Women Take Back the Green Bridge

lesley, 16.05.2005 18:11

About 100 people gathered on the corner of Highway 199 and Eight Dollar Road in the Illinois Valley this morning to protest logging at the Biscuit timber sales. The crowd walked a few miles to the closure line and were not met by any law enforcement. The closure blocks public access to the Fiddler timber sale and the famed Babyfoot Lake area.

Five arrests and two citations were issued after seven women entered the federal closure and walked to the Green Bridge, reclaiming for a brief time the symbolic epicenter of our resistance movement. The woman joined arms and blocked loaded log trucks carrying single tree loads of centuries old old growth out from our publicly owned forests. Five women were arrested and spent the night in JOCO Adult jail. Another two were cited and released for violating the closure. Activists consider the closure to be unconstitutional and illegal and are currently challenging its legitimacy in federal court.

Women Cross the Closure Line

Log Truck Stopped on Green Bridge

The over-reaching Biscuit project has resulted in more than 60 arrests since Old-Growth Reserve logging began March 7. The Green Bridge, leading to the Fiddler sale, is the location of dozens of arrests in the last couple of months. Twenty-two women spanning four generations were arrested on one day in April for refusing to move from the bridge, incuding one woman who was hanging from a platform suspended above the epic Illinois River. The area has since been under a broad closure, denying the public access to the area and any opportunity to monitor logging activities.

John West, owner of Silver Creek Timber, owns the logging contract for Fiddler. West is under investigation for illegally logging trees inside the Kalmiopsis Wilderness in late 2004. Public monitoring of the adjacent Flat Top timber sale brought the illegal Wilderness logging to the attention of public officials, who then called for an investigation.

