg


Howard Cossell repeatedly shrieked at the top of his voice...

"DOWN GOES SODUMBA!"
"DOWN GOES SODUMBA!"
"DOWN GOES SODUMBA!"

as the crowd rose in unison cheering El Dubb Dubb on as
he finally knocks some sense into SODumba!

LWW

S0Noma
12-29-2007, 01:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr>
as the crowd rose in unison cheering El Dubb Dubb on as
he finally knocks some sense into SODumba![/b]

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Are you referring to this idiotic post blaming the fires on tree huggers? This is your best shot?

While the 2007 GAO Report puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the Forestry Service?

http://i4.tinypic.com/8awojt5.jpg

Oh dear me - you're more delusional than I thought. Never mind...

You're excused.

LWW
12-29-2007, 02:08 PM
No, I'm referring to the very original post which you disputed entirely, and I believe was GAO also, and now ... as only a moonbat can do ... after being thumped brutally into a state resembling that of a gnat's gonads after being stomped on for several hours by a mastodon who was carrying his brother on his back, you use all your moonbat brain (So far unobservable even to an electron microscope.) and the best you can come up with is that you were taking my side and I was taking the moonbat side all along.

Please, this is the pit of pathetic.

Someone call a ref to stop the fight. Get a medic. Call 9-1-1.

Oh, the humanity!

http://macteens.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10104/zombie.jpg

The brainless corpse of SODumba lurches blindly off in search of a
clue as to WTF he was ever talking about, or at least a new moonbat
cause to champion!

LWW

S0Noma
12-29-2007, 02:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> No, I'm referring to the very original post which you disputed entirely, and I believe was GAO also, and now ... blah, blah, blah...


LWW <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Oh dear, I remember now - you're referring to this post:

http://i16.tinypic.com/712ky6c.jpg

<font color="blue">Where you falsely claim to be citing the 2003 GAO Report but were actually not?

That link? I wouldn't be so proud of it if I were you. First off because it's not the GAO REPORT as you attempted to pretend to give it more authority - but because it's stats are totally skewed and it has NO authority at all.

The 59% number the Heartland Morons refer to is actually 59% of 'less than half of all thinning projects' OR a mere 24%. BIG DIFFERENCE FROM implying that over half of all thinning projects were litigated. But you knew that, right?

LWW's 'GAO Report' - Actually right-wing website with skewed GAO data (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12401) ?

Please, don't tell us this skewed drivel from the Right wing Heartland Institute (NOT THE GAO REPORT as you wished to pretend.) constitutes the sum total of your bogus argument?

Uh huh, you win alright - the NPR's 2007 DUMBEST POSTER OF THE YEAR AWARD! </font color>

wolfdancer
12-29-2007, 02:50 PM
If there is anything thinning out....it's the brain cells from El Loco.

S0Noma
12-29-2007, 03:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> If there is anything thinning out....it's the brain cells from El Loco. <hr /></blockquote>

I'm not so sure it's really about 'thinning' I'm beginning to think they were never there in the first place.

Here's a summary of my original assessment of El Dumb's 'GAO REPORT' (The Heartland Institute)

<font color="blue">I decided to look at that article a little closer. If you have a minute, read the paragraph with the catchy lead in 59 Percent Appealed and do it slowly enough where you can catch the segue from facts to fiction. It happens in a blink of an eye (way too fast for our pea brained friend Mr. LWWscumbag to catch - but then, dang, he's not interested in facts so why would he care?).

Here's the quote from the article with my comments inserted and highlighted in blue.

<font color="green">59 Percent Appealed</font color>

<font color="blue">(59 Percent of what? Aye there's the rub!)

According to the stats from the ACTUAL 2003 GAO REPORT:

The GAO examined 762 U.S. Forest Service (USFS) proposals to thin forests and prevent fires during the past two years. According to the study, slightly more than half the proposals were not subject to third-party appeal.

<font color="blue">There it is over fifty percent of the entire number of thinning proposals were NOT subject to appeal by anyone, any time - including 'evil environmentalists. What that means (LWW I know you're reading this so I'm trying to use small words and type slow - hoping that you can follow.) is that over half of all existing Federal forestry thinning proposals at that time had gone forward with no legal opposition whatsoever. Because they were legally exempt from appeal.

Of those proposals subject to appeal, third parties challenged 59 percent.

Okay, again for our retarded friend, LWWdummy - if you have a total number of proposals and you subtract more than half of them? How many proposals do you have left?

Answer: Less than half.

Of the Less than half part, a little more than half (59%) got appealed. What is a little more than half of Less than half?

Answer: Approximately 24% of the total number thinning projects were impacted by litigation.

