Newsgroup sci.environment 103431

Directory

In article <50ntdc$77n@staff.cs.su.oz.au>,
Andrew Taylor  wrote:
>Since the late Pleistocene hunting has been the major threat to large
>vertebrate species.  Over the last 200 years species introductions for
>the purposes of hunting and fishing have been one of the largest threat
>to vertebrate species.  Only now is habitat destruction dominating.
I agee. Actually, I should have said *modern* (i.e., in the last 50 years)
hunting does not destroy biodiversity". You need only go back 100 years to
the market hunting era in North America to see the effects of uncontrolled
hunting on wildlife populations. 
>Species introductions which are threats to biodiversity are still
>occuring for hunting or fishing purposes.
Again. Most of the exotic species introductions took place more than 50
years ago in North America. Today, it is more likely to be the
re-establishment of extirpated native species. 

On 9 Sep 1996, Terry Rudd wrote:
> Ralph Maughan (jjmrm@poky.srv.net) wrote:
> : Thanks for posting the stuff on the lies of the timber industry regarding this summer's
> : forest fire season.
>
> 
>
> There is significant evidence that areas that have been clear cut are actually
> worse fire hazards than dry forest because of the large piles of branches and
> bark that are striped and just left about, during the logging process.
>
> Forest fires that pass through a healthy forest, leave a lot of living timber
> in their paths and are actually quite healthy because of the age diversity and
> species diversity wrought by periodic fire.  Unhealthy forests will burn
> hotter and more thoroughly, such as what happened in Yellowstone, but usually
> some trees live and at least the soils have some chance of staying put because
> of the living roots systems.  In clearcuts, little is left alive so when fire
Actaully, your usage of the word "healthy" confuses the issue. There is an
economic and an ecologic definition. The first is predicated on a forest
producing the maximum amount of green timber, in the shortest time, with
the least mortality before the regeneration cut, and with the least loss
in quality due to defect.  This describes a healthy forest
according to silviculture (the science of growing trees for
known utilitarian purposes).  The second has developed over the last
decade, and is predicated on a healthy ecosystem--- one which retains
biological diversity and ecosystem functioning over the long term;
disturbances, such as wildfire, are integral factors in the ecosystem's
functioning.  Yellowstone was not "unhealthy"; forests in this area have
always had periodic (at long intervals--50 -150 years) crown fires, as
well as bark beetles and other mortality factors. In fact, the 1994
meeting of the Western Forest Insect Work Conference concluded in its
Proceedings that a single definition can not be made.
The timber industry has tried to define a single forest health
definition.  However, it is not scientifically sound, because it is
biased in favor of green timber production at a relatively young age (usual
rotations are 45-70 years), and limiting natural disturbances to further
this goal.  This is basically a silvicultural definition.
Nothing wrong with that--- so long as it is applied to managed lands, with
the caveat that it produces a forest that is a compromise, in comparrison
to the structure, function, and recognized utilitarian benefits that
primary forest have. Applied to primary forest, as an excuse to cut it, as
in the case of the Salvage Rider and proposed Forest Health legislation,
it is simple propaganda, and a massive rip off of the public lands.
I'll flesh out this point if someone cares to disagree.
> hits, the fuel is on the ground and concentrated.  Since it is dead, it is
> most combustible and burns very hot and those piles can smolder for weeks.
> Fire in clearcuts leaves nothing to hold the soils and erosion is far worse
> than when a living forest burns.
It is true that repeated clearcut logging reduces the necromass of the
forest--- logs, snags, litter, and humus--- quite significantly; this
occurs with or without burning.  In fact,
a study I have read shows that in the Pacific Northwest (US), the
prevalence of young plantation forests has reduced the sequestered
carbon greatly compared to the primary forests that were once there. Where
that carbon is today can be debated, but its not stored in the forest
anymore; the implications for global warming are obvious, when one
considers the % of primary forests converted through
logging to young forests or pasture throughout the globe.
The argument that young managed forests fix carbon at a high rate, which
buffers possible global warming is only partly correct; the rate may be higher
than in primary forests, but the storage is lower, and decreases over time
as the legacy of woody debris from the previous primary forest decomposes
or burns.
		Dave Braun
forests > Regards, > --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> |	Terry Rudd | Hewlett Packard/Fort Collins Site | (970) 229-2217	     |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> |   Requisite Disclaimer: HP speaks for HP, I speaks for me and that's that. |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

