Archive for June, 2004

Forest Plan Update – What’s at Stake Part VII (Nature)

“Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental”

David Foreman, founder of Earth First! and co-founder of the Wildlands
Project
of which the California Wilderness Campaign is a part of.

“It is probably a healthy exercise, when considering the extinction of species in this age, to remember that many thousands of life forms have ceased to exist from wholly natural causes — dinosaurs spring invariably to mind. And further that some organisms — especially primitive forms, which, as it were, are ‘past their prime’ — will pass into oblivion both without human assistance and in spite of it.”

From The Birdwatcher’s Companion, page 229, authored by Christopher Leahy of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, 1982.

Which statement is supported by the historical record? Would the removal of the human race keep nature in a static state? Is the environmental movement’s hatred of mankind an ideology we should embrace?

As the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) campaigns to close off our forests to protect endangered species by advocating their Alternative 6 – is their view of preservation historically and empirically valid? Should preservation be our primary concern? Does their view of preservation, which views nature as being in a “static state,” proven by the historical record?

The Sierra Club and the CBD seeks to create a state of preservation, a “static state,” when the historical record shows empirically that no such “static state” ever existed. Over millions of years the earth has gone through major and mini ice ages and climate changes that have killed off thousands of species, as well as natural disasters that wiped out hundreds of square miles. One recent example is Mt. St. Helens.

“What was once the 9th highest peak in Washington State was suddenly reduced to the 30th highest peak. The intense high pressure/high temperature steam that escaped instantly turned more than 70% of the snow and glacial ice on the mountain to water. This massive movement of rock, ash, water and downed trees swept into Spirit Lake and down the north fork of the Toutle River Valley at speeds in excess of 175 miles per hour.

As the north face slid away it let loose the trapped gases like a cork removed from a well shaken bottle of champagne… In only three minutes the blast flattened 230 square miles of old growth forest in a fan shape north of the mountain.

Mt. St. Helens is on an ocean-continent subduction boundary (the Juan de Fuca plate is subducting under the N. American plate)… No one knows enough about the volcano to predict when it will erupt again or what kind of volcanic activity the next eruption might bring.”

http://www.olywa.net/radu/valerie/mshduring.html

There are other active volcanoes along the Pacific Northwest, Mt. Rainier for example, which are capable of the same, if not far more catastrophic eruptions; eruptions that some scientists believe would destroy hundreds of square miles of forest as well as destroy major cities such as Seattle. Seismic activity in Yellowstone National Park, the site of a caldera volcano (that had one of the most powerful cataclysmic eruptions in ancient times) has also caused some concern.

When Krakatau (on the Indonesian island of Rakata) exploded on August 27, 1883, about 75% of the land area disappeared. It was the most violent volcanic eruption in recorded history and left more than 30,000 dead.

What if Rainier or the caldera volcano in Yellowstone was going to have a cataclysmic eruption and we had the technology to stop it. Would the environmental movement support “interfering” with nature? They are against active management in preventing these devastating fires we’ve been experiencing, fires that have destroyed over 19 million acres and killed thousands of species since 2000. Would they prefer hundreds of square miles be destroyed by a volcano rather than have us “interfere” with nature if it were possible to do so? What effect would a cataclysmic eruption, some of which the historical record has shown to be more devastating than that of Mount St. Helens, have on the environment hundreds of miles away? What about endangered species found only in the immediate area of the blast? Major blasts have been known to lower world wide temperatures, yet the environmental movement seems to put the responsibility on world wide temperatures on man.

What about the theory of a massive meteor strike (evidence of which is in the Gulf of Mexico) that killed off life on earth thousands if not millions of years ago? What if a nature in its wisdom decided to shoot a massive meteor into earth and we had the power to stop it. Would the environmental movement approve of “interfering” with the wisdom of nature as it decides to reshape our know world as it has for eons?

Does nature crave a static state? As the environmentalists and the government seek to protect an endangered fox in the Channel Islands, they are being challenged, not by man in this attempt, but by eagles who are competing with the fox for food, and maybe eating fox pups or adult fox’s themselves. Will we play “God” and interfere with nature to kill these eagles to save the fox? Is nature seeking a static state of preservation, or is man?

Even nature proves that this ideology of a “static” state, a constant state of preservation, unsupportable. If the historical record shows unstoppable and constant change, how can they stop it? Is the environmental movement God or do they believe by their policies they can become God and change the rules of nature? I am amazed at their belief in their human omnipotence; it is no wonder their ideology has more of a basis in faith than in reason.

