Biscuit Defenders Blockade Fiddler Again!

WSA & KEF!, 18.04.2005 04:01

Biscuit defenders blockade road to the Fiddler Timber Sale again.

BISCUIT LIVE REPORT: 3:40 am 4/18/2005

Biscuit forest defense activists erected a multi-layered blockade at Fiddler Timber Sale in the Siskiyou National Forest (again) to continue the fight against the logging of the Biscuit Fire Area. This is the most extensive blockade established yet in the battle for the Biscuit. Around 3:30am today (April 18), the first log truck of the day encountered six defenders with their arms locked into colorfully-painted 1,200 pound concrete-filled barrels. Directly behind the barrels, a traverse line was tied across the road, anchoring a line supporting a bipod 120 feet further back. This set-up effectively blocks the road into the timber sale in three seperate places.

So far no law enforcement officers have been on the scene. We will be updating regularly to this post as the events unfold.

e-mail:: siskiyou@cascadiarising.org
Homepage:: http://siskiyou.cascadiarising.org

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 >>

UPDATE - 4:45am 18.04.2005 - 05:00 First law enforcement on the scene around 4:15 (only Forest Service law enforcement at this time) FS Officer Williamson arrived first, was very gruff and unhappy. He aggressively shook the lines supporting the bipod, which could potentialy endanger the person in the pod. Spirits were more than high. Around 5 log haulers, 7 loggers (including John West, president of Silver Creek Timber) are stopped in their tracks. The person in the bipod invited John West out for cocktails (no word yet on whether or not he's accepted). Update -- 4:55am ... They're having the log haulers back up and move to the side of the road (possibly to make room for incoming vehicles?) WSA/KEF> UPDATE - 5:30AM 18.04.2005 - 05:40 Update for 5:30am ... almost a quarter-mile of log trucks, loggers' rigs, and law enforcement vehicles are stretched out in front of the blockade with no way through. A police line has been established and the supporters are separated from the blockaders, but everyone can still see each other. Officer Williamson has been inspecting / fooling around with the support lines to the pod and has been overheard saying that they could tie into the support and lower the pod. (That would be VERY dangerous)... And the sun is starting to rise... wsa/kef!> UPDATE - 6:30AM 18.04.2005 - 06:57 Update: Josephine county sheriffs dept arrived on the scene. They (for no apparent reason) decided to move to police line back a few lengths, separating the supporters and bockaders even further. a few minutes later: Sheriffs and FS law enforcement have begun to forcibly move the 1200 lb barrels with the people still attached! Each barrel has two people locked to it by one arm each. Their arms are inside the barrels to above the elbow. There isn't much wiggle room for their arms... If a barrel tipped or the person couldn't move with it, they could be seriously injured... The sun is up now.... WSA & KEF!> UPDATE - 7:30AM 18.04.2005 - 07:50 7:30AM Update: All three barrels (each with two people attached) were moved to the side of the road. The cops used a winch to attach to the support line of the bipod and began slowly lowering the bipod. When the apex of the pod (where the sitter sits) was a little over 5 feet from the ground, the legs of the pod began to wobble and threatened to buck. To protect his own safety, the pod person decided to jump out of the pod to avoid falling, and was not injured. After the pod person was arrested, the folks in the barrels voluntarily unlocked from their lockdown positions and were also arrested. There was a total of 7 arrests. Much love and many props to all you hardcore blockaders! You are loved! You rock! Thank you, thank you, from the wild siskiyous! WSA & KEF!> Thanks for putting the news on Rogue IMC 18.04.2005 - 08:18 It was great first seeing this newswire post very early this morning and then seeing the updates, the play by play... Thanks for using Rogue Indy for the reports, and the biggest thanks goes to the brave forest defenders who got up much earlier than me today! Your actions are seen and they make a huge difference. Wonderful Activism. Mother Earth knows what you do. regular indy readers> Another viewpoint 18.04.2005 - 09:17 Nice job...those poor schmucks driving truck work on a percentage basis. That is if they are not moving wood, they don't get paid. So you have just denied some poor working stiff the ability to pay for his kids' braces, or the ability to pay for his wife's cancer treatments or maybe just the ability to take an extra day off this summer to go camping. You want to portray your little temper tantrum as noble and going after corporate greed. Far from it, once again you have only hurt the little guy and most of us out here in the real world are far from impressed. On a positive not, it looks like the law enforcement folks are getting pretty efficient at dismantling your little toys. Mark up a win for the good guys. Grow up! Schmuck> Yet Another Viewpoint 18.04.2005 - 10:04 Shmuck, take it up with John West. He made the decision to hire no (as in zero) locals, and to buy, and log, the old-growth reserve. I'm sure he'll be donating some of his millions (yes millions) to the working man. Either that, or he'll buy yet another SUV and cookie-cutter mansion before declaring a second bankruptsy. You might also want to have a converstion with all of the Selma and Cave Junction business owners who oppose logging the old-growth reserves 'cause it'll hurt their long-term viability. If you want long-term, stable employment, you KNOW that logging an old-growth reserve ain't the way to get it. Peace out- Used to Drive Truck> I heard it on MTV 18.04.2005 - 10:27 "Money for nothin,chicks for free". If you think that millions were/are going to be made you have less than a working knowledge of the economics of this business. Why if there were millions and millions to be made didn't more people bid on these sales?..and dont give me the collusion crap