Jan Schloerer wrote:
> 
> From  <512hat$6ug_010@pm1-66.hal-pc.org>  and predecessors:
> 
>     charliew:    Big uncertainty bothers me a lot less than big risk.
> 
>     pete owens:  It effectively amounts to the same thing.
> 
>     charliew:    NOW, I see why you chaps are so irritated with me.
>                  I see that you equate uncertainty with risk.
> 
Here is a snip from a good paper called:
 THE 4P APPROACH TO DEALING WITH SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTY
------------------------------------------------------------
[snip]
It is necessary to differentiate between risk, which is
an event with a known probability, and true uncertainty,
which is an event with an unknown probability.
One often sees contradictory stories in the media from
"reputable scientific sources" who claim, one day, that
"Global warming will occur, and the results will be
catastrophic unless something is done immediately," and,
on another day, that "There is no direct evidence for
global warming, and people should not waste money on
something that may or may not happen." On yet another day,
one hears that "Toxic chemical X causes cancer," followed
on the next day by the statement that "Toxic chemical X
occurs in too low a concentration in the environment to
cause cancer." These seemingly contradictory statements
from the scientific community send social decision making
process into a tailspin, On the one hand, because
scientists cannot agree on what is happening, should
policymakers wait until better information is available
before acting? On the other hand, if society fails to
act, the situation may deteriorate rapidly and
irreversibly. What are people to do in these all-too-
common situations, and why has science failed to provide
the certain and unbiased answers on which good policymaking
depends? What is wrong with the link between science and
policy, and how can it be improved? Is a different,
nonregulatory approach needed for managing the environment?
[snip]
The entire paper is archived at:
 http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page33.htm
Jay

Try the software page of the EPA homepage.
	http://www.epa.gov/epahome/Software.html
Their server was having problems the last time I checked.
Let's hope it goes back up soon.
--ND
MUSFIL A.S. wrote:
> 
> I am seeking an EPA Program for Pollutant Dispersion in the atmosphere,
> such as Gaussian Model. Anybody can tell me where I can find it?
> Thank you.
> 
> Musfil AS

In article <32306F98.669F@pacbell.net>,
Mike Vandeman   wrote:
>Not only that, but biodiversity resides in genes, so unless you are killing one
>of a pair of identical twins, you are destroying biodiversity whenever you kill
>an organism.
You are forgetting asexual reproduction is very common.
The second claim is definitely false.  Consider random removal of
several individuals from a large population which then recovers to its former
size.  For any reasonable measure of genetic diversity, it is very likely
the the change will unmeasurable - statistically the expectation will be
presumably be a negligable decrease in the measure.  This decrease will
swamped by variation from other sources so the above claim is
practically false.
If you want to be pedantic often there will be a tiny increase - so the
above claim is strictly as well as practically wrong.
> I can't see how such a crude measure could be useful. It is like
> trying to measure population by counting houses.
Yes, good analogy.  I'm sure number of houses is a good predictor of
population.  I should note, we rarely have anything like a complete
species inventory for an area.  We usually have to estimate species
diversity on the beasis of the diversity of few groups like birds,
butterflies or higher plants.  Estimating measures of genetic diversity
is even more difficult.
Andrew Taylor

The August/September issue of Compliance Online is now available at:
http://www.ieti.com/taylor/compliance.html
In this month's issue we feature Part 2 in a discussion of Hazardous Waste
Management: determination of generator status.
Compliance Online is a monthly electronic newsletter available on the WWW
aimed at environmental regulatory compliance. It is intended to help
industry professionals stay on top of endlessly changing rules. Each month
features an article from a different industry professional with their
unique perspective. We also choose a Site of the Month and highlight
environmental tidbits. Compliance Online is absolutely free... no
subscription necessary.
We hope you find Compliance Online to be a valuable resource.
Sincerely,
Woody Taylor
Taylor Engineering
woodshow@interpath.com
http://www.ieti.com/taylor/engineer.html
http://www.ieti.com/taylor/compliance.html

In article <512hhk$89d@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
Rick A. Hopkins  wrote:
>Specific nests or areas may be affected by these activities.  But the
>real question is what about the population as a whole.  Henry Coe State
>Park represents 120 square miles (2nd largest state park in California)
>of the Diablo Range and trails and roads comprise less than 1/2 of 1
>percent of the total available habitat.
As I said the effects of roads can extend well beyond the actual area
they cover.  Suppose you have a 120 square mile park which is an 8 mile
by 15 mile rectangular island  of forest.  Sounds like a reasonable
chunk of habitat.
Now suppose, we are interested in conserving some wood warbler species
which can not tolerate brood parasitism from cowbirds and suppose
cowbirds penetrate upto 1 mile from the forest edge.  You hence have a
6 mile by 13 mile piece of good warbler habitat, i.e 78 square miles.
Now bisect the park's long axis with a road. The direct reduction in
habitat is of the order of 0.1%.  However you have reduced the good
warbler habitat to 52 square miles a reduction of 33% from 78 square
miles.  Add some subsidiary roads and you will be left with little good
warbler habitat.
The above example is only meant to be illustrative.  See "Contribution
of Roads to Forest Fragmention in the Rocky Mountains" Reed et al.,
Conservation Biology 10(4), August 1996 for a detailed analysis.
>Andrew:  Not sure what you are getting at here.
The suggestion was that the presence of humans offerred no more
disturbance than any other large animal.  This is not quite true
because we we are a generalist predator, our presence disturbs many
species far more than the presence of a large herbivore would.  Large
predators tend to be scarce so the presence of humans can hugely
increase this type of disturbance.
Andrew Taylor

