Paul Driessen is the author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power. Black Death. and a website of the same name [here].
Some reviews of his book [here]:
“The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity. The pain and suffering it is inflicting on families in developing countries must no longer be tolerated. This is the first book I’ve seen that tells the truth and lays it on the line. It’s a must-read for anyone who cares about people, progress and our planet.” – Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder
“Developing countries need to be free to make their own decisions about how to improve their people’s lives. Activists who’ve never had to worry about starvation, malaria and simple survival have no right to impose their fears, prejudices and ideologies on the world’s poor. That’s the central message of this book. It’s a message that needs to be spread far and wide.” – CS Prakash, Professor of plant genetics, Tuskegee University
“There is a shrill claim today by those that fill the streets to protest globalization, and by the organizations that put them there, that these white, relatively affluent groups are speaking on behalf of the world’s poor and powerless. This unfortunately, is a message that the Western media have bought uncritically – but not Paul Driessen. He cogently shows how the new Green Eco-Imperialists are seeking to impose their will on developing countries, interfering with their efforts to build dams or grow crops or do any of the things which can lift them out of poverty. These are life-and-death matters for the world’s poor, and Driessen is bold and honest enough to challenge the eco-interference in people’s lives as immoral and the cause of death and devastation in countries that are trying to develop and transform their lives. Both those who have bought the Green propaganda line and those who have not would benefit from reading Driessen’s Eco-Imperialism book.” – Thomas R. DeGregori, PhD, Professor of Economics, University of Houston
April 8, 2008 | Leave a Comment | Topic: Saving Forests
by Lee Belau, retired Fire Management Officer for the Sequoia National Forest
On his way out of the door in April of 2000, President Bill Clinton gave local environmentalists a gift that they had been unable to get through normal legislative action after numerous attempts. He signed a Presidential Proclamation creating the 327,769 acre Giant Sequoia National Monument.
There was no opportunity for public comments prior to this decision. There was no environmental analysis or development of alternatives. No study of the possible effects to the local economy was done. The “spin” was that a monument was necessary to save the Giant Sequoia trees from the evil loggers. We were told not to worry, because the out-of-work folks in the wood products industry would be retrained so that they could benefit from jobs in the new recreation-related business boom that the Monument would generate.
The Proclamation mandated that the Forest Service write a management plan with the guidance of a Scientific Advisory Board to be selected by the National Academy of Science. The Board was appointed and the plan-writing job began. Early in the process, the Board agreed that all of their recommendations to the Forest Supervisor would be by unanimous consent. For the next nearly four years, the Board held meetings that were open to the public. They listened to public comments, and took field trips to the forest, the National Park, the Tule River Indian Reservation and to Mt. Home State Forest to view giant sequoia stands and various management practices. In January of 2004, the final plan was signed.
Today, more than seven years after the Monument was proclaimed, virtually nothing that would enhance the protection, improvement or management of the Monument and the Giant Sequoia trees has been accomplished. This is because those same people who promoted the establishment, agreed to the proclamation language, and dictated the planning process, sent their attorneys to court and got the plan declared invalid. Additionally, in spite of Proclamation language that clearly states that timber sales under contract as of the date of the signing (4/2000) could be completed consistent with the terms of the contract, four sale projects were included in the Monument Plan lawsuit and similarly stopped.
Read more
April 7, 2008 | 5 Comments | Topic: Saving Forests, Federal forest policy
by Dave Skinner, Hydra Project, Whitefish MT
As an irate citizen pressed for time, I wish to make brief comments on the RRSNF’s proposal to implement Appropriate Management Response protocols upon unplanned ignitions on the RRSNF. First, I have some involvement and interest in the area. Several of my Montana logging friends have worked on wild-fires on the RRSNF, including most recently the Biscuit. Since then, my buddies have been kept busy at home here in Montana fighting fires closer to home. I myself have visited the RRSNF several times in the past few years, either alone or with various forestry professionals. I am intimately familiar with the post-Biscuit “unsalvage” fiasco (code word: Rich Fairbanks/FSEEE) as well as the subsequent Donato/DellaSalla/Kauffman boondoggle. Let’s just say I am not happy with the prospect of the US Forest Service setting itself up for another disaster in southwest Oregon — as well as nationally.