that George has been spreading. Where is the motive? There is none for the companys hat didn't bid. CHECK YOUR MATH. You need to have a little bit more accuracy in your numbers. Millions and millions just doesn't cut it. The truth of the matter is that almost all of the "normal bidders" stayed away because they couldn't get the thing to pencil out. If Mr. West can figure out a way to make it work, more power to him, if not he can avail himself to B-copurt. Local doesn't mean Cave Jct...that fire was a heck of a lot bigger than your little corner of the universe. You may want to broaden your vision. Curious> Broaden to Montana 18.04.2005 - 11:03 Reducing the value of the Wild Siskiyou's to that of fiber is laughable. The businness owners that suggest there long-term viability is threatened are correct. Dr. Power of the Economics Department at UM has wrote numerous papers about the topic including those that brake it down by counties. Counties that are near Wilderness areas or have Wilderness within them are more prosperous all over the United States ( http://www.umt.edu/econ/papers.htm). The Wild Siskiyou's, including all roadless areas are defacto Wilderness, same as the Great Burn here in Montana. With all the fiber available to be got from existing plantations, logging in Wilderness is a crime. It is a crime against future generations. I would suggest it is the same as someone destroying your home becuase they want the electrical wiring, or some other specific product in your home. In so doing they fail to realize all the values of the place in their fixated commercial view. Loggers who continue to make money off old growth are not Foresters, they are robbers. If a wrecking ball crew is out of work, should we employ them destroying the historic buildings in our downtown districts that define our western history and culture? At some point, the wrecking ball crew will have to find a new job. An interesting thought: imagine the fossil fuels consumed logging, processing and distributing this remote forest. David> we are the web 18.04.2005 - 11:33 We are the web what you do to the web you do to yourselves~ peacestand> and the economist said.... 18.04.2005 - 11:42 ...what do you want the answer to be? A couple of "local" examples of why that's a crock. Josesphine county probably has one of the highest percentages of Wilderness (capitol W) in the U.S. and one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Douglas county...same. Curry...same. Multnomah...maybe zero Wilderness...some of the lowest unemployment in the state. Maybe its different in Montana but you really need to examine cause and affect. Curious> Douglas County Wilderness? 18.04.2005 - 12:06 Uh yeah, the only Wilderness in Douglas County is the giant-ass logs on the Herbert, Starfire and RFP decks my friend. Puh-lease. Are you talking about the HUGE Boulder Creek Wilderness, or the even Huger Rogue/Umpqua Divide? Both those postage stamps are surrounded by industrial plantations for miles in every direction... As for Josephine County, you're right about the high unemployment. But most economists would point to the lack of economic diversity rather than the presence of designated Wilderness as the reason. Biscuit is a great example. Where are the local jobs for the project? Certainly not the loggers or the truck drivers. If the Forest Service had decided to restore the area through road decom, plantation thinning, water bars, etc. THOSE jobs likely woulda been local. Hows tricks at Biddle Road this morning? A little slow in the cubicle? Crackhead> Rock on! 18.04.2005 - 12:06 Rock on you crazy forest defenders!!! WOoooot! Wish I could have seen it! Zelda> You rock (no pun intended) 18.04.2005 - 12:21 Goddess bless ya'll Owlyn> Crackhead 18.04.2005 - 13:34 I cannot say this in strong enough terms. Your discription of adjacent lands to Boulder Creek and R/U Divide being miles and miles of industrial plantation is either a sign of your ignorance or your arrogance in believing that we haven't been in the area to see for ourselves the reality that is. Get informed and for crying out loud at least try to be honest. Nice try on the BLM address but no.. Curious > and 18.04.2005 - 13:38 would one you that keep ranting about "local" define it. Is it that CJ and IV folks are the only ones that can work on the Forest? What about Grants Pass, Wolf Creek, Riddle, Kerby, Rogue River, Medford and the hundred other small timber dependant communities? Your "local" arguement doesn't make any sense, especially when you keep telling us that those jobs don't matter in the first place. Curious> thanks for keeping the dream alive!!!! 18.04.2005 - 15:25 we love you all and we are so proud of you! we shall not stop and for those who can not speak out that agree with the idea of going into public lands and cutting old growth, going into roadless areas and devistating exsisting life, and closing public lands so that even boy and girl scouts can not camp on their lands are CRIMINAL. we hear you and feel your support. for those that can speak up, get in touch, come out, and be heard. this is an expierience of a life time and well done for generations to come. lets stop the bastards. mori d.