19 Apr 2008, 12:07pm
Politics and politicians
by admin
7 comments

Attention Oregon Global Warming Alarmists

Here it is: Global Cooling. How do you like it?

Coldest Winter on record. Just what you wanted. Enjoying the April snow?

Attention Far Left Socialist voters. Governor Dumb Bunny Ted is holding GW Alarmist meetings, trying to orient the entire State government to combating global warming by shutting down all economic activity, tearing down dams, and encouraging megafires. Are you pleased?

The moron you elected twice reached down to OSU and forced out the only academic with the guts to tell the truth about the impending global cooling. Do you like that kind of interference in academic freedom? Are you satisfied now that freedom of thought has been curtailed at your university, and no one but sycophantic twits are left there? Twits that are dead wrong about climate change?

Did you get tire chains for your Priuses?

Don’t worry. Next summer will be the nicest day of the year. You won’t need chains to drive out to your favorite incinerated forest and gaze lovingly at the miles and miles of blackened snags.

You wanted change. Don’t worry. You’ll soon be out on the sidewalk begging for some.

Let’s elect some more extreme leftist bonehead Stalinists. Keep Oregon Charcoal Grey. It’s all about “quality of life” right? Huddle in the dark and cold and tell yourself that the quality of your life is vastly improved.

Vote lefty-freeze the planet. Give up your freedoms; it’s worth it. Abort your babies, euthanize your parents. You’re saving the planet!!

Let’s all sing some Communist anthems. Maybe that’ll keep us warm.

Ban homes; we can all live under the urban bridges. Drink right out of the sewer discharge pipes that pour filth into the estuary in Portland. We’re Dreamers here. Dream on.

Thank There Is No God that the Religious Right doesn’t have a single rep in the Legislature. Make Oregon safe for wolves. Burn Baby Burn. The only good forest is dead, burned, tick brush. Fight Global Warming. We like it cold as ice.

So strap on your jackboots and goosestep down the avenue. You won the battle! Universal death care! Sing the Happy Slave Song. Freeze your brains. Be as Left as you can be. Save the planet from humans such as yourself. If everybody else is jumping off the cliff, might as well join them. Ban the board! And don’t leave any carbon footprints on your way out.

18 Apr 2008, 7:12pm
Federal forest policy
by admin
leave a comment

Napolitano On Megafire

The U.S. House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act, or FLAME Act, on April 10th. Yesterday the Committee passed the FLAME Act, which will now be presented to the entire House. From the news release [here]:

The FLAME fund would be separate from budgeted and appropriated agency wildland fire suppression funding for the Forest Service and the Interior Department, and is to be used only for the suppression of catastrophic, emergency wildland fires. The annual agency budgets will continue to fund anticipated and predicted wildland fire suppressions activities. Monies for the fund will be appropriated based on the average costs incurred by these agencies to suppress catastrophic, emergency wildland fires over the preceding five fiscal years.

The FLAME Act does not guarantee good stewardship, or good fire management, or a reduction in fire suppression costs or fire losses. It merely juggles the funding. But the hearing did provide an opportunity for a select few individuals to express some sentiments to Congress.

Among those presenting testimony on April 10th was Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona. Her entire testimony is [here]. Some selected excerpts:

Today I will share with you examples of significant wildfires in my state and discuss some of the risks I believe we face if we do not ensure a distinct funding stream for mega-fire suppression.

Arizona’s largest wildfires have occurred within the last six years. In 2002, the Rodeo-Chediski Fire burned 467,000 acres of east-central Arizona woodland over the course of a month, requiring the evacuation of more than 30,000 people.

more »

17 Apr 2008, 11:34am
Federal forest policy Saving Forests
by admin
7 comments

The USFS Is Fundamentally Racist

And so is most of modern forest science. The USFS administrators and most forest scientists today (as well as most “environmental” groups) fail to understand or even acknowledge that Native Americans have had profound influences on our landscapes for millennia.

Euro-Americans did not encounter a wilderness. They came to a continent that had been occupied and resided upon for ten thousand years or more by actual human beings. Except for the tops of mountain peaks accessible only with modern technical climbing gear, every single acre in the continental U.S. had been trod with moccasins.

Every single acre had been explored, walked upon, and utilized by the human beings who had lived here continuously since before the end of the Wisconsin Glaciation. Anthropogenic fire had been visited upon all landscapes a zillion times. The vegetation had been totally altered, and over 40 species of wildlife had been hunted to extinction, by the long-resident humanity.

