OriginalOscar
Active member
Great use of the internet, here. We can all take a few notes on how to look up and cite rigorous, peer-reviewed research from dukes_daddy. I can tell just from the name of the website that the primary goal of this report is to provide unbiased results with no agenda.
I have worked with many FS employees who do fantastic research to help the scientific community better understand the role of headwater streams and vulnerable habitats in salmonid migration and spawning behavior. I'm a little less than shocked to find that the folks at "downsizinggovernment.org" didn't include mention that in their critique. Use that google machine of yours to find a report that contains some data and facts. It should be fairly easy since all of the research conducted by federal employees is required to have open access, and the data be freely available to the public (all paid for by that budget referenced in your excerpt).
I am not against accountability. I AM completely against building arguments on the unwavering foundation of ignorance.
For Buzz and your benefit. If you look at the little numbers in the paragraph I posted, it links to the source for what is stated. The government (same one Buzz works for) has something called Government Accounting Office (GAO). Think of them as U.S. government CPA's. That paragraph and citations is their indictment of the Forest Service culture of waste and lack of accountability.
Here it is again so you don't need to backtrack - https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/forest-service
The Forest Service's legacy of poor management continues today. A 2003 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded: "Historically, the Forest Service has not been able to provide Congress or the public with a clear understanding of what the Forest Service's 30,000 employees accomplish with the approximately $5 billion the agency receives each year. Since 1990, the GAO has reported seven times on performance accountability weaknesses at the Forest Service."10 The agency's financial operations were on the GAO's "high-risk" list for waste between 1999 and 2005.11
Don't discount the website which pulls together the information. Not looking at the source to determine if it is credible, is ignorance my friend.
Labeling president Trump and secretary Zinke as anti sportsmen, public lands, and protection comes from bureaucrats, special interests and environmentalists. Secretary Zinke's recent recommendation to send Bears Ears back to congress for review was accepted by Utah's congressional and local elected officials. Zinke struck a reasonable balance with recommendations; native americans share management responsibility, some areas maintain protected status, other areas be returned to BLM management.
My verdict of Zinke is good leader who looks for collaboration, input and seeks to strike reasonable balance. That's good government.