EF! Fined $1million in Idaho

D. Braun dbraun at u.washington.edu
Sat Nov 23 15:29:34 EST 1996

Dear Norm: the quality of your replies reflects more heat than light.
I'll be brief.

On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, norm lenhart wrote:

> D. Braun wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Count yourself with the extremists. Several hundred species are currentlu
> > recognized as being dependent on late successional and old-growth forest,
> > based on scientific research. This is documented in the EIS for the
> > President's Forest Plan (Option 9, as amended).
> > 
> If it extreme to recognise that your "several hundred species" CAN and
> DO live in new growth forests as well, if old growth forests are
> unavailable, so be it. It stil does not change the truth of my
> statement.

I suggest you do a little reading.  "Dependent", in the context above,
means that the species' prime habitat is found in LS/OG; that they may be
found in clearcuts does not make clearcuts prime habitat.

> > >
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Maybe you could be specific?
> Surely you jest. Heres one little example . The Sierra Club rails
> against clear cutting of woodlands. They fight efforts around the
> country to log public and private lands. Ahhh! but what do ve have here
> ?
> ______________________-

Yea, I've heard this story before. Arthur logged trees on his land,
following applicable forest practices; so what? The only issue is the fact
that the story was blown up into a propaganda splash that didn't convince
anyone. I wrote an editorial to my local paper on this one, but they
didn't publish it; I can post it if you wish.

For this hatchet job, and your admiration of it to have any weight, the
following would need to be true:

This person represents "all environmentalists" (he dosen't)

This person, or by extension, all environmentalists, are hypocrites,
because they want to "stop all logging" (I have yet to meet anyone that

The following is true:

Enviros want to stop the logging of primary forest, especially old-growth,
and especially in roadless areas. Much was made of Arthur having trees
cut, some of which were old; that does not make his property
"old-growth".  Far from it; in the inland northwest, uneven-aged
management is the norm, and Arthur's land had been logged before. 
Personally, I might have done somethings differently--- but that really
dosen't matter.

> CUSICK, Wash- William Arthur, northwest regional director of the Sierra
> Club, has been "caught with his trees down". 
> Arthur sat on a forestry panel with President Clinton last April in
> Portland and said, "We cut like there's no tomorrow, and tomorrow caught
> up with us yesterday", criticizing the timber industry. 
> But in an area surrounded by the Colville National Forest, Arthur cut
> down and sold 20 logtruck loads of timber from property he owns in
> northeastern Washington state beside the Pand Oreille River. 
> "Stumps don't lie," commented Steve James, who used the chain saw which
> brought down the trees last August. 
> Washington Department of Natural Resources records show Arthur sold his
> timber to a major log exporter, Global Pacific Forest Products of
> Snohomish, Wash., on Dec. 30, 1992. Exporting of raw logs has always
> been loudly protested by preservationists including the Sierra Club. 

Perhaps he should have sold them to local mills. On the other hand, does
Global Pacific ONLY export logs? Does the Co. also sell to local mills, or
mill their own logs? Many companies dispose of their logs in various ways,
e.g. Weyerhauser.

> the permit Arthur signed called for removing 70 percent of the standing
> volume, estimated at 85,000 board feet, taking out "all merchantable"
> timber. It calls for replanting of seedlings, "if necessary". 
> Left behind on the property were the state requirements of downed logs,
> two wildlife trees, two seed trees per acre, and small trees not
> suitable for mills. 
> Arthur said, "It was a selective cut. I think they generally did a
> pretty good job." 
> "That was no light selective cut." said Ken Kohli, communications
> director for the Coeur d'Alene-base Intermountain Forest Industry
> Association. "They took out 90 percent-plus of the volume on that site." 

And this is not an unbiased source. 

> If this is the Sierra Club's idea of ecosystem management, not only can
> the forest products industry meet that standard, we can one-up them and
> do it better." added Kohli. 

Yah see?

> EPIC Official Cuts Redwood 
> The following appeared as a letter to the editor in the Times Standard
> newspaper in Humboldt County, CA. 
> An environmental activist, the Litigation Coordinator for the
> Environmental Protection Information Center(EPIC) in Garberville, has
> just cut the redwood trees on his property east of Carlotta, California.
> the timber was felled, bucked, loaded, and hauled to the mill that paid
> the highest price. It would seem that this individual is interested in
> maximizing his profit. 

And a newspaper always gets its facts right, and is unbiased? Might this
paper be biased against activists opposed to old-growth logging? The trees
were most likely second-growth, regrown after logging in the 1800's, BTW.