> > I asked a question, phrased starkly and in the extreme to illustrate
> > the point clearly.  Essentially it was why should all vehicles be held
> > to the same emissions requirements as those in the worst air pollution
> > locales, whose problems are due to local topography and
> > overpopulation.
...look, buddy, why don't you come down to Oakland for a visit sometime,
eh?  It has got to be the singular most disgusting place on the face of the
earth (IMHO).  Do you want Iowa/etc etc to be like that some day?  Why
should you expunge toxic emissions (CO, Formaldihyde) from your vehicle
just because the environment can take it?  *I* don't want to see that.  *I*
wouldn' t wish that on anyone.  Can't you learn from others' mistakes and
keep your community/countryside purty?
apus

>
>
>     _________________________________________________________________
>   
>   
>                          LOGGERS VS. BIRDS IN FOREST
>                                       
>   By STEVE GEISSINGER 
>   Associated Press Writer
>   Monday, September 9, 1996 11:39 pm EDT
>   
>   
>   SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. (AP) -- A redwood forest with trees 300 feet
>   high and 2,000 years old may see commercial loggers for the first time
>   next week if environmentalists fail to make a case for a small,
>   rarely-seen bird.
>   
>   The 3,000-acre Headwaters Forest is the biggest redwood forest in the
>   world still in private hands.
>   
>   Owner Pacific Lumber Co. wants to cut down dead and diseased trees and
>   create work for scores of loggers where environmental protections and
>   diminishing areas of available timberland have forced the closing of
>   many mills.
>   
>   Environmentalists like the Sierra Club -- who lost a round Monday when
>   a state board voted to approve the selective cutting -- are opposed.
>   
>   ``This is so important I believe (Gov.) Pete Wilson should be here
>   before you today making this presentation,'' said Brian Gaffney,
>   representing the Sierra Club and another group.
>   
>   Kathy Bailey of the Sierra Club said logging ``would have a terrible
>   effect.''
>   
>   At issue is a forest about 20 miles inland from the Pacific and 200
>   miles north of San Francisco where some trees were saplings during the
>   time of Jesus Christ.
>   
>   Headwaters Forest is a so-called old growth forest, untouched by
>   Pacific Lumber even though the company, started in the 1870s, has
>   owned it for years. The area is home to logging mills, farms, ranches,
>   not to mention a sizable marijuana crop, according to authorities.
>   
>   Pacific Lumber went to state and federal courts to gain approval of a
>   plan to selectively cut unhealthy trees for resale. It won.
>   
>   The Department of Forestry, a state agency that maintains and studies
>   forests, has said the plan would not harm wildlife and promised to
>   monitor it closely to ensure no healthy trees were culled.
>   
>   Environmental groups disagree.
>   
>   They asked the Board of Forestry, an appointed board that oversees
>   California's vast woodlands, to invoke emergency powers to stop
>   Pacific Lumber from endangered wildlife such as the marbled murrelet,
>   a reclusive, small, fast-flying bird that nests among the redwoods.
>   
>   The groups were not satisfied with assurances from state and federal
>   wildlife agencies that the birds would be protected as long as the
>   cutting took place after the late summer nesting season.
>   
>   With loggers accusing the environmentalists of trying to contrive an
>   emergency, the board voted 6-0 Monday to allow the cutting.
>   
>   The battle is not over however.
>   
>   Environmentalists are awaiting a federal court ruling on a motion for
>   a preliminary injunction against the logging and are pressuring the
>   Clinton administration to step in.
>   
>   Meanwhile, authorities are worried about confrontations.
>   
>   Monday's meeting was attended by armed members of the Department of
>   Forestry and both sides plan demonstrations Sept. 16 -- the day the
>   cutting is scheduled to begin. Environmentalists said they will march
>   outside the Pacific mill and loggers intend to walk in Eureka, a mill
>   town.
>   
>   A last-minute solution is still possible.
>   
>   The day before loggers are to begin is the deadline a federal court
>   set for a possible deal between the Clinton administration and Pacific
>   in which Pacific would swap Headwaters Forest for other federal land.
>   
>   If no agreement is reached, the logging could get underway.
>   
>   ``We're worried about it,'' said Dana Stolzman at the Environmental
>   Protection Information Center.
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   © Copyright 1996 The Associated Press
>   
>   [3]Back to the top
>     _________________________________________________________________
>   
the following was taken from "GREENLines":
>   Tuesday, September 10, 1996 
>     _________________________________________________________________
>   
[...]
>   
>   NO FORESTS, NO FIRES: An ad in "Roll Call" from the National Forest
>   Protection Campaign takes on logging industry arguments that "if we
>   just let them cut down our National Forests, we won't have to worry
>   about forest fires." The ad attacks S. 391, the Craig "forest health"
>   bill, calling it "another example of this Congress's assault on the
>   American people's right to a safe and healthy environment." The timber
>   industry has claimed that "salvage" logging is necessary to reduce
>   forest fire danger; a hearing by a House Resources subcommittee will
>   look at Forest Service fire management policy this coming Thursday.
>   
[...]
>   
>  TIMBER OFFICIAL SAYS RIDER SHOULD HAVE EXCLUDED HEALTHY TREES
>  
>   
>     _________________________________________________________________
>   
>   BY SCOTT SONNER
>   Associated Press
>   
>   WASHINGTON -- Congress made a mistake last year by including logging
>   of healthy old-growth forests in a salvage timber law intended to
>   clear dead and dying trees from national forests, a timber industry
>   official says.
>   
>   Last week Henson Moore, president of the American Forest & Paper
>   Association, said including the valuable old-growth trees undermined
>   the argument that waiving environmental regulations was necessary to
>   ease fire threats.
>   
>   "When you mixed green sales with forest health, that was a political
>   mistake," Moore said during a news conference.
>   
>   Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., and others inserted the language requiring
>   harvest of healthy old-growth. The timber included thousands of acres
>   of centuries-old stands of trees that the U.S. Forest Service had sold
>   to private bidders as long as six years ago, but never allowed to be
>   harvested due to environmental concerns.
>   
>   Inclusion of healthy trees left Congress and the industry open to
>   criticism from environmentalists that efforts to increase logging
>   levels had been disguised as a forest health improvement program.
>   
>   Moore said lawmakers who favored cutting the old-growth were
>   frustrated by the fact timber companies had paid for the trees, but
>   then were prohibited from cutting them.
>   
>   Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas said Wednesday he didn't
>   recommend one way or another on the salvage measure, but said
>   combining healthy trees with the salvage of dead and dying timber
>   "badly confused the public."
>   
>   "I never have been able to overcome that," he said.
>   
>   Published: 09/03/1996
>   
>   [18]HOME | [19]HEADLINES | [20]BREAKING NEWS | [21]BUSINESS |
>   [22]CONSTRUCTION
>   [23]REAL ESTATE | [24]A & E | [25]AUCTIONS | [26]LAW | [27]ENVIRONMENT
>   | [28]TECHNOLOGY
>   [29]MACHINERY | [30]PUBLIC NOTICES | [31]CREDIT | [32]LEISURE |
>   [33]INDEX | [34]FEEDBACK
>   
>   Comments to [35]webmaster@djc.com
>   Copyright © 1991-96 Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce. All rights
>   reserved.
-- 
 now looming in the headlights / The pain upstairs that makes his eyeballs ache

