Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Hi Jerry: Are these the people you were referring to??

Forest Service spent $113,000 promoting Sierra forest plan

By DON THOMPSON
Associated Press writer



SACRAMENTO, Calif. - The U.S. Forest Service paid a San Francisco public
relations firm $90,000 to develop a campaign to generate public support for
its plan to triple logging in the 11 national forests of the Sierra Nevada,
according to documents released Wednesday.

The plan for the PR campaign included a confidentiality clause, suggesting
that revealing its existence could be misinterpreted by the public.

The Forest Service signed a contract with the firm in December. However, it
told The Associated Press in January there was no cost breakdown for a
promotional effort. The Forest Service also did not disclose the contract in
response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by an environmental
group.

Craig Thomas, director of the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign,
released the document, saying someone mailed it to him anonymously last
month.

"They didn't include it because they knew it was going to be damaging, and
now it's more damaging," Thomas said. "They're keeping things away from us
that they don't want us to see, which is illegal."

Forest Service spokesman Matt Mathes said cost figures were compiled only
Tuesday, though the contract with OneWorld Communications Inc. of San
Francisco was signed in December and shows a partial cost. When the
marketing plan was unveiled in January, officials told the AP there was no
cost for the "Forests with a Future" promotion featuring a video and
wall-sized four-color posters aside from the overall cost of managing the 11
Sierra national forests.

OneWorld was paid $90,000 and another $23,000 was spent on production and
mailing, Mathes said.

Mathes said the strategy leaked to Thomas was OneWorld's "preliminary
response," and wasn't required to be released under the federal public
records act. The previously undisclosed Nov. 21, 2003, "public relations
sketch-plan" follows an October "media relations strategy and action plan"
that Mathes said was public record.

OneWorld's 11-page "sketch" includes a confidentiality clause asking that it
not be made public for fear it might be misinterpreted as the Forest Service
unveiled its revised plan to manage 11.5 million acres of Sierra national
forests. Environmental groups are appealing that new plan.

The secret strategy outlined two "equally important" goals: to promote the
Forest Service's plan to triple logging in the Sierra as necessary to
prevent catastrophic wildfires; and to counter "an apparent atmosphere of
mistrust and cynicism about the government's real intentions" and a public
perception the Forest Service was acting "due to some hidden politically
motivated agenda."

For instance, "in the present Republican 'pro-business' administration they
(the public) may be cynical about the government's motives, such as the
long-term health of the environment being sacrificed for short-term
financial gains and votes."

Many of the PR firm's proposals were adopted. Jay Watson, director of The
Wilderness Society's wildfire program, called the result "a gross
simplification" of the Forest Service's plans to boost logging.

"I guess image was everything, because the plan will not deliver the image
that's promised," Watson said. "The whole package was really concocted as a
diversionary tactic to draw attention from the fact that they're dumping the
(Clinton-era management) framework and replacing it with something that's
pseudo-science at best."

Mathes defended what he said is an apparently unprecedented decision within
the Forest Service to hire a public relations firm.

"It's kind of hard to oversimplify extreme fire danger, and that's what we
were struggling with internally," Mathes said. "We tend to do it in a highly
bureaucratic and tedious manner. We feel we weren't getting our bottom-line
message across."

The message they settled on, described by regional Forest Service Chief Jack
Blackwell as the management plan was announced in January, was that
overgrown Sierra forests coupled with an inevitable drought pose the same
danger as confronted Southern California residents during last fall's record
fires.

"Jack does not want to see catastrophic fire in the Sierra Nevada on his
watch," Mathes reiterated Wednesday. "We have the same overcrowded forest
conditions in the Sierra Nevada that we had around Lake Arrowhead (east of
Los Angeles). All that we're currently missing is the drought."

Print this story

 ----- Original Message ----- 
 From: Jerry Fruth
 To: Steven Proe ; Toby Horst ; L Sumoni ; fxn2ryd@xxxxxxxxxxxx ;
Whoacorr@xxxxxxx ; otdumas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Roger_Sue@xxxxxxxxxxx ;
Firefoxrun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; PatOlivatigger@xxxxxxx ; mkrumlaw@xxxxxxxxxxxx ;
cassilly@xxxxxxxxxxx ; lif@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; qhll@xxxxxxxxx ;
EquesB@xxxxxxx ; gregjones@xxxxxxxxxx ; espurgeon@xxxxxxxxx ;
darkcat5@xxxxxxxxx ; connielou@xxxxxxxxxxx ; Petdoc6@xxxxxxx ;
jeffeca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; bobmorris@xxxxxxxx ; BeckeG@xxxxxxx ;
TWBCH2003@xxxxxxx ; Tmturbo2@xxxxxxx ; Iwequine@xxxxxxxxxx ;
reallykk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; annparr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; CMatthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
c.berto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; desertbred@xxxxxxxxxxx
 Cc: wwho20@xxxxxxxxxxx ; BCO@xxxxxxxxxx ; envirohorse@xxxxxxxxx ;
jpfood@xxxxxxxxxxx ; sleeeker@xxxxxxxxxx ; Merryben@xxxxxxx ;
vickit@xxxxxxxxxx ; vgreene@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; goearth@xxxxxxxxxxx ;
theduck@xxxxxxxxxxx ; tacky@xxxxxx ; sshaw@xxxxxxxxxxx ;
RRibleyEndOfTheRoad@xxxxxxx ; trlryder@xxxxxxxxxxx ; htrails@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
BVHWLA@xxxxxxx ; docshaw@xxxxxxxxxxx ; mmaul@xxxxxxxxx ;
mlgorden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; LoriS3770@xxxxxxx ; Karen-Schwartz@xxxxxxxxxxx ;
nvrider@xxxxxxxxxxx ; Marinera@xxxxxxx ; Misxfire@xxxxxxx ;
BJSuter@xxxxxxxxxxxx ; Oldwaggy@xxxxxxx ; navion2@xxxxxxxxxxx ;
jferris@xxxxxxx ; riverrockcobs@xxxxxx ; Vanderfd@xxxxxxx ;
hillorieb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; vdix@xxxxxxxx ; tracy@xxxxxxx ;
dwynot@xxxxxxx ; glassman1@xxxxxxxxxxxx ; horsecamping@xxxxxxxxx ;
bobsvedeen@xxxxxxxxxx ; babtt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; barbdoug@xxxxxxxx ;
sallybaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; al@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Sheila_Larsen@xxxxxxx
; rschlim@xxxxxxxx ; bzdgulch@xxxxxxxx ; judyhall@xxxxxxxxxxxx ;
cancer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; steph@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; wstf@xxxxxxxxxxxx ;
konst@xxxxxxx
 Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 10:06 AM
 Subject: Re: Convention "Petition"


