GOV/MIL US Forest Service
- Thread starter marsh
- Start date
-
- Tags
- affirmative action
Bardou
Veteran Member
All the rangers I know here along with State employees all love Trump! I talk to them on a regular basis and I would cheer them up when they were down about Hillary. Some are away for the season but they'll be be back around March. I can't wait to talk to them about Trump, like me, they love the guy.
NoPlugsNM
Deceased
Damn straight . . RESIST !!!
If you were to google 'Capitan, New Mexico' you would find out that it is/was the home of Smokey Bear, the FS symbol. That town is the closest to me where I live, steeped in Smokey history.
As to the RESIST - Here in my Smokey Bear neighborhood we are now all getting these 'inquiries' from the Department of Agriculture, specifically a questionnaire from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, call it a CENSUS of all things Agricultural in our area. That same starting process of a census took place in Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho in/over a few years preceding now.
I am not sure of the order it went about in those states, but every one of them was/has been inundated with the Dept of AG and the USFS personnel trying to rid those states of AG Operations and harassing small land owners to get rid of their livestock. I am guessing it all goes toward a 'Bundy-like' situation, get rid of livestock, get rid of small and large ranches, drive the landowners off the land, etc because that IS what has been taking place.
Just a few days ago, I got my 3rd questionnaire, the first two said completing it was voluntary, this most recent one says I must fill it out according to the law that says I must. The three questionnaires are identical except that last statement that says it is mandatory and if you don't fill it out and submit it there IS punishment according to law.
Well . . RESIST is my new mantra for 2017. I am not going to fill it out, just like I didn't fill out the American Survey, I got that in the mail 3 or 4 times, and then someone from the census bureau came to my door, they got a swift kick off my land, haven't seen them since. I am guessing that this census survey might go the same way. All I can say is RESIST !!!
Here in New Mexico the USFS has lost in court several times when it comes to their takeover of our lands, they have been driven from a lot of the ranch areas forcibly by ranchers and citizens at gun point.
So you tell me what the USFS is planning on RESISTING ????
NP
If you were to google 'Capitan, New Mexico' you would find out that it is/was the home of Smokey Bear, the FS symbol. That town is the closest to me where I live, steeped in Smokey history.
As to the RESIST - Here in my Smokey Bear neighborhood we are now all getting these 'inquiries' from the Department of Agriculture, specifically a questionnaire from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, call it a CENSUS of all things Agricultural in our area. That same starting process of a census took place in Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho in/over a few years preceding now.
I am not sure of the order it went about in those states, but every one of them was/has been inundated with the Dept of AG and the USFS personnel trying to rid those states of AG Operations and harassing small land owners to get rid of their livestock. I am guessing it all goes toward a 'Bundy-like' situation, get rid of livestock, get rid of small and large ranches, drive the landowners off the land, etc because that IS what has been taking place.
Just a few days ago, I got my 3rd questionnaire, the first two said completing it was voluntary, this most recent one says I must fill it out according to the law that says I must. The three questionnaires are identical except that last statement that says it is mandatory and if you don't fill it out and submit it there IS punishment according to law.
Well . . RESIST is my new mantra for 2017. I am not going to fill it out, just like I didn't fill out the American Survey, I got that in the mail 3 or 4 times, and then someone from the census bureau came to my door, they got a swift kick off my land, haven't seen them since. I am guessing that this census survey might go the same way. All I can say is RESIST !!!
Here in New Mexico the USFS has lost in court several times when it comes to their takeover of our lands, they have been driven from a lot of the ranch areas forcibly by ranchers and citizens at gun point.
So you tell me what the USFS is planning on RESISTING ????
NP
marsh
On TB every waking moment
The leadership of the USFS has pretty much been the tool of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. It was deep in the crafting of the globalist agenda (Agenda 21.It has long abandoned its mandate for multiple use and sustained yield in favor of ecosystem management and preservation of habitat.
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
Highly relevant, if previously posted...
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/06/how-feminism-wrecked-the-u-s-forest-service/
How Feminism Wrecked the U.S. Forest Service
June 12, 2012
Gifford Pinchot visiting students at School of Forestry Camp at Gray Towers
"TWO YEARS ago, I posted an excerpt from a book-in-progress, The Death of the U.S. Forest Service by Christopher Burchfield. Since renamed The Tinder Box: How Politically Correct Ideology Destroyed the U.S. Forest Service, the book was published by Stairway Press earlier this spring.
Burchfield has more than fulfilled the promise evident in that excerpt. The Tinder Box is an outstanding work of investigative reporting and cultural criticism, a blow-by-blow account of how liberalism transformed the U.S. Forest Service, with its millions of acres of cherished timberlands, from one of the most effective and highly motivated government bureaucracies in American history to a rancorous, dysfunctional and despised workplace, a bureaucratic hellhole more preoccupied with egalitarian quotas and sexual harassment seminars than its mission to preserve and govern this country’s vast woodlands.