SAVE THE REDWOODS - What you can do NOW.
An easy web form to email the President
http://sierra.netservers.com/issues/headmail.html
-- 
Perry Pip Web Services               http://www.netservers.com
webmaster@netservers.com             http://www.perrypip.com

EPIC = Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc.
POB 397, Garberville, CA 95542  
MEDIA RELEASE		for immediate release
September 10, 1996
***California Board of Forestry Denies Emergency Rules Petition to
Prohibit Salvage Logging of Ancient Forests***
Concerned citizens were disappointed by the California Board of
Forestry's decision Monday to deny protection to old growth and
streamside forests, saying that the ruling dramatically increases the
possibility that "salvage" logging will take place in the ancient
groves of Headwaters Forest.  Salvage operations are slated to
commence September 16, the day after the official end of marbled
murrelet nesting season.
David Brower, perhaps America's most distinguished environmental
activist, was furious with the announcement.  "Pete Wilson's Board of
Forestry decided that ancient redwoods weren't worth protecting,"
Brower said from his Berkeley home.
The Board of Forestry, by a 5-0 vote, denied a petition from EPIC and
the Sierra Club requesting that the Board adopt emergency rules to
prevent ancient and streamside forests from being logged under
"exemptions" to the Forest Practice Rules.  Such exemptions are
entirely free from agency review and public comment.  In 1995, almost
3 million acres statewide were approved for logging under exemptions,
while full Timber Harvest Plans were filed for about 250,000 acres.
Tracy Katelman, Registered Professional Forester, stated, "We believe
that logging in places this sensitive should be done under the Timber
Harvest Plan process, which provides for agency and public review. 
Exemptions are a loophole by which bad practices escape public
review."  EPIC spokesperson Paul Mason, at the hearing in South Lake
Tahoe, said, "The Board of Forestry has completely abdicated its
responsibility to protect some of the most sensitive forest lands in
the state.  This decision underlines the need to reform the state
forest practices bureaucracy, beginning with the industry-dominated
Board."
North Coast watershed restoration pioneer Richard Gienger also
expressed dissatisfaction.  "Rather than deal with the obvious and
well-documented shortcomings of the exemption process, they bagged the
whole petition, doing a great disservice to the protection of
California's watersheds and fisheries."
Environmentalists from throughout California and the nation now turn
their attention to the mass rally planned for September 15.  The
rally, which will take place in Carlotta, California, site of Pacific
Lumber's main haul road into Headwaters Forest, is a non-violent event
which will demonstrate the depth of support for protection of
Headwaters' ancient groves and surrounding habitat critical to the
survival of marbled murrelets and coho salmon.
-end-
-- 
 now looming in the headlights / The pain upstairs that makes his eyeballs ache