I hereby request that RRSNF prepare an EIS preparatory to implementing AMR. I also request a CD copy of either that requested EIS, or at least a CD of the proposed EA; with PAPER copies of whatever maps would be included with paper copies of the EIS/EA. My mailing address is listed below.
I want to especially point out the concession before Congress by professors Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin that unmanaged wildfire poses a great threat of loss to the so-called “old growth” Late Successional Reserves. To quote: “Prescribed fire is a useful tool in forest restoration but is not sufficient alone—mechanical silvicultural activities typically will be required.”
Now, both gentlemen have been profoundly wrong before, however, in this case they both realize it. While their call for mechanical treatment is limited by their adherence to the Beschta philosophy that no fire area ever be salvaged or “old growth” tree ever be cut (and I point out both the Sugarloaf project and Franklin’s 90-minute “peer-review” of the Donato salvage “science” travesty), they have nonetheless conceded the point.
If these gentlemen say prescription burns cannot accomplish their intended purpose without unacceptable risk, then logic forces the question of what sort of risks are presented by unscheduled or non-programmatic ignitions?
Until the risk is moderated by fuels pre-treatments on the appropriate landscape scale, then implementing an AMR program on an unprepared landscape is absolutely certain to have significant impacts upon the human and natural environment — not just those “precious” LSR’s, but as the Biscuit/Tiller and so on have proved, dang near every stick of every age class on every stinking acre of USFS-administered ground in western Oregon.
In the main, I concur with the comments prepared by the Western Institute for Study of the Environment and join their call for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement before implementation of any so-called “Appropriate Management Response” to unscheduled wild fire events on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.
I furthermore encourage you to advise your superiors in the Washington office that implementation of an AMR policy on other national forests without full Environmental Impact Statements, in light of the clear environmental uncertainties of AMR implementation, would be in itself arbitrary and capricious.
Thank you for your consideration. Please do the right thing.
April 3, 2008 | 2 Comments | Topic: Saving Forests, Federal forest policy
*PRESS RELEASE*
LOCAL GROUP CHALLENGES NEW NATIONAL FOREST LET IT BURN PROGRAM
An Oregon environmental think tank has challenged the adoption of a Wildland Fire Use program on the Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest.
“’Wildland Fire Use’ is a glorified name for Let It Burn” stated Mike Dubrasich, executive director of the Western Institute for Study of the Environment headquartered in Lebanon, OR.
“If the Rogue-Siskiyou adopts the WFU program, another Biscuit Fire is surely going to happen, possibly as soon as next summer.”
Dubrasich’s organization filed a 170 page complaint with the RR-SNF earlier this week.
The Biscuit Fire burned 500,000 acres of the then Siskiyou NF in 2002. It was the largest fire in recorded Oregon history and destroyed habitat for endangered species, including over 100,000 acres of prime spotted owl habitat (50 known nesting sites were destroyed).
The Rogue River and Siskiyou NF’s were merged in 2004. The RR-SNF is preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate inclusion of WFU fires in their Fire Plan.
“We have suffered enough forest destruction from mega-sized forest fires,” said Dubrasich.
“Allowing to wildfire to freely roam the landscape is a terribly destructive idea. Too much is at stake, including watersheds and wildlife habitat, as well as ranches, farms, homes, and entire communities that may lie in the path of Federal megafires.”
“Their job should be rapid initial attack and full suppression of mid-season wildfires. If the USFS wants to do prescribed burning, it should be done on prepared ground, under controlled conditions, and at safe times of the year.”
