An opposite perspective...

Truth Detective, 25.09.2005 19:14

Is there really common ground??????????

It is apparent, from the many postings from both sides of the Timber issue, that contrary to the popular notion, there is no common ground between the leaders of both sides, I say this with respect to each position and with the full understanding that many will disagree. I ask those who disagree to give examples of the environmental community giving to a middle ground and honoring that gift. What is not apparent to many is the fact that this is a game of tug of war, one that never gives back ground taken, regardless of facts. Let's see if I can clear up each sides stand for the unsuspecting, keep in mind this is general and there are always exceptions. Also, while there are many examples to back up these opinions it is still only one persons opinion.

1) The "environmentalist": This group has evolved from the days of Mir and the beginnings of Greenpeace as people wanting the responsible use of our environment for multiple uses, to the present day when the term "preservationist" is more properly discriptive. This group is made up of "true believers", but fragments of this group file continous lawsuits, participate in clandestine operations in the name of saving the forests, and are never satisfied if a timber sale is presented that will be profitable to any capitalistic enterprise, these fragments aren't Environmentalistb ut actually members of the third group listed below. Most of this group would rather see hundreds of thousands of acres burned up rather than 40 acres clear-cut, keep in mind that there are still trees left standing in our public clear-cuts of today. This is a far cry from the days of establishing and protecting Yosemite, Yellowstone and championing the wise "use" of natural resources. There have been many assumptions that these are "low life", unemployed people, but the reality is that many supporters of this movement are well to do capitalist that don't understand all the facts, but act out of feeling. The fact is if you can say you helped save something, another life, a fish, a tree, etc. you do feel better, if not you are not human. What many of the supporters of this movement either don't know or want to ignore is that fragments of this group use intimidation and violence to attempt to further their cause....ELF, ALF, night time gardners,earth first, etc. Aother common fact about many of the well to do supporters is that they are closet supporters, excepting the Hollywood Elite. This group also uses grand exagerations of minor facts to help make points and influence the unsupecting general population who want to feel good. A good discription for this type of group would be "Emotional based and belief driven".

2) The "Pro-Management": This group has also evolved from the days of Mir and the beginnings of Green Peace as people determined to use the enviroment for their own benefit regarless of the effect on others, to primarily a group of people who believe in science and the wise use of our renewable resources for the benefit of many. Most of this group fully agrees with sustainable yield and practice it on thier own private ground. This group is not without it's fragments also, there are a few who disregard the thoughts and feelings of others if it is in opposition to their own, but by and large this group has tried to move to middle ground on almost every issue supported by solid facts, only to find that the middle ground has been moved further, for lack of better discription, to the left. Classic example of this would be the Northwest Forest Plan, which since it's original creation has been moved beyond the original base to one that is so tied up in red tape that it can not and has not been implemented as it was intended. It is made up of people who may not truly understand the forests, but make their living from it while trusting to those who do understand, have studied, have seen the results, and can use science to make good decisions, to insure a future for them and their families. It is supported openly by those who have made personal investments in the forests and by those who beleive in renewable resources. With out exception you won't find people of this group condoning the "rape amd pilage" of our natural resources. This group could be discribed as "science oriented, result driven"
3) The "antagonist": This is the group that really doesn't beleive in either side they just want the rush, or stir the pot. While there are antagonist on both sides, in recent decades this has been shifting primarily to the environmentalist group, anarchist, many earth firsters, etc. who hide behind the guise of saving the planet. These antagonist look for any reason to practice civil disobedience, hence enter loss of credibility.

The problems caused by these seperations are even more clear then the seperations themselves. Never has there been a successful battle which has resulted in the change of ones belief, the battles have supressed the belief but not changed it, in fact often the resolve of the defeated is only strengthened (environmentalist). Many times there have been battles that have resulted in the clarification of facts, as a result some opinions have been changed and a middle ground is attempted to be found (pro-management). But,many a good cause has been discredited by a few antagonists, who regardless of the outcome of the battle will never be satisfied, often just moving on to a new battle.

For those who participate in this debate, ask yourself "Where do I fall and what is my goal?"

Only by understanding where you are in these groups, and being honest about your position will you serve a useful purpose, unless of course you are one who desires no useful purpose.

So I ask you "What group do you fall in?" Really.....

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 >>

This is News? 26.09.2005 - 14:28 I couldn't even read this, and not just because of the misspelling and assaults on grammar. Someone tried hard to tie everything up into a nice bow and instead made a knot. Try reading a book once in a while. Silent Type> made sense to me 26.09.2005 - 14:48 Made sense to me, ST. I think there's plenty of compromise that has been made and is being made between "environmentalist" and "pro-management" types. I'm "pro-management" and definately consider myself an environmentalist. There's also plenty of environmental organizations out there that are very supportive of and recognize the need for commercial management. The nature conservancy is one of the biggest. There's plenty of others. The problem is that many of the "environmentalist" organizations out there (Greenpeace, Earth First!, ONRC, Umpqua Watersheds, KS Wild, WWF, etc.) only use environmentalism as a front for their anti-capitalist agenda. This hidden agenda dictates that they are inherently against commercial management of public lands, and want to see those mills that depend on federal wood go away. As a result, there CAN'T be any compromise between these pseudo-environmentalists and the timber industry. You can't compromise with someone whose ultimate goal is to realize your demise. Moon Muffin> and don't forget 26.09.2005 - 19:00 for many in the conflict idustry this is the only/best job they have ever had. If the problem is solved and the bogeyman goes away so does their job of saving us from the same. Middle ground will not pay the bills. Curious> bullshit 27.09.2005 - 12:40 I think you all should get your own forum for discussing these issues. The above article is nothing more than a generalization by and for industry front groups such as the communities for healthy forests out of roseburg. The constant lies and terms people use such as conflict industry came from Scott Conroy and his industry front groups who helped plan the Biscuit project. Even republicans from the national taxpayers union thought that was a disaster. Many daily users of rogue.indymedia.org have generally targeted and continue to target a legitimate forest movement consisting of environmental groups, mothers, fathers, teachers, students, and even loggers by trivializing the issue so that the real users of rogue.indymedia.org will not want to post their stories. The future of rogue.indymedia.org is in question with the pro-industry front groups using it to their own advantage. If the WWF and other groups are so against america than so are the republicans who brought us so many strict laws such as the ESA. The timber industry is not to be trusted and neither are the industry front groups that come up with this crap. The pro-management people listed above are the front groups that work underground, even using rogue.indymedia.org to spread thier messages of more logging to save the planet, like logging companies are going to save the world from the planet eating environmentalists. Give me a fuckin break you donut eating timber prostitute, if it wasn't for the environment you would not be alive. Another lie is that environmental groups oppose management, when often the majority of their budgets are all tied to pro-management colabrative projects with the agencies and even with timber companies. Communities for healthy forests is a radical fringe group that is not to be trusted, you may find your healthy forest to be a pile of stumps coming to a forest near you. Thanks so much to you for helping us see the light of day once more. Find you a dark hole to crawl into and stop bothering a legitimate commuity based grassroots movement before we kick your irresponsible ass off of our public lands forever and off the IMC. sick of industry> Thank You ... 