If nature promises no species eternal existence, to what extent should we? The environmental movement’s attempts to make nature fit into its “static” state of preservation by use of the endangered species act has resulted in all other concerns, such as private property rights, recreation, economic growth, the protection of property and lives – being treated as an afterthought.

We should make every attempt to conserve our public lands and their many uses for future generations, but not at the expense of future generations. The environmental movement believes itself to be God, powerful enough to change the very nature of Nature. The environmental movement’s ideology that views man as preventing their “static” state of preservation discounts the historical record showing that nature has done what no man has ever done, destroyed whole ecosystems of species many times since the beginning of time.

The environmental movement has also developed another weapon to limit access
– invasive species legislation. An invasive species is anything not “native” to the environment such as noxious weeds and animals. I can understand attempts to control invasive species that have a detrimental economic effect, but in many cases this has proven to be nearly impossible. Historically, how has nature addressed invasive species? Where do you think the term “survival of the fittest” came from?

There is one “invasive” species, a species introduced by Europeans that some would have considered a new “technology” that revolutionarily changed the life of the Native Americans, allowing them a more efficient way to live and improved their standard of living. This “invasive” species was native to the America’s millions of years ago before it disappeared with thousands of others, including camels and mammoths – and nature was the cause – not man. What was this invasive species?

The horse.

It seems almost comical that the horse, an important part of the history of the United States, is viewed as an invasive species. Currently, there are some who are pushing to ban the use of horses in crowd control in our nation’s capital, Washington D.C. They claim that the horses waste, even thought cleaned up by city crews, is a dishonor on our capital. Yet for almost 150 years of our America’s history a horses waste was a more than a common sight. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a Native American Senator from Colorado, defended the use of horses by Washington D.C. police by stating one horse is equal to 10 police officers.

I know another invasive species that came to North America around 10,000 to 25,000 years ago, probably with other “invasive” species. I wonder if environmentalists could go back in time to “Protect and Restore our Forests!” would they kill off this invasive species? What is this species name?

Man.

Does the ideology and policies of the environmental movement have its basis on the historical record and empirical evidence – or in faith? Only a fool would believe he can become as God and change the very essence of nature in which only the strong survive. No species survival is guaranteed in this world, not even humans, all we can do is use mankind’s technology to make our world as sustainable as possible for those that will come after us. But nature may have other plans as historical record has shown.

We must accept the realization that we are not God and despite our Disney shaped view of nature, as the historical record has shown, nature can be as destructive – if not more destructive – than man.

The environmental movement would be more effective if it used reason and science to conserve our public lands for future generations rather than the faith based ideology that denies the historical record provided by the earth and nature.

Nature proves their current faith based ideology wrong.

You are being given the opportunity to protect your freedom to access your public lands by commenting on the future of your forests; please take this responsibility seriously.

We will be evaluating and commenting on the forest plans before the comment period ends in August. We will be releasing these comments to our supporters to evaluate with an email address to the Forest Planning Team so you can comment too. Please do your part to protect your access by visiting our web site for this information or sign up on our email list to be kept informed
on the forest plans.

Comments off

Forest Plan – What’s at Stake Part VI (Ideology -Economics)

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.”

David Foreman, founder of Earth First! and co-founder of the Wildlands
Project
of which the California Wilderness Campaign is a part of.

“To quell violence and disorder, to repulse barbarians and brigands, to rescue living souls from agony and torture, to save the nation from imminent downfall, these are the true ends of Humanity and Righteousness.”

Yoshida Shoin

In light of current world events, in which statement do you find the most comfort? In which statement do you find the salvation of – and continuation of – the United States of America and our freedom?

The Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) goal to remove access to our Forests is just part of the campaign to change our society to their idea of environmental nirvana. What is the predominant economic and political ideology of the leadership of the environmental movement? What effect will this ideology and its’ implementation have on our country’s future as well as our economic standing in the world?

Most Americans are unaware of the economic and political agenda of the environmental movement – as well as its ultimate effect on them. This ignorance has manifested itself as apathy towards our freedom; an apathy that is letting our freedom slowly slip away.

Freedom does not bind itself automatically or permanently to those unwilling to nurture it. Freedom is like the flame of a fire that is not fed; like the fire, unless fed and nurtured, freedom will die a slow death.

