"Grandma Joan" Spends 14th Day in Jail

shelley, 28.03.2005 09:02

Joan Norman is still incarcerated for her forest defense actions. Supporters are starting a fund-raiser:"Joanathon," raising money for each day she spends behind bars. Norman refuses bail; her next court date is April 25th.

Joan Norman, 72, of Cave Junction was arrested on March 14 during a demonstration blocking logging trucks from entering Fiddler Mountain, part of the Biscuit timber sale in the Siskiyou National Forest. This was Joan's second arrest that week. The courts revoked her conditional release due to her "repeat defender" status. There have been 48 arrests since logging began in Old-Growth reserves on March 7th; Joan Norman is the only activist to remain behind bars. Norman will not post bail as a matter of principle.

"I won't pay bail when I'm being jailed for protesting an unjust system - the destruction of our national forests," Norman said.

Joan remains active while incarcerated, boosting morale and raising consciousness among female inmates at the Josephine County Jail. She says, "I just talk to all the women about the light that shines within them, the light of goodness, their strength. Sometimes they are so grateful to hear that, they cry, and then I know I said the right thing." Norman has befriended many of the women at the jail, who call her "Grandma Joan."

When she's asked in a phone interview to talk about herself, Norman can get a little impatient, "This is not about me," she says indignantly, "This is about the forest! Ask me why I'm here."

Norman has put her body between the chainsaws and the trees to defend the once-protected Old-Growth forests in her own backyard. The Biscuit logging plan is the largest logging scheme in the history of the Forest Service. At risk are endgangered species habitat and Designated Roadless Areas.

Supporters are launching a "Joanathon" fund-raiser in her honor: "Joan is sacrificing her freedom, her access to fresh air and sunshine, each day that she is in jail. Her commitment to the defense of the forest is inspiring. I challenge us all to make a donation to the Biscuit Legal Fund in her honor. This money will contribute toward ongoing legal challenges against the Forest Service plan of destruction," said Shelley Elkovich of Ashland.

Contributions to the Biscuit Legal Fund can be sent to Rogue Federal Credit Union, 415 Lithia Way, Ashland, OR 97520.

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 >>

Joan's release 29.03.2005 - 06:00 JOAN WILL BE RELEASED tuesday or wednesday Please be available to come to the jail to welcome her out. Watch the IMC and your Biscuit email lists for updates. Don't stop honoring Joan's strength and courage..... your donations to the legal fund are needed! thanks trace> Hero 29.03.2005 - 07:00 If there were 100 Joan Normans this battle would be won in a week. She is my hero. Pat> Money, Money, Money! 29.03.2005 - 10:03 Donate, Donate, Donate! "Environmentalism" has become big business. Solving problems doesn't generate funds. Inventing problems, real or not, and then sensationalizing them does. Describing the Biscuit salvage for what it really is, management on a tiny portion of the burn area, wouldn't help KS Wild to raise money ... so they describe it as "extreme", "massive", "the biggest timber sale in history" etc. Money, Media and Politics ... that's what "environmentalism" is all about these days. SickNTired> Can't resist kicking the troll 29.03.2005 - 11:42 The donations being requested are for the simple expedient of getting conscientous citizens released from jail for utilizing their rights to free speech and taking a stand using the tried and true tactic of civil disobedience to stop an evil from progressing on public land. The money will also be used to fight their charges in court, especially the "Interfering with an Agricultural Operation" charge which has already been deemed unconstitutional in neighboring Curry County. Some big business - if you want to see the donations stop flowing, then write to the Josephine County District Attorney, and tell him to stop arresting and charging protesters with crimes, when they are trying to prevent the crime of illegal logging from occurring. The timber corporations have themselves set up pretty sweet with a resource-extraction judge with a super huge gavel who consistently delays making decisions on environmental court cases unfortunate enough to fall into his courtroom. Describing this sale for what it is, unnecessary and destructive incursion into one of the and most sensitive ecologies in this bioregion, for the purpose of setting precedents for future logging in old growth reserves, roadless areas, and even wilderness (thanks to a "mistake" made by Silver Creek Lumber, the same shell corporation which bought the Fiddler timber sale for Columbia Helicopters and Roseburg Forest Products), might make more people want to do WHATEVER THEY COULD to defend it, even if all they have time to do is write a check. We'd rather have them join us on the Green Bridge, in a 1,000 person strong blockade to the illegal logging, but not everyone can devote themselves in that same way. Josephine County is a wild area, and sparsely populated, and not enough people have made up their minds about how whether the 40+ Biscuit salvage sales are okay or not. Give it time, let them see the videos which are being digitized right now for mass broadcast on the internet, let the protest move to additional timber sales, and they will soon come to an opinion. Regardless of all that, I wanted to throw in Kudos for the amazing woman that Joan has striven to be for all of her very long life. Regardless of whether she is supposed to be released soon or not, I want to share the addres for writing her: Joan Norman c/o Josephine County Adult Jail 1901 NE F St. Grants Pass, OR 97526 In case you should want to give them a call and let them know what you think, the phone number for the Josephine County Jail is: (541) 474-5140 If you don't think the jail is getting the message yet, you can also try calling the sheriff's office at (541) 474-5123... Fiddler's Friend> SickNTired of the right 29.03.2005 - 12:27 You give your money to the republican party and they'll waste it accordingly. I'll continue to put mine in the hands of KSWild and The Biscuit Legal Fund where it is wisely and carefully applied to right the wrongs of your ignorance. Biscuit Legal Fund Rogue Federal Credit Union 415 Lithia Way Ashland, OR 97520 Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center PO Box 332 Williams, OR 97544  http://www.kswild.org !!Fight the Right!!> Joan 29.03.2005 - 20:03 I just wanted to say Joan is a real inspiration to alot of us, she gives us hope we can continue to resist and stand up for wild areas. Thanks Joan and all you Biscuit activists for making a stand. Hairy-1> Ka-Ching!!! 