15 Jan 2008, 10:46pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
1 comment

The Largest Land Grab since the Louisiana Purchase

The US Forest Service has announced their Open Space Conservation Strategy. The Strategy involves the promotion of “wilderness values” on 400 million acres of private land.

“If people have an incentive to hold on to wildlands (rather than develop them), we as a society benefit from that,” she [Gail Kimbell] said in an interview. “We all benefit from keeping wildlands wild.”

That statement is absurd. The real motive underlying the USFS Open Space Strategy is to apply their newest and most favored wildland management tool, wildland fire, to private lands. The Strategy originated with the Nature Conservancy, the biggest international “non-governmental organization” in the world. The Strategy is in line TNC’s strategy of purchasing private land and converting it to public land at a hefty profit (in 2006 TNC’s non-taxable income was over a $1 billion). Burned out private properties can be had more cheaply.

And quite a few private lands, at that. Total USFS land is 192 million acres nationwide, including Alaska. The addition of 400 million more acres of private land more than triples their burning zones. Consider that Oregon is approximately 50 million acres total. The new Strategy will encompass an area 8 times the size of Oregon. It should be noted, however, that the Feds already own more than half of Oregon, and hold similar proportions of all western states. An additional 400 million acres encompasses almost all the land west of the Continental Divide.

The new Strategy is the largest land grab since the Louisiana Purchase.

more »

15 Jan 2008, 5:47pm
Federal forest policy
by admin

Time for a better forest policy

The following editorial (unsigned) appeared this morning in the Portland Oregonian [here].

Mark Rey looked really happy to be in Portland on Friday.

We thought it might be because Rey, whose job as undersecretary of agriculture includes oversight of the U.S. Forest Service, liked the view across the verdant West Hills. But maybe he was just thrilled not to be in Montana . . . where a federal judge was threatening to slap him in jail.

The story begins in 2002 when air tankers dropped thousands of pounds of flame retardant on a fire raging around Fall Creek in central Oregon. One ingredient in that chemical soup was ammonium phosphate; it killed an estimated 20,000 fish in the creek. That rate of piscine mortality prompted a Eugene-based group called Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics to file a lawsuit. Two years later, Judge Donald Molloy ruled in Missoula that the Forest Service had violated the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act when it failed to go through a public process to analyze potential harm from retardant. He promptly ordered a formal environmental analysis. Last week the judge said the Forest Service, and Rey, have been duplicitous ever since. Then he took to talking about holding Rey in contempt of court and rattling those keys to the cell.

It was Rey, the judge understood, who years earlier had slapped an embargo on an agency environmental analysis of retardant, one more reminder of the sad track record of this administration in opting to ignore science for political ends.

We have long held reservations about federal policy regarding wildfire in the West. We start with mounting concern over the rate at which firefighting costs are raging through Forest Service resources. In 2006, the agency spent $1.6 billion — more than 40 percent of its entire budget — putting out fires. That left it with a brutally abbreviated balance to spend on all the other things we think it should be doing: planning and conducting timber sales, managing recreation areas and wildlife habitat, and massively ramping up the tree-thinning and brush maintenance that would make our public forests far less susceptible to fire in the first place.

All too soon, another fire season will be upon us. Once again the vast infrastructure of the firefighting community will be brought to bear. Clearly we face growing challenges in protecting housing, especially in that increasingly controversial interface between urban and wild lands. And clearly decades of policy that permitted fuel loads to accumulate in the woods means letting fires run their natural course is rarely a viable option.

That’s why the administration must move now to chart a new course, especially here in the West, for managing fire on public lands. And why the environmental community must partner in, not set up roadblocks to, this process. Appealing though it may seem to some, jailing high-ranking government officials is not the answer.

