Thought this might be of interest to folks here. It is very long, but at the
end is a "letter to the editor" that makes for a good read. The first half of
this post is in response to the second half.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 11:07:25 -0800
From: Alan Levine <alevine at MAIL.MCN.ORG>
Reply-To: Fish Habitat <FISHHABITAT at BOBO.NWS.ORST.EDU>,
Alan Levine <alevine at MAIL.MCN.ORG>
To: Multiple recipients of list FISHHABITAT <FISHHABITAT at BOBO.NWS.ORST.EDU>
Subject: Re: BOF loss - why and what now
Felice:
We did (and do) get snookered - by my analysis of why is somewhat different
than yours.
We may not achieve our goals on various fronts - but for different reasons.
Media Strategy
We never have had one. This has always been a complaint of mine. To have a
media strategy they must be collective interest and support,and a collective
unified front or message, with some bucks, to appeach the media with. We do
not have these, nor are we well developed in how to use the media if we had
these other requisites. EPIC does best with their Old Growth and Fisheries
Campaign and huge support list serve.
We are not all that well versed in how to use media (propaganda) as a tactic.
We are so diverse in our goals and outlooks that I really do not see a way
to pull this all together. Then there is the issue of money to help move it
along.
Political Strategy
Also suffers some from lack of consistency noted above. It is not likely
(for various reasons) that we will ever have a completely unified front
Thank god NMFS is in there, for the time being, supporting us in FPR reform.
We should be more open to helping and guiding NMFS and other supportive
agency situations.
I must say that action taken by you, to the detriment of our collective
goals in forestry reform, does not help us in the cause of unification. I
refer specifically to your willingness to give huge concessions (as
incentives) to small (questionable as to what is small up to 7,500 acres)
landowners to achieve rules changes that would affect large industrial
owners only. These concessions you have supported will seriously weaken the
effect of any forestry reform to the point that there is really little
incentive to work for it. And, in fact industry will support legislation for
these concessions because the know that they will weaken the FPA and be
useful for them, as ag has seen, in the long run.
There is simply no reason why all landowners can not abide by appropriate
and scientific stream and watercourse protection rules.
So the question is why work with you when you are cutting out our gizzard?
You are Smart. You know what is going on. You are committed.
How about you getting together an organized front to:
Get labor behind us.
Develope a workable media campaign and approach the media.
Get the Sierra Club to flex their muscle - if they have got one.
Get some money - a large amount please to help us be effective. It is hard
to make a living, do this stuff, and have a live - without any monetary
support. There are many in this position.
Extra money would also be useful in hireing a full time lobbyist to push our
position(s) in Sacramento.
I think you are wrong about the Coho litigation strategy. But, even if you
are not - it is none of your business. If you do not like it file your own
piece of litigation. When you mention Basin Plan and antidegradation
litigation I am not so sure you understand what legal levers there are or
are not there.
One very bright piece of news - to me is that the New EPIC THP Review Person
- Rob is doing a great job. He gets copies of THPs promptly, returns
comments to CDF and the Review Team agencies promptly, follows up concerns
with direct personal contact on issue. And, then he goes to Review Team
Meetings. This saves more ground than any other process - at the moment.
And- it if it was done on a broader basis (in all watersheds) - would have
huge effects. Thank you Rob and EPIC.
Felice: as you cant tell I am miffed at you and you uncooperative attitude.
You are as responsible as any party in perceived failure.
>Friends and comrades,
>
>We got snookered plain and simple. Any of you who have winked on the
>side to the Resources Agency about the action this past Wednesday or
>who have hope for better things next go around - get real. We will
>loose again on watershed analysis and on everything else if we do not
>manage to bring some real resources and coordination to bear on this
>issue.
>
>Below you will find my analysis of why we failed and of what needs to
>happen for us to change the political reality. These are, of course,
>not the final word. However, unless there is a real commitment to
>develop, fund and implement a common strategy and to insist that the
>larger players (notably the Sierra Club) either engage more of their
>staff resources and political influence or get out of the way, I
>think we will continue to loose.