27.09.2005 - 12:53 For that prime example of anti-capitalism / anti-republican / anti-compromise / anti-fill-in-the-blank posing as environmentalism. Moon Muffin> Alzheimers? Anuerysm? But Not News 27.09.2005 - 15:34 Moon Muffin thinks this is the best thing he's ever read! Any weak feeble-minded jibberish will do for the right. Any spastic jottings of late stages Alzheimers and people like Moon Muffin jump up and say: Sounds great! This is an example of what's wrong with the right. No brains, no head aches. --------- Doesn't this site have editors? This is not news. This is some guy who got shot down in the Comments section, but still thinks he has something to say. At best, this is Op-Ed. Not news. At worst . . . it's a keyboard seizure related to some kind of Right wing brain anuerysm. Silent Type> Wahhhhh! 27.09.2005 - 16:17 Yah, obviously the above article doesn't live up to the high standard of RIMC. It doesn't call anyone a liar, insult any particular group of people, rant about government conspiracies, make use of carefully framed pictures of 'forest destruction', use concocted facts and statistics, sensationalize, or blame the 'neo-cons'. To top it all off, it actually asks for input from people on both sides of the issue! Outrageous! This thread should be censored immediately! Moon Muffin> Preaching to the choir? 28.09.2005 - 04:35 Since when is this site specifically reserved for you preservationist, anarchist, counter-culture folks? Isn't this site for debate, discussion and, above all, information and learning? The "Independent" part of RIMC doesn't mean independent of opposing viewpoints. In fact, controversy is good clean fun, in my book. Regular people can read, analyze and make up their own minds. I'm comfortable being in the middle of the road on forest issues and it's my aim to bring extreme views (on both sides) closer to the middle. All I can do is offer my experience, knowledge and opinions and people who listen will probably learn something, if they open their minds. "Regular folks" who visit this site from the "outside" are generally impressionable and if they can look at what both sides have to offer, they'll start making more informed decisions when they vote and live their lives. Luckily, RIMC does allow everyone to post, and censoring very little, unlike the Portland IMC site. Remember, fascism starts with censorship of opposing viewpoints. Hotfeet> Homepage:: http://www.foreststewardsguild.org Shining truth.. 29.09.2005 - 07:37 I would say that IMC needs to change their name to OLTM -"Only Listen to Me". ST and the others just validate what the person was saying, to bad it sounds like they fall in the antagonists group. The point made about being out off a job if the conflict is resolved probably doesn't worry them to much since they obviously don't have any real desire to resolve anything. What they are would be called control freaks in most circles, they want to have it their way and only their way, regardless of what the facts are. ST your true position comes shinning through. Chane Sau> PS.... 29.09.2005 - 07:53 As for the input the person asks for.....I will agree 100%, everytime the "right" comprimises, the "left" moves the middle to the left and asks for more. The compromises that can be listed would be The NWFP, relinquishment of grazing rights throughout the west, fencing of streams and construction of off sight watering, etc. etc. These are all instances where the "enviromentalist" put forth an argument and the users of the natural resources said "OK, I don't think it's that bad but we'll work with you" and comprimised.....It started back with RARE I, most of us knew that would never be enough and gee along came RARE II....Hey Silent, can you show me where your so called "environmetalist" ever compromised, and being told by the court "your wrong" is not a compromise. The biggest problem with ST and Sick is that there aren't any cameras to put on a show for and their words have no factual basis, just negative emotion.... Chane Sau> Dear Editors: Let's Shut These Guys Down 30.09.2005 - 06:39 Dear Indymedia Editors, In the 1980s Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine, which meant media no longer had to show both sides of the argument. This gave rise to guys like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News (and do I dare say CNN?). Reagan wanted big corporations to be able to buy the media. And they have. If big business doesn't have to show opposing viewpoints, why do you? Articles like the one above are not news. They're right-wing propaganda. Indy.media doesn't owe these guys the spotlight. We should be spotlighting the voices that can't buy their way into mainstream media. Shut this guy and others like him down. It's fair to do so. This site is about counterbalancing the influences of big business on our media. Let's not be just another mouthpiece for them. Get rid of this "news" piece. Silent Type> The truth has no place ??? 30.09.2005 - 09:35 From the above post I would say that ST has a problem with the truth. I don't think a 2 person ranching operation would be considered big business. And as for right wing propaganda, I would say that I disagree with much of what the mouth pieces - Rush, Lars Larson, etc. - have to say, probably about 50%, in fact I would say they are just about as far to the right as many of those posting on here are to the left. What is apparent though is that when facts and on the ground truths are stated, that are in contridiction to the lies and rhetoric being put out by many on this site, the liars think that it is time to shut the truth down. I don't have any problem telling both sides to allow the 90% uniformed to make a more informed decision, of course I try to stick to the facts, obviously this is an unacceptable practice to those like Silent Type. There are and have been honest mistakes made by both sides of the timber issue, but there seems to be a prevelence to ingore facts and exagerate issues by those preservationist that try to pass themselves off as environmetalist. So I guess we should all just bow down and say praise to the lies and rhetoric, ignore the facts and make the extremist happy. Chane Sau> The Truth About RIMC 30.09.2005 - 10:19 The following text is from the Rogue IMC mission statement ( http://rogueimc.org/static/mission.shtml): "The Independent Media Center (IMC) is an open community resource where everyone is free to be heard in the Rogue Valley, using a website as a focal point. The website functions on principles of open publishing, allowing anyone to publish articles and have a voice." ... also ... "The IMC does not discriminate based on race, class, age or sexual orientation, we welcome participation from all individuals." In light of this stated policy, why does the Rogue IMC staff continue to censor posts that are especially damaging to the preservationist agenda? Why can the views of the working class not be heard on this site? Are they so afraid of the truth that they are willing to violate their own policy to censor the posts of those in the Rogue Valley who favor a pro-active approach to forest management? And ST, if you think that the mainstream media is "right-wing" then you must be smoking crack. CNN? Give me a break. Ted Turner donates about $45 million a year to extremist anti-capitalist groups such as Greenpeace, CorpWatch, Friends of the Earth, etc. each year. Moon Muffin> Automated logging destroys jobs 30.09.2005 - 15:19 Debate? If that's what u want.. ..that's what you're gonna get.. So let's momentarily play along with Moon Muffin and assume that there are three "types" of people. Since i would never be an antagonist, then maybe i could be the "pro-management" type. Here's an idea about the destruction of corporate logging by dependency on automated machinery, and the resulting loss of logging jobs by replacing people with machines. Of course environmentalists are scapegoated for the loss of jobs as machines replace people.. Soil compaction is another side effect of automated logging, stunting growth of trees for the future so CEOs of timber corporations can fatten their pocketbooks today. Wouldn't surprise me if Moon Muffin is a corporate lackey being paid to defend the honor of his corporate masters by writing these misinformed articles. Tell me Moon Muffin, how does it feel to prostitute your mind? from indybay about Maxxam's occupation of Humboldt.. Another reason to boycott Maxxam/PL and have them evicted from Humboldt is their use of automated logging. Using heavy machinery for removing logs replaces local loggers with machines. When unemployment skyrockets in Humboldt, the timber barons blame environmentalists, yet the reality is that automated logging can harvest more timber with less workers needed. Local people are considered irrelevent and contracters come in for automated logging. These contracters have no health benefits and work in dangerous conditions. They too are expendable.. Heavy machinery used in automated logging also compacts soil by reducing pore space and suffocating roots. Trees growing near skid trails are often stunted in growth, depleting the future generations of forest canopy cover and healthy trees.. Sending much love and support to all saving the forests from Maxxam's ecocide!! luna moth Earth First! Mabon "Haida Gwai (R)evolution! First Nations Victory by Jessica Bell "Today, the Haida's future is also threatened by corporate logging. Both Weyerhaeuser and the Province of British Columbia have crippled the island community's long-term economic and environmental sustainability by consistently over-logging-especially high-value, old-growth cedar, Douglas fir and hemlock-and by using automated machinery instead of local loggers, then exporting the logs for processing. This process converts culturally, spiritually and ecologically valuable ecosystems that have sustained life for thousands of years into two-by-fours, decking and siding. It is estimated that more than 30 billion dollars worth of lumber has left the island. The vast majority of that money does not go toward providing Haida Gwaii with better schools, health care or sustainable economic development opportunities, but to the pockets of Weyerhaeuser's executives, who live in exclusive Seattle suburbs. Weyerhaeuser's CEO, Steve Rogel, earns more than six million dollars a year. Meanwhile, an underemployment rate of more than 60 percent is leading younger generations to abandon the misty island for the large cities of Prince Rupert and Vancouver."  