TL ADAMS  wrote in article
<3235A1A7.6B81@west.darkside.com>...
> fred vented:
> 
> 
> Oh, we are on the same bandwith on these,,, let us learn as a society
> to bring all major social/technical discussion out to the people.  I
> truly believe that good people tried to set up the best plan that they
> could with smog 2, but they are just a few trying to regulate millions.
> Without listening to the people affected, how can they know.  Without
> you telling them, how can they know.
"Can You hear us now"! That was the cry from the smog rally sponsered by
KSFO http://www.ksfo560.com/ksfo.htm
in Sac. I won't go into the numbers in attendance but there was a lot.
Imagine a rally of conservatives! I wrote to Sen.
Lockyer today and asked about looking into a limited milage program for
agriculteral uses. He has not been responsive 
to coworkers that have contacted him. Oh he did send newspaper clipings
about KSFO to one guy. Thats ok I gave him a copy of SB501. Now that is the
hotest reading material at work. I see lots of people on my job and I give
them info. There are to many stories to list here. Ask people how they
fared at the smog station and you will know what I am talking about.
I have driven in LA plenty, those people are agresive. How do you slow down
someone in a new BMW the cops? Fat chance the crime in that tells how
afective the cops are.
I have 4 horses and 2 ponies on 50 acres. Thats why I can't buy a new
truck. Maybe I could ride my horse to work.
I hear temsters make good money. If you want to talk about equine topics
try rec.equestrian. 
Wow an oposing view on smog where we can talk like regular grown up adults.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 17:03:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ned Daly 
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Headwaters Heats Up
TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT - NATURAL RESOURCES POLICY ADVISORY
(please distribute freely)
TAP-RESOURCES
September 10, 1996
	The battle to save the largest privately owned stand of old 
growth redwoods has recently heated up, not coincidently it seems, just 
before the presidential election. The Clinton Administration has been 
looking at a number of ways to bring the Headwaters Forest into federal 
ownership. 
	Unfortunately, Clinton's point man on this issue, John Garamendi,
has shown no interest in long-term worker and ecosystem protection plans
nor in pursuing the possibility of a debt-for-nature swap for the
Headwaters. The present owner of the Headwaters Forest, corporate raider
Charles Hurwitz, has two suits pending at the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) regarding a
failed Savings and Loan which Hurwitz controled. The failure of United
Savings Association of Texas (USAT) cost taxpayers $1.6 billion dollars.
The savings and loan launched many of Hurwitz's takeover ventures
including Pacific Lumber, the previous owner of the Headwaters Forest.
Many community and forest activists working on this issue would like to
see the government take Headwaters as payment for the S&L; debt. 
	In their haste to get a quick environmental victory (for both 
Clinton before the election and Garamendi who will likely run for 
Governor in California), the Administration has overlooked important 
criteria for a plan that would truely protect Headwaters Forest. These 
issues are summarized in the following letters to President Clinton and 
Deputy Secretary of Interior John Garamendi from Ralph Nader.  
If you would like some background on the Headwaters issue, check out:
http://www.essential.org/monitor/hyper/mm0994.html#redwoods
					Ned Daly
*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
William Jefferson Clinton 			September 9, 1996
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. 
Washington, DC 20500
President Clinton,
Thank you for your response to my letter regarding the Headwaters Forest 
in California. I would like to reiterate my concerns about certain 
government negotiations with Mr. Hurwitz and, in response to some 
misconceptions expressed by Deputy Secretary Garamendi, suggest several 
ways to safeguard the Headwaters Forest.
Publicly owned assets like national forests or Treasure Island are 
beneficial to citizens for a variety of reasons. Whether it is a new 
lifesaving cancer drug developed at the National Institutes of Health 
from a plant found on public lands or recreational opportunities 
available in our national forests, these public assets improve the 
quality of life for local residents and visitors, offer communities 
economic opportunity and diversity, and greatly benefit our society.
An important element in the equitable acquisition of the Headwaters 
Forest is a full review of the financial proceedings against Mr. Hurwitz 
at the FDIC, OTS and any other relevant agencies. It was this point which 
Mr. Garamendi had the most difficulty understanding. There are many 
recommendations and inquiries your Administration can make regarding the 
proceeding at the FDIC and the possibility of a debt for nature exchange. 
The concept of two agencies working together cooperatively to solve a 
problem is certainly not unique (see attached letter to Deputy Secretary 
John Garamendi), and such an approach would clearly benefit the public 
interest in this case. Such inquiries and recommendations should be made 
simultaneously with any other plans for acquisition  of the Headwaters 
Forest.
The economic future of the region's workers must also be taken into 
account when considering any action on the Headwaters Forest. Like so 
many changing economies in the West, the opportunity to diversify and 
strengthen local economies in Northern California while protecting land, 
resources and recreational opportunities has never been greater. With the 
help of the Department of Labor, an economic diversification strategy 
should accompany plans to acquire the Headwaters Forest.
Along with economic diversification, a long term strategy for the 
protection of the entire redwoods ecosystem-- one of our country's most 
magnificent and most endangered public assets is necessary. Saving a 
portion of the Headwaters Forest will certainly serve some aesthetic 
value, but your actions should also address the broader ecological 
requirements of keeping this asset intact for future generations.
Page 2
And perhaps most importantly, any agreement entered into with Mr. 
Hurwitz, whether to obtain or swap publicly owned assets, must have full 
public disclosure regarding appraisals and other environmental 
ramifications, and the agreement should be subject to a public comment 
period. There are time pressures presently in place, but surely Mr. 
Hurwitz would not damage the redwoods and diminish the value of the 
property during a public comment period. Mr. Hurwitz may be the "Houdini 
