Edward W. Shepard, State Director

United States Department of Interior

# Bureau of Land Management

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

P.O. Box 2965

Portland, Oregon 97208

Dear Mr. Shepard and the Oregon Bureau of Land Management.

The Western Oregon Plan Review is simply unacceptable.

It provides no foundation of evidence that supports this level or
intensity of cut or addressing how it would move beyond the boom then
busted economic cycles, which have dogged our recent history. It's
another flash in the pan 'taking' benefiting a few and passing
consequences onto future generations. It is the antithesis of
sustainability or stewardship.

It's a whooper of a tale.... without connection to recent history and
how our past choices have impacted environmental health, our economic
vitality and our social equality, the three pillars of sustainability.

History is bound to repeat itself if the lessons of the past are
ignored, mitigated and/or justified by disconnecting cause and effect.
This analysis ignores 'cause and effect' and trends and trajectories of
externalities and unintended consequences, refusing to connect the dots
even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Concurrently, you completely ignore or support the wisdom of
alternatives like Orville and Mary Camp's Natural Selection Alternative
which was given to you for free and represents a plan that has wide
grassroots support, focuses on improving the healthy and functions of
the ecosystem by NOT continuing the rape and plunder and allowing the
soils, riparian and interdependent wildlife to heal. Mary and Orville
are concerned about being good ancestors, it's very unfortunate that
your not.

Lets get down to the bottom line here. Any effort to continue the rape
of the mother earth in the name of short term profiteering (Industrial
forestry and clear cutting creating converting forests into plantations)
isn't sustainable from any perspective, not environmentally, not
economically and certainly not socially.

When we see the resources of the earth as wealth we inherit from our
ancestors with all the rights of ownership, we seem to commodify and
disconnect those resources from reverence of the ecosystem. We allow the
marketplace to set 'value' while we ignore the mounting externalities
and unintended consequences that follow in their wake. We seem to
justify our momentary pleasures while we ignore future liabilities with
impunity.

Environmentally, the '**need**' for restoration must be seen as direct
consequence of a particular management focus. The need for thinning,
riparian restoration or any dealing with externalities/ unintended
consequences of any kind must be connected to the choices that created
it.

Sustainability or stewardship requires that we live on the interest and
not take the principle, that we understand the interdependent
interrelationships within and between each aspect of the triple bottom
line.

If we used holistic and comprehensive analysis, we would hold funds from
the initial profits in escrow for future restoration requirements. Until
we connect cause and effect on the most basic levels, our solutions will
always fall short. If our analysis was be able to compare/contrast
cost/benefits of different approaches against analysis of the triple
bottom line, then we might **begin** to understand what a level playing
field might look like. It is NOT sustainable to disconnect cause from
effect and pass liabilities on to future generations.

There are many aspects to the uneven playing field that need to be
brought to light in order to begin a more comprehensive and sustainable
analysis. Many stem from 'Industrial' assumptions, analysis and science.

Assumptions like Douglas fir trees grow 'better' and 'faster' in full
sunlight, thus justifying clear-cutting. What they don't talk about is
the inherently inferior lumber and products they are passing on to
future generations while they take the best, biggest, slowest growing
and most valuable trees. A number 3 peeler can bring \$900.00 a thousand
board feet where as pecker poles from young plantations are bringing
\$35.00 a thousand. How can you liquidate the most valuable now and
leave a legacy of externalities, unintended consequences and pecker
poles and call it multi-use, sustained yield forestry? It just isn't so.

Or the focus on 'mono' culture where we basically just plant Douglas fir
as it is the 'premier' construction soft wood. We don't bother to add
all the restoration costs of soil erosion and depletion, insect and
disease infestations, invasive species, increased cataclysmic fire and
the decreasing value of the timber, all of which contribute to the
'economic death spiral' where future liabilities increase and the
ability to pay for them diminish.

Forest Science has also contributed its share of research that
essentially attempts to mitigate, justify or ignore those pesky
externalities by disconnecting cause from effect.

I remember a conference at the H.J. Andrews experimental forest a number
of years ago on '**how can we create structural diversity within a
plantation'**. This theme has become the basis of many research projects
and become a central focus/justification of Industrial forestry. However
it ignores cause and effect.

Diversity was there to begin with, why destroy that diversity in order
to save it. It is akin to killing the village in order to save it. Yet
educated people continue to push these disconnects and no one holds them
accountable. The greatest good for the **fewest** number for the
**shortest** time is alive and well within our institutions.

The one benefit of Industrial forestry is that it has maximized the
short-term profits for the few, at the expense of the many and the yet
unborn. Those on top certainly want to maintain their wealth and profit.
How much is enough and how much inequity can harbor acceptable
discontentment?

What if we understood cause and effect, and the nature of externalities
and unintended consequences? What if we created analysis that learned
from history and incorporated that understanding? What if we designed
our forestry programs around the greatest good for the greatest number
for the longest time? What if we focused on selective harvesting, local
processing and end product forest management in a value added, job
creating thru applications of appropriate technology incorporating the
interdependent aspects of the triple bottom line? What if we were more
concerned with bring good ancestors than with our short-term profits?

If we understood any of these questions then recommendation #2 would not
have the slightest consideration.

It is time to return to the wisdom embodied in the philosophy of Gifford
Pinchot when he sought to provide the greatest good for the greatest
number for the longest time. Then we would consider the 'fate' of our
ancestors in the front end of our equations and not just pass on the
stumps and invasives.

