More information . . .


From: Clarice Ryan
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 9:48 PM
Subject: "Conflict in our National Forests" related to Tester Bill


Not acknowledged here is the fact that the US Forest Service is not content with simply controlling privately held forest lands, but also all agricultural private lands.  Witness the  "Partnerships to Conserve Open Space in Rural America: FS-861 publication and the National Grasslands brochure both showing USDA Forest Service insignia.  Also refer to official Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program Title 440-519, August 2006.   


I will reconfirm what I have highlighted in red in the below articles.  Yesterday I attended the first day of a 2-day Public Land and Resources Law Review of the Public Land Law Conference at UM in Missoula.  The theme was Redefining Wilderness, Landscape, Law and Policy. The program featured almost exclusively the top people in the environmental movement:  Mt. Wilderness Assn, National Wildlife Federation, Northern Rockies Rockies Regional Center, Earth Justice and National Wilderness Training Center.  The entire thrust was support of the Sen.Tester bill, S 1470, Jobs and Recreation (WILDERNESS).  They are committed and determined to get that through. The Clinton Roadless Rule and Landscape Scale Operation all-lands approach was mentioned frequently including legislation designed to accomplish it.  The collaborative process and partnership, stewardship program approaches were eulogized throughout.  Due to other committeemen's I missed today's sessions featuring wilderness and landscape protection on tribal lands and impacts of climate change on western landscapes.  


None of this is simple philosophizing.  These people are motivated and determined to make it all happen.  We best pay attention to all of it.    Clarice

From: Norman MacLeod

To: various

Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:47 PM

Subject: FW: "Conflict in our National Forests"


Schramek is a retired forester who lives in Port Townsend, WA.  Worked for the U.S. Forest Service from 1953 until he retired in 1985.  His original message, accompanying the two jpg attachments, is below my comments on the Vilsack piece.


I’ve located and attached a full transcript (with my highlighting) of Secretary Vilseck’s August 14 remarks.  They indicate not only a willingness, but a policy for the USDA, through the Forest Service and NRCS, to become increasingly involved with the management of private forest lands.


“. . . the Forest Service must not be viewed solely as an agency concerned only with the fate of our national forests but must instead acknowledge for its work in protecting and maintaining all of America's forests, including state, tribal, and private ones. Our shared vision must adopt an all-lands approach, requiring close collaboration with the NRCS and its work on America’s private working lands.”


There are several priorities ahead of the mixed use philosophy once espoused for the Forest Service.


“I've asked Chief Tidwell to develop a new planning rule to ensure management and restoration of our national forest with the goal and vision of protecting our water, climate, and wildlife while also creating economic opportunity.”


Roadless areas are back with a vengeance.


“Just last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision reinstating the 2001 Clinton roadless rule. I view this is as a very, very positive development, yet the Forest Service is still subjected to a court injunction from a Wyoming district court judge in the tenth circuit in joining the Forest Service from implementing the 2001 rule. Let me be clear. We will seek to lift that injunction in light of the ninth circuit’s decision. And if the courts remain conflicted, or it's not possible to protect roadless areas through the courts, we will initiate a new rule making process to do so.”


And what do you think happens where private property is concerned?


“Now, the threats facing our forests do not recognize property boundaries. So in developing a shared vision around forests, we must also be willing to look across property boundaries. In other words, we must operate a landscape scale operation by taking an all-lands approach.


See that one coming, did you?  Here we have a departmental secretary who believes that it is good news that:


“ . . . conservation groups, forest industry, and government agencies are increasingly willing to unite to address the common threat of the potential loss of forest lands on private land.”   (At the Law meeting I pointed out that absolutely no mention had been made about urgency of saving our forests from insect infestation and and critical loss of timber and wildlife from fire.  They were all about getting more land for 'WILDERNESS".  Also short-term promise of jobs and recreation in bill title was only a deceptive means to achieving their agenda.  cr)


Not too much about what happens when the private landowner isn’t all that interested in a government agency and a raft of conservation groups hovering about and telling him or her how to address that “threat”.  That would likely be because the agency knows best . . .


“We must dramatically accelerate the scale and pace of forest stewardship here on both public and private lands . . . On private land, we must move more quickly to protect our forest landscapes before they no longer can function to support watershed health, biodiversity, conservation, and viable wood markets.”


There’s no shortage of candidate saviors on your doorstep if you are a private property owner.




Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 12:51 PM
Subject: "Conflict in our National Forests"


Dear all friends neighbors and family;


I want to announce the  recent web page for my book "Conflict in our National Forests" that was produced by my publisher,  You can  find it by going to .


To show that the contents of the book are  still pertinent  and timely, I am  sending as attachments two commentaries from  leaders in forestry in  our nation.  The first  is a commentary in the Journal of Forestry, written by Michael T. Goergen, CEO of the  Society of American Foresters.   It outlines his belief that our National Forests, along with all managed forest lands, need to be available  to help produce  renewable energy to help alleviate the energy crisis in our country. He does a  creditable job in justifying the  need for our  Nation to make this effort a high priority.


The second is an article in the Forestry Source,  a news letter produced by the SAF that gives selected excerpts from a speech by US Secretary of Agriculture  Tom Vilsack in Seattle That outlined the Obama  administration's vision for  our National Forests.


He makes it clear that Obama is committed to renew the  Clinton Roadless area rule and to make it a permanent ban on the nearly 60 Million acres of National Forest Land.  He also makes it clear that he feels that the  national government needs "look across  property boundaries in solving this perceived problem.  While he does not make clear how this is to be done, it bodes ill to the privately owned forests in our country that there will be more rules regulations and pressure to do  what the  Federal Government thinks appropriate.


There is no reference to what Foresters, and industry leaders have said and the total lack of agreement  about the  locking up of  almost 1/3 of our National Forests based  on feelings and emotional appeal rather than cold  hard facts and science.


It is clear that the pendulum of political  pressure is  rapidly moving to the far left in forest management as well as in all other matters.  We need to remind our public servants that the people and the  best science should be consulted on such decisions.