Selling the forest for the trees

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

In a gift to timber industry patrons, the Bush administration is thinning national forests and cutting down government scientists who stand in the way.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Rebecca Clarren



Dec. 22, 2004 | In eastern Oregon, amid the land where trees grow wider than queen-size beds, Forest Service biologist Kristine Shull has become afraid to speak the truth. She tried that once, and under the industry-friendly Bush administration, she nearly lost the job she has held for more than 15 years. Last fall, Shull's supervisor proposed selling to a timber company more than 3,000 acres covered in part with big, old trees that had been scorched by wildfire -- the kind of trees that birds and animals rely on for their habitat and are critical to keeping forests healthy. The timber sale, though, would have disregarded federal regulations that prohibit the agency from cutting trees bigger than 21 inches in diameter -- unless the trees are dead.

But these trees were not dead; they were green and broad, providing good habitat for the wildlife in the area Shull was charged to monitor. Even so, her manager wanted Shull to sign off on an analysis that said the trees were dying and were not providing habitat for animals. When Shull balked, she says, her superiors in the agency repeatedly asked her to change her assessment. One told her that if she didn't "get this done," she'd lose her job. When she snickered at the comment, she says he slapped his hand on the table and said, "I mean it." Shull didn't change her mind, but the pressure at work did not let up. She was told she wouldn't receive an expected raise, and for months she was ignored by her supervisors and some of her co-workers. Ultimately Shull developed high blood pressure, and her doctor recommended a month of medical leave.

While she was out of the office, her supervisor signed off on the sale -- the single largest amount of logging the forest had seen in a decade. "I was just so stressed; I'd never had my job threatened. I was afraid of retaliation. I don't deal very well with that kind of pressure and the threats were very scary," Shull told Salon. "This has become a hostile work environment; there's harassment and threats, and nothing is ever done."

Under the Bush administration, a disturbing number of biologists, botanists and ecologists who work for the Forest Service are reporting stories similar to Shull's -- more than a dozen spoke to Salon about their experiences. Fearing retaliation, almost none of the current Forest Service employees contacted for this story were willing to talk on the record. But they were desperate to tell their stories behind a veil of anonymity, and from their muffled voices a clear trend emerges. Scientists are routinely pressured to not do their jobs: to not stand up for the resource they were hired to protect so that timber, the old cultural icon of the agency, can continue to fall for the benefit of industry.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/12/22/forest/index.html

[dweller]

1. oh xmas tree

with the emphasis on the X.

:there is no 'smiley' for what i feel right now:
dp

[burrowowl]

2. Will anything survive

4 more years of Bu$h?

[Oversea Visitor]

3. Hmmm once the trees are gone.....

There be more BUSHES.....:nopity: Hmm where is Emperor Nero

[Sugarbleus]

4. After reading the entire article, I have to say I feel this

is all a lot of whining about non sense. I agree that if Bush and the BIG BIG BIG corps are making a killing in revenue and NOT the small loggers, then I say bah...Otherwise, I think the whole over hysterical anti-logging/endangered species thing is a cult.

WE HAVE TO HAVE INDUSTRY TO PUT PEOPLE TO WORK. It's just that that industry must work within norms and remain "Local", AND re plant/reseed AND use environmentally sensitive equipment. IMO

Humans and nature CAN exist and benefit equally ...together. SANE conservation is the key...not radicalism.

The whining tree huggers complain about forests being thinned because of the critters...BUT they do NOTHING about the "let it burn" policies that KILL THOUSANDS OF ANIMALS AND PLANT LIFE. It's hypocracy at it's worst.

Those so-called "scientists" just want to KEEP THIER CUSHY JOBS instead of investigating a way to honest conservationism that is not antagonistic to social/community need and enjoyment of nature......... THINK PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!

BTW: Why is Salon advertising BIG Corps and Investments on their webpage???? hmmmmmm?

