Hey you guys, Bruce wants some feed back. He asked for it, so I think you should tell him what you think. I am sure, regardless of your opinion, he would like to hear from you. I myself, will remain neutral cause I am da host. 8)
I too will have to remain mute on this point, unless of course you should happen to decide to join our merry little confederation as the next province then we could talk. :D :D
Feedback on what? Where is his post did I miss it?
Gordon
Gordon, It was here, he apparently deleted the original post.
Bruce,
Bruce, I want to stay away from making opinions on forest management, as I am not a forester, and don't feel comfortable doing so in public. But I will give you my opinion on format and not so much content.
Speaking as an interested person, your letter initially confuses me. I don't understand why you are writing it, or who it is even addressed to. It seems, rather then starting out with questions you should start out with an introduction, leading to opinions. Rather then a flowing interesting conveyance of your opinion, it seems like ramblings of a person, who is obsessed by something.
This is not meant to offend, but I do read a lot, and I do have a hunger for knowledge, and I actually would not read this as formatted if it were not for being asked to. Not because of the content, but because the way it is presented.
Dear Jeff:
I will rewrite the letter. The letter was intended to USDA Forest Service answering there ten questions relating to roadless area public comment. Not knowing how to receive input from others, I listed the questions and provided my answers, hoping others could direct or correct me if I didn't answer the questions effectively. V/R BWH
I scanned your report. Quite lengthy and a lot of research. Let's try to narrow the scope a little.
Is your complaint about forest fires or the ESA or both? Or is it the roadless policy?
I'm afraid the roadless policy may be here to stay for a while. I've heard the arguement that tourism will give employment relief for those who are displaced.
That hasn't been the historic case of those in the Northeast. There are areas where tourism has replaced the manufacturing and farming based economies. Ski lodge areas are a good example.
What happens is that those higher paying jobs are replaced with minimum waged, seasonal jobs for the majority of the population. Other jobs are created when land speculators come in and develop the private lands. When the speculation bubble bursts, then those jobs are gone.
Then you have a new population of newcomers. Their objective is to maintain the status quo, and that means to protect the remaining landscape. Forest management goes out the window, until their home is threatened by fire.
Meanwhile, the local population relocates to better paying jobs. Tourism isn't the answer.
I know you have other aspects that need addressed. Keep on posting.
Evaluation, protection, and management of inventoried roadless areas should be determined through the local forest planning process for each proclaimed National Forest as required by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA).
To do otherwise is a violation of this law unless it is repealed.
There are many acres of semi-primitive non motorized areas designated in Forest Plans that are not being included in the Roadless Area initiative. Thus their are many acres of roadless areas not being disclosed.
An example is the Huron-Manistee National Forests states that it only has 6,000 acres when it really has 90,000 acres designated and to be managed as such.
Thank you swampwhiteoak: Since you answered my questions and posted my questions with your answers, if an effort to make more space available on the forum, I have deleted my questions. I will also limit my USDA Forest Service roadless letter comment to one page rather then reference everything I thought should be addressed. I have deleted my roadless area letter on Offroad.com as I now know what direction my comments should proceed thanks to you. Thank you again.
Bruce
Makes you wonder how, without a road, anybody can be assured that 58 million acres is remaining pristine? One of them bears might be tearing the place up. :D
Bruce,
You've obviously spent a great amount of time researching and thinking about this and I applaud you for it. You are probably more informed about the particulars of this rule than the average non-Fed forester.
You've written a lot of stuff here and on your website so I'll just comment on a couple of things. Be aware that on many issues I agree with you in principle but you seem to want a devil's advocate so here you go:
Quote1). The lack of roads in the national forest makes it difficult to thin the forest in order to prevent wildfires. Helicopters or cable systems transporting trees as a substitute to the construction of new roads at present is even forbidden in all most all roadless areas. 7 million-acres burned is not the answer.
