Resistance to Roadless Logging Escalates as Protesters Blockade Bridge Leading to the Nation's First Roadless Area Timber Sale

o2, 08.08.2006 06:11

Early this morning, protestors erected a daring road blockade to halt logging at the Mike's Gulch Timber Sale in the Siskiyou National Forest, site of the first ever incursion into an Inventoried Roadless Area since the passage of the federal Roadless Rule in 2001. At least one activist is suspended in a cantilever off the side of the Green Bridge above the Illinois River in a manner that prohibits traffic across the bridge without endangering the life of the person hanging from it.

This dramatic action follows years of lawsuits, rallies, public comment periods and national media attention involving tens of thousands of people speaking out against the logging of the Biscuit. Over 2 million people submitted comments to protect our nation's roadless areas before the Biscuit fire and over 20,000 citizens submitted public comments opposing the Biscuit logging when it was proposed, and almost 100 arrests have been made of people engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience protesting the massive logging project.

The Governors of Oregon, California, Washington and New Mexico are currently suing the Bush Administration to retain roadless area protections and an injunction meant to halt the Biscuit logging in particular has been filed but has not yet been ruled on by a federal court.

The public process that lead to the creation of the Roadless Rule, which protected almost sixty million acres of the most wild and pristine public lands remaining in the United States from destructive practices like logging and mining, involved more citizen input than any other piece of federal policy on any issue in the history of this country. Despite this overwhelming public support for protection of roadless areas, the Bush Administration has aggressively pursued stripping the protections it provides by opening these areas up to massive commercial timber harvest.

"This assault on our public lands is a disaster for the forest, a taxpayer rip off and it's against the will of the vast majority of the American people. It is the result of a broken democracy and I am taking this action today to jumpstart the system of checks and balances that is supposed to protect us from the tyranny of an authoritarian government so this doesn't happen again."

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 >>

Thanks guys 08.08.2006 - 09:49 Wish I was down there, thank you all for your efforts. If this heats up anymore I'm coming down. From Portland> you gots to fan the flames... 08.08.2006 - 10:11 You gots to fan the flames to keep the fire going. They sure don't teach you in forestry school when you are studying law and policy that all this shit ain't shit and they will log protected areas when they decide they want to. This is an unprecedented time and I doubt anyone will regret traveling down to be part of this resistance...on the contrary, you will remember your participation until the day you die. See you soon. Public enemy #1> Missing the point 08.08.2006 - 14:14 You folks are still missing the point...You are still trying the same tactics, the same rhetoric, and pulling from the same group of people. The general public is steering further and further from you as this happens. Each year you go at again and each year you tout how much support you have. The reality is each time you pull off these little stunts using "human shields" the general public thinks "what a bunch of idiots", (ask ol Woody how hanging from the bridge benefited his cause) and the courts give back alittle more of the ground you previously had. The best thing for the rational management side is to notify the media and step back and let you people do your stuff. The best part is you feed off your own rhetoric and the truth won't deter you. Keep up the good work. Chane Sau> another missed point 08.08.2006 - 14:19 As you cry that this is a "disaster to our Forests" the true vast majority of Americans are watching our Forests burn and are really thinking "This is a disaster we can prevent" and as a result the "vast majority" of Americans are finally understanding that management is good, preservation and the resulting disasters are bad. PS. which do you think get the majority of the media coverage? Chane Sau> We need real fire hazard reduction. 08.08.2006 - 14:42 Disturbing the recovery of the biscuit fire area does nothing to prevent the real threats posed to humans by bad forest management of the past. Most if not all of this logging is done in areas nowhere near human habitation. Real fuel reduction means thinning out the overcrowded areas that have not yet burned. And doing so in and around where people live, not in wildernesses.Tree plantations like the ones being created by the Forest (dis)Service are fire hazards themselves. Thinning out the young-growth while retaining the overstory (big trees) is the real solution, not the clearcutting of burned over areas. This is known as a "shaded fuel break". The only reason to take the big trees is profit for the companies, causing a loss to the public. not salvage scams.