3 Mar 2008, 12:15pm
Saving Forests
by admin
leave a comment

Eco-Terrorists Strike Again

This story was NOT printed in the Missoulian today.

Associated Press [here]

WOODINVILLE, Wash. — The radical environmental group responsible for the 1998 fires at Vail’s Two Elks Lodge apparently has struck again — in the form of fires that gutted three multimillion-dollar show homes north of Seattle.

Crews battled fires early today at the homes in a suburb north of Seattle. A sign connected to the environmental group Earth Liberation Front was found at the scene, officials said.

The sign — with initials E.L.F. — mocked claims the luxury homes on the “Street of Dreams” were environmentally friendly, according to video images of the sign aired by KING-TV.

“Built Green? Nope black!” the sign said.

Who are the arsonists, people? Is it those of us trying to halt the incineration of our forests, landscapes, homes, and communities? Or is it the Far Left eco-terrorist movement?

Make their case. Tell us again how the Sierra Club et al are merely making “political statements” and are not directly responsible for the HATE AMERICA arsonism they so strongly support.

3 Mar 2008, 8:36am
Saving Forests
by admin

Eco-Terrorists in Our Midst

The American domestic eco-terrorist network is alive and well, and they present a greater danger to this country than Al-Qaida. Eco-fascism imperils the U.S. vastly more than Islamo-fascism, illegal immigration, and “climate change” combined.

Make no mistake about it. The Far Left espouses an eco-theology more fanatical than any major religion, including Islam. Theirs is not a humanist religion either, but one in which the entire human race is seen as evil and deserving of destruction. Eco-terrorists are not tree-hugging nature lovers despite what their propaganda cloak implies; they seek destruction of nature as well as civilization.

Eco-terrorist organizations in the U.S. today include Earthjustice, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, the Humane Society of the United States, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands Project, Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, Audubon Society, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and hundreds of others. The largest of these are the big, international NGO’s: the Nature Conservancy, the Wilderness Society, Conservation International, the World Wildlife Fund, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and others.

These eco-terrorist organizations are well-funded by large globalist foundations motivated by power, greed, and an endless lust for more. Large capitalist foundations such as the Rockefeller Fund, Pew Trusts, Packard Foundation, and the Ford Foundation that fund eco-terrorism are not acting out of guilt or shame for amassing obscene fortunes; on the contrary they are acting to expand their profits and control over the wealth of the world.

It is global warming alarmism that has quadrupled the price of oil in the last five years, not global warming skepticism. When millions of acres of U.S. public forests burn to the ground every year, globalist multinational timber interests benefit.

more »

Montana Forest Owners Comment on Fire Hazards

The Montana Forest Landowners Network [here] posted the following comments they received from a survey they undertook in 2006. The comments speak for themselves, and quite eloquently:

Comments received from Aug. ‘06 Action Alert Survey to Family Forest Landowners:

* The State Wildlife management property adjacent to me is a fire hazard that threatens me and all my neighbors.

* The State land School Trust Sec 6 was selectively logged 3 years back. This was a great improvement removing beetle killed lodge pole and improving the remaining stand of larch and doug fir. The forest service land was logged four years back but not up to the boundary 300 to 500 yards buffer remains with very high fire hazard as a result of dead and mature lodge pole. The federal land’s forest is very thick with brush and trees.

* After more than two decades of forest and fuel management on several hundred acres of private property bordering national forest, in 2003 a wildfire, which started on public land (which had undergone NO forest/fuel management) raged into our wildland/urban interface and died out on managed private lands, but only after destroying two homes. If public land is handled in a negligent fashion, to disproportionately tax private landowners to defend themselves against their own government’s mismanagement is just plain wrong!