A helicopter system or cable system to remove small diameter trees would be a large waste of money. The money would be better spent thinning non-roadless areas that need the treatment.
Quote2). ESA should not be used as a tool in order to prevent new road construction or secure new land without consideration for county impact on local economies.
If in fact the species would be threatened by the road, then this is a valid use of ESA. Otherwise it is not.
Quote3). ESA allows international associations, etc., to gain access to our natural resources, thereby decreasing American control over our natural resources, directly affecting USDA Forest Service consideration for "roadless area" input/comment from Americans.
I guess you're talking about Greenpeace or WWF? Most lawsuits I'm aware of have been generated by the Sierra Club or semi-local enviros.
You might be interested to find out that much of the wood in the Tongass is earmarked for Japan. Some oil in Prudhoe bay goes to Japan also. How's that for decreasing American control over it's resources?
Quote4). ESA allows U. S. environmental associations, etc., to control our natural resources, forcing farmers and those in the forest industry to spend their money on law suits.
It would be nice to come up with a way to preserve the spirit of ESA while removing the litigous nature of it. Unfortunately I can't think of one. Maybe paying landowners to provide T&E habitat on their land.
Quote5). Importing timber from Canada in a free market is acceptable. However, not allowing timber harvest in the U. S. in areas we should be harvesting timber is counter productive. My father builds steel and wood buildings. Lumber is expensive and the cost of a 2by6 or 6by6 treated post continues to rise. I believe harvesting more U. S. timber and reopening mills will eventually decrease the high cost of lumber. Many lumberyards have closed in my area and other parts of the country. Therefore, 380,000 miles of roads in the national forest should increase to at least 800,000 miles and roads to private forestland should be allowed. Why should those that pay taxes on their privately owned forest be forced to watch their forest burn because of USDA Forest Service and roadless areas policies?
Canada's lumber is unfairly subsidized (in my opinion) and has an inherent advantage over American wood.
Where "we should be" harvesting timber is arguable. Some would say that harvesting on public land decreases the price of wood, and therefore hurts the private producer. My belief is that we should manage for multiple values and forest health on public land and leave intensive timber production to private land.
You've already noted that there is a 8.4
billion dollar backlog on existing roads. Why should they be expanded by 120%?
Quote6. If roadless areas shall remain free of roads because of ESA interruption, then by George, those that own private forest who are not allowed access to their land in order to harvest their timber, should not have to pay property taxes to their county and when their timber burns, the government should pay them the market value per board foot rather then being forced to sell their land to USDA Forest Service because of policies that directly affect timber harvest. This same principle applies to farmers but ESA interruption becomes the enemy.
I agree.
Quote7. If you think it's difficult to exploit our natural resources, i.e., oil, gas, timber, minerals, etc., today, wait until tomorrow when CARA originates it's 3 billion trust fund to purchase more forest and farm land at a time when PILT will change the way counties receive federal allocations.
CARA isn't all bad. Ohio will get significant increased funding for non-game wildlife programs that are very underfunded as of now. I think buying more land out west is kind of silly, though, since the feds own most of it anyway.
What is the difference between a roadless area and a wilderness area? Is it size or just designation?
When talking about managing a forested area, you must consider that non-management is a viable management alternative.
Usually, when someone thinks of management, they think of cutting trees. In many western states, that has come to mean clearcut. The problem with clearcut areas is when they regenerate, the tree height gives a ladder effect during a wildfire. Then the fires top out quicker and move much faster.
Fire is an important factor of pine forests. It is how they regenerate in many cases. Trying to eliminate fires is pretty futile, IMO.
The Forest Service has allowed them to run free at Yellowstone. I believe this thinking will continue. Afterall, if you aren't allowed to do any harvesting, what is the point?
.
The primary difference between roadless and wilderness is that "W"ilderness is a Congressional designation. It is Wilderness with a capital "W". There are roadless areas and semiprimitive nonmotorized areas that have more wilderness characteristics than many designated Wilderness areas, especially here in the east.