> Childishness 08.08.2006 - 18:20 Ahhhh, yes. We'll also see some childish bawling when the LEO's come in and start the inevitable arrests of "kids" misbehaving, earning a well-deserved "time-out" in the pokey. some come ready, willing and able to go to to jail, thinking they will wear that as a "badge of honor". For many, many years, Roadless Areas have been salvage logged and the sky did not fall. Again, how many acres of Roadless Areas are being relieved of the burden of stone cold, dead trees?!? How much of the Buscuit is not being cut? Why can't people recreate amongst the truly protected and very "scenic" snags?!?!? And, finally, why do opponents of salvage portray salvage operations as "clear cuts", when they know that only the completely dead trees are being taken (and not even the biggest and the best ones)?!?!?!?!?!?! Hotfeet> same ol, same ol... 08.08.2006 - 19:01 Yep, same ol' rebellious tactics...like the tactics that created this country, gave women the right to vote (that's called suffrage sau...you should look it up - real interesting history) and well, damn similar to that civil rights movement thing and how can I leave out the labor movement...you know... the folks who brought you the weekend and your opportunity to get paid for very little actual production. And for you feet, you got something fundamentally wrong, the majority of Americuns don't think. They are simply gut folk. But you two serve up a plethora. I would love to respond tit for tat but I hate throwin my tax dollars away. You should go back to work...you know they monitor your servers and this doesn't qualify as work. Plus, you only get two fifteen minute breaks. Public Enemy #1> thank you brave oregonians 08.08.2006 - 23:15 thank you everyone sacrificing the business as usual regime to stand up against the further rape and plunder of our wilderness. it is a constitutional right to protest corrupt government. as a mother of the next generations to come my heart is warmed to know that real people are standing strong for the forests that we are interconnected with and we share breath with. you could be out chasing the dollar like so many others but instead have chosen the path of integrity which contains the forsight of the survival of beauty unbound and threatened by the manipulation of greed.so wish i could be there with you. you are in my thoughts and prayers.as a restoration worker i recognize these other posters as imposters and only voices of insult that are sad and ignorant. mama> Where's the Science??? (Again!) 09.08.2006 - 05:30 Again, it's no wonder that you folks lose in court. When you rely on angst, rhetoric and emotion, all you end up with is idealistic dogma-drama, comparing forest management to "rape and plunder". If you can't answer even a basic question like; What is wrong with harvesting SOME of the completely dead trees on a few of the horrendous amount of burned and unharvested acres of the Biscuit Fire?!? Just start with that simple question and try to use sound science. Donato's study was of such a narrow focus and the conclusions he made were so amazingly unfounded and unsupported by his measly 16 plots of data. Also, no one has answered my previous questions about acreages burned and acreages harvested. Again, I wonder what real rape victims feel about having their experiences being compared to the salvage logging of dead trees. Hotfeet> deja vu all over again 09.08.2006 - 10:29 There was no "public" process to the Clinton Roadless area rule. It was not "passed" as law would be; it was implemented at the 11th hour of a lame duck administration. It was also found to be illegal by a federal judge. It was a land grab of 60 million acres. To put that in perspective, the state of Oregon is only slightly larger at 61 million acres. This roadless area was not as you say "protected". It would have simply drawn a line on a map and said do not enter. To "protect" something would imply that you were actively doping something toward that end. Letting fuel loads build to unnatural levels and not fighting the fires is not protecting......and by the way threatening to kill yourself is NOT noviolence. Curious> Honest 09.08.2006 - 10:42 I added the "p" by mistake or it was a Freudian slip. I did not intend to imply that anyone was doping anything. Curious> want to talk science? 09.08.2006 - 11:43 Great job resistance! Whether fueled by science, emotion, reverence for this one, round planet we live on or some other source of inspiration, you're standing on solid ground, and I admire and thank you deeply. As for you ignorant-sounding antagonists attempting to argue about science, the movement against salvage logging and incursions into roadless areas is built on a mountain of peer-reviewed scientific studies. Not convinced by Donato's study? Excellent; all good scientists are skeptics! Go to the library and read a few of the dozens of Forestry, Forest Ecology and Fire Ecology papers published around the world that relate specifically to salvage logging and conservation of roadless areas. While you're reading, ask yourself: "Do I value forests simply as tree farms, for the timber they produce, or do I (and the American public) value forests as intact systems which provide a host of ecological services including carbon dioxide sequestration, wildlife habitat, water purification, genetic diversity?" While you're at it, read up on Genetics, Evolution and Climate science and ask yourself "Do I want these forests to be around for my children and their children and so on? Do I want my kids to be able to go out into the forest with their saws and harvest some trees and practice good forestry for generations to come?" "Will native forests that survive fires and recover undisturbed have