DROWN OUT THE LIES!

imc volunteer, 04.05.2004 12:45

Next week, the Bush Administration's key logging proponents - Mark Rey, U.S. Forest Service officials and the timber industry - will convene at the annual meeting of the Society of American Foresters in Ashland, Oregon, May 5-7. This is a tremendous opportunity to influence how the public will react to Bush's old-growth logging program and the Biscuit logging project-the latter being the largest proposed timber sale in the modern history of the national forest system.

!!DROWN OUT THE LIES!!

Join us for a colorful rally in defense of wild forests!
FRIDAY MAY 7th, 8:30AM at the Stevenson Union, Southern Oregon University

Mark Rey comes to speak in Ashland Friday May 7.
Sorry Mark, but we've heard enough out of you.

Things to bring: pots and pans with large spoons (not for cooking, but for noise making), signs of your choice, any other spontaneous tricks, 50 of your closest friends and a good attitude.

Our goal is to show public outrage over Bush's hideous proposals and to show support for our vision of the protection and restoration of public forests. Mark Rey will be speaking on Friday morning and we will be there show resistance to industry-sponsored science, the degradation of environmental laws and the Bush administration's assault on forest ecosystems. Please join us and be a voice for the forests, the salmon and all critters big and small.

Mark Rey was appointed by George W. Bush to oversee the US Forest Service from Washington DC. He was chosen because he has for decades worked as a lobbyist for the timber industry.

Under his leadership, the Bush Administration has rolled back protections for forest streams and salmon. They removed a program that looked for rare and endangered species before logging ancient forest. They have attacked protections for roadless forests.

Now Mark Rey has proposed the largest US timber sale in modern history right here in the Siskiyou National Forest. It would log thousands of acres of roadless areas, ancient forest reserves, steep slopes and sensitive soils above salmon-bearing rivers in the area known as Siskiyou Wild Rivers.

And just to cap it off, Mark Rey has said that he wants to declare this "Biscuit Fire Recovery Plan" an emergency, thereby eliminating the legal requirement allowing you or environmental groups a chance to comment on the plan.

Sorry Mark, but we've heard enough out of you.

Also join us at the SOU Student Union Plaza all day on Thursday May 6 at the "Forest, Not Forestry, Truth Station."

Come see the incredible Fire and Forests Stiltwalkers, colorful props and a whole circus in defense of forests.