 Steve:
 The land is already set aside and is managed either by the BLM or the NFS.
Putting land
 into a designated Wilderness area only creates access issues.  It solves
absolutely
 nothing.  If you yearn for a Wilderness experience try Denali.
 Jerry
   ----- Original Message ----- 
   From: Steven Proe
   To: Toby Horst ; L Sumoni ; jerryfruth@xxxxxxxxxx ; fxn2ryd@xxxxxxxxxxxx
; Whoacorr@xxxxxxx ; otdumas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Roger_Sue@xxxxxxxxxxx ;
Firefoxrun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; PatOlivatigger@xxxxxxx ; mkrumlaw@xxxxxxxxxxxx ;
cassilly@xxxxxxxxxxx ; lif@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; qhll@xxxxxxxxx ;
EquesB@xxxxxxx ; gregjones@xxxxxxxxxx ; espurgeon@xxxxxxxxx ;
darkcat5@xxxxxxxxx ; connielou@xxxxxxxxxxx ; Petdoc6@xxxxxxx ;
jeffeca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; bobmorris@xxxxxxxx ; BeckeG@xxxxxxx ;
TWBCH2003@xxxxxxx ; Tmturbo2@xxxxxxx ; Iwequine@xxxxxxxxxx ;
reallykk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; annparr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; CMatthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
c.berto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; desertbred@xxxxxxxxxxx
   Cc: wwho20@xxxxxxxxxxx ; BCO@xxxxxxxxxx ; envirohorse@xxxxxxxxx ;
jpfood@xxxxxxxxxxx ; sleeeker@xxxxxxxxxx ; Merryben@xxxxxxx ;
vickit@xxxxxxxxxx ; vgreene@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; goearth@xxxxxxxxxxx ;
theduck@xxxxxxxxxxx ; tacky@xxxxxx ; sshaw@xxxxxxxxxxx ;
RRibleyEndOfTheRoad@xxxxxxx ; trlryder@xxxxxxxxxxx ; htrails@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
BVHWLA@xxxxxxx ; docshaw@xxxxxxxxxxx ; mmaul@xxxxxxxxx ;
mlgorden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; LoriS3770@xxxxxxx ; Karen-Schwartz@xxxxxxxxxxx ;
nvrider@xxxxxxxxxxx ; Marinera@xxxxxxx ; Misxfire@xxxxxxx ;
BJSuter@xxxxxxxxxxxx ; Oldwaggy@xxxxxxx ; navion2@xxxxxxxxxxx ;
jferris@xxxxxxx ; riverrockcobs@xxxxxx ; Vanderfd@xxxxxxx ;
hillorieb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; vdix@xxxxxxxx ; tracy@xxxxxxx ;
dwynot@xxxxxxx ; glassman1@xxxxxxxxxxxx ; horsecamping@xxxxxxxxx ;
bobsvedeen@xxxxxxxxxx ; babtt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; barbdoug@xxxxxxxx ;
sallybaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; al@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Sheila_Larsen@xxxxxxx
; rschlim@xxxxxxxx ; bzdgulch@xxxxxxxx ; judyhall@xxxxxxxxxxxx ;
cancer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; steph@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; wstf@xxxxxxxxxxxx ;
konst@xxxxxxx
   Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 3:48 PM
   Subject: Re: Convention "Petition"


   Hi Folks: The question in my mind is: if we do not have the additional
open space/wilderness set aside, for what ever purpose. These lands will be
exploited in some fashion i/e logging, grazing, development or intensive
other touristy activities that will force the existing wildlife onto other
existing lands.

   The existing lands will then have additional cumulative impacts as well
as the purposed wilderness lands, Guess who will lose, as we are losing
recreation lands, everyday through the afore mentioned activities and land
development.

   If enough land can be preserved, there will be less oppositions to
historic recreation users, hikers and riders of equestrian mounts.

   But there is always the but, many of the present historic users of these
lands enjoy other activities such as mt. biking, motorcycles and all terrain
vehicles to name just a few of the new co mingled user groups.

   These people will also impact the environment through their additional
uses.. By saying they have a "right" to use these lands without any studies
or other empirical evidence to support their statements, nor the $$$, need
to patrol, enforce and maintain these already negatively impacted lands.

   If we don't set aside and protect more land for "ever", then, we will
all lose what we have now, never mind the potential wilderness lands. That
includes the critters that have been using these lands, long before we were
using them for the last 200 or so years.

   my 2,cents
   Steven Proe