New Plans for Oregon Beaches

Restrictions Aimed at Improving Populations

ROY GAULT
Statesman Journal
Submitted November 8, 2007

“Managers of the birds and the beaches of Oregon are facing a predicament. A tiny shorebird that nests in the sands along the Pacific Ocean is being squeezed out of its habitat by predators and people, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is developing plans to keep the western snowy plover from becoming an endangered species.”

To read the rest of this article please visit: Snowy Plovers

On that note, let me just express how rediculous the environmental restrictions have become. Even though this article stresses that beaches will not be closing, the fact of the matter is, they are.

These regulations have been blown WAY out of proportion–to the point where local economies across the state are no longer able to free themselves from fiscal instability.

Obviously this issue has hit nerves with many, Soooo…to ease the unsettled mind… I recommend this fabulous recipe. Enjoy!

Sawyer Stew

Ingredients:

1 Spotted Owl
1 Marbled Murrelet
1-10 Snowy Plovers (as they are small and hardly filling)
2-3 c. of any vegetables you like
3 c. Rice or whatever
8 c. Water
2 cubes of Beef/Chicken Bullion
Lots and lots of Butter
2-3 pinches of natural sea salt from like a snail darter fish or something

Directions:

NOTE: UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD OIL BE ADDED AT ANY TIME”¦ESPECIALLY PATCHOULI”¦BIRDS ARE OILY ENOUGH AS IT IS.

1. Boil water and bullion cubes in largest pot you have on hand.
2. After bringing water to a boil, drop in Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet and Snowy Plover(s).
3. Cover large pot with the appropriate lid very quickly.
4. Turn heat to HIGH and boil for 60 minutes. (Make sure lid is securely fastened).
5. Chop vegetables.
6. Open lid partially and very slowly add vegetables.
7. Continue to boil for 30 minutes.
8. Prepare rice or whatever according to package instructions.
9. Serve immediately over rice or whatever with butter”¦ lots and lots of butter”¦
10. Salt to taste and enjoy!

Helpful Hints: If any bird escapes while cooking, exercise your right to bare arms and shoot it.

For extra protein, 2 or 3 Tree Voles may be added “¦ but should never be used as a substitute.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 61 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • CRAWDUDE

    Yum, chocked full of protien and just right portion of carbs!

    • Martha wannabe

      Great satiric piece. Rah. Tastes like chicken.

      • Gienie

        John Gault works for the Statesmen Journal, he just reported on the piece. The person we should be questioning is Chris Havel, the communications director for the Oregon Parks and Recreation department.

        • Gienie

          Correction Roy Gault works for the Statesmen Journal.. HAHA… I have no idea who John Gault is

    • Sybella

      No, anybody else ever heard of him? Surely I can’t be the only one

  • Sybella

    Does anybody know who John Gault is?

    • CRAWDUDE

      No, but he may be related to Roy Gault.

    • Gienie

      John Gault
      Age: 28
      Gender: Male
      Astrological Sign: Pisces
      Zodiac Year: Sheep
      Industry: Non-Profit
      Location: Rosehearty : Aberdeenshire : United Kingdom

      He lives in Rosehearty UK, and loves socialising and going to things like Art shows, Live Music and the Cinema/Theatre/Opera.

      He’s also a natural empath (Which means he’s a fictional character who has a paranormal or psychic ability to sense the emotions of others).

      He’s an avid devourer of information and loves a good laugh.

      He may very well be related to Roy.. and wouldn’t that be breathtaking!

      • dean

        So Gienie…satire is great. But satire as a form of humor is supposed to be something the weak use against the powerful. Why would anyone feel the need to satirize endangered birds? They don’t have any power over anyone do they?

        • Anonymous

          She’s satirizing the bird brains, not the birds.

        • Gienie

          Dean,

          Why would I satirize birds?? The purpose of a piece like this is to satirize the “Bird-brains”. You’re absolutely right… birds themselves do not harm anyone, however the people who inforce drastic means to protect them are.

          I find it interesting you think I’m trying to sway you to believe a certain fact. No where in my piece did I try to push you or anyone else for that matter to “believe” a certain way.

          This article represents my very own opinion, and I provided a hilarious recipe for those who feel the same way I do (yes there are many out there who feel the way I do)…

          There’s nothing weak about it Dean.. especially since it upset you so much!!!! AND… even if it was weak.. you took the bait.. which isn’t really something to boast about… hmmmmmm

          • dean

            Gienie,

            I did not say you were trying to sway me to believe any fact. And I’m not upset…just curious.

            Do you think the proposed protection measures are drastic? If so, what is your basis for this belief? And how would you go about creating protection measures for endangered birds?

          • Gienie

            Dean,

            Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner. One.. I just had a baby, and I’m not up to speed on my blogging quite yet…Two…I needed to take a time out and fully analyze your questions. I want to make sure they’re fully addressed.

            “Do you think the proposed protection measures are drastic? If so, what is your basis for this belief?”

            I do believe the proposed plans I have seen are excessive and drastic. I feel this way because most plans I have seen fail to address the economic consequences of environmental protection. These plans take away resources which bring money into local communities, but fail to provide alternatives to keeping fiscal balance so surrounding communities are basically being thrown into a hole with no way out.

            I also know that the money backing these proposals comes from huge environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the Pacific Rivers Council. These groups receive huge donations (Pacific Rivers Council Over $600,000 every year since 2003) and are tax exempt. Which means, they don’t have to pay for what we taxpayers have to pay for i.e. police protection, fire saftey, road repair, education, etc. What motivation do they have to protect communities, when communities aren’t donating to their cause?

            These groups currently are not putting money back into the communities who are hurting… (look at their expendature reports, their money is spent on lobby efforts and directors themselves earn between 50.000-70.000 a year in income). Communities rely on natural resources but are financially hurting because they are no longer allowed to use the natural resources on that land or in the water surrounding them.

            If you would like me to provide financial statements for you about the type of money I’m talking about.. i would be more than happy to do that.

            With that, I’ll put a pitch in for the BLM. I’m in favor of their Alternative 2 plan because they incorporated the lost revenue and came up with a solution that offset it. which leads me into your next question…

            “And how would you go about creating protection measures for endangered birds?”