29.03.2005 - 21:10 > The donations being requested are for the simple expedient of > getting conscientous citizens released from jail for utilizing > their rights to free speech and taking a stand using the tried > and true tactic of civil disobedience to stop an evil from > progressing on public land. Yeah, yeah. Fight the evil-doers. Save the planet. Stop big business. It's for a real "progressive" cause. You can market it however your want. In the end, that money still goes into the pockets of the people who are paid to propogate the myths of the environmental industry. And if they do win in court, even a partial victory, the taxpayers have to pay their lawyer fees under 'equal access to justice'. So their pockets get double-fat. Thought they were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? WRONG! Money baby! And they'll tell you whatever lies and half truths they can come up with to guilt you into opening your pocket books and forking over the dough. PS: I'll never give money to any political party that doesn't respect state rights and personal freedoms. TiredNSick> wrong again 30.03.2005 - 06:51 whatever..... doughlessNhappy> Rolling In Cash 30.03.2005 - 08:57 Well, our cover is blown now comrads. Now that the right has figured out that all forest activists are really rolling in dough, and that the only reason we drive 20-year-old cars (those of us who own cars) and rent cheap-ass rooms with all of our activist friends is to trick the public into thinking we aren't fabulously wealthy. So for the next Biscuit blockade we might as well just show up driving our late-model SUV's and wearing our fur coats and whatnot. The gig is up. Anyone else notice that between the activists, the loggers and the cops on the bridge that the ONLY millionare is Mr. John West? The same fellow who ripped off a bunch of creditors by declaring bankrupsy not so long ago? But now he mysteriously has access to the capital to buy the majority of the Biscuit sales? Ahh well, we millionares have to stick together. Pass the grey poopone please. Johny Cash> hold the mayo, please 30.03.2005 - 10:04 I never said you were good at it. The truth is, most of you would be flipping burgers if it weren't for your 'enviro' jobs. Gotta keep those dollars rolling in to pay your wages. And being positive doesn't help you to generate revenue. But being ultra negative and convincing people that the sky is going to fall on their heads if they don't open up their pocket books and donate to the enviro-lawyers does. It's not about protecting the environment. It's about protecting your jobs. Because as modest as your income may be, it sure beats real work. Flipping burgers sucks. SickyTiredMan> bling bling 30.03.2005 - 10:15 Wow, Sick, you definately struck a nerve. Most CEO's/Executive Directors of the larger "non-profits" (Greenpeace, Sierra Club) make six-figure salaries, with some nice fat benefits on top. The executive director of ONRC makes about $70,000/year. As for the activists who pull the stunts out in the field, most of them are just happy to be out from under the bridge and to get a free meal. Sitting in a tree beats pan-handling at exit 7. How many paid lobbyists does the timber industry have in Oregon? Not many. Maybe 10, TOPS. The environmental industry has at least that many paid lobbyists in Ashland alone. Next time you open your pocket book for one of these organizations, remember this ... You aren't donating to an environmental organization. Your donating to a media relations and law firm. Your Savior> maybe kneadin dough, never flippin burgers 30.03.2005 - 10:31 It is about saving the environment and it is about avoiding capitalist society and those that choose it. What are you doing for a living when you aren't playing on the computer? doughlessNhappy> Powerful arguments 30.03.2005 - 15:35 Well I was going to say that the majority of the money collected is going to Josephine County, in the form of BAIL paid to release arrestees, but like the other guy said I guess the game is up. I am wondering how many paid lobbyiests the timber industry has in Oregon. There's the Portland-based American Forest Resource Council headed by Christ West (any relation to John West of Silver Creek Lumber?), I can't imagine them having many employees, not in the cramped quarters they share with the Portland field office of the FBI. Then there's the Southern Oregon Timber Industries Association, a cute little thing without a website. Also on the cutish side, there's Communities For Healthy Forests out of Douglas County, home to Roseburg Forest Products, one of the giant regional lumber corporations which profits off of public lands timber sales, buying in this case the logs hauled off of Fiddler Mountain. The group "came together after attending a tour by the Douglas Timber Operators and the Chamber of Commerce", and made a movie about how much we need to log in post-fire forests. The video was and presentation "were met with a loud round of applause." I guess there's a few other local groups too, such as: Associated Oregon Loggers, Columbia Gorge United, Columia River Plywood Co-Op Association, Oregon Forest Products Transportation Association, Oregon Forest Industries Council, Oregon Women for Timber, Southern Oregon Alliance for Resources, Southern Oregon Resources Alliance, Voters for Oregon Timber Resources, West Oregon Timber Supporters, Willamette Forestry Council, Western Forest Industries Association, Western Wood Products Association, just to name a few, not naming the associated mining, grazing, off-roading, and other allies that have paid lobbyists working in concert. Lastly, there's the massive North American Wholesale Lumber Association (which was instrumental in opening up the National Forests to logging in the first place), but I guess they aren't stationed in Oregon. Oh yeah, why would they be? Most of Oregon's remaining desireable timber is on Federal public lands. Right! That means they would quite sensibly send their lobbyists to... Washington DC! Where all the politicians are! Where they can afford to buy off even "progressive" Senator Wyden to the tune of $30-50,000 every couple of years. So I guess you're right, there are only a few paid timber industry lobbyists in Oregon. Why on Earth would they want to hang out here when the big decisions and big bucks are back East? I guess we should just stay huddled under our tattered tarps in the rain, and not use donated equipment to block roads which seek only to improve the quality of life in Oregon and Josephine County. Thanks for opening our eyes... Fiddler's Friend> $$Environmental Industry$$ 30.03.2005 - 17:31 AOL, DTO, AFRC, etc. ... they're just underdogs compared to 'big enviros'. 