http://earthfirstjournal.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=7 & compacts soil, stunts tree growth > Don't Change the Subject 30.09.2005 - 18:40 Huh?? 1) You can't marginalize everyone who disagrees with you as being either a government shill or a corporate goon. 2) I wasn't the person who wrote the article about there being 'x' different categories of people. 3) Automated logging is to blame for job losses? Huh? You've been watching Fern Gully again, haven't you? You can move logs with a helicopter, by cable yarding, or with a tractor. Either way you do it, it takes PEOPLE to operate the equipment. It takes PEOPLE to fall the trees. It takes PEOPLE to run the mills, PEOPLE to bring the wood to market, and PEOPLE to use that wood to build finished products. Today's "environmentalists" keep trying to pretend like people are no longer a part of the equation. It simply isn't true. 4) Modern logging equipment doesn't increase soil compaction. Just the opposite is true. Because most logging occurs on private lands, logging equipment is marketed with private forestland owners in mind. The last thing that a private landowner wants is to jeopardize the productivity of his/her land. Because of this, it is a primary goal of logging equipment manufacturers to produce equipment that results in less soil compaction. Helicopters don't compact soils. Full suspension cable yarding doesn't compact soils. Partial suspension cable yarding results in very little if any soil compaction. Modern tractors also result in negligable soil compaction. This is due to their large, often ruberized, tracks. With larger tracks, fewer PSI's (pounds per square inch) are exerted on the soil. In fact tractor logging results in less soil compaction than horse logging, due to the high weight-to-footprint ratio of work horses. Maybe that robotic forest destroyer that you saw in your 'Fern Gully' video DOES compact soils. I don't know ... I've never seen one in real life and would suspect that they don't actually exist in reality. 5) Although you didn't do a very good job of basing your post in reality, you did do a great job of evading my question and trying to change the subject. So I'll ask again: Why is RIMC censoring posts, when doing so is in clear violoation of IMC policy? Certain posters have been very vocal lately about their feelings that 'corporate goons' and 'government shills' (their way of categorizing everyone who is pro-management) should not be allowed on this site. I've had plenty of my own posts removed from this site, even though they were in no way violating IMC policy. Recently, Chane's post regarding "What is IMC?" was censored along with the discussion that ensued. What is the purpose of an 'independent' and 'free' media outlet if it is neither endependent or free? If the RIMC staff wants to have a private website where they and their buddies can rant about government conspiricies and slander the 'goons' and 'shills', then so be it. Fine with me. What bothers me is that the site claims to allow freedom of speech, when this is very much not the case. Moon Muffin> Put the blame where it goes.. 03.10.2005 - 08:05 First of all if you want to blame someone for the above article then blame the writer, that would be me...As for the groups of people I have listed, I think a person can review the above postings and see exactly why I think that the groups are pretty clear. We have an antagonist, Silent Type who wants the other opposition silenced so she can continue stirring the pot for no real solution. Then we have the latest enviromentalist/antagonist that uses exagerated facts based on some slim truths in order to bully over the opposition. Yet it doesn't take rocket science to see that the logging companies can't find enough people willing to work and they have to use more mechanical sides to offset the lack of laborers. The soil compaction issue is not even based in fact unless you go back to the 60's, todays equipment generally exerts less than 9 psi and tracked equipment generally doesn't work on slopes over 30% or for the layman slope that climb more than 30 feet in height for every 100 feet in length, not very steep. Another point that is forgotten by the antagonist is that the true environmental community is one of the champions of modern mechanized logging including helicopters, because of the minimized impact to the soils. The other segment that is being confused for myself is Moon Muffin who obviously is a pro-management type, who keeps trying to stick to a debate on facts, just like Hot Feet, Thinktivist, Curious, Chane Sau, and refutes comments with facts, only to be continually accused of being someone else. It is apparent that at least some of the users of this site have their own agenda and it does not involve the truth, which could be why a more conservative slant has been making more headway in the mass media over recent years. You have to give credit where credit is due.... If you keep doing the same thing, you will keep getting the same results. Those of the antagonistic perspective on both sides will continue to errode the cause they say they support, for better or worse at least on this site that would be those on the environmental or preservationist side. Truth Detective> Price yourself out to a tent... 03.10.2005 - 11:48 Obviously, the Earth First'er above hasn't seen just how productive horse logging, or other more labor intensive logging is. If it was profitable then it would still be a competative form of logging. The flip side is that very few working class and even fewer welfare rats could afford to have a house if you raised the price of lumber to $700-$800 dollars per mbf. Now if you get back to True Old Growth Logging that used to be done with oxen and horses then you could make it alittle more feasible, but why would you condone logging old growth for any reason? Another glaring example of having ones head so deep that they either don't want to or just can't tell the truth. There are plenty of woods jobs empty for anyone wanting a job in America, but then again we don't have the government subsidies that Canada has on it's crown lands. Another great example of moving the demand from the best managed land in the world to other places....great progress. Chane Sau> pro-corporate goons are getting desperate 03.10.2005 - 12:21 response to Moon Muffin by luna moth; "3) Automated logging is to blame for job losses? Huh? You've been watching Fern Gully again, haven't you? You can move logs with a helicopter, by cable yarding, or with a tractor. Either way you do it, it takes PEOPLE to operate the equipment." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lm; Yes, but it takes less people to operate the heavy equipment than local loggers felling trees. Industrialization across the board leaves less jobs in it's wake.. "It takes PEOPLE to fall the trees. It takes PEOPLE to run the mills, PEOPLE to bring the wood to market, and PEOPLE to use that wood to build finished products. Today's "environmentalists" keep trying to pretend like people are no longer a part of the equation. It simply isn't true." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lm; Another fact is Maxxam/PL is planning to build a mechanized logging mill in Humboldt that will result in over 100 layoffs. This loss of jobs can also convieniently be scapegoated on environmentalists if we let Moon Muffin tell it. However, Maxxam/PL can increase their profits by paying less people and replacing them with machines.. "4) Modern logging equipment doesn't increase soil compaction. Just the opposite is true. Because most logging occurs on private lands, logging equipment is marketed with private forestland owners in mind. The last thing that a private landowner wants is to jeopardize the productivity of his/her land. Because of this, it is a primary goal of logging equipment manufacturers to produce equipment that results in less soil compaction." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lm; Most private landowners are concerned with meeting the short term gain requirement of stockholders. The effects of soil compaction on tree growth stunting are visible ten or twenty years in the future, far beyond the shortsightedness of profits now obsessed stockholders. No matter how much we romanticize capitalism, it is inherently short term fixated.. We need to remember that corporations like Maxxam/PL, Weyerhauser, Sierra Pacific Industries, etc. have no inherent claim to "property rights". All the land they claim to own once belonged to somebody elses care. What many forest activists like myself are working towards is a return of corporate land to the local communities and indigenous peoples who were the original caretakers of the land. We will not rest until corporate timber is evicted from the lands they falsely claim to own. The land needs to be returned to the community, and then we can work out how much forest is logged within the worker's coopertive without any interference from short term profit obsessed corporations.. Here are some model options from elsewhere;  http://www.masswoodlands.coop/index.html  http://www.borealforest.org/world/can_mgmt12.htm  http://www.haidanation.ca/ "Helicopters don't compact soils. Full suspension cable yarding doesn't compact soils. Partial suspension cable yarding results in very little if any soil compaction." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lm; Helicopter logging (like Columbia corporation) occurs mostly on steep slopes where heavy terrestrial equipment cannot go. This is very expensive and also dangerous, chokesetters who attach the chains to the logs to be lifted are often injured on the job. Since they are contract workers with no union and no health benefits, if they are injured they are out of luck. Helicopters only carry logs a short distance, so heavy trucks are still driven along the forest roads and compact soil.. "Modern tractors also result in negligable soil compaction. This is due to their large, often ruberized, tracks. With larger tracks, fewer PSI's (pounds per square inch) are exerted on the soil. In fact tractor logging results in less soil compaction than horse logging, due to the high weight-to-footprint ratio of work horses." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lm; Even if tractors/skidders use larger tracks to alleviate PSI exertion, they still compact soil due to their large mass. This occurs mostly on the roads were trucks frequently drive carrying the heavy logs day in and out. Skidders roaming throughout the forest and clearcuts also contribute to soil compaction. To not compact soil, skidder treads would need to be so wide as to be double the width of the road, and would crush any living growth in their path.. "Maybe that robotic forest destroyer that you saw in your 'Fern Gully' video DOES compact soils. I don't know ... I've never seen one in real life and would suspect that they don't actually exist in reality." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lm; Skidders and tractors compact soils, regardless of the width of their tracks. Unfortunately reality in ecology isn't determined by corporate financial interests.. "5) Although you didn't do a very good job of basing your post in reality, you did do a great job of evading my question and trying to change the subject. So I'll ask again: Why is RIMC censoring posts, when doing so is in clear violoation of IMC policy? Certain posters have been very vocal lately about their feelings that 'corporate goons' and 'government shills' (their way of categorizing everyone who is pro-management) should not be allowed on this site. I've had plenty of my own posts removed from this site, even though they were in no way violating IMC policy. Recently, Chane's post regarding "What is IMC?" was censored along with the discussion that ensued. What is the purpose of an 'independent' and 'free' media outlet if it is neither endependent or free? If the RIMC staff wants to have a private website where they and their buddies can rant about government conspiricies and slander the 'goons' and 'shills', then so be it. Fine with me. What bothers me is that the site claims to allow freedom of speech, when this is very much not the case." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lm; Nowhere does it state that any imc is obligated to post obvious pro-corporate hype. Alternative media like imc exists to provide an alternative to the corporate media. Volunteers at IMC don't enjoy wasting their time and taking up cyberspace with pro-corporate propaganda. IMC does not exist as another forum for singing the praises of corporations, for that, why not publish your news at the New York Times or Washington Post? Yes, we will continue to call out pro-corporate goons when we see them. If the shoe fits.. hence Moon muffin, Truth Detective, etc..> On Technical Innovations and Job Loss 03.10.2005 - 14:09 It is a commonly repeated falacy that technical innovations result in job losses. More efficient manufacturing processes don't destroy jobs, but rather allow the workforce to become more diversified. All wealth is resource based. Any time you take a raw material and turn it into a finished product you are going to create jobs, regardless of how 'automated' or efficient the manufacturing process might be. The assumption that increased efficiency hurts workers could be used to argue that computers should not be used in the workplace, or even that fields should be plowed by hand rather than by tractor or horse. Take this argument to the extreme, and we'd all be back on the savannah trying to chase antelope off of cliffs. Without technical innovations (aka automation) we wouldn't have professional artists, river guides, teachers, mechanics, software engineers, researchers, or even professional 'environmentalists'. Everyone would be too busy sustenance farming to worry about such trivialities. Finally, and briefly, your assertion that forestland owners don't care about long-term stewardship of the land is rediculous. I have plenty of complaints about the ways in which private forestlands are managed, but soil compaction isn't one of them. Here in Oregon, the only requirement for reforestation is that trees be planted within 12 months of logging and that these trees be established within six years following harvest. If landowners are not conserned with long-term sustainability, why to they exceed the requirements of Oregon law and spend vast ammounts of money on things such as fertilization and weed controll? Rewards for investments such as these will only be realized in the distant future. You say that landowners don't care about the long-term viability of their land. All of the evidence says otherwise. DISCLAIMER: I am not employed by the timber industry. I am not employed by government. I don't get paid to post on this website; I do it out of a sense of personal duty. You can't marginalize everyone who disagrees with you as being either a government shill or an industry goon. Moon Muffin> Jessica Bell - Good Comment 03.10.2005 - 14:43 Jessica makes some good points about automation and how companies blames joblessness of enviros, when the truth is a bit more complicated. More machines equal less people. And I also agree that Moon Muffin is getting paid. Also good points about soil compaction and the use of heavy machinery. Keep up the good work. Silent Type> I Take That Back: MM Isn't Getting Paid 03.10.2005 - 14:47 I just reread Moon Muffin's attempts at making some sense of the correlation between automation and job loss. It's so stupid, no one company would pay him to write it. Efficiency lead to diversification? Of course it does. That's why there's less loggers. Thanks for making the point. What a moron. Silent Type> A new low has been reached 03.10.2005 - 15:27 Several points should be corrected if the facts matter:\ 1) Most of the private land owners are private, not public companies and the management doesn't have to put stock holders over good management. 2) Columbia Helicopters actually has a better safety record for the choker setters than most conventional logging operations. They also have a pretty good benefit package and you would be very suprised how much a choker setter can make working for them and many other helicopter outfits. 3) Soil compaction is realative to the type of soil, the amount of debris and slash on the ground, the weather, soil moisture, etc. Most of which I would bet that Luna and ST have any idea what they are really talking about. Do simple little test, go out in the woods with a planting shovel, push the shovel in the ground in an undisturbed area and then where a dozer or loader has gone, I doubt you'll be able to feel much difference, now try it on a game trail, or a hiking trail. Most adults exert similar ground presure to a D-7 dozer. (be sure to undo the coompaction of your own steps) 4)Revoke any title to land owned by preservationist and we can begin to discuss land ownership. This is a great example for the uninformed to really get a clear view of what the true agenda is. 5)I don't see too many praises for corperate america on here, but I do see a desire to debate the facts not have emotional rants. The problem is when you debate the facts you see that most of us are not opposed to responsible management, in fact it makes sense. Just those on the extreme left who hide under the guise of being environmentalist, when they are truely anarchist with a anti-society, communistic idea of life. these folks are in the wrong Country. It is interesting that this whole discussion is the result of what someone thought about the groups debating the issues and all that has truely been accomplished is validation of those groupings for all the rest to read and maybe clear up who is really out for solutions and who is really out to violate their rights. Keep up the good work Luna, ST and the rest. PS Luna weren't you the one taken out of the tree by PL climbers? Chane Sau> Where does the Diversification Happen? 