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 >>

given ... 18.05.2005 - 09:04 ... the childish actions of these female speed bumps, I'm suprised that they didn't get sent to juvenile. Moon Muffin> Go Girls, go! 18.05.2005 - 13:20 Moon Muffin, is kinda like the wind between my cheeks; a whif of bad gas. These brave women of the Biscuit, put their bodies and freedom on the line, while Moon Muffin puts his head up between his half-moons where darkness reigns and embraces the source of his "courage" and inspiration. Peat Moss> When they ask "Why didn't you stop it?" 18.05.2005 - 19:44 Imagine the shame of the Germans when asked "How did the holocaust happen? Why didn't you stop it?" Questions like these will be asked of us in the future when the folly of corporate / government greed is shown plain, and when THESE women are asked, they will be able to answer "We DID something!" The truck in those pictures was bearing down on the seemingly frail defenders at a great speed, perhaps unable to stop in time - but they didn't move! They didn't know their fate - would the driver throw them in the river? Would the cops torture them with blinding pepper-gel while they were handcuffed and held still (oh, it happens!)? They did not know their fate, but they stood their ground. Local press couldn't be bothered to cover this story although they were invited, but hundreds of thousands of readers all over the world know what these women did on Monday as this event is a featured story on truthout.org  http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051805B.shtml As the destruction marches westward - 3,000 years ago in Lebanon (where's the 'cedars of Lebanon' now?) 150 years ago in Michigan (flattened) and millions of carbon sink acres in between, the time DO SOMETHING is NOW! Thank you brave women! P.S. to the logging interests: How's about you go and enjoy the proceeds of your so-called "renewable resource" tree farms you put where the old forests used to stand, and leave the teensy bit of remaining Ancient Grandeur alone? Reecycle-Bipsycle> a perfect example ... 19.05.2005 - 13:35 ... of why halucinogenic drug use should be limited to special occasions. Moon Muffin> Really Now????/ 19.05.2005 - 14:17 It's interesting that in the half dozen plus coversations with "concerned guardians" of this area, very few could do more than quote the rhetoric that has been fed to them. The few that could actually carry on a two sided conversation couldn't back up most of their "feelings" with sound science and even fewer had a realistic answer on how to stop the next fire from re-burning the biscuit and continueing onto and into adjacent private property. Do any of you remember the Silver Fire? Has any one looked at the fire activity of the biscuit when it burned through the Silver fire? It is no wonder that you must use the decades old rhetoric and dramatical descriptions to try to add some validity to your lost cause. How fast was the truck in the picture going??? Quite a feat to tell from the picture, for sure. Frail women and men without a doubt since most of them were at their prime during the 60's, unfortunately most of them didn't figure out reality then and don't stand much of a chance now. For the rest of you, try to truely understand the facts, all the facts, and make an educated argument, at least then you may begin to have some validity to you cause. Chane Sau> Reality 19.05.2005 - 14:22 Check out Dr. Franklin's comments on the Bicuit DEIS if ya want science. Homie is a PHD, not a hippy, not that I'm down with hippy-hatin' and HE WROTE THE NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN. Logging the big old snags in Biscuit ain't preventing a re-burn and you know it. For yet more science see the Beschta report. Why is it that the trolls on this site hate on both scientists and hippies? Check yo'self greedhead. Buzz Kill> Clue-less in Seattle 19.05.2005 - 14:33 As "buzz-kill" aka Clue-less in seattle so aptly put. Logging the snags won't prevent a reburn. But a usual that's only a portion of the equation, now figure in fire intensity, rate of spread, spotting, ability to contain the fire to the "wilderness". Now "ain't that a bit more complex?" Once again half truths to the rescue of the ignorant. Now you also want me to believe that just one person wrote the NW forest plan, where were you when that mess was actually created? Obviously the other "folks" involved didn't matter. As for the other quoteable reports, as with anything take into account "all" the facts and the full spectrum of what is being discussed not just the points that serve your cause. As for myself, I have not a dime to profit from this "cosmic event" - to bad really since greedhead has a bit of a ring to it! Chane Sau> PHD= Professional Hype Distributor? 19.05.2005 - 15:58 Again, ole Jerry admitted to using hype to get his points across. However, I wouldn't want to block out any beneficial discussion points. I certainly cannot claim to be an expert on PNW ecosystems. However, I *CAN* apply science to specific situations, unlike the zero-cut crowd. Faith-based organizations against sane ecosystem management are losing court battles by the bushel these days. The old "loophole method" just isn't working for ya's anymore. And, BTW, I am NOT a fan of the SAF, just for the record. Hotfeet> Homepage:: http://www.foreststewardsguild.org Science, Tree Farms, and Hippies 25.05.2005 - 11:12 Converting natural forests into tree plantations – artificially planted tree farms that more closely resemble cornfields than forests - will increase fire severity, intesity and spread. Not only does plantation creation threaten wildlife by replacing biologically diverse forests with monoculture tree farms, it increases future wildfire risks by creating