            Birds go where they want to. We cannot control where they will fly off to next. Birds have been known to adapt when changes to their environment occur… particularly natural changes… like storm damage, excessive drout seasons etc.

            Our environment has been changing since the beginning of time, and we still have birds, so I’m not inclined to believe that controlled changes to the environment are as harmful as it has been advertised.

            I do believe we have an obligation to keep our environment clean. For example…I myself have gone out with many work crews on numerous occasions to clean up litter along the coast and its highways. I’m appauled by the amount of trash floating around in the ocean and the beaches.

            People are going to litter though, whether there are laws against it or not. But someone has to clean it up. And unfortunately there aren’t many volunteers… so communities, like Florence, Depot Bay and such have to spend the money to do so. Where will that money come from? It comes from taxpayers.

            I believe the way to approach any issue like this is to look at both pros and cons to all sides of the issue. Pros and cons environmentally speaking, financially speaking, economically speaking etc. So far, most plans I have seen fail to address the entire spectrum. It’s incredibly difficult to do, especially when new things come up all the time.

            I decided to go into Environmental Law, legal research and writing because I believe plans could be better. I’m not a pro at writing them, but I do know that much of what has been written has left some very important things out.

            If I were asked to propose a plan for protecting the birds, I would incorporate a plan that benefits both the environment and the surrounding community as well as incorporating fiscal responsibility economically speaking. Currently there are many who have been working on it for years and years but so far, what I have seen come out of it isn’t quite up to par.

            What I have been doing on my own is submitting comments to public forums which are held on isses such as this one. I attend townhalls, I write letters to the directors, I write letters to my Representatives, I help to educate people by blogging and submitting letters to the editor and op ed pieces… just google my name and you can see some of the work I have done. I make sure I educate myself on the issues, so when people have questions I can answer them to the best of my ability.

            It may not be much, but its all I have to work with currently, and I’m proud of my efforts, and I enjoy what I do. Not many people can say they enjoy what they do.

            Hope that answers your questions. Maybe I should turn them around and ask the same of you?

            “Do you think the proposed protection measures are drastic? Why or why not? Please explain your reasoning

            “And how would you go about creating protection measures for endangered birds?”

            Have a wondeful thanksgiving Dean. Make sure you enjoy every bite of that turkey… at one point in our Nation’s history it almost became our national bird.. which means you could have been eating something else…

            I LOVE turkey… good thing that didn’t happen eh?

          • dean

            Gienie,

            MAZELTOV! (Congratulations). And what a lucky baby to have such a smart, involved, even if politically on the wrong side mother. (But I am working on you, as you are on me. Both of us can hope).

            First, don’t blame conservation organizations for lobbying for conservation. That is what their members want them to do. And by the way, their members do pay taxes. Anti-conservation organizations have a right to do what they do for their members as well (though I wish they wouldn’t).

            Conservation does have economic consequences. In the sort term, every time we decide to conserve something, it costs someone. This was true for the initial setting aside of national parks and forests, for all the major environmental legislation (clean air act, clean water act, endangered species act, etc…,) for the Oregon beach bill, for all the state parks we have, and so forth. Conservation costs money.

            Over the long term, in nearly every case conservation has had more economic benefit than the costs have been. The best book I have read on this is called Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies by Thomas Michael Power of the University of Montana. Basically he shows statistically how communities that are within or near well conserved landscapes consistently out perform those that are in extractive landscapes economically and socially.

            This does not help the initially unemployed logger, mill worker, miner or cowboy. They take it on the chin. But like the birds that you say are adaptable, people are even more adaptable. We can go back to school, learn a new trade, move to a more economically robust community, and get on with life, especialy if we get some temporary help. And communities also adapt. Towns like Bend, Sweet Home Oregon and Forks Washington, initially hurt badly by reduction of logging on public forests, are now recovering and reinventing themselves. This has happened up and down the coast as well.

            On the BLM, it is a complex issue. Were the restrictions on cutting old growth trees in the Northwest Forest Plan excessive? The scientists and natural resource experts who wrote it did not think so. Clinton wanted to preserve as many logging and mill jobs as he could while having enough conservation to cover over 400 species that use or depend on old growth forests. They chose the option that was optimal at that time. Should it be changed as we learn more? Few would argue against that. But unfortunately the changes the BLM are proposing are a result of the Bush Administration’s bias against conservation, not a result of new or better information. This is not to say the BLM is not doing the best it can by the way. But they are on a short leash politically and can’t put forward a plan that upsets their current masters.

            I don’t have a specific opinion on the Snowy Plover plan. I will say the plover cannot simply fly off to somewhere else to find suitable breeding habitat, and we should not expect it to. We have a responsibility to all God’s creatures on earth in my opinion. And we have to listen to the experts. If they say we need to do modify the way we use certain beaches to conserve a minimum amount of habitat, then we should take their advice, not ignore them because they gave us an answer that is inconvenient for us.

            If the economic impacts to a local community or land owner are severe, then we should step up and help. That means providing our tax money for sensible economic transition or alternatives.

            What I hope you will do over time is to use your education and commitment to help create sensible solutions to conservation problems. This means (I think) not jumping to early conclusions. It means getting the best experts involved and listening to what they say. It means respecting the conservation organizations that represent millions of people. And it means supporting taxes if that is what it takes to soften the blows to local communities or individuals. It does not mean becoming a liberal. Find and support solutions that are consistent with your political philosophy (like Newt Gingrich is tring to do with respect to global warming).

            But don’t expect the birds to fly off somewhere else in the hope that they can adapt to a loss of a habitat they have evolved over tens of thousands of years to live in. Yes, BIRDS adapt, but specific SPECIES of birds do not adapt quickly enough. That is whay extinction rates are so dang high, particularly on islands (Island Biogeography theory). It is also why the spotted owl changed the future of the Pacific Northwest, and for the better.

          • Anonymous

            Dean, You say, “. . .we have to listen to the experts. . . we should take their advice, not ignore them because they gave us an answer that is inconvenient for us. . .It means getting the best experts involved and listening to what they say.”

            But, when the BLM experts give advice that YOU find inconvenient, you ignore them and attempt to rationalize your hypocrisy with an Appeal-To-Motive logical fallacy: “But unfortunately the changes the BLM are proposing are a result of the Bush Administration’s bias against conservation, not a result of new or better information. . . .they are on a short leash politically and can’t put forward a plan that upsets their current masters.” Your deception is showing.