'Environmentalism' is a multi-billion dollar industry. Greenpeace: $21,425,231 in annual income Sierra Club: $72,432,099 in annual income Headwaters: $72,432,099 annually (1997) League of Environmental Voters: $1,971,392 annually (1998) National Environmental Trust: $12,268,865 annually (2001) Natural Resources Defense Council: $31,055,453 annually (1998) Rainforest Action Network: $2,622,408 annually (1998) World Wildlife Fund: $118,144,311 annually Just a few of hundreds of organizations nationwide. Of course, most of the money that they generate is spent on advertising to generate more money. What's left is spent mostly on lawyers. Modern day 'environmentalism': it's all about marketing and money, baby. Check it out for yourself:  http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/environment/index02.html  http://www.envirotruth.org  http://www.undueinfluence.com Sicky Sickness> correction 30.03.2005 - 18:17 $281,955 annually for Headwaters (2000) ... the rest are correct Sicky Sick> Pay scales 30.03.2005 - 20:39 Since environmentalists perform such vital, needed work it would seem they should be well paid for their efforts. Just my opinion. Signal Jammer> good for enviros, bad for the environment 31.03.2005 - 09:30 Is that why the Canadian Government refuses to recognize Greenpeace as a non-profit, stating the fact that they (Greenpeace) doesn't provide any public good? They're a marketing agency, and a legal firm. REAL environmentalists DO provide a service to society. They do research. They do environmental mitigation. They help the environment. The multi-billion dollar environmental industry does NOTHING to help the environment. They raise money. Then they spend their money to propogate myths in order to raise even more money. They're self-propogating greedy liers who are PART of the problem and have no interest in actually SOLVING environmental problems. Think about it ... for every environmental problem that gets solved, that's one fewer avenue that these guys have to raise money. Snickerdoodle> Too bad with all that money 31.03.2005 - 09:30 They don't bother to come out and help us on the front lines. Greenpeace had an action camp last summer, and they dropped by during some of the recent protests, but they aren't exactly bankrolling our salaries. Sierra Club for the most part hasn't decided to oppose logging in post-fire old growth reserves, as far as I know. KSWild has a small staff and dedicated activists who devote way more of their life to their work than they are paid for. I imagine things are similar over at the Siskiyou Project. The Oxygen Collective, Wild Siskiyou Action and Cascadia RiSiNG! are volunteer-run groups with small budgets, as are any Earth First! groups world-wide. I agree with your sentiments about large groups spending more money advertising to get more money. People donate to those groups when they just want to feel like they're doing something good, and get a tax break while they're at it. It's easy to respond to an ad in the newspaper, harder to find out about small groups that need to pay bail for 40+ arrestees. You might also give them money if you totally agree with what they're doing (ie, Sierra Club working to reduce immigration into the US - a fucked-up policy in my opinion). WWF is a joke (free stuffed polar bear with every donation!). And in the end there are still the well-funded timber associations, with well-connected lobbyists and lawyers who make a TON of money. Above them are all sorts of conservative "think tanks" with tons of money and policy analysts and lawyers too. To find out more about those, including their budgets, check out "The Elite Consensus" by Apex press. Basically, as I see it, lawyers are good at making money. They manipulate the flow of power in a significant way. However, many activist lawyers work the same long hours their corporate counterparts do, and squeak by with a barely middle-class income. The reason the environmental movement is so big, that there are so many organizations, that we're everywhere, is because people care about their environment. For differing reasons, based on spirituality, or sustainability, or personal health, or concern for future generations, lots of people in this country don't want to see all of nature sacrificed for the pleasure of a few robber barons. I don't think most of the people on the other side want to destroy and pollute nature either, but their livelihoods are more likely to depend on supporting those rich bastards at the top, and they are prone to being manipulated by the pseudo-Christian doublespeak employed by the corporate elite. That's what the struggle is over, in my eyes. I can't expect change to come too quickly, it takes time for people to adjust, but the natural world is starting to give us some clear warning signs. Forget about whether global warming is caused by humans or not, and consider this: world-wide grain stores are lower this year than they have been in recorded history. Underround water aquifers is reaching dangerous levels of depletion all over the world. Weather patterns are changing and becoming more destructive every year. Even the volcanoes and earthquakes seem to be getting in on the action. We don't have to start a nuclear war to wipe ourselves out anymore, all we have to do is finish clearcutting the Amazon. If any of these trends concern you, then start looking for small ways to change your own life, consumption of resources, and try to influence the larger system, perhaps by calling your representatives and asking them to ratify the Kyoto protocol, which most every sensible country has already done. Tell them to stop flattening the Appalachian mountains in the Southeast just so they can get to the last dregs of pollutive coal to burn for electricty. And stop making generalized criticisms at those who have already taken all the sensible steps and are finally forced to step up and directly stop an action that they perceive to be a sin - destroying the last of the intact native forests, just so they can extract for rotting pine sticks that the market doesn't even have a use for... Fiddler's Friend> Dear Mr. Sickypoo 31.03.2005 - 10:09 I’m finally moved from speechless exasperation to being unbearably fed-up with the seemingly tireless droning on by sickntired about how much money environmentalist and their organizations are making. (But I absolutely love the last response.) These figures don’t have much to do with this local movement. I wince with embarrassment for you at your generalizations that could only come from someone who has no real knowledge or direct experience of what has been happening locally, just bad assumptions. There is no one type of activist out there trying to creatively stop this arrogant, destructive, (and might I remind you) subsidized logging. The camp and actions described on this website are supported mainly by generous donations of time, energy, food, water, supplies, and technology. These donations come from people of all ages and backgrounds; local community members, local businesses, local non-profit organizations and collectives, and popular adventure gear companies, and more. People from all over the country have visited and contributed (and no, I’m not just talking about money), who are part of the majority who can’t be here yet still want our remaining public forests preserved. If coalitions of people like this hadn’t fought in the past up to the present, our situation/troubles would be worse (sooner). Among them, our mountains would hold nothing but old, bare clearcuts, tree farms (at best), and real fire hazards caused by logging- roads, slash, and forests dense with brush and small trees. I’m personally offended at your attempt to devalue and belittle inventive, caring, hard-working, self-sacrificing activists and people in general, who refuse to live life enslaved to wages, debt, fear, and ‘security.’ You try to reduce a true experience in my life into a mean-spirited lie in your ignorance. You falsely claim we get ‘wages’ and that the state is paying for our lawyers (not assuming, of course, that it was also you that made comments about a previous article, assuming we must be using meth). Your dishonesty is shameful! And you apparently have no sense of humor or sarcasm. Basta! I can’t help but ask who pays your wages? Is COINTELPRO still around? With compassion for your misinformed mind, misplaced heart, and absence of integrity, And p.s. I’ve found that individually as well as collectively, being positive does help generate ‘revenue’ of all kinds (revenue, by the way is French for ‘come back’). You should try it sometime. lifelivingthanksgivingfreedomlover> pseudo-Christian doublespeak, Christian Elite 31.03.2005 - 10:10 >And in the end there are still the well-funded timber associations, >with well-connected lobbyists and lawyers who make a TON of money." Wrong. Timber associations don't generate anywhere near the funds that the environmental industry generates. Not even close. Seriously, in spite of what you hear, timber industry are the underdogs. They've been beaten up so badly, most mills are holding on by a thread, and simply can't afford to give much money to lobbying and legal efforts. If you truly think that the monetary strenght of timber industry groups comes even close to that of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, WWF, etc., let's see some figures and some sources. No? That's what I thought. > lots of people in this country don't want to see all of nature > sacrificed for the pleasure of a few robber barons. Right. It's all big-business' fault. Couldn't be that the consumers have anything to do with it. That's the mentality that has gotten us in such big trouble. Instead of sustainably managing our own public forests, we shut them down. But consumers go right on consuming, so we just turn to foreign countries with loose environmental regulations for our sustenance. Watch out, Canada! > they are prone to being manipulated by the pseudo-Christian doublespeak > employed by the corporate elite. That's what the struggle is over, in my > eyes. Wow. Don't know where you came up with that. A little paranoid? That's what I like about this site ... it's always good for a laugh. > Weather patterns are changing and becoming more destructive every year. Absolutely false. If you look at the actual data (GASP!), you'd find that this assertion is completely unsupported. Somehow, though, this myth keeps getting propogated by 'environmental' organizations. > Even the volcanoes and earthquakes seem to be getting in on the action. First of all, wow. Hadn't heard that one before. No, it's not volcanoes, it's the media that's getting in on the action. Sensationalize, sensationalize, sensationalize. I'm pretty sure that volcanoes and earthquakes have been around for a little while. "The end is near! The end is near!" FightinForTruth> ad hominem attacks 31.03.2005 - 10:21 lifelivingthanksgivingfreedomlover, You're absolutely right. I am an evil person, and therefore the arguments that I have stated are without merit. You might as well discount everything that I have to say, as I am simply a self-serving timber toad. There is, however, one point that I must correct you on. The timber industry is not subsidized by the government. Subsidation would require that the gov't sell mills logs below fair market value. This is not the case. Mills compete with one another for federal timber sales, and bid on them at auction. Anyone can bid. The highest bidder gets the sale. Simple enough for you? Snuffleuffagus> Mill monopolies? 02.04.2005 - 10:23 Personally, I'd like to see a revolution in how timber from National Forest projects are harvested and purchased. In many areas, the big boys have squeezed out the small mills. In fact, many portions of California are served by only a handful of mills. SPI has a chokehold on most of California and there is only one other mill south of the Sonora/Yosemite area. I am very concerned that the American public isn't getting full price for the trees harvested on Federal lands. There are many problems with the economics of timbering and not many of them are easily solved. Seems to me that the root of the problem lies with the fact that mill owners could actually make more money investing into other businesses or conventional investments. When the mill owners see that their profits don't match up with what other entreprenuers are making, they want to make that same level of profit in a business that might just allow that. Such is modern science, life and modern economics. I've had some pretty radical ideas running around in my head for years about this problem. Not many would go for this extreme option I have thought up but, here goes. Why not have the Federal government take over all the harvesting and milling of products coming off Federal lands? We could hire good conscientious loggers and pay them a good hourly wage to remove the incentive to cut corners and do shoddy work. We should also build regional government mills that process those Federal logs and other forest products, as well as generating power from the by-products. This way, we could bypass the mill owners and sell "green-certified" wood directly to buyers who would certainly pay more for that highly saleable product. The profits would have to be mandated to go back into the National Forests where they were generated for projects that enhance natural conditions or mitigate past bad practices. Certainly, a plan like this would be criticized from many, many sides and I haven't thought out all the details but, wouldn't it be better than the current system? Of course, the powers that be wouldn't stand for such a "communistic" approach, not wanting to upset their campaign contributors. Of course the "preservationists" wouldn't stand for it either, claiming that corruption and collusion would rule the forests and that the precious "chi" of the forest would be mortally wounded. The lumber mills would certainly cry "FOUL" and initiate court battles all the way to the Supreme Court. And, lastly, this is merely one of my many "pipe dreams" that could never come to pass