The O and C lands are supposed to be managed on sustained yield and even
flow. So where is it? Certainly it hasn't been true in the past. Instead
we have witnessed boom then busted environments and rural communities as
the rule not the exception. Is there criminal intent here? I wonder.

The past should be a model of what NOT to emulate, if we are honest,
connect cause and effect and use holistic analysis. More of the same
will only deep the hole deeper and insure hopelessness and poverty for
our children and their children.

Recommendation #2 will insure a very brief benefit for a very few and
intergenerational suicide for the many as the externalities and
unintended consequences become due and payable. If recommendation #2
goes thru, future generations will curse your selfishness and ignorance,
as will I.

It's time to wake up and connect the dots.

No more clear-cutting. Period.

Craig Patterson

91949 Taylor Road

McKenzie Bridge, Oregon 97413

craigmpatterson@msn.com

Edward W. Shepard, State Director

United States Department of Interior

# Bureau of Land Management

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

P.O. Box 2965

Portland, Oregon 97208

Dear Mr. Shepard and the Oregon Bureau of Land Management.

The Western Oregon Plan Review is simply unacceptable.

It provides no foundation of evidence that supports this level or
intensity of cut or addressing how it would move beyond the boom then
busted economic cycles, which have dogged our recent history. It's
another flash in the pan 'taking' benefiting a few and passing
consequences onto future generations. It is the antithesis of
sustainability or stewardship.

It's a whooper of a tale.... without connection to recent history and
how our past choices have impacted environmental health, our economic
vitality and our social equality, the three pillars of sustainability.

History is bound to repeat itself if the lessons of the past are
ignored, mitigated and/or justified by disconnecting cause and effect.
This analysis ignores 'cause and effect' and trends and trajectories of
externalities and unintended consequences, refusing to connect the dots
even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Concurrently, you completely ignore or support the wisdom of
alternatives like Orville and Mary Camp's Natural Selection Alternative
which was given to you for free and represents a plan that has wide
grassroots support, focuses on improving the healthy and functions of
the ecosystem by NOT continuing the rape and plunder and allowing the
soils, riparian and interdependent wildlife to heal. Mary and Orville
are concerned about being good ancestors, it's very unfortunate that
your not.

Lets get down to the bottom line here. Any effort to continue the rape
of the mother earth in the name of short term profiteering (Industrial
forestry and clear cutting creating converting forests into plantations)
isn't sustainable from any perspective, not environmentally, not
economically and certainly not socially.

When we see the resources of the earth as wealth we inherit from our
ancestors with all the rights of ownership, we seem to commodify and
disconnect those resources from reverence of the ecosystem. We allow the
marketplace to set 'value' while we ignore the mounting externalities
and unintended consequences that follow in their wake. We seem to
justify our momentary pleasures while we ignore future liabilities with
impunity.

Environmentally, the '**need**' for restoration must be seen as direct
consequence of a particular management focus. The need for thinning,
riparian restoration or any dealing with externalities/ unintended
consequences of any kind must be connected to the choices that created
it.

Sustainability or stewardship requires that we live on the interest and
not take the principle, that we understand the interdependent
interrelationships within and between each aspect of the triple bottom
line.

If we used holistic and comprehensive analysis, we would hold funds from
the initial profits in escrow for future restoration requirements. Until
we connect cause and effect on the most basic levels, our solutions will
always fall short. If our analysis was be able to compare/contrast
cost/benefits of different approaches against analysis of the triple
bottom line, then we might **begin** to understand what a level playing
field might look like. It is NOT sustainable to disconnect cause from
effect and pass liabilities on to future generations.

There are many aspects to the uneven playing field that need to be
brought to light in order to begin a more comprehensive and sustainable
analysis. Many stem from 'Industrial' assumptions, analysis and science.

Assumptions like Douglas fir trees grow 'better' and 'faster' in full
sunlight, thus justifying clear-cutting. What they don't talk about is
the inherently inferior lumber and products they are passing on to
future generations while they take the best, biggest, slowest growing
and most valuable trees. A number 3 peeler can bring \$900.00 a thousand
board feet where as pecker poles from young plantations are bringing
\$35.00 a thousand. How can you liquidate the most valuable now and
leave a legacy of externalities, unintended consequences and pecker
poles and call it multi-use, sustained yield forestry? It just isn't so.

Or the focus on 'mono' culture where we basically just plant Douglas fir
as it is the 'premier' construction soft wood. We don't bother to add
all the restoration costs of soil erosion and depletion, insect and
disease infestations, invasive species, increased cataclysmic fire and
the decreasing value of the timber, all of which contribute to the
'economic death spiral' where future liabilities increase and the
ability to pay for them diminish.

Forest Science has also contributed its share of research that
essentially attempts to mitigate, justify or ignore those pesky
externalities by disconnecting cause from effect.

I remember a conference at the H.J. Andrews experimental forest a number
of years ago on '**how can we create structural diversity within a
plantation'**. This theme has become the basis of many research projects
and become a central focus/justification of Industrial forestry. However
it ignores cause and effect.

Diversity was there to begin with, why destroy that diversity in order
to save it. It is akin to killing the village in order to save it. Yet
educated people continue to push these disconnects and no one holds them
accountable. The greatest good for the **fewest** number for the
**shortest** time is alive and well within our institutions.

The one benefit of Industrial forestry is that it has maximized the
short-term profits for the few, at the expense of the many and the yet
unborn. Those on top certainly want to maintain their wealth and profit.
How much is enough and how much inequity can harbor acceptable
discontentment?