[sandnsea]

5. Yes, do THINK

There is so much wrong with your post, I would blow a gasket if I tried to respond to it all. Let me say two things. One, at most, only 15% of Oregon's forests are old-growth. Once those big old trees are gone, they're gone for good. Two, the way forests have been managed for decades is what is causing those out of control fires. Proper fire management creates healthy forests that DO NOT BURN in the long run. A healthy forest is a healthy forest, whether you want to fish in it, hunt in it, log in it or just be at peace with nature.

The Forest Stewardship Council which certifies wood from sustainable forests, which is a start.

http://www.fscus.org/

Argh, where do you live?

[depakid]

10. It's obvious that the poster doesn't understand

resource economics and probably couldn't even if you tried to explain the concepts. That much is clear from the language of the post- it echoes the same hue and cry of the Reagan era "jobs" "people," etc., etc., which were just thinly veiled and as it turned out uttely false justifications for cuting beyond sustained yield (which eventually cost many, many people their livelihood- including whole towns) and externalized costs to other industries (fishing, for instance) and costs we the taxpayers money for road to support below market value timeber sales and for abatement and restoration that are later required.

Privatize the profits- socialize the costs- silence anyone who will speak the truth- typically Republican.

Call anyone who understands how all of the systems interconnect "cultists" because the issues aren't easily explainable in 30 second spots or without some education and critical thought. How typically American.

[Sugarbleus]

12. I completely disagree with your conclusions...

I live in Calif. My family and I spent YEARS AND YEARS camping and enjoying the forest. My sister lives in the high sierras NOW.

I am a granny, I've lived a long time. ALL of this hysteria is completely over done. I believe in conservation but NOT all anti-interaction with our land. That is just ludicrous. Sorry any one is pissed BUT SO AM I.

I'm SICK TO DEATH of the radical enviromemtalists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are two disabled adults. Do you realizine how fucking difficult it is to even get into the parks these days????????? IN my state, there are so many god damned stupid laws that prevent us from purchasing the simplest of things BECAUSE OF RADICAL EPA SHIT. My husband has the use OF ONE ARM. Guess what? NOW we have to buy little things like GAS CANS, for example that only a person with strength and the use of TWO hands can get into. SHIT LIKE THAT IS ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGESOUS. It's insipid.

IN terms of the forest, I have spent huge portions of my life enjoying them. I love the forest. I love the wild life. We loved fishing and camping. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND that the forests were mismanaged EONS ago. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE LEAVE THEM ALONE NOW SO THEY CAN ALL BURN THE FUCK TO THE GROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We HAVE to continue to manage them NOW.

I'm not talking about cutting Sequoias or Redwoods OR CLEAR CUTTING.

I used to drive over to Neveda along the old road, now I80, as a youth...it was lush with trees, we could pull off the roads and have an impromptu picnic in the forest, along the rivers et al. Now, it's NAKED. CONSTANT FIRES ALL OVER THE PLACE..dead wood lying on the ground, dead and diseased trees left to become the NEXT years KINDLING. It's STUPID! I haven't seen any replanting yet either..

I finally got to go visit YellowStone Park a few years ago. Unfortunately it was right after the idiot Eco nuts LET IT BURN. My experience there was utter sadness...trees and landscape compeletly wiped out. I will NEVER live long enough to see a lush forest there again.

What the hell is the difference between taking non specific burned, dead, dying or diseased tress.........and letting the forest fires take them? Animal habitate is destroyed either way, along with the tree.

I've NEVER seen as many or as HORRENDOUS conflagrations in the forest as I've seen in the last 15 years. One after the other after the other. Life and plants destroyed, save the forest? Are you kidding me!?........then come the slides and floods, if not reseeded. Those wash away nutrients and "habitat" as well.

Then you have the asshole econuts who won't approve of OTHER people visiting, or building in a certain area BUT THEY HAVE THEIR CABINS/dwellings in those areas...No one else can go into those areas but they can trip the light fantastic--and call it "work"...fuck that.