> Overcome with emotion 18.04.2005 - 15:48 Your outpouring of humanity is just so comforting. I just can't believe how humble and loving you are toward your fellow man. Pause take a couple breaths, get a little "prana" going and think about what you just wrote and see if you can feel your own negativity and hate. You could scare small children. I know you scare me. one of the bastards> Definition of "Local" 19.04.2005 - 06:22 I would like to respond to Curious' challange to define what a "local" is. It is really rather simple- "local" here in the Illinois Valley means a valley resident. This is not some form of elitism, simply a fact of geography. For those who do not live here and are looking at a map, it may look like we are close to some of the other cities you mention, but we are in fact seperated from them by mountains, lots of them. And that little thin line known as Hwy 199 that you see on your map is actually a narrow road that goes over two mountain passes between Grants Pass and Eight Dollar Mountain Road and has one of the highest fatality rates in Oregon. Because we are surrounded by mountian ranges, this narrow road is the only way in and out of the Illinois Valley and during the winter Hayes Hill pass is often icy and is sometimes closed due to snow. Sis' Gap has some tricky curves and is known around here as being a very dangerous section of road. One of my neighbors died on that section just this winter. We are indeed a community well defined by the environment of the region. I would also like to answer the point about the other communities you mention. Which all are I am sure fine enough communities: First, I would like to point out that Kerby is most certainly in the Illinois Valley and in fact is about a mile from the mouth of the Eight Dollar Mountain Road that the logging trucks are coming in and out of. So people of Kerby are certainly locals; though very few Kerby residents are actually employed in the timber industry in any way. And if you drive down the 199 and look at the store fronts in Kerby you will quickly see it is predominantly a tourist-based economy. Which is why so much of the the community is up in arms about logging in the Late Successional Reserves- tourists don't come to see stumps. What about Grants Pass? Grants Pass is on the other side of that mountain pass from us and if you take a poll of GP residents you would be hard-pressed to find anyone there who would consider the Illinois Valley "local." So the view that GP residents are not "local" is not reserved to those of us in the Illinois Valley, it is a mutual distinction due to the reality of geography. I rarely go to Grants Pass due to the time it takes to get there and the gas. Also one has only to look in the help wanted ads in the Grants Pass Courier and compare that to the help wanted ads in the Illinois Valley News to see that there are many more job opportunities in Grants Pass then in the Illinois Valley. You will also note that very few of those jobs have to do with the timber industry. As the largest city in our county, the economy there is prodominitly service related, along with some industry. There is also alot of tourist related businesses such as fishing guides, boat rentals etc. I don't know anyone who lives in Jo. County who would call GP a "timber dependant communty." Medford is over in Jackson County and it is the largest city on the south section of the Interstate-5 corridor. Besides being over the mountain passes and down the Interstate a-ways, quite a drive, it is a world away from the Illinois Valley. In the southwest part of Oregon it is the "big city." It is much larger than Grants Pass and a look in the help wanted ads in the Medford paper will show that it has many more job opportunities than even Grants Pass. And the jobs span a wide range of service related fields, industry, office jobs, medical fields, as well as mechanics, trucking companies, etc. Frankly in all the years I have lived in this region, you are the first one I have ever heard refer to Medford as a "timber dependant communty." Rogue River is over there on that other side of the mountain passes too, and is predominantly tourist related industry. Another town that in all the years I have been here I've never heard described as "timber dependant".... more like "tourist fishermen dependant." Wolf Creek is a tiny community. To get to Eight Dollar Mountain Road from Wolf Creek you would have to go over a mountain pass to get to Grants Pass, than cross over the other mountain passes between GP and IV. I don't know anyone in Wolf Creek who would consider IV local, nor would anyone in the Illinois Valley consider such a long drive over several mountain passes as "local." I don't know enough about Wolf Creek to comment on the economy though. It is just too darn far away. I have only been there a few times and then I only dealt with the businesses there that cater to out-of-towners. And when I go to Wolf Creek that is what I am, an out-of-towner, not a local. And Riddle? Riddle is so darn far away, I have never been there. Though I have heard of the place. Isn't that way up north on the Interstate 5? What county is it in? Certainly no one could call Riddle "local" to Eight Dollar Mountain Road area. ~ Local Gal Local> Riddle & Wolf Creek 19.04.2005 - 23:58 Riddle is not local as defined above (Douglas Co.), but it is timber dependent. Riddle is so timber dependent that mills there (RFP, DR Johnson, Swanson) must buy logs statewide to satisfy their over-scaled demand for raw material. Who's buying LSR logs from John West and CLR? Wolf Creek is not local, either, nor is it timber dependent. But the Wolf Creek watershed now hosts Glendale Resource Area timber sales (Medford BLM) in the last tufts of low-elevation mature forest anywhere in sight. Residents of Wolf Creek and the IV have something in common. been there> Geologically Speaking 20.04.2005 - 02:09 Riddle is in the same geologic provence as the Illinois Valley. So by that defenition, rather than the political defenitions you are using, Riddle is "local". Geology Dude> Elitism, etc. 20.04.2005 - 02:22 Only we, the Illinois Valley elite, know what is best for the forest! Some who live in our area may favor restoration. They have not chosen the path of rightiousness, and shall dwell in the shadows forever! Why cut down trees in our own backyards when we can just get wood products from developing countries with no environmental regulations? We are the elite, the facists, the eco-imperialists! Got a family to feed? Out of work because the forests are shut down and burning up? Here, I'll pay you $7 an hour to row my raft! Damn the peasant masses! Let them eat cake! Bumpkin> Narrow Thinking 20.04.2005 - 02:45 What ever happened the idea of thinking globally and acting locally? It seems that some of you are thinking locally and acting globally. You're only thinking about your own needs, and putting the burden on others. You think stumps are