“One Biscuit Fire is plenty. We need stewardship and active management, not abandonment of our national forests to catastrophic incineration. Unchecked wildfires are wasteful, costly, dangerous, and sometimes deadly.”
W.I.S.E has posted the complaint [here].
# 30 #
April 2, 2008 | Leave a Comment | Topic: Saving Forests, Federal forest policy
On March 5th the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest issued a Notice regarding their intent to add WFU (Wildland Fire Use) in the guise of AMR (Appropriate Management Response) to their FMP (Fire Management Plan) portion of their LRMP (Land and Resources Management Plan). We discussed this previously [here].
In short, the RR-SNF wants to do whoofoos, i.e. Let-It-Burn fires. When lightning ignites a fire next summer on the RR-SNF, the fire dudes there will not do initial attack, or if they do, it will be half-hearted. They will not put any serious effort into containing, controlling, or extinguishing the fire, but instead will just let ‘er rip.
Chances a better than good that their whoofoo will explode into a firestorm and burn half a million acres or more. There is a likelihood that their whoofoo will burn out of the mountains and down into the valleys where ranches, farms, and rural homes will be destroyed in the inferno. There is every reason to believe the RR-SNF whoofoo next summer will make it all the way to town, and Medford, Grants Pass, and/or Ashland will be incinerated.
You see, it happened before. In 2002 the RR-SNF had a Let-It-Burn fire called the Biscuit Fire. The Biscuit Fire burned half a million acres, including over 100,000 acres of prime spotted owl habitat (50 known nesting sites were destroyed). After it burned the entire Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, the Biscuit Fire kept going (imagine that!) and came raging down on the communities of the Illinois River Valley in a 12-mile-wide front.
The USFS had earlier decided not to do initial attack, and to just Let-It-Burn. Their excuses were that no firefighters were available during the summer fire season, and that it would be too expensive and a waste of money to fight the Biscuit Fire when it was small. But when the Biscuit Fire came roaring down upon the communities, the USFS realized that it would be bad form to burn out whole cities.
Every firefighter in the state and then some were called in (it turned out there actually were firefighters available). While radical arsonist wackos staged anti-firefighter demonstrations off to the side, the USFS threw everything but the kitchen sink at the Biscuit Fire. Grants Pass and Selma were saved, but it cost a pretty penny. In the end $150 million was spent on fire suppression on the Biscuit Fire, the most expensive fire in U.S. history.
But no lessons were learned from that experience. Now the RR-SNF wants to do it again! In fact, they want to permanently enshrine whoofoos in their Fire Management Plan. It’s Madness Motors time at the RR-SNF!
The Western Institute for Study of the Environment has prepared Comments to submit to the RR-SNF, as is our legal right to do. We post a link to those Comments [here]. Warning, the W.I.S.E. Comments to the RR-SNF are 168 pages long and 2.65 MB, so be prepared to wait a bit while they download.
March 31, 2008 | 11 Comments | Topic: Saving Forests, Federal forest policy
by Julie Kay Smithson, Property Rights Research [here]
To the Klamath Basin of Oregon/California - Would that PacifiCorp and its customers all stand on their hind legs and STSSTTS: Send The Settlement Straight To The Shredder!
If — and that is a massive “if” — the draft “settlement” were about “saving,” “restoring,” or otherwise “helping” any species of fish, “endangered” or otherwise, it would neither utilize questionable science and computer modeling nor present itself as “the only real solution.”
The Klamath Basin of Oregon and California is a wonderful place for people to own property, responsibly utilize resources, raise families, crops, livestock, and live what was coined as the American Dream.
Always waiting in the wings for a chance to shatter that dream have been various entities with an insatiable addiction. No matter how much they control, they want more. Place whatever name you wish on them; I’ve dubbed them GangGreed. To their way of thinking nothing is sacred. Indians, farmers, fishermen (commercial, recreational and subsistence), ranchers, timberers, miners, ranchers are all in their way.