Burchfield, who has held jobs in the Forest Service, other government agencies and IBM, spent months poring over government documents and interviewing employees of the Forest, amassing a small mountain of evidence. Anyone who doubts that feminism severely damages the morale and initiative of men, and is inherently opposed to the pursuit of excellence, is encouraged to review this evidence. This story is so disturbing, pointing as it does to an environmental disaster of significant proportions, it is sure to be ignored by the mainstream. And that is a crime.
In 1876, Congress ordered the Department of Agriculture to establish the Division of Forestry for the purpose of protecting the nation’s threatened woodlands, which were susceptible to fire and had been carelessly exploited by timber interests. The bureaucratic arm was established five years after the Peshtigo Fire destroyed 1.5 million acres in Northern Wisconsin and killed as many as 2,500 people. With a growing interest in natural conservation and new scientific forest-control practices, the division was in charge of 17 million acres by 1897.
The agency was riddled with corruption and patronage when Gifford Pinchot became its head in 1898. In 1907, the U.S. Forest Service, “the oldest of America’s four great land-owning agencies — the others being the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management,” was officially born. Burchfield writes:
A scion of a wealthy Pennsylvania family, Pinchot had studied forestry in Europe and felt that America with its immense unsettled spaces, required new concepts to manage its natural resources. A witness to the almost complete denuding of Pennsylvania’s hardwood forests and the watershed problems and poverty that followed, he felt certain that good management of both timber and prairie country was essential to preserving America’s heritage.
Pinchot curtailed the era of patronage and adopted the Civil Service System, which required all applicants to pass an exam. He envisioned a force of qualified professionals devoted to forest work and prepared for its rigors. Pinchot said:
I urge no man to make forestry his profession. But rather to keep away from it if he can. In forestry, a man is either altogether at home, or very much out of place…
With acquisition of more land by Congress, the Service came to oversee 93 million acres in 44 states. Foresters and district rangers were expected to have studied dendrology, physiography, silvics (the study of individual tree species and their conditions) and forestry economics. In time, the forest ranger of lore was replaced by “hydrologists, silviculturists, range managers, geneticists, engineers and entomologists” who built long careers within the Forest Service. They were also expected to adjust to heavy labor and life in remote camps.
Pinchot, who insisted the foresters cultivate a good relationship with local communities and hire locals for seasonal work, was described as a “magnificent bureaucrat” for his vision and high standards.
The subsequent years continued this pattern of professionalism and dedication.
In 1968, in keeping with the times, administrators in Washington and other urban centers grew uncomfortable with a subculture that was overwhelmingly white and male. That year, the Berkeley office hired a woman named Gene Bernardi — “a dark-haired, ordinary looking woman in her mid-forties, wearing heavily rimmed glasses.” She was quickly promoted and appointed chief of the service’s new Equal Employment Opportunity Advisory Panel.
Three years later, Bernardi, by then known as belligerent and sensitive to criticism, demanded promotion to a higher Civil Service grade. When she was refused, she promptly filed a discrimination complaint in Washington, D.C. This too failed and then, after strong-arming a few other employees to join her, she filed a class action suit.
The story of her suit, which ended up before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, makes for harrowing reading. Bernardi was represented by the feminist law firm, the Equal Rights Advocates. The suit ultimately resulted in a “consent decree,” a formal settlement between both sides. (By the time, the consent decree was signed, all plaintiffs had dropped out of the suit, even Bernardi herself. As Burchfield writes, “It was thus the weakest class complaint ever filed, a class complaint without a complainant.”)
Though the Forest Service was absolved of all wrongdoing, it agreed to make atonement for its past, promising to employ women at levels equal to the civilian labor force. Judge Samuel Conti specifically warned against quotas, which are forbidden under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Zealous Forest Service administrators ignored his warning and adopted a plan to make its force 43 percent women.
The decree pertained only to California’s Region Five, but the affirmative action mission later spread through the other administrative regions. This project was not generally approved of by women who worked for the Forest Service at that time, women who were hired for qualifications that suited their positions. (And many others have performed well since.)
Accustomed by then to employing rugged outdoors men, elite firefighters and experienced administrators — almost all of them men — to manage its wild lands with brawn and advanced scientific knowledge, the Forest Service embarked in the 1980s on a program of recruiting and hiring unqualified employees to meet its quotas of women. (See Burchfield’s earlier excerpt.) Minorities were actively recruited too, but because the effort to hire minorities was so often unsuccessful — blacks especially were not avid for jobs far from urban areas — the liberal assault on the Forest Service primarily focused on the hiring of white women.
The trend endangered those in the field. Burchfield writes:
On July 15, 1981, two weeks after the Bernardi Decree went into effect, a tragedy occurred after a fire broke out on the Angeles National Forest. Gilbert Lopez, a fire captain, went in search of an inexperienced pump operator who had become separated from the fire team. Though she later managed to find refuge with another crew, Lopez never returned from his search. His charred remains were found after the fire was extinguished.
This was not the only death involving inexperienced women or women who were physically inferior to their male colleagues. Burchfield tells of other incidents, including the 1994 Storm King Mountain Fire in Colorado, in which sixteen firefighters, including four women, died.