          • dean

            Anon,

            I was with the forest service for 11 years, and have consulted with the blm, including on their plan adjustment efforts. So my comment on their short political leash is from direct experience.

            The leading experts on habitat needs and extinction risks for any given species are normally mid level career biologists and ecologists. The way the game works, they are asked to estimate risk and to propose conservation measures. Their recomemndations go up the food chain, where they have to get past the desks of managers whose promotions depend on higher ups. The ultimate decision makers at the BLM are not career professionals, as they are in the forest service. They are political appointees, often with no experience at all in natural resources, or experience from the private industry side of the ledger. That is the point I was trying to make. Those with the most expertise may NOT be the ones whose advice is being followed in this case.

            I’m not stating this as a fact, since I have not made myself familiar with the details of the blm or plover plans. But yes, I do suspect their motives. You have me there.

          • Gienie

            Hi Dean,

            Hope you had a great holiday! Mine was amazing!

            I have to say, you’re comment about me being on the wrong side of the political spectrum made me foul my britches laughing!!!! I believe I’m on the “Dexter RIGHT” side of the spectrum… you my funny friend, lean towards the “SINISTER left”. Hmmmmmm…

            Anyway, to touch on your first point regarding lobby groups–I enjoy the initial idea of lobby activism, however, I am bothered by those who take advantage of the system and pour money into it without due process.

            I have a huge concern with direct democracy Dean! Don’t you? Here you are protecting endangered species… but at the same time you’re endangering the minority group of people–and who’s going to protect them?

            You say you believe you have a responsibility to protect God’s creatures. What is your belief based on?? It’s certainly not Biblical.

            Gen. 1: 24-26—Then God said, “Let the earth produce every type of living creature: every type of domestic animal, crawling animal, and wild animal.” And so it was. 25 God made every type of wild animal, every type of domestic animal, and every type of creature that crawls on the ground. God saw that they were good. 26 Then God said, Let us make humans in our image, in our likeness. Let them rule the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the domestic animals all over the earth, and all the animals that crawl on the earth.” (God’s Word Translation)

            If you’re going to bring up God and His creatures, you need to remember that animals were placed on this earth for our use. We do not serve them, they serve us. And while we’re on the subject of saving animals…mass extinction has been occurring even before humans were brought into the picture. 99% of all the animals that were ever once created are extinct. This has been proven by the fossil records which have been found.

            Isn’t it true to say without mass extinction, humans wouldn’t be here? And who’s to say it’s not in God’s plan for animals to die off in the first place? He’s let it happen before; and, even if the plover were to disappear let’s say… would it be a bad thing? Is extinction really a bad thing?

            Jeremiah 29:11—I know the plans I have for you declares the Lord. They are plans for peace and not disaster; plans to prosper you, not to harm you.

            As far as conservationism is concerned, take a look at the Northwest Forest Plan (See Clinton Administration), it flat out didn’t work! It set out goals it couldn’t meet, and that is why the BLM is proposing a new plan. The effects of the Northwest Forest Plan have been positive on some fronts yes, but negative in others; which, is why a new plan is being adopted. I think the BLM should be commended for asking for all levels of expertise to comment on the proposed plans.

            I believe it is unfair for you to say that most conservation plans have positive outcomes in the long run, because the truth is, with out coming back to those plans and adopting changes which encompass the needs of all sides of an issue, outcomes become negative… particularly since things change all the time. All one needs to do is look at the Bill of Rights and all the other amendments which were made to our Constitution to see truth in that.

            I did enjoy your Thomas Michael Power reference. Thank you!

            The only thing I agree on with Mr. Power on is his idea that the service industry is where the money is coming from now. That is a true statement that can be backed by the Fed and proved with statistics. I strongly disagree with his logging theories though… as I’m sure you already know…

            Power notes that “although woodworking jobs are relatively high paying, “”a benefit touted in justifying health, safety, and environmental problems associated with the industry””…the more important the wood products industry is as a source of income in a county [in Oregon or Montana], the lower the average income is…” (Page 142).

            Although Power’s uses tons of graphs, charts… you name it… he doesn’t list the evidence for this finding anywhere on any of the pages he talks about this particular issue. Maybe his theory is correct for Montana, but for the O & C Counties here in Oregon… he’s wrong.

            When you look at the county revenue after O&C was placed into effect, and then look at how much that income dropped when the Northwest Forest Plan was put into effect, and then look at how much was gained with SRS (Secure Rural Schools)…the income didn’t go down because of the reliance on timber revenue, the evidence is clear in that because the demand for wood didn’t change. We have been supplementing the demand for wood by importing it from other countries.
            And looking at the revenue from timberland, I think you would find that relying on timber as the main source of income has in fact brought MORE money into our communities. This is why harvesting timber is such a great thing… it’s renewable and it’s self sustaining. The critical problem we face is our elected officials–who do not know how to budget that income. That’s a completely different issue.

            Even with SRS, we still are not making as much as we did when we were allowed to cut trees. On that note, the BLM’s Alternative 2 plan only brings back 94% of the income we have lost. We will NEVER see the income we saw back in the 60’s and 70’s, but that’s not because of the “supposed” higher demand for timber or the fact that counties rely on it solely as Mr. Power suggests. It is because of the government forced restrictions which have caused revenues to go down and the lack of fiscal responsibility.

            For example, here in Eugene, the county was able to once again put some money back into the city budget for road repair once SRS was passed; however, our city leadership has spent that money in other areas, or has held that money hostage by not spending it at all. Again, I would direct you to their financial records, which can be accessed through the city website at https://www.eugene-or.gov/portal/server.pt?space=CommunityPage&control=SetCommunity&CommunityID=324&PageID=0 They are AMAZING!

            Eugene used to receive income regularly for road repair and education reform. This money was paid to the city directly from the county with money the country received from timber revenue alone. Because the county doesn’t have the money anymore from the timber industry, it cannot afford to pay into the city’s repair costs.

