Sisters of the Siskiyou: S.O.S. Act II

from the newswire, 01.05.2005 10:35

With dignity and honor, twenty-two women were arrested last March 14 blocking loggers' access to Fiddler Mountain. We captured America's imagination for a moment, but alas, logging still persists!! So gals, dust it off and come on down for some serious forest fun...and resist the destruction to our last public wild places by the Bush Forest Service.

March 14th Sisters in Direct Action

WOMEN'S RESISTANCE TO BISCUIT FOREST DESTRUCTION: PART II
MONDAY, MAY 16 - Women of all ages & demographics: Been wanting to step up? Now's the time!!

RIGHT NOW - we have a disproportionate opportunity to make a huge impact, because the fleeting and fickle eye of the national media has noticed us!! It's mealtime, ladies. Letter writing and attending meetings isn't enough anymore. So help save the Siskiyou Wild River's area from further rape - and let's help prevent deceitful "salvage logging" hoaxes like the illegal "Biscuit Fire Recovery Project" from destroying Old-Growth & Roadless areas nationwide! Folks interested in participating should attend these meetings where much training and organizing will occur; with "non-violence", "know your rights" and "radical cheerleading" workshops. Spread the word. Organize, organize, organize...don't wait for anyone else, please plug in & do it yourself!! The devil's in the details & we need you.

Ashland: April 28th & May 10th @ 7:00 PM - call Carey 482-6670 or Dot 482-3269 for location. Possibly also a third meeting in between these dates.

Grants Pass: May 2 and May 9th @ 6:00PM and May 14 @4:00PM - "Creative Alternatives" ; 229 G street (next to Grants Pass Museum of Art) call Annette for more info: 592-4334.

Takilma: 6:30PM, May 3rd and May 10th, at Wyldwood's, call for directions & info: 592-4401

Come to weekly Biscuit Alliance meetings: Wednesday's @ 5:30 Pm. Held at the Selma Community Center. (On 199 in Selma, look for Coyote Coffee Stand)

Support people, musicians, artists, independent media, dogs, and kids: bring it all!! Crazy and serious signs, unique messaging, puppets, let's be in rare and LARGE form!! There are plenty of support roles - that men can fill as well. (We like men!!) There will also be other meetings in Roseburg, Eugene, Portland, San Francisco, etc. Announcements will appear: pass them on & watch for newer flyers.

To get involved, call Dot; 482-3269, Annette; 592-4334, Kerul; 301-3892, Joan; 592-4335 or the Wild Siskiyou Action Line; 659-2682. For more general info on the Biscuit, resistance and all such pertaining to

"Siskiyou Summer" check websites:  http://www.o2collective.org  http://www.kswild.org  http://www.siskiyou.org  http://www.biscuit.n3.net  http://www.rogueimc.org  siskiyou@cascadiarising.org

e-mail:: smallrevolutions@earthlink.net
Homepage:: http://o2collective.org/archives/000039.html#more

