GreenYes Digest V97 #147

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (greenyes@ucsd.edu)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:11:38 -0500


GreenYes Digest Sun, 22 Jun 97 Volume 97 : Issue 147

Today's Topics:
Pushers on Madison Avenue
Salvage logging, fuel risk reduction, and Zero Cut
The Z-word...
ZeroCut - what's in a name?
ZERO CUT means what exactly (10 msgs)

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <greenyes@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <greenyes-Digest-Request@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to postmaster@ucsd.edu.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 23:13:44 -0700
From: Dave Reynolds <david_reynolds@prodigy.net>
Subject: Pushers on Madison Avenue

Point your browsers to:
http://www.businessweek.com/1997/26/b35331.htm

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 18:14:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: DavidOrr@aol.com
Subject: Salvage logging, fuel risk reduction, and Zero Cut

Please allow me to chime in here regarding the question of removing logs cut
for the purpose of fuels risk reduction under the Sierra Club's proposed
no-commercial-logging rule:

In the first place, "salvage" logging is a fraud perpetrated on the American
people by the timber industry, Forest Service, and timber-bought members of
Congress. Please read Harper's magazine June 1997 story on Clinton's
Clearcut Chainsaw Masssacre to understand clearly how this scam was foisted
on us.

Second, in many people's minds there's a misconception that materials that
increase fire danger are commercially saleable. In general, this is not the
case. It is the small-diameter diseased trees that are usually the problem,
and these are not sawtimber. Therefore, if you want to cut trees as PART of
a fuel risk reduction management scheme, then you are not going to be cutting
the trees that loggers want. Loggers want large-diameter sawtimber trees;
they don't want small-diameter stuff because it's low-value. So there's
really no need to worry about what to do with the cuttings - loggers don't
want 'em either. The logical thing to do with it is to burn it. And of
course, it's lots cheaper to do a prescribed burn in the first place.

In fact, we envision a fuels risk reduction that emphasizes prescribed
burning, and utilizes cutting only in the most severe cases.

Case in point: around Lake Tahoe right now is one of the most highly
fire-prone areas in the entire national forest system, with extensive tree
mortality and dangerous conditions. The Forest Service has decided the area
is too dry to risk prescribed burning, so they have resorted to logging.
However, no one wants the wood, so they are having to stack it and let
people come and take it away for firewood, fence posts, etc.

This is precisely the scenario we expect to occur under our scenario. Free
wood for the people, not a dime to private industry.

About the only thing that low-value small-diameter logs could be used for is
wood chips or pulp, neither of which is desirable from an environmental
standpoint, and for which a range of alternative materials already exist.

I hope that this helps put the "fire danger" and "salvage" logging scam in
better perspective. Please let me know if I can answer any further
questions.

Sincerely,
David Orr
Sierra Club
Chair, No Commercial Logging Task Force

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 02:16:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: DavidOrr@aol.com
Subject: The Z-word...

Hello again, Woody,

As I used the term "z-word," I meant "zerocut" and didn't mean to imply that
Zero was itself a problem. Obviously zero (anything) is a very catchy term
to use, hence the tendency to use zerocut. We dont have a lock on anything
(it's all anarchy in this movement at this point) so feel free to call it
zero commercial cuts if you'd like. No one is going to be offended. Well,
the timber industry will, but we expected that, didn't we?

:-)

David

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 02:46:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: DavidOrr@aol.com
Subject: ZeroCut - what's in a name?

Re: "Zero Commercial Cuts" sounds like either a nonprofit barber shop or
a public radio station pledge break slogan. I think Zero Cut is still
better...

:-)

Take care,
David

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 10:42:45 -0400
From: WOODY GETZ <WGETZ@FRE.FSU.UMD.EDU>
Subject: ZERO CUT means what exactly

Dear Tedd & other GreenYes folks,
It seems to me from a Zero Waste perspective that to make naturally
supportive connections particularly along resources lines for pulp
products, glass, minerals is a constructive, sound strategy.
Following the pulp resources to the forest at the federal level is a
logical first step.
I have come to the belief that I would like to see Zero Cut be the rule
on federal land if only because there is so little old growth left and I
think in general we've been cutting federal timber lands for so long
that we need to take a lengthy time-out from the practice.
Reading of timber being cut and shipped away for value-added production
and below market price sales is poor practice enough economically.
Combined with the environmental costs of the timbering, a lengthy
time-out of cuts (Zero Cut) on federal forests seems reasonable.
There are no doubt a few isolated situations where come cuts may be
valuable. Your own e-gram (6/17/97) pointed out 3 (fire control, hazard
removal, and forest management).