15 Jan 2008, 3:13pm
Federal forest policy
by admin

Region 6 Regional Forester Retiring

This morning US Forest Service Region 6 (Pacific Northwest) Regional Forester Linda Goodman announced her retirement at the end of March. The following statement accompanied her announcement:

This morning, I sent the following message out to all Region 6 employees and had a conference call with our Regional Leadership Team telling them I am retiring the end of March. I wanted you all to hear from me personally of my plans and to tell you how much I have enjoyed working with you. The message below applies to all of you, too! Thank you for all that you have done for me. I feel very blessed with good friends and colleagues!

Dear R-6 Employees:

When I think about my almost 34 years with the Forest Service, I know how lucky I have been. I have had the opportunity to work with dedicated professionals who love the land and are committed to America’s forests and grasslands and our youth for today and future generations. Whatever the area our employees work from administration to Job Corps to natural resources to cooperative programs, I know they are providing service to America and can be proud of what they accomplish every day. I also know that we have leaders in place that I have great confidence in leading us to even a higher level. Our Chief has the vision, dedication, and the compassion to make tough choices each and every day.

This week is my official fifth year (plus another six months as acting!) as your Regional Forester. I have been honored to serve in that position and feel good about where the region is and where we are heading. Together we have made the region a good investment and are focused on the land. We have an outstanding leadership team and one that will continue to focus on our priorities of landscape resiliency, infrastructure and public service, and organizational leadership. I have every confidence in their ability. I also have enjoyed working with our many partners and know that they will continue to be engaged in national forest management; we can’t do it alone.

Because of all of that, I am comfortable announcing my retirement effective the end of March. It is not easy leaving the people I care so much about but I have made friendships that will last a lifetime and I will always care about our employees and the Forest Service. Thank you for all that you have done for me; I can’t begin to tell you how much you all mean to me.

And remember what Teddy Roosevelt said, “Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.” Our work is worth doing. Please take care of yourself and your coworkers - everyone goes home every night.


Wyden calls for thinning

This article appears in this morning’s Corvallis Gazette Times [here].

Senator sees possibility for economic revitalization; OSU expert testifies for change in forest policy

By Nancy Raskauskas
Gazette-Times Reporter, Jan. 10, 2008

Sen. Ron Wyden has announced that he is working on legislation to overcome gridlock in national forest logging projects designed to reduce wildfires.

The Oregon Democrat told a round table of timber industry leaders, conservation groups and federal agencies Wednesday that the public has made it clear it wants to protect old-growth forests, and the national forests should be turning out a steady supply of logs for the timber industry, but that timber policy has varied widely depending on who is in the White House.

“We need to hustle to reduce fire risk, protect ecology and get merchantable timber to the mills to increase job opportunities in Oregon communities,” Wyden said.

On a related issue, Wyden said his primary goal in the coming Senate session was to pass a separate bill restoring federal payments to timber-dependent counties that have been hurt by cutbacks in logging on national forests.

Wyden, who plans to introduce a bill next month, identified two key issues to break the thinning gridlock: the U.S. Forest Service lacks the funding it needs to do major thinning projects, and too many projects that log large trees to pay for thinning are being delayed by appeals and lawsuits.

He noted that less than 100,000 acres of forest have been thinned since the 2003 Healthy Forest Restoration Act appropriated $760 million to reduce hazardous fuel buildup on 20 million acres of national forests.

According to Wyden, he was heavily influenced by the testimonies of K. Norman Johnson and Jerry F. Franklin at a recent subcommittee meeting to make a legislative change.

Johnson is a distinguished professor in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University and Franklin is a professor of ecosystem sciences in the College of Forest Resources at the University of Washington.

They presented a joint testimony on Dec. 13 to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, which is chaired by Wyden. Although their views are not necessarily the views of their institutions, their opinions carried considerable weight because of their long history in forest research in the Northwest.

Johnson and Franklin were two members of the “Gang of Four” that was charged with steering a new course of action to protect the Northern spotted owl in the early 1990s.

The pair were also influential on the panel that formed the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994, which set aside millions of acres of public forests in “reserves and preserves,” and has been used to steer forest practices in the Northwest for more than a decade.