What if we understood cause and effect, and the nature of externalities
and unintended consequences? What if we created analysis that learned
from history and incorporated that understanding? What if we designed
our forestry programs around the greatest good for the greatest number
for the longest time? What if we focused on selective harvesting, local
processing and end product forest management in a value added, job
creating thru applications of appropriate technology incorporating the
interdependent aspects of the triple bottom line? What if we were more
concerned with bring good ancestors than with our short-term profits?

If we understood any of these questions then recommendation #2 would not
have the slightest consideration.

It is time to return to the wisdom embodied in the philosophy of Gifford
Pinchot when he sought to provide the greatest good for the greatest
number for the longest time. Then we would consider the 'fate' of our
ancestors in the front end of our equations and not just pass on the
stumps and invasives.

The O and C lands are supposed to be managed on sustained yield and even
flow. So where is it? Certainly it hasn't been true in the past. Instead
we have witnessed boom then busted environments and rural communities as
the rule not the exception. Is there criminal intent here? I wonder.

The past should be a model of what NOT to emulate, if we are honest,
connect cause and effect and use holistic analysis. More of the same
will only deep the hole deeper and insure hopelessness and poverty for
our children and their children.

Recommendation #2 will insure a very brief benefit for a very few and
intergenerational suicide for the many as the externalities and
unintended consequences become due and payable. If recommendation #2
goes thru, future generations will curse your selfishness and ignorance,
as will I.

It's time to wake up and connect the dots.

No more clear-cutting. Period.

Craig Patterson

91949 Taylor Road

McKenzie Bridge, Oregon 97413

craigmpatterson@msn.com

Edward W. Shepard, State Director

United States Department of Interior

# Bureau of Land Management

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

P.O. Box 2965

Portland, Oregon 97208

Dear Mr. Shepard and the Oregon Bureau of Land Management.

The Western Oregon Plan Review is simply unacceptable.

It provides no foundation of evidence that supports this level or
intensity of cut or addressing how it would move beyond the boom then
busted economic cycles, which have dogged our recent history. It's
another flash in the pan 'taking' benefiting a few and passing
consequences onto future generations. It is the antithesis of
sustainability or stewardship.

It's a whooper of a tale.... without connection to recent history and
how our past choices have impacted environmental health, our economic
vitality and our social equality, the three pillars of sustainability.

History is bound to repeat itself if the lessons of the past are
ignored, mitigated and/or justified by disconnecting cause and effect.
This analysis ignores 'cause and effect' and trends and trajectories of
externalities and unintended consequences, refusing to connect the dots
even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Concurrently, you completely ignore or support the wisdom of
alternatives like Orville and Mary Camp's Natural Selection Alternative
which was given to you for free and represents a plan that has wide
grassroots support, focuses on improving the healthy and functions of
the ecosystem by NOT continuing the rape and plunder and allowing the
soils, riparian and interdependent wildlife to heal. Mary and Orville
are concerned about being good ancestors, it's very unfortunate that
your not.

Lets get down to the bottom line here. Any effort to continue the rape
of the mother earth in the name of short term profiteering (Industrial
forestry and clear cutting creating converting forests into plantations)
isn't sustainable from any perspective, not environmentally, not
economically and certainly not socially.

When we see the resources of the earth as wealth we inherit from our
ancestors with all the rights of ownership, we seem to commodify and
disconnect those resources from reverence of the ecosystem. We allow the
marketplace to set 'value' while we ignore the mounting externalities
and unintended consequences that follow in their wake. We seem to
justify our momentary pleasures while we ignore future liabilities with
impunity.

Environmentally, the '**need**' for restoration must be seen as direct
consequence of a particular management focus. The need for thinning,
riparian restoration or any dealing with externalities/ unintended
consequences of any kind must be connected to the choices that created
it.

Sustainability or stewardship requires that we live on the interest and
not take the principle, that we understand the interdependent
interrelationships within and between each aspect of the triple bottom
line.

If we used holistic and comprehensive analysis, we would hold funds from
the initial profits in escrow for future restoration requirements. Until
we connect cause and effect on the most basic levels, our solutions will
always fall short. If our analysis was be able to compare/contrast
cost/benefits of different approaches against analysis of the triple
bottom line, then we might **begin** to understand what a level playing
field might look like. It is NOT sustainable to disconnect cause from
effect and pass liabilities on to future generations.

There are many aspects to the uneven playing field that need to be
brought to light in order to begin a more comprehensive and sustainable
analysis. Many stem from 'Industrial' assumptions, analysis and science.

Assumptions like Douglas fir trees grow 'better' and 'faster' in full
sunlight, thus justifying clear-cutting. What they don't talk about is
the inherently inferior lumber and products they are passing on to
future generations while they take the best, biggest, slowest growing
and most valuable trees. A number 3 peeler can bring \$900.00 a thousand
board feet where as pecker poles from young plantations are bringing
\$35.00 a thousand. How can you liquidate the most valuable now and
leave a legacy of externalities, unintended consequences and pecker
poles and call it multi-use, sustained yield forestry? It just isn't so.

Or the focus on 'mono' culture where we basically just plant Douglas fir
as it is the 'premier' construction soft wood. We don't bother to add
all the restoration costs of soil erosion and depletion, insect and
disease infestations, invasive species, increased cataclysmic fire and
the decreasing value of the timber, all of which contribute to the
'economic death spiral' where future liabilities increase and the
ability to pay for them diminish.

Forest Science has also contributed its share of research that
essentially attempts to mitigate, justify or ignore those pesky
externalities by disconnecting cause from effect.