>
>Why we lost:
>
> -- the timber industry had a media strategy (see, for example, the
>puff piece that came out a day in advance in the Mercury News) and we
>did not. They had media consultants and staff working the press and
>we did not. Their message was coordinated and ours was not.
>
> -- the timber industry had a political strategy and we did not. In
>spite of urgings from our "friends" in CDF and the legislature, there
>has been no interest or movement toward getting a meeting with the
>governor. The organizations with the most access - the SC and the
>fishermen - apparently did not engage at the level of the governors
>office.
>
> -- the opposition out organized us. Of special note is that they
>were able to secure strong labor support. We did not even try to get
>labor support for our position and so were not able to counter them.
>One of the principle labor supporters of the Industry is Matt
>McKinnon. Ironically, his appointment to the ARB was confirmed by
>the Senate on the same days the rule package - already negotiated to
>be less than effective - was gutted. His senate "sponsor" claimed he
>had the support of the Sierra Club and PCL testified in support of
>the appointment. I was the only voice raised in opposition. Pitiful.
>Labor screws us and they pay no price, in fact, they are rewarded!
>
> -- the opposition had a packet of bogus economic and scientific
>claims which they presented to the press and asked staff to use in
>writing up the economic impact sections. We made no effort to bring
>scientists to testify or to present the media with economic
>information even though PCFFA and others have plenty of this type of
>information. None of our organizations had press packets or made
>editorial visits.
>
> -- our litigation strategy is fragmented, North Coast only and
>(possibly) misguided. EPIC has chosen to sue the CDF director under
>the ESA and to invite only North Coast groups to join. We ought to be
>using our legal resources to broaden the fight to the Sierra as well
>as suing under the non-degradation requirements of Basin Plans. At
>minimum we should recruit and sign-on groups from other parts of the
>state that have listed salmon. What a coup it would have been, for
>example, if EPIC had a tribe on that lawsuit.
>
> -- we are concentrating too much on Pacific Lumber and not-enough
>on Sierra Pacific Industries. The PL battle is largely over on the
>North Coast but EF and others are unwilling to move on. We should be
>parodying SPI's "contributions" to Davis, not Horowitz who everyone
>already knows is a crook.
>
> -- we have no ongoing presence in Sacramento. The Sierra Club is
>perceived as the major player yet they devote zero staff time from
>the Sacramento office. The salmon staff only engaged for the final
>hearing and apparently had no media materials or the support of top
>management in hand.
>
>I guess I could go on but I'd rather lay out some ideas for how we
>can organize to win the next battle over Watershed Analysis:
>
> -- lobby Mary Nichols to ask the National and/or California Academy
>of Sciences to recommend members for a blue ribbon panel to make
>recommendations on standards and procedures for watershed analysis.
>
> -- contract with a watershed scientist to analyze and testify on
>BOF watershed Analysis rules.
>
> -- secure a commitment from SC for .25 FTE time on BOF and related
>issues (Salmon restoration funding, WA funding, appointments to the
>BOF, etc.) at the Sacramento office.
>
> -- develop a campaign structure - steering committee - and
>funding for a campaign and agree that we will make decisions together
>and within the context of the campaign.
>
> -- engage a political consultant in Sacramento to 1. work the media
>with our materials/coordinate our media strategy), 2. secure labor
>support for our position (counter the labor-industry clones), etc.
>3. develop lobby and press materials, 4. work the politics of the
>appointment process.
>
> -- develop a legal strategy which focuses on the CWA
>non-degradation requirements to challenge THPs especially in the
>Sierra. To do this the lawyers we work with need to become involved
>in coordination and strategy.
>
> -- mobilize Sierra and Southern Coast activists.
