This is a pain in the patootie, but I noticed that we had run out of “replies” in our previous discussion of why Matthew is underpaid.
So to give him a chance to reply (and if we run out of other Colt Summit space)
Below is my comment # 16 restated so folks can respond. Here it is in its place in the prior discussion.
Your comment is very interesting. I said you were underpaid compared to these other folks. To which your answer was that they are underpaid compared to Plum Creek or DOJ.
But is Plum Creek or DOJ actually relevant in this case? Do you really think that someone is making a lot of bucks off 600 acres of commercial thinning?
I used WELC and thought it was relevant, because they claimed on their website that they had given their services to support FOWS and AWR on the Colt Summit project and claimed “Victory.”
Now suppose there was a group called “Friends of the Wild Collaboratives” who wanted to support Colt Summit. But they don’t have access to WELC or other “free” groups that donate their services. Yet FWC, our group of an equal number of equally legitimate citizens, compared to FOWS or AWR, does not have a seat at the table, because they can’t afford a lawyer.
That’s why WELC is relevant.
As to NRDC, I don’t see the relevant world of “highly paid” versus “no lawyers” simply related to timber sales.
I’m sure others could help, but a simple Google search on NRDC forest service cases yielded this project (no, not a timber sale, but still a project) http://www.law360.com/articles/75487/nrdc-sues-forest-service-over-rockies-gas-project
PS Matthew, in my culture it’s a compliment to say you are underpaid. Just sayin’