I know the Sierra Club and others wish to close down Yosemite to so much traffic. ON that issue I rather agree; it's become too crowded, smoggy, and less pleasurable. However, they should never disallow people completely (which seems to be the mantra of the MOST radical of Enviros)The back side of Yosemite is barren from massive fires also. Very ugly.

In my own community we have a sizable wilderness area/park. For years it was open to hikers and trail bikes. Guess what? NO MORE TRAIL BIKES...even if they stay on the paths THAT WERE BUILT FOR THEM. WTF!

Don't forget the idiots that put MTBEs into our gas here. LOL.. Some science that was! Didn't bother to find out that MTBE's is TOXIC as hell!

Oh, Oh, "Clubbing Salmon"???????? WTF geez, I could go on. I know that the leader of the original Green Peace movement QUIT because of the FRAUD. I can produce bits of the early environmentalist "Manefesto"......it's VERY DISTURBING.

I'm for protecting larger endangered species: wolves, whales, African specimens, arctic wildlife et al... but I'm NOT on board with saving a bug or a small weedy flower that grows like..well, a weed, in order to PREVENT any building. Growth should be controlled but not STOPPED. I'm for curbing pollution; clean air and clean water and helping with natures global warming in a sane and sensible way--which includes saving the forests by MANAGING THEM, keeping them growing and clean..the rest of the eco movement is LARGELY nonsense.

I'm sorry if you don't like my position; guess what? most people feel like I do..those that can reason, that is. The green movement has turned from a genuine conservation movement into a political movement with hatred for industry (which employs people)and hatred for human beings. "Humans are killing the planet" :crazy:

[sandnsea]

15. Well, you're just wrong

Here's two articles about Yellowstone. The fire was good. The first one is about why the fires burned so badly, the second about the recovery. Man can never replicate nature exactly. More importantly, most logging companies, that would do the "thinning" you seem to be supporting, have absolutely no desire to replicate nature. They're in the tree farming business. And of course you don't want to cut down the Sequoias and Redwoods. Nobody ever does, but we are. And of course you don't want clear cuts. Nobody does, except the logging companies. You wonder why the Sierras don't look like they did 40 years ago. LOGGING. The forest service is not your friend. Stop listening to them. I'm 47 and the main reason I care about this is because I grew up in those Sierra Nevada forests too.

http://www.artware.de/westernimprints/data/landscape/facts/firefacts.html

http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.URLRemapper/1994/oct17/dir/wr3.html

[Sugarbleus]

17. I just spent an hour or two digging up some data for you..

It's 4:49 am. I'll be sure to post it here tomorrow..

I also know and understand there are MANY legitimate and fully sincere environmental societies that do exist. Those I support.

But YOU are wrong. I'm older than you and I saw the fires in those Forested areas. Many many years ago, when we still managed the forests, the fires weren't soooooooooo catastrophic. After we stopped managing them at all...the forest floor built up with dead, dying, wasted debris. That is kindling of the first order. Lightening strikes and the whole damn thing flares up to the tops of the trees burning the whole life out of even the oldest stands AND killing the wildlife.........then, we let THAT lie there to build up some more. It's a vicsious cycle.

In places that are far removed from man...extreme wilderness, we need not do anything. But areas that are near homes, parks, habitats etc..need to BE MANAGED. Period. Managed, NOT raped, mind you

The BIGGEST problem I have with the radicalized arm of the E movement is the FRAUD. Tax payer supported policies in every type of group that are illegal..except, I beleive Sierra Club and Greenpeace. The EPA is in hot water for misappropriating funds to other groups who become "Political" arms of a "conservation movement"..involved in EXPENSIVE lobbying... I HATE ALL LOBBYISTS, btw.