The Allegheny Islands there on the Allegheny National Forest is a good example, but they are designated Wilderness.
Don't know what this comment has to do with anything but having planted monoculture for Champion and others,and having seen beetles ...the concept scares me.
Bruce I must warn you again, this is a DICUSSION FORUM. Not a billboard. It is an interuption to this board to post these large prefab messages.
Pick a topic, discuss it, move to the next. I can tell when you are talking and when your just pasting info. Stick to the talking.
Jeff:
Sorry, Won't happen again and I'll delete the prefab. I won't post an entire book anymore - Sorry, got dumb struck. Thank you for setting me straight. I was confussed.
Bruce
Hi Don: I'm a new guest that keeps making mistakes. I'll correct that instantly. I have a question you may have the answer to:
Blister beetles kill two horses from eating Socorro County-grown hay – If these beetles get in the forest because of over brush and spread into the roadless area would helicopters be sent to spay in order to save wildlife that eats grass, especially in dry areas of the forest? Access to some degree, even if eight feet trails were constructed in the roadless area seems practical to gain access.
Bruce
Don P:
Absolutely right on about monocultures. We have them here in the East. Mountains of oak stands. When the gypsy moth came through, they just ate one end of the state to the other.
Bruce, You are a full member. Are you confusing the Timber Buyers Network with the forestry forum?
Here's kinda how that works.
I created the Timber Buyers Netwrok as an information source for private landowners to educate themselves on how to manage thier forest and timber resources, some have no idea where to start and this is why we are here. The Timber Buyers Network membership is made up of companies that want their information available to our visitors. All member companies go through a verification and selection process before being approved. We only want reputable companies and people available to our visitors.
The forum was created for these companies and landowners to comunicate, but has evolved into it's own entity. You do not have to be a member of The Timber Buyers Network(TBN) to be a forum member, and TBN members are not nessesarily forum members.
So in short, Bruce you are a member! the little status bar under your name that appears to the left of your posts changes with the number of posts you have made. Once you reach 50 posts, It will automatically say Full member. That is if you don't have to keep deleting them, cause it counts backwards too! :D
Ron:
Thank you very much for you comments.
I have a few more questions if you care to comment:
1). Could 8' trails be constructed in the roadless area utilizing rivers to float logs to existing roads?
2). Would it be cost effective to use horses/oxen to pull the logs throughout trails to the rivers?
3). Can the government swap federally owned trees with privately owned forest trees in areas that are restricted from harvesting trees, because the private forest is considered a sensitive area for one reason or the other?
4). Does the government pay the private owner a fair market value for their trees when they burn, because of federal policy not allowing timber harvest within privately owned forest?
5). My family members and friends are willing to sign their name to a roadless area letter that fairly addresses issues at hand, chiefly, burning of forest must stop. To some degree, ESA must be fairly addressed allowing some private land ownership rights in order to determine individual desires on how best to manage private land. In short, I will endeavor to rewrite my letter, but I wonder if my signature and a minimum of 30 others willing to sign a supporting letter addressing issues at hand, would not be better served affixed to a letter sponsored by forestry professionals who understand the issues at hand better then us farmers or truckers? Officially, we still have around 30 or so days to respond to USDA Forest Service.
Bruce
It is best to write 30 individual letters rather than one(1)letter with 30 signatures such as a petition type. The USDA-Forest Service counts these only as one(1)reply whereby 30 individual letters, even though they may say the same thing, are counted as 30 separate public comments.
A few of my views on the issue at hand. Now remember right or wrong these are my views.
First I don't agree with the overall roadless issue. Way too broad. Must be handled at a state by state issue, but with the size of some states, forest by forest issue.
Now I believe that it is best to let some fires burn if they aren't endangering any dwellings. Some forests benefit much more so than others. That is natures way of renewing the forest. Sad but true. So with some areas no management is the way to go. Unless a plan for the area is in place and actually followed.