even-age tree farms prone to severe fires. Almost without exception, recent fires demonstrate that artificially created tree plantations burn more severe than other forests. For example, the Timbered Rock Fire burned unevenly through 27,000 acres in the Elk Creek Watershed in southern Oregon in 2002. A report by the Oregon Department of Forestry found that of the forests over 200 years of age, only 10% burned severe. But 100% of the tree plantations less than 35 years old burned so severe that all the trees died. A firefighter was seriously injured fighting this fire. Most tree plantations are planted very dense, making them more inclined to burn severe. Because they are younger forests the trees have not developed the thick bark that old-growth trees have. Converting more National Forests into tree plantations will greatly increase fire severity, and in turn, threaten firefighters, adjacent forests and nearby communities. Another example of tree plantations burning hot is on the Medford District of the Bureau of Land Management land in the 2002 Biscuit Fire perimeter. In this fire 81% of plantations and 33% of forested stands experienced moderate to high burn severity on BLM land (see November 8, 2002 Press Release from BLM). What is more, while tree plantations themselves burn more severe than other forests, they also spread dangerous, crowning fire into adjacent forests threatening nearby old-growth stands that tend to burn less severe. Artificial tree plantations are a primary cause of abnormally severe forest fire. If there is any one place in the backcountry where there is a fire threat it is these unnaturally dense plantations with fine flashy fuels. Making plantations less vulnerable to dangerous wildfire would create jobs. For instance, thinning the existing plantations on national forests would be a economic boon for certain communities. Plantations that have burned in past forest fires could also be restored to a more natural condition. Millions of acres of national forests have been already converted to tree plantations. Resources to find out more about tree plantations and fire: Countryman, C.M. 1955. Old-growth conversion also converts fire climate. Fire Control Notes 17(4): 15-19. Frost, E.J. and R. Sweeny. 2000. Fire Regimes, Fire History and Forest Conditions in the Klamath-Siskiyou Region: An Overview and Synthesis of Knowledge. Available at: Harma K. and P. Morrison. 2003. Analysis of Vegetation Mortality and Prior Landscape Condition, 2002 Biscuit Fire Complex. Pacific Biodiversity Institute. Winthrop, WA. 25 p. Ingalsbee, T. 1997. Fires burn hotter in tree farms. Headwaters Forest News 7(2): 10-11. DellaSala, D.A., D.M. Olson, S.E. Barth, S.L. Crane and S.A. Primm. 1995. Forest health: moving beyond rhetoric to restore healthy landscapes in the inland northwest. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(3): 346-356. Martinson, E., Omi, P.N., and Shepperd W., 2003. Fire behavior, fuel treatments, and fire suppression on the Hayman Fire, Part 3 Effects of fuel treatments on fire severity. Hayman Fire Case Study, pp. 96-126, USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-114. Ogden, UT.  http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr114/rmrs_gtr114_2.pdf Odion, D.C., J.R. Strittholt, H. Jiang, E.J. Frost and D.A. DellaSala. 2004. Fire history and severity patterns and forest management in the Klamath National Forest, northwestern California, USA. Ecological Applications. Sapsis, D.B. and C. Brandow. 1997. Turning plantations into healthy, fire resistant forests: Outlook for the Granite Burn. California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire and Resource Assessment Program. Available at: USDA Forest Service 2000. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Roadless Area Conservation. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C. ______1994. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan. Klamath N.F. Yreka, CA. Weatherspoon, C.P. 1996. Fire-silviculture relationships in Sierra forests. In: Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress, Vol. II. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37. Center for Water and Wildland Resources. Univ. of California, Davis. just the facts> Facts???? 25.05.2005 - 17:02 Did anyone notice that the majority of "the facts" research papers deal with forest types not equivelent to the Biscuit and other westside forests? Anyone that has been out and about can use common sense to see a definite difference in the type of timber stand and density of fuel in these areas cited in the research. Where did the Biscuit fire finally get stopped? I wonder how the facts figure into all this. A few clarifications also, the firefighter that was injured on the Timbered Rock fire was a spotter who was injured when the helicopter he was in went down. Had the fire been agressively attacked when it was discovered several days prior he would not have been in the area at that time and the amount of reproduction burned would not have been anywhere close to the acres lost due to poor judgement on the part of the Forest Service, in part due to the Hands off approach on "Natural" fires, and the pure lack of experience exhibited by the District Ranger at the time. There are many more "facts" that should be cleared up but to what avail? If things were taken in context and common sense judgements were made this conversation would not take place!! Chane Sau> A sweeping distinction... 