Tedd Ward wrote:
>
> David:
>
> Thanks for the education on timber issues. Upon reflection, however, I >
am not ure I am comfotable with a definition of Zero Cut as meaning
> no cutting on federal land. It seems for fire control, hazard removal,
> and forest management, that I could imagine some beneficial cutting
> might be necessary. I am more comfortable supporting a policy of Zero
> Cut meaning no net loss of biomass within any forest or watershed,
> and no more replacement of forests with treefarms. From your
> perspective, would such a policy still not be adequate?
>
> Tedd

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 14:08:30 -0400
From: WOODY GETZ <WGETZ@FRE.FSU.UMD.EDU>
Subject: ZERO CUT means what exactly

To Tedd & Other GreenYes folks,
I apologize for my lastest posting earlier today. It was sent by
accident before being completed.
I will get caught up on it soon and send it when complete.
Woody Getz
Western Maryland Group/Sierra Club
Environmental Representative, Allegany County (MD) Solid Waste
Management Board

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 15:32:20 -0400
From: WOODY GETZ <WGETZ@FRE.FSU.UMD.EDU>
Subject: ZERO CUT means what exactly

Dear Tedd/David & other GreenYes folks,
My original e-gram on this thread was simply made to see if there could
be compromise between David's and Tedd's initial positions. The
compromise that I offered was to move from David's "Zero Cut" toward
Tedd's not wanting to go as far as a literal "Zero Cut", by using "No
Commercial Cut" on federal forestland.
Tedd did not respond directly to the offered compromise, but he did
offer some other considerations and asked for my opinion.
From a Zero Waste perspective, it seems to me that to make naturally
supportive connections -- particularly along natural resource lines for
products made from timber/pulp, glass, minerals -- is a constructive,
sound strategy.
When looking specically at pulp resources, the forest at the federal
level is a logical first step as we are talking about nation-wide
goals. But I point out that for pulp, forests would be just part of a
larger, more comprehensive list I would want to research -- a mix of
resource sources/impacts which would also include the urban forest,
kenaf, etc.
From the economics of waste, Zero Cut would seem to have several
valuable impacts in terms of Zero Waste.
Zero Cut would eliminate the current practice of below market value
sales at the federal level. And while reducing/eliminating the
corresponding portion of corporate welfare, hopefully the outcome of a
reduced supply of timber would make the remaining supply more valuable,
encouraging better use and less waste. At least any wasteful practices
should become more expensive which should encourage either less initial
waste or finding a use for the "waste".
From a purely "Zero Cut" perspective, I have come to the belief that I
would like to see Zero Cut be the rule on federal land if only because
there is so little old growth left and I think in general we've been
cutting federal timber lands for so long that we need to take a lengthy
time-out (decades) from the practice.
Reading of timber being cut and shipped internationally for
value-added production and below market price sales is poor practice
enough economically. Combined with the environmental costs of the
timbering corporate welfare, erosion, reduction in species habitat,
etc.), a lengthy time-out of cuts (Zero Cut) on federal forests seems
very reasonable.
However, there will no doubt be some isolated situations where some
types of cuts may be valuable. Tedd's e-gram (6/17/97) pointed out 3
(fire control, hazard removal, and forest management) potential reasons
to allow some type of cutting in federal forestland.
Personally, I have become increasingly skeptical of any kind of cut.
So many "reasons" are being given which ultimately end up as commercial
cuts in sheep's clothing.
I should add that regarding non-commercial cuts, I am always very
skeptical of these reasons. For instance, "hazard removal" still
strikes me as ridiculous! Even if I bought the idea that the "hazard"
exists -- and believe me I simply laugh at the idea -- and would agree
that the tree should be cut down, I still see no reason to remove it
from the forest!! And once down, the "hazard" would be effectively
neutralized, unless now the hazard is that it will draw animals to it
for shelter or food, or that someone might trip over it!
However I would be willing to have to deal with the necessary deeper
scrutiny of these other reasons required by eliminating traditional
commercial cuts in the federal forestland.
I say this because I think there is much more to be gained in support
of the Zero Waste goal by eliminating the traditional commercial cuts on
federal forestland.
The implementation of Zero Cut seems to me the ultimate version of
moving up the wastestream to design out wasteful processes and
decisions.
The notion (as mentioned in the attached e-gram) of "no net loss of
biomass", even within any given forest or watershed, sounds good. But
it so often seems to lead to loopholes, since biomass justifies
monocultures, but ignores biodiversity issues.
To repeat/summarize, I'd rather have "Zero Commercial Cut" on federal
forestland and then need to carefully scrutinize the reasons for any
"necessary" cuts that may exist, rather than continue current
practices. It seems to me there are many benefits to be gained for both
the Zero Waste campaign as well as other forestry issues.
Tedd/David, any more thoughts? Anyone else?
Woody Getz
Western Maryland Group/Sierra Club
Environmental Representative, Allegany County (MD) Solid Waste
Management Board
CRoWD (Coalition for Responsible Waste Disposal)
FAR (Frostburg Area Recyclers)
Maryland Recyclers Coalition
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Tedd Ward wrote:
>
> David:
>
> Thanks for the education on timber issues. Upon reflection, however, I >
am not ure I am comfotable with a definition of Zero Cut as meaning
> no cutting on federal land. It seems for fire control, hazard removal,
> and forest management, that I could imagine some beneficial cutting
> might be necessary. I am more comfortable supporting a policy of Zero
> Cut meaning no net loss of biomass within any forest or watershed,
> and no more replacement of forests with treefarms. From your
> perspective, would such a policy still not be adequate?
>
> Tedd