            Eugene/Junction City just got done trying to pass a new gas tax to front money for road repair because of the lost income. Oregonians in all the O & C counties will continue to see tax increase measures trying to offset the money lost because of the lock ups to timberlands. This isn’t going to stop.

            If Oregonians were willing to pay more taxes, maybe the issue would be resolved, and people would be “okay” with “adapting” to the new way of life and finding new jobs and trades; however, the laws currently in effect do not provide for responsible spending of public money. The legislatures who create and enforce those laws cannot be trusted with more money when they obviously cannot balance the funds they already have. Tax increases will continue to be voted down until that problem alone is fixed.

            And let’s not forget SRS is a welfare program which has run out! Citizens don’t want to rely on welfare anymore. We want self sustainable solutions. It’s one thing to accept welfare when you need it; it’s another to use it even though you have the tools to provide for yourself. Are you in favor of letting Bill Gates use the Foodstamp program?

            By the way, you didn’t answer my questions in your previous response!

          • dean

            Gienie,

            Glad you like my humor.

            On God…I’m not a religous scholar. But I would say, if God made all these creatures, shouldn’t we at least consider that he/she/it had a purpose? Aren’t we being callous in saying we can knowingly drive any particular species we find inconvenient into non-existence?

            Sure…99% or more of all species in the fossil record are now extinct.
            That implies that you accept the fossil record by the way, so you are not a creationist. Evolution is about slow change and adaptation.
            the genes of many extinct species survived in new forms, including ourselves.

            Arguments for species conservation come down to the practical (could be a cure for cancer, tastes good) and the ethical. I’m in the ethical camp. I don’t care if there is no obvious use for a given species, I think it is morally wrong to deny any species 100% of its habitat, and that includes the plover. We apparently differ on that point, but most Americans agree with me, which is why the Republican majority was unable to roll back the endangered species act even after 12 years in power. And believe me, they won’t get back into power by promising to wipe out our wildlife. That is an issue your “Dexter Right” side ought to concede once and for all.

            Yes, cutting down the last of the old growth forest and using the money to pay for more roads or schools is a short term fix and lets us escape the hard choice of raising our taxes. That is why we made that choice for decades. But as Powers points out, it isn’t a good long term solution. If it was then Forks and Aberdeen Washington would be the richest towns in America, while Jackson Hole, Aspen, and Bend would be impoverished.

            I’m not anti-logging, and in fact have a new book out; Designing Sustainable Forests, (Taylor & Francis Press). I’m not even against clearcutting or plantation forestry. I think we need wild, extensively managed (light touch over large areas) and intensively managed (plantation) forests. With these in the right proportions and the right places we can have a sustainable supply of wood, healthy economies and a sustainable ecosystem.

            The old timber programs were welfare Gienie. Federal, state and local politicians used the federal forests as a cash cow for decades. It was pork. They spent gobs of money on building logging roads deep into the woods (roads that could not be maintained) in order to access old growth trees that belonged to people in New Jersey and Illinois as much as they belonged to Oregonians. Local governments provided ZERO services to these lands since no one lived there, yet took 25-50% of the revenue off the top and used it to build infrastructure that had nothing to do with the forests. Even Randall O’toole showed how it was more welfare than capitalism. Do you really want to go back to that model?

            Oregonians in timber dependent counties will choose to fund local services on their own dime only after the federal umbilical chord is finally severed. Or they will learn to get along with no libraries, deteriorating roads and lousy schools. That is their stark choice.

            Federal forests are not simply “timberlands,” and they are not “locked up.” Society made a difficult choice to increase conservation after many years of debate AND after it was crystal clear that business as usual was not sustainable.

            An unharvested forest provides carbon storage, clean water, habitat, beauty, soil conservation, and many other benefits. Harvested trees and forests also provide benefits. We can have it all, but we can’t have all of it all of the time everywhere.

          • Gienie

            Dean,

            I’m no religious expert either, but God’s purpose was clear with regard to creating the animals. I already proved that point by providing scripture references to that argument. Would you like more?

            I do not see anything morally wrong with progression. Progression is a natural process.

            “That implies that you accept the fossil record by the way, so you are not a creationist.”

            Where do you come off with the idea that I am not a creationist? Is it because I believe fossils are real? Umm… creationists believe fossils are real Dean; hardly disputable, considering what the definition of what a fossil is.

            My being a Creationist is not in dispute here anyway, so I’m not even going to address that argument. We’re talking about conservationism, and whether or not it is excessive.

            I still say it is:

            1). Conservation groups do not incorporate aspects from all sides of the issue. Their plans for change do not provide for alternatives for consequences of their proposed ideas.

            2). Money backing these conversation groups has been poured into one main agenda and has abused the lobby process by not allowing due (fair) process for regulations. Many plans were put into affect behind closed doors… Like the Snowy Plover plan. Have you read it? Do you know who came up with it and how it is being enforced?

            3). Communities are suffering because they have lost their main source of sustainable income.

            And on to the BLM…

            Since you tout that you were involved with the Forest Service for so long, I would think that you of all people would understand why we harvest timber. Let me refresh your memory just in case you have forgotten. We harvest timber to provide jobs and wood products for housing for Americans we also do it to protect the land.

            Douglas fir, for example, is clear-cut to mimic natural processes such as fire and also because it’s a shade-intolerant species. Timber harvest is NOT excessively done as environmental groups stress. Active Forest Management is critical and many of my previous posts regarding active forest management list key facts pertaining to why management is critical. (Please see Blog: Think Timber, not Taxes for County Crisis).

            You say, “I would keep the politicians, political appointees and advocates (all sides) at arms length.”

            Problems aren’t solved by keeping “all sides” from participating in due process; they worsen because those issues aren’t addressed. The idea of keeping sides at arms length is Marxist and only leads to trouble. Those “political appointees and advocates”… who do you think they are advocating for… sure they’re advocating for protecting their jobs, but isn’t it their job to do that??? That’s what you said about lobbying…

            “Don’t blame conservation organizations for lobbying for conservation Gienie. That is what their members want them to do.”

            Well the people want their Representatives to do the same… and here you are advocating to keep the people’s word out of the picture. How dare you!

            You also say “I’m in the ethical camp.” Ethical?? What is Ethical about not including the people’s voice in decisions that affect them directly?