Download this article in pdf format >>

Add this article to your pdf newsletter selection >>

Checkout and Download your PDF-newsletter selection >>

Email this article to someone >>

Make a quick comment on this article >>

Ashland ... what a great place! 04.05.2004 - 13:02 "Sorry Mark, but we've heard enough out of you" Has Ashland now become a place where we try to prevent opinions that differ from our own from being voiced? Sad. I may or may not agree with everything that Mark has to say. Either way, I have respect for him as a human being and respect his right to voice his opinion. I'd appreciate it if you could keep your banging to a minimum, so that I might be able to hear some different opinions. Colin Beck> learn a lil about mark 05.05.2004 - 09:46 i understand your concern. mark rey is a human being but he is also a mouthpiece for big business and corrupt governments. he is destroying public lands so that fat cats can get fatter. should we have compassionate listening time for people responsible for making intentional decisions that severely harm the earth? what about compassionate listening time for the critters and waters that have no voice because this administration is drowning them out? destroying their habitat? pushing them towards extinction? one day i hope that we have war crimes tribunals, and if so, mark rey would be on the stand. lorraine> Wackos 05.05.2004 - 15:55 I think you hippies can't stand the thought of another opinion. BUSH CHENEY 04!!!! Hippies Suck> Speak for Yourself 05.05.2004 - 17:41 Your comments lead me to believe that, like many self-proclaimed 'environmentalists', you are more anti-establishment than you are pro-environment. The 1.1 billion board feet that the NWFP calls for, and that Rey advocates meeting, won't push anything towards extinction. The extent of old growth stands is currently INCREASING, due to the often overlooked fact that FORESTS GROW. I look forward to a day when environmentalists can advocate for balance without being labeled 'mouthpieces for big business' or compared to war criminals. Colin> Watch it buddy ... 05.05.2004 - 17:43 "Hippies Suck" I, for one, resent that remark! Colin> Here's more: Mark "of Death to Forests" Rey 06.05.2004 - 07:25 Rey or light or death Rey? by Jane Braxton Little original article here:  http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.PrintableArticle?article_id=10630 {He's a lot like James Watt, if you remember him} 'Mastermind' of salvage logging rider would oversee U.S. Forest Service "Let the extremes of the issue fight their battles in court. The reasonable 90 percent can reasonably solve their differences at the round table of consensus and compromise." So said Mark Rey to a group of University of California forestry students last year. It's a message befitting a nominee for Undersecretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment. But President Bush's choice for the post overseeing the U.S. Forest Service has engendered anything but consensus. Though Rey's supporters call him one of the nation's foremost experts in forest management and a dedicated public servant, to his opponents, he is closer to Darth Vader, a shrewd and sinister industry operative. Much of that reputation comes from his work on the infamous 1995 salvage logging rider, which temporarily suspended environmental laws to allow more logging on public lands. Rey, 48, is credited with being the mastermind behind the law, which then-President Clinton claimed he could not veto because it was attached to a spending bill that included relief for victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. The so-called "logging without laws" bill spawned civil disobedience in Oregon and other states (HCN, 9/2/96: Last line of defense). Andy Stahl, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, claims credit for the Darth Vader nickname, and says Rey is "as close to a Machiavellian factor as we have in forest policy." Other environmentalists are more blunt: "The Bush administration could not have selected a more divisive and inflammatory nominee to oversee national forests," says Michael Francis, director of forest programs for The Wilderness Society. An industry insider An Eagle Scout who grew up in Canton, Ohio, Rey attended the University of Michigan, where he graduated with degrees in wildlife management and forestry before earning a master's degree in natural resources policy and administration in 1975. He has worked for the National Forest Products Association, American Forest Resources Alliance and American Forest & Paper Association, all timber industry groups. Rey's political breakthrough came in 1995, when he became a staff member for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, working for Sens. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Larry Craig, R-Idaho. His position has made him a key player in virtually all forestry and conservation legislation during the last three Congresses. It has also made him a target for environmentalists. Rey has "hoodwinked" people with seemingly subtle changes to legislation that have been devastating to forests, says Steve Holmer, campaign coordinator for American Lands Alliance, a national environmental group. Last year, Rey helped pass legislation that restructured payments to county schools and roads from the sale of federal timber. Rey has publicly opposed Forest Service policies, including the agency's attempts to ban snowmobiles, limit hiker numbers, and raise prices on ski lift tickets. He has also fought new national forest wilderness areas. Charlie Brown with power But where some environmentalists see a puppet of industry, others see a smart tactician whose views have become broader and more moderate over the years. Though he declined to be interviewed for this story, Rey said in his talk at University of California that his support for access to public lands is part of an agenda he calls collaborative stewardship. In place of the Clinton administration's approach to Western resource management, which Rey labels "command and control," he called for increased public involvement from local groups. Rey said he does not advocate another Sagebrush Rebellion - "something none of us want or need" - but a philosophy that accepts humans as part of dynamic and changing ecosystems. To arrive at this, "we are all going to have to sit down with our neighbors and talk," Rey said. It's a philosophy that reflects Rey's