of High Finance" as he has been called, but he has shown himself 
vulnerable to environmental regulation, conservation lawsuits, and the 
volatility of the timber market, all reasons which make Mr. Hurwitz a 
willing seller. Your Administration should use all the tools available to 
make sure that taxpayers' interests are served in the acquisition of 
Headwaters Forest.
Thank you for you attention to this matter.
							Sincerely,
							Ralph Nader
----------- ATTACHED LETTER TO DEPUTY SEC. JOHN GARAMENDI -----------
								August 
28, 1996
Mr. John Garamendi
Deputy Secretary
Department of the Interior
Washington, DC 
Dear John:
Having had a good things to say about your past work as Insurance 
Commissioner of California, I regret having to express my dismay at your 
behavior yesterday following receipt of President Clinton's letter 
responding to my communication regarding the Headwaters Forest Area.
It is as if you planned the whole sequence. You called Monday 
afternoon and I returned your call shortly thereafter. You kept repeating 
that a "debt for nature" swap involving the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (FDIC) could not occur at the _demand_ or _order_ of the Clinton 
Administration because it would be "inappropriate, illegal and wrong." 
You stated this was the case because the FDIC is an independent agency. 
Again and again I responded that I was not urging the Department of 
Interior,  in its negotiations with Charles Hurwitz, et. al. over the 
stand of redwoods, to order or demand that the FDIC settle with Hurwitz, 
et. al. so as to include a debt for nature swap. No matter how many ways 
I attempted to have you drop this "straw man," you kept repeating the phrase.
For example, I indicated that Interior could consult and cooperate with 
FDIC as the FDIC was pursuing its own litigation and negotiations with 
Hurwitz, et. al. regarding the failed savings and loan which cost 
taxpayers over a billion dollars. Then I cited the letter which the 
acting chairman of the FDIC sent to Congressman Ronald Dellums (attached) 
on January 12, 1994 wherein the FDIC _itself_ stated:
"Although there is no direct relationship between the USAT failure and 
the redwood forest currently owned by the Pacific Lumber Company, we are 
mindful of the possibility that, if Pacific Lumber's parent companies can 
be held liable for USAT losses, issues involving the redwood forests 
might be brought into play. You may be assured that we are following this 
issue closely."
My words were going into John Garamendi's one ear and out the other 
because you had another agenda-- namely a telephone press conference from 
Chicago with California reporters to once again deliver the "straw man." 
Unfortunately, these reporters did not call me to hear my account of our 
conversation-- that neither in my letter nor in my exchange with you did 
I suggest, as you claim, that the president "direct negotiations of a 
settlement" of the suits pending against Hurwitz.
What I asked was that the President ask the FDIC to consider seeking the 
Headwaters from Hurwitz if the litigation is to be settled. To claim that 
such a request by the President would be "wrong and illegal" is just silly.
Your brief time in Washington may explain your lack of familiarity with 
how the government works in such areas. Yes, the independent agencies are 
insulated from direct Presidential control in that their heads typically 
can be removed only for "just cause" and not on the presidents whim, but 
historically the insulation was thought necessary because the independent 
agencies served dual roles as both law enforcement and adjudicatory 
entities. To be sure, for that reason, it might be inappropriate (but 
hardly illegal) for President Clinton to insist that the FDIC go after 
the Headwaters forest in its action against Hurwitz.
But you confuse adjudicatory "orders" with guidance. Nothing in the 
Constitution or any other law suggests that federal agencies must remain 
hermetically sealed and avoid contact with one another or the President. 
Since the creation of the independents, every president has guided their 
actions through OMB 
Letter from Ralph Nader
to Deputy Secretary John Garamendi
Page Two
directives, guidance documents and other instructions. Moreover, every 
day in Washington, the so-called "independent" agencies like the FDIC 
work together on problems of mutual interest. For example, the 
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (another independent agency) coordinates 
all of its enforcement cases against food and drug companies that engage 
in false advertising with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (an 
"executive branch" agency). No one would be foolish enough to suggest 
that cooperation of that kind is wrong.
My proposal to the President took the same tack. He should ask-- not 
order-- all federal agencies with potential claims against Hurwitz to 
consider the possibility of seeking the Headwaters property in lieu of 
cash. The decision as to the remedy to seek would remain precisely where 
the law puts it-- with the FDIC. The notion that the President is 
powerless to advise the independent agencies of his views would so 
emasculate the presidency that I can't imagine that President Clinton 
would be happy with your position.
John, clearly you work better when you are essentially your own boss 
elected by the populace, as was the case with the Insurance Commissioner's 
position after Proposition 103. A transparent, coordinated maneuver that 
you were asked to conduct on Monday is not becoming of you, even though 
you slipped one past what must have been several astonished reporters 
that you networked so suddenly. I am sending them this letter so that 
they can be informed about what happened on Monday.
							Sincerely,
							Ralph Nader
P.O. Box 19312
Washington, D.C. 20036 
--------------------------------------------------------------
TAP-RESOURCES is an Internet Distribution List provided by the
Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP).  TAP was founded by Ralph Nader to
monitor the management of government property, including
information systems and data, government funded R&D;, spectrum,
allocation, public lands and mineral resources, and other
government assets.  TAP-RESOURCES reports on TAP activities
relating to natural resources policy.  To obtain further
information about TAP send a note to tap@tap.org.
Subscription requests to: listproc@tap.org with the
message:  subscribe tap-resources yourfirstname yourlastname
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taxpayer Assets Project; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC  20036
-- 
 now looming in the headlights / The pain upstairs that makes his eyeballs ache