Every landscape was criss-crossed with roads. Lewis and Clark did not bushwhack from the Mississippi to the Pacific; they traveled on ROADS, Indian roads, roads that had been in place and heavily used for thousands of years. The Corps of Discovery arranged for guides to show them the right roads to take. The word “road” appears in the journals of L&C hundreds of times.

The Corps of Discovery did not “live off the land.” Yes, they hunted some, but there was very little game. For the most part, they purchased food from the resident human beings.

The resident human beings had established fields and tracts where they gathered roots and berries, drove game, captured fish in weirs, and produced through agricultural techniques the necessities of their lives: food, clothing, and shelter. Native Americans did not flit from bush to bush like butterflies, leaving no mark. On the extreme contrary, they modified the environment to suit their needs virtually everywhere.

The modern USFS and forest science establishments are utterly clueless about that. They still think of America as a recent wilderness. That kind of thinking is racist as well as completely wrong. The “science” is rank with Euro-centric falsehoods stemming from deep-seated racist blindness. The managers of our National Forests are completely oblivious to the landscape uses and patterns established by resident human beings.

The current Let It Burn philosophy imposed on our landscapes by blind racism is destroying the ancient human heritage. The urge to declare Wilderness Areas and Roadless Areas is nazi-like racism at it’s worst. The denial of the American Holocaust whereby millions of people were slaughtered over a 500 year racist jihad and ethnic cleansing is as objectionable and ethically bankrupt as the denial of Hitler’s Holocaust (or even more so).

Our forests and landscapes are being destroyed by a sick and twisted bureaucracy that is fundamentally racist to its core.
more »

16 Apr 2008, 10:56pm
Climate and Weather
by admin
5 comments

Ag-norance

Ted Turner wants to eat you. Former media mogul (and still a prize ass) Ted Turner appeared on the Charlie Rose Show and issued a Soylent Green dire report [here]:

If global warming isn’t stemmed, “we’ll be 8 degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow,” Turner said during PBS’ “Charlie Rose.”

“Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals,” said Turner, 69. “Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state … living conditions will be intolerable.”

Population control can help combat global warming he said. People should voluntarily pledge to have only one or two children, the founder of CNN in Atlanta said.

“We’re too many people; that’s why we have global warming,” he said.

Kobe beef, anyone? Cher and share alike? Pass the Col. Mustard?

But enough of the cannibal chatter-this post is about the profound ignorance most Americans possess regarding agriculture.

Does anyone out there know where food comes from? No, the answer is not the grocery store. Food comes from farms and ranches. Food is grown on purpose by people generally referred to as “farmers” and “ranchers” or “agriculturalists.”

Farmers grow edible plants on farms. That’s where food comes from. The edible plants need sunlight, soil, and water to grow. And warmth. This is a little known fact, evidently. Plants like it warm. Plants don’t grow very well where it’s cold, but they do great where it’s warm.
more »

Kimbell Axes Fire Planning

On April 2nd USFS Chief Abigail Kimbell decided that four Region 3 National Forests no longer needed Fire Management Plans (FMP’s) as part of their Land and Resource Management Plans (LCMP’s). As a result, the existing FMP’s on the Carson and Lincoln NF’s in New Mexico and the Apache-Sitgreaves and Tonto NF’s in Arizona were thrown in the dumpster.

Kimbell axed the FMP’s because an environmental group, the WildEarth Guardians (formerly the Forest Guardians), had sued the Forest Service in December, claiming the agency’s FMP’s for the four forests were inadequate because they were produced without any NEPA process (i.e. no Environmental Analyses or Environmental Impact Statements were created).

From the WildEarth Guardians’ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [here]:

61. The Apache-Sitgreaves, Tonto, Carson, and Lincoln National Forests did not solicit public input and did not prepare an EA or EIS before preparing and approving their FMPs. Consequently, the public had no opportunity to comment on the fire management practices required by the FMPs, and the Forest Service did not analyze alternatives to the FMPs.

Rather than comply with NEPA, Kimbell junked the FMP’s, and the next week the USFS requested the lawsuit be dropped. From the Las Cruses Sun-News [here]:

Forest Service seeks dismissal of fire plan lawsuit

By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN, Las Cruses Sun-News, 04/10/2008

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—The U.S. Forest Service is seeking dismissal of a federal lawsuit filed by environmentalists who had challenged the agency’s fire management plans for four Southwestern forests.