The fraudulent arms of the E movement are NOT interested in human beings, private property, or any growth whatsoever, it's anti social. There are a FEW things I CAN get on board with, however. Training forest service personnel in SA, curbing the poaching in Africa..teaching third worlds to plant properly (though certain Earth First spokespeople have stated it would be better NOT to help along third world countries to prosper or invite industry as it only serves to further pollute the world...geezus)

We just disagree on the subject of Logging. I just read something about Oregon. Oregon is poor. Not much industry/employment. While reading about the travails of Oregonians and the forest issues, I discovered: "The Scorced Earth Policy" that so many simply HATE. The article spoke of the major fires in Washington and areas of Oregon that E's just smile about but the residents are pissed about. I read that the governments in those areas are fighting to have the forests THINNED, logged, cleaned up so that these CATASTROPHIC fires don't destroy so much land, so close to populations and private property, and wildlife habitats. I also learned of "land and water grabs" (by ups) by these E agencies which put a strain on human beings livlihoods, living in the certain area. I learned that the fraudulent E radicals want to keep human beings completely away from places they "deem" wilderness.........

Someone posted in here about the antagonism between "Nature" and human's inhabiting this planet. Called it Homocentric. That is just sick. That is why I can't cast my lot with these folks--that sentiment IS RELIGIOUS in tone, akin to pantheism which makes them no less OBNOXIOUS than the religious fundies worldwide.

Wanting to end industry, human involvement with our resources and wishing we'd filthy, stupid, industrious humans would go away, is akin to jumping for joy over the war in Iraq IMO. "It's good to kill off more people no matter who they are, with that ideology..." eh?

I meant to add that in reading an article about the Oregon struggles between the people and the E's I found out that there was an effort to "come together" to find common ground, to find a solution that worked for everyone. The E's didn't want any of it. Too bad.

The EPA is involved in more than just toxins...they want ZERO growth also...... It's really becoming tedious.

Again, I am FOR sane, rational, conservation. I DO NOT believe the Environmentalist movement should be the top dog. Do you know how much salary these various Eco asses make????????? Clean up the movement, do some compromising or quit. Throw out the leeches and frauds and scare mongerers, paid off scientists and those with an agenda, and maybe they will earn the respect of the people again.

Respectfully........SB

[sandnsea]

23. Wow

"In places that are far removed from man...extreme wilderness, we need not do anything. But areas that are near homes, parks, habitats etc..need to BE MANAGED."

Gee, that's exactly what environmentalists support. And that's exactly NOT what the Bush Administration is doing. They let more logging go on to supposedly pay for "thinning", mostly away from communities. There isn't near enough money and attention focused on providing community fire barriers. Logging and forest mismanagement caused the problems, now their lobbyists are convincing people like you that the ones who have been fighting for decades to fix it are actually the enemy. It's sad you've been so duped by right wing extremists.

You also obviously haven't read a thing I've posted, haven't bothered to do any objective research. You'd know that for every Oregonian whining about logging, there's a fisherman who needs those forests managed properly because his livelihood depends on it. Not to mention they're beginning to become concerned about the affects of firefighting foam on the rivers and ocean and... SALMON. Our salmon are finally coming back... Bush wants to screw that up too. By the way, any river in California that doesn't currently have salmon in it, too bad. He's cut all funding to bring salmon back to those rivers.

Cutting through the garbage... you don't want clear cutting, you don't want special forests and old growth cut, you don't want wilderness cut, you want healthy forest practices, you want attention to communities. Most Americans want this. Environmentalists want this. There's always a few extreme leftists on any issue. The logging lobbyists take those few leftists and pretend everybody who opposes them are those same leftists. Because they see forests as nothing more than a cash crop. But any cash crop is prone to the whims of nature, disease, drought, pests. When farmers mismanage their land, they're blamed. The logging companies have mismanaged our forests, they need to be held accountable in the same way.

[Sugarbleus]

25. All right, we pretty much agree on this...this is constructive

dialog. I was upset so I may not have made myself clear. I'm against EXTREMEIST enviros, not against sensible ..(like you said) Management

I'm for maintaining a healthy forest so that what fires DO come are NOT catastrophic...maintaining can mean controlled burns, thinning of deadwood and diseased trees in CERTAIN areas. does that work for you?