in a world like today's. Mtn_high> e-mail:: lhfotoware@hotmail.com misinformed 02.04.2005 - 11:20 Mtn. High, While your previous posts have been very well informed, your latest post contains some fairly flagrant misconceptions that I just have to correct. First, we don't have a lack of small mills because of competition from big mills. There's plenty of demand for wood products to support many more mills (large and small) than we currently have. The log supply just doesn't exist. Most of our lumber comes from Canadadian mills, and many local mills are even shipping down logs from Canadian forests. It's the large mills that have survived, because they tend to have thieir own industrial timberlands. Small mills that depend entirely on federal logs go under real quickly when lawsuits cut off their supply. Also, the lumber industry is essentially agricultural. There's little or no product differentiation between one mills 2x4 and another mills 2x4. Because of this, agricultural economics kick into play. Competition for customers in the marketplace is fierce by the firms (saw mills). Therefore, over the long term, producing lumber is a break-even affair. The 'timber barons' didn't make their fortunes by logging or milling lumber; they got rich by buying a trading real estate. As far as the Feds taking over the milling of federal wood, my first thought is that the industry is simply too diversified for this to ever work. Different mills use different species and qualities of logs, and produce different products in return. The incentive for mills to inovate and product technology that allows for more efficient utilization would be completely lost. Loggers currently do have an incentive to do quality work in that 1) public opinion is against them and they WANT to look good and 2) they get fined heavily if they don't do a good job. I don't see how giving the government the reigns would do anything but hurt the situation. You're previous posts have been well informed ... you might want to do some more investigation into the economics of the lumber industry, though. Frizzle Fry> Let's hear from other sides 02.04.2005 - 21:22 I'd like to hear what others have to say before I respond. Let's just say that I have intimate knowledge of what happens behind the scenes when it comes to interactions between loggers, mill representatives and the Forest Service, here in California. (But, try not to hold that against me, as I despise the "ugly Californian" as much as any native Oregonian *grin* and come from a town very similar to one like Selma, except smaller. ) Mtn_high> e-mail:: lhfotoware@hotmail.com economics 02.04.2005 - 22:15 LH? You in Happy Camp now? As far as the FS taking over logging/milling of logs ... that would essentially create a monopoly. It would be a federally run monopoly, but still a monopoly. Reducing the number producers in a market is never a good thing for consumers. As far as the FS not getting fair prices for it's logs ... I definately don't think that mills are somehow colluding to keep their bids on federal timber low. A log is a log, and money is money. If a few mills did try to do this, then some opportunist would just step in and outbid them. There is a high demand for federal wood. If anything, the price of federal timber sales are low because bidders have to be so cautious these days. If a bidder wins a sale at auction, it might be years before it actually gets through the courts and is awarded. If it happens to be a salvage sale, or if prices are fluctuating (which they always are), the bidder runs the risk of loosing a lot of money by not being able to access that wood right away. The enviro-lawyers know this, and that's why they're constantly trying to delay things as much as possible. memyselfandi> or 02.04.2005 - 22:16 maybe alta? memyselfandi> truth about money 03.04.2005 - 13:11 The timber industry in 2004 gave about $6 million in campaign contributions, soft money, etc. The environmental industry gave less than $2 million. www.opensecrets.org new to Rogue Valley> e-mail:: toklas_aliceb@yahoo.com $6 million isn't much 03.04.2005 - 14:29 $6 million isn't much compared to the billions that the environmental industry has at their disposal. Greenpeace, Sierra club, etc. tend to run their own political campaigns so it doesn't suprise me that they don't give much of their money up to other organizations to campaign for them. Blood Clot> Age does not equal wisdom 03.04.2005 - 21:49 Athough I am sure I would enjoy Joans company I cannot say that just because she is a grandma, she is someone we need to put on a pillar. You still need to look at what the facts are. Old people can be just as wrong as young people. Look at Viet Nam. Curious> Subsidized loging 05.04.2005 - 11:17 Logging in the Natl' Forests is subsidized. Look for instance at the Bitteroot Salvage sales of '02. Timber companies (many from out of state, due to the large scale of the sales) were payed to do "restoration" work on the burned areas. All good on paper, but in reality it was a fucking free-for-all in there with lots of high-grading (taking big timber, often green and leaving the small-diameter unmrketable stuff) and a lot of looking the other way on environmental laws on the part of USFS. End result? Big logs sold at a loss on the open market at tax-payer expense. The big timber companies get rich. The forest gets screwed. Big ups grandma Joan! ITs the Climate! Musical Marvin> 1+1=3 05.04.2005 - 12:28 Let me explain this real slow, so you can understand. The contractors bid on the contracts. The highest bidder wins. If the contract involves restoration work such as replacing culverts, thinning unmerchantable material, etc., then the bidders has to subtract the costs of doing so from the value of the logs that s/he gets to take to the mills. This isn't a subsidy for the contractor. If anything, it's a "subsidy" for the environment. Taxpayers are taking a cut in what they could potentially get for the burned wood, and in return the contractors are performing restoration work that costs them money. In other words, we're trading burned logs for restoration work. Seems like a bargain to me. 1st Grader> 1=1+1 07.04.2005 - 11:29 1st Grader, Your comment makes two assumptions. The first is that logging companies take only burnt trees. I've seen whole truckloads of green trees leaving so-called "salvage" sales. (this comment also seems to assume that the logging companies will follow environmental laws and regulations, which they often don't). Secondly, you assume that you're trading the burnt logs for quality "restoration" work. While there is some quality restoration being done out there, the majority of what I've seen, (actually hiking in the sales when the work is done) is a mess of slash piles, heavy fuel loads, trenches, etc. What you get is an area that is more prone to wildfire than it was to begin with, which is anti-thetical to the whole idea of