The environmental movement’s disdain for our political/economic system, the very system that provides the funds for their supporters to donate and make their radical proposals possible, has been documented.

“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t stand a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think its’ possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don’t think it’s possible under capitalism.”

Jodi Bari – EarthFirst!

From the statements they’ve commonly made, the impression is they see America and our place in our world as the root of all evil and environmental degradation. While I do not debate that we are the current great power, i.e. “Leviathan,” in the world, I do not see us as the perpetrators of all that is evil in the world.

Are we perfect? NO! But the fact we can openly debate this issue is a sign of freedom, not evil. In many countries the open debate or opposition to the government’s policies can have you jailed – or worse. What I find comfort in is our ability to self-reflect, and change direction, sometimes radically, other times slowly. Reason must rule in order for this open debate to work and society to advance. Ideologies must be exposed and not hidden behind emotionally appealing slogans such as “Protect and Restore our Forests!”

As the mainstream environmental movement rails against “Big Business,” and any form of resource recovery, making our economy increasingly dependent on sources of raw materials outside our country, have they ever addressed how we will compete against the growing economy of China and others that are allowing the freedom and self-determination that they wish to take away from us?

“China has 700 million people. It is not a great power today. But in twenty years, it will be a great power and in fifty years it will be an enormous power.”

General Charles de Gaulle – 1967

It is interesting to view China’s growth as the government allows more personal and economic freedom, which began with reforms in the late 70’s when their leaders realized the futility of their Socialist/Communist economy. After 30+ years of growing freedom (and not without loss of life at Tiananmen Square), China’s citizens are developing a love of it. The central government has let the genie of freedom out of the bottle to a people that are hungry for it. Like a gathering storm; they will not be able to control it or stop it.

“No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.”

Ronald Reagan

China has a growing economy and military. In the future will China replace us as the greatest power in the world, the “Leviathan,” by throwing off the very economic/political shackles that the environmental movement wishes to place on us? Do we truly appreciate and understand the freedom we are blessed with?

“Today Asia has emerged as one of the most dynamic and fastest growing regions in the world and has surpassed Europe as America’s No. 1 trading partner. Over the past three decades, China has awakened and seeks to reassume its historic position as one of the great nations of the world, while Japan’s economy has risen and fallen.”

Ambassador John R. Malott President of the World Affairs Council of Orange County – From a 2002 article in the Orange County Register

India’s economy is growing near the same rate because they’ve mimicked China and are abandoning the Socialist policies that today’s environmentalists want us to adopt.

“…In recent years, India has developed space rockets able to place satellites into orbit, while it has simultaneously developed short and medium range missiles capable of hitting targets in neighboring Pakistan or China”

From a Sunday, June 20, 2004 O.C. Register Associated Press article titled “U.S. India to discuss space cooperation”

The economies of the large European nations are feeling the net effects of Socialism. Germany and France’s economies are in decline and crippled, hobbled by the Socialist policies that China and India are abandoning. In 2003 (est.) the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the largest European nations, except Britain, grew weakly, with France GDP at .10 percent and Germany’s at -.10 percent. In 2003 (est.) the U.S. GDP grew 3.10 percent and China’s GDP growth was 9.10 percent. Only Britain, a Socialist leaning country (which does not have as extensive social benefits), has shown any real growth at 2.10 percent:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html

(I suggest you check the data on this web site and other economic web sites to confirm the information contained in this alert)

“I think that there’s certainly a case for trying to involve countries as self-evidently important as China and India in discussions on these issues.”

Statement made by British Prime Minister Tony Blair on June 10th, 2004 at the G8 Summit as quoted in the June 11th 2004 issue of the Orange County Register.

Unemployment in France is 9.8 percent; Germany, 10.5 percent; Spain, 11.4 percent; the U.S. 5.7 percent. Germany, Europe’s largest economy, has averaged just 1.3 percent growth over the last 10 years, the U.S. 3.3 percent. Europe’s state run retirement and health-care systems are near collapse.

The citizens of Germany and France have forgotten that freedom does not mean the government becomes your keeper. It is the opposite, freedom means not having the government take care of you. Only a slave expects the former. As Germany and France try to reform their political and economic structure, their people, like infants dependant on others to change their diapers and feed them their bottle, are unwilling to accept responsibility for their own destiny.