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 18:28:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: DavidOrr@aol.com
Subject: ZERO CUT means what exactly

>There are no doubt a few isolated situations where come cuts may be
>valuable. Your own e-gram (6/17/97) pointed out 3 (fire control, hazard
>removal, and forest management).

I would argue that these 3 reasons to cut should only be used under limited,
very narrowly prescribed, and unusual circumstances, as opposed to the way
they are currently used by the Forest Service - i.e. as just another excuse
to get the cut out. I would further suggest that forest management is such a
widely-abused term that it should not even be used anymore by those of us who
want to restore natural processes and functionality to our over-managed
forest ecosystems (also known as tree farms). Let's term it forest ecosystem
process restoration, perhaps? Management implies engineering, and that's
been the problem all along.

Take care,
David Orr

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 19:01:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: DavidOrr@aol.com
Subject: ZERO CUT means what exactly

Woody, you're correct - "zero commercial logging on public lands" WOULD
be a precise descriptive term to use in our campaign. It is not,
however, a catchy slogan. Zero Cut IS a term with some zip, and which is
easily remembered. We've grappled with the downside of the use of the
term, and accepted that it has a big drawback: it creates some
misunderstanding and leaves us open to attack by our adversaries who
desire to distort our real position. I would like to solicit your
suggestions for any catchy slogans that might substitute for the Z-word.

Thanks!
David Orr
No Commercial Logging Campaign Task Force
Sierra Club

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 19:31:33 -0400
From: WOODY GETZ <WGETZ@FRE.FSU.UMD.EDU>
Subject: ZERO CUT means what exactly

DavidOrr@aol.com wrote:
>
> >There are no doubt a few isolated situations where come cuts may be
> >valuable. Your own e-gram (6/17/97) pointed out 3 (fire control,
>> hazard removal, and forest management).
>
>
> I would argue that these 3 reasons to cut should only be used under
> limited, very narrowly prescribed, and unusual circumstances, as
> opposed to the way they are currently used by the Forest Service - i.e.
> as just another excuse to get the cut out.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
David, I think we're in agreement on this.
As I said, I'm very skeptical of all non-commercial cuts for whatever
reason and many - "hazard" cuts for example - I, too, simply find to be
a farce.
It also seems to agree with my statement that while any Zero Commercial
Cut strategy would no doubt come with an increase in requests for
non-commercial cuts, we would have to accept the increase in requests as
an expected consequence and then apply greater, closer scrutiny to weed
out the new non-acceptable, non-commercial cuts with the previous ones.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