I remember a conference at the H.J. Andrews experimental forest a number
of years ago on '**how can we create structural diversity within a
plantation'**. This theme has become the basis of many research projects
and become a central focus/justification of Industrial forestry. However
it ignores cause and effect.

Diversity was there to begin with, why destroy that diversity in order
to save it. It is akin to killing the village in order to save it. Yet
educated people continue to push these disconnects and no one holds them
accountable. The greatest good for the **fewest** number for the
**shortest** time is alive and well within our institutions.

The one benefit of Industrial forestry is that it has maximized the
short-term profits for the few, at the expense of the many and the yet
unborn. Those on top certainly want to maintain their wealth and profit.
How much is enough and how much inequity can harbor acceptable
discontentment?

What if we understood cause and effect, and the nature of externalities
and unintended consequences? What if we created analysis that learned
from history and incorporated that understanding? What if we designed
our forestry programs around the greatest good for the greatest number
for the longest time? What if we focused on selective harvesting, local
processing and end product forest management in a value added, job
creating thru applications of appropriate technology incorporating the
interdependent aspects of the triple bottom line? What if we were more
concerned with bring good ancestors than with our short-term profits?

If we understood any of these questions then recommendation #2 would not
have the slightest consideration.

It is time to return to the wisdom embodied in the philosophy of Gifford
Pinchot when he sought to provide the greatest good for the greatest
number for the longest time. Then we would consider the 'fate' of our
ancestors in the front end of our equations and not just pass on the
stumps and invasives.

The O and C lands are supposed to be managed on sustained yield and even
flow. So where is it? Certainly it hasn't been true in the past. Instead
we have witnessed boom then busted environments and rural communities as
the rule not the exception. Is there criminal intent here? I wonder.

The past should be a model of what NOT to emulate, if we are honest,
connect cause and effect and use holistic analysis. More of the same
will only deep the hole deeper and insure hopelessness and poverty for
our children and their children.

Recommendation #2 will insure a very brief benefit for a very few and
intergenerational suicide for the many as the externalities and
unintended consequences become due and payable. If recommendation #2
goes thru, future generations will curse your selfishness and ignorance,
as will I.

It's time to wake up and connect the dots.

No more clear-cutting. Period.

Craig Patterson

91949 Taylor Road

McKenzie Bridge, Oregon 97413

craigmpatterson@msn.comEdward W. Shepard, State Director

United States Department of Interior

# Bureau of Land Management

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

P.O. Box 2965

Portland, Oregon 97208

Dear Mr. Shepard and the Oregon Bureau of Land Management.

The Western Oregon Plan Review is simply unacceptable.

It provides no foundation of evidence that supports this level or
intensity of cut or addressing how it would move beyond the boom then
busted economic cycles, which have dogged our recent history. It's
another flash in the pan 'taking' benefiting a few and passing
consequences onto future generations. It is the antithesis of
sustainability or stewardship.

It's a whooper of a tale.... without connection to recent history and
how our past choices have impacted environmental health, our economic
vitality and our social equality, the three pillars of sustainability.

History is bound to repeat itself if the lessons of the past are
ignored, mitigated and/or justified by disconnecting cause and effect.
This analysis ignores 'cause and effect' and trends and trajectories of
externalities and unintended consequences, refusing to connect the dots
even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Concurrently, you completely ignore or support the wisdom of
alternatives like Orville and Mary Camp's Natural Selection Alternative
which was given to you for free and represents a plan that has wide
grassroots support, focuses on improving the healthy and functions of
the ecosystem by NOT continuing the rape and plunder and allowing the
soils, riparian and interdependent wildlife to heal. Mary and Orville
are concerned about being good ancestors, it's very unfortunate that
your not.

Lets get down to the bottom line here. Any effort to continue the rape
of the mother earth in the name of short term profiteering (Industrial
forestry and clear cutting creating converting forests into plantations)
isn't sustainable from any perspective, not environmentally, not
economically and certainly not socially.

When we see the resources of the earth as wealth we inherit from our
ancestors with all the rights of ownership, we seem to commodify and
disconnect those resources from reverence of the ecosystem. We allow the
marketplace to set 'value' while we ignore the mounting externalities
and unintended consequences that follow in their wake. We seem to
justify our momentary pleasures while we ignore future liabilities with
impunity.

Environmentally, the '**need**' for restoration must be seen as direct
consequence of a particular management focus. The need for thinning,
riparian restoration or any dealing with externalities/ unintended
consequences of any kind must be connected to the choices that created
it.

Sustainability or stewardship requires that we live on the interest and
not take the principle, that we understand the interdependent
interrelationships within and between each aspect of the triple bottom
line.

If we used holistic and comprehensive analysis, we would hold funds from
the initial profits in escrow for future restoration requirements. Until
we connect cause and effect on the most basic levels, our solutions will
always fall short. If our analysis was be able to compare/contrast
cost/benefits of different approaches against analysis of the triple
bottom line, then we might **begin** to understand what a level playing
field might look like. It is NOT sustainable to disconnect cause from
effect and pass liabilities on to future generations.

There are many aspects to the uneven playing field that need to be
brought to light in order to begin a more comprehensive and sustainable
analysis. Many stem from 'Industrial' assumptions, analysis and science.