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 >>

drama, hype and even sexism?...what's next? 02.05.2005 - 08:33 Yeah, forget about science and go with the hype but, you can't blame the fire on men, unless you acknowledge that God is a man . Using words like "rape" and "destruction" to describe the Biscuit salvage operations just shows the rest of America that their stereotypic view of "those crazy west coasters" is true in some cases. Just so ya know, a woman led the Forest Service marking crew who marked much of the "leave snags" on the various projects, and she did quite a good job, seeing that the quality of the work has not been questioned in court. Here' some little quotes for you all to ponder: "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ...... "A lot of environmental [sci/pol/soc] messages are simply not accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and... "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest." -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer) I see a lot of that same kind of stuff spewed about the Biscuit "Largest timber sale in Forest Service history".... A lie in every way. Whether it's timber volume or acreage, this quote does NOT hold water. Certainly there have been bigger projects on huge burns in the past. Add to that, the clearly over-estimated volume of 370 million board feet. Even if ALL the projects went through on the Biscuit, you'd only get a fraction of that volume because of the decay and rot. "Destruction of our last wild areas"... This is NOT destruction, in that only dead trees are being cut. The destruction occurred DURING the fire. "Logging is not restoration".... In some areas, it really is. The streams and the rivers are most at-risk and in some units, the logging is an emergency response to try and hold back the erosion by putting fine logging slash on the ground. It DOES work so go and take a look in the burn. Helicopter logging adds very little erosion potential and that is totally mitigated where it happens the most, on new landing construction. BTW, maybe the county jail DOES need a woman's touch . Hey, maybe Martha Stewart would be interested in joining your cause . Hotfeet> Homepage:: http://www.foreststewardsguild.org Dr. Jerry 02.05.2005 - 08:51 It just warms my heart to see a quote like that from Jerry. If you read todays papers you will see he just recieved a cool quater million for his "scientific" efforts. Thank you Mrs. Kerry. What do you want the answer to be? Curious> Wha...?? 03.05.2005 - 23:06 If fire is so "destructive," the now stumpified forest would most likely not have been there to burn. Can anyone assert that it never burned before... In all probability it did. Let's stretch our minds a bit. The earth is much older than anybody's big mouth, including my own. Hmmm... wonder how it recovered with no stewards around? The point is that nature does not need us and does a swell job left to its own faculties. You'll notice that natural legacy forest is burned incompletely, whereas "managed" forest is completely incinerated... hmmm again. Obviously the argument comes down to a difference in vision and values. I do not desire a 2700 square foot home or a fistful of dollars. I believe the earth is alive and has rights of its own; I harbor no human "superiority complex." Who likes a steward? ... would you like your bodily functions managed by a "more capable party?" Some see the earth as something to possess, to profit from; we see the earth as something to enjoy and be grateful for. justhinkin> Nature 04.05.2005 - 06:42 Yes, Mother Nature will "rebalance" unnatural ecosystems in ways we humans won't like. THAT'S what us "stewards" are here for; to offer quicker ways to "rebalance" and "restore" ecosystems so impacted by decades of mismanagement. We can't expect people to actually understand the schooling, knowledge and experience that good forest-ologists (like me) have accumulated and apply. Why wait up to 1000 years for nature to produce a mature forest when we can do it much faster. Afterall, the aim should be to return lands to "old growth" status quicker than is natural. THAT is what you cherish so much so, why not let us SHOW you how it's done? Remember, this is not your father's Forest Service and the Biscuit Salvage plan is NOT from the last millenium. Hotfeet> Homepage:: http://www.foreststewardsguild.org What I Cherish is Nature 04.05.2005 - 07:10 and her natural, perfect, and, yes, age-long processes. Seems "we humans" are nothing more than spoiled brats, does it not. "We want this and we want it now!" whine, whine. etc. "Not I, said the Oak Tree" justhinkin> What a great 06.05.2005 - 09:20 line...The "stumpified forest" paints a picture of 500,000 acres of stumps...the entire area of the burn. Once again but with feeling this time kids...the Biscuit salvage proposal was to take place on only 3.8 percent of the total area within the firelines. Because of delays we can expect that no where near that land volume will be affected. Within in that original 3.8 percent there are buffers and a large number of dead standing trees to be left. Three point eight percent is really an exaggeration. Yes it has burnt before and yes it will burn again. The idea was, on this minute portion of the landscape, to reduce the fuel and yes, add to the economy. News flash, man has been adding to his economy by way of these forests since the first settlers came across the land bridge 10,000 years ago and settle the area. All cultures have economies and a completly "snagified forest" isn't always in the best interest of the 2, 4, 6, 8, or zero legged inhabitants of the region. Get over it. Curious> curiosity killed the cat 07.05.2005 - 01:45 Remember to tell the truth, the whole truth. Only 17% of the forest burned high severity. Lodgepole and knobcone pine forests MUST burn high severity. 