realization that public lands have a much broader purpose than serving as the playground of the timber industry, says Lynn Jungwirth, chair of the Communities Committee of the Seventh American Forest Congress, a group that promotes local participation in natural resource issues. In addition to conventional loggers, Rey has met with tree planters, mushroom pickers and others who harvest nontraditional forest products. He has confidence in the Forest Service, which could help transform it from "everybody's whipping boy" to an agency capable of sound forest management decisions, Jungwirth says. "It's a myth that he's this big scary person operating behind an iron curtain," says Maia Enzer, who worked closely with Rey during her seven years as director of forest policy for American Forests, a national conservation group. "Mark Rey is like Charlie Brown with power. We can work with him." But others who have worked with him question Rey's commitment to collaboration. Greg Aplet, a forest ecologist with The Wilderness Society, says Rey and industry officials supported community-based coalitions during the Clinton administration because they were one of the few avenues to timber harvests. With power back in industry hands, Aplet worries that support for collaboration is slipping away. If the real Mark Rey is to emerge as undersecretary for natural resources, it will depend on the Senate. His nomination goes to the Senate Agriculture Committee and, if confirmed there, to the full Senate for a floor vote. Jane Braxton Little writes from Greenville, California. YOU CAN CONTACT ... * Greg Aplet, The Wilderness Society, 303/650-5818. * Mark Rey, staff member, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, (202/224-2878); * Michael Klein, American Forest & Paper Association, 202/463-2478. Copyright © 2001 HCN and Jane Braxton Little © copyright 2002- 2004 High Country News High Country News* Box 1090 * Paonia, CO 81428 * 1-800-905-1155 James Watt> Crushing Democracy 06.05.2004 - 08:58 I like the way that Rey eliminated the roadless area policy after 1.2 million Americans asked for roadless protection. Those 1.2 million Americans were hippies and should be ignored. I also liked it when Rey authored the salvage rider that authorized 2 years of lawless logging. Law are for liberals, not loggers. And those 54 species that the Forest Service says will go extinct because Rey wiped out the survey and manage program? Expendible. Who needs moss and lichen anyway? If it weren't for brave men like Rey, the 75% of Oregonians that want old-growth protected would run roughshod over the 25% of us that have all the money. Public lands exist for private profit. Pol Pot> Good job guys ... 07.05.2004 - 10:30 Your banging and yelling in the SU this morning demonstrated that you have the maturity levels of 10 year olds. Thank you for proving the point that resource managers have been making for years: The minority groups that regularly oppose sound management of public lands do not want to create solutions and compromise; they want to create problems and conflict. Without conflict, they have no reason to exist. Thinker> Restoration + jobs = solutions 10.05.2004 - 12:32 Thinker, I think you're right that some protesters at the SU didn't have it all together, but I have two responses to your comment. First, what do you mean to convey with the phrase, "sound management of public lands" that only "minority groups" oppose? I think it cannot include old-growth cutting (e.g., Kelsey Whiskey, Mr. Wilson, Anderson West, Ferris Bugman, Deer Lake) because 75 percent of Oregonians oppose that kind of management. Only "minority groups" support old-growth cutting. Second, do your best to check out the record of conservation groups who regularly oppose old-growth cutting. They actively facilitate solutions in fuel reduction (e.g., Ashland, North Murphy, Rogue River) and plantation thinning (e.g., Grants Pass RA, Siskiyou NF, all LSRs everywhere), where the real fire hazards exist. More, environmental groups worked with timber interests to educate the congressional delegation about the Siuslaw National Forest, which is the only forest in Region 6 turning a profit and exceeding its annual timber output targets because it only thins plantations and leaves the remaining 4 percent of old-growth alone. Restoration + jobs = solutions. I invite you to get with the winning team, Thinker. Jay Lininger> e-mail:: pyrolysis@ziplip.com Thinning is not sustainable. 17.05.2004 - 11:32 Thinning is great. Thinning is necessary. Thinning should (and does) constitute the vast majority of timber harvest on public lands. But thinning alone is not a sustainable use of the forest. Public lands should be (and are) managed on long regeneration intervals, mimicking and cooperating with natural forest succession cycles. This means that stands will be allowed to develop into and exist as mid to late successional forests before they are regenerated. In addition to providing habitat, scenery, etc., managing forests in such a way will also provide high quality specialty wood products that can not be produced using short rotation intervals. We must manage public lands on long rotation intervals. Otherwise, they will only serve as an extension of Boise and Weyerhaeusers plantations, which are clearcut every 30-60 years and are in a state of perpetual early succession. Achieving this is contingent on our ability to process these larger logs into the future. Although many of the small, family owned, large log mills have shut down due to the shortfalls of the NWFP, many still exist. Most of these small mills have no land base of their own, and depend on federal wood to survive. If we ONLY thin, and don't meet the modest goals that the NWFP places on the small ammount of GFMA (matrix) land that is allocated for sustainable harvest, these remaining mills will suffer a similar fate. The young forests that we are currently thinning will be full of large trees in the near future. If we loose the capacity to process these large trees, we loose the capacity to manage the forest and we loose the ability to sustain any level of harvest. And once the capicity is gone, it is gone for good. Nothing sustainable about that. Thinktivist> BLM is not sustainable 17.05.2004 - 20:15 Thinktivist lives in a much better place than the rest of us, on Planet BLM, where there’s no need for memory and technology solves every problem. In the 20th century, foresters