Some forests would do best to have clearcuts done other forests would do best to have selective cutting done and some just left alone. Depends on species.
The above may sound wishy-washy but, with my limited knowledge of forestry overall. You just can't say a forest in the northeast is the same as the northwest or south. Each has it's dominant species of trees and must be either managed or non-managed to suit.
Lastly it appears to me that the private sector does a much better job of management than the feds. Why do you think that is. A healthy forest means better profits.
Overall some areas need roads others shouldn't or too costly to build them. You've got to remember every road or trail needs some sort of maintenance or else it will turn back into forest and be roadless anyway.???
Just a few of my views
right or wrong
Gordon
Gordon
"Lastly it appears to me that the private sector does a much better job of management than the feds."
Yes and no. Feds have their hands tied on doing EIS (Environmental Impact Statements), and are trying to address a lot of issues. They also have a top to bottom type of management where forest mgmt is directed from the top, not local level.
However, when they are allowed to do mgmt, it is pretty good.
I think state foresters do a better job, since it is often handled at the local level.
Too often private landowners look at the short term gains, not the long term managment. High grading doesn't take place on government lands, but does on privates. I wonder why that is?
The best way for the USDA-Forest Service to work with the variety of States, tribes, local communities, other organizations, and individuals in a collaborative manner to ensure that concerns about roadless values are heard and addressed through a fair and open process is to disclose "all areas of the total public land area" being managed under Roadless Management Direction, ie. Wilderness Area, Special Management Areas, Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Areas, Wild & Scenic River Corridors, Research Natural Areas etc. so we know the total land area and acres in Roadless Area management, and not just dwell on the newly added acres under another Roadless Area designation.
What is the composite acreage of all such Roadless Areas and their impacts on public resource use??
Bruce,
Although log drives on rivers used to be common, I don't think they will return. Too many issues involved. Anything that directly alters or damages a river system is a no-no these days.
The FS regularly swaps land with private entities although this is sometimes held up by enviro or industry groups. I don't think any private landholder gets money from the feds if a fire spreads to their land, although I could be wrong. I could see this happening if it was a prescribed burn that got out of hand.
Your letter should be short, specific, and to the point. The FS has got tons of public comments on the roadless issue, my guess is a short, precise letter is going to be more effective. Ron is right, though, let everyone interested submit a seperate letter.
Second Draft "Roadless AreaComment" revised
Bruce
Ron, yes I stand corrected. The lastly statement I made. -----
-----"Lastly it appears to me that the private sector does a much better job of management than the feds."
That was a much to generalized statement to make. Sometimes peoples hands are tied on different matters. I see this at work a lot myself on the state level. But I agree that working on a local level is best.
The issue of highgrading is a whole different matter. Alot of times I do believe it's the loggers more so than the landowners doing the highgrading. Also it's the lack of knowledge of the landowner, that contributes to this as well. Doesn't realize it's happened until it's too late.
Part of the property I own was highgraded a few years before I bought it. The really sad thing was is the previous owner never contacted a forester of any sort just called a couple of logging companies for the quick buck.---That should answer your question on the private sector Ron---. But was even worse when I mentioned to him that it had been highgraded, his reply was yea the timber was real thick back here and they even left a lot standing.
Three things on that come to mind for a private landowner, research, education, and contracts are the key.
Bruce, your getting closer with that letter but you need more paragraph breaks and to shorten it as well. It's best to slam home a point in one page if possible. Short and sweet. If the reader gets dazzled with to much info too quick, you have as good as lost him or her. I realize this means a lot to you and you've got some good content but could leave some content out as well. Not trying to put you down, just trying to help.
Gordon
I will take your advice and reduce my letter further.
5th Draft "Roadless Area Comment" REPLACED BY 6th Draft. Thank you for the hints on format Tom:
Evaluation, protection, and management of inventoried roadless areas should be determined through the local forest planning process for each proclaimed National Forest as required by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA).