            And here’s where we can agree on something…

            “Oregonians in timber dependent counties will choose to fund local services on their own dime only after the federal umbilical chord is finally severed. Or they will learn to get along with no libraries, deteriorating roads and lousy schools. That is their stark choice”

            You are absolutely correct! This is why I have written several letters to Socialist Representative Peter DeFazio regarding his political agenda in maintaining welfare programs like SRS. If you believe that way truly, have you taken the steps in writing your socialist leaders? I would give you their information, but I’m not sure who represents the Damascus area.

            And finally, in your own words…“I think it is morally wrong to deny any species 100% of its habitat, and that includes the plover.”

            Well, you’re in the camp of denying the human species 100% of its habitat…which makes you a liar, and I think that’s morally wrong!

            Capiche?

          • dean

            Gienie,

            I’m not a believer in the Biblical God. More in the great mystery of being sort of God.

            “Conservation groups” are not all cut from the same cloth. They tend to reflect their membership, as they should. Typically they don’t make plans. They react to, and try to influence the plans of public agencies. The TNC is an exception since they mostly manage their own lands and usually, but not always stay out of politics.

            Conservation groups are in the same proces as everyone else, so I truly don’t follow what you say. Due process is what the agencies follow, not lobbyists.

            Communities change. Astoria used to be dependent on canneries. now they have tourism. When resources are exhausted or the last remnants protected, people can and do turn to other ways to make a living.

            I said I support timber harvest, even clearcutting. I just don’t support the same type of management everywhere. And I don’t agree with your premise that timber management is “critical.” Our local forests did pretty well before we (Euro-Americans) came along didn’t they?

            I did not say all sides should not be allowed into the process of species conservation plans. What I tried to say was that there is a technical side and a public side. The technical experts should be able to use the best information available to recommend what is needed to conserve a species or ecosystem without political interference. They should provide the options, and then the political process makes the decision, incorporating all public concerns. no one left out of the process.

            But at the same time, the political side should not circumbscribe the technical side. I did witness this happen in the forest service on more than one occasion, and I suspect this is the case with the present BLM plan.

            Blumenauer is our rep. Defazio is not a socialist, just a liberal democrat. He is trying to provide federal funds for his constituents, as elected reps on all sides tend to do. Recall that your party had Congress for the past 12 years and funded the SRS the whole time.

            I meant that denying a species “100%” of its habitat would leave it with ZERO habitat. I did not mean we had to protect ALL of its habitat. Nor do I think it is wise to convert the entire planet to 100% human habitat by the way. As the Delphi Oracle said, Everything in moderation Gienie.

          • Gienie

            Dean,

            You’re pretty scary trying to invoke God when you know nothing about God.

            After reading all of your posts multiple times, I conclude you’re basically saying humans are superior and therefore should “manage” other animals and their environments with care.

            You’re what the American Heritage Dictionary refers to as a speciesist! Speciesism–Human intolerance or discrimination on the basis of species, especially as manifested by cruelty to or exploitation of animals.

            All species are limited in what they can do… live, adapt, reproduce, or parish. That’s nature’s way.

            You still have not answered my questions regarding mass extinction. Is it really a bad thing?

            I would encourage you to learn debate logic pretty quickly. You’re arguments are pretty boring with out it!!

          • Anonymous

            Dean, of course you “suspect their motives.” That is the way the Appeal To Motive deception works. Instead of attacking the arguer’s evidence or logic, you attack the arguer’s motives. And now I see you’ve added another deception, ad hominem attack: “The ultimate decision makers at the BLM are not career professionals. . .They are political appointees, often with no experience at all in natural resources. . .”

          • Gienie

            Anon,

            I appreciate your frankness!

          • dean

            Anon…
            I’m not up to speed ehough to debate logic. I stated a fact.
            BLM leadership positions are filled by political appointees. FS leadership positions are career professionals. I also clearly stated I was not offering an opinion on the present proposal itself.

            As a former staff person at the FS and very familiar with the BLM, yes, I suspect the motives. I would be a fool not to, as would you.

            And Gienie, I thought I did answer your earlier questions. I would gather up the best experts, data, and analysis for any given species conservation problem. I would keep the politicians, political appointees and advocates (all sides) at arms length. I would ask for the best technical advice, with at least 3 options provided, ALL of which designed to keep the species viable. I would CHOOSE one of the options within the larger political and legal framework that considers economic and other impacts.

            I would not consider “fly somewhere else” or “go live in a zoo” as acceptable alternatives.

            Capiche?

          • Anonymous

            Dean, there are no different types of logic, such as “debate” logic. There is only one type of logic in this context: “…the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning (AHD3).”

            But, I understand that you may not be “up to speed” on logic. That’s cool. Logic is only necessary for reasoning to make your own decisions and rational argument to present your reasoning to other rational people. You don’t need logic to “listen to the experts” or authorities in your tribe. You don’t need logic to “believe” or to rally other people who already share your faith. You don’t need logic if you are a mystic of muscle and rely on the coercive power of the state instead of the persuasive power of reason to advance you cause.

            However, logic is handy if you question authority and form your own conclusions outside of orthodoxy. Logic is essential if you want to share your conclusions with other reasoning people and expect them to take you seriously. If you use logical fallacies/deceptions and poor logic to explain your conclusions to rational people, they will either think you are a fool for having such a poor foundation for your knowledge, or a charlatan for trying to trick them into accepting a faulty or unproven proposition.

          • cooking ideas for T-Day

            This looks like a great recipe for T-Day. Thanks for the info.

        • Anonymous

          Whoosh! Right over your head, Dean. I think Gienie’s proposal is very modest. I guess the modern liberal arts programs must have dropped Jonathan Swift from their syllabi.

          • dean

            Anon,

            We pay the experts for any given species or ecosystem to provide their best analysis. Maybe you view them as part of a tribe. I don’t.

            When the political leaders of the BLM embarked on their quest to opt out of the NW Forest plan, they did not do so because their ecologists said the NW plan was not working, or that it had too much conservation. They did it because the Bush Administration cut a deal with the timber industry as part of a court case. Look it up.

            So yes, I suspect their motives, and so should you.

            But there is logic, and then there is sophistry. You appear to be engaged in the latter. Very clever but increasingly transparent.