In that case, it is all but a certainty that a number of firemen on the crew returned to assist the firewomen and paid for their heroism with their lives.
As the consent decree took hold, men were continually denied jobs or promotions. Burchfield describes the story of Bill Shaw who started to work for the Forest in 1977.
He was born in Arcadia, California, where as a boy he and his family routinely camped and hiked in the Forests, and came to know many of those employed in them. He would return home after these excursions and as he admitted without embarrassment, fall asleep dreaming of Lassie, Smokey the Bear or some other animal character associated with the woods. After earning an Asssociattes Degree in forestry, he went to work on one of the Angeles fire crews, rising to the position of fire captain. The pay was poor, particularly considering the high cost of living in the area, but he was working in the Forest and that counted more than anything else.
…. After learning that he would not be able to hire the engine crew he had trained and worked with over the past three years, he was ordered to take on several women.
Despite the extra physical drilling the agency granted the new hires, Shaw’s bull** detector went off immediately. He instinctively knew that very few of them would develop the strength and stamina necessary to haul a fifty-foot length of fire hose up a slope. For the next several years it became routine for him to order his female crew members back down the hill to stand by, while he and his two firemen held off the blaze until one or more other engine units arrived.
Most of the women did not stay long in the most grueling jobs, but they were invariably replaced by others overwhelmed by the tasks. Shaw was eventually denied a position as fire management officer. He said a much less qualified woman was chosen instead. He told Burchfield:
No one had any respect for her; no one had any respect for fire management; no one had any respect for the Forest, and no respect for the agency. It all drained away.
Ironically, affirmative action made for a level of hostility toward female employees that did not exist before. Sensitivity training became standard.
Before the Bernardi decree, men who retired from heavy labor in the field often went into office work for the Service, where their knowledge of the lands contributed to their work. Afterward, these jobs went to those who had little experience on the ground, leaving a void where institutional knowledge was once preserved.
While quite a few men have won individual discrimination complaints against the Service – and have been denied promotion ever since – two major class action suits by male plaintiffs were never fully aired in court. The Supreme Court refused to review them.
The Forest Service, which once turned a profit, now loses millions. Undergrowth flourishes, causing many more fires. According to Burchfield, “eight of the eleven worst fire seasons since the 1950’s have occurred over the past twelve years:”
True enough, urban interfacing, changing climate patterns, and the ever-rising numbers of youths brought up without supervision (today’s arsonists, meth dealers, etc.) are contributors to these disasters. But, the primary cause of these losses is the agency’s madcap obsession with gender equity, which by 1987 had resulted in a tremendous drop in prescribed burns, clearing of fire lines and slash cutting. In many instances, the Forests are so badly overgrown, that they possess 10 to 100 times as many saplings per acre as those managed by the Indians of 180 years ago.
Mexican marijuana cartels commandeer acreage in the West for farming. Crime has increased and service patrols are inadequate to respond to it, with women forest officers particularly disinclined to restrain those violating rules. Recreational trails and mapping have deteriorated so much that the only hope in many places is that these duties will be someday turned over to local conservancies. The tremendous increase in the use of off-highway vehicles has exacerbated this neglect.
Once the friend and servant of the public, the Forest Service has become the cause of antipathy toward the federal government in rural communities throughout the land, where threats against forest rangers and vandalism of government property are alarmingly frequent. Burchfield writes:
[W]hen year in and year out, locals see an inordinate number of jobs awarded to people flown in from thousands of miles away, a tinderbox builds, waiting only for one match to ignite it.
America’s forests have presented extreme challenges and temptations — and have been the scene of greed and lawlessness — for hundreds of years. But the reign of affirmative action racketeers has exposed them to an unprecedented threat. It is no exaggeration to say the U.S. Forest Service has been willfully destroyed by the religion of equality."
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/06/how-feminism-wrecked-the-u-s-forest-service/
How Feminism Wrecked the U.S. Forest Service
June 12, 2012
Gifford Pinchot visiting students at School of Forestry Camp at Gray Towers
"TWO YEARS ago, I posted an excerpt from a book-in-progress, The Death of the U.S. Forest Service by Christopher Burchfield. Since renamed The Tinder Box: How Politically Correct Ideology Destroyed the U.S. Forest Service, the book was published by Stairway Press earlier this spring.
Burchfield has more than fulfilled the promise evident in that excerpt. The Tinder Box is an outstanding work of investigative reporting and cultural criticism, a blow-by-blow account of how liberalism transformed the U.S. Forest Service, with its millions of acres of cherished timberlands, from one of the most effective and highly motivated government bureaucracies in American history to a rancorous, dysfunctional and despised workplace, a bureaucratic hellhole more preoccupied with egalitarian quotas and sexual harassment seminars than its mission to preserve and govern this country’s vast woodlands.
Burchfield, who has held jobs in the Forest Service, other government agencies and IBM, spent months poring over government documents and interviewing employees of the Forest, amassing a small mountain of evidence. Anyone who doubts that feminism severely damages the morale and initiative of men, and is inherently opposed to the pursuit of excellence, is encouraged to review this evidence. This story is so disturbing, pointing as it does to an environmental disaster of significant proportions, it is sure to be ignored by the mainstream. And that is a crime.