restoration work. And on top of all that, you've just removed a lot of wildlife habitat and stands for deer and elk to hide in, this on a landscape thats trying to heal itself. When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME. :) Musical Marv> Assume nothing 07.04.2005 - 17:42 You have assumed that just because the log shows no sign of being burnt that it came from a non fire killed tree. Wrong,very, very, wrong. Some areas were not crown fires and only burnt the lower portion of tree...showing only char on this portion. Some areas were crown and only show char on the upper portions. Much of the area was nuked top to bottom and shows char top to bottom. Almost all of the wood is so decayed because of the delay in prepairing the projects that often as soon as it hits the ground the chared bark falls off. Don't assume that just because you think you know what you are seeing, that there might be a less sinister explanation than what paid activist is telling you. Curious> Assume that I can't resist 07.04.2005 - 17:52 Just can't resist asking....If the salvage is removeing biomass by means of logging. Wouldn't it make sence that there would be less fuel in the units after this removal. These fine fuels of which you speak are what will decay rapidly and form the soil that the next generation of trees will grow in. Do you actually believe that those harvested dead trees would have stayed standing and not become heavy fuels in the next decade? Curious> You can also assume 07.04.2005 - 18:42 that when I'm in a hurry I can't spell and leave out words!! Curious> screech! 07.04.2005 - 22:02 eeeek! A giant cockroach! past my bedtime> Assumtions 07.04.2005 - 23:15 Let's assume that logging is inherently bad. From this premise, we can then pick and choose little tidbits out of the larger body of scientific literature that support our assumption that logging is evil. Look at the big picture? No way. Consider to other view points? Hell no! Mangle the truth and use the media to dupe the public into believing that the FS is out to destroy "the remaining 5% of our 'ancient' forests"? Of course. Our cause is so rightious, we'll never let truth get in the way! Greener than Thou> Brain dead trees 08.04.2005 - 22:15 Just so ya knows, if the bottom 4 inches of the tree above the ground is dead, its all dead. The needles can stay green for many, many weeks before the tree'll finally give up. Seems like the greens will do anything to save a tree, cept take a science course.....lol If you greenies wanna win in court, ya better bring a lotta science and the truth instead of what I'm seeing spouted. Da Judge'll slap ya around with court costs if ya don't. and BTW, my posted messages on the Portland site were CENSORED! Truth loses again! Hotfeet> Rush Limbaugh 09.04.2005 - 12:11 Rush Limbaugh lost his hearing by popping too many pills now he blogs on rogueimc about giving the national forests to the timber industry. Some one should stop the loser. g love special sauce> yeah, 09.04.2005 - 13:52 well you're a doody-head 3yrold> tired of your lies and truth 09.04.2005 - 16:36 I can only guess that many of the arrogant comments made here are from men who, oh my, think they know all the answers! Your "science" allows you to do what you've always done: log public forests! Same game, slightly differrent rules. It used to be, "We know best! Put out those damn fires before they damage the timber, then LOG IT!" Now its "Uh oh, we created unnatural conditions by putting the fires out, we HAVE to log NOW!" But the bottom line is the same: commodify the earth to satiate greed rather than humbly take ONLY WHAT IS NECESSARY to survive and develop MODEST forest management. Don't tell me I am against forest management, cause you don't know me and I am not against it. What I am against is men with guns, chainsaws and chemicals thinking they always know best. Meanwhile, species ARE going extinct, global warming IS happening, and the ecosystem SERVICES that we humans so desperately NEED, are being degraded to such a degree that future generations will not be living anything like the way we do today. Its simple - our current economic system, while based on 'eco' - rooted in the word 'house' - ironically does not factor in actual effects of our activities to our ultimate home. It actually externalizes the costs to ecosystem services! What kind of accounting is that! Talk about passing a burden on to future genrations! I may tell my grandkids stories about whales and wild salmon like a fairy tale. Plucking out pieces here and there is going to add up and result in a massive shift. I won't have to say "I told you so." Remember, Einstein said the first part of intelligent tinkering is to keep all the parts. That includes Port-Orford cedar. redbrick> Save the Kalmiopsis Whales!!! 09.04.2005 - 17:35 You claim to be part of a 'progressive movement', and yet you insist on dwelling on the mistakes of the past. Yes, mistakes were made. Yes, mistakes are no doubt currently being made. And mistakes always will be made. That's no reason to stop the world from spinning. Good forest management means that we are constantly analyzing our past mistakes, and making adjustments. Just because past management practices don't fit your utopian view of the universe, doesn't mean that we should stop managing altogether. And remember, past management practices built the home (school, library, cafe, etc.) that you're sitting in now as you read this. You talk about taking "ONLY WHAT IS NECESSARY to survive ..." Might I remind you that the vast majority of the wood products that we consume in the US come from other countries? Sure, we only take what we need ... we just take it from countries that have less stringent environmental regulations. Anyways, wouldn't it make more sense to take 'what we need' from burned forests rather than green and growing forests? Modest forest management you say. Light-touch harvest on less than 4% of the burn area isn't modest? If that's not modest, I don't know what is. You say that 'ecosystem services' aren't internalized into the economics of public forest management. Guess what, the FS isn't a bussiness, and they aren't seeking to maximize their profits. If they were, there wouldn't be hardly a dead tree left on ANY of the Biscuit burn today. In reality, the Forest Service spent 3 years studying the issue. In the end, they decided to leave nearly 100% of the burned material for wildlife. I don't see how you can honestly say that market failures are leading to the destruction of public forests. You want to talk about 'passing the burden to future generations'? Cheebus, you've really dove of the deep end now. The way things are going, we'll be passing on nearly half-a-million acres of brush and dead fuel to future generations. Talk about a burden. On the other hand, consider the Tillamook burn. That whole area was logged and replanted by volunteers after it went up in