Assumptions like Douglas fir trees grow 'better' and 'faster' in full
sunlight, thus justifying clear-cutting. What they don't talk about is
the inherently inferior lumber and products they are passing on to
future generations while they take the best, biggest, slowest growing
and most valuable trees. A number 3 peeler can bring \$900.00 a thousand
board feet where as pecker poles from young plantations are bringing
\$35.00 a thousand. How can you liquidate the most valuable now and
leave a legacy of externalities, unintended consequences and pecker
poles and call it multi-use, sustained yield forestry? It just isn't so.

Or the focus on 'mono' culture where we basically just plant Douglas fir
as it is the 'premier' construction soft wood. We don't bother to add
all the restoration costs of soil erosion and depletion, insect and
disease infestations, invasive species, increased cataclysmic fire and
the decreasing value of the timber, all of which contribute to the
'economic death spiral' where future liabilities increase and the
ability to pay for them diminish.

Forest Science has also contributed its share of research that
essentially attempts to mitigate, justify or ignore those pesky
externalities by disconnecting cause from effect.

I remember a conference at the H.J. Andrews experimental forest a number
of years ago on '**how can we create structural diversity within a
plantation'**. This theme has become the basis of many research projects
and become a central focus/justification of Industrial forestry. However
it ignores cause and effect.

Diversity was there to begin with, why destroy that diversity in order
to save it. It is akin to killing the village in order to save it. Yet
educated people continue to push these disconnects and no one holds them
accountable. The greatest good for the **fewest** number for the
**shortest** time is alive and well within our institutions.

The one benefit of Industrial forestry is that it has maximized the
short-term profits for the few, at the expense of the many and the yet
unborn. Those on top certainly want to maintain their wealth and profit.
How much is enough and how much inequity can harbor acceptable
discontentment?

What if we understood cause and effect, and the nature of externalities
and unintended consequences? What if we created analysis that learned
from history and incorporated that understanding? What if we designed
our forestry programs around the greatest good for the greatest number
for the longest time? What if we focused on selective harvesting, local
processing and end product forest management in a value added, job
creating thru applications of appropriate technology incorporating the
interdependent aspects of the triple bottom line? What if we were more
concerned with bring good ancestors than with our short-term profits?

If we understood any of these questions then recommendation #2 would not
have the slightest consideration.

It is time to return to the wisdom embodied in the philosophy of Gifford
Pinchot when he sought to provide the greatest good for the greatest
number for the longest time. Then we would consider the 'fate' of our
ancestors in the front end of our equations and not just pass on the
stumps and invasives.

The O and C lands are supposed to be managed on sustained yield and even
flow. So where is it? Certainly it hasn't been true in the past. Instead
we have witnessed boom then busted environments and rural communities as
the rule not the exception. Is there criminal intent here? I wonder.

The past should be a model of what NOT to emulate, if we are honest,
connect cause and effect and use holistic analysis. More of the same
will only deep the hole deeper and insure hopelessness and poverty for
our children and their children.

Recommendation #2 will insure a very brief benefit for a very few and
intergenerational suicide for the many as the externalities and
unintended consequences become due and payable. If recommendation #2
goes thru, future generations will curse your selfishness and ignorance,
as will I.

It's time to wake up and connect the dots.

No more clear-cutting. Period.

Craig Patterson

91949 Taylor Road

McKenzie Bridge, Oregon 97413

craigmpatterson@msn.com

Edward W. Shepard, State Director

United States Department of Interior

# Bureau of Land Management

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

P.O. Box 2965

Portland, Oregon 97208

Dear Mr. Shepard and the Oregon Bureau of Land Management.

The Western Oregon Plan Review is simply unacceptable.

It provides no foundation of evidence that supports this level or
intensity of cut or addressing how it would move beyond the boom then
busted economic cycles, which have dogged our recent history. It's
another flash in the pan 'taking' benefiting a few and passing
consequences onto future generations. It is the antithesis of
sustainability or stewardship.

It's a whooper of a tale.... without connection to recent history and
how our past choices have impacted environmental health, our economic
vitality and our social equality, the three pillars of sustainability.

History is bound to repeat itself if the lessons of the past are
ignored, mitigated and/or justified by disconnecting cause and effect.
This analysis ignores 'cause and effect' and trends and trajectories of
externalities and unintended consequences, refusing to connect the dots
even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Concurrently, you completely ignore or support the wisdom of
alternatives like Orville and Mary Camp's Natural Selection Alternative
which was given to you for free and represents a plan that has wide
grassroots support, focuses on improving the healthy and functions of
the ecosystem by NOT continuing the rape and plunder and allowing the
soils, riparian and interdependent wildlife to heal. Mary and Orville
are concerned about being good ancestors, it's very unfortunate that
your not.

Lets get down to the bottom line here. Any effort to continue the rape
of the mother earth in the name of short term profiteering (Industrial
forestry and clear cutting creating converting forests into plantations)
isn't sustainable from any perspective, not environmentally, not
economically and certainly not socially.

When we see the resources of the earth as wealth we inherit from our
ancestors with all the rights of ownership, we seem to commodify and
disconnect those resources from reverence of the ecosystem. We allow the
marketplace to set 'value' while we ignore the mounting externalities
and unintended consequences that follow in their wake. We seem to
justify our momentary pleasures while we ignore future liabilities with
impunity.

Environmentally, the '**need**' for restoration must be seen as direct
consequence of a particular management focus. The need for thinning,
riparian restoration or any dealing with externalities/ unintended
consequences of any kind must be connected to the choices that created
it.

Sustainability or stewardship requires that we live on the interest and
not take the principle, that we understand the interdependent
interrelationships within and between each aspect of the triple bottom
line.