> This harvest was conducted without any pubilc review. No surveys were
> conducted. No neighbors were notified. There was no concern for the
> neighbor's property or trees. Has this harvest impacted the adjoining
> properties? What is the cumulative impact of the incremental harvesting
> of little stands of trees. The EPIC organization demands that exhaustive

This part shows its lack of ballance.  Public review is not required of
small private (or large private) parcels slated for cutting. This occurs
under the NFMA, for public lands.

> analysis of these questions be conducted before legitimate poerations
> can be approved, and the State agencies ump to these demands. this is
> the same person that told a Superior Court judge in Eureka that The
> Pacific Lumber Company was making secret deals with Fish and Game. I
> wonder if this person's actions scared the "be-jesus" out of the judge.
> I doubt it. 
> Although apparently legal, he didn't even fill out the one page
> application correctly and CDF accepted it. One would think a person with
> motives aas pure as a Litigation Coordinator, at least would have
> notified the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection that
> work would be conducted on Saturday and Sunday. 

A paperwork error; so what?

> When Pacific Lumber works Saturday or Sunday, EPIC screams and the tree
> huggers at Humboldt State University shout "corporate greed". this
> activist didn't even tell his neighbors that their driveway would be
> blocked. Come on, give us a break. Maybe this person had to do it this
> way so his fellow activists wouldn't find out he was just a money
> hungry, don't give a hoot logger at heart. 

This is all really silly.

> Bob Stephens Rio Dell, CA 
> (Bob is chief forester for The Pacific Lumber Company) 

Another unbiased source.

> Grizzly Habitat NIMBYism 
> The following is an editorial from the Bozeman Daily Chronicle in
> Montana. 20 Feb. 94 \


Reading enviro-bashing editorials is fun, but really dosen't amount to
much in tha way of factual information.


and now back to my post

> > 
> > > Go back to that spot in 5 years. There is little evidence that any
> > > logging had occured.
> > 
> > No
> Yes

?? And now back to the second grade

> > 
> > > Go back in 20 years. The forest can be selectively cut and NO evidence
> > > of past logging exists.
> > 
> > No. You confuse the color green with a forest ecosystem.  It just so
> > happens that clearcut logging, followed by short rotations, is a greater
> > disturbance to forests than fire, windthrow, root disease, bark beetles or
> > defoliators, or even volcanic eruptions. Think about it.
> I'll comprimise here. The ecosystem will once again be thriving. Yes
> evidence exists but sience life is abundant, the same life that existed
> before the cut, the evidence is irrelevant.

"ecosystem" is a scientific term; "thriving" is not.  You will have to be
more specific. "...the evidence is irrelevant." Hmm. I should really get
back to work, and off the 'net.

> > 
> > ??? Really. Any wildlife = all wildlife?  "Enviros" want to put people
> > out of work and starve children?" The economy of the PNW is not healthy?
> > A logger can't get a different job?
> OH! so since you dont like it, they can "simply" get a different job ? I
> really think you had better look into the PNW economy ALOT further
> before making such an assinine statement. 

More silly acusations. Maybe you want absolute state control that
guarantees everyone a job, soviet-style? Does your heart bleed for the
autoworkers, steel workers, and defense workers that regularly get layed
off by the 10s of thousands? Capitalism does have its drawbacks, like
the freedom of an employer to fire you. Why should the taxpayer subsidize
new roads into roadless areas, to log primary forest (often at a loss),
when plantations go unthinned? I would rather have such subsidies go to
timber workers to do pre-commercial thinning, to increase volume growth,
or in ecosystem rehabilitation, like putting roads to bed that are eroding
into salmon-bearing streams.

> Answer this question please. What do we replace all the wood based
> products we now are dependant on with ?

No, that is a silly question. I do not support replacing all paper and
wood products with something else, on simple logical as well as ecological
grounds. Ecosystem management does not require all logging to stop--- only
the recognition that it should not take place everywhere, if long term
stability and productivity of all resources is the goal. Ecosystem
management on the public lands is the policy that can finally make the
NFMA work in practice. 

> Paper, wood for building ect ? I want to see this answeres by one of
> you.

"One of you"? And who is "you and them"? This kind of paranoid bickering
is really unproductive. Your bile will eat a hole in your gut, if it
hasn't already.