03.10.2005 - 15:31 The question is where does the diversification happen. In the nearby logging town or in Houston where the money is going? It happens in Houston, where the company's parent company resides. The local logging town just loses jobs. Silent Type> Chain Sau 03.10.2005 - 15:40 Most logging companies are private? Weyerhauser, PL/Maxxim, et al. I don't think so. And the interesting thing about corporations is that these corporations couldn't do what's good for the greater community if they wanted to. The CEO and Board are legally madated to make profits. Case in point: In 1919 Ford (the person not the company) wanted to sell his cars at under cost. He said it was for the greater good of the country. He wanted people to have his cars. His board successfully sued him. The court said that Ford's legal obligation was first to make money for his shareholders--even at the expense of the greater good for the rest of the country. That precedent stands today. The public company is a machine. It's only goal is to make money. At the expense of the worker and at the expense of the environment. And I think you're wrong about enviros being commies or anarchists. There is some of that, but we're sincere. It's about the environment. Not governmental takeover. And I do think that enviros are scapegoats for the company that's laying off mill workers. Silent Type> Silent Type 03.10.2005 - 16:44 You say you're 'pro-environment' and not just 'anti-capitalist', but your words speak otherwise. Everytime someone makes comment regarding forest management and the environment, you reply by ranting on and on about coporate greed. You bring up Maxxim and Weyerhaeuser. Those two, along with maybe Plumb Creek, are the ONLY corporate forestland owners that I know of. Can you name others? The land ownership of these companies comprises a tiny portion of the private foresland in the Pacific NW. The vast majority of non-public forestlands are owned by private companies, individuals, and tribes. I have no love for Maxxim. The few PL employees that I've met don't speak to highly of their parent company, either. Weyerhaeuser is quite a bit better than Maxxim, IMHO, but still not on my feel-good list of big companies. Plumb Creek is by far the best as far as the quality of their land-management approach goes, but they aren't at all perfect either. The real question is, who cares? Saying that all timberland owners are like Maxxim or Weyerhaeuser is about as logical as saying that all environmentalists are like Michael Scarpitti. In either case, you're trying to use the exception to represent the whole. You say you're an environmentalist. I doubt it. You're disinterest in discussing actual environmental issues, and your propencity to respond to every debate with rants about the injustices of capitalist society, show otherwise. Moon Muffin> Silent Type 04.10.2005 - 06:44 You say you and the others on here claiming to be environmentalist are not communist or anarchist, then explain the the desire to return the land "to the community" and the incessant complaints about corperate profit. This is a Republic that we live in and it is founded on the idea of free enterprise, study up on what free enterprise is, the ploy of environmentalism that you rant about is no more than communism, I would like you to let me know any country that has practiced true communism and done it successfully. Yes, publicly held corperations are generally required to show a profit, but study up on the case you quoted, you will find that the ruling was in favor of the board not in favor of profit, had the board decided to sell at below cost and Ford disagreed he still would have been bound by thier decision. Another case of twisting the facts into your own view point. I am willing to bet that I could put together a tour of private forest land both small woodland owners and larger (100,000+ acres) private land owners and you would see a stark difference in the way they are managed as a whole, the larger land owners are growing more trees and reestablishing clear-cuts faster and leaving more trees in RMA's than required. This fact is due to free market, 1) they are looking at long term investments. 2) they have the resources to do it. Simple math - If you make $100/mbf and you harvest 500mbf a year you make an OK living but you don't have a lot to spare for the feel good aspects. Do the math on 50,000mbf. While I have no loss of love for Wey Co, they are one of the companies leaving wider buffers, have more set asides than most private owners, in fact much of thier ownership is under a HCP. Smaller owners can't afford to do that, especially if they own a mill, due to the vast amount of public timber being allowed to rot and burn because of you and your buddies constant road blocks to responsible management. Chane Sau> symbiotic anarchism and forest ecology 05.10.2005 - 14:34 Moon Muffin, Chane Sau, et al., you say anarchist like it's a bad thing!! Yes, my ideology is mostly anarchist with a bit of communism and libertarianism mixed in. My actual lifestyle is caught between lesser evil "green" capitalism and trade/barterism or handout/dumpster divinism. Combine that with some primitivism, and yes, definite anti-corporatism (aka anti-fascism)! Anarchism is more than just some people throwing bottles in the street, it involves a symbiosis with the ecosystem and other people without any intervention from government or corporations. To learn more about different anarchist ideology and lifestyle..  http://www.greenanarchy.org/  http://www.iww.org/  http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/as.php Under this system most people are not able to really live free on the land, since the capitalist concept of private property and police state politics tends to prevent any long term land occupation where growing food would be an option. Some community gardens show that living free would be possible if the developers would give the condominium construction a rest. The idea about hunting antelope isn't so bad (if they were restored to a greater herd size), only that antelope and bison were driven to near extinction by European immigrant's commercial hunting, not the thousands of years of indigenous sustainance hunting. For vegans and vegetarians, there are also many native plants in the ecosystem capable of providing people and animals with their nutritional needs, as example, acorn bread (from oaks) is delicious after leaching acorns!! BTW, the current US model of corporate forestry is actually corporate socialism, with large corporations being given tax breaks and even subsidies from taxpayers. Ask any libertarian, this is NOT considered an example of free market capitalism, nor is corporate socialism an example of socialism for and by the people. Cuba is doing a good job of providing people with food post industrial agriculture. Community gardens in downtown Havana and people raising beneficial insectos on rooftops shows that we can take care of ourselves without corporate agriculture..  http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/cubagarden.cfm The merger of corporations and government = fascism. That is what the reality of modern day corporate US government gives the people and ecosystem. Short term profit for stockholders is valued above long term ecosystem health, whether in forests or farmlands. Maxxam/PL, Weyerhauser, Plum (scum) Creek, Roseburg, Sierra Pacific Industries are all private timber corporations, to add insult to injury, they also can engage in clearcutting on public (national forest) land. For more info on timber corporations; SPI corporate profile;  http://www.endgame.org/spi.html  http://www.endgame.org/ The Haida Nation is an example of indigenous north americans being better able to manage the forest ecosystem than private (for-profit) corporations like Plum Creek, Maxxam/PL, etc. Most indigenous cultures include ecology in their spiritual beliefs and think of the well being of the seventh generation into the future when making decisions today. This is the vital component missing from today's corporations. The idea of perpetual growth and profit under capitalism doesn't mesh well with seventh generation ecology. The history of corporations in north america and elsewhere is mostly about workers struggling to survive and preventing corporate monopolies from driving people and ecosystems into the ground.. "Xaaydaa Hlk'iiyan K'aaws Kyaang.aay Laa (People who look after the Forest) Haida culture is our relationship to the land in its totality. Ginn7waadluwaan gud7ahl Kwaagiidang-everything depends on everything else. The old forests of Haida Gwaii have sustained and continue to sustain our way of life. In the past fifty years, industrial logging has transformed the landscape of Haida Gwaii from diverse old forest to young, even-aged stands of one or two species. The major river systems that once provided Haida villages with salmon; large cedars for longhouses and monumental art; and, plants for food, medicines, fiber and animal habitat have been eradicated by logging without consideration for these values.. The Haida Nation is not against logging per se, but believes that logging can be done in a more responsible manner. Our position is that some places must be left intact and that logging be practiced in a way that does not spoil the land or waterways. This applies to every one who is logging. Nobody, including ourselves, has the right to wreck the land."  http://www.haidanation.ca/ One doesn't need to be an anarchist, communist or other "ist" to recognize that the indigenous people of North America know something that European immigrants may have forgotten. The claims that corporations make on owning land is only because the original indigenous caretakers of the land were forced off by genocide and relocation pogroms. My opinion is that the stolen land currently claimed by private timber corporations be returned to the indigenous people today whose ancestors once looked after the forests. The private timber corporations have proven themselves ineffective at logging without creating severe ecological damage. Now is the time to give indigenous communities the chance to restore and reclaim the wounded forest lands into their care.. Am giving invitation to Moon Muffin, Truth Detective, Chane Sau, etc. to debate why the corporations should be allowed to continue claiming land as property that was stolen from indigenous peoples by genocide and forced relocation.. luna moth> A favorite quote 05.10.2005 - 20:09 A great comment/parody on misguided youth thoughts: "Free is when you don't have to pay for nothing, or do nothing. I want to be free!...Free as the wind!" Frank Zappa, from "Teenage Wind" singing about freedom from a teenage point of view. It just seemed applicable to anarchists and such, as well. Goober McNertney> Dear Luna, 06.10.2005 - 10:56 First off, if you would like to start a new debate you should try posting an article rather than evading the point of the article that you are posting on. Second, for the sake of reality. The basic principle that corperate america took the land of the "Native" Americans, is as flawed as it is irreversable. 