When I first saw this post, I thought it was a joke, but after I
realized it was sent psuedo-annonymously by someone from Pacific Lumber
(arguably the greediest, most ruthless timber giant of them all) Ijust
accepted the post for what it was: garbage. It's the same, empty rhetoric
that one would expect to hear on the Rush Limbaugh show--a lot of hot air
and no substance. For those of you believe that type of garbage, there's
a website just for you: http://www.junkscience.com
The irony of the situation is that it's not the environmental
movement that fears scientific inquiry, but rather it is those who profit
from unsustainable resource extraction. In keeping with the requests to
support our claims with documentation, the following were readily
available "proof" of my charges that i had laying here on my desk. These
are all newspaper articles from our local paper.
"Salmon report urges stronger effort" (Mail Tribune, 4/26/96)
"The latest and perhaps most comprehensive scientific report on salmon in
the Columbia River system indicates that current efforts to restore the
fish runs falls far short of what is needed. The findings are based on
the review of more than 4,000 scientific documents..."
And yet despite this the timber industry continues to wield it's
influence regrading the ESA listing of the Coho salmon, first by a
listing moratorium via the timber-friendly 104th Congress, then by a
cave-in by an election-minded whitehouse.
"Scientists say Congress tries to hide research." (Mail Tribune, 10/4/95)
"Congress is trying to suppress new government research warning of
significant damage to fisheries, forests, and watersheds in the Columbia
river basin, 45 scientists said in a letter today to president Clinton.
The bilogists, ecologists, and silvaculturists said tuesday a
Republican-backed proposal in an Interior spending bill would cnesor
information on the declining condition of the Columbia River system. The
team contains scientists from the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife, and
the BLM."
"Timber folks fear forest study--University Researchers told to keep
their canopy crane." (Mail Tribune, 3/5/95)
"University of Washington Scientists had hoped to erect a 300-foot crane
on the Olympic Peninsula to study the canopy of the PNW's old-growth
forests. But the plan has been scuttled by those who fear that the
researchers discoveries could lead to further timber harvest cut-backs.
After 18 months of study and discussion, the Forest Service rejected the
proposal under pressure from local timber industry officials
millworkers. Their objection: what the scientists don't know could hurt
them. 'They see science, scientists, and scientific knowledge as a major
source of their pain, rather than as a potential solution' UW froestry
professor Jerry Franklin said."
"Scientists advise against proposed dead timber cut." (Mail Tribune, 3/9/95)
"A group of scientists has warned congress against plans to log vast
stands of dead and dying trees across the west via the so-called Timber
salvage rider. 'Contrary to what some have said, fire is not a crisis
ecologically. We need to leave wood in the forests to restore the
watersheds' (Wayne Minshall, Idaho State University)
I could go on and on with examples, but I think I've made my point. If
anyone has copies of articles that read something like: "Scientists say
More clearcuts are needed to preserve biodiversity," or "Research team
discovers old-growth forests pose health hazzard," or "Recent study shows
that erosion from logging improves salmon habitat" please let me know.
Bret Diamond
Oregon, USA
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0