>
> -- develop an emergency petition for rulemaking (landowner options
>approach?) and force the Board to vote on it. (We need to make
>Markenwald, Heald and ?Dixon? break with the Industry cabal as a
>first step toward a different process).
>
>The 15-day notice hearing will no doubt take place on April 4th. If
>you read the press reports you know the Davis/Nichols/Tuttle/Blumberg
>spin is that "all sides agree that progress has been made." Our task
>is to bring home the message that this rule package represents:
> -- no substantial help for salmon, fishermen and clean water
> -- a capitulation by the Davis Administration to the demands of
>Big Timber
> -- a trashing of science by the Industry and Davis Administration
> -- worse than no action because it represents a "buy in" by new
>board members, Tuttle and Nichols to the old, corrupt way of
>developing logging rules - in the back room with the timber barons
>and labor sell outs. Sacramento insider politics as usual.
>
>In order to accomplish the dual tasks of 1. organizing a campaign to
>win the next battle and 2. making sure that the Davis folks pay a
>price for selling us out, I propose the following (suggested
>"assignments" are in parenthesis following each item):
>
> -- coordinated, multi-group press conference on Monday April 3rd in
>Sacramento (followed up by editorial board meetings that
>afternoon) including fishermen, coastal supervisors, Byron Sher,
>Keeley, Burton, etc. and conservationists. Develop massaging for
>same with input from "our side". (Alyssa-SC, Kevin, Bay Area
>groups)
>
> -- letter to Davis from multiple organizations asking for a meeting
>with him concerning salmon and logging issues (include Sierra
>Activists in the meeting). Coordinate process concerning who presents
>and what the "ask" will be. (Kathy and Paul)
>
> -- organize constituents meeting with Keeley (SC folks, Kevin)
>
> -- BOF appointments: organize a campaign to get who we want
>appointed. (Zeke and Kathy)
>
> -- late afternoon meeting on April 3 of our groups' reps with our
>allies in the legislature (Felice).
>
> -- develop and promote a common position on the PROCESS by
>which the Watershed Analysis rules will be developed. Once we
>develop a common position we can meet with Nichols, Heald and
>Markenwald and friends in the legislature to promote the process for
>developing watershed analysis procedures and standards. M &
>H have already asked me to suggest a process that would have more
>integrity. My idea is to ask them to have the Academys or scientific
>societies (AFS) put together the science team to make
>recommendations. When you see my note to Heald on this, give me
>feedback, so we can evolve a common approach. (Felice)
>
> -- 1/2 day meeting on March 5 to develop coordinated campaign:
>1.membership, 2. strategy, 3.objectives, tasks and assignments,
>4.funding applications, 5. next steps (all players - Felice will
>coordinate. let me know if you can come).
>
>Please share your thoughts on these ideas and others which you think
>ought to be pursued. Please also indicate especially whether you are
>willing to take responsibility for any of the short range actions:
>press conference, meeting with governor, etc. whether you/your
>organization is willing to work within the context of a coordinated
>campaign, and share your ideas on priorities and strategy - short and
>longer term and especially re Watershed Analysis.
>
>Most of you have labored long and hard. I believe, however, that we
>must be willing to change our individual and group modus operendi in
>order to succeed. We especially need to expand the fight beyond the
>North Coast (Sierra activists are almost there), secure a greater
>commitment of staff time from the Sierra Club (or otherwise develop
>ongoing Sacramento capability), and develop a winning strategy for
>the Watershed Analysis fight. Let's make the current defeat the
>motivator that gets us moving in a direction that will give us
>victory or at least gets us to where we can give the Industry a run
>for its money.
>
>Felice
>
>PS: Pasted in below is my letter to the Mercury News about their
>coverage.