1) First, Decide how far back in history you want to go. Do we go back to before the tribes pushed up from what today is Mexico or down from Canada? If so then we need to find the descendants of the prisoners taken by those tribes after they killed off the majority of the previous owners. Or do we want to go back to the ice bridge and say that everyone needs to leave because originally no one was here but the animals? Or maybe we should give it back to the French and Mexicans since we had to fight and purchase it from them? Hold it didn't Native Americans assist the French in battles outside of "their" area and weren't the majority of Mexicans actually "Natives" going out of their area? 2) Second, reality check. If you really want to be free of government control then give back any and all "assistance", do not drive on public roads, don't use products that are delivered using public roads, and don't use our justice system (courts, police, etc.) Don't use electricity, or phone lines, definitely don't use radios and cell phones, since all of these things and many more are the result of our government and the corperations that make up this country. 3) Third, I'm still waiting for an answer of a country that was established and still in existence that was created without force and doesn't have a military to protect it. Add to it - Didn't displace or take over land previously occupied by another person. The only reason you have the ability to even whine to the ridiculous level that you have achieved is do too the very government that you protest against, this includes all Americans. As for the "Native Americans" they're in the same boat. This Government and the Nation as a whole is here because of "Coperate America". Coperate America bailed our butts out during WWI, WWII, and all the rest. It would have been cute to see a bunch of anarchist sitting on the beaches with sticks and rocks telling the Japanese and Germans to back off this isn't thier "property"....get real Chane Sau> I know.. 06.10.2005 - 11:07 .....I should have taken spelling before I dropped out....Duh Chane Sau> Simpler yet.. 06.10.2005 - 11:36 Absoulutely, Luna has missed the point of this post, yet at the same time reinforced it.... Luna, rather make yourself look even more naive, and give Chane more to go on about, just list the Native tribes at the time of white settlement (1770-1800) that had not displaced through the use of force, a previous group of people. I think that you get caught up in the race game a little too much. The displacement of others is a HUMAN action that has gone on since the apes started walking or whatever theory you prescribe too. If you want to break it down it is the natural way to do things, for plants, animals, humans, wind, water, etc. Sorry if you feel bad about nature, but that is the "beast" you have taken to bed with you, accept it or fight it, you too will be replaced, in time. Truth Detective> anti-this and anti-that 06.10.2005 - 14:36 Luna, Thanks for making my point. Many of todays extremists only use environmentalism as a front for a political agenda that has nothing at all to do with the environment or environmentalism. I did find the opening statement of your post very humorous, though: "Yes, my ideology is mostly anarchist with a bit of communism and libertarianism mixed in." I would describe myself as a libertarian. While I would have to admit that libertariansim is similar to anarchism in that anarchism is libertariansim taken to the unworkable extreme, communism can in no way be reconciled with either either of these principles. Anarchism is based on the principle of NO government. Free interprise is permitted under anarchism. Libertarianism is based on the principle of MINIMAL government. Free enterprise is also permitted under libertarianism. Communism is based on the idea of ULTIMATE government, and dissallows or severely restricts free enterprise. Communism is the complete opposite of anarchism and libertarianism. That said, I can't believe you actually sucked me into your anti-government rantings. Now, would anyone care to discuss actual environmental issues? Moon Muffin> American Indians lands 06.10.2005 - 19:12 It IS well-known that American Indians are over-cutting their own reservation lands these days. Even Giant Sequoias get cut, east of Fresno, on reservation land. They even pay the evil white man to come and cut their trees down. Ya-ta-what-the-hey??? Hotfeet> Homepage:: http://www.foreststewardsguild.org Chane Sau, Moon Muffin 07.10.2005 - 06:02 The overwhelming identification of the environmentalism with the progressive movement taxes its credibility with the American public. I agree with you on that. The enviro movement should be about that, the environment. Not anarchism, communism, et al. A call to limit corporate power--what I call for--is not anti-capitalist. My feeling on logging in the Northwest: If the loggers haven't gotten to it by now, it should be left standing. We've cut 95% of the West Coast's old growth. How about leaving the last 5%. The Forest Service has used tax money to create enough logging roads to circle the earth 17 times. Why not say, that's enough. Anti-caplitalist? No. But I understand why you might see me that way. The enviro movement needs to purify itself. Silent Type> Chane Sau 07.10.2005 - 06:19 Anarchists may not have it all figured out, but they show a willingness to try new ideas. And sometimes that's how great ideas happen. I just wish they would see themselves as their own thing, and not mix their politics with the greens. But I'm not anarchist. I'm not even libertarian. I'm 75% Democrat, 25% Republican. And that's about as deep into politics as a I go. Chane Sau, you put too much trust into your lumber companies. A tour to show what great stewards they are? Interesting idea, but I think you're talking about profit management v. forest management. A forest is not a tree farm. Private land that has been logged and then re-planted--what you're talking about--is a tree farm. It's not wild. It's not biologically diverse. It may look good from the roadside, a bunch of Christmas trees perkily standing, but it's not a forest. It's the difference between a wolf and a labrador. We had two hundred years to cut as much as we could, if we haven't cut it by now, leave it alone. Silent Type> The Will of the People 07.10.2005 - 06:55 I get the feeling that Chane Sau and Moon Muffin feel that they are in the majority. But they're not. They're a minority. The people have spoken. They are pro-forest protection. That's why the current administration and the Forest Service have resorted to the sneakiness of legislative riders and "salvage" logging. They can't say, Hey, we want to log whatever we want; they have to tell people that they're logging for the good of the forest. People just don't know what's happening . . . yet. They trust that their government is really just "salvaging" degraded forest. But that's not the case. See: Biscuit Timber Sale. Why do I think that the American people want forest protection: Let's look at the Roadless Rule: The Roadless Rule was the product of exhaustive studies and scientific, economic and public input, including 600 public meetings. Unprecedented in its overwhelming popularity, the rule garnered 10 times more public comments than any federal rule in history. See: The Will of the people. Enter Bush: The Bush administration comes in and basically says, we don't care what the people want, let's dismantle this plan. What I want is what most people want. No more roads! No more old growth! Silent Type> Lies: The Outspoken Minority 07.10.2005 - 08:48 "We've cut 95% of the West Coast's old growth. How about leaving the last 5%." Come on, Silent Type. That is an absolute lie and you know it. Just because it's printed on a coffee cup or a bumpter sticker, doesn't mean that it's true. As for "the will of the majority," I should only hope that forest management decisions won't come down to a vote. Fifty years ago, the majority would have said "cut it all ... we don't really need old-growth anyways." Regardless, the vast majority of U.S. citezens DO support sustainable forestry on public lands. The vast majority DO support salvage logging. In a recent survey, 75% of Oregonians said that they support salvage of dead trees following fires. Now, I'm sure you'll come back with that survey of yours in which 90-something-percent of respondants said that they want to see old growth protected. There's no suprise here. I want to see old-growth protected. I'm sure Chane and Curious and Hotfeet and Goober do too. In fact, I've never met anyone who didn't want to see old-growth protected. And old growth IS protected. It's protected through the Northwest Forest Plan. Cutting no old-growth trees IS NOT the way to protect old-growth. The best way to make sure that old-growth forests grow and persist forever is to have a environmentally sustainable forest management program. Such a program must include the harvest of some large/old trees. You say that people don't support old-growth logging. They do. They support it with their checkbooks. They support it when they buy products that are made with old-growth trees from Canada, Siberia, China, South America, etc. And if these people were aware of the fact that high-quality products can be made from old-growth trees in the Northwest while simultaneously protecting and enhancing our old-growth forests, they would undoubtedly support sustainable harvest of old/large trees here as well. Moon Muffin> Doesn't Anyone Ever Work Anymore? 