By Stephen Goode

From Insight Magazine

Fred Singer established the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in 1990 after becoming fed up with what he calls “the distorted science” surrounding the question of atmospheric ozone depletion. Singer is a scientist. His undergraduate degree is in electrical engineering and he has a doctorate in physics from Princeton University. He has spent a lifetime in scientific research and development. So it is not surprising that bad science gets Singer excited and arouses his concern.

The ozone debate has receded and no longer is in the headlines. “It may come back, who knows?” Singer tells Insight. His chief interest now, when it comes to distorted science, is global warming.

Two things concern Singer about global warming. First is the questionable science that says global warming is taking place and it’s a bad thing. The second is that the global-warming people argue government and society must now greatly expand the government’s authority to enforce policies that will put an end to global warming or at least hold it in check.

“There are, of course, many areas in science that are disputed, but because they have no policy significance, they don’t really make the papers,” Singer says. “As far as policy significance goes, global warming is still the top one.” That’s because the policies the global-warming folks advocate are often draconian, even though there’s no solid evidence, according to Singer, that global warming is taking place or that it will be a disaster for mankind.

Singer has held prestigious scientific positions, such as director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Maryland and distinguished research professor at the Institute for Space Science and Technology in Gainesville, Fla. He’s also published widely both in scientific journals and in the popular press. And Singer’s list of scientific accomplishments is impressive.

In 1956, for example, he designed the sensing instruments for the MOUSE (Minimal Orbital Unmanned Satellite), including the first instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone.

Among Singer’s other achievements are the design of the high-altitude FARSIDE rocket to search for geomagnetically trapped radiation. Currently, in addition to being SEPP’s president, he is a distinguished research professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia.

Insight: When did you first get interested in the question of global warming as an example of bad science?

Fred Singer: My interest in the global-warming scare began about 1988 with the testimony of Jim Hansen (then head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies) before Sen. Al Gore in a Senate hearing. I looked at his testimony and discovered some holes in it. I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal pointing out the weak points in the argument.

Q: What are some of the weak points about the global-warming argument?

A: The fact that they don’t properly take into account the effects of clouds in the atmosphere. Clouds will cool the climate rather than warm the climate. When you try to warm the ocean, I argued – and the argument is still sound – you evaporate more water and create more clouds and this reduces the amount of solar radiation. What you have is a kind of negative feedback which keeps the temperature from rising very much.

Q: Why is the disagreement so wide between those who see global warming happening right now and those who don’t? What is a nonscientist to make of such a disagreement?

A: Let me explain the origin of this scientific disagreement. There are two kinds of scientists. Let’s assume for the moment that both of them are honest. In the first group there are quite a few who argue as follows:

They say “Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.” It is. Second, they say, “Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.” It is. They then say, “Because carbon dioxide is on the increase and it is a greenhouse gas, therefore the climate must be warming. The [mathematical] models support this assumption,” they say, “and the models show the climate is warming; therefore evidence that goes contrary to this we will ignore. We will only look at supporting evidence.”

That’s how they are. The other group, of which I am one, says, “This is all true, but as far as we can tell, the climate is not warming as it should be if the greenhouse theory is correct. In fact, the warming is a great deal less than what the models predict. Therefore, something is wrong with the models.”

I belong to the latter school, as I say, and what we do is analyze the data. Just now we have a new result. It’s been known for a long time that the weather satellites do not show any warming, but the first group tends to neglect this information. They argue that the weather satellites have only been around for 25 years and that’s too short a time to tell. It’s a specious argument. Or they say there’s something wrong with the weather satellites, though they haven’t been able to show that there’s anything at all wrong with them.

So now we find that not only the weather satellites but also weather balloons, which measure temperature in a completely different way than the satellites, give the same results as the satellites.

Q: The data collected by weather balloons also say there is no global warming?

A: Yes. So now we have a situation in which most of the evidence is showing there is essentially no warming. The first group of scientists is aware of this information, but they tend to ignore it. They say, “Something’s wrong with it because it doesn’t support our hypothesis, so we will push it aside.”