If we used holistic and comprehensive analysis, we would hold funds from
the initial profits in escrow for future restoration requirements. Until
we connect cause and effect on the most basic levels, our solutions will
always fall short. If our analysis was be able to compare/contrast
cost/benefits of different approaches against analysis of the triple
bottom line, then we might **begin** to understand what a level playing
field might look like. It is NOT sustainable to disconnect cause from
effect and pass liabilities on to future generations.

There are many aspects to the uneven playing field that need to be
brought to light in order to begin a more comprehensive and sustainable
analysis. Many stem from 'Industrial' assumptions, analysis and science.

Assumptions like Douglas fir trees grow 'better' and 'faster' in full
sunlight, thus justifying clear-cutting. What they don't talk about is
the inherently inferior lumber and products they are passing on to
future generations while they take the best, biggest, slowest growing
and most valuable trees. A number 3 peeler can bring \$900.00 a thousand
board feet where as pecker poles from young plantations are bringing
\$35.00 a thousand. How can you liquidate the most valuable now and
leave a legacy of externalities, unintended consequences and pecker
poles and call it multi-use, sustained yield forestry? It just isn't so.

Or the focus on 'mono' culture where we basically just plant Douglas fir
as it is the 'premier' construction soft wood. We don't bother to add
all the restoration costs of soil erosion and depletion, insect and
disease infestations, invasive species, increased cataclysmic fire and
the decreasing value of the timber, all of which contribute to the
'economic death spiral' where future liabilities increase and the
ability to pay for them diminish.

Forest Science has also contributed its share of research that
essentially attempts to mitigate, justify or ignore those pesky
externalities by disconnecting cause from effect.

I remember a conference at the H.J. Andrews experimental forest a number
of years ago on '**how can we create structural diversity within a
plantation'**. This theme has become the basis of many research projects
and become a central focus/justification of Industrial forestry. However
it ignores cause and effect.

Diversity was there to begin with, why destroy that diversity in order
to save it. It is akin to killing the village in order to save it. Yet
educated people continue to push these disconnects and no one holds them
accountable. The greatest good for the **fewest** number for the
**shortest** time is alive and well within our institutions.

The one benefit of Industrial forestry is that it has maximized the
short-term profits for the few, at the expense of the many and the yet
unborn. Those on top certainly want to maintain their wealth and profit.
How much is enough and how much inequity can harbor acceptable
discontentment?

What if we understood cause and effect, and the nature of externalities
and unintended consequences? What if we created analysis that learned
from history and incorporated that understanding? What if we designed
our forestry programs around the greatest good for the greatest number
for the longest time? What if we focused on selective harvesting, local
processing and end product forest management in a value added, job
creating thru applications of appropriate technology incorporating the
interdependent aspects of the triple bottom line? What if we were more
concerned with bring good ancestors than with our short-term profits?

If we understood any of these questions then recommendation #2 would not
have the slightest consideration.

It is time to return to the wisdom embodied in the philosophy of Gifford
Pinchot when he sought to provide the greatest good for the greatest
number for the longest time. Then we would consider the 'fate' of our
ancestors in the front end of our equations and not just pass on the
stumps and invasives.

The O and C lands are supposed to be managed on sustained yield and even
flow. So where is it? Certainly it hasn't been true in the past. Instead
we have witnessed boom then busted environments and rural communities as
the rule not the exception. Is there criminal intent here? I wonder.

The past should be a model of what NOT to emulate, if we are honest,
connect cause and effect and use holistic analysis. More of the same
will only deep the hole deeper and insure hopelessness and poverty for
our children and their children.

Recommendation #2 will insure a very brief benefit for a very few and
intergenerational suicide for the many as the externalities and
unintended consequences become due and payable. If recommendation #2
goes thru, future generations will curse your selfishness and ignorance,
as will I.

It's time to wake up and connect the dots.

No more clear-cutting. Period.

Craig Patterson

91949 Taylor Road

McKenzie Bridge, Oregon 97413

craigmpatterson@msn.com

Edward W. Shepard, State Director

United States Department of Interior

# Bureau of Land Management

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

P.O. Box 2965

Portland, Oregon 97208

Dear Mr. Shepard and the Oregon Bureau of Land Management.

The Western Oregon Plan Review is simply unacceptable.

It provides no foundation of evidence that supports this level or
intensity of cut or addressing how it would move beyond the boom then
busted economic cycles, which have dogged our recent history. It's
another flash in the pan 'taking' benefiting a few and passing
consequences onto future generations. It is the antithesis of
sustainability or stewardship.

It's a whooper of a tale.... without connection to recent history and
how our past choices have impacted environmental health, our economic
vitality and our social equality, the three pillars of sustainability.

History is bound to repeat itself if the lessons of the past are
ignored, mitigated and/or justified by disconnecting cause and effect.
This analysis ignores 'cause and effect' and trends and trajectories of
externalities and unintended consequences, refusing to connect the dots
even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Concurrently, you completely ignore or support the wisdom of
alternatives like Orville and Mary Camp's Natural Selection Alternative
which was given to you for free and represents a plan that has wide
grassroots support, focuses on improving the healthy and functions of
the ecosystem by NOT continuing the rape and plunder and allowing the
soils, riparian and interdependent wildlife to heal. Mary and Orville
are concerned about being good ancestors, it's very unfortunate that
your not.

Lets get down to the bottom line here. Any effort to continue the rape
of the mother earth in the name of short term profiteering (Industrial
forestry and clear cutting creating converting forests into plantations)
isn't sustainable from any perspective, not environmentally, not
economically and certainly not socially.