ugly, so you say "no resource production here, no way!" But you still need wood, so you just buy whatever wood is cheapest. And the wood that's cheapest just happens to be the wood that's cut with the least regard for the environment. That means wood from foreign countries. Oh, and as far as the Illy Valley having a 'tourist based economy' or a 'service based economy', those are not primary industries. Those are secondary industries, which depend on the presence of primary industry to survive. All wealth and prosperity is natural resource based, either directly or inderectly. Let me provide a simple example. The fishing guide wouldn't have a job if someone hadn't cut the wood or mined the aluminum that his boat is made out of. He wouldn't have any customers, either, if it weren't for the income provided by primary industries such as the timber industry. So the reason that the Illy Valley fishing guide is unemployed is because people in Riddle/Canyonville/Medford/Roseburg/Brookings are out of work, and can't afford to head up 199 and hire a guide. Does that put things into perspective for you? Moon Muffin> Economics of timber dependence 20.04.2005 - 11:17 If wood from other developing countries is cheaper than wood cut in the US, then how do you propose to compete with them? I think it's silly to pose the situation as an "ecological destruction either here or there" kind of argument - both kinds of destruction are being supported by the US government and multinational corporations. There's hardly such a thing as a "developing" country that is independent from US economic dictates. Furthermore, the largest segment for wood consumption in the world is the United States. With 1/20th of the world's population, we consome nearly half of the lumber produced all around the globe. We can bitch and moan about where the wood is coming from, but the fact is by reducing our consumption to reasonale levels, we could have a huge impact on forest destruction around the world and at home. But god forbid you should ask people to stop buying second homes, or installing new redwood decking. I think forest restoration and sustainable harvesting from private lands is the way to go. In the mid-term, I'm willing to allow continued harvesting from plantations on public lands, but only if substantial gains are made towards protecting and increasing natural forest habitat. Fiddler's Friend> the myth of inevitable consumption 20.04.2005 - 19:23 It's the myth of inevitable consumption. "We will always use wood for building, paper, and every other human activity for which alternative materials are available, affordable, and in many cases, better than wood." Successful builders in Oregon are recycling Douglas fir timbers from old houses and putting them in new ones. In that effort, not one tree gets cut. Americans waste almost as much paper as they consume. Conservation and recycling can virtually eliminate paper-based demand for forest products. Advocates of land rape often fall back on the myth of inevitable consumption when other arguments fail. This one is just as lame as the others. economy dude> it keeps getting thicker and deeper in here 21.04.2005 - 06:39 > both kinds of destruction are being supported by the US > government and multinational corporations. I challenge you to name just one multi-national timber company that purchases federal timber. > There's hardly such a thing as a "developing" country that > is independent from US economic dictates. My point exactly. > ... but the fact is by reducing our consumption to reasonale > levels, we could have a huge impact on forest destruction > around the world and at home. We don't need to be using less wood. We need to be using more wood, less of the more energy-consumptive and non-renewable materials (plastic, metal, concrete), and less stuff from developing nations with no environmental regulations. Less total consumption, more use of our local renewable resource. > In the mid-term, I'm willing to allow continued harvesting > from plantations on public lands, but only if substantial > gains are made towards protecting and increasing natural forest > habitat. Well, isn't that were we're at right now? Most of our public forests are in reserves. The rest are in stream and animal buffers. Harvest on public lands is basically nonexistent when you take it in the context of annual growth and total acreage. And as far as your inevitable consumption rant ... untill people actually DO something to change the way they live, we must find ways to provide people with the things they desire while creating the least environmental impact. You seem to hold the dilusion that if we cut off local production, the demand will go away. That's obviously not the case, as people just look to foreign markets or other materials to meet their demand. sound tribe sector 9> Not against logging 21.04.2005 - 12:33 I figured I was going to get some feedback for answering Curious' question. It is good to see some dialog happening here. Though I am a little dismayed at folks who don't know me or how I make my living jumping to the conclusion I am against logging. Without even bothering to ask. I have never said I was against logging. I have never said that here, or anywhere else for that matter. In all the years I have lived here, this is the only timber sale I have ever spoken out against, because it is just such a bad idea on so many counts. Sadly the arguements for the logging of Biscuit seem to be of the "all or nothing" ilk. Bumkin: I am not an elitist, just a praciticalist. Here in the Illinois Valley we are surrounded by Forest Service and BLM lands which are being logged and the Forest Service & BLM employees have never heard a peep out of me. Many of the FS & BLM folks know me from the community and we are on good terms, some I consider my friends. Not one person I know from BLM or FS would catagorize me as an environmentalist. But on the issue of whether we should log in places that have been set aside as Late Successional Reserves and Roadless area, I say heck no! Why can't we leave some places