|
BOF proposal Pitchfork Demands Pitchfork WOPR |
|
Scrap the Current WOPR Plan 1. Scrap and Replace the W.O.P.R. with a Plan that would Manage Public Forests as Old Growth Tree Reserves for Carbon Sequestration to Fight Global Warming, thereby also offering Real Protection for Watersheds and Endangered Species, including the Human. Explanation of Demand Number One We demand that the Bureau of Land Management plan to increase commercial logging in public forests by over three hundred percent (that is the ‘Preferred Option’ of the plan called W.O.P.R. – an acronym for Western Oregon Plans Revision – that is pronounced ‘whopper’ as in ‘telling a big lie’), a plan that could also increase the clear-cutting of old growth trees by a ‘whopping’ 700%, a plan that was cooked-up by the Bush administration in collaboration with ‘cronies’ in the Timber Industry, BE SCRAPPED AND REPLACED not by another industry-backed plan, but by a plan that will HALT ALL commercial logging in public forests, the lost revenue to be replaced by a combination of the funds generated by mandated federal payments for managing our public forests as Old Growth Tree Reserves for Carbon Sequestration to Fight Global Warming added with new revenue to be generated by the adoption of the following Demand Number Two: A Just and Honorable Timber Tax. As one example of a plan for managing public forests as Old Growth Tree Reserves for Carbon Sequestration, we submit Appendix Three: The Pitchfork Proposal to the B.L.M. That attached proposal explains that the roughly 50% of the forest ‘checkerboard’ owned by private Timber Companies is so heavily clear-cut and sprayed that the only way to provide even a small bit of balance to the actual ‘Whole Forest’ ecosystem is to leave the 50% that is publicly owned and currently managed by State and Federal government agencies essentially untouched. Any mild ‘thinning’ in public forests should be done only if it can be proven to be in the interest of the ecosystem and does not entail building any new roads, with the legally defined purpose being to convert all public forests into Old Growth Tree Reserves. Due consideration must be given to the argument that the just-stated defined purpose is best achieved by no thinning of public forests at all. We used to believe that ‘bad’ forestry was ‘clear-cutting’, but that ‘thinning’ was good. Well, unbiased study has convinced us that the nice-sounding term ‘thinning’ had been horribly abused by the Timber Industry, since there is little real oversight over how many trees they really ‘thin’ from an area. Turns out, their decision making on which trees to cut is more about maximizing profit than it is to be good stewards. A respected Forester has told us that he walked into one ‘thinned’ forest and discovered that ten-times the amount of trees that were supposed to have been ‘thinned’ were actually harvested. And we have learned that the roads that get built into the forests to do the ‘thinning’ are ecological disasters, muddying the waters of mountain creeks to the detriment of Salmon and other fish. To top it all, we have learned that the supposed ‘science’ that advocates thinning forests for fire prevention was paid for by the industry. Unbiased science – many studies – indicate that thinning leads to a forest ecology (including a drier forest floor) that is more conducive to dangerous fires than if the forest were not thinned. Nevertheless, we remain open to being convinced that some form of mild thinning – with the trees left to rot to contribute to the biodiversity of the forest soil and vegetation – if done without the construction of roads (made possible by the fact that the felled trees will be left in the forest rather than trucked out) might be permissible in some public forests. Thus far we are not so convinced simply because we have not seen the evidence. It is not easily understood by the average person who is not educated on forest matters – which is most people – that our proposal addresses only half of the ‘checkerboard’, the half that is publicly owned in common by we the people and managed by our government, not privately owned timberlands such as those owned by companies like Weyerhaeuser Corporation or private individuals. The portion of the ‘checkerboard’ consisting of the squares of acreage owned by Big Timber are almost entirely operated as industrial tree farms featuring clear-cuts and pesticides. That is why our proposal is not unreasonable: You can’t fulfill the intent of the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act unless you leave at least the 50% of the ‘Whole Forest’ owned by the public unscathed by commercial logging. The private timber companies want into our public forests to ‘thin’ not because they are noble and want to prevent