The best way for the USDA-Forest Service to work with the variety of States, tribes, local communities, other organizations, and individuals in a collaborative manner to ensure that concerns about roadless values are heard and addressed through a fair and open process is to disclose "all areas of the total public land area" being managed under Roadless Management Direction, i.e. Wilderness Area, Special Management Areas, Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Areas, Wild & Scenic River Corridors, Research Natural Areas etc.
What is the composite acreage of all such Roadless Areas and their impacts on public resource use?
Forests in the Northeast are not the same as forests in the Northwest or South. Each forest has its dominant species of trees.
In ecosystems of the West, timber and cattle interests favor selective logging and grazing as the prime means of reducing fuel buildup.
In some cases, mechanical removal of trees through thinning and logging is commercially viable.
In other cases, thinning and logging is less desirable than prescribed burning, since logging firms would have to be paid to remove trees or unwanted vegetation which can be used for Biomass energy.
Management decisions may require that some forests be clear-cut while others be left alone or selectively harvested.
The National Forest within the roadless area should be managed for multiple values and forest health.
There is wide agreement that something must be done to reduce accumulating fuels and to encourage reinstatement of a natural fire regime. Allowing naturally occurring fires to burn wherever possible has become the subject of debate.
Despite determined efforts over the years to suppress naturally ignited fires, wildfires have become more numerous, severe and difficult to control.
Although natural fires are an essential component of many ecosystems, large fires encompassing millions of acres preserves neither habitat nor timber.
The USDA Forest Service roadless area national fire plan should disclose those forests more likely to burn due to fuel buildup, while implementing procedures to reduce fuel buildup.
Habitat and timber preservation through fire prevention by decreasing fuel buildup must become Forest Policy on a national level. Allowing the forest to burn out of control is not an effective policy.
When forest fires are fought by Americans willing to lay down their lives in the roadless area, will they be denied water from helicopters because the river is the home of the shortnose sucker fish?
New road and or trail construction within the national forest that would adversely affect endangered species or the watershed, supported by scientific facts, should not be allowed, unless an area critically needs thinning or vegetation removed in order to prevent loss of habitat due to a large-scale fire, disease or insect infestation.
The USDA Forest Service should complete a Transportation Analysis with public input in order to determine which interior roads will be permanently closed or temporally closed to allow continued resource management and protection against fire, insect & disease, flood, etc?
What roads are to be retained, for what purpose, and at what standard? What will the permitted road density be?
Currently, Forest Service inventories have identified at least 60,000 miles of unclassified roads including temporary roads and roads that were never planned, built, or maintained to safety, service, and environmental standards. It is anticipated that future inventories will verify the existence of substantially more miles of unclassified roads.
In 1998, new construction of Forest Service roads was 215 miles or .06 percent of the total Forest Service road system. New construction has trended downward annually from 2,310 miles in 1988.
The Roadless Rule could prevent the construction of up to 232 miles of new road construction or reconstruction each year in inventoried roadless areas.
Incentives must be created in order to fairly compensate private land owners often penalized by Laws, Policies and Lawsuits sponsored by environmentalist due to ESA interpretation, which often limits intensive timber harvest for the private sector.
Adopting old methods for timber removal should be considered as a viable method to thin the national forest. Current law prohibiting heavy equipment in wilderness areas cripples any attempt to aggressively thin the national forest.
Teams of horses or oxen could easily pull logs from the forest using trails rather then roads. Logs can also be transported up or down steep grades or across canyons using a cable system. Once forest in various areas was thinned, trails would not require maintenance and could be abandoned.
We must ask are selves what is the cost of loosing 60 year old trees due to fire on millions of acres? Considering that, are these older harvesting methods cost prohibitive?
In closing, I believe the backlog of deferred road maintenance and reconstruction needs on Forest Service roads, an estimated $8.4 billion should be allocated prior to new forest purchase. This backlog is due to the age of the arterial and collector roads (three-fourths are over 50-years old), heavy use, and the lack of regular maintenance.