from Planet BLM advocated rotational clear cutting under a paradigm of sustained yield, which replaced decadent old forest stands with robust young tree plantations that eventually would grow into large, straight trees ideal for conversion into dimensional lumber. Sustainable regeneration harvesting, they called it. Oops, then we learned we were pushing ecosystems to the brink. Damn birds. Federal foresters still subject matrix lands (GFMA on Planet BLM) to long rotation regeneration harvests (what we on Earth call, old growth clear cuts), to hell with critical habitat, pre-project surveys, and multi-scale aquatic habitat maintenance (science). Thinktivist presents 4 of the strongest arguments for the continued existence of a long rotation regeneration program on federal lands: 1) Regeneration cutting keeps family owned, large log mills alive. This argument plays well in Riddle. Most Oregonians don’t want to sacrifice the remaining old growth to keep a couple of antique mills on life support. Dave Hill of SOTIA is asking for more plantation thinning and less old growth cutting. Is Dave is out of step with his membership? 2) Regeneration cuts auctioned to private companies prevents federal forests from becoming an extension of private industrial timberlands. You figure this one out, I’m too dumb. 3) Regeneration cutting mimics natural forest succession. There’s a small difference between clear cutting and natural disturbances like wind and fire. Natural disturbances leave biological legacies in the form of large, dead trees that provide habitat for everything and eventually melt into soil. Clear cuts remove these legacies, stuff them on a truck, and cut them into boards. 4) Without regeneration cutting of large trees, there will be no forest management because technology will disappear. Sort of overlooks core premises of market economics, doesn't it? Sounds to me like a weak short-term justification for old growth BLM timber sales like Bear Pen, Mr. Wilson, Kelsey Whiskey, Cotton Snake, Timbered Rock, Lost Creek, Pickett Snake, Anderson West, Deer Lake and Bald Lick. Frank Herbert> Thinktivate before you Activate 18.05.2004 - 11:29 First, I'm from Ashland and not Riddle. Yes, yippies believe in sound forest policy, too. And now to clear up some of your misconceptions ... "Dave Hill of SOTIA is asking for more plantation thinning and less old growth cutting. Is Dave is out of step with his membership?" Not at all. I'm sure that Boise Cascade would love to see their competition dissapear. "Natural disturbances leave biological legacies in the form of large, dead trees that provide habitat for everything and eventually melt into soil. Clear cuts remove these legacies, stuff them on a truck, and cut them into boards." Apparently you haven't visited the woods in 10-15 years. I suggest you do. You will find that regeneration harvests on public lands now leave many of these legacy elements. 40% of the trees in the Mr. Wilson regen units were left. And they weren't little, low-value trees, either. Forestry has come a long way since 1980. I suggest you do the same. "Sort of overlooks core premises of market economics, doesn't it?" Ever heard of the term "risk factor"? Nobody in their right mind is going to invest in new technology when making a return on that investment is completely dependent on federal land management policy. Thinktivist> What a stumper! 20.05.2004 - 23:48 Thinktivist, I don't care where you're from, it's your approach to forestry that makes me weep for the future. Regarding the fact that SOTIA wants to see federal agencies step up thinning in plantations and jettison old-growth sales, you said: *Not at all. I'm sure that Boise Cascade would love to see their competition dissapear.* What a stumper! What the hell does this mean? You note that federal guidelines require retention of a token number of standing trees in BLM clearcuts. Done any soil productivity monitoring in regen units lately? How about trend data on cavity nesting wildlife? I'd love to know your findings. Please, educate me. I see the effects of your *sound* regeneration program throughout the Glendale area and the rest of SW Oregon. Carpets of fire bomb even-age plantations and homogenized landscapes where biodiversity used to exist. Cumulative effects is the name of the game in the 21st century. Join us in this era, please. Risk factors. How much closer to (or further over) the brink do you intend to push these systems and their key players? Maybe you know the minimum amount of habitat required for native species to persist and just haven't shared it with the rest of us? Just cash your taxpayer-funded paycheck and I'll see you in the woods. Jay Lininger> One more time, Jay 22.05.2004 - 13:04 I'm not a federal employee. I'm not employed by the timber industry. You can't generalize proponents of forest management (your enemy) as being timber workers. Been fishing lately? Thinktivist> Done any sampling? 01.06.2004 - 16:30 So Jay have you done any Soil productivity sampling? got any trend data, that is sound, on cavity nesters? Or is every one thats pro forestry guilty until proven inocent? You folks seem especially demeaning of timber workers and government employees. Let me guess... Grant Writer? No ... Maybe Trust Fund Baby? You might try to incorperate a little tolerance into the retoric. Curious> burdens and presumption 01.06.2004 - 23:26 Curious raises an interesting point about guilt/innocence, presumption, and burdens of proof. The burden rests with advocates of industrial forestry to show that it is ecologically benign or beneficial. The presumption is that unmanaged ecosystems are innocent until proven guilty. I do not have to produce soil productivity or cavity associate data if I do not propose to convert old growth into fiber farms. Proponents must do that. Jeez, whats this about timber workers? Putting words in my mouth? This comment board is sort of frustrating because people enjoy leveling personal attacks without stepping up to identify themselves. Jay> So 02.06.2004 - 09:01 So I'll take that as a no. Your opinions are unfounded and just that...opinions. You allude to this and allude to that. Wheres the proof. I'm not in court and I'm not writing an EIS so there is no burden of proof required of me, but if you're convicting me and my opinions don't you think the burden is on you? I kinda like the forum. I might even be Mark Rey and still be able to speak my mind. Curious>