Has the environmental movement spelled out what our economy and world standing would be under their economic and governmental policies? Will they leave us at the mercy of other countries that do not share their naïve viewpoints on government, the projection of power and economic sustainabliity? Will we share the current fate of Germany and France – or worse?

What will be the effect on our freedom if we adopt their economic and political ideology as well as lock up our public lands, stopping all resource recovery? How will this affect our economy, standard of living, and the power we project in this rapidly changing world? Can we count on China or other rising powers to hobble their economies in the same manner as the environmental movement wishes to do to us?

It is important to protect the environment, but we must not discount the importance in protecting our economy, which makes protecting the environment and protecting our country possible.

In light of 911 should this important issue be left to chance?

In their rush to lock up our public lands, do environmentalists support any resource recovery that will support our economic system? Raw materials must come from somewhere, are those raw materials coming from 3rd World Countries with no oversight? Are we not capable of manufacturing products in a more efficient and environmentally sound manner than the rest of the world that has no oversight?

What level of GDP, does the environmental movement find acceptable, a -.10 percent GDP like Germany?

If we follow their environmental agenda, they promise us an ecological nirvana, but at what cost? What economic and political system will bring this ecological nirvana about? Will China, India and other growing economic powers embrace their agenda? What about Islamic terrorists?

Will the environmental movement’s economic / political ideology protect us from current and future threats? Or do they see America as the source of all that is evil in the world? Do they fear our freedom, the very freedom that has made us the most modern and advanced country in the world?

Do they see America’s abdication as the “Leviathan,” i.e. the leading world and economic power, as the key to the salvation of the world and the one thing standing in the way of the fundamental ecological nirvana they seek; a belief that has led some to commit crimes of eco-terrorism?

If this is so – as 911 has shown – they are not alone…

“Thus, the more socially and economically advanced the times, the more necessary it is for the leaders to maintain a sense of their societies’ fallibility and vulnerability: that is the ultimate defense against catastrophe.”

Thucydides

In our next update we will discuss resource recovery and their concept of preservation that views nature as being in a “static state”.

You are being given the opportunity to protect your freedom to access your public lands by commenting on the future of your forests; please take this responsibility seriously.

We will be evaluating and commenting on the forest plans before the comment period ends in August. We will be releasing these comments to our supporters to evaluate with an email address to the Forest Planning Team so you can comment too. Please do your part to protect your access by visiting our web site for this information or sign up on our email list to be kept informed on the forest plans.

Comments off

Forest Plan Update – Part V (The Wildlands Project)

“We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.”

David Foreman, founder of Earth First!, past director of the Sierra Club and co-founder of the Wildlands Project

“The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.”

Dr. Reed F. Noss, co-founder of the Wildlands Project

Are the anti-access proposals that are being advanced by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Sierra Club in their Conservation Alternative 6 an isolated campaign, or part of a much larger goal? Is there a connection to the “Wildlands Project”, founded by Dave Forman and Reed Noss, which seeks to return much of North America to its’ pre-European state? As we will show the evidence speaks for itself.

As we’ve pointed out in our “Forest Plan Updates,” the goal of the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club is to remove what has been estimated as 60 to 70 percent of our access to the Forests.

The CBD and the Sierra Club have pinned their hopes on the fact that the public will not read the proposals contained in Alternative 6. They have relied on a deceptive tactic to hide the details of their alternative by the use of emotionally appealing slogans such as “Protect and Restore our Forests!” and not truthfully telling the public of the radical proposals this slogan represents.

The Sierra Club has criticized the Forest Service’s chosen alternatives in the press, yet in the very same stories they have not revealed to the public the fact that their Alternative 6 would severely limit the public’s ability to access the forest. Why the lack of honesty?

I believe the real goal of the CBD and the Sierra Club is to set the standards, time periods and conditions in the Forest Plans so high they cannot be met, thus opening the avenue for their real agenda; to manage by lawsuit, closing access off for not complying with the requirements or standards of the Forest Plan if Alternative 6 were adopted.

They have been very successful in the past using the courts to force closures due to what they claim are violations of policy or the Endangered Species Act. Remember, there are many other provisions in their plan dealing with other management issues that would have a drastic effect on public access; we’ve just touched the surface in our Forest Plan Updates.