In article <513qg1$gc1@corn.cso.niu.edu>, 
system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) writes:
>>system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>>> charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) writes:
>>>
>>>>Let's get TOTALLY real here.  There is plenty of blame to 
>>>>spread around.  Yes, private corporations run slick ad 
>>>>campaigns that tend to distort the facts somewhat.  
>>>
>>>You mean like cigarette companies?  And the makers of
>>>the super absorbant tampon?
>
>Oh yes, the ?Pinto? built to $2000/2000 lbs and not 1 lbs or 
1 dollar over.
>
>>>Is Business Evil?  Naw, but some people who run business 
are ...
>>>well lets say completely without ethics or morals.
>>
>>I think you would have a difficult time proving this.  
>
>I agree it would be most difficult to prove that they were 
"completely"
>without ethics or morals, but in their dealings with the 
public...
>not too difficult at all.
>
>>In addition, if you said this about specific individuals, 
you 
>>would open yourself up to a "slander" lawsuit.  
>
>In the three cases mentioned above I would be happy to 
mention names
>if I had them handy.
>
>>Drawing broad 
>>generalizations about corporations based on sound bites in 
>>the press is not doing justice to anyone.
>
>I base little to nothing on sound bites from the press.
>
>Robert
>
>Morphis@physics.niu.edu
>
>Real Men change diapers
You also apparently don't work for a corporation.  
Corporations have many talented employees who want to do the 
"right" thing.  In addition, these employees try to help 
their employer survive in a very competitive market place by 
making decisions that improve corporate profitability.  Greed 
often has nothing to do with decisions made by these 
individuals, but fear of job loss due to low profitability 
does.  I personally don't have time to worry about whether or 
not my employer is making "too much" profit.  Managers at the 
top have already "laid down the law" in terms of what kind of 
profitability they expect, and they have also been VERY 
explicit that they will get rid of people as needed to get 
this performance.  If I had the luxury of only worrying about 
how greedy I wanted to be, I would definitely be happier than 
I am right now.  Translation - I seriously doubt that you 
know very much about this particular subject.  Otherwise, you 
would know enough to shut up.

