108

 

Introducing the SWOPR

 

1-08

Dear Stewards of the Future,

 

The DIES of the WOPR brings great shame and indignity to the nations
principal conservation agency . It is most unfortunate that the very
agency that is poised to protect and manage our public forests for the
greater good has sided with those who seek only the profit of the
Almighty dollar and to recklessly plunder the one Earth we all must
share. The BLM has thus positioned it self in direct opposition to
public interests, true conservationists and Forest defenders who seek
souly to treat our Mother Earth with the love and respect she deserves.

 

 The authors of the WOPR claim that this revisions process will satisfy
a settlement agreement with the Timber industry that \"requires BLM to
consider revisions to the RMPs by the end of the year 2008, and include
at least one alternative that "will provide permanent forest production
across the O&C lands without reserves except as required to avoid
jeopardy under the Endangered Species Act.\"(footnote p.4.)

The document therefore stands in direct contradiction to the repeated
claims within the proposal which state that the

\"The plans will also comply with all other applicable laws\"(p.3)

 

If the BLM\' wanted a legal solution, then how will the \"purpose and
need\" be resolved by a settlement agreement? If the BLM has to follow
all laws, why didn\'t they let the lawsuit be legally resolved? Moreover
how will this temporary \"settlement agreement\" provide a permanent
legal solution to public resource management?

This document is an unwise and unethical plan to defraud
the people  of their public resources and rather than resolving anything
the WOPR has  created an unsettling disagreement of massive and tragic
proportions.

 

In response to your inquiry;

How to speed the redevelopment of structurally complex forests after
regeneration timber harvesting. (cover letter)

  

I admit certain and constrained difficulty in attempting to ground a
position from which one  can respond seriously to this non-sensical
statement. Calling clear-cutting \"regeneration harvesting\" is a
mischievously cutting line in itself. Is it possible that I am the first
to state that regeneration harvesting is inconsistent with the
redevelopment of structurally complex forests at any rate of speed? I
honestly think, that i must be misunderstanding what this statement is
suggesting. I know of no other perennial \"crop\" that is \"harvested
\"in such a manner. I know of no other ecosystem that takes longer to
reestablish its complex structure., which can continue for millenia.   I
can find no ground for reconciliation between regeneration harvesting
any where in the definition of \"sustainable yield\". And can find no
reason to support the conclusion for clear cutting at all on any land,
anywhere at all, ever.

 

 

I therefore state vehement opposition to all of the proposed
alternatives. Surly there are many among you who perceive the many
 inadequacies of the WOPR, and we call upon you to join in opposition to
the WOPR and to voice a willingness to call attention to addressing the
need for a SWOPR to  replace the Wasting Of Public Resources with an
alternative to Solve Western Oregon\'s Problem Resource management. I am
optimistic that together we create a peaceful future for our
grandchildren to inherit a perennial forested Earth.

 

United in Defense of Forests of Peace,

 

Human Being

1 Earth Place

Universe

00108