a better chance at adapting to climate change and evolving with climate change than genetically impoverished tree plantations will?" And if science isn't your bag after all, just respectfully speak with an elder of this land... western science is just now learning what traditional knowledge has known for thousands of years. Then come back to the table and lets talk. After all, we're in this together. nebulous future> The full picture 09.08.2006 - 14:05 "The forests must be and will be, not only preserved but used, and the experience of all civilized countries that have faced and solved the question shows that forests, like perennial fountains, may be made to yield a sure harvest of timber while at the same time all their far-reaching beneficent wuses may be maintained unimpaired." John Muir 1885 Like John Muir I want it all and given some intelligent thought we can have it all. We can have it both ways. There seems to be a mindless mindset that it either has to be untouchable wilderness or plantation. That isn't reality. That isn't fair. Thats just childish venting of the spleen. Donato was right in what he said. Its that just like a sectence out of context his conclusions were wrong. That is why a peer reviewed study, preformed by many of the faculty of his school dissagreed with his findings. He didn't look at the whole picture. It's like the story of the blind men trying to descibe what an Elephant was. Each had a hold of a different part of the critter and depending whether it was trunk, tail, or tusk, each had a different idea of what an elephant might be. Same with Donato. His snapshot in time didn't do justice to the subject at hand. Curious> Stay in the past... 09.08.2006 - 15:56 The preservationist just keep repeating the same old rhetoric and hanging on the coat tails of real successes. You say to look at history and read the printed word, but you yourself fail to do the same. You have used the same tactics as in the past, and each year you get less coverage, less attention, fewer wins in the courts, yet you just keep going. The victories you site are ones that built momentum based facts and issues that really mattered to the general population, compare that to your issue which built mementum based on lies and false science, has steadily lost mementum and the general population disagrees with (hence the loss of support). Of course I myself must keep in mind that todate reality hasn't effected your methods, and adjust expectations accordingly. Chane Sau> Newsflash! 09.08.2006 - 18:03 The green tree that was used for the pathetic "blockade" was cut in a botanical area. Lovely!! I see the their end justifies their means. This is just another nail in their coffin of ineffectiveness. And, they accuse us of cutting trees to save the forest?!? BTW, AGAIN, I don't use government time or resources to post here. Because you have very little in the way of facts, you grasp at straws. Seriously, what we want isn't that far from what you all purport to want. A healthy and functioning ecosystem that is sustainable for perpetuity. What some of you REALLY seem to want is anarchy, or a lack of authority and a selfish want of a forest that serves you for your time on this earth, instead of a forest that thrives and recovers faster than what you seek. I don't need to go to a library, when my own experiences and observations are so much more valuable and correct than what some researchers and desk-bound academians merely write about. Again, are you part of the problem or part of the solution, thinking globally and acting locally?? Your words and action say otherwise, as more and more timber in other countries get cut instead of being salvaged in our own country. The science IS on our side and the judges decided that in court. You had your chance and when the justice system doesn't work for you, you refuse to heed its decision. Hotfeet> The Truth... 09.08.2006 - 18:36 The truth is that the preservationist don't want any harvest period, they say the want thinning instead of clearcutting, until there is thinning. Then they get the three bears syndrome and the thinning is too big, this one is to small, this one just doesn't feel right. Or they say you can't build roads, so we don't build roads and we helicopter log, then they say you can't do that because after all the studies and all the survey and manage, and all the layout and re-laying out, and countless court appeals you are now in the red and won't make any money. So now we are to a burned waste land and they divert the issue by talking about tree voles and sensitive species that live in "old growth" (which is still missing a true definition), they just fail to mention that because of the lack of management and strings now tied to what little management there is, as a result of their previous actions, we have 500,000 acres of destroyed habitat, destroyed by thier own definition when applied to logging. I wonder how many sensitive species were inventoried in the Biscuit before it burned compared to the number within the burn now. How many take permits did mother nature get before the fire? So in the end it is easy to see that Hotfeet is right in the fact that anarchy is the desired outcome, not a healthy forest. Chane Sau> * 09.08.2006 - 19:37 why don't you go "thin" your tree plantations? blm notoriously funds its restoration with the sale of the large diameter trees. why is it that you want into the roadless area so badly? why don't you provide some