Yet, in their Dec. 13 testimony Johnson and Franklin stated, “We will lose these forests to catastrophic disturbance events unless we undertake aggressive active management programs.”

They called for a focus on “forest restoration” and active management in the national forests of Oregon and Washington with an emphasis on reducing stand densities that can contribute to catastrophic wildfires and Western pine beetle infestations in old-growth stands.

“To conserve these forests, we need to modify stand structure (e.g., treat fuels) on one-half to two-thirds of the landscape,” they testified.

“Johnson and Franklin are extremely influential in this debate,” Wyden said Wednesday.

According to Wyden, following their advice means initiating large-scale thinning projects of more than 50,000 acres at a time.

“It’s a move away from the ‘boutique thinning’ we have been doing over small areas,” Wyden said. “There is a unique opportunity right now to make a change. What it’s going to require is legislation.”

Associated Press Environmental Writer Jeff Barnard contributed to this article. Nancy Raskauskas can be reached at 758-9542 or nancy.raskauskas@lee.net.

Town hall tonight

Sen. Ron Wyden will visit Corvallis today for a Benton County Town Hall meeting from 4 to 5:30 p.m. at the Crescent Valley High School Library, 4444 N.W. Highland Drive, Corvallis.

8 Jan 2008, 4:28pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
leave a comment

Comments on the WOP

I have submitted my comments regarding the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the revision of the resource management plans of the western Oregon BLM Districts. You may also do the same by visiting the BLM WOP Revision site [here]. You have until Jan 11 to submit comments.

Here are mine:

I. Do away with Site Potential Tree Height

Site Potential Tree Height is pseudo-scientific fraud. It does not exist. There is no such phenomenon. The concept cannot be measured. It is not a metric.

The BLM might as well use 400 frog hops, or 37.4 watermelon seed spits.

SPTH was made up out of thin air during the secret, invitation-only, public-excluded meetings following the Clinton Timber Summit of 1993. SPTH appears nowhere in forestry or forest science literature prior to those meetings.

SPTH had never been measured or correlated to riparian conditions, because the concept did not exist. SPTH had never even been thought of, let alone studied. And it hasn’t been studied since, either. There are still zero scientific reports of studies on SPTH. None, zip, nada. It’s not science. It sounds like science, but it most assuredly is not.

more »

7 Jan 2008, 3:53pm
Federal forest policy
by admin

Zero Riparian Buffers

Today I broke with my standard practice of NOT writing letters to the Dead Tree Press. I don’t know what came over me. At any rate, here is what I wrote and gave away for free to the unthinking, ungrateful, pulp-pushing media moguls.

To the editor:

Riparian buffers, such as those proposed in the BLM revision of their Western Oregon Plan, are killing forests and poisoning streams. Massive build-up of fuels in regulatory riparian zones lead to catastrophic megafires that denude entire watersheds, cause excessive post-fire erosion and sediment smothering of salmon spawning gravels, increase stream turbidity, alter stream pH’s, reduce dissolved oxygen, coat the gills of fingerlings, and fertilize algae, all of which lead to even more fishery problems in the future.

At recent Senate hearings top forests scientists agreed that aggressive active forest management is desperately needed now to remove excess fuels and restore forest ecological functions, in order to prevent further destruction of Oregon’s old-growth forests. Your newspaper failed to cover that story, but it is very important and you should do so now.

Forest restoration is not just for ridgetops. The forest fire crisis is a landscape-scale problem and requires landscape-scale solutions. That means forest restoration treatments should be carried out right up to the edge of streams.

To protect riparian zones and their aquatic habitat we must tend them, not abandon them to catastrophic fires. Creating huge regulatory riparian buffers where forest restoration is excluded is not the environmentally beneficial option.

Mike Dubrasich

6 Jan 2008, 9:23pm
Federal forest policy
by admin

Revise the 2007 Energy Act

The Oregon Chapter of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees has written a letter to our Congressional Delegation regarding the language in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, in particular those clauses that eliminate federal forests as a source of biofuels material [here, here, here].