When we see the resources of the earth as wealth we inherit from our
ancestors with all the rights of ownership, we seem to commodify and
disconnect those resources from reverence of the ecosystem. We allow the
marketplace to set 'value' while we ignore the mounting externalities
and unintended consequences that follow in their wake. We seem to
justify our momentary pleasures while we ignore future liabilities with
impunity.

Environmentally, the '**need**' for restoration must be seen as direct
consequence of a particular management focus. The need for thinning,
riparian restoration or any dealing with externalities/ unintended
consequences of any kind must be connected to the choices that created
it.

Sustainability or stewardship requires that we live on the interest and
not take the principle, that we understand the interdependent
interrelationships within and between each aspect of the triple bottom
line.

If we used holistic and comprehensive analysis, we would hold funds from
the initial profits in escrow for future restoration requirements. Until
we connect cause and effect on the most basic levels, our solutions will
always fall short. If our analysis was be able to compare/contrast
cost/benefits of different approaches against analysis of the triple
bottom line, then we might **begin** to understand what a level playing
field might look like. It is NOT sustainable to disconnect cause from
effect and pass liabilities on to future generations.

There are many aspects to the uneven playing field that need to be
brought to light in order to begin a more comprehensive and sustainable
analysis. Many stem from 'Industrial' assumptions, analysis and science.

Assumptions like Douglas fir trees grow 'better' and 'faster' in full
sunlight, thus justifying clear-cutting. What they don't talk about is
the inherently inferior lumber and products they are passing on to
future generations while they take the best, biggest, slowest growing
and most valuable trees. A number 3 peeler can bring \$900.00 a thousand
board feet where as pecker poles from young plantations are bringing
\$35.00 a thousand. How can you liquidate the most valuable now and
leave a legacy of externalities, unintended consequences and pecker
poles and call it multi-use, sustained yield forestry? It just isn't so.

Or the focus on 'mono' culture where we basically just plant Douglas fir
as it is the 'premier' construction soft wood. We don't bother to add
all the restoration costs of soil erosion and depletion, insect and
disease infestations, invasive species, increased cataclysmic fire and
the decreasing value of the timber, all of which contribute to the
'economic death spiral' where future liabilities increase and the
ability to pay for them diminish.

Forest Science has also contributed its share of research that
essentially attempts to mitigate, justify or ignore those pesky
externalities by disconnecting cause from effect.

I remember a conference at the H.J. Andrews experimental forest a number
of years ago on '**how can we create structural diversity within a
plantation'**. This theme has become the basis of many research projects
and become a central focus/justification of Industrial forestry. However
it ignores cause and effect.

Diversity was there to begin with, why destroy that diversity in order
to save it. It is akin to killing the village in order to save it. Yet
educated people continue to push these disconnects and no one holds them
accountable. The greatest good for the **fewest** number for the
**shortest** time is alive and well within our institutions.

The one benefit of Industrial forestry is that it has maximized the
short-term profits for the few, at the expense of the many and the yet
unborn. Those on top certainly want to maintain their wealth and profit.
How much is enough and how much inequity can harbor acceptable
discontentment?

What if we understood cause and effect, and the nature of externalities
and unintended consequences? What if we created analysis that learned
from history and incorporated that understanding? What if we designed
our forestry programs around the greatest good for the greatest number
for the longest time? What if we focused on selective harvesting, local
processing and end product forest management in a value added, job
creating thru applications of appropriate technology incorporating the
interdependent aspects of the triple bottom line? What if we were more
concerned with bring good ancestors than with our short-term profits?

If we understood any of these questions then recommendation #2 would not
have the slightest consideration.

It is time to return to the wisdom embodied in the philosophy of Gifford
Pinchot when he sought to provide the greatest good for the greatest
number for the longest time. Then we would consider the 'fate' of our
ancestors in the front end of our equations and not just pass on the
stumps and invasives.

The O and C lands are supposed to be managed on sustained yield and even
flow. So where is it? Certainly it hasn't been true in the past. Instead
we have witnessed boom then busted environments and rural communities as
the rule not the exception. Is there criminal intent here? I wonder.

The past should be a model of what NOT to emulate, if we are honest,
connect cause and effect and use holistic analysis. More of the same
will only deep the hole deeper and insure hopelessness and poverty for
our children and their children.

Recommendation #2 will insure a very brief benefit for a very few and
intergenerational suicide for the many as the externalities and
unintended consequences become due and payable. If recommendation #2
goes thru, future generations will curse your selfishness and ignorance,
as will I.

It's time to wake up and connect the dots.

No more clear-cutting. Period. Edward W. Shepard, State Director

United States Department of Interior

# Bureau of Land Management

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

P.O. Box 2965

Portland, Oregon 97208

Dear Mr. Shepard and the Oregon Bureau of Land Management.

The Western Oregon Plan Review is simply unacceptable.

It provides no foundation of evidence that supports this level or
intensity of cut or addressing how it would move beyond the boom then
busted economic cycles, which have dogged our recent history. It's
another flash in the pan 'taking' benefiting a few and passing
consequences onto future generations. It is the antithesis of
sustainability or stewardship.

It's a whooper of a tale.... without connection to recent history and
how our past choices have impacted environmental health, our economic
vitality and our social equality, the three pillars of sustainability.