4% is such lame, tired drivel. Nearly half of the area was backburned anyway -- what kind of incentive do you want to create? Take the plantations you already have - go hike in them, drink the water, touch the genitically engineered trees - but stay away from the remaining wild forests. Thank you. Now do something better with your time - like make a tree farm calendar. Bob Marshall> Baby I'm amazed 08.05.2005 - 11:48 when the proclaimed love of nature is overshadowed by the negativity to your fellow man. Couple of questions "Bob". Is that 17 percent severity or intensity? Two different things you know. I hear educated people switch back and forth until the meaning gets lost. One speaks to damage to soil the other to canopy damage. My guess is you are refering to soil damage as canopy loss was greater than 17%. Soil damage is more important to me as that would be the source of the next forest. You can have very quick fires that consume the canopy but move so quickly that the soil is pretty much untouched. My point is... what is your point? You threw out some numbers but....the only point that really came through is the fact, and you made it clear, is you don't like people that dissagree with your view of the world and don't want them in and around yours. Curious> Cat Killer 09.05.2005 - 12:52 Good point curious. Damn your smart...just kidding. Bob Marshall> In other words 09.05.2005 - 20:58 you don't know? Could it be that you just want to run down an agency and segment of society (loggers, mill workers, foresters, and be sure not to forget the mill owners)that you dissaprove of. Love of nature or bigotry? Curious> Love of Anything 10.05.2005 - 15:01 carries with it the need to protect that thing from whatever might destroy it. You, Curious, I am sure would be wary of and unhappy with an agency or people if it was their goal to cut your home to pieces and sell it. I don't consider a box my home, and perhaps Bob does not either... Earth is home and I don't want it messed with anymore. Bottom line... What's yours, I wonder? deeper please. justhinkin> Every breath you take 10.05.2005 - 18:24 in turn emits green house gas. Is that the bottom line. Or is it every breath I take or someone else. Or is over population of termites that emit methane. Is it the fish you kill to power your computer to ask me why I hate nature and tell me how much you want to protect it. My "bottom line" is if we all are going to live on this planet and expect to live here for generations we need to use more wood and less resources that we can't grow. Further it makes more sense to use some (some means some) dead trees and let growing trees continue to grow. My opinion is we cannot afford (economically or enviromentally)to leave it all. I'm not ready to hit the off switch on the laptop and move into a cave, and my guess is none of the rest of you are either. Curious> Goodness... 10.05.2005 - 21:16 I do not believe I said anywhere that you hate nature. Yes, bottom line... I am aware that too many people breathe on this planet and do my part not to add to the problem. As for you personally, you're here, breathe away my brother/sister and enjoy. There are other ways though...less expensive, longer-lasting, comfortable, and beautiful shelter. You could even sculpt it to look like a cave if you really wanted to. As for the computer, it serves its purpose for the time... The internet informs ... There are MANY alternatives, and more and more people are finding courage enough to learn and look into them. When the time comes, I'll be more than ready to leave this box, and others, behind. How far can we see? Look, and there is no future in dead trees except to nourish new ones. What is built will fall, but the Circle lasts forever... for your descendants and for mine. justhinkin(cavewoman)> Beam me up Scotty 10.05.2005 - 21:41 I think I'm gonna puke. Captain Kirk> Wow 11.05.2005 - 14:21 Curious, your comments are amazing. Did you get a BS in Misinformation, or was it just a minor? Hotfeet, just checked out you Guild, found a pleasantly cold reaction to the recent changes to the Roadless Rule on their website. If it has been otherwise, I would've quentioned their integrity. On the other hands, your comments seem heavily biased towards cutting in Roadless forests contained within the Biscuit Fire perimeter. Dunno what your story is, but it seems somewhat hypocritical. impressed by it all> Wheres the beef? 11.05.2005 - 15:10 Impressed by what? You think I'm full of shit. Fine by me. Why don't you put some meat on that bone instead of mindless whining? I've been taking time to make my position why don't you do the same if you are cabable of something more sophisticated than a juvenile "you're dumb, I don't like you". Sorry but its going to take a little more thought than that. Curious> Roadless Areas are NOT "Wilderness Areas" 12.05.2005 - 06:37 Although some