>
>______________
>
> The Klamath River Program
> Klamath Forest Alliance PO Box 820 Etna, Ca. 96027
> 530-467-5405 (Phone & Fax) felicep at sisqtel.net
>
>
>
>
>March 17, 2000
>
>The Editorial Board
>San Jose Mercury News
>Via Fax # 408-271-3792
>
>To the editors:
>
>Your March 16th report - "State OKs interim timber limit" -
>misreports actions of the Davis Administration and California Board
>of Forestry on logging practice rules. In paragraph 2 your report
>claims that "The regulations...impose tough limits on logging." In
>reality, what the Board of Forestry approved will do little to
>restrict logging practices which have led to the listing of Coho
>salmon and Steelhead trout as "threatened" and to official
>designation of most coastal streams for "impaired" water quality.
>
>In fact, the unanimous action of the Board of Forestry last
>Wednesday was the result of backroom deals which gutted rules
>scientists, conservationists and state agencies had painstakingly
>negotiated with timber representatives over the past six months.
>Conservationists were not invited to participate in the late night
>negotiations and "salmon advocate" Fred Keeley (D-Santa Cruz) folded
>early in the process. Sierra Pacific Industries, however, which
>recently filled Davis' campaign coffers with over $100,000 in
>"donations", was present until the last and dictated the gutting of
>the new rules. The result - in the forest where it really matters -
>will be "logging as usual."
>
>Conservationists and fishermen had hoped that new Gray Davis
>appointees to the Board of Forestry, Resources Agency and California
>Department of Forestry would alter the way the Board does business.
>Unfortunately, the new Board has continued the traditions of the
>old, timber-dominated Board. As usual, the Board began consideration
>months ago of a compromise package suggested by state agencies and
>backed by a scientific committee. Over months of Sacramento meetings
>and hearings timber interests, the Farm Bureau Federation and
>industry- linked labor leaders like Matt McKinnon (whose appointment
>to the Air Resources Board was confirmed on the same day the logging
>rules were gutted) negotiated numerous qualifications and loopholes
>for logging into the rules. Then, at the last minute, timber
>interests mounted a media attack on agency and independent scientists
>combined with political calls to the governor's office.
>
>The result is remarkably reminiscent of the last major attempt at
>reform - the so-called "Grand Accord" of the Wilson Administration
>What the Davis Administration has given us is the appearance that
>something has changed while on the ground the destruction of our
>streams, our salmon and steelhead fisheries, and the communities
>which depend on clean water and healthy fisheries will continue
>unabated. Yet your report claims "both sides agree, it actually
>does represent progress." Your reporter was apparently listening to
>Governor Davis' spin meisters and not to the conservationists and
>fishermen who worked long and hard on the compromise rule package
>only to see it gutted last Wednesday.
>
>I was one of the salmon advocates in attendance and I can assure you
>that virtually every conservationist in the hearing chamber was aware
>that the Timber Industry remains firmly in the drivers seat. The
>Board of Forestry's action was a big loss for salmon and clean
>water. Worst of all, the new Board of Forestry signaled that it will
>continue to operate as in the past - with lip service to science and
>real service to the timber industry, its legion of high paid
>Sacramento lobbyists and fake labor leaders.
>
>Shame on all those who manufactured this charade and on the Mercury
>News for mis-reporting it.
>
>
>
>
>Felice Pace, Coordinator
>Klamath River Program
>
>
>Biographical note: Felice Pace has lived in the forests of Siskiyou
>County California for the past 24 years. He coordinates salmon, clean
>water and Klamath River programs for the Klamath Forest Alliance, a
>community-based conservation organization based in Etna, California.
>
>
>
Alan Levine
Coast Action Group
P.O. Box 215
Point Arena, CA 95468
(707) 882-2484
(707) 542-4408 - Weekdays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To get off ACN-L send a note to majordomo at acn.ca with unsubscribe acn-l
ACN-L archives are at http://www.peter.unmack.net/archive/acn
The Aquatic Conservation Network is dedicated to the exchange of
information regarding aquatic conservation issues. http://www.acn.ca
ACN-L is hosted by Gordon Dewis (gordon at pinetree.org) at www.pinetree.org