          • Anonymous

            Really? Specifically what argument have I given that is “plausible but misleading or fallacious (AHD3, sophistry)”?

            With regard to motive, it is not a fallacy to suspect motives, since every arguer has motives, agenda, and bias. I agree that BLM experts have motives, bias, and prejudices – like EVERY other expert. Motives are only relevant to an argument when arguers are driven to dishonesty by their motives. In countering an argument, it is a fallacy to appeal to the mere existence of motive in lieu of providing evidence that the argument is fallacious because of unsound logic or erroneous evidence presented because of those motives. You committed the appeal to motive fallacy because you appear to challenge the BLM plan (argument) just because BLM experts have motives, not because of any evidence you present that their argument is fallacious.

        • zoos are for the birds

          Instead of locking up more and more public land for various birds so we can’t use it for our economic benefit why don’t we put them in zoos so we can really enjoy them? That would be true bird protection.

  • Anonymous

    Who is John Gault?

    • dean

      Anon,

      I dunno. Studies landscape architecture, not liberal arts. But still, satire is as I said, humor of the weak against the strong. I think Jonathon Swift would agree on that point.

      And who are the metaphorical Yahoos here? Those who would allow extinction of species or those who would work to keep them alive?

    • dean

      Anon,

      The sophistry is in linking technical expertise with “tribes.” In doing that, you appear to me to be doing the same thing climate change doubters do, which is linking technical experts to your political opposition in order to discredit them.

      i.e. If liberals think x, and climate change experts say x is correct, then climate change experts must be liberals, therefore they must be wrong.

      I don’t think I said anywhere in my previous posts that the BLM plan is flawed. I’m not familiar enough with it to make that call. What I know is what I said. Their new plan proposal is a result of a deal cut between the Bush Administration and the timber industry, not the result of BLM ecologists (experts) saying the NW plan needed to be changed. (I know several of their leading ecologists, and this is what they have told me).

      So again, I suspect the motives not of the BLM EXPERTS, but of the BLM POLITICAL LEADERSHIP. You make a mistake if you continue to equate those two. Or, if you continue to do so, then yes, lets call that sophistry because it is “plausible” (the political leadership could be experts,) but misleading (because they are not).

      • Anonymous

        By “tribe” I mean “a group of people sharing an occupation, an interest, or a habit (AHD3)”, such as those interested in preserving old growth forests versus those interested harvesting them. Experts on various sides of a proposition usually self-identify with a group, sometimes to the extent of signing petitions declaring their position (e.g.: The Oregon Petition). This supports my implied assertion that experts and their followers can be characterized as tribes.

        You are correct that if I were to then proceed to discredit them based on their tribe rather than the substance of their argument, it would be fallacious. But I did not do that and do not support that as I explained in my last post.

        My assertion that “You don’t need logic to ‘listen to the experts’ or authorities in your tribe” is an assertion about the listener, not the experts. The qualification “in your tribe” is necessary for the assertion to be valid since one probably DOES need logic to listen to the experts from multiple tribes in order to resolve the contradictions. Furthermore, it is usually the case that people who don’t use logic listen only to experts from their own tribe.

  • carol

    Just a little play on words, if I may. I found the recipe to be distastful.

    • Crawdude

      It may have been over cooked.

  • carol

    Or undone!

    • Lumber-Jack

      You know Carol, I suppose you could cook it a bit longer. I think you might have to add the “rice or whatever” later though, so it doesn’t get to soggy or absorb all of the broth.

      Lemme know how it turns out!

      • for the birds dept.

        Why not create tax incentives to create habitat on private land like they do now for elk, buffalo and so on. Then allow hunting on those areas or just domesticate them as we have other species. It’s ridiculous to give these birds land for free. It’s for the birds.

  • carol

    Eew, after 4 decades of dealing with poultry, I find myself allergic to feathers.

  • carol

    Birds go where they want to go, I sure would like to see where the Passenger Pigeon went. Maybe in another lifetime, perhaps I’ll see a Meadowlark there as well, I haven’t seen one of those on this farm for about 15 years, usta see them avery spring.

    • dean

      Carol,

      The pasenger pigeon was hunted to extinction. The meadowlarks you used to enjoy left much of the w. valley because their habitat, natural prairies and oak savannas, has been nearly wiped out.

      You, as a farm owner, can help bring the meadowlark back by restoring prairie and oaks on your land. And there are State government grants and help from your friends (just kidding) at the Nature Conservancy.

      Failing that, go to Catherine Creek in the Columbia Gorge next April and you can enjoy the song of the meadowlark in spring (the habitat there for them is very good). I’d be happy to take you on a guided walk.

      And by the way…the paper today says the Big Look is back on. Oh ye of little faith….

      • carol

        Hey, Dean, don’t you recognise my brand of sarcasm yet? This piece should have gone up higher, where she was saying that birds go where they want to. As for the meadowlarks, I have fought against taking the hedgerows out of our farm, but the neighbors farm border to border. We also have a woods full of oaks, but if you could see all the s— that your precious farmers dump on the earth many times a year, grass farmers aren’t organic, you’d wonder how even the starlings survive. The starlings survive, in droves, and I wonder if they may have contributed to the dearth of songbirds.

        I think that the Big Look may get pushe to perform, according to the update that I received from OIA yesterday, it ain’t over ’til it’s over. I wonder if I’m too old to get my law degree, I forsee some wealthy land-use attys. On both sides of the fence

        • Gienie

          Carol, you’re never too old. In fact.. you can just go take the Bar you don’t even need to go to school to become a lawyer! Go get em tiger..

          Starlings are stupid… they aren’t even native!

  • carol

    “Starlings are stupid”, yet they fill the skies. Kinda reminds me of what is happening to the human race. Ouch, me bad.

    • dean

      Carol,
      Yep…I missed your sarcasm. It will never happen again. I’m not going to defend the grass seed farmers. Starlings are indeed helping to wipe out native songbirds by taking over nest cavities, which by the way are in a reduced state due to logging Gienie.

      Carol, if you have oaks, truly, you can probably get some funding for restoration. And do keep those hedgerows please.

      Did you know the first starlings in the US were released in Central Park by an eccentric Englishman who wanted to have all of the birds mentioned in shakespeare in the United States? 100 birds to start, millions upon millions today. I would love to wring his English neck.