History is bound to repeat itself if the lessons of the past are
ignored, mitigated and/or justified by disconnecting cause and effect.
This analysis ignores 'cause and effect' and trends and trajectories of
externalities and unintended consequences, refusing to connect the dots
even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Concurrently, you completely ignore or support the wisdom of
alternatives like Orville and Mary Camp's Natural Selection Alternative
which was given to you for free and represents a plan that has wide
grassroots support, focuses on improving the healthy and functions of
the ecosystem by NOT continuing the rape and plunder and allowing the
soils, riparian and interdependent wildlife to heal. Mary and Orville
are concerned about being good ancestors, it's very unfortunate that
your not.

Lets get down to the bottom line here. Any effort to continue the rape
of the mother earth in the name of short term profiteering (Industrial
forestry and clear cutting creating converting forests into plantations)
isn't sustainable from any perspective, not environmentally, not
economically and certainly not socially.

When we see the resources of the earth as wealth we inherit from our
ancestors with all the rights of ownership, we seem to commodify and
disconnect those resources from reverence of the ecosystem. We allow the
marketplace to set 'value' while we ignore the mounting externalities
and unintended consequences that follow in their wake. We seem to
justify our momentary pleasures while we ignore future liabilities with
impunity.

Environmentally, the '**need**' for restoration must be seen as direct
consequence of a particular management focus. The need for thinning,
riparian restoration or any dealing with externalities/ unintended
consequences of any kind must be connected to the choices that created
it.

Sustainability or stewardship requires that we live on the interest and
not take the principle, that we understand the interdependent
interrelationships within and between each aspect of the triple bottom
line.

If we used holistic and comprehensive analysis, we would hold funds from
the initial profits in escrow for future restoration requirements. Until
we connect cause and effect on the most basic levels, our solutions will
always fall short. If our analysis was be able to compare/contrast
cost/benefits of different approaches against analysis of the triple
bottom line, then we might **begin** to understand what a level playing
field might look like. It is NOT sustainable to disconnect cause from
effect and pass liabilities on to future generations.

There are many aspects to the uneven playing field that need to be
brought to light in order to begin a more comprehensive and sustainable
analysis. Many stem from 'Industrial' assumptions, analysis and science.

Assumptions like Douglas fir trees grow 'better' and 'faster' in full
sunlight, thus justifying clear-cutting. What they don't talk about is
the inherently inferior lumber and products they are passing on to
future generations while they take the best, biggest, slowest growing
and most valuable trees. A number 3 peeler can bring \$900.00 a thousand
board feet where as pecker poles from young plantations are bringing
\$35.00 a thousand. How can you liquidate the most valuable now and
leave a legacy of externalities, unintended consequences and pecker
poles and call it multi-use, sustained yield forestry? It just isn't so.

Or the focus on 'mono' culture where we basically just plant Douglas fir
as it is the 'premier' construction soft wood. We don't bother to add
all the restoration costs of soil erosion and depletion, insect and
disease infestations, invasive species, increased cataclysmic fire and
the decreasing value of the timber, all of which contribute to the
'economic death spiral' where future liabilities increase and the
ability to pay for them diminish.

Forest Science has also contributed its share of research that
essentially attempts to mitigate, justify or ignore those pesky
externalities by disconnecting cause from effect.

I remember a conference at the H.J. Andrews experimental forest a number
of years ago on '**how can we create structural diversity within a
plantation'**. This theme has become the basis of many research projects
and become a central focus/justification of Industrial forestry. However
it ignores cause and effect.

Diversity was there to begin with, why destroy that diversity in order
to save it. It is akin to killing the village in order to save it. Yet
educated people continue to push these disconnects and no one holds them
accountable. The greatest good for the **fewest** number for the
**shortest** time is alive and well within our institutions.

The one benefit of Industrial forestry is that it has maximized the
short-term profits for the few, at the expense of the many and the yet
unborn. Those on top certainly want to maintain their wealth and profit.
How much is enough and how much inequity can harbor acceptable
discontentment?

What if we understood cause and effect, and the nature of externalities
and unintended consequences? What if we created analysis that learned
from history and incorporated that understanding? What if we designed
our forestry programs around the greatest good for the greatest number
for the longest time? What if we focused on selective harvesting, local
processing and end product forest management in a value added, job
creating thru applications of appropriate technology incorporating the
interdependent aspects of the triple bottom line? What if we were more
concerned with bring good ancestors than with our short-term profits?

If we understood any of these questions then recommendation #2 would not
have the slightest consideration.

It is time to return to the wisdom embodied in the philosophy of Gifford
Pinchot when he sought to provide the greatest good for the greatest
number for the longest time. Then we would consider the 'fate' of our
ancestors in the front end of our equations and not just pass on the
stumps and invasives.

The O and C lands are supposed to be managed on sustained yield and even
flow. So where is it? Certainly it hasn't been true in the past. Instead
we have witnessed boom then busted environments and rural communities as
the rule not the exception. Is there criminal intent here? I wonder.

The past should be a model of what NOT to emulate, if we are honest,
connect cause and effect and use holistic analysis. More of the same
will only deep the hole deeper and insure hopelessness and poverty for
our children and their children.

Recommendation #2 will insure a very brief benefit for a very few and
intergenerational suicide for the many as the externalities and
unintended consequences become due and payable. If recommendation #2
goes thru, future generations will curse your selfishness and ignorance,
as will I.

It's time to wake up and connect the dots.

No more clear-cutting. Period.

Craig Patterson

91949 Taylor Road

McKenzie Bridge, Oregon 97413

craigmpatterson@msn.com

Craig Patterson

91949 Taylor Road

McKenzie Bridge, Oregon 97413

craigmpatterson@msn.com