> > 
> > Fits perfectly? Maybe if you ignore 25 years of research on forests,
> > forest management, and wildlife biology.  Maybe if you ignore the NFMA and
> > ESA, why they were passed, and why they should be enforced and
> > strengthened--- for PEOPLE. Protect the environment, and we are protected.
> The rescearch you cite has been debated for those same 25 years. Parts
> are correct, parts are not, parts are unclear.

Which ones?

> YES the environment must be protected but , dont forget, we have to LIVE
> in it as well. Locking up 13 million acres when only 5 are naccacary is
> ridiculous. Moreso, its greedy, hence, my analogy.

What is rediculous is your statement.

> > The only thing you expose is your own ignorance and narrow-mindedness.
> I advocate sensible and multiple use and you say Im narrowminded ? I
> guess to an environmental extremist, anyone that doesnt march to thier
> drum is narrow minded. Im in good company.

Really. Now I'm an "extremist"  Perhaps you could say on what you base
your conclusion?

> > 
> > > 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,
> > 
> > Hmm. I guess all scientific literature (or even common-sense naked-eye
> > observations to the contrary).
> Funny how I can use those exact words and be right.

Actually, no. Could you be specific on even one example?
I really don't mean to insult you on your knowledge, or lack of it.
Arguing by way of generalities and assertions doesn't amount to much,
though; just more heat than light. You, or I, can always learn more, but
an open mind is a requirement.

> > I see. Maybe you could explain about how the impacts from nuclear testing,
> > overgrazing, water projects, and ORV's are in fact non-existant?
> > 
> How much land in the US is uninhabitable by life due to radiation ?
> Overgrazing ? ORV's ?

I don't know the exact numbers, but the  nuclear test areas, and the
contaminated land at the Hanford Reservation in WA add up to a lot.  It'll
be radioactive for a long time.

ORVs don't make land "uninhabitable"  They do cause erosion, 
disturb and kill wildlife, and impact wilderness quality. The ORV
supporters also want acces to federal lands as much as possible, in a
clash with wilderness advocates.  These are far from insignificant

As for overgrazing, the entire intermountain region where sheep and cows
have grazed has been severely impacted. Native grasses have mostly been
supplanted by cheat grass and sage brush. Open forests with light fires
carried by native grass now are dense, disease, and crown-fire prone, due
to overgrazing that opened up a seed-bed for seedlings, coupled with fire
suppression policies. Riparian zones have been especially hard-hit. There
is a mountain of literature on these changes. Go to a university library
and look it up. 

> Why is it that a BLM Ranger or an Enviro in a 4x4 does no damage but an
> off-roader does ?
> Because you say so.

Could be that they stay on roads and out of wetlands and streams ?
> > Come see how this guy is really an unconvincing lier.
> Yes come see how the enviro terrorist can win an arguement with fact and
> logic, so he resorts to childish namecalling. Whats next, are you gonna
> tell my mommy ?

Wow.  Now I'm an "enviro terrorist". Maybe you should go out and shoot
some armadillos to vent a little.

> > 
> > > This closure too will change.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Norm Lenhart
> > > Editor / Writer VW&SC - Off-Road.com
> > > " The Best Dirt on the Net " !
> > 
> > >
> > > VW's & Sand Cars
> > > http://www.off-road.com/vw/
> > > Off-Road.com    http://www.off-road.com/
> > >
> > 
> > Could it be that your personal $ interests have biased your "discussion"
> > of "facts"?
> > 
> >                 Dave Braun
> Could it be that Im sick and tired and most importantly DOING SOMTHING
> about your asinine land closures ? Could it be that an internal Sierra
> Club memo stated that "If the wise use movement ever gains a foothold in
> american society, we are in serious trouble" ?

You keep saying "assinine".  Maybe you could actually discuss issues that
are relevent to road closures, for and against?

> Sure I work in the Off-Road industry. Im Proud of that fact. Would you
> rather have me on a welfare roll somewhere ? 

I'd just rather you didn't promote this activity, which has inherently
high environmental impact, way out of proportion to the impact of other
users of the same public lands. Personally, I'm all for some motorized
recreation on public lands--- I just believe that, with the huge road
network already in place, access should not be expanded, and traffic
should absolutely stay on roads.  On a case by case
basis, there are certainly areas where closures are needed for wildlife
needs, environmental rehab, and increased wilderness solitude. 
You want to roar over heaps of dirt? Great-- there are plenty of gravel
pits and old mines which would open for that activity if off-roading was
stopped on public lands, which it should be. Your uncivility only has
reduced any sympathy among the public, with the power to curtail off-road
activity. Congratulations.

 Dave Braun

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list