      But Gienie, starlings are not stupid. They are among the most intelligent birds on the planet, which is partly why the do indeed fill the skies. Like we people, they are very adaptable and fecund.

      • Playing God in Oregon

        So again Dean and co. want to play God and try to stop the evolutionary process, which includes predators and prey. Can’t save a species without saving all the predators on top. Or didn’t they teach you that at the Forest Service? Just look at the barred-spotted owl situation or better yet the sea lion-salmon ratio. Bummer. Just when the left thought they could play God.

        • dean

          PG
          You lost me there. Where did I say I wanted to stop evolution? I think I said I support CONSERVING HABITAT.

      • carol

        Don’t even get me started on logging, the timber companies clear-cut across Oregon, and then whined whenthe environmentalists put the kabosh on logging ot preserve the remaining old-growth. What I find alarming about the current wild-fire thing, is that in every photo I have seen of forests decimated by fire, none of the standing skeleton trees are anything but ‘pecker poles’, indicating second growth that hasn’t been thinned.

        I suppose I’ll get some static on this, but I’d like to have someone PROVE me wrong.

        • Gienie

          Carol,

          “Clearcutting”… so to speak…was done long before forest regulation was even in effect.

          Look at the history behind it and the purpose it served. As I stated before.. the clearcuts that you refer to were done for a reason,

          1). to mimic natural processes such as fire

          2). Because our main tree here (Douglas Fir) is a shade-intolerant species.

          Early explorers commonly wrote of the large areas of open, park-like forests and grasslands both east and west of the Cascades, and of the frequency of Native American burning.

          In 1528, Alvar Nunez Cabenza de Vaca noted that:

          “The Indians of the interior…go with brands in the hand firing the plains and forests within their reach, that the mosquitos my fly away, and at the same time to drive out lizards and other things from the earth for them to eat. In this way do they appease their hunger, two to three times in the year…”

          In 1630, Francis Higginson wrote that:

          “there is much ground cleared by the Indians, and especially about (their agricultural fields); and I am told that about three miles from us a man may stand on a little hilly place and see thousands of acres of ground as good as need be, and not a Tree on the same.”

          In 1637, Thomas Morton wrote that the Indians:

          “are accustomed to set fire of the Country in all places where they come, and to burne it twize, in the year, vis: as the Spring and fall of the leafe….so that hee that will looke to find large trees and good tymber…(will not) finde them on upland ground; but must seeke for them…in the lower grounds, where the grounds are wett.”

          Roger Williams wrote that:

          “this burning of the Wood to them they count a Benefit, both for destroying of vermin, and keeping downe the Weeds and thickets.”
          In surveying the boundary between the states in 1811,

          Andrew Ellicott wrote that:

          “the greatest inconvenience we experienced arose from the smoke occasioned by the annual custom of the Indians in burning the woods. Those fires scattered over a vast extent of country made a beautiful and brilliant appearance at night; particularly when ascending the sides of the mountains.”

          John Smith commented that in the forests:

          “a man may gallop a horse amongst these woods any waie, but where the creekes and Rivers shall hinder.”

          Andrew White, in 1633, observed that the forest was:

          “not choked with an undergrowth of brambles and bushes, but as if laid out in by hand in a manner so open, that you might freely drive a four horse chariot in the midst of the trees.”

          Smith’s and White’s observations of the open nature of forests are typical of those of most other early observers, who commonly spoke of the ease of riding a horse or driving a wagon under the forest canopy.

          Reports of such open conditions were widespread in the coastal forests and in the forests west of the Cascades as well, as far north as British Columbia. Such conditions could only have been created by frequent, low intensity ground fires, many of which were set by Indians.

          Sources:

          The September 1992 issue of the Annals of the Association of American Geographers, “The America’s Before and After 1492: Current Geographical
          Research,” (223 pp.).

          Bonnicksen, T.M. et al. American Indian influences on the development of North America’s native forest ecosystems. Draft paper (1/12/97) for the Chief’s Ecological Stewardship Conference, Tucson, Az, 12/95.

          Dobyns, H.F. 1983. Their number become thinned: Native American population dynamics in North America. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

          • dean

            Gienie,

            Good scholarship. Indian people did manage the land with fire for at least the past 4-5000 years. I recommend Boyd; Indians Fire and the Land in the Pacific Northwest for a good close to home survey.

            But….clearcut plantation forestry is not a good analog for complex native forests. This has been well studied, but a great source is Kohm & Franklin, Creating a New Forest for the 21st Century, Island Press.

            Underburned forests had widely spaced, very large, very old trees with clumps of younger trees growing in small openings. Our west of Cascades forests did not have much underburning, but did have “stand replacement fires” every 75-500 years. This is what foresters are trying to mimic with clearcutting, but there are 2 basic problems.

            First, they usually don’t leave enough “biological structure” behind after they cut. Even big fires only partially consume forests, leaving a lot behind. Clearcuts take everything except the roots and small limbs. (Carol has it right on this point. Go Carol, you intriguing mix of environmentalist and would be developer you)!

            Second, they clearcut too frequently. Industrial forests are cut over every 40-60 years. Not enough time for complexity to redevelop. Many species need complexity, and our rivers and streams also need long periods of undisturbed forest and lots of large wood to be healthy. This is why we need conserved forests as well as managed ones.

            Gienie…back to God. I think that very few of us can truly claim to know much about God. Some of us admit to it, while others read one book written by who knows who 2000 years ago and think they have it all figured out.

            I’m a speciest? Girl…you cut me to the quip (to paraphrase the Wizard speaking to Dorothy). Though I have to admit, I am eating a sheep I raised who refused to agree I was in charge of the barnyard, not him.

            Is mass extinction a “bad” thing? Hmmnnn….I’ll put it this way. The mass extinction of the dinosaurs after the asteroid struck the Yucatan probably made our existence possible. It certainly turned out bad for them and good for mammals. But I doubt the universe cared one way or the other.

            More to the point, would the loss of thousands of species in the modern world due to human ignorance, neglect, greed, shortsightedness and sheer stuborness be a “bad thing?” Yes. It would be bad, sad, and tragic. It would leave an impoverished world that we would be handing off to our children, and we ought to think about that before we kiss off the plover, the spotted owl, the last old growth forests, the climate, or anything else.