* The reason that State property fire risk is so high is because they cut trees and left them and because the county sprays weeds in such concentrations that highly flammable cheat grass grows on the slopes or other grasses in the borrow pits that are flammable when dry late in the summer. This is mainly a problem for south-facing slopes, which I have. I don’t have livestock so the grasses and ferns get pretty high. My neighbor to the west has a lot of cleared land that dries up in the summer. The USFS has no access, so they haven’t logged anything. They have lots of bug-killed trees in spots, but the trees are mixed species. We haven’t had a fire since 1910, but that was a big one—hit nearly all of my 65 acres. I am mainly worried about cigarette butt flippers, or vehicle accident fires. We hardly ever have lightning caused fires, except high in the mountains.

* One of the best forestry programs is the old 1960 to 1990 ASCS prune and thin payment program. A landowner could receive a per acre payment to thin the understory and then prune to best leave trees to a height of 18 feet. Yes, thinning put a lot of slash on the forest floor but in a few years it was flat on the ground and not much of a fire hazard. The pruned trees with no branches lower than 18 feet was a reduced fuel ladder. When combined with a logging thin first the fire danger was reduced by a big factor. The problem is cost. First federal funding has been cut or reduced. Second it is a lot of hard work for the landowner. Ten acres is a two to six month project. However, a lot of forest health and production is improved and in two, three years the fire danger is reduced. These are my thoughts on the subject. P.S. My wife & I were MT Tree Farmers of the Year in 1992. John Bowdish.

more »

27 Feb 2008, 10:43am
Saving Forests
by admin

Required Reading

Flames of Dissent: The local spark that ignited an eco-sabotage boom — and bust


In a high-profile sweep that began on Dec. 7, 2005 and continues into the present, the federal government indicted 18 people for a spate of environmentally motivated sabotage crimes committed in the West between 1996 and 2001. No one was physically hurt in the actions, mainly arsons against corporate and government targets perceived to be destroying the planet. Yet the FBI is calling the defendants “eco-terrorists” and seeking particularly stiff sentences for the five remaining non-cooperators, whose trials are pending. Eight defendants have pled guilty, four are fugitives and one committed suicide in jail.

Segments of the American public have glanced at the mug shots inked into newspapers and seen dangerous eco-fanatics who belong behind bars. But here in Eugene, where most of the alleged saboteurs have lived, those faces are familiar to hundreds and dear to many. In recent months, EW spoke with more than a dozen local people who described the accused as compassionate, Earth-loving people, influenced by a time that also shaped Eugene.

Five years after the last act of arson, the so-called Operation Backfire arrests have sparked the national media’s curiosity. That attention, beaming like a headlight through a fog of paranoia, tends to obscure the other regrowth that sprouted from the ashes of Eugene’s eco-radical era.

This five-part series attempts to tell that story.

Part I: In Defense of Cascadia: The Warner Creek campaign [here]

Part II: Eco-Anarchy Rising [here]

Part III: Eco-Anarchy Imploding [here]

Part IV: The Bust [here]

Part V: The Ashes [here]

22 Feb 2008, 7:24pm
Saving Forests
by admin

Make Their Case

We received the following note from Yahoo at Yahoo, a nom-de-plume no doubt.

You refuse to understand or even see all sides of any given issue. Y at Y

Got me! Partly. I don’t refuse to, but I definitely don’t understand the Sierra Club’s position. Why don’t you explain it us. Make their case.

Because I think I nailed them. Their goal is to incinerate America’s priceless heritage forests and any and all private property within 30 miles of Federal land. By “incinerate” I mean burn it hot and hard, altering whatever ecosystem is there to ashes and weeds. They do so to gain control over those properties. They seek to destroy, render useless, and then seize control of the burned lands. By “control” I mean dehumanize, leave to rot, sprout tick brush, and burn again.

Why else would the Sierra Club (and their ilk) sue every single Healthy Forest Restoration Act project since that Act was widely discussed, debated, passed, and funded by the U.S. Congress, signed by the President, and implemented by the USFS as ordered?

Do they despise and seek to undermine democracy in general?