Yanking the four dams — J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate — to ostensibly “restore the ecosystem” does not help any species. In fact, it will destroy property rights and property values, put a greater strain on irrigators and energy customers (can you say higher rates?), incorporates species-ism (favoring one species over another), and will take a fertile, human-enhanced basin from thriving for all to controlled by a few. How many farms, ranches, homes, businesses, towns, schools, etc., will be left when “ecosystem restoration” is complete? The real answer should make your stomach turn and your heart sick. What is planned for this entire area is for a few very powerful entities to take it over, control it, own all the natural resources, and then generously “allow” whatever in the basin happens to be done by the tenants. Think of the feudal systems in England and you’ll have a clear picture.
March 27, 2008 | 2 Comments | Topic: Saving Forests
Excellent testimony was given by Paul H. Beck, Timber Manager, Herbert Lumber Company, Riddle Oregon, to the U.S. Senate on March 13th. His talk was designed to dispel eight myths about old-growth, forestry, and sawmilling here in Oregon. I think he succeeded.
Paul’s full testimony is [here].
Selected excerpts are [here].
Kudos the Paul Beck. He hit every nail square on the head. Whether the Senators understood a word he said is another matter, but I did and I liked every sentence. He quoted Charles Kay on anthropogenic fire, who in turn cited M. Kat Anderson and Stephen Pyne. He explained how modern fires are different and threaten the existence of our forests. He gave the correct prescription for saving our forests through scientific thinning, fuels management, prepared fire, and advanced forest restoration treatments. He clearly described the manner in which a variety of sawmills and wood products manufacturers must play a vital role.
Paul Beck gets it. Please read his testimony. It is filled with the truth.
Comments are welcome here.
March 22, 2008 | 3 Comments | Topic: Saving Forests, Federal forest policy
The Angora Fire last June erupted on mismanaged USFS land adjacent to South Lake Tahoe, exploded into a fire storm, incinerated 3,100 acres of public forest and 254 private homes, and caused an estimated $140 million in damages.
Since then a great deal of soul-searching has gone on. The Governors of Nevada and California appointed an emergency California-Nevada Tahoe Basin Fire Commission to investigate the fire and related matters, while the usual suspects and likely targets of their investigation scurried for cover.
The US Forest Service was the first to absolve themselves of blame, pointing the finger at homeowners while the fire was still burning. They followed that offensiveness with a glossy report written by Tim “Whoofoo” Sexton (the Father of Whoofoo flew out to Tahoe for some R&R, recalcitrance and recrimination). Old Whoofoo determined that the pathetic sub-merch thinning the USFS did in the Angora watershed “saved” the subdivision, even though the subdivision burned up. The Orwellian doublespeak would have made Joe Stalin proud.
Others to cover their tracks were the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA - pronounced “trippy”) and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB - pronounced “lackwits”). Those bleeding heart libby/fascist agencies have been monkey-wrenching every suggested fire safety measure for decades. Their mindset was that disturbing a pine needle on private land was a crime against Mother Nature, thus fueling potential holocausts all around the lake.
Supercilious BINGO-serving politicians have actually set up a program whereby the US Treasury is used to purchase building lots in the area, for the purpose of allowing them to fester in unmanaged condition. The USFS is now the confused owner of some 3,800 “urban intermix” lots, 1/4 acre mini-wildernesses in the otherwise privately-owned strip of land surrounding the lake. This useless waste of your money has created firetraps in every residential neighborhood, waiting to explode into flames. Furthermore, Trippy and Lackwits have prevented any fire hazard reduction on the “urban intermix” lots by concerned residents who were willing to do it for free, just to save their own homes from impending firestorms.
March 22, 2008 | 3 Comments | Topic: 2007 Fire Season, Saving Forests
In the Notice issued by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest regarding amending that Forests’ Land and Resource Management Plans “to allow for the full range of Appropriate Management Response strategies for the management of wildland fires” [here], the RR-SNF Forest Supervisor Scott Conroy is quoted as saying:
“Land managers throughout the West have learned over the last forty years that there are ecological benefits of having fire on the landscape as it can provide for a renewal of the Forest. It is a natural cycle of life in a forest,” said Conroy.