          • carol

            Dean, Gimme a break!
            Foresters now may be trying to ‘mimic’now, but, by God, that wasn’t the reason years ago, it was cut and run. Tell me that’s why the redwoods have disappeared, ’cause they were trying to create a better forest. It’s the almighty dollar, pure and simple. Like I said, don’t get me started. The big timber interests didn’t give a damn, and from the uproar when the environmentalists pulled the plug, I think that some of them were stupid enuff to think there was no end to the logs. I know some of the men working the saws weren’t Einsteins. That was a hard dangerous job. Get up before dawn, ride in a ‘crummy’ for 2-3 hours to get to the woods, and your pay didn’t start until you started cutting, and ended when you quit, with another 2-3 hours drive to home. I’ve been told that those ‘crummies’ had an aroma that couldn’t be duplicated, with stale beer and cigarettes being the best of it. I knew loggers, and the old ones were beaten and battered.

            And who the hell said I was a developer, out of 150+ acres, I want 3 houses for my daughters. Sorry, didn’t mean to sound antagonistic, just getting me started on logging gets me heated.

            Sounds like we agree on God, whoever she may be, and a lot of the stuff was written a lot more recently than 2000 years ago, more like 600 years ago, I understand that Satan didn’t appear until the 13th(?) century. Betcha I’ll find out before too many years. I have many times longed for the simple faith of my grandmothers, my mind is still open, but unfortunately it’s open to a lot of things. I like to watch the old movie “Contact” every once in a while, if I’m gonna be reincarnated, I don’t really want to come back here in the future unless the greedy ones have wiped it all out, so we can start over.

            ‘Nuff for now, I’m getting maudlin, not an attractive sight in a gal who was born in the depths of the Depression.
            Sayonara

          • dean

            Some foresters have adapted. I work with some truly fine ones. The main body of the timber industry has still not changed. Trees are money.Clearcutting was initiated in Germany in the 15th century. But they learned the hard way that plantation forestry is a dead end. We are still learning.

            I was just pulling your leg on the developer thing. Tit for tat.

            For a unique take on reincarnation, rent Defending Your Life, by Albert Brooks. Hilarious and instructive.

          • trees grow back

            All this stuff re logging is making my eyes water and I want to go hug a tree. Not. Trees grow back guys. Grow up and get a life and get over it. The really scary part is that people like Dean worked in the Forest Service when he was totally opposed to their mission statement which was to provide timber production, multiple use of our public lands and economic benefits for our communities. Get a grip.

          • dean

            Trees,

            Look on the bright side. I quit the FS 11 years ago.

            Iwas not opposed to the FS mission, which also includes conservation of species, watersheds, healthy rivers, recreation opportunities, scenery, and a lot of other things spelled out in the National Forest Management Act in black and white.

            The timber part unfortunately bumped up against all the other parts and something had to give. If all we wanted from our national forests was timber we should have sold those lands to private industry many years ago and had a well catered party.

          • trees grow back

            Privatization of public timberlands works for me. Great idea, Dean.

  • carol

    Sorry Gienie, you left out what I consider to be the primary reason, $$$$. I am old enough to remember those times. The days of 3 log loads, following one after the other. I never, at that time, heard any one discuss the reasons that you give for clearcutting. If loggers had any such lofty ideas, then why were the resulting clearcuts left to grow up willy-nilly, unthinned and choked with brush.

    Clear-cuts are, plain and simple, much cheaper to harvest than selective logging, and the loggers didn’t think there was an end to the bounty. I have been there, and listened to them talk. I have great-grandchildren the age of your new baby, notice I spoke of them, plural! I also remember the outrage over the spotted owl. As i said, been there, heard that, most of which couldn’t appear in print.

  • trees grow back

    Another comment re Carol’s concern about not cutting down the older trees and replanting, it’s her ilk that has brought on the catastrophic wildfires we see today due to non-management of our public forestlands. The question is is it better to let those forests decay and rot and become tinderboxes for wildfires or is it better to professionally manage those areas using professional forestry? This “Back To Nature” crowd is really ignorant and boring. And they are causing the destruction of our national forests.

    • dean

      Trees,

      On privitizing national forests, I would say if that is your goal then put it out there and go for it. See how much public support you can find, and how much the timber industry is actually willing to pay for high elevation, steep, low productivity forest land.

      On old versus young trees, it is well established that older conifers, particularly doug fir and ponderosa pine, are far more fire resistant than are younger trees. They have very thick bark, greater spacing, and their limbs are high in the air and thus less vulnerable to ladder fuels. Don’t take my word for it, Read Agee’s book Fire Ecology of Northwest Forests.

      Young conifer plantations, packed very dense with limbs to the ground, are very fire prone and tend to “vaporize” in fires because they burn so hot.

      “Catostrophic” fires of today in the intermountain region and in southern oregon are to a great extent a result of high-grade logging the big fire resistant trees AND preventing the frequent, low intentisy fires that used to clear the brush and thin the forest every decade or two. Read Arno and Bunnell, Flames in our Forest or any book by Stephen Pyne.

      On the east side of Mt Hood National Forest where I used to work there are vast areas of young, dense grand fir trees where there used to be widely spaced older ponderosa pine. They are just standing there waiting to burn. Blame the professional foresters & timber industry, not the environmentalists for that situation.

      You are the one expressing ignorance on this issue by the way. Put your bias aside for a bit and read up on the latest research before you spout off.

      • carol

        Dean, so nice to be on the same side for a change. You bring up things that I am too weary to begin. I stated earlier that all the media photos of wild-fires that I see are of young, unthinned second growth. I guess we won’t have that in the Sequoias, since the are so slow growing that we won’t see them in many life-times. No second growth to worry about.

        I subscribe to the old saying that one gets out of life, exactly what one puts in, I would hate to have to deal with the responsibility for destruction of a species, be it bird, beast, fish, or trees. Lousy Karma there.

        • dean

          Carol,

          I’ve never viewed us as being on different sides. We are both on the side of common sense, learning from experience and research, civility, and good karma. Having different opinions about this or that issue does not make us opposed, it makes us interesting (and annoying to some).

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)