Is it because “the loggers are cutting ancient forests”? Hardly. Have you read the HFRA? It expressly forbids any fuels management in old-growth stands. And yet, the old-growth stands are the ones that need the treatment the most! They are the stands with the most resource values most at risk from catastrophic fire. That’s what the top foresters and forest scientists say, and I agree. But the HFRA is very limited to second-growth near private property and communities.

Instead of restoration forestry, as implied in the title, the HFRA is a fuels management program in dense, high-risk forests at edges of the USFS boundaries. The idea is to prevent private property (ranches, farms, tree farms, rural residences, rural communities, and sometimes urban areas) from being incinerated by fires that arise on Federal lands.

Why is the Sierra Club against that? Make their case.

They were bugged because the diameter limits weren’t small enough. The point to any forest treatment is what’s left, not what’s removed.

For maximum safety, the USFS could strip their land to bare dirt a mile wide inside their boundary. But a better idea would be to leave a park-like forest with widely-spaced tree crowns and grassy understories that are periodically control-burned to prevent fuels build-up. You know, the heritage condition, referencing the healthy, sustainable forests of pre-Contact eras.

The HFRA doesn’t go that far, even in second-growth, but it’s a start. Or would be, if the ilks didn’t sue to enjoin every HFRA project.

I have no idea why they do that. I see only evil motives and tragic outcomes in their machinations. Make their case.

20 Feb 2008, 3:50pm
Saving Forests
by admin

Ninth Court and the Sierra Club Are Slime Ball Arsonists

The following horrible news just came in. It seems the Sierra Club is up to their old sick tricks of burning down America’s forests and all the neighboring private property, too. The raging arsonist commies at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals share the slime pit. If you know a Sierra Club member, please feel free to set their home on fire.

Logging in limbo

By JIM MANN The Daily Inter Lake, Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 [here]

James Stupack has become an experienced hand at fuel reduction work, carrying out the first project exclusively aimed at reducing national forest fire risks to adjacent properties from Hungry Horse to West Glacier in 2004.

Stupack, the owner of Tough Go Logging, is now neck deep in fuel reduction projects on the Flathead National Forest as a subcontractor on projects in the Swan Valley and on his own contract in the Blankenship area north of Columbia Falls.

But those projects and others — nine across the Flathead Forest and hundreds across the country — were approved under a special rule that has been found unlawful by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In ruling in favor of the Sierra Club, the court ordered a lower court to issue an injunction to stop projects approved under the “categorical exclusion” rule, but that has yet to happen.

more »

18 Feb 2008, 9:06pm
Saving Forests
by admin

Ignorance, Fear, and Hatred

Gregory asks: “Why do some people wish to shut down the U.S. economy (indeed the world economy) to ’save’ a species that is not endangered from ‘climate change’ that isn’t happening?”

This is an excellent and important question.

Why do some people wish to burn our heritage forests in megafires, and hope those fires spread to private land where the residents can be burned out, too?

Why do some people wish to inflict killer wolf-dogs on innocent human victims?

Why do some people hate any sign of humanity and wish to cleanse the planet of all their fellow humans?

I think the answer has something to do with general ignorance, fear, and hatred; deep-seated, innately human ignorance, fear, and hatred.

Hitler didn’t put millions of people to death in gas chambers by himself. He had to have help. Ditto Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Ghengis Kahn, Julius Caesar, and all the murderous tyrants of history. They all needed some help, mainly a host of ignorant, fearful, hate-filled minions to carry out their slaughters.

Those tyrants may be dead, but inhumanity is alive and well.

more »

14 Feb 2008, 1:32am
Saving Forests
by admin

Jim’s Creek

What should the USFS be doing?

Stuff like the Jim’s Creek Savanna Restoration Project. See [here].