wild? Why do we have to turn all our public lands into douglas fir tree farms??? Yes, there were once more local folks who worked in the timber industry than there are today. The loss of timber jobs in this region during the 1980's was due to the mechanization of the timber industry. Machines took over the jobs of men. Some of the folks were able to continue in the timber industry after the down-sizing of the work force. Of the ones who lost their jobs, most have long ago found other jobs. Oh sure there are a few I know presonally who still sit home, drink beer and bemoan the loss of their job decades ago. But by and large most of us can't afford such sentiments. We have families to raise, house payments to make and we have been working for decades at what is available in our area. After being out of work a while my husband became a truck driver, he gets 29 cents a mile. We are the peasants you speak of. Been There: Thanks for your comments on Wolf Creek. Geology Dude: Hey dude re-read my post, I was not using "political" definitions, rather I am using definitions of humans who are bound to the constraints of geography. Perhaps a raven could fly over the Siskiyous and might consider Riddle local; but in human terms of a person driving a car, Riddle is by no stretch of the word "local." It is not that I have anything against people in Riddle or anywhere else. It's just it is so far away with many mountains, forests and cities between us that I would not consider it local any more than I would consider Portland "local". How many hours drive is Riddle from here anyway? (See more of this discusion on my reply to Narrow Thinking) Narrow Thinking: Actually, I am thinking globally and acting locally. That is why I am doing this. Mine is not an arguement for no cutting. It is an arguement of whether this particular timber sale is right or not. We have so much of our public lands around this valley that are being logged and like I said many times before, I have no problem with that. We have many places here already where our National Forest is being run like a tree-farm. And I don't complain to the FS about it. But globally we need some places set aside and the Late Successional Reserves and Roadless areas of the Biscuit area were deemed to be of special significance and so were set aside. To say that we have to cut it all to be globally responcible is a convoluted statement that does not stand up to scruteny. The only reason this "local" arguement keeps coming up is the pro-logging Biscuit people keep saying we are a poor community and it is for our own good that the Biscuit gets logged. Then when we point out the loggers are from outside our area and the logs are not going to our local mill, you cry that we are being "elitists"! You can't have it both ways! Heck, you are the ones who keep bringing this arguement up about our local economy and when your arguements can't stand up in the light of the facts you scream prejudice! Why do you get all huffy and emotional? Because you can't answer the question straight because the answer would show your argument for the lie that it is. If you don't want to hear IV recidents say that Riddle isn't local, don't use the local economy arguement for logging the Biscuit! Again, I have no problem with cutting outside the reserves. It happens all the time here. I am not for stopping local timber extraction. I am for looking at this case for what it is, a unique case, because of the designation of it as a LSR, in other words, it is off limits to logging. And I wanted to say that in my relpy to Curious' question, I did not in any way imply that timber is not still a source of some jobs in this region, just that I took exception to his labeling some of those communities as "timber economies." I was only addressing his statements. I did not say then, nor have I ever said, that was a factor in whether to cut or not cut the Biscuit. That is your arguement, not mine. If you think timber harvests on public lands is "basically non-existant", you should go into the local Forest Service office here and ask them for a map containing the timber sales now going on or proposed for the near future. You will see it is basically all the public lands in our region except for the Late Successional reserves and the roadless area, and along riparian areas to protect our water. (By the way, this is water the people here drink, farm with etc.) And we are not even considering the private lands that are being logged. By far the most logging around here is on private lands, done by small local companies. Now before someone jumps down my throat, I am not against private property owners logging. I am merely pointing out that logging on the public lands is but a small part of a very big picture. But we will see if you all even note that part of my statement. Heck, it would be so convenient to ignore that and get us all caught up in an arguement about private lands. More smoke-screens to avoid the real issues! A couple of you who post here regularly are so good at that. We have been at this level of timber extraction for decades and have survived because the economy of this region is much more diversified than simply a "timber economy." If you would like, we could start whole 'nother discussion, this one on the other economic factors of the region. If you want we can argue each point about each and every economic value of the resource extraction of the region. We could talk about all the miners in this region. We could talk about the mushroom buyers who flood our region each fall. We could discuss all the folks I know who make a living providing the floral industry and craft industry with forest products. The pole extraction, the production of firewood (which is still an important form of heat in this region and still a viable part of the economy). And all the people making a living wildcrafting in the National Forests (which is by the way how I make my living.) By word and deed I am not for non-extraction from the National Forests. We could talk about the local family farms and their stands selling