Full text:

Dear Representative Hooley:

I am writing to you with concerns about the recently enacted Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Specifically, Sec. 201. DEFINITIONS (1), (1) RENEWABLE BIOMASS, disturbs me. I interpret it to mean that dead and dying material and forest thinnings on federal forest lands are not to be considered as renewable biomass. The attached letter written by a friend and colleague in Colorado provides more detail about this issue, and our shared concerns.

The conditions he describes as existing in Colorado are duplicated in many areas of Oregon. To eliminate the use of woody material from federal lands for production of biofuels borders on the irrational. There is no scientific or social justification for a definition eliminating federal lands as a source of material for the production of alternate fuels.

As you well know the national forests and BLM managed forests are by statute charged with the sustained production of renewable resources for the public welfare. As my colleague points out, there are many valid scientific, economic and social reasons for aggressive utilization of dead material and forest thinning.

I urge you to take necessary legislative actions to revise this misguided section of the Energy Independence Act of 2007, and to encourage the use of federal forests as a source of alternate fuels. The utilizations of forest biomass for biofuels will also improve forest health, protect watersheds, aid carbon control, reduce risk of fire damage, improve fish and wildlife habitat, and help improve the economic wellbeing of rural communities in and adjacent to the federal forests.

Your assistance is appreciated:

John F. Marker, Director
National Association of Forest Service Retirees

cc: Oregon Congressional Delegation

If any of the Delegation produce responses, we will post them too.

5 Jan 2008, 1:42pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
leave a comment

Virginia Rep on the Energy Act of 07

Last December 6th US Congressman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia delivered a stern lecture to the Tax and Spend Dem Party regarding the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It seems that the Act is full of bizarre language, much of which may sound perfectly PC to the casual observer, but actually thrusts knives into the back of millions upon millions of Americans.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is destined to do none of those things, but instead will further energy dependence and insecurity, as well as costing a national arm and leg. Particularly egregious is the Statutory Demand that fuels on Federal lands be excluded from bio-energy production, as if burning down millions of acres of America’s forests is preferable to saving forests by disposing of the excess fuels in a safe and productive manner.

Evidently, that is exactly what the Donkey Party wants: raging infernos that catastrophically destroy your heritage environment and mine. Burn, baby, burn, in the most destructive way possible.

The honorable Bob Goodlatte of Virginia is one rational thinker who had the gumption to stand up and call them on it last month. Here is the full text of Rep. Goodlatte’s House Floor remarks of Dec. 6th:

Statement of Rep. Bob Goodlatte
Revision and extension of Floor Statement on H.R. 6
Originally submitted on December 6, 2007

I rise today in opposition to this reckless energy policy, which will do absolutely nothing to make us energy independent, or lower energy costs. This bill sets us on a dangerous path and ties our hands in a regulatory mess to ensure that we cannot produce domestic energy.

Like my colleagues, I believe we should find solutions to address the growing demand for energy. The biggest concern facing the farmers and ranchers of this country are increased input costs from higher fuel prices and fertilizer. The U.S. fertilizer industry relies upon natural gas as the fundamental feedstock for the production of nitrogen fertilizer. The rest of the U.S. farm sector also depends on significant amounts of natural gas for food processing, irrigation, crop drying, heating farm buildings and homes, the production of crop protection chemicals, and, let’s not forget, ethanol biofuel production. In addition to the farm sector, the forest products industry relies more on natural gas than any other fossil fuel and energy amounts to the third largest manufacturing cost for the industry.