7 Feb 2008, 3:45pm
Saving Forests
by admin
leave a comment

Never Give an Inch

by Bear Bait

Perchance, Mike, some in the Piss Fir Willies outfit have read and understood the Franklin/Johnson turnabout, and now have no underpinnings on which to stand. If you think the poor Mama Polar Bear and her cubs in that tiny ice floe weren’t looking for a 4 stroke Honda and a fast way outta there, you have to know the vestigial USFS True Believers are. There is no topo map or compass that might guide them out of their hell hole of agency fouling now. If the USFS is looking for a sponsor like a slow NASCAR driver, I would suggest Old Tanglefoot, the finest name in flypaper. The Old Hooktender would have described Ms Kimble as “She don’t knowed if she’s been punched or bored.” The rats would have abandoned the ship, but nobody has the correct forms , and besides, they haven’t held hands enough this month to be able to make a conflict free decision.

You may never know your impact, Mike, but you can be sure you have exposed some sensitive nerves. The USFS has lost its institutional memory, which would be criminal except we can’t forget it is a bureaucracy. They honest to God no longer know how to get there from here. Lost in a wilderness of their own making. Lots and lots of earnest, dedicated, wanting to do the right thing people, all without the Big Picture leadership that was built into the agency until that Rat Bastard Bill Clinton canned Dale Robertson and replaced him with JW Thomas, an experienced biologist running, at that time, a meaningful experimental forest. But not a candidate for Pimp of the President’s Forests. But that is what he became, and he knew and bailed when he could. So then they got Babbitt’s toady, Dombeck. Big whoop. And it has been political appointees since then. The agency is not providing its leadership on merit and vision and experience. It is grooming political appointees to carry out the wishes of whatever flavor of political whim is this month’s fad. They have walked the NGO streets and don’t have any tricks left to turn except let it all burn. What a sad, sad state of affairs. I have little faith any change in political leadership will change the now highly green charged zombies of the USFS. Unbuilt and not fit to rebuild.

more »

2 Feb 2008, 9:00pm
Saving Forests
by admin

I Am to Blame

I have been accused (J’Accuse!) of expressing harsh sentiments towards public bureaucrats, namely Gail Kimbell, Chief USDA Forest Service.

I apologize, Gail. I was over the top. It’s not your doing that bugs me. You are just a figurehead. You are a puppet on a string. The USFS is controlled by Congress and the President. They pull the strings. You just dance to the tune you are told to.

It’s someone else’s fault. I know that. The fault belongs to Congress, the President, the Judiciary, the BINGO’s, the “special interest groups.” Why lay blame on anyone in particular? And blame for what, exactly?

Let me explain. I seek to place the blame, or more properly the responsibility, for the collapse of the USFS and the concomitant destruction of our public and private lands by catastrophic fire, on whomever was actually or is actually responsible.

By collapse I mean that over the last 15 years the agency has shrunk by two-thirds, lost direction, expertise, and capabilities, and has replaced stewardship with a No Touch, Let It Burn, Watch It Rot management philosophy. That philosophy has resulted in megafires that have frequently escaped federal boundaries and burned private rural and urban lands across the West.

Over the last 15 years nearly 90 million acres have burned in wildfires. In 1993 2.3 million acres burned. That number has climbed to over 9 million ac/yr in last two years. Vast tracts of public forest have been incinerated, as well as tens of thousands of private ranches, farms, homes, and businesses. Historic record megafires have struck in every western state in this century. Federal fires have burned into cities including Los Alamos, Sedona, San Diego, South Lake Tahoe, Bend, and many others.
more »

31 Jan 2008, 12:21pm
Saving Forests
by admin
1 comment

Some Excerpts from the Johnson-Franklin Testimony

Last December 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.

The following are excerpts from that testimony (full testimony [here]).

