ShareThis Page
… & a flaccid barker |

… & a flaccid barker

| Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:00 a.m

The clear-cutting of chaste forest at Rolling Rock Farms is a tale of rules broken and connections unspoken.

First, there’s the matter of permitting. The second, larger round of clear-cutting began only after necessary permits were granted. But given the ecological carnage being wrought, the issuers clearly have bark for brains.

And who can forget that the first spate of clear-cutting was done without permits — permits that were curiously issued ex post cutto , so to speak, only after this newspaper blew the foghorn.

But there’s something even more insidious with the rape of Rolling Rock. The very agency that’s supposed to bird-dog such things and one we expect to squawk the loudest — the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, based in Pittsburgh — is sitting on its hands.

Why• Money. Nearly $20 million over the past five years, to be exact.

One of the conservancy’s largest single benefactors is the Richard King Mellon Foundation, which oversees Rolling Rock’s operations.

Despite its mission to “protect … exceptional places … for present and future generations,” the conservancy says it typically doesn’t involve itself in “individual property issues” and that it’s not “an advocacy organization.”

It’s the kind of weasel-worded buncombe that will only ensure there will be a second sequel to the chain saw massacre at Rolling Rock Farms.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.