Unbelievably, this legislation contains no new energy supplies in it and does nothing to relieve the burdens of increased costs on producers who provide the food and fiber for American consumers. It seems that the Majority’s plan to move toward energy independence includes limiting domestic energy production and imposing new government mandates that will prove to be costly and burdensome to the American people.

more »

4 Jan 2008, 2:37pm
Federal forest policy
by admin

Ethanol fix needed

This editorial by the Journal Editorial Board appeared in this morning’s Rapid City (SD) Journal [here]. They too take exception to the new energy bill’s programmatic exclusion of bio-energy from wood wastes from National Forests [here]:

The new energy bill that President Bush signed into law at the end of December already needs a fix. H.R. 6 has lots of good news for the ethanol industry in South Dakota, with its policies that promote the increased use of that biofuel in our nation’s gasoline supply. But it also contains at least one policy provision that is disappointing to people who hope to increase the production of cellulosic ethanol.

Late in the legislation-making process, the federal energy bill was changed to discourage the use of wood chips, tree limbs, slash piles and other wood wastes from national forests — including the Black Hills National Forest — by bio-refineries that would use those feedstocks to make ethanol. The energy bill now excludes ethanol derived from materials collected on national forests from being counted toward our new ethanol-usage mandate and the financial incentives that go along with that.

Since one of the stated goals of our new national energy policy is to be producing 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022 — and since 21 billion of those gallons is supposed to come from biomass materials other than corn — that seems like bad public policy to us.

Often, the making of laws, like the making of sausage, is something best done out of public view. Still, we’d love to have the Democratic leadership explain how that particular provision got included so late in the game.

It deprives the forestry products industry in the Black Hills of an important secondary market for its wood wastes. Without a designation as “renewable biomass,” BHNF wood waste offers no incentive for ethanol blenders and refiners to purchase it as a source of fuel.

We think Congress needs to fix that flaw in the energy bill, and so does Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.

Her legislative director is weighing the congressional options to get that done after Congress reconvenes on Jan. 22, but it likely won’t happen without the passage of a new law.

The 2007 Farm Bill, which has yet to emerge from conference committee or be signed into law, does contain better news for cellulosic ethanol supporters in western South Dakota. Both the House and Senate versions contain Sen. John Thune’s Biofuels Innovation Program, which does provide incentives for the collection of BHNF wood wastes.

Whether via the Farm Bill, stand-alone legislation, or as an amendment to another bill, we urge Congress to fix this problem. Without a remedy in law, the Black Hills will be deprived of an important economic opportunity.

2 Jan 2008, 2:54pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
leave a comment

DeFazio Plan to Protect Old Growth and Create Jobs

Congressman Peter DeFazio (D, OR) of the 4th Congressional District (where I live) has sent me personally (along with a few hundred thousand other people at taxpayers expense) a mailer with a statement about federal forests. I post it here in full:

I opposed former President Clinton’s Northwest Forest Plan in 1994. I was convinced it would not provide certainty in timber supply, and would not protect the small amount of remaining old growth. At that time, I proposed a compromise solution to provide a predictable supply of timber for local mills and protect the remaining old growth. However, my compromise was opposed by the timber industry and the environmental community.

more »

2 Jan 2008, 1:16pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
1 comment

Conflicting Demands

Re the previous post: isn’t the gummit sending a mixed message here?

How does the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 jive with USFS Chief Gail Kimbell’s executive decision to declare 400 million acres of private property “wildland”?

My property out here in Flyover Country is now slated to be burned to smithereens in a federal “Wildland Use Fire Used For Resource Benefit,” a bureaucratic euphemism for Let-It-Burn megafires that rage for miles from off the Federal Estate, destroying public and private rural and urban property alike. (It’s true; they have a GIS computer program that makes maps of private land they intend to incinerate in whoofoos.)

How am I supposed to produce biomass slash to solve the Nation’s Energy Crisis while you, the US Government, is burning my place down?

I mean, the two demands are mutually exclusive. You can’t burn me out and expect me to crack oil from wood chips simultaneously, can you? If the carbon burns in a whoofoo and goes up into the sky, you can’t pump it into your tank, right?

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Not to mention that it’s my cake, not yours, anyway.

If it’s all the same to you, I’d rather not be burned out by a federal whoofoo megafire. Please tell Gail (because she is not paying close attention to SOS Forests like she should be).

