 |
  |
 |
|||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||
|
FIELD OF STUMPS I read with interest James Johnston's (8/28) article "Fire Season." I appreciate EW taking on an issue that is both national in scope and local in impact. Johnston's article ably attempts to take on, in a limited space, a problem about which I suspect he could have written volumes. I wonder, had his byline not been followed by a note indicating that Johnston is an "environmental activist," if letters such as that of Cynthia Orlando's in last week's EW would have been as virulent in tone and personal in attack. I didn't think that Johnston "demonized" the Forest Service, although there was a strong, and quite valid, indictment of a misguided, counterproductive and fiscally irresponsible fire management policy. I take strong exception to Orlando's claim that lawsuits and court cases have tied the Forest Service's hands and prevented them from forest management practices that reduce fuel buildup and the risk of catastrophic fire. I dare her to name one fuel reduction project on the Willamette National Forest that's been held up by litigation. There are few, if any, genuine fuel reduction projects being done on the Willamette. The management of this forest is focused on the old-growth clearcutting business, and old-growth clearcutting is what has (thankfully) been held up by lawsuits. Clearcutting stands of nearly 7-foot diameter old-growth Douglas fir, as happened in the recent Berry Patch timber sale, is a far cry from thinning brush and small trees. Ironically, it is these larger trees that are fire-resistant. The most inaccurate part of Orlando's critique was the bold claim that the USFS clearcut only 80 acres of forest in 2002. Drive up FS Road 1817 (about five miles from the Clark Fire) to the Berry Patch timber sale and you'll see what forest "management" on the Willamette looks like: a field of stumps that used to be a 500-year-old forest. This sale clearcut 50 acres of old growth in 2002. Or check out the Rhody timber sale east of Lowell (40 acres of old-growth clearcuts in 2002). These two examples in the Middle Fork Ranger District alone are 90 acres of clearcut and do not even begin to reflect the total number of acres that were clearcut in Oregon in 2002. All told, there are more than 500 acres of old-growth clearcuts planned on the Willamette National Forest within 20 miles of the Clark fire. Twenty acres of old growth on the Straw Devil timber sale were clearcut just a month ago. And this is just one ranger district of 155 national forests. Camilla Mortensen, Eugene PRACTICALLY GREEN Environmentalism is a predictable and justifiable reaction to unrestrained imprudent human expansion, destructive pointless materialism, and as George F. Will, conservative political commentator, writes: "our national knack for wretched excesses." However, once this is acknowledged, the certainty remains that humans, in order to exist, must either mine or grow wealth. African conservationist David Western contends in The Dust of Kilimanjaro that "pragmatism seems to be a better approach to saving diversity and integrity of life than does a pursuit of a single universal ethic based on a sense of moral superiority or virtue." He further suggests that "protected areas" alone will never be large enough to insure the survival of biological diversity. His elemental idea is that "transition zones," areas simultaneously managed for ecological and economic health, are essential. In the lower 48 states, wilderness areas and national parks are not large enough to be ecologically functioning tracts. Transition zones are required. The federal Northwest Forest Plan — not without faults — offers an opportunity to explore and develop methods for managing transition zones. This plan deserves support and criticism so that it may continue to evolve. The net annual forest growth on the Willamette N.F. is estimated to be about one billion board feet — forgive me for the moment for being so commercially crass. Is it unreasonable to harvest about 5 to 10 percent of the net annual growth from one of the most productive resilient forests in the world? P.S. Folks as I write, owl habitat is improving and accruing. Monty Wilson, Blue River
THE MISSING LINK As a New York native who stood, awestruck, at the base of the newly constructed Twin Towers, one might think that I would be gung ho about the war in Iraq. The opposite is true. Speaking for myself and every current and former New Yorker I know, the war in Iraq has made us less safe, squandered billions of dollars, cost hundreds of lives and I don't think it's hyperbole to say it's cost us the sympathy of most of the world. My jaw dropped about two weeks ago as I watched one of our generals say that we are now seeing cooperation between Saddam loyalists and al-Qaeda. He also said that has never happened before because they are historically mortal enemies. I thought the media would pounce and ask, "But I thought Saddam and al-Qaeda were working together before the war? Wasn't that, along with weapons of mass destruction, the major pretext for invading Iraq?" I couldn't find a word in any local or national media. Polls say 70 percent of the American public believes Saddam and al-Qaeda were partners in exporting terrorism. That belief is the result of a long-discredited story repeated by the media. No connection has been found although the Bush administration still speaks as if there were one. The Bush administration and the media owe it to all Americans, including those who watched the Towers rise and fall, to tell the truth and set the record straight. Leslie Weinstein, Eugene
CONSIDER THEORIES All in the peace and global justice movement envision
a peaceful and just world regardless of who believes that those in power
allowed 9/11 or made it happen. There is room for all in the movement
whether you believe conspiracy theories or not. I disagree that researching