07.10.2005 - 10:06 Moon Muffin, Jesus Christ! I barely get a comment up and you've already replied. This is why I accused you of getting paid. Who else has this much time? Between work and kids, I don't have half the time to keep up my side of this protracted ground war. I stick with my facts. %5 left. If you know something I don't, share. And while I don't think forest management should be pure democracy, it should be something pert near close, like, oh, I don't know, a republic-type sitiuation. And my rants about corporate power stand as well. I'm not anti-capitalist, but I don't think corporations are citizens. And I think what's happening is that the will of the people is being is being overlooked in order to pls big business. But I'm glad you're not insisting I'm fronting my enviro views in order to slip in my greater left-leaning agenda. Best. Silent Type> Speaking of Checkbooks at Home Depot 07.10.2005 - 10:25 Old-growth doesn't need to be trimmed or "managed" as you say. It did fine on its own before us and does quite well without us. You sound so concerned about the welfare of our old-growth, as if this is your motive for "managing," but of course what you're really into is profit, not "management. "Forest management of old growth--now there's some Orwellian doublespeak for you. You talk about people speaking with their pocket book: Do you mean like they did with Home Depot? Home Depot--the largest hardware store--stopped selling old-growth . . . b/c their customers demanded it. That's the will of the people speaking. That's a pocket book vote if I ever heard one. I've got to go to work. Silent Type> The Forests and Us 07.10.2005 - 16:43 Silent Type: You complain that I must be sitting around all day, getting paid to post ... and yet you're the one posting at all hours of the day and night. Yes, forests can do well without us. We, however cannot do well without forests. We are a part of the ecosystem, not apart from it. Whether we act passively or activily play a role in forest management, our actions will always have an effect on the forests. We cannot seperate ourselves from nature. You say that the Home Depot is a good example of people voting with their checkbooks. I call it extortion. Essentially, Home Depot promised to buy wood that is 'green-stamped' by a certification organization that is closely connected to the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) ONLY AFTER a huge smear campaign was launched against Home Depot by RAN. I, personally, don't shop at Home Depot because of their lumber and paper purchasing policy. I'll spend my money at places that have the guts to stand up to bullies like the Rainforest Action Network. That's what I call voting with my checkbook. Moon Muffin> END THIS BULLSHIT 07.10.2005 - 19:14 no shit, this is really something. These authors of this train, and I doubt there are very many, ought to just get up some courage, use their own names, exchange numbers and go for it. Have a real debate, look eachother in the eyes, and Good God; spare the rest of us. Examine what it is in your personality that is gratified by using a fake name and sucking others' atttention, energy and time: you and the earth would be better for it. Most of us check out indy media to get diversified news, and sometimes I end up reading thru some tripe cause curiosity gets the best of me and I want to see if there's anything useful or productive being said. Most of this particular passive aggressive self gratifying ranting is really silly. Silent type, your thoughts would get more milage if you submitted 150 word editorials to the newspapers instead. And even I should probably not be responding to this right now, but i want to make a request: LET'S NO ONE RESPOND ANYMORE TO THIS HIDDEN AGENCY PERSON WHO GOES BY THE NAME MOON MUFFIN, CHAIN SAW OR WHATEVER!!!!!!!! annette> Time and Trivia 08.10.2005 - 10:26 I think it is obvious from my posts that I am employed somewhere in a forest resourse related field. Never made a secret of it. Might be private might be governmental might be ..... Most of the anti forestry myths on here don't take a lot of time to bust. Time wise it isn't a big deal. Consider it my hobby. The reason that Home Depot said they stopped selling "old growth" isn't becouse their customers demanded it. It was because some very persistant "anti's" were staging "protest" in their stores disrupting business. They still sell everything they sold before...but it is labled as being green. They also litterally paided extortion by paying some third party to say their products were "certified". IT IS A JOKE. Thanks for bringing it up. Home Depot turned belly up and gave in because they thought it was cheeper to pay off the blackmailers than to do the right (honest) thing. It is a lie and I will not shop there. Curious> and wouldn't it 08.10.2005 - 10:38 make sense that a diversity of opinions would include some that you didn't agree with? Is your position so weak that you can stand to here something that challenges it? Curious> My Name Is ... 08.10.2005 - 11:02 Why should I post under my real name? Why does it matter? I've had 'non-violent protestors' say that they'd like to "put a bullet in my brain" on this website. If you think that I'm going to post my name, or especially my phone number, you're fucking nuts. And once again, you can't marginalize me as being either an agency shill or a timber industry goon. Try again. Moon Muffin> And again with the hidden truth 09.10.2005 - 15:55 Silent, I read with great amusement the fact that you think Home Depot is such a Saint for the "No Old Growth" selling. This in itself is a lie, read up on and investigate the "Certified Green", also realize that the few companies such as Wey Co and Roseburg that spent the hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the label do in fact supplement their log supply with "Old Growth", some of which even comes off their own ground. Now how can that be you say, "they are private companies, they can't have "Old Growth"?". Yes Alice (Silent Type) we are still in wonderland, the truth is that the real tracking from the stump to the truck that the green certification gives allows for the private old growth to go right on through the mill. Kinda ironic if you think about it, the rarest old growth - privately held, gets cut and everyone including the preservationist rave about their success. The largest purchasers of Federal Timber are the same Green certified mills you enviros patronize in the name of victory. But don't take my word for it, please check it out. And Silent if you don't think that there is diversity on private tree farms, then you haven't gotten out much.....PS Home Depot is one of the largest sellers of lumber in the world, gee I wonder how many trees get cut to provide for them every day? Chane Sau> Chane Sau 09.10.2005 - 18:31 What you say about Home Depot's no old-growth policy being a scam helps prove my point: People are being fooled into thinking that old-growth is being protected (not "managed"). And if they knew the truth, they would stop it. RAN didn't blackmail. They threatened to expose to consumers the truth about what they were buying. It wasn't the RAN's power that was exercised. It was the people's. And if it was widely exposed that Home Depot's policy is a scam, the people would act . . . again. The majority of people don't want more old-growth cut. The majority of people don't want more logging roads. It's happening because there's a lot of governmental and corporate double-speak that hides the truth. Silent Type> Once again 09.10.2005 - 21:14 There is no such thing as Old Growth. There is nothing that is can be defined. Curious> reality is ... 10.10.2005 - 06:41 people that are uninformed just want to feel good, and if they can have their cake and eat it too, then all is well. Lets see the boycot work now in the south. How many people will do without getting their houses rebuilt or use inferior products to "save" something that is a slogan and no more. Like Curious said there is no such thing as old growth, every one has a different definition. The point I was making is that the only ones that can afford to get the green certification are the very companies that you bitch about so loudly. The reality is most people with very few exceptions would like to see "some" set asides, they probably wouldn't know a 120 year old tree from a 400 year old tree, and would think that either and/or both are wonderful. You and your cronies have a different agenda and that is stopping commercial logging. Ask the majority if they would like to see the forest rot and burn, instead of logged? The answer would be logged for the good of the majority. Ask if they would like to "Save the Old Growth"? and the answer is obvious, Save it. Ask if they would like to see the Old Growth burned and people homes destroyed or responsibly managed? Again the answer would be manage it. When you have a large majority of uninformed then you can sway them just by how you ask the question, that doesn't mean that they actually support what you really want. Chane Sau> The Question 10.10.2005 - 09:13 Yes, Chane ... it's all about how you ask the question. Let's say that I've been lead to believe that logging equates to total and permanent destruction, and that 'old-growth' is a non-renewable resource. Now suppose that someone come up and asks me if I support logging of 'old-growth'. I'm going to say "HELL NO!" But if I'm aware of the reality of the matter, that 'old-growth' is a renewable resource and that properly carried out logging has very little impact or is even environmentally beneficial, I'm going to say "sure, I'll support sustainable and wise use of the resource." 