By the way, who put into the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 the wording:

but not forests or forestlands that are ecological communities with a global or State ranking of critically imperiled, imperiled, or rare pursuant to a State Natural Heritage Program, old growth forest, or late successional forest.

???? Names, please. Who among you takes responsibility?

Did anybody inside the Beltway read this thing before they voted on it?

Here’s a tip: you can’t save old-growth forests by burning them down. Everybody knows that. Everybody agrees that old-growth forests require stewardship, including biomass removal, to be protected, maintained, and perpetuated. It’s a consensus among forest scientists. The debate is over.

Here’s an Inconvenient Truth: in order to save our public forests and critically imperiled, imperiled, or rare ecological communities, human beings must tend them.

Something is rotten inside the Beltway. BINGOs have taken over our government. There will be more and deadlier megafires, more forests, homes, and communities destroyed, if the behind-the-curve enviro-wackos have anything to say about it, and evidently they do.

2 Jan 2008, 11:33am
Federal forest policy
by admin
leave a comment

Sacrosanct Biomass

The following Letter to Congress regarding bio-energy was written by Charles J. Hendricks, USFS (ret). In his letter Mr. Hendricks points out that Congress has decided to “protect” federal forests by banning the use of federal logging slash for bio-energy production.

Evidently Congress would prefer that federal slash burn in place in horrendous and catastrophic forest fires, rather than be put to any practical use. Instead of heating the homes of the citizenry, Congress would prefer to see homes of the citizenry burned to ashes in holocausts that start in overly dense federal forests, leap across property lines, and scorch neighborhoods of the voters and taxpayers.

Don’t think we voters and taxpayers haven’t noticed this about you, Congress, because we have.

To be fair, Congress-types are just being weenies as usual, groveling for every monied special interest and serving none.

Another part of the problem is that Gaia worship is fraught with inconsistencies (due to the absurdity of the theology). Mr. Hendricks requests rationality from Congress and we support his call, although we have diminished expectations (due to the absurdity of the politicos).

more »

17 Dec 2007, 3:04pm
Federal forest policy
by admin

Testimonies to the US Senate

Testimonies to the US Senate Energy & Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests on December 13, 2007.

An important hearing was held by the US Senate regarding forest restoration and hazardous fuel reduction. We will post the testimonies here as they become available.

Testimony of K. Norman Johnson and Jerry F. Franklin [here]

Testimony of Philip S. Aune [here] (1,624KB)

Testimony of Michael E. Dubrasich [here]

Testimony of Mark Rey [here]

Testimony of James Caswell [here]

Testimony of Russ Vaagen [here]

Testimony of Matthew Donegan [here] (1,760 KB)

Testimony of Russ Hoeflich [here]

Testimony of Boyd Britton [here]

This post has been replicated in Restoration Forestry

13 Dec 2007, 6:23pm
Federal forest policy
by admin

The Paradigm Shifts!!!!

“Our testimony focuses on forest restoration in the National Forests of Oregon and Washington… To conserve these forests, we need to modify stand structure (e.g., treat fuels) on one-half to two-thirds of the landscape.” - Johnson and Franklin, December 13, 2007

Today the Forest Paradigm shifted in public, just a little bit. Drs. K. Norman Johnson and Jerry F. Franklin gave public testimony calling for forest restoration, protection, and maintenance. The statement was given before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests (Chair Ron Wyden, OR), who heard testimony regarding forest restoration and hazardous fuels reduction efforts in the forests of Oregon and Washington in Hearing Room SD-366 today.

Drs. Johnson and Franklin are famously (or infamously) two members of the Gang of Four, the cabal that took over the USFS in 1993 and engendered the Northwest Forest Plan (1994), among other forest-destructive actions.

The set-aside of 25 million acres of public forests (and some private, too) into No Touch Zones has led to catastrophic megafires such as the Biscuit Fire (2002). Moreover, the Northwest Forest Plan has failed to save any spotted owls, spotted owl habitat, or to protect rural and regional economies, all key goals of the NWFP. Indeed, after nearly 14 years of the NWFP, the situation is much worse in all regards.