flames. Management of that forests now provides millions for Oregon's schools. And the preservationists want to turn it into a 'wilderness area'? What a complete disconnect of logic. Global warming? Do you have any idea how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere each year by forest fires? The most recent research suggests that fires release more greenhouse gasses than human consumption of fossil fuels. So let's put that carbon, which is currently in the form of dead trees, to use in our homes rather than into the atmosphere. Not to mention that, if we plant trees, they will remove CO2 from the atmosphere as they grow ... Sometimes I wonder where you guys get some of this stuff. The lack of logic, and an inability to think critically scares me, really ... Moon Muffin> SO, you are the wise guy, eh? 10.04.2005 - 20:30 This bantering is all about a bunch of words really. Science is a whore (excuse me ladies- yes there are male whores too) that will tell you what you pay it to, dig? What this thread is really all about is Grandma Joan, and her attempt to stop what she perceived as an unjust act in the National Forest; her Natl' Forest. Lets all give it up for democracy. Lets all give it up for Granma Joan, who doesn't need science to make her point. She sat in a cell for her beliefs and feelings. I respect my elders like a good youth should. Lets learn from her courage and not bicker about the various truths spewed by science, (who invented the A-bomb, science or grandma Joan?) Music Al> No 10.04.2005 - 21:50 Lets do bicker about it because if she is wrong, which I believe she is, she cost alot of well meaning had working people alot of grief. We think she is wrong, and we feel we have the science to prove it. There is nothing noble about being wrong and not admitting it and hurting people along the way...no matter how old you are. Science is simply method of problem solving. Don't get me started on who the "Whores" are. Curious> The Bicker Picker-Upper 15.04.2005 - 16:03 Well, if you wantto bicker Curious, my understanding is that scientists in the employ of the USFS have found and stated that salvage logging increases the danger of a re-burn, which is the opposite of what tax payers are told by the propogandists leading logging "reform" today. That the government refuses to heed perfectly good science is no surprise given their cold shoulder on the Kyoto treaty, the whole concept of global warming, and lets look way back: the assasination of Galileo. I do appreciate the debate in this thread and your willingness to to take part in an independant media outlet. The fact of the matter is that the timber lobbyists have their scientists and the conservaionists have theirs. I agree that theres a whole lot of money-grabbing going on in the environmental sector, but to me its not as serious as the greed we see in the multi-national corporations like Boise, et al. Here people in 'third world' countries are being brutally exterminated for defending their right to live in a healthy environment. Perhaps you would like to see U.S. eco activists targeted in this country with the same vehemence we see U.S. corporations practicing around the world. Perhaps you would like to see them maimed, dragged in the streets, raped, sent to dark prisons, or over-crowded cities, 'disappeared', and so on. This is the agenda of the logging industry (and many others) around the world today. If this is American business values, than I want nothing to do with it. Thats greed too, you betta recognize... If Grandma Joan's protest caused some people some trouble, well thats part of being an American. Our constitution is an experiment, written in the hopes of securing a great nation. If you don't like to see people practicing their constitutional rights than go live somewhere else, G. Hemp for Victory!!! Ken Musial> Recognize This 15.04.2005 - 18:25 Ken, I'm going to have to pass on commenting on the first part of your post because, quite frankly, you don't make a whole lot of sense. You hop from topic to topic like the eyes of a Phish fan who's fryin' balls hop from shiny object to shiny object. I wonder if someone gave you a bad dose a few years back, or if you are just trying to mask the fact that you don't have a descent argument by making the reader dizzy as he tries to follow your logic. Real cute though, the way you subtly sneak in images of peoples bodies being dragged down the street when referring to Boise. That's like some crazy Jedi mind trick shit, bro. I would, however, like to comment on your interpretation of the constitution. The constitution does not guarantee people freedoms to the point that they are allowed to interfere with other people's liberties. In other words, you aren't guaranteed the right so sabotage restoration activities. If you were, ACLU lawyers would be swooping into the Illy Valley to pick up the cases of arrested protesters. I don't see that happening. Do you? Freaky Deaky Double Dizzle> Hey its Friday 15.04.2005 - 19:35 but I got a couple of seconds. These are not real important to the debate, but are an indication of some of the myths and name calling that are going on. 1...Boise is not a "multi-national corporation". Until they sold this last year they were the last publicly traded company (in the west anyway) that was a Federal Timber Purchaser. I may be mistaken (its happened before) but I do not believe they have any manufacturing facillities outside of the U.S. Which leads me to 2...these big industrial giants of which you speak are a myth. Even a large company like Roseburg is family (and locally) owned. 3... Nobody except maybe you is talking about silencing or physically abusing anyone. Freedom of thought and word is almost sacred in this country. Phyically interfering with somebody trying to earn a living is not. Curious> Constitutional rights 16.04.2005 - 14:57 Freaky, Thanks for your post. Yes, well the ball is always in the court of the allmighty dollar, isn't it? I mean, an activist doesn't have the right to interfere with timber harvest operations in the National Forests because logging corporations have the 'right' to profit off of them. What about the right of the citizenry to healthy stands of old-growth forest? How does the timber interest's rights to profit off of public lands trump the right of U.S, citizens to ecological stability? Could it be the timber lobbyists? The "legalized' bribing of government officals? Seems so to me. One of my heroes has always been Rosa Parks. She "infringed on the liberties" of Alabama's white people by sitting in the front of a public bus. All the science and rhetoric at the time would have told you that blacks deserved to sit in the back of the bus. But through visionary courage, or perhaps just exhaustion, she sat down where she wasn;t supposed to and went to jail. Now we look back and (hopefully) realize that the supposed 'right' of white bus riders to sit in