The second group of scientists, of which I am one, says, “There must be something wrong with the first group’s models because they don’t agree with what we observe and measure.” So what you have is one group of people who believe in models or theory and the other group who believe in what they are measuring in the atmosphere! That’s the major science issue in a nutshell.

Q: These two groups of scientists also have vast differences when it comes to policies that should be developed to deal with the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, don’t they?

A: Well, yes. As far as policy goes, the first group of scientists says, “Even if we don’t see any warming, nonetheless, assuming the theory is right, there should be a warming given the increase in carbon dioxide. And we had better do something about it!” It’s called the precautionary principle. As the culture puts it, “Better safe than sorry.”

But the first group of scientists does not ask, “How much does it cost to be safe?” They don’t ask – and this is very important – “What does safety mean?”

Put another way, when you buy an insurance policy you look at the cost of the premium and you look at the risk. You don’t buy insurance policies against being hit by a meteorite. The risk is very small.

Q: Won’t one of the arguments the first group of scientists put forth be that we should slow our use of energy, conserve it, and in the process save the environment?

A: If the policy were cost-free, I would say, “Sure, why not?” So, for example, if people say, “Well, we should conserve energy,” I would say, “Yes, of course. It’s cost-free and conservation not only saves you energy, it even saves you money, and for that reason you should be doing it irrespective of a warming.”

But I would add, “When you say, ‘We have to do away with fossil fuels and use wind energy exclusively or solar energy,’ well … I would then say, ‘That’s very expensive and it doesn’t even work very well.'” So there is a basic policy difference between the two groups of scientists. The first group believes in the precautionary principle. And the second group, to use another slogan from the culture, believes, “Look before you leap!”

Q: “Look before you leap” means let’s not adopt large government programs to deal with a problem that the evidence says isn’t taking place but which theory and mathematical models say must take place?

A: If we don’t see anything happening despite the fact that carbon dioxide is increasing, then maybe something else is happening and the effect of the increase will be minimal. I won’t say an effect won’t be there, but that maybe it is minimal – or not even enough to be detectable. If it’s not detectable, it means it probably can’t do you any harm.

There’s an additional argument, which is this: Supposing it did warm up, is that good or bad? You cannot automatically assume it is bad, because we’ve had warming in the past and coolings. Climate is always changing. Every time the climate has been warm, it’s been good for mankind, and every time it has been cold it has been bad.

Q: How is a nonscientist to deal with these questions? How can a layperson look at the science and decide for himself or herself which side to be convinced by?

A: I think that the overall way of handling it is to look at the indices of human well-being. One is longevity. If people are now living longer and healthier lives than they used to – and this is certainly true – then things must be improving. So you have to conclude that air pollution, climate change, radiation, chemicals and whatever else you want to think about within the environment are not doing us in to a greater degree than before.

That’s one way of looking at it. The other, more detailed, is to look at the individual items that are being held up as dangerous. Again, for example, air pollution. Air pollution assuredly can be unhealthy. In present-day China it is horrible, truly awful. But according to the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], air pollution virtually has disappeared from the United States. Today we have fewer particulates, less sulphur, fewer ozone events and so on. The air is cleaner and better, according to the EPA. I don’t question that. It’s EPA’s data, and, when you think about it, it would be in EPA’s interest to show that this is not so. It would be in the EPA’s interest to show that air pollution is a serious problem and maybe even getting worse. But in fact, the outdoor air has become so clean that probably the greater health hazard is indoor air. Most of us spend 80 percent or so of our lives indoors, so in a sense outdoor air pollution is almost irrelevant.

Q: Do we politicize science now more than we used to?

A: I think yes. I remember when Earth Day first was proclaimed in 1970; that’s when the heavy politicizing started.

Q: What’s your impression of science education in this country?

A: It goes up and down. It peaked after Sputnik in science and engineering, and it’s been slowly going down. We’re lagging behind, as I read it, many other countries. We’re well down in the middle, lagging behind India and Japan.

Q: Does good science education help make people immune to being convinced by bad science, and isn’t solid science training essential?

A: That’s true. In fact, when I speak out about climate change and global warming, the greatest amount of support I get is from people who know something about the subject. They don’t have to be specialists, but they have to be able to read and absorb data when I show them a graph – to understand what it means.

