>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 16:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Western Ancient Forest Campaign <wafcdc at igc.apc.org>
>Subject: Sen. Dems Offer New Forest Health Sham
>To: Recipients of conference <mlist.wafcdc at conf.igc.apc.org>
>
>TO: All Forest Activists
>FROM: Steve Holmer and Jim Jontz
>DATE: May 8, 1996
>
>SUBJECT: Senate Democrats Offer New Forest Health "Sham"
>
> Senate Democrats led by Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT), Ron
>Wyden (D-OR) and Patty Murray (D-WA) have offered a Democratic
>alternative forest health bill for discussing a compromise with Sen.
>Larry Craig and his staff concerning his "forest health" bill, S. 391.
>
> The Democratic alternative would permanently enshrine forest
>health into land management planning, Resources Planning
>Assessments and the Federal Land Planning Management Act. The
>bill also expands the salvage fund, giving the agencies greater
>discretion and resources to carry out salvage sales in the future.
>While the bill includes a repeal of the Clearcut Logging Rider
>(Public Law 104-19), it does not cancel the Section 318 sales already
>slated for clearcutting.
>
> RIDER REPEAL, NO FOREST HEALTH DEAL!
>
> Please contact the following Senators and urge them to
>oppose any forest health legislation based on a bogus claim that
>there is a forest health crisis that justifies taking the extreme
>measures found in the logging rider and the Craig bill. Urge them
>to support repealing the rider and cancelling the Section 318 sales.
>
> Senators Baucus, Wyden and Murray, who are leading this
>effort, should also see and hear the intensity of our opposition to
>the forest health sham and our desire for a complete repeal of the
>rider and cancellation of the 318 sales. WAFC is encouraging
>activists to hold protests, write letters to the editor, taking on these
>Senators for their position on the forest health issue.
>
>Max Baucus (D-MT) 202/228-3687 224-2651 Curt Rich
>Ron Wyden (D-OR) 202/228-2717 224-5244 Josh Schenkman
>Patty Murray (D-WA) 202/224-0238 224-2621 Marla Marvin
>
> Please contact these key Senators with the same message (the
>protests, letters to the editor, etc., won't be necessary):
>
>Tom Daschle (D-SD) 202/224-2047 224-2321 Eric Washburn
>Christopher Dodd (D-CT) 202/224-1083 224-2823 Sheila Duffy
>Bill Bradley (D-NJ) 202/224-8567 224-3224 Ruth Fleischer
>Patrick Leahy (D-VT) 202/224-5902 224-4242 Brooks Preston
>
> California Activists can help by contacting Sens. Barbara Boxer
>and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and urging them to speak with Sen.
>Daschle to derail both the Craig bill and this misguided Democratic
>alternative that could devastate California forests.
>
>Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 415/956-6701 224-3553 Linda Delgado
>Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)202/228-3954 224-3841 Kathy Lacey
>Analysis:
>
> The problem we are facing is largely driven by Sen. Max
>Baucus' reelection campaign this year, the way in which Sen. Ron
>Wyden won his special election just a few months ago, and the
>desire of both Sens. Wyden and Murray to resolve the "forest
>health" issue before their re-election efforts.
>
> Wyden won with overwhelming support in the Portland area,
>and immediately the media and other political observers laid out for
>Wyden the challenge to "represent all of Oregon" in the Senate.
>Wyden is eager to show that he cares about the east side of
>Oregon, and regrettably, passing "forest health" legislation is how
>he has chosen to demonstrate that concern.
>
> With solid opposition from Western Democratic Senators,
>Craig's bill would be dead. Sen. Dole cannot tie up the floor of
>the Senate for days if the Democrats filibuster the Craig bill. If we
>can convince Wyden, Baucus, Murray, and California's Senators to
>oppose legislation, Craig's bill will go nowhere.
>
> The problem is that Baucus, Murray, and Wyden sense a
>need to be "for something." That is why they have prevailed on
>Bradley, Daschle and others to work with them to prepare an
>alternative Democratic proposal.
>
> In one sense it is a diversion to have to fight a Democratic
>"forest heath" bill. But if we take advantage of the opportunity to
>jump on it, maybe we can get this issue behind us. We very much
>need to bury "forest health" for 1996 so that we have the energy
>we need for rider repeal. In fact, the "forest health" issue is
>probably the biggest obstacle we face in turning things around in
>the Senate.
>
> We need to take on these Senators on some very basic
>points:
>
>1) There have been a great many salvage sales without any "forest
>health" bill in the past;
>
>2) The real "forest health" problem is the need to stop logging of
>old growth, protect critical watersheds, and remove sediment
>generating roads to protect our water quality;
>
>3) Dead trees are part of a healthy forest;
>
>4) Economically, salvage sales are guaranteed to lose money for
>taxpayers; and
>
>5) There is no "forest health emergency" which justifies
>compromising our environmental laws or citizen's rights to
>participate in public lands decision-making.
>
>Thanks for your good work.

Dennis Paulson, Director phone 206-756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax 206-756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416