Forest Focus - November 16, 1998

Don Baccus dhogaza at pacifier.com
Thu Nov 19 16:55:23 EST 1998


In article <72tikq$2fj at news.snowcrest.net>,
HULTGREN <arne at snowcrest.net> wrote:

>Well, Steve... I'll bet you're pretty smart, living there in Washington,
>D.C.,

I don't know Steve, but I do know that the folks who started WAFC (the
predecessor to American Lands which recently changed names) were from
the west.  

>knowing all about what's going on all over the nation. And with a name
>like American Lands, you must represent lots and lots of folks, who I'm sure
>you'll insist must remain anonymous. Hey I've got an idea! Why don't you
>publish you're list of directors, and some financial statments?

All not-for-profits must provide basic financial and structural information, 
you can ask the state they're registered in for it.  

>Let's see
>where  your bread comes from! But enough generic bashing

So what's your bash ... er beef? 

>lets talk about
>the QLG! (Not the Quincy Logging Rider, you ignoramus!)

You should be careful of calling someone an "ignoramus" unless
you're sure you're right.  The QLG is the organization of folks.
The Quincy Logging Rider is the piece of legislation validating
their plan which can only come into place by such legislation as
it is inviolation of existing law.  So, American Lands is absolutely
correct when they talk about trying to defeat the Quincy Logging
Rider.

>What's the QLG?
>It's the Quincy Library Group.
>And mainline enviro groups are scared spitless about it.

>Why are the multinational eco-lobbiests (sp?) so scared?

>Because they were NOT calling the shots from D.C.!!!

They don't, anyway.  

>It's local folks
>concerned with local welfare, achieving a balance between the desire to
>preserve and desire to conserve.

And local folks who are allowed to put together plans that are in violation
of the omnibus laws governing management of our forests.

It's not the existence of such local groups, it's the the fact that they
will be allowed to weaken protections for wildlife, watershed protections,
and the like.

It's this weakening of protections that is being fought, not the QLG per
se.  If the QLG were required to put together a management plan that stuck
to existing management mandates in regard to wildlife protection, water
quality protection, and the like there wouldn't be a problem.  Conservationists
don't particularly care how plans are made within the law.

Nor do we particularly care about how plans are made which weaken legal 
protections for non-timber resources.  We fight plans drafted in Washington
all the time, and we fight such plans put together by local groups whether
they meet in taverns or libraries.

In short, you're setting up a straw man by arguing that the QLG is being
fought because it's a local group.  It's being fought because they've
proposed a management plan that increases harvest at the expense of
other values in a way that is not legal.  Thus the Rider - they have
to be exempted from current law.

The precedent is that this provides an end-around.  The Republicans
don't have the guts (and, after the recent election, the votes) to dump
the multiple-use mandate and the like directly, so they seek end-arounds.

This is an end-around in the name of "local control".  It's OK, apparently,
to weaken protections as long as locals do the weakening.

Let's keep in mind that these are NATIONAL forest, as well, belonging to
all citizens.  As a citizen, I don't care if it is the Forest Ranger or
the QLG that makes the plan - as long as the plan is in compliance with
the law.  Changing the law to meet the plan is ass-backwards.

>Folks got together and came up with
>acceptable forest management. Something EVERYONE (local) could live with,
>oops, except the big multi-national eco-groups. The local SC rep, as well as
>other interested parties got together. Even the local forester from the
>eeeevil timberland owners had an equal voice. (Imagine that)

Acceptable to them, but outside the law - thus the need to change the law
to enable higher timber output.  The Forest Ranger couldn't legally make
such a plan, but apparently it's OK to do so as long as it's locals
doing it.  

>I'll bet you don't have a clue what the Sierra mixed conifer ecosystem is
>like; how the indians used fire to manage stands, to prune them, to kill
>unwanted competitor species, to clean out brush, to prepare the ground for
>planting, to enhance seed and nut production, to enhance fiber for baskets
>and clothing... You see they weren't the dumb ol' hunter gatherers that the
>your 6th grade teacher taught you about. They had a detailed knowledge of
>their environment AND they manipulated it!

Irrelevant.

>Presently the SMC forest is in bad shape because of fire exclusion. We can
>either reintroduce fires (by moving residents out of the hills like the
>Khmer-Rouge did in Cambodia...and excellent example of socialism in action)
>or we can mimic fire with harvesting activities. Once the biomass is back to
>natural successional levels, then low-intensity fire can be reintroduced.

The USFS is not precluded from such management practices, and laws need not
be changed in order for such management to take place.

>You see if things are solved locally, then the big eco-groups are out in the
>cold.

Forest issues in the west are generally ground-up, despite your claims.  In
the case of the spotted owl, for instance, Portland and Seattle Audubon had
to beat the crap out of National to get them involved.

But why should I help you?  If you really believe conservationists work in
the way you describe, you'll lose, so I'm better off if you remain ignorant.

So, yeah, ignore what I said.  You're absolutely right, that's exactly what
will happen if we lose on this rider!  Yeah! 

>Nobody needs you. You get no money, and you'll have to work for
>living

The vast majority of conservation activists are, like me, VOLUNTEERS.

>hopefully by producing something other than lawsuits!

Why do we sue?

Because we win so often.

Why do we win so often? 

Because the feds have made a steady practice of violating federal law.

>All you folks
>want to do is control folks that live up in the mountains to suit your
>big-city ways. You seem only interested in STOPPING things. I'd speculate
>that it was due to some deeply held Druid-like belief, but that's another
>thread, huh?

I won't dissuade you from that belief.  Again, there's no reason to educate
you about who conservationists really are.  Your ignorance, which seems
pretty much complete, is my bliss.

-- 

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list