Forest Guardians, now called WildEarth Guardians, had sued the Forest Service in December, claiming the agency’s plans for the Carson and Lincoln forests in New Mexico and the Apache-Sitgreaves and Tonto forests in Arizona were inadequate and produced without enough public involvement.

The Forest Service, in a motion filed Thursday, argued that the lawsuit should be declared moot since the agency withdrew the fire plans last week.

“As a result, the purported decisions that are the basis for plaintiff’s claims are no longer in effect, such that there is no continuing case or controversy to support jurisdiction,” the agency’s lawyers wrote in the two-page motion.

Court documents also show that Forest Service Chief Abigail Kimbell on Wednesday waived a requirement that the four forests have fire management plans. …

On March 5th the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF issued a notice that they were going to prepare an EA to include Let It Burn fires in their FMP [here]. The Western Institute for Study of the Environment prepared a 170 page complaint requesting that the RR-SNF prepare an EIS before they adopted Let It Burn into their FMP [here].

Now it seems that the Chief of the USFS can merely dump the RR-SNF FMP altogether, rather than obey the law. This type of criminal behavior on Kimbell’s part has also been pointed out and documented many times at SOS Forests [here, for instance].

The USFS has devolved into a lawless outfit that spurns NEPA, ESA, NFMA, NHPA and other laws of the United States in their quest to incinerate America’s priceless heritage forests. The level of abuse and dismissal of the rule of law by this federal agency is appalling and bodes catastrophic disaster. Something must be done and soon.

Stubbing Their Tahoe Again

The Burn It Down contingent at Lake Tahoe are up to their old tricks again. Some authoritarian thugs never learn. The latest eco-nazi eruption at the Sierran lake was featured in the Sac Bee last week [here]:

Lake Tahoe resident could face prison over tree removal

By Todd Milbourn - Sack-a-tomatoes Bee, April 9, 2008

Environmental cops at Lake Tahoe say Patricia Vincent deserves a prison sentence and a huge fine.

Her alleged crime: chopping down three trees on federal land that improved her backyard view of the lake.

The enviro cops in question are functionaries of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, recently lambasted by the emergency California-Nevada Tahoe Basin Fire Commission [here] for creating the fire hazard that led to the Angora Fire (which incinerated 3,100 acres of public forest and 254 private homes, and caused an estimated $140 million in damages) last June.

Vincent says it was an honest mistake, but now she’s believed to be the first target of criminal charges of illegally cutting Tahoe trees.

It’s the clearest signal yet of how serious coniferous crime has become as regulators fight to preserve the Sierra Nevada jewel Mark Twain once deemed “the finest view the world affords.”

more »

9 Apr 2008, 10:56am
Climate and Weather Saving Forests
by admin
1 comment

Theory, Empiricism, Forests, and Global Warming Models

A popular statement, usually attributed to George Box, is that “all models are wrong, but some are useful.” The usefulness of models fall into two broad classes: theory and prediction. Theoretical models attempt to map known physical, chemical, and biological relationships. Predictive models (sometimes called “black box”) attempt to make accurate predictions.

There is a strong tendency to confuse or combine these utilities, and that is true in any modeling (my specialty is forest growth and yield models). Proponents of theoretical models are often adamant that their models are best (a value judgment) and insist that they be used in predictive situations. Predictive modelers, in contrast, may use crude rules of thumb that are unattractive to theoreticians, but predictive modelers emphasize that their goal is accurate prediction.

Hence Box’s assertion that models are wrong must also be bifurcated. Theoretical models are wrong if the theories behind them are invalid. Predictive models are wrong if they make poor predictions. It is easy (but not useful) to confuse these wrong-itudes.

Predictive models are generally empirical, that is, data-driven. Predictions are validated (or invalidated) by the data on actual outcomes. Theoretical models are validated (or invalidated) by tests of theory, which may or may not be empirical. Experiments (empiricism) are used to test theories, but theoretical models do not rest on predicted outcomes because theoretical models are not predictive by design.