In 1876, Congress ordered the Department of Agriculture to establish the Division of Forestry for the purpose of protecting the nation’s threatened woodlands, which were susceptible to fire and had been carelessly exploited by timber interests. The bureaucratic arm was established five years after the Peshtigo Fire destroyed 1.5 million acres in Northern Wisconsin and killed as many as 2,500 people. With a growing interest in natural conservation and new scientific forest-control practices, the division was in charge of 17 million acres by 1897.
The agency was riddled with corruption and patronage when Gifford Pinchot became its head in 1898. In 1907, the U.S. Forest Service, “the oldest of America’s four great land-owning agencies — the others being the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management,” was officially born. Burchfield writes:
A scion of a wealthy Pennsylvania family, Pinchot had studied forestry in Europe and felt that America with its immense unsettled spaces, required new concepts to manage its natural resources. A witness to the almost complete denuding of Pennsylvania’s hardwood forests and the watershed problems and poverty that followed, he felt certain that good management of both timber and prairie country was essential to preserving America’s heritage.
Pinchot curtailed the era of patronage and adopted the Civil Service System, which required all applicants to pass an exam. He envisioned a force of qualified professionals devoted to forest work and prepared for its rigors. Pinchot said:
I urge no man to make forestry his profession. But rather to keep away from it if he can. In forestry, a man is either altogether at home, or very much out of place…
With acquisition of more land by Congress, the Service came to oversee 93 million acres in 44 states. Foresters and district rangers were expected to have studied dendrology, physiography, silvics (the study of individual tree species and their conditions) and forestry economics. In time, the forest ranger of lore was replaced by “hydrologists, silviculturists, range managers, geneticists, engineers and entomologists” who built long careers within the Forest Service. They were also expected to adjust to heavy labor and life in remote camps.
Pinchot, who insisted the foresters cultivate a good relationship with local communities and hire locals for seasonal work, was described as a “magnificent bureaucrat” for his vision and high standards.
The subsequent years continued this pattern of professionalism and dedication.
In 1968, in keeping with the times, administrators in Washington and other urban centers grew uncomfortable with a subculture that was overwhelmingly white and male. That year, the Berkeley office hired a woman named Gene Bernardi — “a dark-haired, ordinary looking woman in her mid-forties, wearing heavily rimmed glasses.” She was quickly promoted and appointed chief of the service’s new Equal Employment Opportunity Advisory Panel.
Three years later, Bernardi, by then known as belligerent and sensitive to criticism, demanded promotion to a higher Civil Service grade. When she was refused, she promptly filed a discrimination complaint in Washington, D.C. This too failed and then, after strong-arming a few other employees to join her, she filed a class action suit.
The story of her suit, which ended up before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, makes for harrowing reading. Bernardi was represented by the feminist law firm, the Equal Rights Advocates. The suit ultimately resulted in a “consent decree,” a formal settlement between both sides. (By the time, the consent decree was signed, all plaintiffs had dropped out of the suit, even Bernardi herself. As Burchfield writes, “It was thus the weakest class complaint ever filed, a class complaint without a complainant.”)
Though the Forest Service was absolved of all wrongdoing, it agreed to make atonement for its past, promising to employ women at levels equal to the civilian labor force. Judge Samuel Conti specifically warned against quotas, which are forbidden under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Zealous Forest Service administrators ignored his warning and adopted a plan to make its force 43 percent women.
The decree pertained only to California’s Region Five, but the affirmative action mission later spread through the other administrative regions. This project was not generally approved of by women who worked for the Forest Service at that time, women who were hired for qualifications that suited their positions. (And many others have performed well since.)
Accustomed by then to employing rugged outdoors men, elite firefighters and experienced administrators — almost all of them men — to manage its wild lands with brawn and advanced scientific knowledge, the Forest Service embarked in the 1980s on a program of recruiting and hiring unqualified employees to meet its quotas of women. (See Burchfield’s earlier excerpt.) Minorities were actively recruited too, but because the effort to hire minorities was so often unsuccessful — blacks especially were not avid for jobs far from urban areas — the liberal assault on the Forest Service primarily focused on the hiring of white women.
The trend endangered those in the field. Burchfield writes:
On July 15, 1981, two weeks after the Bernardi Decree went into effect, a tragedy occurred after a fire broke out on the Angeles National Forest. Gilbert Lopez, a fire captain, went in search of an inexperienced pump operator who had become separated from the fire team. Though she later managed to find refuge with another crew, Lopez never returned from his search. His charred remains were found after the fire was extinguished.
This was not the only death involving inexperienced women or women who were physically inferior to their male colleagues. Burchfield tells of other incidents, including the 1994 Storm King Mountain Fire in Colorado, in which sixteen firefighters, including four women, died.
In that case, it is all but a certainty that a number of firemen on the crew returned to assist the firewomen and paid for their heroism with their lives.