forest fires, but because they are greedy for more profits and salivate with desire when they see old growth trees. Let them manage their ‘private property’ in whatever way their greedy hearts desire. But keep their greedy hands out of our public forests! The attached ‘Pitchfork Proposal’ was mailed to the B.L.M. as part of our legal response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for W.O.P.R., which we submitted during the legally required Public Comment Period that ended in January of 2008. That ‘Pitchfork Proposal’ also describes other important reasons that we, The Pitchfork Rebellion, a movement of forest dwellers united to fight and reverse the abuses of Big Timber and Big Pesticide (i.e. ‘Big Agriculture’) on the health and well-being of forest dwellers, human and non-human, ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE THE W.O.P.R. We also oppose and reject, in advance, the coming ‘fake compromise’ that the BLM will likely offer at the time of their issuing their so-called ‘Final Decision’ on the W.O.P.R., which they told us will occur in August or September of 2008. We may be country folks, be we are not stupid: If you first offer us your ‘Preferred Option’ – a 700% increase in clear-cutting of old growth trees in public forests with a general increase in commercial logging in public forests of over 300% – and let us react in shock to that absolutely ridiculous option (after all, a 10% increase in most things is considered a significant increase), and then come back at us with a ‘Final Decision’ fake compromise of only 50 % or only 200% or any other number that would have been, if not following on the heels of such a ridiculous ‘Preferred Option’, itself shocking, DON’T EXPECT US TO FALL FOR IT! By way of general introduction to The Pitchfork Rebellion, the generators of this Letter of Seven Demands, we have attached Appendix One: Who We Are. Establishment of A Just and Equitable Timber Tax 2. We demand that the State of Oregon remedy the current unjust tax situation whereby Big Timber has been enabled to avoid paying their fair share of taxes while the average Oregonian is saddled with an ever-increasing tax burden, the remedy being the establishment of a just and equitable Timber Tax such as the One Currently Advocated by Forester Roy Keene. See the attached Appendix Two: An Example of a Just and Equitable Timber Tax for a detailed example of the sort of Timber Tax we advocate. The example that appears as Appendix Two was written by respected Forester Roy Keene and, while it may not be his final version – he is still working on updating the exact numbers and language – it provides a revealing glimpse at the economic hole we were put in by both the 1978 abolishment of the requirement that timber owners pay an annual ad valorem property tax on the value of their standing timber, paying instead a much smaller “privilege” tax due at harvest, and by the 1999 abolishment of the harvest Privilege Tax for owners of over 5,000 acres of timberland. This incremental abolishment with taxes going to “0” in 2004, has resulted in millions of dollars worth of tax breaks for Big Timber and higher taxes and less public services for other Oregonians. The Oregonian newspaper estimated a $58,000,000 school revenue loss the FIRST YEAR! The media has given very little scrutiny to this source of lost income and how it has contributed to the general decline of our public services. It is important to note that Forester Keene’s attached Timber Tax Equity and Accountability Act exempts small woodland owners. This Timber Tax is all about making Big Timber pay their fair share, as they have effectively wormed their way out of that with the help of their friends in high political office.). The Establishment of a Legal Buffer Zone that Prevents the Aerial Spraying of Pesticides within One Mile of Homes or Schools 3) We demand the immediate establishment of a legal buffer zone that prevents the aerial spraying of pesticides (herbicides are classified as pesticides by the EPA) within one mile of property with a home or school on it. In the attached Appendix One titled Who We Are, we describe the origins of The Pitchfork Rebellion, a forest-dwellers movement that began when residents of the heavily clear-cut and aerial sprayed Highway 36 corridor (a coastal mountain range between Eugene and Florence) decided to fight the aerial spraying of herbicides near our homes and schools. WHY IS THERE A BUFFER ZONE TO PROTECT FISH (not enough of course, a mere few dozen feet) BUT NO BUFFER ZONE AROUND SCHOOLS OR HOMES? Currently, there is no legal buffer zone to prevent a Timber Industry helicopter from spraying right up to your property line, even if your child’s bedroom window is a few feet away, and the sprays can drift