EF! Fined $1million in Idaho

norm lenhart lenhart at rippers.com
Sun Nov 24 17:56:03 EST 1996


D. Braun wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
Which still brings us to the fact that they can and DO live in second+
growth areas. 
> 
> Yea, I've heard this story before. Arthur logged trees on his land,
> following applicable forest practices; so what?

SO WHAT ? Mabye you might want to read the circumstances again. He
stopped everyone else (or at least tried to) but felt it OK to do irt as
long as it benefited him. Hypocrite.Plain and simple.

> The only issue is the fact
> that the story was blown up into a propaganda splash that didn't convince
> anyone.

Bull. It was proven to be true and therefor NOT propaganda as you would
like the uninformed to believe.


> I wrote an editorial to my local paper on this one, but they
> didn't publish it; I can post it if you wish.

Please do. Im intrested in seeing it.


> 
> 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)

Never said he did.

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

Talk to any given EF! protester at a logging site. I have. They're Quite
adamant about it.


> The following is true:
> 
> Enviros want to stop the logging of primary forest, especially old-growth,
> and especially in roadless areas.

How do you get a truck to the landing without a road to do it ? 

> Much was made of Arthur having trees
> cut, some of which were old; that does not make his property
> "old-growth".

If He followed the same rules/laws he would force on others, this would
be a non issue.


>  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.

No it dosent. The facts still speak for themselves.

> 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.

What he did with them is irelevant. By his own rules, he should have not
logged the area at all.


> And this is not an unbiased source.

Why is it that when the media reports in favor of the enviro cause that
anything they say is OK, but when they are held accountable they claim
Bias and yellow journalism ? Hypocracy.

> 
> Yah see?

Yes I see.

> 
> 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.


Why is it that when the media reports in favor of the enviro cause that
anything they say is OK, but when they are held accountable they claim
Bias and yellow journalism ? Hypocracy.


> 
> 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.

Rember that.

> 
> A paperwork error; so what?

Enviros hold loggers accountable on "paperwork errors" as well. Thats
what.

> 
> This is all really silly.

To you mabye, but to many people it is a sigh of the hypocracy rampant
in the environmental movement.


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

Werent you just quoting me names of conservationists, biologists ect ,
to support your arguement against me ?

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

But it does. You just arent comfortable with the facts.


> ?? And now back to the second grade

Very professional once again.

> "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.

Mabye you should if all you gan do is attempt to pick apart terms like
"Thriving" as they are used (and they are) by scientists.


> 
> 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.

Silly like accusing me of being a Communist ? The jist of this
discussion is logging and enviro-policies, not politics. Try staying on
the issue rather than clouding it.


> 
> 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.
> 

You really like to use that word dont you. Silly is clouding the issue.
You attempt it well.

> 
> "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.

"One of you" is obvious. Even my daughter understood it. 



> > 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.

Its clouding up again. I think many of your statements are absurd as
well. I however dont have to point them out. Theyre obvious to all who
read them. 
oesnt 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 content of your posts.

> > 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.

Im open. Ive shown that. I have conceded that there are areas that are
better left alone. You however refuse to see our point. Why not stop
arguing and make an effort ? I can do it, can you ?

> >> > 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
> impacts.
> 

Right here , you should do some rescearch. We dont want all the land in
the free world to use. All we want is the land we had before it was
locked up, and the land that is already roaded and trailed. These are
prexisting areas. 


> 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.
> 
This land can an is being reclaimed in many instances.


> > 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 ?

Here you need a better understanding of orv usage. Do some rescearch on
this . WE don't run roughshod over every plant and squirrell we see.

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

Mabye . But I dont hunt. Besides, that would be counterproductive to the
propagation of that species.
> 

> >
> > 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?

Ready when you are. (You keep saying silly and ridiculous, but I
digress....)


> 
> I'd just rather you didn't promote this activity,

And I'd rather you did'nt promote yours, so what ?


> which has inherently
> high environmental impact, way out of proportion to the impact of other
> users of the same public lands. 

Do your homework on the subject. Learn the truth. Only a small few  (as
in all things) cause the damage.

>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,

Then help us get bagk what was taken away, and we will be on the same
side. We dont want more, we want what what ET's (Enviro-terrorists NOT
SPACE AILENS) took.

 and traffic
> should absolutely stay on roads. 

Or other designated ORV areas.

 On a case by case
> basis, there are certainly areas where closures are needed for wildlife
> needs, environmental rehab, and increased wilderness solitude.

The standards are far too broad.


> 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. 

In YOUR opinion. 

Your uncivility only has
> reduced any sympathy among the public, with the power to curtail off-road
> activity. Congratulations.
> 
>  Dave Braun

Hardly. The "Public" is learning what we are about and what we do. That
scares enviros to death. Knowing that the truth is coming out.
Congradulations. You have made our job much easier.

-- 
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/



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list