But the worm has turned. The idea that abandonment is good forest stewardship has been chucked into the dustbin of history by two of its (former) proponents. Shocking but true, and a very good thing. Today is a welcome and historic day for our forests.

Excerpts from the Testimony:

Forest Restoration and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Efforts in the Forests of Oregon and Washington

Testimony of K. Norman Johnson Jerry F. Franklin

December 13, 2007 - Hearing of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

I am Dr. K. Norman Johnson and I am here today to give testimony for myself and Dr. Jerry F. Franklin regarding forest restoration and hazardous fuel reduction efforts in the forests of the Pacific Northwest. I am a University Distinguished Professor in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University. Jerry Franklin is Professor of Ecosystem Sciences in the College of Forest Resources at University of Washington. These comments represent our view and not those of our respective institutions.

Our testimony focuses on forest restoration in the National Forests of Oregon and Washington…

Our definition of “restoration” is the re-establishment of ecological structures and processes on these forests where they have been degraded and, simultaneously, *restoration of economic and other social values on these lands*. One product of this restoration will be substantial reductions in uncharacteristic fuel loadings. We emphasize restoration activities in which ecological, economic, and other social goals are compatible…

Restoration of Forests Characterized by Frequent, Low- and Mixed-Severity Fire Regimes

We will lose these forests to catastrophic disturbance events unless we undertake aggressive active management programs. This is not simply an issue of fuels and fire; because of the density of these forests, there is a high potential for drought stress and related insect outbreaks. Surviving old-growth pine trees are now at high risk of death to both fire and western pine beetle, the latter resulting from drought stress and competition…

Without action, we are at high risk of losing these stands-and the residual old-growth trees that they contain-to fire and insects…

We know enough to take action (uncertainties should not paralyze us). Inaction is a much more risky option for a variety of ecological values, including preservation of Northern Spotted Owls and other old-growth related species. We need to learn as we go, but we need to take action now. Furthermore, it is critical for stakeholders to understand that active management is necessary in stands with existing old-growth trees in order to reduce the risk that those trees will be lost.

more »

13 Dec 2007, 12:13pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
leave a comment

The War on America

Perhaps I have been too circumspect regarding Gail Kimbell’s latest Pronouncement. Perhaps I have left too many of the dots unconnected.

Kimbell has declared that the policy of the US Forest Service is to commandeer 400 million acres of private land and turn it into wilderness. In effect (and in reality) she has joined the USFS to the Wildlands Project, the Earth First! plan to destroy America.

Gail Kimbell has sunk to level of the eco-arsonists now doing time in Federal penitentiaries. She openly advocates holocaust and takeover, destruction of homes, farms, whole communities, and indeed our American culture and society. She is a radical communist/fascist filled with hatred, not just for public forests but for this entire country.

That’s a big deal, not small potatoes.

In truth, the USFS capitulated to leftwing anarchist arsonists many years ago. But what was more or less unstated is now out in the open and the Official Policy of the US Government.

Saddam Hussein would be proud. So would be Joseph Stalin.

Slowly (due to numerous interruptions) I am posting the story of fire in Canada. But that story is about more than fire; it is about corporatist Socialism and the enslavement/destruction of land and people.

The tragedy of Canada is minor, however, compared to the oncoming tragedy of America.

I have said it before and I will say it again: there is a war going on, right here on American soil. It is not a joke, or hyperbole, or exaggeration. It is real. The devastation of public lands by holocaust is just the beginning, the early skirmishes.

If you value freedom, human rights, and our American Experiment in democracy, then you must become aware of the forces arrayed against us. Gail Kimbell is a monster, and not alone in her bellicose anti-Americanism. The time has come to stand up in opposition.

  • Colloquia

  • Commentary and News

  • Contact

  • Follow me on Twitter

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Meta