As the consent decree took hold, men were continually denied jobs or promotions. Burchfield describes the story of Bill Shaw who started to work for the Forest in 1977.
He was born in Arcadia, California, where as a boy he and his family routinely camped and hiked in the Forests, and came to know many of those employed in them. He would return home after these excursions and as he admitted without embarrassment, fall asleep dreaming of Lassie, Smokey the Bear or some other animal character associated with the woods. After earning an Asssociattes Degree in forestry, he went to work on one of the Angeles fire crews, rising to the position of fire captain. The pay was poor, particularly considering the high cost of living in the area, but he was working in the Forest and that counted more than anything else.
…. After learning that he would not be able to hire the engine crew he had trained and worked with over the past three years, he was ordered to take on several women.
Despite the extra physical drilling the agency granted the new hires, Shaw’s bull** detector went off immediately. He instinctively knew that very few of them would develop the strength and stamina necessary to haul a fifty-foot length of fire hose up a slope. For the next several years it became routine for him to order his female crew members back down the hill to stand by, while he and his two firemen held off the blaze until one or more other engine units arrived.
Most of the women did not stay long in the most grueling jobs, but they were invariably replaced by others overwhelmed by the tasks. Shaw was eventually denied a position as fire management officer. He said a much less qualified woman was chosen instead. He told Burchfield:
No one had any respect for her; no one had any respect for fire management; no one had any respect for the Forest, and no respect for the agency. It all drained away.
Ironically, affirmative action made for a level of hostility toward female employees that did not exist before. Sensitivity training became standard.
Before the Bernardi decree, men who retired from heavy labor in the field often went into office work for the Service, where their knowledge of the lands contributed to their work. Afterward, these jobs went to those who had little experience on the ground, leaving a void where institutional knowledge was once preserved.
While quite a few men have won individual discrimination complaints against the Service – and have been denied promotion ever since – two major class action suits by male plaintiffs were never fully aired in court. The Supreme Court refused to review them.
The Forest Service, which once turned a profit, now loses millions. Undergrowth flourishes, causing many more fires. According to Burchfield, “eight of the eleven worst fire seasons since the 1950’s have occurred over the past twelve years:”
True enough, urban interfacing, changing climate patterns, and the ever-rising numbers of youths brought up without supervision (today’s arsonists, meth dealers, etc.) are contributors to these disasters. But, the primary cause of these losses is the agency’s madcap obsession with gender equity, which by 1987 had resulted in a tremendous drop in prescribed burns, clearing of fire lines and slash cutting. In many instances, the Forests are so badly overgrown, that they possess 10 to 100 times as many saplings per acre as those managed by the Indians of 180 years ago.
Mexican marijuana cartels commandeer acreage in the West for farming. Crime has increased and service patrols are inadequate to respond to it, with women forest officers particularly disinclined to restrain those violating rules. Recreational trails and mapping have deteriorated so much that the only hope in many places is that these duties will be someday turned over to local conservancies. The tremendous increase in the use of off-highway vehicles has exacerbated this neglect.
Once the friend and servant of the public, the Forest Service has become the cause of antipathy toward the federal government in rural communities throughout the land, where threats against forest rangers and vandalism of government property are alarmingly frequent. Burchfield writes:
[W]hen year in and year out, locals see an inordinate number of jobs awarded to people flown in from thousands of miles away, a tinderbox builds, waiting only for one match to ignite it.
America’s forests have presented extreme challenges and temptations — and have been the scene of greed and lawlessness — for hundreds of years. But the reign of affirmative action racketeers has exposed them to an unprecedented threat. It is no exaggeration to say the U.S. Forest Service has been willfully destroyed by the religion of equality."
I received the same survey and returned it completed. Why they want to inventory where and what crops I grow and what animals I raise down to specific numbers of cows ,pigs ,goats , chickens and rabbits made the hair on the back of my neck stand up .
desert_fox
Threadkiller
I repeatedly told my neighbors that instead of pushing kids to become lawyers, bankers, and dentists they should instead have encouraged more military service and then jobs like the BLM or FS. Now we get liberals running the show (definitely upper management) and outlining/enforcing regulations. In my area of 30,000 there are more lawyers, dentists, and bankers than what should be able to support them (and talk of more wishing to come back home to raise their families).
thompson
Certa Bonum Certamen
While it's rather disquieting to see such, it's better that it's out in the open for all to see.
duchess47
Has No Life - Lives on TB
I got the same survey. Returned it with NOT FARMING written across the front.
biere
Veteran Member
Back when the government stuff shutdown and a lot of the national parks closed to visitors they set the ground rules for things.
I rank it right up there with a library that is losing funding deciding that closing the doors during the busiest hours is how to show they they need more funding.
Of when a school does not pass a levy, they cut bussing so the parents are forced to get the kids to and from school and it messes with their work schedule.
Everyone needs to realize they are paid to do a job if being paid to do a job. Yeah it might be a scheme to employ more with some of the above stuff, but I am done with accepting it as anything other than someone thinking they are above others.