> I would further suggest that forest management is such a widely-
> abused term that it should not even be used anymore by those of us
> who want to restore natural processes and functionality to our over-
> managed forest ecosystems (also known as tree farms).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, "forest management" is much to vague to be given as a reason to
make a cut.
----------------------------------
> Take care,
> David Orr
==============================
Again, I repeat that this Zero Commercial Cut would be regarding
national forestland in as much as we are dealing with a Zero Waste
strategy at the national level. Other public lands at state and/or more
local levels would be impacted but only as a consequence, not by a Zero
Cut directive at those levels.
Finally, tossing urban fiber, kenaf, and other pulp fiber sources into
the mix would improve the Zero Waste agenda environmentally as well as
economically (such as jobs).
So, Tedd and David, are we seeing a potential coalition between Zero
Waste and Zero (Commercial) Cut?
Woody Getz
Western Maryland Group/Sierra Club
Environmental Representative, Allegany County (MD) Solid Waste
Management Board
CRoWD (Coalition for Responsible Waste Disposal)
FAR (Frostburg Area Recyclers)
Maryland Recyclers Coalition

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 19:43:09 -0400
From: WOODY GETZ <WGETZ@FRE.FSU.UMD.EDU>
Subject: ZERO CUT means what exactly

DavidOrr@aol.com wrote:
>
> Woody, you're correct - "zero commercial logging on public lands"
> WOULD be a precise descriptive term to use in our campaign. It is not,
> however, a catchy slogan. Zero Cut IS a term with some zip, and which
> is easily remembered. We've grappled with the downside of the use of
> the term, and accepted that it has a big drawback: it creates some
> misunderstanding and leaves us open to attack by our adversaries who
> desire to distort our real position. I would like to solicit your
> suggestions for any catchy slogans that might substitute for the Z-word.
>
> Thanks!
> David Orr
> No Commercial Logging Campaign Task Force
> Sierra Club
-------------------------------------
David,
Any time the downside includes misunderstanding and vulnerability to
public miseducation and distortion from adversaries, I'm for tossing in
one more word to reduce those risks.
At the present, I find "Zero Commercial Cuts" to still be zippy enough
and at the same time greatly reduces both potential
misunderstanding/vagueness and possible public miseducation by
opponents.
Adding "Commercial" also makes a clear connection to the Task Force!
Woody
P.S. Sorry, but I did not understand the part about "catchy slogans
that might substitute for the Z-word". I figure the Z-word is a good,
solid, clear word. That's why I've also liked it in "Zero Waste"!

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 19:53:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: DavidOrr@aol.com
Subject: ZERO CUT means what exactly

So, Tedd and David, are we seeing a potential coalition between Zero
Waste and Zero (Commercial) Cut?

Well, as far as I know, we HAVE the agreement for a coalition already, at
least within the Sierra Club! It only needs to be fleshed out and passed
along to the other groups, and the club needs to officially recognize
zero waste as its policy. Let me know what I can do to help on any of
these fronts!

David

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 97 18:13:26 PST
From: debbie.neustadt@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Subject: ZERO CUT means what exactly

Ecosystem restoration is a well known term. I am told there is even a journal
with that name.

In Iowa our landscape is so altered with intensive, petroleum based
monoculture , when returning the land to a natural ecosystem the term used is
reconstruction and not restoration. I am not comfortable with that even though
I think reconstruction is what we have to do and not restoration. There is not
enough here in some places to even restore.

I agree with David about the misuse of salvage logging. I cringe when I here
anyone talk about forest health. Tree farms can be described as healthy and
forests just exist.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 02:24:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: DavidOrr@aol.com
Subject: ZERO CUT means what exactly

> let's assume that Mr. Ecogroovy Forest Manager determines
>that the forest would be healthier and have less fire dam\nger if some logs
>were removed. Would the Forest Service employees have to remove them or
>could the Forest Service contract for this service and allow the sale of the
>timber? Would the harvesting of these logs in your mind count as commercial
>logging or not?

This would be a commercial timber sale because the logs would be sold.

------------------------------

End of GreenYes Digest V97 #147
******************************