Before National Forests designate Roadless Areas, they need to know where their roads are by completing a Transportation Analysis with public input. What roads are to be retained, for what purpose, and at what standard? What will the permitted road density be?
National Forests such as the Huron-Manistee have been directed for years to complete a Transportation Analysis. This is required part of Forest Planning. They say they are always going to do this, but never do.
So how can Roadless Areas be designated when the number of interior roads are not known and which roads are to be closed or how many? Will interior roads be permanently closed or temporally closed to allow continued resource management and protection against fire, insect & disease, flood, etc?
Ron:
If I added this to my letter do think it would be too much? I like supporting evidence yet it sure is hard to make a one-page comment, especially when others, like you, introduce effective and logical comments.
In reality, I think the solutions will one day become a book and a two-page letter if effective may be read. I might have to remove stated facts and although in my mind I can visualize a powered cable roller system attached to large trees, it may not be cost effective but surely it would be cheaper then new road construction.
This information might distract the reader and lead them to think I'm unrealistic. Yet the animals feed bill would be reduced if they were eating forest vegetation. Water and gain might need hauled in some areas.
I guess I'm searching for solutions more then anything. Your input and the input of others have helped me a lot. Thank you very much.
Transportation Analysis
The USDA Forest Service should complete a Transportation Analysis with public input in order to determine which interior roads will be permanently closed or temporally closed to allow continued resource management and protection against fire, insect & disease, flood, etc?
What roads are to be retained, for what purpose, and at what standard? What will the permitted road density be?
Currently, Forest Service inventories have identified at least 60,000 miles of unclassified roads including temporary roads and roads that were never planned, built, or maintained to safety, service, and environmental standards. It is anticipated that future inventories will verify the existence of substantially more miles of unclassified roads.
In 1998, new construction of Forest Service roads was 215 miles or .06 percent of the total Forest Service road system. New construction has trended downward annually from 2,310 miles in 1988.
The Roadless Rule could prevent the construction of up to 232 miles of new road construction or reconstruction each year in inventoried roadless areas.
Transportation Analysis should take into consideration the necessity for access to privately owned forest within the roadless area and areas of the national forest that need thinning, vegetation removed or old growth that may need removed because of disease or insect infestation.
New road and or trail construction within the national forest that would adversely affect endangered species or the watershed, supported by scientific facts, should not be allowed, unless an area critically needs thinning or vegetation removed in order to prevent loss of habitat due to a large-scale fire, disease or insect infestation.
It's hard to keep it short when the USDA-Forest Service has asked for comments on at least the 10 questions they provided for comment. Comment to each question can be a page.
Just lay your response out well and stay on the subject with some key facts.
Ron
Thank you. Input from you and others as helped me a great deal.
Ron
When forest fires are fought by Americans in the roadless area, willing to lay down their lives, will they be denied water from helicopters because the river is the home of the shortnose sucker fish?
Four firemen perished because they were denied water from a river in the northwest because a dispatcher chose shortnose suckerfish over human life, i. e. central Washington.
Two former USFS firefighters familiar with the Thirty Mile Fire said getting permission to dip into the Chewuch caused the delays that led to the death of their colleagues.
This makes me sick at my stomach and I will write letters until someone calls me and ask me to stop.
If you don't bring a fireman water, fighting your fire, then let it burn, but don't hire a fireman and tell him to fight the fire.
Timber waste due to forest policies that restrict access to the forest, resulting in millions of acres lost due to fire, is a miss use of U. S. Natural Resources.
The USDA Forest Service should issue regional transportation analysis disclosing how access to every forest will benifit preservation of U. S. timber.
Which forest is more likely to burn due to fuel buildup?
Chapter 9, Section One of Energy Quest addresses Forest Fires and key players in the debate over "allowed to burn" forest policies and is the bases for my belief we need access to the natonal forest. Many reports are referenced.
