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’
13 thoughts on “More Colt Summit Than You Can Possibly Imagine”
I have to cringe at what you are invoking, (complimentary or otherwise) though I do not pretend to understand your intent here Sharon, nor do I pretend to understand your “culture” which pretends the worth of an individual is somehow going to be measured by an individual’s salary. I know better than this.
We clearly use dramatically disparate barometers of the measure of a man’s worth and value.
And that’s as far as I can meaningfully comment.
I’d agree that the measure of an individual should not be attributed to the amount of his income.
The source and motivation of and indivual’s income is another matter, to which I’d acknowledge you could flip right back at me.
From my particular (unique) perspective, THAT is the issue we should be addressing…I’ve recently spent A LOT of time explaining to “normal folk” (modest income), the benefits of a proposed restorationtimbersalefuelreductionjobs type project….lots of educated folks who have unanimously supported the project despite not having a “dog in the hunt”. No one’s pockets are getting lined, no one is benefiting financially. The proposal is just a good idea, by all accounts.
I guess I’m just not sure how to reconcile your views.
The title to this piece is really interesting, as this post of Sharon’s really has nothing to do with “More Colt Summit Than You Can Possibly Imagine.” If readers would actually like to learn more about the Colt Summit timber sale, this link here compiles all the “Colt Summit”-related posts from this blog.
I have no idea where you are going with all of this Sharon, but when you twist and turn everything some people say into some bizarre cesspool of thoughts, allegations, rumors and innuendos you completely lose me, and likely others. I also have to wonder how your actions, as demonstrated in this post, reflect on your spiritual beliefs (which you often talk about) or measure up with WWJD?
For the record, this Colt Summit discussion turned 180 degrees away from talking about Colt Summit because an anonymous-post commenter made this statement, claiming that the only goal of litigation from non-profit environmental groups is to make as much money as possible for them and their law firm. If some of you people want to believe that, and spread that crazy allegation, go right ahead, as that type of BS will hardly get you, or your issues, very far.
As for Sharon’s latest, in the twisting and turning land of “Make Believe” and “What if, what if?”:
What’s so funny and ironic about this “poor me” “what if” scenario is that there actually is a group supporting the Colt Summit Timber Sale, and that group did, in fact, have a seat at the table and did, in fact, hire an attorney.
The group not only includes the Montana Wood Products Association, Montana Logging Association and Pyramid Mountain Lumber but it includes the Montana Wilderness Association ($1,253,742 income), National Wildlife Federation ($98,816,627 income), The Wilderness Society ($24,897,745 income), American Forests (based in DC, not MT, $4,547,004 income), Sustainable Northwest (based in Portland, not MT, $2,207,662 income). [Please note all income figures are via guidestar.org. Also note that the only reason the location of some of these groups is mentioned, is because that’s been a common issue here when discussing groups some people don’t care for, or university-based research some people don’t like].
So, sure Sharon, let’s look at the actual Colt Summit case at hand and compare all that combined $130,000,000.00 (that’s 130 million dollars) in income from those groups (not some “make believe” “Friends of the Wild Collaboratives”) to the revenue of Friends of the Wild Swan ($13,574) and Alliance for the Wild Rockies ($109,256).
So, what, again was your point, Sharon? Just sayin’…..
Matthew, a couple of your statements seem to be personal attacks on me…we have been debating each other for years, so what’s up with the sudden antipathy? My ideas shouldn’t be any more annoying than usual.
As usual, I left out some of my logic path.
1. Administration says things will be fine if the FS collaborates, Congress doesn’t need to do anything. Really. Congress, with a few pilot projects on NEPA and collaboration, everything will be fine! Just stay away…
Evidence from Colt Summit shows that with collaboration, anyone who disagrees can still file a lawsuit. Which most folks already knew.
2. GAO report says appeals and litigation doesn’t really slow down projects, because if you average across the entire US the proportions are low.
Evidence from Colt Summit says that even with large collaborative efforts, litigation can still slow down projects.