solid science that logging is helpful in regenerating forest health after a forest fire? if your intentions are so noble then why do you insult instead of sharing your knowledge?why do you support the sale to silver creek when they have broken the law?they have already proven their irresponsability. *> Search and ye shall find 09.08.2006 - 20:19 I provide evidence in the form of pictures and personal experiences. If you go back a few years and review my postings with an open mind, you'll see that I'm not the monster that many "preservationists" would like to paint me to be. The ugly prejudice, lack of tolerance for my beliefs and outright hatred from some is appalling and pretty damn scary. I enjoy sweeping vistas, abundant wildlife, functioning ecosystems and clean water, like most good people. I also want to continue to do good things in my job. After having been on both sides of the fance, at times, I've come to settle in the middle, doing what's right for that particular piece of ground. The "preservationists" truly fear a policy that favor site-specific sound science, because they can't argue well against trained professionals. It's true that there still are "dinosaurs" within the ranks of the BLM and Forest Service. Keep watching out for poor management and corruption but, keep an open mind and, dammit, read the science, instead of the rhetoric and politics!! Hotfeet> Does it work both ways? 10.08.2006 - 08:09 You say that Silver Creek broke the law, yet you people can break the law and block public access? You talk about roadless areas, yet regardless of where the logging takes place there are protests, suits, eco-terrorism, etc. Can you tell me where it is acceptable to log? If you read above this was already addressed. I'd say that at least 30% and probably greater than 50% of the protesters couldn't carry on a debate on the real issues, they can only repeat the rhetoric they have been told, much of which is unverified or out right lies. As for the science that you ask for, it has been presented in the courts and in countless other discussions, maybe that is why the courts are siding with professional management. Get out and actually tour the forests that you say you want, see what you have gotten as a result of your actions and what happens when left alone, compare that to todays managed forests both public and private, maybe your eyes won't lie to you as easily as your friends. Chane Sau> words 11.08.2006 - 06:28 Feet, I have lots of photos and personal experiences too. And I’m not the monster I am painted as by Industry, the government and IMC posters– also, I could show you many places to log and some spots with larger diameter classes yet no matter how much I talk about that you will still call me a preservationist. I agree with your statement about prejudice and lack of tolerance but I also understand that with 2 different value systems colliding, one may be threatened while one prevails. And as for sound science and well trained pros, you must concede that many pros and much (certainly not all) credible science argue against agency style – not quite as black and white as you paint. So your rhetoric remark is a good point but make sure you adhere to it as well. public enemy #1> more words 11.08.2006 - 06:30 Sau, Many good places to log….do you think it is necessary to log IRA’s even if burned? I believe the more pressing need lies in green forests that the agencies resist returning fire too. You may even be conservative on your 30 to 50 figure – it may be more. But do you inform every opinion on every fact that exists on an issue? Most of the activists are going by their gut just like you. You don’t have a mandate from God and I can put up individuals with as much experience and knowledge as you who would disagree with your plan. You also don’t have a mandate from the court…I see many sales defeated due to legal inadequacies…Disagreement does not equal lies. But lying does happen occasionally on both sides. Lead by example -when toned down, both you and feet will be heard and engaged by some. PE #1> One tree in the BA used for good. 11.08.2006 - 11:55 the news flash above states that "The green tree that was used for the pathetic "blockade" was cut in a botanical area." I say great!!! One of all those trees that should have never been cut, was used to make a statement about other trees that should not be cut. Not to mention how small the diameter of that tree looks. We grow trees that big in the coast range in 40 years. Why don't we focus our harvest in areas where the soil can support it? As far as the action being ineffective. Gees man. What do you expect. We are a few people living in the midst of a consumer society gone mad that refuses to attack the question of consumption. You have to humble yourself, and just be thankful that some one did an action called civil disobedience in order to basically go on the record as opposing this to the end. That cannot be taken away from them, no matter what they stand for, or how you judge them. So what were the other trees cut from the botanical area used for. 2*4's. Hell, you can get all those that you need from the dump. But instead we harvest from areas that are botanically rare, relatively small, and certainly worth passing on, to help build some new second homes for rich bastards that move to our area and don't really care about our past or future? I agree that on some days we do want something that sounds similar with plenty of