Finally, I still say that logging is not the enemy. OLD World (1920's) Logging WAS THE ENEMY. It simply has to be watched and controlled.

I posted one link in another thread in here as I promised, though it's just a fraction of what's out there to support my position/my belief. Not that anyone has to agree with it...

The BIGGEST gripe I have is with the extremeists who think that humans are somehow NOT PART OF EVOLUTION. I believe the earth and humans are cut from the same cloth and are interdependent. We are the "gardeners" of earth. We SHOULD be good stewards of the land, but to say, as some do, that we CANNOT TOUCH it for any reason or use any of it's resources is simply illogical and ludicrous.

RADICAL ECOS are what drive me up a wall. This isn't my political passion at all. The only reason it angers me so much is because MY social passions are being interferred with by the more radical agents of the E's. In my community, the common well paying jobs are gone, near zero growth is allowed, no new housing is being built for low income people (who have lost their jobs) because the "land is being protected" through a greenbelt initiative... The HAVES are sitting pretty but the have nots are taking it in the shorts and the greens are not helping at all... though they do give lip service to the problems.

I respect your passion...I hope all of us can come to an understanding that is beneficial to all of us someday... Peace~~SB

[Sugarbleus]

27. Heres an interesting series of pics on clear cutting...

http://www.greenspirit.com/gallery.cfm?nextpic=8

Click through all of them if you will...

Peace~~~SB

[sandnsea]

29. It's misleading

Because clear cuts done by logging companies aren't allowed to return to their natural state. They're replanted, with way too many trees, and turn into matchstick forests that burn like corn fields in October. These are actually second growth forests and they need protection from being turned into matchstick forests too. In addition, the first picture states that it's got one dominant tree which is not natural. Clear cutting doesn't allow the right temperature so you don't get the mix of trees and vegetation that you tend to have in a natural forest. When you get all one tree, any infestation spreads rapidly because the insect has alot to feed on. Finally, these forests have taken from 60 to 100 years to regenerate. Tree plantation logging won't wait that long. That also doesn't do anything to replace thousand year old Redwoods or even trees that are hundreds of years old; I want my grandchildren to see those trees. I'd like for them to have that experience as a natural state of the earth, not tiny plots of tree museums.

Very simply, we can do better than this.

[They_LIHOP]

19. Oh, okay, Dr. Bill ...

Listen to Dr. Bill Wattenburg (KGO810AM), much, Granny?

If you don't, you should. You sound like YOU ARE Dr. Bill is the truth.

But, here's a newsflash, Dr. Bill, in case you missed it somehow:

It is the existence of people with 'radical' environmentalist views that gives us 'environmentally-conscious' our leverage to make progress in ANY of the more humble 'middle ground' issues.

What do I mean when I say this? Well, an good illustration of this phenomenon would be to look across the aisle at our freeper friends. Observe the ways in which the right-wing has succeeding in pushing the political dialogue and 'middle-ground' in this country FAR FAR over to the Right, such that positions which only 30 years ago we used to consider 'moderate' are now (fairly successfully) being painted as being 'far-left'.

Do you think that the Right would have EVER been able to push the accepted definition of 'moderate' so far to the Right if it were not for the existence of pretty massive numbers of right-wing extremists?

Hell no. NEVER have happened. They NEED their radicals to push the scope of 'arguable viewpoints' as far to the Right as possible. That way, when it's time to compromise with the Left on some issue that's of import to them, they can make it at a place on the spectrum that is still in the realm of the 'acceptable' for the bulk of their adherents.

Take their little fight against legal abortion for example. Although the majority of pro-lifers would say they don't subscribe to the notion of shooting abortion doctors as a way to 'save the babies', the existence of people who DO allows them to argue that 'the middle', a point at which they are willing to compromise when it's called for, is a position that is much further to 'the right' than than they would otherwise be able to claim were it not for the 'whackos' carving out their pseudo-viable position at the far far far right.