Dennis O'Connor wrote:
there is no way a self-serving egocentric deluded loon
> like
> you is going to be allowed to pick the point in between.
> 
> And note, Mikey : this is not from my work account, so don't
> bother running crying like a little baby to them about it,
> like you did before.
It is gratifying that you guys keep justifying our low opinion of you, time and
again! Keep it up! You just love shooting your selves in the foot!
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles

In article <01bb9f98$41ce38e0$33f093cf@598136622worldnet.att.net.204.127.129.1>, "Fred"  writes:
> "Can You hear us now"! That was the cry from the smog rally
> sponsered by KSFO http://www.ksfo560.com/ksfo.htm in Sac. I won't go
> into the numbers in attendance but there was a lot.  Imagine a rally
> of conservatives!
The numbers on the news reports indicated around 300.  Not exactly the 
overwhelming response KSFO/KGO/Capitol Cities wanted.
> I wrote to Sen.  Lockyer today and asked about looking into a
> limited milage program for agriculteral uses.
As far as I can tell from reading the Vehicle Code and the Health and
Saftey Code, there will be a pilot program in the Ventura district
which attempts to integrate annual mileage driven into the emissions
equation.  We'll have to wait five years to see what happens.
Of course if this happens and we (as in "we the people" working
through our government) decide to allow high pollution vehicles which
are driven for a limited distance each year to be operated, you'll
probably complain about the intrusive government attempts to monitor
your driving habits.
> I have 4 horses and 2 ponies on 50 acres. Thats why I can't buy a
> new truck. Maybe I could ride my horse to work.
So Fred, in a previous post you said you drive your truck four times a 
year to haul hay for your horses.  So which is it?  Do you drive it 
regularly for transportation, or do you drive it four times a year?
--John

Dale wrote:
- 
- Mike Vandeman wrote:
- >
- > Dale wrote:
- > > mtb and hiking access
- > > need to be considered on roughly the same level as each other, and if it
- > > is appropriate to ban one group then an equitible policy would also place
- > > similar restrictions on the other group.
- >
- > Mountain bikers love to make it seem as though this is a discrimination issue.
- > It isn't: hikers & bikers are subject to EXACTLY THE SAME RULES! The issue is
- > not hiking vs. biking, but hiking only, vs. hiking PLUS biking. Obviously, the
- > latter has more impact, and therefore should not be allowed.
- 
- This statement raises so many issues it is hard to know where to start.  :-)
- 
- For a start you appear to be drawing some arbitary line in the sand - you seem to
- be saying "it's ok to allow some adverse impact but as soon as it goes over the
- arbitary threshold then we find some simplistic solution".
Baloney. All I said is that the damage is ALREADY TOO GREAT, so there is no reason
to increase it by allowing MTBing.
  What would you
> suggest that we do if the hiking reached a level which took the impact over your
> threshold?  A simplistic solution fitting your model would be to take an action
> such as banning all male hikers (after all, they are heavier than female hikers,
> and thus have more of an impact).
You don't get it, do you? This is not about discrimination.
> If all these methods of accessing the places in question are legitimate then any
> of these simplistic solutions are discriminatory despite what you say.  There are
> much more appropriate (non-discriminatory) means for restricting access when
> levels of access are having significant adverse impacts - one method used in
> Australia is a voucher system.  If hiking and biking have similar impacts, why
> shouldn't the person with the voucher be able to choose which form of transport
> is appropriate in the circumstances?
Nobody is trying to decide on hikers vs. bikers, as I said, but hikers alone, vs.
hikers plus bikers. The latter has the greater impact, obviously.
> I would also suggest that many of the remote areas under question have had hiking
> AND biking access for most of this century until the biking was banned - it is
> just that the numbers of bikes tended to be fairly small.  People have been
> accessing wilderness areas on bikes for much longer than mountain bikes have been
> around (just ask Jobst!).
Yes, illegally, so it doesn't count.
> So the real issue is that the numbers of people have gone up (irrespective of
> their mode of transport) and that is what is having more impact - not the fact
> that bikers have suddenly turned up in these places.
Nonsense. Bikes make it easy for lots more people, & lots lazier people, to get
into wilderness. You are grasping at straws.
  A solution which
> simplistically just bans the bikes is disciminatory as noted above (unless it can
> be shown that in the particular circumstances the bikes will have significantly
> more impact than the hikers).  This will be even more so if we still allow other
> forms of transport (such as horses) which clearly have a substantially greater
> impact than bikes.
> 
> This now gets back to a question of what level of access should be allowed - this
> would have to be dependent on the place in question (rather than an arbitary
> statement which says that if it has more impact it should not be allowed). 
Bull. EVERY place has too much access already