Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

The Forest Circus Does It Again!!!

1K views 3 replies 4 participants last post by  50cents 
#1 ·
For those who wondered why I was so cynical, pessimistic and even antagonistic during the 13 months of Forest Circus "Trail Planning" meetings; I basically viewed the way that the Forest Circus ran the trail planning process as being just as bumbling, incompetent, idiotic, full of cronyism, agenda ridden, self serving and downright criminal as this article alleges the 4FRI process to be. These clowns are NOT worthy of our respect, our tax dollars or our compliance with their made-up BULLCRAP!!!

Please read this and PASS IT ON TO AS MANY OTHERS AS POSSIBLE!

Lost in the woods ? High Country News
 
#2 ·
Thanks for the link. My property backs the forest. Many, many trails to choose from. Thousands and thousands of orange painted trees, and a silent operation waiting waiting. This article explains much.
 
#3 · (Edited)
I don't doubt that much of what is described in the High Country News article is true, but it was largely the environmental groups that put the commercial logging operations out of business by using the spotted owl and the endangered species act.

I wonder how Chalkpaw's house, Mountainaire, and the southern city limits of Flagstaff would have fared last summer if it hadn't already been thinned by the Four Forest Restoration Initiative?

The story is much more complicated than Bikedoc's rant would lead one to believe. And the whole process is glacially slow. Perhaps Bikedoc could provide some direction for the folks trying to get it done? There's no money in it.
 
#4 ·
I read the whole article and came up with a few questions from the first third of the article. Does anyone know of a different source that presents a view from the Forest Service's perspective? All of the information in the article seems very one sided. Is there a different reality that needs to be presented to show the Forest Service in a more favorable light?

1. Has there really been 100 years of forest mismanagement in the four National Forests surrounding Flagstaff?

2. Is it possible to establish an ecologically sustainable timber industry, processing small-diameter trees at no cost to the government?

3. Is it true the USFS first picked as the lead agency for managing the 4FRI 2.4 million restoration project was Good Earth Power, and are they already behind schedule and in danger of collapse because they failed to find investors?

4. Is Good Earth Power’s mission to protect the environment and empower communities through sustainable — and profitable — energy solutions- based in fact or just an unrealistic sales pitch?

5. Is it true the USFS backed Good Earth and found them “financially and technically” capable of completing the project?

6. Is it true, that nearly a year after Good Earth Power took over the contract; 4FRI is even further behind schedule and still in danger of unraveling?

7. Should the blame for the delays, uncertainty and outright failures lie squarely with the Forest Service?

8. Is it possible the Forest Service leadership on 4FRI, in fact, been deeply dysfunctional and ineffective?

9. Is there a really a stubborn refusal by the USFA to surrender power to stakeholders outside the agency, and is there a lack of business acumen in dealing with contractors?

10. Were crucial USFS decisions partially driven by historical vendettas, personal grudges and political connections?

11. Is there really USFS dysfunction over the 4FRI project and does it extend up to the highest levels of the Forest Service and its parent, the Department of Agriculture, in Washington, D.C.?

12. Has the USFS backed the project, recognizing the urgent need to prevent catastrophic wildfires, but failed to hold USFS middle managers accountable for the success of the 4FRI poject?

13. Has somebody in a leadership position in the USFS regional office made a really stupid decision by picking Good Earth to manage the restoration project?

14. Is it true that in May 2012 the USFS Southwest Region headquarters took the reins and awarded the 4FRI contract to Montana-based Pioneer Associates, an under-the-radar company with close political ties to the Forest Service after snubbing Berlioux and his collaborators?

15. Did Pioneer’s proposal revolve around a vague business plan to use Arizona’s small pines to make furniture and other wood products that are normally manufactured more cheaply in China, as well as brewing an experimental biodiesel from tree branches?

16. Is it true that Pioneer Associates never actively participated in the 4FRI collaborative process or publicly discussed the details of its plan to discuss how it would succeed?

17. Is it true the Forest Service never released Pioneer’s complete proposal, citing confidentiality, but its own public analysis of the technical aspects drew strong criticism from experts?

18. Is it true the analysis didn’t make scientific sense. “My colleagues and (I) had a good laugh over it. Either they don’t understand what they are doing, or they’ve just worded it badly.” One section, for instance, said the company would “densify” pine and turn it into high-priced hardwoods, like walnut and mahogany. “You can’t take a pine, which is softwood, and turn it into a hardwood,” Jones told me. “That’s not possible.”
19. Is it true that in August 2012 when the contract was awarded that a D.C. review had taken place? In a written follow-up to that question a USFS contact said that two technical experts reviewed the proposal at the national level, but he refused to let me to talk to them or anyone else in the government who could defend its technical merits and was told “That information does not contribute significantly to the public understanding of the operations or activities of the government,”
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top