Likewise, progress on the environmental protection front (like, oh, protecting our rivers from toxic sludge, getting emissions devices on our cars, stopping the clear-cutting of Redwoods, stopping whaling, etc) over the years has taken place to a large extent because of the existence of large numbers of the eco-wackos that you so despise. We NEED these die-hard types in order to push the overall debate in the direction that we want it to go, to make it look like we're compromising when we're actually doing so at a spot on the spectrum that's acceptable to OUR rank-and-file when that time comes.

I shudder to contemplate what our environment would look like if the farthest to 'the left' ANYone was was where YOU are at. In that case, the middle ground at which we'd have to compromise with big business would be a place that's truly frightening. I'm sorry, but WE NEED THE ECO-WHACKOS, dearie.

That said, I agree that many extremist environmentalist's positions ARE annoying, esp. if their position on something is contrary to accepted science. But I don't think anyone is actually AGAINST 'sound forest management policies'. The problem is in defining what is 'sound'. Before humans started using and wrecking the environment, forests were able to 'manage' themselves for hundreds of millions of years, were they not? It is certainly REASONABLE to propose that the possibility exists that the best 'forest management' policy in certain areas would be to simply leave them the fuck alone for the next 1000 years or so.

At a minimum we'd disallow all unnatural or commercial human activities (hiking, camping, small-scale fishing, perhaps bike or horseback riding in some areas would constitute 'natural activities' in my book) in the few remaining natural, functioning ecosystems we have left in the world. In fact, for all we know, doing so MIGHT just be the only hope we have to keep the planet capable of supporting life as we know it for a few more generations.

Just because you personally are inconvenienced by the implementation of what is arguably the most sound forest management plan ever devised - that CRAZY RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST plan implemented by Mother Nature herself - doesn't mean that it's a bad plan. Nor that the people who are advocating allowing at least SOME of our forest lands to be virtually abandoned by humans, so that they could return to their natural state, are out to ruin YOUR life, Granny.

Oh, and by the way: HUMANS ARE KILLING THE PLANET.

Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you. Go bury your head if it serves your needs to believe otherwise, but, it is a TRUE FACT that we ARE.

[anitar1]

6. "Thinning the Forests"

As an Oregon resident, I am well aware of the salivating over all those trees that need "thinning". One can drive in certain areas of the state to see the devastation that has occured in past years, when whole areas were clear cut. All that is left are a few trees along the highways. Very ugly and sickening. I expect we will see plenty of clear cutting over the next few years. It is all about money.

[da_chimperor]

7. You should try hugging a tree some time, it can be quite satisfying

I feel that cutting down a tree that is hundreds of years old is a crime against nature. We've done enough of that in the last 100 years, I think we need to stop before all of them are gone. Why not leave the forest alone and farm trees instead? People and nature could coexist, timber companies would get their wood, people would have jobs, and the old growth forests will stay whole. As for fire, some species of trees are dependent on fire to reproduce effectively such as the giant sequoia. Take a look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoiadendron_giganteum

[Sugarbleus]

14. Your argument makes sense...

SOME fire IS right, I agree...ALL FIRE is NOT. Since we started managing forests so long ago and put it out of natural kilter in the first place, I think we should continue to manage them..in an environmentally safe, way. There are new techniques available for that. I'm not at all willing to wait another two hundred years for the forests to be brought back into balance...save what we have in a sensible way...DON'T LET THEM ALL BURN DOWN or die out from disease!

Plantation trees for wood sounds good though. Do we do that? And if not why not? What impact would separate unnatural tree farms do to the "natural habitat"?