segregted places was actually just institutionalized racism. I think there are some interesting parallels here worth thinking about in the environmental debate. Do people really have a constitutional right to degrade the environment for profit? Is that what we want for future generations? Thanks for the constructive criticism on my writing style. I do tend to be a little right brained and emotional, but I never got a bad hit at a Phish show. ________________________________________ "Science is just a problem-solving tool" A response to an earlier comment in which I called science a "whore" that says what ever you pay it too: That was an extreme way to put it, but on more technical level, the emerging field of Sub-atomic physics makes it clear that in science experiments at the micro-cosmic level, you can't seperate the observer from the observed. (see Capra's "Tao of Physics" for more on this) Simply put, what you are looking for affects what you find. I was merely trying to point out that science, a good problem-solving tool it may be, is not the rock we pretend it to be. Einstien said that the study of Physics is like looking at a watch and theorizing how it works, but you can never actually open up the watch and know. Its all theory, isn't it? It shouldn't take more than one Challenger disaster to convince you that science is fallible. So why do we proceed in a dangerous direction (i.e. deforestation) without knowing or understanding the risks we're taking? Lets follow the Precautionary Principle. Whatever anyone tells me, a tree farm is not a forest. And they're called National Forests, not National Tree Farms. Duh. ;) KM> Science is a Process, Not a Result 16.04.2005 - 23:19 Ah, 'The Toa of Physics' ... a very good book. It's sitting on my bookshelf at home. I wish I were there now, I'd bust it out and quote from it for you. Anyways ... have you ever stopped to think about your own actions? Applied the teachings of that book to your own way of thinking? It seems that you have already made up your mind that harvesting dead trees is bad, and you'll use your 'little whore' science (or philosophy, or religion, etc.) to rationalize your ideals. And you're taking Einstein way out of context, too. Forest management ain't no quantum physics. Ya don't need no electrospectrometer to measure erosion, fuels, or wildlife populations. Rosa Parks? If anything, maybe we should be comparing those who block roads to those who blocked Rosa from riding the bus. Yes, the analogy is weak. But so is yours. AllThe Freaky PeoplearetheBeautyoftheWorld> Science: The Best We've Got 16.04.2005 - 23:40 > It shouldn't take more than one Challenger disaster to convince you that > science is fallible. Yes, science is fallible. The Challenger disaster did illistrate that very well. Given that, you don't see NASA using idealism and hand drums to get rockets into space. They still rely on science. They used science to identify and fix the problem that caused the Challenger disaster. It seems that if you had it your way, we'd have shut down the space exploration project the first time that the night janitor stubbed his big toe on a rocket booster. "Gee, we sure didn't see that one coming! We'd better play it safe and call 'er quits. Wouldn't want to have any more stubbed toes!" The Forest Service has analyzed past mistakes, learned from them, and modified their actions accordingly. Had the Biscuit happened 20 years ago, all of that wood would have been run through mills a long time ago. We see a much different approach today. > Lets follow the Precautionary Principle. The precautionary principal works two ways, bub. Nearly 1/2 million acres reduced to nothing but ashes and mineral soil. Entire communities, once dependant on Federal timber, reduced to poverty. Don't you think it would be a 'precautionary approach' for us to restore some of that burned land, and help some needy communities in the process? Still, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that less than 4% of the burn area is to be harvested. What is to be harvested will be harvested with a very light hand. That seems pretty darned precautionary to me. Apollo 13> Real Subtle! 17.04.2005 - 13:26 Rosa Parks? Get real. So I guess anybody who supports science based managment is what? George Wallace? Your attempt to portray pro mgt. folks like me as right wing redneck crackers is an uninformed insult. "Right Brained"? try no brained. Your image is bigoted against a whole segment of society....and by the way a patch of snags destined to be a patch of brush does not a forest make. We may respectfully dissagree but on that but don't don't ever compare my possition on forestry to that of a segregationist bigot. Not if you want to be taken seriously. Curious> Conspiracy kook 20.04.2005 - 12:05 > Yeah, yeah. Fight the evil-doers. Save the planet. > Stop big business. It's for a real "progressive" > cause. > You can market it however your want. In the end, > that money still goes into the pockets of the people > who are paid to propogate the myths of the > environmental industry. Rush? Rush Limbaugh? Is that you, pal? The conspiracy kook notion expressed is profoundly amusing -- and ironic. These environmentalists are fighting for _his_ future as well as their own and that of their children. Unsalted right wing nuts should be on their frocking knees thanking environmentalists for making the effort to save things that supposedly belong to the people. How _unamerican_ it is to step aside and allow corporations to steal from the American people without a fight, without a complaint. How _treasonous_ it is to support and defend a fascist regime that has sold the American people and their property -- supposedly protected for all times for future generations of Americans -- to criminal corporations who exist for the sole purpose to rape, swindle, rook, and steal from the American people. Let me tell you, these unsalted right wing nuts don't deserve to live in America, don't deserve tohave clean air to breath, don't deserve to have water free from pollutants, don't deserve to have the right to hike, camp, and enjoy the wilderness. They're abjectly against everything that's great about America, everything that sets it apart from so many other nations. They don't give a damn is they wind up living in a sewer choked with smoke and raw human excrement so long as their Republican corporate rapist get to frock them and every _real_ American over. Damotclese> e-mail:: frice@skeptictank.org Homepage:: http://www.elmerfudd.us/ Wow 22.04.2005 - 16:51 Please see comment re: scaring small children. Also, you might want to check the meds. you always want to follow the lable instructrions. Curious> tree humpers 06.05.2005 - 13:28 The actions you partake can be put under the same group as terrorism. You all are peope that are terrorising people that dont believe how you do. Burn in hell joe> Homepage:: http://whitehouse.com