So, maybe a quarter of all Federal forestry thinning projects got appealed by third parties (Sierra Club Etc.) and of those we have no way of knowing how many were 'frivolous appeals' and how many actually had merit (were heard and approved) or how much actual acreage was involved.)

This conservative websites critique of the GAO report does offer us one more skewed but tantalizing stat:

<font color="green">“According to the GAO, 84 interest groups filed more than 400 appeals of Forest Service proposals. The appeals delayed efforts to treat 900,000 acres of forests and cost the federal government millions of dollars to address.”</font color>

<font color="blue">What I want you to notice here is that 900,000 acre figure. How many tens of millions of acres do you think there are in all the National forests put together? What percentage of the total National forest acreage is 900k? Well, if we only had ten million total National forest acres then that figure would be less than ten percent - wouldn't it?

I'm betting that the actual figure of forest thinning impacted by litigation is closer to less than five percent of our total National forest acreage. </font color> <font color="green"> </font color> <font color="blue"> </font color>

S0Noma
12-29-2007, 03:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> If there is anything thinning out....it's the brain cells from El Loco. <hr /></blockquote>

It's like playing football with a retarded kid.

Every time he gets thrown for a loss (which is EVERY TIME) he slams the football to the ground - pretends that he's made a game winning touchdown - declares victory and dances around like a moron on crack.

It would be funny if it weren't so frickin' sad.

wolfdancer
12-29-2007, 04:06 PM
R, I thought that you had posted something similar before, and
I was able to follow the math, despite being a "mindless liberal"
Can't believe that he is still trying to "beat a dead horse" on this. The race is over and he came in dead last...to continue the analogy....they are now trying to get him off the track, so that the next race can begin.

LWW
12-29-2007, 04:58 PM
So, now you are arguing that the forests don't need to be thinned because they need to be thinned because they don't need to be thinned because they need to be thinned.

And, of course, it all makes sense to wolfie who admits that he can't grasp ideas larger than!


http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/dentures2.jpg

SODumba's grandpappy cheers him on!

LWW

S0Noma
12-29-2007, 05:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> So, now you are arguing that the forests don't need to be thinned because they need to be thinned because they don't need to be thinned because they need to be thinned.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Nope, unlike you who upon losing an argument immediately pretends that you were arguing something entirely different in the first place - my basic argument never changed and still hasn't.

In your initial argument you made a broad claim that the 'tree huggers' and their lawsuits were to blame for preventing the forest service from husbanding the forest - the gist of which was that these senseless legal efforts left those forests vulnerable to fire and now (Tahoe in June, and Southern California in October) those fires had come and it was CLEARLY the fault of the tree huggers and their lawsuits. Thus (according to your twisted and unsupportable logic) they were CLEARLY responsible for ALL major forest fires and it was them who were to be blamed.

I argued that they weren't entirely to blame - that there were a multitude of other factors to consider -

Then we got into it and it turned out there was no history of environmental lawsuits in Lake Tahoe.

That's when the Lake Tahoe example you used in your argument went down in flames.

I gave you every opportunity to produce evidence of such lawsuits and you couldn't. One must assume that if you could have you would have and therefore there is no evidence and their were no lawsuits and your claim is therefore unsupportable.


You started the entire thread by trying to blame the raging fires in Southern California on the same group - the so-called tree huggers and for the same reason 'environmental lawsuits'.

You ignored the fact that that portion of the State has been stricken with a one hundred year drought and at that time high wind conditions (85 mph winds) were driving a raging brush fire through millions of acres of highly flammable chaparral brush.

Now we are here - the 2007 GAO report supports the fact that the forestry service did not give the SoCal brush the kind of high priority that it needed in order to be addressed and hence did not 'thin' that brush like they might have.

The GAO Report is very specific as to where the responsibility lies for the failure to clear out the brush and it doesn't lie with environmentalists OR their lawsuits.

That was it big mouth - you made a broad claim using two examples of major fires to support it and then couldn't prove the connection of environmental lawsuits/inhibiting the forestry services thinning efforts in either example.

Now? Well now you're trying to say that it's all just too confusing and that must be because I've been imagining the whole thing and misunderstood what you were trying to say in the first place.

Too late you lying sack of $hit. You made an argument that you couldn't support and I shot it down. You lost the argument plain and simple.

The fact that you can't stand to lose and will do anything short of... well, wait a minute, there really isn't anything you won't do to avoid taking responsibility for being wrong - is there?

I'm guessing that it's because when it comes time to 'man up' there's no man to up.

You're never going to stand up and admit that you were wrong. We all know this about you which is why you will never earn the respect of this forum.

You have no credibility here except with damsels in distress like Fran who wouldn't know a fact if it bit her in the a$$.

When you get bored with ranting and raving and proclaiming false victories to an empty audience? I suspect you may go off and sulk about it - but when that time comes you can rest assured, you will not be missed.