To reiterate, Conroy said the ecological benefit of forest fires is “forest renewal.” What then is “forest renewal”? What is he talking about?
The old purpose (old as in yesterday) of forest management on the RR-SNF was to protect old-growth forests, or in the parlance of the USFS, “late successional stands.” No cutting, no thinning, no roads, no human impacts of any kind are allowed currently, because the ancient forests are to be preserved.
But now the RR-SNF proposes to “renew” those forests by burning them down. To me that means killing all the old-growth trees, indeed killing all the live trees, and replacing them with new seedlings and/or germinants, or whatever sprouts back after the catastrophic, stand-replacing fire.
What else can “forest renewal” mean?
I ask you: do you know what “forest renewal” means? Do you have some definition of it? Please feel free to comment on this post and explain it to me.
I am quite familiar with the laws and regulations governing the USFS and their management activities. Nowhere that I know of is “forest renewal” mandated, or for that matter, even mentioned. I could be wrong, however.
Is “forest renewal” one of the tasks the U.S. Congress has assigned to the USFS? In what law or regulation is that directive found? How is “forest renewal” defined in that directive, if it exists?
Another possibility is that Conroy is making it up, that no directive for “forest renewal” exists. If so he is operating outside the law. That would imply some sort of extra-legal activity. One could even construe that behavior as criminal, in that potential case.
But before I call for a Justice Department investigation of the RR-SNF Forest Supervisor for high crimes and misdemeanors, it behooves me to determine just what “forest renewal” means and if it is a real thing or not. It appears to be forest murder and catastrophic destruction of living trees, particularly protected old-growth stands. But that might not be the case.
Does anyone reading this have any legal knowledge or expertise regarding “forest renewal”? It is legal? Is Conroy operating within the law, or committing a horrendous crime?
I would appreciate your sharing any citations or legal verbiage indicating one way or the other. Thank you.
March 19, 2008 | 15 Comments | Topic: Saving Forests, Federal forest policy
Janet writes:
I noticed in news stories about Mr. Bonnicksen study that it was not peer reviewed and the study was funded by a foundation that gets money from logging companies. Also, some other experts who were interviewed for a story said Bonnicksen’s estimates were on the high end. Seems like you folks had a problem with a certain study out of OSU that wasn’t peer reviewed so I’m wondering why you are fine with this latest Bonnicksen study not being peer reviewed?
Janet, Holy cow! Did you ever get all that backasswards and twisted around! Let me try to straighten you out so you won’t be so desperately confused and disoriented.
1. Dr. (not Mr.) Bonnicksen, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Forest Science at Texas A&M University, Visiting Scholar at The Forest Foundation, and the author of the greatest book ever written about our forests, America’s Ancient Forests – From the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery.
Dr. Bonnicksen holds a bachelor’s degree in forestry, and master’s and doctorate degrees in wildland resource science (he studied under Drs. Harold Biswell and Ed Stone at UC Berkeley). He has researched the history and ecology of ancient forests for more than 30 years, and has authored more than 80 papers and articles on forest ecology and resource management.
2. Dr. Bonnicksen is the originator of restoration forestry. His work has emphasized the fact that Native Americans were an integral part of America’s forests. The forests and the people who lived here formed an inseparable whole that developed together over millennia. He has endeavored to return our forests to sustainable, historical conditions and to protect, maintain, and perpetuate America’s forests.
3. Yes, Dr. Bonnicksen’s recent work was supported by the Forest Foundation, and that organization includes a timber company among its benefactors. But did you ever stop to think that every academic pursuit in California is supported by timber companies, through taxes, grants, and by the lumber that holds up the buildings on campus as well as your house?
March 18, 2008 | 16 Comments | Topic: Climate and Weather, Saving Forests