'Environmental' organizations such as the Rainforest Action Network have mislead and manipulated the masses, and then asked the questions in a way that yield the answers that they want. Moon Muffin> anarchy, communism, the environment 10.10.2005 - 12:52 Explaining the diversity of opinions one finds in the anarchist community would take more words than used up in all the previous comments. There is a combination of libertarian and communist ideology found in many anarchists, it could be trying to find the balance between the two is what anarchy is all about!! Nothing is seperate from the environment, or ecosystem, as immigrants (Europeans) have attempted to revolve the ecosystem around our society and economy to fulfill our desires, while many indigenous North Americans have placed themselves centrally into the ecosystem and respectfully adapted their society to the other (plant/animal/fungi/etc.) inhabitants. This is a profoundly different method of living than the "man dominates nature" approach we brought with us from Europe.. That being said, the return of land stolen after the arrival of Christopher Columbus (Cristobal Colon en Espanol) to the original indigenous caretakers would alleviate some of the imbalance created by modern commercial logging. The key word is commercial, since logging by indigenous people was mostly for the housing needs of the community, and not for developers in non-forest habitats to build suburban McMansions. Other material can be used in other ecosystems, like straw bale in grasslands, adobe in deserts, etc.. Anarchy does not separate the environment from human society. Nor is anarchy a more extreme form of the free market economy, because there is no property or capital to be held by anyone, we are all on the same footing. If the government subsidies paid to corporate timber were stopped altogether, the only logging would be done by self-employed loggers for themselves wihtout corporate execs hoarding the profits. What we need is an end to corporate logging. This is non negotiable. Whether logging corporations are replaced by indigenous or community logging co-opertives or any other concept is up to the people who inhabit the forests themselves. No government, no corporations. Only people and the forest ecosystem. Am growing weary of correcting misinformation on this comment thread. Hi-yah-nohn-tek. Done talking. K' tehk' Later. luna moth> What world do you live in??/ 10.10.2005 - 14:38 Luna you are either the most niave or the most out of touch individual on here. 1) The Native Americans prior to Columbus definitely had a class system and did not believe in equal footings for all. They were also very territorial, with a few exceptions, none of which are still around. 2)Current Native American tribes utilize corporations to both manage and/or harvest thier timber. Much of this timber is being cut at a rate far beyond a sustainable yield. 3) Some of the tribes also require that tribal members be part of the logging crew, these contracts end up yeildinig less net dollars to the tribe since the corporations that bid on them have to figure a reduced production rate (mbf/manhour)due to high rate of no shows and inability to do the work. 4) As far as being one with the environment, you obviously were not around when the Klamath received their settlement checks, running snowmobiles across the sage brush in the summer until they siezed up only to leave them sit and walk home. 5) The Native also believed in ownership of an area, even the nomadic tribes often killed others that wondered into thier area. While not as refined as todays ownership, I don't see to many deaths from trespassing. I'm curious though why you only stop at Columbus for the return to "natural". What about the other peoples that were displaced by the tribes at that time, don't they deserve their just due also? What about the animals that were driven over the "falls" to pile up at the bottom, much of the meat was wasted do to trauma, check with archeologist from Dakota digs where this was common practice, also it has been determined that in many cases there were more animals killed than could be utilized, resulting in more waste. Given you clear crystal ball into the euphoric past maybe you should go back and live the wonderful life. I just hope that you aren't over 30 since few lived longer than that. Your ideas and your use of the Native Americans as a front for your anarchy is a disgrace to the very people that you hide behind. Typical behavior from an antagonist who has nothing more than a zero cut agenda. Some how I doubt that you even have a cell of Native American blood in your system, if you do you are a disgrace to all. Chane Sau> Both Barrels 10.10.2005 - 18:49 One for Luna and one for Chane Luna I'm sorry but once again your logic escapes me, not that I tried real hard to corner it. Your version of anarchy is at odds with reality. Communism (ownership by all ie government), and libertarianism (nothing but private ownership)cannot find agreement with anarchy (no ownship). Your only unique "anachist community" seems to be the community of mis and random firing synaptic nerve endings. Although the Yuroks hold that unlike all others they were created "here", and who am I to dissagree, it is a widely held truth that there are no "original indigenous" people. It is believed and backed by science that the first settlers came across the ice bridge 10,000 years ago. They were settlers too, just like the European, Asian, and Africans to follow. For ten thousand years they put thier mark on the land. They used every tool they had. Mostly what they had was fire and often it was unpredictable. Use it they did and because there wasn't very many of them they could afford to move around alot when there only tool proved a bit excessive. The idea that the decendents of those first settlers would only use the same tools they used two hundred years ago is a bunch of hooey. They would and do use the same tools that the European, Asian, and African decendents use; yarders and tractors for harvest of trees, jet boats and gill nets for harvest of salmon. I find your inference that these first citizens would be more enlightened than someone of European, Asian, and or African decent insulting. Chane I have repeatedly had harsh comments for posters on this site for comments that I deem sexist/racist. What makes you think you are exempt. I find your comments in regard to Tribal Foresty and work ethic disgusting. I have had the pleasure of spending a fair amount of time around Tribal Foresters and without exception found them to be beyond reproach in their land ethic. One has to remember that because of long standing traditions these lands are managed with a different desired outcome than non-tribal lands. All of these lands were managed with a sustainable set of outcomes, amoung which was always yeild. Just like the Forest Service requires domestic prossesing of logs from their lands the tribal entities require that their harvest opperations be preform by tribal employees, if such are available. Just good economics. As for your assertion that these crews are sub par. That is wrong. I've been around good crews and bad it never had anything to do with ethnicity. Not that it matters, but the best yarder engineer I ever was around was a Cow Creek. The best bull buck a Yurok. The best loader opperator is an Irishman. Luna you need to check your definitions and your logic...Chane you need to check the ethnic comments at the door. Curious> Unintended implication... 12.10.2005 - 12:35 While I can understand the way that Curious took my comments to contain racism, they were no intended to imply that. What it was intended to identify is the fact that when purchasers bid on BIA contracts, inparticular Warm Springs, they have to factor in the added cost of having a person(s) on the crew that are there because they can be, not because the want to be. Confusing? Imagine any crew where you told the operator that they would have these people on their crew regardless of how they worked or when they showed up. I personally know a few of the tribal foresters up there and they are stand up people, but they will also tell you they are not cutting at a sustainable yeild nor do they have too. They will also tell you as will many that know the situation on many reservations, that if you create an entitlement society this is what you get. To sum it up, the Native American's that we should turn this land back to are no different, better or worse, than the current "owners" and given todays technology, entitlements and all will and have been just as wasteful, just as lazy, just as energetic as the rest of us. The euphoria that is spoken about above doesn't nor would it exist if things were reversed. Chane Sau> Racism? Bigotry? Give Me a Break 14.10.2005 - 16:41 Chane Sau, Your comments aren't racist or bigoted. Moon Muffin is a bit oversensitive. Silent Type> Wow 14.10.2005 - 21:10 My dad once told me to keep my mouth shut and people wouldn't know how little I knew and you have just confirmed that theory. It's friday and I don't have time but I'll be back. Curious> Curious 15.10.2005 - 12:12 Try following your dad's advice. Silent Type> If 15.10.2005 - 19:09 you make an observation about somebody and then apply that observation to a whole ethic group, that that somebody just happens to belong to...that is not only stupid, it is racist. S.T. doesn't seem to want to admit that. Chane I understand your explanation and accept what you intended to say. I would encourage you to be careful in that area though. Silent Type wants it to be OK to stereotype people by ethnicity or sex. I cannot accept that. Silent Type also wants anyone who doesn't share her/his ideas to be quiet. You burn books too? Curious>