Calling a litigious outfit an "environmental group" is like trying to
make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Where is the proof that litigating
almost every natural resource plan in America to a halt -- or forcing
"mitigation" in the form of vast acreage offered up at the altar of
"habitat" -- has actually made a positive difference to any specie of
flora or fauna?
Where are these self-proclaimed "environmental" organizations when America's border with Mexico is piled high with human excrement, bales of marijuana, discarded water containers, etc., ad nauseam? The selfsame "environmental" organizations -- including, but far from limited to -- the Audubon Society, Sierra Club, "The" Nature Conservancy, etc. -- are strangely mute during conflagrations that incinerate millions of acres of that "habitat" which they proclaim to the public is in dire need of "protection."
Someone holding a chain saw is no more a forester than the litigious groups -- milking the "Equal Access to Justice Act" (5 U.S.C. § 504; 28 U.S.C. § 2412) for all it's worth -- are "environmentalists."
In my carefully studied opinion, a farmer or rancher or master gardener -- whose private property has been responsibly stewarded for many generations and is still productive, fertile and healthy -- is more qualified to be called an environmentalist than those cloaking themselves with that word. Names Don't Make it So.
Julie Kay Smithson
Julie Kay Smithson, property rights
/ natural resources researcher since 1999. Subscribe to my efforts
today & learn how to protect your property rights!