more than a mile! NOTE: Be it known that we support a buffer zone for all forms of herbicide application, ground application as well as aerial, but have above limited our demand to a buffer zone for aerial spray because we consider it to be the most dangerous. Although we forest dwellers know that even ground applications create drift and poison our water and soil, we feel that aerial spray is somewhat worse in that it is harder to keep in the intended target area and inflicts more noise and emotional trauma on our community. We are thus willing to accept a buffer zone on aerial spraying around homes and schools at this time, with the goal of one day achieving even a buffer zone on ground applications. That the State of Oregon Require that the Seven Person Oregon Board of Forestry Come Into (and Remain) in Compliance with the Federal Standard of Financial Conflict of Interest Laws 4. We demand that the State of Oregon require that all seven members of the Board of Forestry that oversees the Oregon Department of Forestry be in compliance with the federal standards that require that no person serving on federal agencies, commissions, boards, etc. that have anything to do with the environment or natural resources can have a financial conflict of interest. The Board of Forestry has acknowledged that their most recent ‘Issue Scan’ found the issue of forest-related pesticides to be the number one concern expressed by the public to the Board. No other issue was even a remotely close second place. Yet the Board of Forestry refuses to take meaningful action on the issue, despite strong public pressure. Why? We believe that this lack of action is due to the fact that this seven person Board includes several persons with clear financial conflicts of interest that render them decidedly pro-Timber Industry. On the front page of the webpage of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) we read: “Federal environmental laws effectively prohibit persons with a ‘conflict of interest’ from serving on the Environmental Quality Commission”. The State of Oregon has chosen not to apply that Federal ethical standard to the Board of Forestry, currently permitting up to three of its seven members to have significant financial conflict of interest. (The Federal Standard of ‘significant income’ is ten percent of total yearly income.) We demand that the State of Oregon apply the Federal ethical standard regarding conflict of interest to the Oregon Board of Forestry. Why should Oregonians suffer the consequences of having inferior environmental ethical standards at the State level than the Federal? We realize that even the Federal standards are not strong enough; corporate executives routinely take a year off from their private industry job to serve a stint on Federal environmental agencies only to return to the private sector. The current head of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency for the Pacific Northwest is Elin Miller, a former Dow Chemical executive who most recently served as the CEO of Arysta, a giant pesticide company based in Japan! While we advocate strengthening even the Federal standards, it is shameful that the State of Oregon refuses even to meet the Federal standards. We demand remedy. Removal of the Clause Referring to “Maintaining the Availablility of Pesticides” From the Mission Statement of the Oregon Department of Agriculture and Its Pesticide Division including PARC (Pesticide Analytical Response Center) 5. We demand that the clause “maintaining the availability of pesticides” be removed from the official Mission Statement of the Oregon Department of Agriculture and its Pesticide Division including PARC (Pesticide Analytical Response Center). When members of Pesticide Poisoning Victims United, a division of The Pitchfork Rebellion, noticed that the government agency that we were reporting pesticide exposures to, the Pesticide Analytical Response Center (PARC), seemed to be on the side of the pesticide industry rather than the people, we launched an investigation. We soon realized that, because timber is considered an agricultural resource, trees are within the domain of the Department of Agriculture. We also learned that Big Timber and Big Pesticide have heavy influence within the Department of Agriculture. We learned that multi-national corporations like Monsanto, Dow Chemical, and Weyerhaeuser largely control State and Federal Agricultural Agencies. We learned that through their political front group, Oregonians for Food and Shelter, these multi-national corporations wield political power in Salem, largely controlling the actions of the State Senate Agriculture Committee. A most shocking revelation came when we learned that PARC – the very State agency that we poisoned forest-dwellers are told to report our exposures to – is a part of the Pesticide Division of the Oregon Department of Agriculture that has in its official Mission Statement the following stated purpose: “maintaining the availability of pesticides….” We demand the removal of that clause. While the Department of Agriculture may choose to endorse the use of pesticides in modern agriculture – we would prefer to see them launch programs to promote the expansion of organic agriculture – it is blatantly inappropriate to make that a stated purpose within their official Mission Statement. How do you expect us forest dwellers who suffer from aerial pesticide assault to report our exposures to a government agency whose stated purpose is to maintain the availability of pesticides? And when we forest dwellers suspect that aerial-sprayed pesticides have drifted onto our property or clothes, guess who the State of Oregon has us call? That’s right: PARC! What a scam! We country folk call that ‘putting the fox in charge of the henhouse’! The Reversal of the Trend of the Federal Government to Inhibit the Civil Liberties of Americans before We Find Ourselves Living in a Police State At first glance this sixth demand may seem out of place, as the first five Pitchfork Rebellion Demands have addressed forest issues. However, as our forest-dwellers group investigated the State and Federal agencies that were obviously serving not the American people or the environment, but the very multi-national corporations that are poisoning, raping, and pillaging our environment, we soon realized that healthy and wise environmental policies would not come without a literal war. By the term ‘war’ I mean ‘a hard-fought, struggle of some duration’. The Pitchfork Rebellion, at the second meeting we ever held, in response to the suggestions of a couple respected locals (even if tortured I will not name them!) that we (the community) “start shooting down the mother-fucking pesticide-spraying helicopters that are hurting our children”, held a discussion about the use of violence in our struggle. Consensus was reached on two points: 1) The Timber Industry and Pesticide Industry, who poison our children and the environment with impunity because they have the system wired, indeed deserve to have their mother-poisoning, children-harming, frog-deforming, salmon-killing helicopters blown out of the sky – 100% consensus on that – and, 2) We will choose not to go that direction but will instead embrace as our methodology the relatively nonviolent form of warfare taught and practiced by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Though we chose to embrace Gandhian/Kingian style struggle rather than Earth Liberation Front (ELF) style property damage, we absolutely respect ELF (not one human being has been killed in any ELF action over these many years and so to compare them with Islamic terrorists – or any other terrorists that use killing as a tactic – is unfair propaganda) and, just as absolutely, we know who the real eco-terrorists are (Dow, Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, etc) and they are not in jail. Rather, they live in mansions. Although many of the founding mothers and fathers of The Pitchfork Rebellion long believed our government was unduly influenced by greedy multi-national corporations – I think all Americans suspect this – our ongoing investigation into government corruption convinced us that the problem was far worse than even we had believed! Our democracy has been manipulated and co-opted by greedy multi-national corporations who care nothing about historic American values. In deciding to deal with this problem rather than ignore it, we soon realized that even the ability to deal with the problem nonviolently is under attack. Our Bill of Rights is under attack. Our Civil Liberties are being reinterpreted and emasculated. In fact, according to a little-known part of the Patriot Act, the actions of such prophets of nonviolent struggle as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King could today, if a judge chose to apply the literal language of the Patriot Act, be labled ‘terrorism’. That is because the Patriot Act definition of terrorist acts includes any illegal acts intended to persuade the government to take a particular action. Gandhi and King broke laws, nonviolently, to persuade the government to take particular actions. The Law (or interpretation of law) that Gave Corporations the Same Status as Individuals Must be Revoked for the good of our planet We demand that corporations lose their current legal status as ‘persons’. Currently, they have the legal rights of persons, without the legal responsibilities of persons. WE ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO WATCH THE DVD TITLED: THE CORPORATION. |
|
|
|
||