their produce on the side of the 199 to the tourists and locals. The fields of corn, tomatoes, peppers, pumpkins and mellons that line the valley floor. The cattle, the chickens and pigs which are raised in our valley. (I buy almost soley locally what I don't raise myself.) Then there are the exports, the vinyards, the wineries (we are now rather famous for our large number of wineries) and the orchards. I am sure I am leaving out stuff, there is just too much to mension going on here besides logging. And yes, you are right, the tourist based economy is dependant on the natural resources and the fishing guides, boat rental companies, tackle shops and motels and bed & breakfests are dependant on the health of the rivers and the fish runs... and that was exactly my point! But why would we be even discussing all this detail of the economy? What point would it serve but to be another smokescreen to cover the fact that the logging now going on in the Biscuit is in an area had been set aside as a Late Successional Reserve? It is easy for people to put labels on someone else. It is easy because you have only a limited view, your opinion and what you think it is like to make a living here. To say that only out-of-towners have a right to label the folks and what we do for a living in the Illinois Valley is outragious. And it is easy to label everyone against the Biscuit logging as some rabid environmentalist or elitist. It is much easier then it is to truely justify your position with facts. So lets get back to the merit of the logging of Biscuit on the facts. ~ Just Another Local Yocal Local > Blue Moon 22.04.2005 - 16:41 Reality Check here "Local". Hwy 199 is a modern 2, 3, & sometimes 4 lane highway. The "Mountain Passes" of which you speak are 1457' and 1640'above sea level. That's a wopping 500 and 600 feet higher than Grants Pass and mind numbing 100 feet higher than Medford. If memory serves these Donner-esc passes you describe as being so high and creating an isolated community is actually lower than the City of Ashland. If your "locals" can't make it over Hayes Hill to Grants Pass on the Highway, how in the hell do you expect them to make it up into the woods on a Forest Service road? Surprize I've been traveling that road for nearly 5 decades and once they put the tunnel under Oregon Mnt. its a piece of cake. Once in a great while you may get enough snow to cause a delay but its very very seldom. I know people that both commute for work to the Rogue from the I. Valley and visa versa. Further, if you think that the Snickers Bar and stick of Pepperoni that the the rafter buys on the way through Wonder is going to be the economic engine that drives your "local" economy, you might want to take a remedial math class. I do appreciate your finally telling me what a "local" is, I still think it's a load of fertilizer. Curious> and 24.04.2005 - 15:56 I know this has been said over and over and over but nobody seems to get it. The LSR's are not "do not touch" reserves. By definition they are for Late Successional Habitat. Only those activities that are "neutral and/or benificial to sustaining and/or increasing that type of habitat is allowed. If you are speeding up the attaining of more of that type of habitat...that is allowed/encouraged. There are many ways you can do that thinning, planting, preventing non late seral species, preventing non native invasive species and yes salvage. They are not non managment areas. Never were. and yes, speeding up the process isn't natural...never said it was...but it is allowed in the LSR. Curious> Plus! 25.04.2005 - 16:23 The LSR cutting units have the largest and most valuable snags painted as "leave snags". Many of those are grouped together and sometimes are down in some of the wetter intermittant streamcourses. Excess snags are NOT desirable, especially in the LSR's that do still have significant components left. "Picking and plucking" the excess medium-sized trees out can make a serious difference in whether that piece of ground survives the next fire. Most of America seems to think it's OK to salvage dead trees, despite the slanted media and "semi-truthful" campaigns against "corporate greed". If you can't win (and it's looking more and more like it), you may have to focus on making the Forest Service live up to its "promises" of "restoration". Hotfeet> Homepage:: http://www.foreststewardsguild.org good reading, bad assumptions 26.04.2005 - 08:51 Curious has the right reading of the NW Forest Plan for its LSR allocation, but the wrong reading of plantation forestry. The idea that salvage followed by planting and the regular tools of silvicultural art can "speed attainment" of late-successional forest habitat assumes: 1) There is no biological value to early-successional habitats created by fire. 2) It is good to hasten succession. 3) Costly and unsafe fire suppression practices will continue to reign in the Siskiyou National Forest. As an ecologist, I disagree with the first two assumptions. Fire-created snag forests are the rarest of any forest type in the PNW due to historical fire suppression and salvage logging. They are characteristic of the landscape ecology of a mixed-severity fire regime. And they comprise only a moderate fraction of the total Biscuit fire, often in the most biologically appropriate places (eg, existing serotinous species, upper slope positions), and not the entire place as some suggest. Since you're so concerned about regenerating late-successional forest at the expense of fire ecology, will you join me in calling for an end to federal timber sales in existing late-successional forest? How about Kelsey-Whisky for starters? As a wildland fire worker, I object to the third assumption. The USFS and BLM regularly borrow money from their haz fuel and other funds for preventative work in rural interface zones to pay for wasteful and ineffective suppression operations on an emergency basis (the only thing suppression accomplished at Biscuit was to double the fire size and burn forests that now are being salvage logged - Fiddler, Briggs, Flat