people would like them to be, "Roadless Areas" are special areas too, except with no roads. If we HAVE to salvage dead trees in these areas, it has to be accomplished without putting in new roads. Simple as that. Besides, what is wrong with cutting SOME of the smaller dead trees in a "Roadless Area"? I guess that really is the sticking point. Never mind that the media almost ALWAYS gets their stories wrong, lying about how "logging and mining are banned in Roadless Areas by Clinton's Roadless Rule". Truthfully, I was OK with the last two rules, being quite similar to each other. Clinton's rule only gave those areas a tiny bit more protection but, really was only aiming at "fulfilling his environmental legacy" by hoodwinking the public. It's unfortunate that so many people in America WANT to be told what to think because, they "just don't have time" to weigh the evidence scientifically. I prefer to research the issues before I make up my mind (as opposed to many people's reliance on "corporate media" and their preferred slants, both right and left.) The latest rules offered by the Bush Administration certainly raises the alarm in my own head. This will basically embed the political system into the Roadless issue and that can't be good for our National Forests. Can commercial ventures in Roadless Areas be turned on and off as the governorship changes? As far as the Guild goes, I don't necessarily HAVE to subscribe to their notions of how they think our Forests should be either. Again, I will not be told how to think and I don't think I'm being hypocritical at all. I prefer that we supply as much of our own lumber as we can, instead of importing clearcut Canadian wood. Remember, think globally and act locally?? As an aside, the 4% figure is really not as valuable of a percentage of the total acreage. A better yardstick would be; How much of the loggable area (throw out the Wilderness area and the stream buffers and the wildlife areas) is actually being logged? Certainly, there are a great many zones within the fire that didn't support a significant amount of timber due to soil types, aspects and such. I'd bet that the percentage is still pretty low but, more accurate of a figure on impacts within the burned area. In the end, there will be NO shortage of snags within the Biscuit Fire. Hotfeet> Homepage:: http://www.foreststewardsguild.org Sorry Hotfeet 12.05.2005 - 09:45 but I'd have to respectfully partially dissagree. Perpective is important. The 3.8/4 percent number is important because it shows the whole picture. It shows the fact that there is a huge "no touch" Wilderness area out there. It shows the fact that there are stream buffers. It shows the fact that there are salvage activities on a very small percentage of the whole. Your point about percentage of area that could be treated that is or isn't being treated is equally important. It is still a small percentage. Appreciate your input. Thanks. Another important point that seems to be swept under the rug is the fact that the poorly thought out Clinton Roadless Area Plan (CRAP) was illegal. Like it or not Bush needed to replace it with something that wood pass legal muster. Curious> Sometimes 12.05.2005 - 09:53 I even crack me up. Freud would (wood) have had a field day with my last post. Curious > 4% and CRAP 14.05.2005 - 19:30 The 4 percent number relentlessly regurgitated by the Curious and the SAF crew includes a "no touch Wilderness area" that comprises 180,000 acres of unloggable serpentine/peridotite soil that King Hatfield determined in 1978 and 84 would assuage Jim Weaver without pinching his mill owning natural resource advisors. Curious is so unbelievably full of it. Riparian Reserves? You mean the ones John West logged through at Flat Top? Go there. On CRAP: C's penetrating legal analysis rests on Judge Brimmer's (Dist. of Wyoming) opinion, which was on the path to reversal in the 10th Circuit, just like Judge Lodge's (Idaho) identical opinion got reversed by the 9th. Mark Rey's new rule mooted the 10th Circuit before it could reverse Brimmer. So the CRAP was "illegal," not because the consensus opinion of federal judges says so, but because an oil company stock holding district judge sought to fatten his wallet. Stephen Gillers, perhaps the nation's preeminent expert in judicial ethics, stated: "I don't think a judge who has half of his wealth tied up in oil and gas exploration should be sitting in cases that could substantially affect the value of the exploration that his companies want to undertake." Theo Stein, Forest Case Draws Ethics Challenge, Denver Post, 8/6/2003, A1. Justice cashed in is justice denied. See you on the Front Range. been there> artificial boundaries 14.05.2005 - 22:25 The Wilderness Area boundary is an artificial one. It exists in physical form only on maps. Wildlife pass back and forth from Wilderness lands to matrix lands to LSR lands, without ever having any notion that they have crossed any sort of a boundary. Why is it then, if you're so concerned about the wildlife, that you insist on ignoring the huge amount of wilderness area and focus only on the small percentage of land where some harvest is permitted? Time to take your blinders off. Oh, and by the way Sausage Head ... no matter how elaborate of legal theories you can come up with, it's still the courts that make the laws and not yourself. madrone> Available