[sandnsea]

16. Certified Forests

Certified Wood. Moving back to an environmental balance in the forests that are managed for wildlife, water, forest health, and society and the economy. They allow some tree farming, but truly healthy forests is the better way to go in the long run.

http://www.certifiedwood.org/

http://www.fscus.org/

http://www.collinswood.com/M4_MediaEvents/Resources/TheCollinsAlmanorForest.html

[blindpig]

8. you seem to equate

old growth with plantation trees. Absurd! It's the difference between a wheat field and short grass praire. There is a ridiculous difference in the biodiversity exhibited. I've birded and herp hunted pine plantations for years and they suck, few species tolerate the managed monocultures. As per fire, there is more to nature than cute birdies and fuzzy animals. A functioning ecosystem will provide habitat for those charismatic species and plenty others besides over the long run. Fire is a regulator of that system.

I have a real problem with percieving tha natural Earth as nothing but a resource for human exploitation. Such homocentricism is so biblical.

[Sugarbleus]

13. That is just sick..........I'm sorry-->homocentrism???

That is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. ANTI HUMANS. wtf is that all about? THAT'S JUST SICK AND TWISTED. :grr:

[They_LIHOP]

20. Sorry, homocentrism doesn't mean anti-human.

It means placing humans needs and issues above other concerns.

You may want to get your definitions straight if you want to have an intelligent conversation. Just a thought...

[Sugarbleus]

28. No?

Some interesting quotes from founders of RADICAL arm of Es....


We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion—guilt-free at last!

—Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue).


If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.

—Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth–Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p.22


What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.

—Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado) Nothing like truth to get a point across eh?

I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing....This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.

—Economist editorial

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.

—David Foreman, Earth First!

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. solve social problems??

—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS

—Earth First! Newsletter

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

—David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.

—Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

—Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund A little fatalism anyone?

Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.”

—Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995

Poverty For “Those People”

We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.

—Carl Amery

Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby.

—Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.

—Lamont Cole

................................questionable predictions
The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.

—Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971)

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.<--- Oops
—Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity…in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.

—Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

This trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

—Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon… The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it.

—Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.

—Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling”, 1976<---cooling???
........................
On the one hand these types are "concerned" about cooling/warming and mankind and commerce..yet their cohorts in other arms of the E movement WANT things to die off, all industry to quit...no progress no future. Talk about contradictions and forked tongues :shrug:

[blindpig]

22. yeah, that's what I said

For the sake of clarity let me define homocentricism as I understand it. Homocentricism gives human activity primacy over the other inhabitants of the Earth and their habitats. That biblical injunction to have dominion over the Earth pretty much sums it up. It says that it's OK to pave, plow and pollute every place on this planet because we can. I find this horrendous and short-sighted.

My point of view is best summed up here: www.deepecology.org/deepplatform.html
Enjoy.

Want to know what's sick? That the US government fights birth control, family planning and population stabilization efforts tooth and nail.

To say that I am anti human is to say, "you're either with us or against us."
Peace

[Sugarbleus]

24. Then this attitude must support WARS???

Kill off as many polluting useless humans as possible? Now that sounds like the Radicals on the right.

Listen, I SUPPORT sensible environmentalism/conservation. I'm OPPOSED TO EXTREMEISM.....that's what I"m saying. There is a LOT of junk science involved in this movement.

The movement started out pure, it's become entangled with radical politics that are anti everything... (generalizing here)

I still subscribe to "fundamental" tenets of environmentalism as a whole, but it has changed to become less concerned about the planet and more about RADICAL POLITICS that harms EVERYONE; some things are simply too anti-planet, anti-human, anti-social, antagognistic, paranoid, and FRAUDULENT

Just like now. I try to tell you I have my doubts and I get shit instead of dialog. IT'S TOO RADICAL AND NEEDS TO GO. This movement has become CRIMINAL to some extent. NOT ALL arms/agencies, mind you, but MOST.......worldwide!!!

For example; I've been going along with this movement for years, trying to understand...I learned some positive things and agree. BUT, have ANY of you EVER had doubts? Have ANY of you EVER looked into the alternative theories? hmmmmmmm? NO open minds?

You seem to be confussing my ideas with GLOBALISM and MASSIVE UNCONTROLLED corporatism; I firmly believe in regulating industry, but not killing it. I'm talking about the nit picking unscientific restrictions the movement puts on the general public, the land, it's use, sensible conservation.