Those who do the above things just need replaced.
I figure to some extent the forest service may be like a lot of the police stuff, the actual folks on the streets support gun ownership but the police unions and super duper high up goofs think limiting rights to others is a good thing.
I rank it right up there with a library that is losing funding deciding that closing the doors during the busiest hours is how to show they they need more funding.
Of when a school does not pass a levy, they cut bussing so the parents are forced to get the kids to and from school and it messes with their work schedule.
Everyone needs to realize they are paid to do a job if being paid to do a job. Yeah it might be a scheme to employ more with some of the above stuff, but I am done with accepting it as anything other than someone thinking they are above others.
Those who do the above things just need replaced.
I figure to some extent the forest service may be like a lot of the police stuff, the actual folks on the streets support gun ownership but the police unions and super duper high up goofs think limiting rights to others is a good thing.
NoPlugsNM
Deceased
My local community had a meeting regarding this survey. We had an enormous turnout, much bigger than we thought would attend. It was discussed at great length. The community decided that we ALL would NOT return the survey. All of us had received 2 that said voluntary, last on mandatory. I had a friend visit me who lives in another county, they too had a meeting, large turnout, decided the same, they all said hell no too.
I think the AG people are going to find that the people in New Mexico are not survey friendly, lol. They have not been friendly when it comes to the American Survey, they were not friendly to the every 10 year basic survey, most would not answer any of it and did not return it, most had someone come to the door and threw them off their property, it got so bad they had to cancel the survey people for a couple weeks so they could have a meeting about how they were going to be limited to our 'fence out' state laws and to stop the trespassing immediately, lots of census stuff was hung on gates/fence posts at driveway entrances. Some of that stuff took about 3 years to blow away, so the survey never got what it was after in the overall in my area.
NP
I think the AG people are going to find that the people in New Mexico are not survey friendly, lol. They have not been friendly when it comes to the American Survey, they were not friendly to the every 10 year basic survey, most would not answer any of it and did not return it, most had someone come to the door and threw them off their property, it got so bad they had to cancel the survey people for a couple weeks so they could have a meeting about how they were going to be limited to our 'fence out' state laws and to stop the trespassing immediately, lots of census stuff was hung on gates/fence posts at driveway entrances. Some of that stuff took about 3 years to blow away, so the survey never got what it was after in the overall in my area.
NP
marsh
On TB every waking moment
I will admit to refusing to fill out census surveys. I have also been around for many years with farmers and ranchers who complained or refused to complete their farming surveys.
I also admit to being a heavy user of the statistics they produced in order to represent those same farmers. We could show how policies had worked against mid-sized family farms over time. There was a growth in hobby farms and really large farms, but the mid-sized were disappearing in an area where that had been a long term tradition since pioneer settlement. We could trace the reduction in livestock operations and field crops and the increase of row crops in areas where certain water policies had been implemented. That also meant a higher need for migratory workers to pick those crops. We also lost most of our dairies when the state implemented its draconian water quality policies.
The surveys do produce some useful information if you have someone to use the trends as evidence of regulatory stress and economic impact.
I also admit to being a heavy user of the statistics they produced in order to represent those same farmers. We could show how policies had worked against mid-sized family farms over time. There was a growth in hobby farms and really large farms, but the mid-sized were disappearing in an area where that had been a long term tradition since pioneer settlement. We could trace the reduction in livestock operations and field crops and the increase of row crops in areas where certain water policies had been implemented. That also meant a higher need for migratory workers to pick those crops. We also lost most of our dairies when the state implemented its draconian water quality policies.
The surveys do produce some useful information if you have someone to use the trends as evidence of regulatory stress and economic impact.
Sandune
Veteran Member
I am really, really thankful I dodged this bullet many years ago. As a teenager I spent as much time out in 'the woods' around my home as I could. I learned most of the tree names and where they grew. I really enjoyed this and found I preferred the company of nature over people. When it came time in choosing a college, I selected one with a forestry degree. Wow, did my eyes open! Yes, a forester has to manage the land, but he also has to manage the people who use the land. This is what I wanted to avoid. Alas, my bubble was burst. I came home with my tail between my legs and went to work in an electronics plant. That was my secondary interest and discovered geeks were anti-social too. It's been a good fit.
marsh
On TB every waking moment
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2017/01/29/18795978.php
100 Days of Resistance
by Center for Biological Diversity
TUCSON, Ariz., January 26, 2017 — The Center for Biological Diversity today released its 100 Days of Resistance plan to stop Donald Trump’s unprecedented attack on wildlife, people, civil rights and democracy.
The 25-point plan includes mobilizing 1 million people to take the Pledge of Resistance; halting the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines; fighting the confirmation of Trump’s corrupt, unqualified cabinet nominees; hiring 10 new attorneys, investigators and activists to aggressively hold the administration accountable; protecting the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act for the benefit of people and wildlife; defeating efforts to give away or turn management of our public lands over to states and corporations; and strengthening alliances with groups fighting for gender and racial equality, American Indian sovereignty, LGBTQ rights, freedom of speech, press and religion, workers’ rights and other civil rights and values.