Top, Berry). More, it is unsafe for workers to be anywhere near fires burning in plantations created after past salvage logging. Nearly 70 percent of lands salvaged and planted after the 1987 Silver fire experienced high-severity burns during Biscuit (see report link below). Dr. Sessions had no answer to this when asked about it in Eugene. Also, Oregon Dept. of Forestry says 100 percent of tree plantations on all ownerships in the Timbered Rock fire incinerated to nothing. In light of Biscuit, the Siskiyou National Forest is now an ideal place to implement wildland fire use per standing federal policy. More than 80 percent of lands that burned in the 20 years prior to Biscuit did so with low-severity effects to vegetation during Biscuit (report below). This is a common sense, cost saving, worker friendly policy supported by the best science. Where's the Rogue-Siskiyou fire planning shop with this?  http://www.pacificbio.org/Projects/Fires/reports/VegetationMortalityAnalysis-screenres.pdf been there> Mechanization 26.04.2005 - 13:54 One point that "local" makes is the mantra I've heard way to many times. That is that jobs were lost due to Mechanization. Wrong. Your local (defining local as in the I.V. mills & not including small portables) consisted of two in the last 30 years. Rough & Ready and the old Barker mill at Kerby. Rough and Ready is opperating at 3/4 capicity because they cannot find enough wood to increase production. The Barker Mill (K-Bax) shut down because the owner died with no heirs to run it. Exstending out, there were two other mills that I consider local. Murphy Creek and Spalding. These mill had both invested in major capitol improvements in order to opperate more eficiently. They closed in the 90's due to a lack of raw materials. You also made the point that the FS & BLM were logging all around you. Where? What sales? With the exception of the Biscuit and some very old sales neither agency has sold any wood in that area. I would be interested in some specifics. Also, I have had occasion to visit with many of the real estate offices in S.W. Oregon and there is a reoccuring theme there. The economic engine that drives our local economy is: The Southern California Real Estate Markets. Because we have no real economic base our traditional residents are selling out and moving on. Because of the inflated real estate values in California retirees are selling out and buying here at what in comparison is bargain prices (pennies on the dollar) and moving here. Those are your new locals. Curious> what about LSRs and plantation forestry? 27.04.2005 - 11:40 Curious, you're dodging. been there> You cannot 27.04.2005 - 13:08 ask a question, be dissatisfied with the answer and then change the question. Yes there is a benifit to early seral. The point is that is not the purpoose of the LSR. The "L" does stand for LATE after all. Calling it "plantation forestry" says nothing for the discussion. If you want to speed up the progression to the "LATE" you need to skip the intermediate stages of brush and burn. Yes little trees sometimes burn, but is that a reason to not plant? Want forests with complicated canopies and big trees,you need to start with with small trees. Besides you have the other 96% of the area within the firelines to let mother nature takes its course...and I for one don't have a problem with that either. But don't change the question just because you don't like the answer. Curious> thoughts on solutions 27.04.2005 - 16:43 thanks for the second effort. since we agree there's ecological benefits to retaining fire created early seral habitat, and that there's not enough late seral forest on the landscape, how about canceling timber sales in existing late seral and focusing wood product sales on early and mid seral stands like in the Siuslaw NF? the BLM is amending every district plan in western oregon to remove LSR from O&C lands and replace with matrix. why not consider an alternative that places the remaining federal late seral on Public Domain into LSR for balance? and why not have the USFS reallocate LSRs in upcoming plan revisions to include actual late seral habitat? right now just six percent of the West Illinois LSR is CAPABLE of producing late seral forest, none of the coastal LSRs contain more than 38 percent late seral, and the greatest concentration of existing late seral is in Galice (60 percent). seems the smartest path we could take is to keep what little older forest is left rather than selling it off and then reacting to every fire like it's a crisis requiring immediate post-mortem silviculture to restore what we sold to Swanson, Ford, Phillippi, Johnson, etc. just a thought. been there> Also you cannot 28.04.2005 - 15:39 change a word here and there, add a word here and there, delete a word here and there to what I have said and pretend that I have agreed with you. That is not the way to have real discussion, debate, or if it were possible negotiation. Do not put words in my mouth. Not if you are sincere in having any of the above. When I say "yes there is a benefit to early seral", you cannot add the word "fire" and assume it mean the same exact thing. I do agree there can be, but not always be a benifit to fire related early seral. Your added word precludes the fact that I also believe that there can be a benefit to early seral that is the result of harvest. It also precludes the fact that I believe that in some, not all cases the fire impacted landscape can benifit from careful salvage. While I may agree that manipulation of vegitation to produce more late successional habitat within the LSR's is a good thing, you cannot infer from that statement that I feel that there is not enough or that we need to increase the acreages of that land allocation. Your solution of just cancel any sales that contain large diameter trees is no solution at all. It makes no consideration of harvest and mnufacturing inferstructure at all. It is just more of the same. Further you want to put a face on the industry of the owner. You want to ingnore the thousands of jobs. In turn you want to ignore the thousands of families that your simple minded approach would destroy. Big trees burn up. Big trees are harvested. What you don't seem to get in you short term view of the world is Big trees grow back. On recent study shows that in the last ten years of the NWFP we have 600,000 more acres of 20 inch and up diameter trees within the area covered by the plan. Trees grow. Curious> words in mouth... 