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…

These forests… differ greatly from their historical condition in having much higher stand densities and basal areas, lower average stand diameters, much higher percentages of drought- and fire-intolerant species (such as white or grand fir), and many fewer (or no) old-growth trees…

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. Many fir-dominated stands are now at risk of catastrophic outbreaks of insect defoliators, such as the spruce budworm, as has occurred at many locations on the eastern slopes of the Cascade Range in both Oregon and Washington. Without action, we are at high risk of losing these stands-and the residual old-growth trees that they contain-to fire and insects…

more »

28 Jan 2008, 12:04pm
Saving Forests
by admin
1 comment

The Destructiveness of Un-Management

Recent calls for active management of our National Forests are based on the very evident fact that the set-aside of forests into No Touch “un-management” zones ends up destroying those forests.

Wilderness Areas, Roadless Areas, riparian reserves, Late Successional Reserves, and other No Touch zones are burning up in catastrophic megafires. The megafires kill all trees, including old-growth, incinerate wildlife, violently consume habitat, convert ecosystems to weedy brush, pollute air and water, destroy recreation opportunities, uglify scenery, and generally result in outcomes at total odds with the mission and purposes of our land management agencies.

Un-management destroys all the values the US Forest Service was established to protect. Un-management is also destroying the USFS itself. Since inception of their un-management program, the USFS has lost more than two-thirds of its personnel and most of its professional stewardship expertise. Their capacity to manage public lands, even if the agency wanted to, has been crippled.

The imposition of un-management land set-asides is wrecking the very values the land was ostensibly set aside for.

The only active program the USFS has left is whoofoos, so-called Wildland Use Fires, more properly let-it-burn fires that hasten the demise of our public forests.

In their hysteria to shut down all stewardship, proponents of un-management have left millions of acres of public and private land permanently scarred. Megafires have not been contained on un-managed Federal forests, but instead have ravaged private countryside and urban areas alike. No Touch, Let It Burn has caused hundreds of billions of dollars worth of damage to resource and human values over the last 20 years.

The Precautionary Principle cautions against forest management for fear the outcomes might be bad. Yet un-management justified by the Precautionary Principle has directly resulted in horrendous outcomes, without any shadow of a doubt. The movement to “save the ecology” has left tens of millions of acres of ecosystems in smoking ruins.

New legislation is being devised to counteract the trend toward un-management. Such efforts are often touted as “compromises” between loggers and environmentalists. Loggers and environmentalists are special interest groups that do not represent the majority of Americans, nor does either group offer any management program that would save our forests.

The only “special interest groups” that offer viable solutions are those that advocate active, professional stewardship of our public lands, in order to protect, maintain, and perpetuate forests. Good stewardship means active management that protects rather than destroys forest and natural landscape values.

No doubt, whatever legislation is proposed, the anti-management, pro-destruction special interest groups will fume and sputter. It is important that the American public, whose land it is, not be fooled by deep-pocket, globalist industrialists, no matter whether they are putatively “loggers” or “environmentalists.” Both those lobbies are mega-rich, mega-powerful, and think they run this country. But they don’t.

Stewardship is not successful if it is restricted to a tiny percentage of the landscape. Unless the majority of acres are treated, megafires will erupt on the un-managed portions and spread to all lands. Wilderness, roadless, and other set-aside zones are ticking time bombs that wreak destruction far beyond their regulatory boundaries.

Unless the new legislation legitimizes stewardship on the majority of the public acres, we will not be able to stem the tide of megafires and environmental destruction. Congress and the public need to realize that un-management is not the answer; in fact, it is the problem.

24 Jan 2008, 12:27pm
Saving Forests
by admin

Mr. Mensa Challenges Mike on Global Cooling

None other than Mr. Mensa himself sent us a comment, in response to a post we entitled Global Cooling Sets In [here]. Out of respect for the august reputation of the author, we reprise Mr. Mensa’s comment in full:

Mike - Stick to the forestry issues - when you post global warming-related comments you sound just plain silly.

It’s a bit early for your 2008 and 2009 predictions.

Despite your misinformation, here are the facts:

For 2007, the global land and ocean surface temperature was the fifth warmest on record. Separately, the global land surface temperature was warmest on record while the global ocean temperature was 9th warmest since records began in 1880.