“Trump has awoken a fierce resistance movement such as this country has never seen,” said Kierán Suckling, the Center’s executive director. “His authoritarian agenda has galvanized people from every walk of life to fight for the protection of wildlife and the environment, civil rights, equality and a democracy that serves everyone, not just the corporate elite. He should know this: We’re in it for the long haul. We’ll fight him every day in the courts, every week in the halls of power, and in every street of this nation.”
The Center’s Earth2Trump Resistance Roadshow just completed a very successful, high energy cross-country tour of 16 cities, rallying thousands of people from Seattle to Salt Lake City, to Houston, Denver and Omaha to organize, resist, and to write personal #Earth2Trump messages which we carried to the inauguration protest in a huge globe. More than 180,000 have signed the Center's Pledge of Resistance in person or online.
The 100 Days of Resistance plan:
1. Mobilize 1 million Americans to sign the Pledge of Resistance and commit to fighting Trump's attack on our environment and civil rights.
2. Hold #Earth2Trump rallies in cities and towns across the country to engage, educate and empower people to take action locally and nationally.
3. Strengthen alliances with groups fighting for gender and racial equality, American Indian sovereignty, LGBTQ rights, freedom of speech, press and religion, workers' rights and other civil rights and values.
4. Hire 10 new attorneys, investigators and activists to aggressively hold the Trump administration accountable when it violates America's federal environmental laws.
5. Fight the confirmation of Trump's extremist, financially conflicted, unqualified cabinet nominations.
6. Stop the repeal or weakening of the Endangered Species Act.
7. Block efforts to rescind, radically shrink or defund America's national monuments.
8. Stop the dangerous, unnecessary Keystone XL pipeline from being resurrected.
9. Defend the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' decision to reroute the Dakota Access Pipeline to protect the culture, history and water of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe.
10. Stop the construction of a massive new wall on the U.S.-Mexico border that would destroy wildlife habitat, pollute rivers, violate national parks, wildlife refuges, forests and rivers, and cause massive social and economic disruption of border towns and cities.
11. Stand with reproductive-rights organizations defending the Affordable Care Act, abortion rights, access to birth control, and international funding for family-planning programs.
12. Stop the weakening of the Clean Air Act and revocation of the EPA's responsibility to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
13. Stop Trump from revoking the Clean Power Plan.
14. Stop Trump from weakening protection for wetlands and streams.
15. Maintain the moratorium on new federal coal leases and ensure a national assessment is completed of the environmental, human-health and financial costs of the federal coal-mining program.
16. Stop new offshore oil drilling in the Arctic, Atlantic and eastern Gulf of Mexico by defending the five-year offshore leasing program and preventing the repeal of permanent protections against oil and gas leasing in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans.
17. Fight in the courts — along with the state of California, environmental and indigenous groups — to stop ocean fracking along the California coast.
18. File suit to stop intensive pollution of our oceans by industrial plastics.
19. Defeat proposals to weaken trophy-hunting regulations and expand U.S. imports of endangered species including elephants, lions and polar bears.
20. Defeat efforts to give away federal public lands or turn their management over to states and corporations.
21. Prevent the stripping of federal protection from grizzly bears and wolves.
22. Prevent rollback of protections for imperiled greater sage grouse and more than 300 other species dependent on healthy Sagebrush Sea habitat.
23. Mobilize college students across the country around clean energy, sustainable food and population issues.
24. Petition the U.S. Department of Agriculture to cease the use of dangerous, unnecessary predator-killing poisons.
25. Ensure the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Agriculture are not stripped of their authority and responsibility to protect people and wildlife from dangerous pesticides.
100 Days of Resistance
by Center for Biological Diversity
TUCSON, Ariz., January 26, 2017 — The Center for Biological Diversity today released its 100 Days of Resistance plan to stop Donald Trump’s unprecedented attack on wildlife, people, civil rights and democracy.
The 25-point plan includes mobilizing 1 million people to take the Pledge of Resistance; halting the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines; fighting the confirmation of Trump’s corrupt, unqualified cabinet nominees; hiring 10 new attorneys, investigators and activists to aggressively hold the administration accountable; protecting the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act for the benefit of people and wildlife; defeating efforts to give away or turn management of our public lands over to states and corporations; and strengthening alliances with groups fighting for gender and racial equality, American Indian sovereignty, LGBTQ rights, freedom of speech, press and religion, workers’ rights and other civil rights and values.
“Trump has awoken a fierce resistance movement such as this country has never seen,” said Kierán Suckling, the Center’s executive director. “His authoritarian agenda has galvanized people from every walk of life to fight for the protection of wildlife and the environment, civil rights, equality and a democracy that serves everyone, not just the corporate elite. He should know this: We’re in it for the long haul. We’ll fight him every day in the courts, every week in the halls of power, and in every street of this nation.”