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservation/columns/moore_patrick/1638074.html

How active management reduces wildfires
By actively managing forests we can help to maintain forests that are more open and resistant to natural catastrophe
By Patrick Moore
Author
"Green Spirit"
Dear Dr. Moore:

I've heard that forestry can help reduce the threat of wildfires. How does that work?

What you're talking about is referred to as active management. It means taking active steps in the forest to reduce natural catastrophes such as fire, disease or insect infestation. The alternative is to leave the forest alone and let nature take its course. It's a controversial subject. Some people believe that humans shouldn't interfere — that leaving the forest alone is always better. Throughout history, frequent low-intensity fires have played an important role in the health of forests and ecosystems, burning smaller trees and undergrowth and leaving large trees mostly intact.
...............snip

By suppressing these fires, we have created an unnatural build-up of what can best be described as fuel for much more devastating, catastrophic wildfires. North American forests are as abundant now as they were 100 years ago. But many, particularly in the U.S., are now overly dense and highly prone to fire. Some are also diseased and pose a very real danger to the healthy forests that surround them.

Catastrophic fires often burn at much higher temperatures than normal fires and cause incredible devastation. As we saw during last year's fire season, homes and even entire communities are lost or threatened. These fires also kill countless animals; pollute rivers, streams and lakes, resulting in the loss of entire fish populations; and leave the earth effectively sterilized for many years.

By actively managing these forests — removing dead wood and thinning the undergrowth, removing some trees, or intentionally burning areas that are distant from homes — we can help to maintain forests that are more open and resistant to natural catastrophe. We have a responsibility to use our knowledge and experience to help keep North American forests healthy. .................

[blindpig]

30. did I say that?

No. I did mention birth control and family planning or rather the lack thereof but you cheerfully ignored that and accused me of advocating genocide.

"Fraudulent, radical, sensible, extreme", you're a caricature of a "wise use" screed. An apologist for the extractive industries. The nitpicking you decry is for the purpose of preventing the extinction of endangered species, which are endangered due to human activity. Have a problem there? Or does greed and convenience trump all? As your cause maintains that human ingenuity can solve all, why can it not resolve this conflict of interest?

If it is radical to want to share this planet with other species then I guess I am. I pity anyone who doesn't.

[Johnny_Ramone]

11. Humans and Nature

CAN exist, just as long as there are less humans. The bottom line is that the planet is overpopulated and we cannot continue to devour our natural resources at the current rate.

[They_LIHOP]

21. Totally.

And because you are totally right, it means a massive human die-off IS going to happen, probably relatively soon. bushco even knows its coming. I think they are doing their best to make sure that THEY (meaning the far-right extremists and the global elites) are the arbiters of who lives and who dies when the time comes. The Patriot Act, for example, is really about managing the massive unrest that is sure to occur in the USA (and around the world) as peak oil is reached, sometime in the next 10 years if it hasn't already (and we just don't know we've hit it yet).

[Viva_La_Revolution]

18. ditto what sandnsea said..... n/t

[MisterP]

26. what?

I don't like Theater of the Absurd

[mia]

9. Timbers away!

[mchill]

31. I work for the forest service.....

Using catastrophic fire as an excuse to cut sawlogs is about equivalent to crying "imminent threat" and and needing to go to war in Iraq.

Yes, there are fuel issues, but when forest plans couldn't support the annual harvests equivalent to the hay days of the 60's, this administration saw an opening with the big fires and said the forest needed more management for "communities at risk." This is code for cuttng more trees. Plain and simple.

The new planning rules should effectively wipe out any ideas of having an opposing voice to local managers who will now have to cut more trees to keep their jobs and the jobs of people who work for them.

[0007]

32. C'mon people let it all hang out, goddammit!

Everyone in the world is scare to death of ruthless junior and his death squad, where is it gonna stop?