Including 2007, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995. The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6°C and 0.7°C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend.

2008 is set to be cooler globally than recent years but is still forecast to be one of the top-ten warmest years.

Get your facts straight buddy!

Well, indeed! I rise to that bait like a trout to a fly!

In this preface to my reply to Mr. Mensa, which is this essay, I must first establish some turf. “Stick to forestry” advises Mr. Mensa. Well sir, climatology is a sub-specialty of foresters and forestry.

Foresters are generalists, meaning they have to know quite a bit about many fields. These include botany, zoology, ecology, natural history, anthropology, hydrology, engineering, statistics, economics, business, sociology, meteorology, and yes, climatology, especially in this day and age. Others may specialize, but foresters must be generalists because their responsibilities encompass all those disciplines.

The sciences may be compartmentalized, but the forest cannot be; the forest is the sum of all the parts, all mixed together.

So I am, in fact, highly qualified to discuss global warming and/or cooling, as I shall amply demonstrate.

more »

20 Jan 2008, 5:08pm
Saving Forests
by admin

Fire Suppression Is Not To Blame

This morning I read a dead tree press article about defensible space. The article was okay, but the reporter felt compelled to add the usual PC canard about fire suppression having caused fuel build-ups.

I’m not going to link to the article because I don’t want to embarrass the reporter. There was nothing special about his remark; it’s a common misstatement and falsehood. I could cite thousands of other, similar utterances, probably millions if I had the desire and capital to do it.

Far better (and cheaper) would be to quash this canard once and for all.

Fire suppression, throughout its entire history, has not added one ounce of fuel to the environment. Not even a microgram of fuel has been added by fire suppression.

The culprit is photosynthesis. All the biomass in the Biosphere got there directly or indirectly via photosynthesis. There is an exception: sulfur bacteria growing near undersea vents, but besides that paltry scum, the rest of Life is photosynthetic in origin or dependency.

Reducing, hamstringing, and/or banning fire suppression altogether will not solve our fire crisis. Withholding fire suppression will not stop any fires.

It’s the biotic fuels that are burning, and they got there via photosynthesis.

Another non-solution to our fire crisis would be to attempt to eliminate photosynthesis. This would be an impossible task, for Life is Resilient. If it could be done, it would also have the unintended consequence of killing off all oxygen-dependent life forms, including you and me.

more »

18 Jan 2008, 1:50pm
Saving Forests
by admin

Resident Stewardship

The most important things grown in Oregon, the things we most desire to sustain, are not Douglas-fir, salmon, spotted owls, or watershed values. The most important things grown in Oregon are children, human children. That’s what we need to sustain: children and their parents. Without people, there really is no point to sustaining anything else.

Children should grow up where it is clean and green, where there is real dirt, real grass, real trees, and a big outdoors to explore.

Once upon a time human beings considered themselves to be a part of nature. Once there was a time when human beings were the Caretakers of Creation. We were part of nature, nature was part of us. Humanity has tended our landscapes for thousands of years.

That time has apparently passed. Today modern humanity is widely considered to be an infection, a cancer on nature. Ask any environmentalist, “What is the most overriding problem facing the planet today?” and he or she will tell you: too many people.

They will not have to think about it. The response will be knee-jerk automatic. The dogma has been memorized and re-memorized: too many people.

A long time ago forests were valued as home, the neighborhood, places where people lived.

Today, in contrast, forests are valued as dehumanized places. Dehumanization outweighs all the old, passé values. As long as a landscape is devoid of humanity it does not matter if the forest is old or young, beautiful or ugly, green or burned to snags and soot. A “forest” can be a burned-out wasteland, lacking in every respect including trees, but if it is dehumanized, then all is well.

more »

  • Colloquia

  • Commentary and News

  • Contact

  • Follow me on Twitter

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Meta