for harvest 14.05.2005 - 23:33 The blinders came off years ago. You profiteers and career foresters cut out 70+ percent of native forests from the Siskiyou and now play this shell game pretending that just 10% of all federal lands are "available for harvest" (at Biscuit, you say 4%) when that comprises almost HALF of the forest left over from the 20th century boom-and-bust disaster known as the regional timber industry. The continuation of your capital enterprise is predicated on deceipt of the public about the condition of its lands. Madrone, you are so right to say, "The Wilderness Area boundary is an artificial one." The Kalmiopsis wilderness comprises the larger network of roadless areas, inventoried and uninventoried, surrounding the Hatfield-approved Wilderness Area. These roadless areas include thousands of acres of NFP Matrix. Of course, that's one intent of the Biscuit Project: to clearcut roadless lands so they are no longer Wilderness eligible. 40,000 acres worth. been there> Hyperbole 15.05.2005 - 11:45 When your facts and logic break down you can always resort to character assassination and exageration. Works every time. John West logged all the riparian reserves on Flat Top? Pretty impressive! Yes I too would encourage all to see it and decide. Two judges found that CRAP was illegal. You don't like it, so they must be greedy bastards. The CRAP was poorly thought out, politically motivated, illegal, and needed replacing. You can pick and choose your quotes however you want, your statement that it would be overturned has no basis in fact. What do you mean by unloggable? Economics? With the value of the Port Orford Cedar alone the economics would have worked. I cannot imagine on what level or in what reality that statement would be true. Is your intent to imply that Hatfield gave up something that was worthless to the industry? I haven't spent much time in the Front Range but you never know? Curious> Song for the Sisters 15.05.2005 - 19:16 Tree Song: for the Sisters of the Siskiyou I was out on the road, You know hitchin’ around I came upon this line of women They was sittin’ on the ground They was all chained to barrels And holdin’ signs I said to myself that’s a hell of a way to pass the time singin’ Chorus: I’m gonna sit right here I won’t move while you’re actin’ wrong I’m gonna sit right here Singin’ my tree song Whoo whoo whoo whoo 2: Well I walked up to this one young woman And I said “What’s goin’ down?” She said “About a thousand trees Up there on sacred ground. You see there’s this bunch of loggers In this long line of trucks, But before they get to the trees They got to get through us.” We’re gonna sit right here We won’t move while you’re actin’ so wrong We’re gonna sit right here Singin’ our tree song Whoo whoo whoo whoo 3: Well this man walked up with this paper in his hand He said, “You ladies are confused you just don’t understand, The judge say’s it’s alright for me to take these trees This one woman said, “I guess he shouldda ask me!” Chorus 4: He said, “You don’t understand I’m gonna put you in jail!” They said they’d rather be in there than outside with them what failed He said, “You don’t understand I’m gonna haul you away!” They said till you do you ain’t getting’ no loggin done today Chorus 5: Well they hauled them to court and they stood em before a judge He said, “You nice women give me some bail.” But they wouldn’t budge They said, “Why should we pay you for doin’ a crime? If it’s alright with you we’ll just do our time.” Chorus 6: Well that judge came to work the very next day He couldn’t park his car there was so many people in the way He finally made it to his court and sat down on his legal bench The court was full of women and they didn’t even flinch Chorus 7: They filled all the benches and they lined all the walls, They spilled out the door and on down the hall And the judge moaned, “Lord whys this happening to me?” And the women said, “Duh, it’s about our trees!” Chorus 8 Well pretty soon it was hard to find a women who wasn’t involved I mean you could walk down the street and not see a woman at all They was all in the jail or up in the woods Their kids and there husbands said shit this aunt no good Chorus 9: Well the men go up in the woods and they scream and they yell And the women smile and say, “Aw honey go to hell.” And the men start to beggin’ and they say, “Honey please.” The women say it ain’t about you, it’s about our trees!” Chorus 10 Well before it was over I hitched on out of town So I can’t tell you how the whole thing went down But the moral of the story is plain enough to me If you want a happy women don’t go cuttin’ her trees Chorus I ain’t never ever gonna see anything as beautiful as my old trees And you ain’t never ever gonna see The day I let you take them away from me Patrick> e-mail:: smallrevolutions@earthlink.net Homepage:: http://patrickdodd.com Put your right foot in 15.05.2005 - 22:09 Deep so very very deep. Robert Plant> Rhyme me this 16.05.2005 - 06:37 they's gots all dese wimmens thinks they's savin' up sum trees they's cloggin' up da roads hopin' dat sum one will sees they's pretendin' to know da woods when da loggers cut da snags faller turnin' em into goods and da wimmens seem like hags maybe they's should consider taking a science class to keep their feminine booty from looking like such an ass Goober McNertney>