The Center’s Earth2Trump Resistance Roadshow just completed a very successful, high energy cross-country tour of 16 cities, rallying thousands of people from Seattle to Salt Lake City, to Houston, Denver and Omaha to organize, resist, and to write personal #Earth2Trump messages which we carried to the inauguration protest in a huge globe. More than 180,000 have signed the Center's Pledge of Resistance in person or online.
The 100 Days of Resistance plan:
1. Mobilize 1 million Americans to sign the Pledge of Resistance and commit to fighting Trump's attack on our environment and civil rights.
2. Hold #Earth2Trump rallies in cities and towns across the country to engage, educate and empower people to take action locally and nationally.
3. Strengthen alliances with groups fighting for gender and racial equality, American Indian sovereignty, LGBTQ rights, freedom of speech, press and religion, workers' rights and other civil rights and values.
4. Hire 10 new attorneys, investigators and activists to aggressively hold the Trump administration accountable when it violates America's federal environmental laws.
5. Fight the confirmation of Trump's extremist, financially conflicted, unqualified cabinet nominations.
6. Stop the repeal or weakening of the Endangered Species Act.
7. Block efforts to rescind, radically shrink or defund America's national monuments.
8. Stop the dangerous, unnecessary Keystone XL pipeline from being resurrected.
9. Defend the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' decision to reroute the Dakota Access Pipeline to protect the culture, history and water of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe.
10. Stop the construction of a massive new wall on the U.S.-Mexico border that would destroy wildlife habitat, pollute rivers, violate national parks, wildlife refuges, forests and rivers, and cause massive social and economic disruption of border towns and cities.
11. Stand with reproductive-rights organizations defending the Affordable Care Act, abortion rights, access to birth control, and international funding for family-planning programs.
12. Stop the weakening of the Clean Air Act and revocation of the EPA's responsibility to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
13. Stop Trump from revoking the Clean Power Plan.
14. Stop Trump from weakening protection for wetlands and streams.
15. Maintain the moratorium on new federal coal leases and ensure a national assessment is completed of the environmental, human-health and financial costs of the federal coal-mining program.
16. Stop new offshore oil drilling in the Arctic, Atlantic and eastern Gulf of Mexico by defending the five-year offshore leasing program and preventing the repeal of permanent protections against oil and gas leasing in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans.
17. Fight in the courts — along with the state of California, environmental and indigenous groups — to stop ocean fracking along the California coast.
18. File suit to stop intensive pollution of our oceans by industrial plastics.
19. Defeat proposals to weaken trophy-hunting regulations and expand U.S. imports of endangered species including elephants, lions and polar bears.
20. Defeat efforts to give away federal public lands or turn their management over to states and corporations.
21. Prevent the stripping of federal protection from grizzly bears and wolves.
22. Prevent rollback of protections for imperiled greater sage grouse and more than 300 other species dependent on healthy Sagebrush Sea habitat.
23. Mobilize college students across the country around clean energy, sustainable food and population issues.
24. Petition the U.S. Department of Agriculture to cease the use of dangerous, unnecessary predator-killing poisons.
25. Ensure the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Agriculture are not stripped of their authority and responsibility to protect people and wildlife from dangerous pesticides.
"...I will admit to refusing to fill out census surveys. I have also been around for many years with farmers and ranchers who complained or refused to complete their farming surveys.......The surveys do produce some useful information if you have someone to use the trends as evidence of regulatory stress and economic impact. .."
Uh, does not the last sentence contradict the first sentence kind of? Sure looks like it to me.
Kind of reminds me of a DNR deer meeting yea these many years ago. Many deer hunters objected to shooting does, they wanted the herd to get bigger. Problem was there were too many deer for the land to support. So the meeting to explain the doe hunt. At the end some hunter gets up and says that he and his buddies were going to soak up as many doe permits as they could and then not shoot does. The speaker said that he was glad to hear that they were going to do that because that had been factored in. So if they didn't do it, the herd would be overharvested!
Uh, does not the last sentence contradict the first sentence kind of? Sure looks like it to me.
Kind of reminds me of a DNR deer meeting yea these many years ago. Many deer hunters objected to shooting does, they wanted the herd to get bigger. Problem was there were too many deer for the land to support. So the meeting to explain the doe hunt. At the end some hunter gets up and says that he and his buddies were going to soak up as many doe permits as they could and then not shoot does. The speaker said that he was glad to hear that they were going to do that because that had been factored in. So if they didn't do it, the herd would be overharvested!
marsh
On TB every waking moment
Troke, the first was the US census very invasive large survey. The latter was the farmers survey. The difference is whether you have someone to use the data to your advantage or to invade your privacy and regulate you. One would have to weigh personal cost/benefits of completing the survey.
homecanner1
Veteran Member
Is it true the "alternative" site for the Forest Service, not official dot.gov, is on an IP based out of North London? Rumors abound. Something is up with all the Canadian and Aussie accents heard in D.C. Inauguration Week during anarchy training too.
I can foresee a time in the not too distant future that folks might have to forfeit making census replies, like say under an Oprah presidency.
I can foresee a time in the not too distant future that folks might have to forfeit making census replies, like say under an Oprah presidency.