National Forests

mcready at mcready at
Sat Jan 10 22:32:52 EST 1998

In article <19980110075601.CAA28536 at>,
  phadruig at (PHADRUIG) wrote:
> mcready at writes: >>...The U.S. Forest Service was created to
> manage the forest, not to make money. If the judge rules in favor of Earth
> First! and Earth Protectors and grants a restraining order on the Little Alfie
> timber harvest, it will set a precedent for all timber harvesting on public
> lands, especially national forests. Should this happen, we may as well
> eliminate the U.S. Forest Service.  They will serve no purpose if they are
> prevented from doing what they have been entrusted to do - managing the
> forest.<<
> ------------------------------------
> jostnix at writes:  >...The USFS is unfortunately becoming a forest
> caretaker and not a forestry manager.  They can no longer manipulate a forest
> using sound forest management.  Might as well give it all to the US Park
> Service.  Maybe that has been the idea all along. Private property is the next
> target. .........<
> ---------------------------------------
> McReady,  Not sure from your post if you are aware or not, but this sort of
> thing has been going gangbusters in the Pacific Northwest for several years
> now.  Hundreds of sales tied up or eliminated.  Over the past eight years the
> Forest Service has sold only 22% of normal.  Log prices have doubled and even
> tripled in some cases. Many mills have gone under for lack of logs - and more
> will be going as private timber cannot sustain the present onslaught.
> So I think the precedent has already been set and even though it is taking the
> public forests out as competitors for private timber and the kick in prices
> should help out private forest management - if there is even a mill left to
> sell logs to - it is a crying shame for the public to get beat out of their
> timber supply and make the NFs into playgrounds for the affluent - or is it
> effluent?
> As Jostnix says, private property is next, and as I understand it private
> property is already being targeted in the form of the Interior Columbia Basin
> Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) located in Oregon, Washington, Idaho,
> and Montana.  I have just been made aware of this so don't have the straight
> scoop, but understand that this proposal throws private land in the pool with
> public land as far as management activities are concerned - and what with the
> "environmentalists?" controlling the public lands........... .
> I don't think we should just stand by and let them take our National Forests
> and make parks out of them.  It may already be too late, but the least we can
> do is try to counter their lies and innuendos with the facts.  Most people
> just don't know the facts.  Many actually think the hills are bare and the
> last tree is about to be cut!  I'll bet there is a lot of Social Security
> money going to perpetuate this fraud.
> Comments on the ICBEMP must be in by February 5th.  People who would like to
> comment may get a copy of the 3" thick draft document by writing or calling:
> Upper Columbia River Basin EIS Team, 304 8th St., Room 250, Boise, Idaho
> 83702, phone (208) 334-1770, or FAX (208) 334-1769.
> Regards,
> Seumas.

The preservationists are pushing the agenda all across the country.  The
only way to combat them is by informing people the best we can.  f  Check
out the website of Conservationists With Common Sense at:

More and more grassroots groups are forming in opposition to the No Use
Movement of the greens.  We have to stand together and help one another.

> Seumas Mac Phadruig
> Industrial Forest Opns. Mgr. (Ret.)
> Inland Northwestern U.S.

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list