01.05.2005 - 02:11 I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth. I respect your points, Curious, about early seral forest. I disagree, but respect because you seem educated or experienced. You said: "While I may agree that manipulation of vegitation (sic) to produce more late successional habitat within the LSR's is a good thing, you cannot infer from that statement that I feel that there is not enough or that we need to increase the acreages (sic) of that land allocation." Got it. Restoration is not a priority for you. I learned that western Oregon BLM lands are more than 80 percent O&C. So much for the "balance" I proposed for the LSR elimination EIS... You also said: "Your solution of just cancel any sales that contain large diameter trees is no solution at all. It makes no consideration of harvest and mnufacturing (sic) inferstructure (sic) at all... You want to ingnore (sic) the thousands of jobs." A sawyer can't feed his family working with anything smaller than a 36-inch bar? Oregon mills cannot operate without processing logs larger than 24 inches? Gimme a break. Restoration of harvest-created early seral forest into later successional habitat is the economic future. The Siuslaw figured this out, and Mapleton and Waldport are working. Check it out: www.fs.fed.us/r6/siuslaw/projects/sopa/sopa-winter05.html In contrast, "regeneration harvest" of existing late-successional forest is the recipe for gridlock and social struggle. Check it out:  http://www.thestranger.com/2004-07-01/city.html Mitigation doesn't count. Survey and buffer whatever the species list says (oh, right, there's no list anymore), leave however many green trees the standards require, it's still clear-cutting. And it's cumulative. Last, you said: "Big trees burn up. Big trees are harvested. What you don't seem to get in you short term view of the world is Big trees grow back." You don't get soil. Big trees burn up and rot. Even if you plant a perfect "forest" after salvage logging, you sacrifice nutrients from the extracted biomass. That's long-term productivity. As burned trees melt, they are habitat. Salvage logging sacrifices both ecological resources. I have yet to visit a post-fire salvage plantation that produced a 60-inch tree. I've visited Hull Mountain, Silver, Grider and Baldy (the last two are on the Klamath NF). Can you name one? A confession: I got paid off by the woodpeckers and the arthropods. They're big financiers of the Democratic party. I saw their bidding war at a Kerry function to write bigger checks than DR Johnson or Mike Fahey. been there> I guess all I can say is 01.05.2005 - 17:29 thank you for making my point(s) for me. You almost had me believing you were really sincere but you just couldn't help yourself I guess. "I don't mean to put words in anyones mouth." then " Restoration is not a priority for you." I believe in Wilderness (no touch), I believe in active management in LSR to promote the habitat purposes they were designed for, and yes I believe in active managent across the age classes in the small remaining matrix land in order to support the economies of the regions. Pretty simple. I believe the land allocations are appropriate for the restoration that is needed. I also appreciate that you took the time to point out my spelling errors. The fact that most of Rural Oregon is cursed with eratic internet service doesn't allow for proof reading as we often get disconected before we can finish our posts here...that and I type slower than I think (wouldn't take much) or maybe it's that the schools in Montana have better spelling classes than we have here in Oregon. Someday if I have the time or ever feel especially petty I hope I can return the favor. You really don't get the "infrastructure" at all. "Sawyer" is the guy in the mill that actually saws the lumber. The guy in the woods is a Timber Faller. AND NO all mills cannot cut 23" and smaller logs. Just like building a house...you need to have more than 2x4 lumber. It takes all sizes and for alot of the material you need large trees. MILLS are designed to cut a ceretain type of lumber. Trying to cut something a mill isn't designed for is economic suicide. "You don't get soil. Big trees burn up and rot." My point is sometimes they don't make it to that point. Sometimes they burn up rot and or blow down and with the help of 20 foot tall Manzinita and other brushy species they burn again and because of the fuel load and the fact that it is on the ground it WILL consume the very soil you seem to think it always benifits. ONE THING I DO KNOW IS ALWAYS IS A VERY DANGEROUS WORD in describing natural world. I do have in my back yard a large red cinder looking rock that is the result of what I have described. It is melted soil that will grow nothing. I get soil...thank you very much. Gee I don't know would you expect to find 60 inch trees that were 10 to 15 years old? Why would you even ask such a question? What logical contribution could asking if 20 year old 60" trees existed as a result of restoration of a fire through salvage and planting? Silly question. The only ingrediants needed for a 60" tree as a result of fire restoration through salvage and planting is time and desire. Curious> Been Where 01.05.2005 - 20:13 It's not the spiders, ants, and woodpeckers that we're worried about buying your affections. It's the Theresa Heinz Kerry's of the world. Let's see. She controls some of the worlds largest trust and in turn she makes sure that the paid enviro activist are well funded. Who do they support? Your loyalties have been bought and paid for, the spiders and ants didn't get a bid. Now were talkin real money. Follow the Money>