But the campaign to “Protect and Restore our Forests!” by removing the majority of public access is not an isolated one. It is part of the “Wildlands Project” being promoted by environmental organizations to restore much of North America to its’ pre-European state. But like their Forest Plan campaign, the devil is in the details, details you won’t find on the Wildlands Project web site:

http://www.twp.org/

To find out the details and gain a deeper understanding of the history and ideology of the Wildlands Project (given to you in the words of the founders of the movement, including Dave Forman who was also one of the founders of EarthFirst! and Dr. Reed Noss) visit this web site:

http://www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.org/index.html

No sane person would argue against protecting the environment. Where the danger lies is how you go about it. Do you look for technology and common sense methods, balance and reason to achieve it? Or do you make attempts to go backwards and return 50 percent of the U.S. to its “pre-European” state with an ideology that has a deep disdain for mankind?

Even the California Wilderness Campaign innocently and emotionally touts its support of the Wildlands Project on its web site:

http://www.calwild.org/campaigns/cwp.php

Radical Forest Plan proposals, relentless Wilderness bills, as well as the movement to remove dams, roads and reservoirs, are just a part of the agenda to bring the Wildlands Project to fruition.

EarthFirst! described this campaign on their web site:

http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/efj/primer/different.html

Dave Forman, the Sierra Club (he was a past director), the CBD and their followers do not care what will happen to the millions of citizens affected by their goal to bring the Wildlands Project to fruition, to remove access to our public lands and apply restrictions similar or more severe than the wilderness act.

“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”

John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

You can see the net effects of the “Wildlands Project” campaign in their Alternative 6 Forest Plan proposals that seeks to remove 60 to 70 percent of the access to our public lands. Their slogan should not be “Protect and Restore our Forests!” it should be “Adopt the Wildlands Project and Remove Public Access!”

Dave Forman and the leadership of the environmental movement are not fools. They realized that the radical ideology Dave Forman originally espoused has only alienated the public. They understand the lesson behind the story about boiling a frog. If you want to boil a frog don’t make the water too hot or the frog will realize what is up and attempt to jump out. If you slowly warm the water, before the frog realizes it, the water is boiling and he is a dead frog.

“Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves.”

D.H. Lawrence

Dave Forman and his allies in the environmental movement understand the public’s trust in, and emotional attraction to, the so-called mainstream environmental movement. They hope Americans can be convinced to relinquish their freedom and have lost our appreciation for it – and they understand how to take advantage of this apathy. Instead of openly advocating terrorism to advance his agenda, as Dave Forman has in the past, he will use the millions of dollars in the coffers of these organizations to support policy or legislation that will slowly bring their ideology of the Wildlands Project to fruition.

Dave has decided to move on and start a new organization, The Rewilding Institute, but he will still be collaborating with the “Wildlands Project”

“We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade
religion — guilt-free at last!”

Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue)

As I’ve stated, the Sierra Club deceptively hides the details that will radically affect their naïve supporter’s ability to access our public lands by hiding this ideology behind emotionally appealing slogans such as “Protect and Restore our Forests!” But as I will point out in my next update, there are other aspects to their ideology that will severely affect our ability to maintain America’s standing in a world where nothing is certain, and as recent events have shown, very uncertain.

The supporters of the Wildlands Project have no deep understanding of freedom; it has been replaced with a blind obedience to the whims of the environmental movement. This blind obedience to the environmental movement is testimony that their followers are slaves to their ignorance – as well as the deception of the CBD and the Sierra Club.

Like the frog slowly boiled to death, will their fate, as well as ours be sealed? Even the founder of the Sierra Club Mountain Bike Committee, when questioned at the San Juan Forest Plan meeting, stated to me he had not yet read through the details of Alternative 6, which he was supporting; this shows the depth of this blind obedience.

“None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes.”

Johann Goethe

Will you follow blindly? Do you value your freedom and are you willing to defend it? Or do you find your salvation in the abdication of your freedom to the ideology of the environmental movement and the success of the Wildlands Project?

As important as the future of our forests, as I will point out in my next update, the future of our country rests on this decision. I put my faith in you, my fellow citizens, to not fail those who came before us, and to not fail those that will come after us.

What will you decide?

You are being given the opportunity to protect your freedom to access your public lands by commenting on the future of your forests; please take this responsibility seriously.

We will be evaluating and commenting on the forest plans before the comment period ends in August. We will be releasing these comments to our supporters to evaluate with an email address to the Forest Planning Team so you can comment too. Please do your part to protect your access by visiting our web site for this information or sign up on our email list to be kept informed on the forest plans.

Comments off

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »