Talk:Healthy Forests Initiative

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rkevins82, thanks for the much needed addition. Unfortunately, I don't think that it really fits the paragraph. I think your addition is much needed for NPOVing the article but could you see if you can separate the ideas out into two paragraphs?S.N. Hillbrand 20:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to rework the aims of the law into the first paragraph. Let me know what else you think it needs.

Rkevins82 05:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I've updated the pro HFI argument. I'm not sure if the previous argument was an intentional straw man, but the focus on large trees did not line up with the very wording of the Healthy Forest Restoration. It also did not address many of the points in favor of HFI. 166.5.164.45 (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The anti-HFI section needs more citation, but at least it has one. What you've added is totally unsourced. Can you provide citations for the supporters' arguments (here's where this supporter makes this argument) and for the assertions about the contents of the bill (section ___ with a link to the text of the bill as enacted)? JamesMLane t c 15:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Healthy Forests Initiative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071231150605/http://www.sierraclub.org/forests/fires/healthyforests_initiative.asp to http://www.sierraclub.org/forests/fires/healthyforests_initiative.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080622214513/http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/McInnis-WaldenBillAnalysis.cfm to http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/McInnis-WaldenBillAnalysis.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702104203/http://www.johnmuirproject.org/news-exploiting-federal-lands.html to http://www.johnmuirproject.org/news-exploiting-federal-lands.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]