25.05.2005 - 19:41 ...but wrong. Even when locally-specific science is shown to you, you rant rather than read. The Harma and Morrison analysis is specific to Biscuit. Get it at:  http://www.pacificbio.org/Projects/Fires/reports/VegetationMortalityAnalysis-screenres.pdf The Frost and Sweeny analysis breaks down EVERY forest type in the Klamath region. It also is specific. The Odion paper (Conservation Biology - July 2004) discusses mixed evergreen forests of the western Klamath Mountains, very similar to Biscuit. The Klamath NF management plan EIS - same story. been there> for all the blowhards 29.05.2005 - 07:14 For all the blowhards that apparently don't trust science, worship tree farms as false idols and pray to the God of Columbia helicopters - if you don't believe me, believe the spoken word of the Unitied States Forest Service. Jeez, its like explaining something to a two year old- Two fires in 2002 on the Umpqua National Forest were evaluated for their effect on the forest. Excerpts from the March 2003 Wildfire Effects Evaluation Project by the Umpqua N.F. make clear the impact of creating more tree plantations: "Plantations had a tendency to increase the rate of fire spread and increased the overall area of stand-replacement fire effects by spreading to neighboring stands." Page 4 "Fire burned most plantations with high intensity and spread rapidly through the canopy of these young stands." Page 20. "Plantation mortality is disproportionately high compared to the total area that plantations occupied within the fire perimeter.” Page 26-27. "Crown fire spreads readily through these young stands: rates of fire spread can be high, and significant areas or mortality can occur in and adjacent to these stands." Page 32. Finally, the report says that the fire behavior in forest that had not been converted to tree farms was normal— "The pattern of mortality in the unmanaged forest resembles historic stand-replacement patch size and shape." Page 64. just the facts> Lying Bastards 29.05.2005 - 07:16 The article clearly states "blocked loaded log trucks carrying single tree loads", there were no such loads or any photos of such. The photos clearly show trees that are probably 50 to 100 years old, not your precious "old growth". Don't you idiots know that trees are a crop that can and should be harvested... Maybe you should all get a life, maybe even GET A JOB!!! Ronald Ray-Gun> trees are a crop 29.05.2005 - 10:36 You're right. Trees are a crop. Forests are like a field of corn. Fertilize our National Forests. Poison out those weedy hardwoods. Genetically engineer the douglas fir for optimal growth. Plow the soil and plant Doug fir row crops. Fetilize em' real good. National Forests, Wilderness Areas and Parks, they should all be turned into tree farms once and for all. Then, and only then, can we bask in the glory of true creation. Will you post some tree farm photos? I am making a calendar to support the AFRC litigation fund. farmer doug> Blanket comments 29.05.2005 - 12:27 Biscuit old growth high intensity burn Unburned Biscuit plantation 250 foot tall monster pine rarely work in the natural world. I just HAD to come back an address the issues again. Clear cutting in National Forests is basically a moot point. Plantations in the National Forests are a reality that has to be dealt with. Planting burned over areas is necessary and if managed properly, they can be restored to near old growth status rather quickly. Both of these pictures were taken within the Biscuit Fire and are less than a quarter mile apart. Strange that the plantation was spared and the old growth burned at high intensity. Usually, like others have said, it's the other way around. I'm not going to defend clearcutting on National Forest lands, except in the case of it being the absolute last resort to restore a sound and healthy ecosystem. Someday, we'll clear the "sins" of the last millenium but, preservationists continue to fight against those legacies, refusing to admit they're wrong about today's policies. I'll continue to stay above the blathering and lurk, chuckling at the silly whining and excuses being offered. PS Go check out the monster tree at Big Pine Campground, pictured here...enjoy! Mtn_high> e-mail:: lhfotoware@hotmail.com Good of you 30.05.2005 - 10:45 It is good of you, Mt High, to admit that tree farms generally burn with higher severity than old forests. The Forest Service, BLM and most everyone else realizes it. Maybe some thick skulls on this blog will get it. Certainly there are exceptions, as there are to everything. Like your photo shows - an anomoly. Just like once in a blue moon, Shaq hit a free throw. His percentage still sucks. I don't agree with you, however, that we should plant plantations after fire. They did it at T Rock - 10 X 10 spacing. When I go out after a fire I see natural regeneration happening everywhere. Conifers have cones for a reason, to spread seed. Logging and replanting will only increase fire severity - not what you want. At the Biscuit fire, researchers found that areas that had been logged after the Silver Fire - 15 years earlier - burned with much higher severity than those that were unlogged. While only 28% of the unlogged portions of the Silver Fire burned with high severity in the Biscuit Fire, 68% of the logged portion burned severe. The unlogged portion of the Silver Fire area experienced relatively equal amounts of land burning as high, moderate, low and unburned. The vegetation mortality in the logged units stands out in sharp contrast to the conditions in the unlogged land that was also affected by the 1987 Silver Fire. (Harma and Morrison 2003). Dr. Perry says that repalnting after fire creates a "self reinforsing cycle of catastrophic wildfire," like in this photo below, plant, burn, replant, reburn, on and on and on it goes. Stop the cycle - just the facts> Good of you cont. 30.05.2005 - 13:12 photo of tree farm logged and replanted. just the photo> Ronald Dear 30.05.2005 - 18:38 Its easier for you to categorize "tree-huggers" as jobless hippies, than to admit you are actually outnumbered