common ground to find. But if you can't reach out and oppose logging in Oregon's largest remaining roadless area, where you have this biological wealthy, Big Wilderness, almost every native wildlife species, communities that have built part of their financial existence around tourism and recreation, then you are not trying that hard to reach out to us. This is ground zero for what we want protected. The arguement and public process was all ready decided upon in favor of conservation of these areas. If you want to find common ground, you have to try a little bit too. In fact some groups took the stance of allowing logging in matrix lands because roadless would be left alone. Others did not support this, because they didn't believe that roadless would be left alone. Look at where we are now. Next time, if you want roadless protected, does it make sense to give a little to begin with. I guess not!! The logging community needs to get some restraint and tell their big bosses that hell no there not going to log in Oregon's biggest roadless lands. Dont' loggers like these areas left alone too? Your statement about some activists being selfish because they want a "forest that serves you for yout time on this earth" seems strange considering that all people are asking is for this ecosystem to be left alone. Ecosystems left alone do not serve individuals. They either serve no one, or from another perspective they serve all, by providing clean water, wildlife, etc, that we can all enjoy. Forests forced to provide employment for few at the expense of the qualities others enjoy about them, are being forced to serve a few. You are right about the timber being cut in other countries, and our consumption being part of this. we have to address our consumption. However, could we try not throwing away our environmental laws and the irreplaceable, wild, tiny fraction of our landscape in the process. You know, we can't get these areas back. Most of us came here from Europe. I don't want to live within completely managed ecosystems. This world has plenty of that. Let's log from areas we previously logged and protect this incredible portal into the Wild country we arrived in. David> maybe you forgot 12.08.2006 - 13:55 There are several points being ignored. 1) the ecosystem that you want left alone does not provide the clean water, wildlife, etc that you would like the world to think. It is burned over, and is as much of a waste land and any clear cut and much more than most federal sales. If it will provide the things you tout then so will a harvest unit. 2) the trees previously cut could quite possibly have been made into the 2x4's used to rebuild New Orleans. Ironic that it could have been soome of the ones the group from here might have used..... Which would the public think is a better use, a silly little blockage or a new home for Katrina victims? 3)The fact that there are uninformed folks from both sides and management does not attempt to inform is lost on facts. There are tours almost every day, in this State alone, that are open to the public and paid for by industry to educate and inform those who wish to learn. How much investment has Green Peace and others put up to give a non-bias, informative tours and show actual results not just hand out brochures and give biased talks. I would gladly pass on some information to those wishing to look at results. Of course you could take a hike into the Biscuit and see for yourself the results of preservation. 4)On one hand you say to save the forest, on the other you say to go else where and cut green trees instead of salvageing trees that are already dead. Refer to the earlier post of the process of what happens when the sales are put up. Chane Sau> It's all Good. 03.02.2007 - 20:58 This is fun. What a great string going on here. I'll admit it right up front, I'm a FS employee, so take that for what it's worth. Both sides have some good points here, and both sides say one thing and do another. I must say I'm a bit prejudiced though, seeing how the National Forests have been left, after the Rainbow Family, Earth First, and the likes have used them. After filling the third dump truck with Capri-Sun foil bags, ratty blue poly tarps, used toilet paper, plastic trail mix bags, shoes, clothes, and every other piece of garbage left behind after a meeting of Earth First, ELF, and whomever else, on the Willamette N.F. in 1998, I kind of got disgusted with them all. There is common ground on this issue, and just about any issue, if everyone can just avoid extremism. It’s not that people can't be passionate, and steadfast about their position, but compromise and cooperation glean results. As a nation (and it's agencies) we're bumping through life, just as any individual does. Through trials and tribulations, mistakes and successes, trial and error, and we keep on truckin' and we learn. We learn that this (Life, Ecosystems, Fire, Water, Earth) is a dynamic situation. What was once thought to be "right" may be wrong after all (fire suppression comes to mind). And, what opinion and science is right now, may be bunk in 100 years (that’s the dynamic part, eh). It’d be great if all sides could step back, take a fresh look at things, find some common ground, and then put forth the same efforts they have fighting each other. One key point to remember though: someday this will be a lifeless rock, orbiting a Sun that’s about to implode, and we won’t even be a memory. Up the road. Cretin>