[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ re: THe huron Manistee



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from "Frank Ambrose" <fambrose@bloomington.in.us>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Murray,

What in the world are you doing? You are reposting a message that was sent
TWO years ago to the enviro mich list. Why are you trying to continue your
silly "war" with the Sierra Club by striking up more controversy over an
issue that is long dead. How is bringing up old bags of dirty laundry
helping us get any further in the movement to end commercial logging? (It
isnt.)

Please dont use me as a pawn in your games to try to discredit other
activists work. Please just do what you do to protect the forests and keep
to yourself. There is no need to try to drag others down to make yourself
feel better. You are not helping anything (imagine being a new person to
forest protection and seeing a veteran male activist treat a woman activist
who "dares" to speak her mind like she is dirt. Would that make you feel
safe in the movement? Wouldn't make you think about ever approaching a more
experienced activist with a thought that differed from what everyone else is
thinking?)

Frank




----- Original Message -----
From: <Murphwild1@aol.com>
To: <enviro-mich@great-lakes.net>
Cc: <Murphwild1@aol.com>
Sent: September 29, 2000 3:14 PM
Subject: E-M:/ re: THe huron Manistee


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enviro-Mich message from Murphwild1@aol.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Anne,
>
>
> Why do you fail to mention the National Sierra Club policy of End
Commercial
> Logging (ECL)?
>
> Mr. Ambrose's suggestions are totally consistent with what forest
activists
> should be doing, and these forests belong to ALL Americans.  Your effort
to
> marginalize Mr. Ambrose or his message by suggesting he is "afar" is not
the
> kind of team effort we need to continue the battle to stop the logging and
> destruction of biodiversity in our public lands. While it is unfortunate
that
> the Mackinaw is out of step with the rest of the conservation community on
> National Forests, please do not denegrate the work of others who are
actually
> making progress in the forest battle.
>
> Regards to blowdown in HMNF, you fail to mention why these blowdowns are
> happening.  Continued conversion of forests to tree farms will always
create
> conditions for "blowdowns." Is it yours and Sierra Clubs (Mackinaw)
position
> to support salvage logging??
>
>
> What do you mean by "this forest needs less of the blunt instrument
approach
> that is necessary in many other forests."  This does not make any sense to
me
> and provides us with no context whatsoever. Could you tell us what you
mean?
>
>
> Anne writes: "With any luck the new forest plan process may officially be
> underway sometime soon, and your comments are essential on that, since
that
> sets the overall management of this forest for the next 10 to 15 years."
>
> You seem to contradict yourself by now suggesting IT IS essential to "make
a
> point of reading the NEPA quarterly for the HMNF, looking at acres being
cut
> and commenting.." If one does not do these basic things, their comments
will
> not be informed.  Doing the day in and day out work of monitoring a timber
> program does not compare with showing up for two meetings a year. And, not
> all of us are paid so well to do the earths work as you, and cannot always
be
> at meetings while holding down real jobs or simply having the resources to
do
> so.  In fact, the meetings the FS and Sierra Club are so fond of, are not
a
> measure of one's success as a conservationist.
>
> Anne, how can you be so discouraging/cynical to someone who is actually
> participating in the "process?"  Maybe Mr. Ambrose is helping out on the
HMNF
> because activists in Indiana have pretty much stopped all logging in their
> National Forest.  You should listen and learn from them.
>
>
> Murray Dailey
>
>
>
>
>
> From: anne.woiwode@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 98 15:10:32 -0800
> To: <fambrose@igc.apc.org>, <enviro-mich@great-lakes.net>
> Subject: E-M:/ THe huron Manistee
> Sender: owner-enviro-mich@great-lakes.net
> Reply-To: anne.woiwode@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
> List-Name: Enviro-Mich
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enviro-Mich message from anne.woiwode@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I appreciate Frank Ambrose providing info on what is going on the Huron
> Manistee NF, but would strongly urge that anyone who is actually
> interested in
> the forests in this area make a point of doing more than just simply
reading
> the NEPA quarterly for the HMNF, looking at acres being cut and commenting
> from afar. This is a unique National Forest in the nation, as far as I can
> tell. It has an extraordinarily welcoming process for anyone in the
> public to
> participate in their activities. A twice yearly Friends of the Forest
> meeting
> is held in the spring and the fall, usually in Cadillac, open to anyone
who
> wants to attend (The meetings usually involve between 60 and 100 members
of
> the public, along with FS staff). They send out over 900 notices of those
> meetings, but if you are not on their list, request to be put on so you
can
> get the notices. The forest has a web page now with all the information
> as>well:
>
> http://users.netonecom.net/~hurmannf/hmdoc5a.htm
>
> The openness does not mean that there is not controversy. In fact, it is
> common at these meetings that major disputes erupt. Over the last few
years,
> the timber industry and a handful of hunting groups have been pounding the
> agency claiming they are not putting up enough aspen for sale. I MUCH
prefer
> that that debate takes place in this public forum than behind closed doors
> with the public shut out. And there is no question we need a lot more
> people who use and care about the Huron Manistee showing up at these
meetings
> so that when the new planning process actually gets going the voices of
those
> who care about biodiversity, about quiet recreation, and other important
uses
> of these forests are heard. You can count on the industry and other
> consumptive users being there.
>
> If something is not on the NEPA Quarterly that is required to be, then the
> Forest Service is prohibited from moving ahead with actions. This forest
has
> been particularly diligent in raising issues that they think may be
> controversial. In fact, some staff have raised things that they probably
> could have gotten away with, without breaking any rules and in some cases
> without the public even knowing about it. Case in point is the first half
of
> the salvage sale operation near Luzerne, for which the second half of the
> project is currently under review as listed in the NEPA Quarterly. The
> blowdown occurred in July last year, and both the Forest Service and the
DNR
> experienced extensive blow down areas. The DNR didn't even take a breath
> before letting a sale in the Mason Tract, without any consultation on how
to
> treat what is a naturally occurring disturbance. All the trees were
removed
> without a thought to biodiversity considerations.
>
> The Forest Service had 2000 acres of a 3000 acre blow down on their lands.
> They asked enviros, timber industry, local officials including the fire
chief
> at Luzerne, and others to convene to look at the site and discuss possible
> ways to proceed. That discussion assured no short cutting of the NEPA
> review,
> but it also led to the Forest Service moving the "red flag" areas, ie
those
> areas that posed a very real fire threat to the town of Luzerne (basically
a
> funnel up a river valley dropping right into the town) first, with a
second
> project for the less dangerous sites. It also led to proposals that the FS
> leave some islands of blow down throughout the area as reservoirs of
natural
> disturbance, both for study and to provide habitat etc. Comments on the
> second half of this are needed to reenforce this kind of approach.
>
> There are a lot of things we disagree with about the management of the
Huron
> Manistee, among them that the old growth plan has been in the works for 12
> years without being completed. And there is no question that there needs
to
> be more public input into management of this forest. But I would suggest
> this
> forest needs less of the blunt instrument approach that is necessary in
> manyother forests, and more of the find out whats going on and SHOW UP
> approach.
> With any luck the new forest plan process may officially be underway
sometime
> soon, and your comments are essential on that, since that sets the overall
> management of this forest for the next 10 to 15 years.
>
> If you would like to know more about these activities, or about how to
> comment
> on Forest Service projects, please contact me and I'll get you the info
you
> need.
>
> Anne Woiwode
> Sierra Club
> (517) 484-2372
>
> ==============================================================
> ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
> and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
> http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/
>
> Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
> majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
enviro-mich"
> ==============================================================


==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
==============================================================