by the majority of Americans who do not support old-growth or roadless area logging. Sure, trees can be a crop, but forests can't. Soil is the real treasure here, and we are losing this precious resource through unsustainable farming methods (and no, you can't solve anything with an endless injection of chemicals). I don't just hug trees, I kiss the ground they rest on. You should read up on the Dust Bowl. rotten tree> Surreal 30.05.2005 - 21:01 Man, that picture is almost out of this world!....Now THAT'S destruction and people need to compare that to the Biscuit Fire cutting units. I'm still sticking to my guns that replanting is necessary. However, the spacing doesn't need to be as close as the picture shows. Plantation management throught the decades is also essential to restoring these ecosystems. I have seen closer spacing in naturally regenerated stands, though. It's all about balance and site specificity. Some areas WILL need reforestation while others won't. Most will require some non-commercial treatments over the life of these plantations. This disaster WILL continue for a great many years, people. Get used to it. Comparing the Biscuit to other fires in other places is not at all very useful, as the salvage plan is not similar to any other salvage operation, past or present. Taking portions of the remaining snags, while leaving some of the bigger ones will not deplete forest soils. It's ludicrous to think that areas that supported big timber in the past will not grow big trees again. I also feel that areas not supporting thick timber in the past should be intensively salvaged, either. Again, balance is better. People (on both sides of the issue) can do all the blathering they want about the Biscuit but, in the end, they need to back it up with sound science in court. This is quite an opportunity for the Forest Service to accomplish some education of American citizens. I hope they will not fall into the trap of partisan politics and economic opportunism, instead of displaying scientific certainty. Mtn_high> e-mail:: lhfotoware@hotmail.com Good Grief 01.06.2005 - 21:34 Severity-intensity-mortality-consumed soil. At least try to not use these terms as if they mean the same thing. They don't. If your not sure then don't use the term, describe the condition. Curious> Only partial facts 08.06.2005 - 12:44 I must applaude the rational tone of "Just the facts", even though only partial facts are given. While only a portion of the previously unlogged areas of the Silver fire burnt with severe intensity and much of the logged portions burnt with the same intensity, is a somewhat true fact, the rest of the fact is that most of the areas that did not burn at high intensity also did not have very much if any significant amount of regeneration. The same statement could be made for St. Helens if it were to blow again at the same intensity, " the areas that were replanted would suffer much more devistation than the areas that were left to regenerate naturally" dahh. The fact is if there is little more than brush growing where once there were trees then you won't burn up many trees. Also, it is true that if you plant the trees and they grow and you do not manage the forest then yes you are creating a future for catastrophic fire. The rest of the fact is, if you manage the forest that you create you can minimize the chance of catastrophic fire and manage for all species. I know this idea is too "extreme" for preservationist. But in reality an unmanaged forest will be destroyed by catastrophic wildfire. It has been going on for alot longer than any of you have been here, yet the number of catastrophic wildfires that did not originate on federal land is minimal. The management of the forest by the use of common sense and current technology will benefit all to a much higher level than letting hundreds of thousands of acreas burn for a cause that is outdated and truely "burned out" Chane Sau> More facts 08.06.2005 - 13:40 Some questions on facts in regards to the study of the fires on the Umpqua NF. Since I haven't read the study and only had the priveledge of being on the Umpqua when the fires were burning, I am curious. Does the study say how long the natural regeneration will take and how fire resistent the naturally regenerated stands will be? Does it mention the "fact" that most of the fires could have been stopped long before the damage was done, but due to the misguided, inexperienced staff of the Umpqua in particular Ranger Jill, the fires were left to burn and needlessly destroy the plantations and portions of the older stands? Does it explain that crews sat around for days on end watching fires grow from 5 acres to 3000 acres to 30,000 acres just because of the leadership? Does it identify how many "1,000 year old" trees are on the Umpqua? (very few trees live over 400 years in this area and none that can be documented past or present have made the 1,000 year mark, that I know of,but maybe I am still misguided) Fires have historically destroyed the forest in the area. There is a very interesting photo in the Tiller ranger station. This photo shows the harsh landscape left by mother nature. If you look at the photo you will have a difficult time convincing the public that logging is going to have a more devastating effect on the enviroment. P.S this photo covers a very large area. We can all look back at things done wrong, and discover better ways to do things in the future, but to do nothing is not the answer. For all those who think that we should get back to nature, the biscuit fire would be the perfect home for you, just don't impact the area you decide to camp in. In 10-15 years you can stand in front of the next fire and tell us how beautiful and natural it looks as it is coming towards you. Chane Sau>