The best weather prediction models are more empirical than theoretical. They look at current conditions (fronts, pressure gradients, jet streams, etc.) as they are cadastrally arrayed across the globe, and compare those to past dates when the same or very similar arrays occurred. Then the weather outcomes of the similar past conformations are examined, and used to predict the immediate future weather. Not much theory to that, more of a data mining of the past; hence the descriptor “empirical.”
more »

8 Apr 2008, 9:02pm
Saving Forests
by admin
leave a comment

Paul Driessen on Eco-Imperialism

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

more »

7 Apr 2008, 6:19pm
Federal forest policy Saving Forests
by admin
5 comments

The Monument, the Mill, and the Enviros

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.
more »

6 Apr 2008, 12:46am
Federal forest policy
by admin
4 comments

WFLC Stages Bloodless Coup — America To Be Incinerated

On March 24th the Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC) held a conference call meeting in which they adopted new “anything goes” rules for Let It Burn fires.

The WFLC is the Federal Advisory Committee that oversees firefighting on Federal land, including USFS, BLM, NPS, USFWS, and BIA [here]. The March 24 meeting notes are [here].

Five unanimous decisions were made during the conference call meeting. First, any fire can be a suppression fire and a whoofoo at the same time. The fire can be suppressed over here and let burn over there.

Wildland Fire Leadership Council Meeting — Conference Call Notes, March 24, 2008

Actions and Decisions

TOPIC: Modifying Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Policy (AMR)

1. Current Direction: Only one management objective will be applied to a wildland fire. Wildland fires will either be managed for resource benefits or suppressed. A wildland fire cannot be managed for both objectives concurrently. If two wildland fires converge, they will be managed as a single wildland fire.

Proposed Direction: Wildland fires can be managed for one or more objective(s) based on the Land/Resource Management Plan direction.

DECISION: No objections – the WFLC approved new direction unanimously.

The new direction means the fire managers can be flexible about where they suppress and where they don’t. This is tantamount to a half-assed approach. The only criteria is that they have a policy known as “Appropriate Management Response” or AMR in their Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). This is one of the purposes of the change in the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF LRMP proposed March 5th [here] and commented upon by W.I.S.E. [here]

more »

3 Apr 2008, 4:19pm
Federal forest policy Saving Forests
by admin
2 comments

Some Brief Comments on the RRSNF’s AMR Proposal

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.

W.I.S.E. Challenges USFS Let It Burn Program

*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 #

31 Mar 2008, 7:59am
Federal forest policy Saving Forests
by admin
11 comments

W.I.S.E. Comments to the RR-SNF on AMR and WFU

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.

more »

USFS Scorched Earth Policy To Be Unveiled

The US Forest Service is set to release its new “scorched earth” policy on March 29th. The policy will encourage Let It Burn fires on 15 National Forests. The Let It Burn policy will be installed by formally adding Wildland Fire Use (WFU or whoofoos) to the Fire Plans on the 15 forests.

The Let It Burn policy was instigated by the Wildland Fire Leadership Council, a Federal Advisory Board that includes representatives from the five fed land management agencies (USFS, BLM, NPS, USFWS, and BIA) and is heavily influenced by BINGOs (TNC, TWS). See [here].

The new Let It Burn policy will be installed by altering or adopting language in the Fire Plans known as “Appropriate Management Response” (AMR). The changes will be made without public input or Environmental Impact Statements (EIS’s), even though whoofoos fires have huge impacts on plants and animals including Threatened and Endangered Species. The Let It Burn fires will also impact:

• Non-listed flora and fauna
• Historic/cultural resources
• Water and watersheds
• Air quality and airsheds
• Carbon emissions
• Public and worker safety
• Local economies
• Recreation opportunities
• Soils
• Hydrology
• Transportation networks
• Social resources
• Fisheries
• Invasive and noxious weeds
• Insects and disease
• Wilderness and roadless areas
• Wild and scenic rivers
• Scenic quality
• Short-term and long-term productivity
• Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources
• Wetlands and floodplains
• Farmland, rangeland, and private property
• Energy sources
• Civil rights and environmental justice

The new USFS scorched earth policy was predicted by this blog, and now it is coming to pass, without public notice in most cases and without the appropriate NEPA process (EIS’s) in all cases. The new policy also violates the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) among others.
more »

27 Mar 2008, 5:22pm
Saving Forests
by admin
2 comments

Dear PacifiCorp and Customers — STSSTTS!

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.

more »

 
  
  • Colloquia

  • Commentary and News

  • Contact

  • Follow me on Twitter

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Meta