these theories is a distraction to the movement; in fact it is a necessary
There's increasing evidence that the people in power have a specific agenda for global fascism. All theories help to shed necessary public light on critical matters. I'm sad that the conference organizers oppose Mark Robinowitz's panel about 9/11 theories. It disturbs me that proponents of this movement lack an open mind on this. This is the same impediment of free speech many of us decry. This hurts and limits the movement. We can think and decide for ourselves whether we agree with part, all or none of any theory. Who am I to judge as absurd what I have not experienced? Rather than discredit these theories, we need to overcome our narrow views. A lot of things were revealed historically that were met initially with ridicule and contempt. These theories need consideration. Cecelia (Starshine) Levine, Eugene
INADEQUATE COVERAGE Thanks for mentioning the "unanswered questions of 9/11" (cover story, 9/11) but your reporting was grossly inadequate. You reported the controversy over the events of that day, but not the factual issues themselves, and there are plenty. You even omitted the most important element of the only one you mentioned, the failure to scramble the interceptors in response to the hijackings. The omission: That is standard procedure, much repeated. For it not to happen, someone very high up had to countermand standing orders. Of the evidence I've seen, that is far and away the most damning. The rest is a long list of fishy events that could be explained by gross incompetence. I have seen no incontrovertible proof of administration involvement. And I agree with Mr. Corn: It's implausible that the Bushites organized the attack; they simply don't have the resources, nor could they keep that secret for long. What is plausible is that they let it happen. That would involve very few players. Why is it worth addressing? Because proof would be the surest and quickest way to bring down this dangerous administration; but also, and even more important, because the evidence, if reported, helps emphasize their untrustworthiness. At best, they have the choice between gross negligence and malice. That is what the American voters need to hear. So, please do your homework and write another article, on the facts of the issue. Check out the websites on the "Deception Dollar." Ask Robinowitz to defend his position. I wager he can practically write the article for you, granted that you should address the evidence critically. That's what we need; we're counting on you. Do you expect The Register-Guard to do it? Charles Newlin, Corvallis
GOING, GOING … Since Europeans arrived here a few hundred years ago, 97 percent of native and old growth forests have been destroyed. The majority of the remaining 3 percent (or so), is on public land, mostly national forests, and yet this is still being aggressively logged. If you care about what's happening in our backyard and around the state, visit the website www.cascadiasummer.com and click on Smokey the Bear. Or call the forest service employees responsible for "auctioning off" our forests: Rick Scott, Middle Fork Ranger District (782-2283 or 782-5320), Monty Wilson, Blue River (McKenzie) Ranger District (822-7203). Let them know how you feel about logging the remaining old growth and native forests; tell them there is plenty to be harvested from the second growth "tree farms." Kim Garrison. Eugene
BOZIEVICH'S STAND LCC board member Jay Bozievich was on the local news from the steps of the State Capitol recently advocating for the anti-income tax surcharge initiative put forth by Kevin Mannix and the Republican Party. This is at a time when the college is facing a projected $6.2 million deficit for the 2003/2004 academic year. If the bipartisan measure is repealed, the impact of fewer class offerings and substantially higher tuition will be devastating for students wishing to complete their educational goals. I assume board members should have the well-being of the college as their primary objective. Certainly, reliable funding is a priority. I believe Mr. Bozievich's position is incompatible with the LCC educational mission and his obligation as a board member to secure the funding necessary to ensure a viable future for the college. Public funding for education made it possible for Mr. Bozievich to obtain a college degree and we ought to provide the same opportunity for future generations of Oregonians. Pat Reilly, Eugene
LIEBERMAN AS HAWK After reading the accounts of the first Democratic presidential debate, I was appalled to see a Democrat taking a position to the right of President Bush on military (and, really, by extension, economic) policy. To make sure that I understood Sen. Lieberman's views, I checked the facts on his website. Sadly, the reports were accurate: he does, in fact, speak of sending additional troops to Iraq. In my view, the idea of sending more U.S. troops into Iraq, under any conditions, is completely unacceptable. We should not have been there in the first place, we shouldn't be there now, and we should not be there in the future. We are wasting lives — American and non-American — in pursuit of a bogus war against terrorism (as William Pfaff puts it, "as if terrorism were a country") in which there clearly will be no "winner." We have increased the world's image of the U.S. as an international bully. We have spent vast amounts of money on this misadventure at the same time as we have seen states, communities, and individuals suffer worse economic conditions than many can remember. Lieberman's willingness to commit even more troops would make the situation even worse. I urge him — and all of us — to consider carefully the folly of committing further troops to Iraq. If he — or anyone — would lead this country, that person must be ready to lead us toward peace, not prolonged war. David Mandelblatt, Eugene
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