FOREST FIRES OF 2000 IMPACT TO WESTERN STATES AND
USDA FOREST SERVICE ROAD LESS WILDERNEES/TIMBER POLICIES,RECOMMENDATIONS FROM EXPERTS ON HOW TO BEST MANAGE U. S. FOREST, FOREST REPORTS AND WEB SITES http://www.energyquestsearch.com/navigator9/sec1
The former Department of Interior Bruce Babbitt, interior secretary, advocated expanded prescribed burning and thinning to reduce fuel loading in the dry ponderosa pine forests.
"Mike Dombeck, the fisheries biologist and former chief of the U.S. Forest Service, shifted the Forest Service's priorities from cutting timber to protecting watersheds and promoting recreation.
Mitigation
An estimated 65% of all forest fires are man-made, either intentionally or accidentally. Therefore, public education and care in preventing forest fires is of major importance, as well as effective prosecution of arsonists. The remaining 35% of forest fires are ignited by lightning and beyond the control of man. Spotting and warning program in effect when forest fire danger is high will enable evacuation and firefighting efforts to begin as soon as possible. Mutual aid agreements between municipal fire departments and including regional industry must be developed and maintained.
I'm hearing the debate on the National News as to the T&E Act (fish in this case) vs. the 4 firefighter's lives. Really a shame if that is truly what happened.
Lack of experience and common sense seem to be more prevalent lately in regards to fire suppression and firefighter safety.
If the firefighters called for water, they should have gotten water, T&E fish in the bucket or not. Any such water restrictions should have been well known in advance by all.
However, the emergency plan should have made the water available for emergency drops. Those in command of the fire should have been in control with the resource available when needed, and not controlled by some off site ecologist or fish biologist probably not even familiar with fire suppression needs.
Ron
Thank you for your response. You are 150% correct.
Good Show Ron,
If I were the pilot, I'm afraid they would have had to fire me.
If the advertised scenario is true, somebody(s) should have their can kicked at the very least.
Ditto that Tom those firefighters would have gotten water until my flying machine was out of fuel.
If that is the truth it's past sad that could even happen in this day and age. Just for the sake of kicking something around---do you think if the president of the U.S. was out there fighting that fire the end result would have been the same? Still no water dropped.
A person is a person and must all be treated equal.
Man just thinking about that scenario has me more than mad.
Gordon
Might depend on which President, Gordon.
I say that in jest, but it does seem that "employees" of our governments (plural) appear to lean toward "the people exist for the government" rather than the Government for the people.
I become more Jaded as I get older. I have been accused of being totally cynical and once even of being an Anarchist, not by anyone in my generation nor by my elders.
It is increasingly difficult to find citizens of the generations following me who exhibit much patriotism or who value their freedoms. More personal freedoms have been offered up for the taking in the last 30 years than in any other time in the history of our country. That's my opinion and not backed up by documents that I have researched, even though those documents probably exist.
It seems to me that the general population of the United States wanders aimlessly through life like a herd of sheep. Many are, perhaps, led by a goat with a bell representing the "News" media. The majority stand dazed while the world turns about them, hoping for someone who will recognize their existence and tell them what to do next.
Free thinking, individualism and concern over the rights and freedoms provided to us by our forefathers is a thing of the past.
I hope I'm wrong but I feel that we are a society ripe for the picking and are headed down a road that leads to our being usurped by another society or at the very least becoming an equal blend in the "New World Order" of which so many think we are destined.
I'm getting on my soapbox and didn't mean to. There are strong folks coming up, I'm sure, but they seem to be in the minority and trampled by an increasingly overbearing bureaucracy.
Those kids should have had every available human who knew they were there trying to get them out rather than having to ask for water. Their effort to obtain water should have been considered a command, not a request and never should anyone have considered escalating it to a battery of "Desk Jockeys".
Sorry for the tirade, but it makes me angry.
Amen to all that, Tom.