EF! Fined $1million in Idaho

D. Braun dbraun at u.washington.edu
Mon Nov 25 18:46:37 EST 1996


The following has been radically snipped, so that much is hard to follow.
Not much I want to say here anymore.

		Dave.

On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, norm lenhart wrote:

> 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