EF! Fined $1million in Idaho

David Whitt davwhitt at med.unc.edu
Wed Nov 20 12:39:39 EST 1996

In article <3292EAFB.66E6 at rippers.com>,
norm lenhart  <lenhart at rippers.com> wrote:
>They sure do ! Of course SOME would have us believe the opposite.
>Wildlife of all kinds also inhabit the forests planted where once there
>were only feilds. The Extremists try fostering the belief that Logging
>turns vast tracts of land into barren wastelands , devoid of life for
>all eternity. Nothing can be further from the truth.

What happens after the topsoil, which was held in place by those trees
which are no longer there, is washed away?  Many times, especially in
areas near cities and towns, those logged areas are turned into subdivions
and houses.  Those trees are lost.

>Many people who have no idea of the reality of the situation, simply
>accept the lies and disinformation campaigns of EF! and the Sierra Club. 

And the timber and agribusiness industries are so wholesome and always
tell the truth.  They really have our best interest at heart.

>I challenge these people to go to a place where new logging has occured.
>Naturally, the scene is not one of "Natural beauty". However, go back to
>that same spot 1 year later. You find new trees and plants of all kinds,
>growing. You find the land "Born anew". Much of the time, it is helped
>along by the planting of new timber BY THE LOGGING COMPANYS. NOT BY EF!
>and the SIERRA CLUB!!
>Go back to that spot in 5 years. There is little evidence that any
>logging had occured. 
>Go back in 20 years. The forest can be selectively cut and NO evidence
>of past logging exists. 

If this were true, why then do these companies have to continue cutting
old growth?  Why not simply cut only those "born anew" trees that you love
to talk about?  Maybe its because some of the land has not been "born
anew" - because of suburban intrusion or topsoil depletion.  Maybe its
because the timber industry is not replanted at the rate they are
depleating.  One this is for certain.  With the population increasing and
a parallel increase in industrial pollution, we need more and more trees
to help filter the air and produce oxygen.  We need not fewer trees but
more and because of the myopic vision of people like you, the CO2 levels
have risen over 12% since 1900.  We now have a big hole in the oxone layer
over the poles and a weakened oxone layer over the rest of the planet (oh
those huge increases in skin cancer are purely coincidental - just like
the increases in lung cancer among smokers).  

>Through out it all, Wildlife fills the area. Those of us from logging
>areas have always known this. EF! and the SC know it all to well. The
>difference is that - that information is counterproductive to thier
>adgenda. It is that adgenda that takes away perfectly useable land and
>"PROIECTS IT". It is that adgenda which causes families to loose jobs.
>It is that adgenda that causes children to go hungry and be denied
>neccacary health care because the parents have lost thier jobs.
>"Protects it" from what ? 

Environmental laws have created more jobs than those lost.  Are you
suggesting those loggers are too stupid to learn a new skill?  Is the
limit of their capacity that of operating a chainsaw?  Everyone in society
has to deal with the possibility of losing their job.  Do I, being a
native of North Carolina, feel sorrow for the tobacco farmers going under
now?  No, they can simply adapt and grow corn or cotton.  

>The answer is from people using itrationally, and reasonably. The sad
>truth is they are like a greedy child with too many toys. They say "Dont
>touch that". We say "Why not" ? They say "Because I said so" . When we
>dont listen to them and do it anyway, they run to "Mommy" (the
>government) and lie about how we "wont play fair" . Its a simple
>analogy, but one that fits the situation perfectly.

Maybe for someone with a child's mind but the rest of us are a bit more
sophisticated and see the situation for what it really is.  Loggers want
money.  They get it from logging.  Where money is concerned, morals go out
the window.  Much like the tobacco industry doesn't care what damage their
product does to the public, so long as they get their millions.  Likewise,
loggers don't care what damage they do to the environment, after logging
they will move on to another site.  They will defend themselves, just as
the tobacco firms did, by claiming those who oppose them are lying and

>These Groups MUST be exposed for the frauds that they are.  As the song
>goes, "This land is your land, This land is my land". We're keeping it
>that way.

The problem is, you don't want to keep it that way.  You want this land to
be your land for your profit.  If this land is our land, why not share
your profits with us?

>The desert is in a simmilar crisis. Not an environmental one, but an
>environmentalist coused one. Sierra and EF! scream that the desert is
>being destroyed by everything from ORV's to "Global Warming". As above,
>I challenge people to see for themselves. Get the facts. Come down here
>and talk to the locals. The people who have been here for decades. They
>all tell the same story. The desert is the same today as it was decades
>ago. Sure more people live here. However, a quick trip to the files
>available from the USGS (united states geological survey) offices show
>the truth of the tale. Lump the populated areas together, and you have a
>little spot surrounded by enormous ammounts of land that have never seen
>a human being. 

This is a complex issue but one problem is water.  Most desert towns and
cities get their water from underground aquifers and the Colorado River
(which is now so tapped it runs dry a few miles before it is suppose to
empty into Baha).  The cities are growing so fast their is a large
controversy brewing over water rights.  If the cities get their way, which
is probable, they will have rights to the aquifers and will drain them
dry.  These reservoirs, when they come to the surface, produce oasis-like
areas vital to the plants, animals, and rural residents who live in the
areas.  This is especially important in Nevada which is sad because Las
Vegas (the city in this case) is taking the rural north to court over the
water rights, claiming they need it.  If you've ever been to Las Vegas,
you would know how poorly they manage their water and have the highests per
capita usage of water.

>However, Sierra and EF! strongarmed the Govt. into passing the Desert
>Protection Act Somehow the enviro-terrorists figgured that that one
>small spot of population was a mortal danger to 13.8 million acres of
>It just ain't so folks. Again, come and see for yourselves.
>This closure too will change.

Enviro-terrorists?  What gives us that label?

      ****                   David Whitt     davwhitt at med.unc.edu
     ** ***
         **                  No one can make you feel inferior
         ***                 without your consent.
         ****                                 -Eleanor Roosevelt
        ***  *
       ***   **   *          People often find it easier to be a result
      ***    ******          of the past than a cause of the future.
     ***       ***

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list