So I was using Colt Summit as an example of “even with collaborators that can support (financially) litigation, the project has been stopped, and the process for a mere 600 acre thinning project has taken years..” And I don’t think it’s really about how many past projects in or outside the LAU were considered in the cumulative effects analysis. Really. And I don’t think anyone believes (including the regulatory agency responsible, apparently) that a 600 acre thinning project is going to hurt the lynx species. even with past and reasonably foreseeable future projects considered. So.. what is it really about?
But I didn’t follow through and say if even CFLRP collaborative projects are stopped in Montana, “what chance does a small-bucks group of people have to get a project through, if someone else takes a dislike to it and has the bucks to hire a lawyer?” And who would want to put the time and effort into collaborating under those circumstances?
I hope this is clearer about what I think Colt Summit tells us.
FWC might ask for help from the Pacific Legal Foundation ($14,064,780).
Your comments a “bizarre cesspool of thoughts, allegations, rumors and innuendos” – an amazing gift (gaia-given), Sharon, that you must cultivate. No telling where it will lead. I keep reading these posts for entertainment, not enlightenment.
Yea, I think Matthew was really talking about himself and got confused and used Sharon’s name instead of his own. 🙂 But then he does that regularly to everyone. 🙁 He’s kind of like an arsonist, he flames and runs.
I’m not like an arsonist, Gil. And, no, I don’t run. Not for fun, and certainly not from you or others. I also was not confused and stand by my previously-stated opinion regarding Sharon’s post here “More Colt Summit Than You Can Possibly Imagine.”
Matthew, I have never said anyone has “a bizarre cesspool of thoughts”. That’s demeaning and not very specific. If you have specific thoughts that you disagree with, that’s fine, point that out. Every time you do something like that, I explain. Folks can either follow my explanation and understand or think my thinking is screwy. Which is fine. I know many folks in both camps and somewhere in the middle.
But actually I think attributing “allegations” to me while alleging that my thoughts are a “cesspool” seems like you are attributing to me something bad, while you are actually doing the same thing of which you’re accusing me.
Further, I don’t think I’ve every said bad things about anyone or anyone’s thinking on this blog. I have not understood some thinking and have asked individuals to explain.
So I am asking you to stop making those blanket negative statements about me and focus on specifics and questioning me in a respectful way, as I think I do with you.
Sharon, I was responding to Gil’s comment directed at me (about me supposedly being like an arsonist) and really didn’t want to re-hash what I already wrote. In comment #3 above I have specifically pointed out where I disagree with what you have written. I also shared my colorful opinion of some of your tactics. Maybe that was a bit over-board on my part.
But since you brought it up, I don’t feel as if you are always respectful on this blog to certain non-profit organizations and activists. Hell, even the title of this blog post, “More Colt Summit Than You Can Possibly Imagine”….which actually has nothing to do with Colt Summit and an opening line of “in our previous discussion of why Matthew is underpaid” I personally find a little disrespectful, and an example of how you sometimes manage to twist and turn things in a bizarre way that more focused on allegations, rumors and innuendos. Thanks.
The smiley face 🙂 was supposed to clue you in that my comment was an attempt at humor. So I guess you are not confused but are merely clueless. 🙂
Great child-like touch there Gil. You tell me that you weren’t insulting me by insulting me. Good to know. Comments like these add so much substance to this blog and the comments section.
P.S. For the record Gil, my lack of responding (or, as you put it, “He’s kind of like an arsonist, he flames and runs”) was due to the fact that I’ve been doing painting and maintenance work all week for the widow and young daughters of a dear childhood friend who passed away last year at 41, far too young.
So let’s quit flaming, no more imputing motives to people and no more derision of anyone whose ideas counter our own. Every one needs to respect the logic or lack thereof of everyone else. Our passion shows that we all want the same end result – a better world – just think what we could do if we could work together.
If someone uses facts in an attempt to refute your prior claims or to answer a question that you posed, don’t ignore their facts or ignore their post or flame them, instead, respond with facts or explain why you believe what you believe. Only then will anyone be able to add any “substance to this blog and the comments section” as you say. Until then we are all only exchanging mantra’s and talking past each other which is a complete waste of time.
I am genuinely sorry for your loss.