Q: What about the Bush administration’s space program? Should we be getting back to, and deeper into, space exploration?

A: Should we be spending money at all on science? On astronomy and other scientific fields that have no practical payoff in the short term? Black holes are interesting. Discovering new planets is interesting. But where’s the practical payoff for those from whom the money is taken to pay for such programs?

Even so, let us assume that space exploration is important. Then the question is, how best to do it. I have always pointed out that some things are more important than others, which means some things are of less importance.

Among the things that are less important is putting a base on the moon. I don’t see any good reason to put a permanent base on the moon. It’s not just the expense involved, but the fact that a moon base would delay or make impossible other things we should be doing.

Supposing you get a half-dozen people to sit in an enclosure on the moon, so what? To me, a base on the moon is just another space station, and we’ve already proved that people can survive in space. We’ve known that for a long time, so we’re not learning anything new.

Q: What could we be doing that would be more beneficial to science?

A: We should be going to Mars. Not with a base, but a short exploratory visit. Not to the surface of Mars, because that’s difficult and costly and would take forever. But to Demos, a moon of Mars, and from that moon conduct an unmanned exploration of the planet.

Q: What do you think of the Bush administration’s attitude toward science in general?

A: The administration is conducting continually a climate-research program to the tune of about $2 billion a year. If I were doing it, I would spend a lot less and try to focus on what the really important issues are. But it’s turned out to be a great support project for scientists, not only for physical scientists but also for the social scientists who study the social, philosophical and theological implications of climate change. Everyone is getting in on this because they can get money from the program.

Q: Any other problems with the administration when it comes to science?

A: The Bush administration has quite properly said we’re not going to go along with the Kyoto Protocol. They’re not going to do all those crazy things demanded by the protocol, such as rationing energy and making energy even more expensive and causing ourselves economic harm. But, on the other hand, the administration is acting like this is a real problem, as though the problems the protocol was supposed to address are real. So they have a great big research program on hydrogen cars and so on, or sequestering carbon dioxide.

It makes no sense. It tells people, “This is a problem after all.” Why would you want to sequester carbon dioxide? To do so implies carbon dioxide is bad – when it’s not bad, it’s good. We should have more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s good for plants. It makes them grow faster.

Q: What are your views on energy?

A: The best we have now are coal, oil, and gas – and these will be with us a long time, long enough until they become too expensive, meaning scarce. But we have other sources of energy. We have nuclear energy, for example, nuclear energy which works. One of the real curious things about this whole debate is that the people who are concerned about global climate change are also the people who are opposed to advancing nuclear energy. The very same people.

Never mind that nuclear energy would do the job that needs to be done. It would produce energy without any carbon dioxide, so it’s the obvious answer. But they don’t want anything to do with it, so you see they can’t be serious. It shows how ideological they are.

Personal Bio:

Fred Singer

Currently: President, the Science & Environmental Policy Project, and distinguished research professor, George Mason University.

Born: Sept. 27, 1924, in Vienna, Austria. Married to Candace Carolyn Crandall.

Education: B.E.E. in electrical engineering, Ohio State University; A.M. and Ph.D. in physics, Princeton University.

Career highlights: Research physicist, Upper Atmosphere Rocket Program, Johns Hopkins University; director, Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics and professor of physics, University of Maryland; (first) director, National Weather Satellite Center, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Selected books: Is There an Optimum Level of Population?; Free Market Energy; Global Climate Change; and Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate. Essays and articles in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the New Republic and the Washington Times.

Selected honors: One of “Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Nation,” U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce, 1959; honorary doctorate of science, Ohio State University; elected fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Stephen Goode is a senior writer for Insight. sgoode@insightmag.com

Non-text portions of this message have been removed.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

By Don Thompson

Associated Press

SACRAMENTO – Logging in California has dropped 60 percent over the last 15 years, even as the fast-growing state consumes more imported timber, figures being released Thursday show.

The California Board of Equalization timber tax records show 1.66 billion board feet was harvested last year, down from 4.67 billion board feet in 1988.

The state now gets a record 70 percent to 80 percent of its wood from other states and overseas, projected the California Forest Products Commission, the industry advocacy group releasing the figures.

That’s a virtual reversal from the roughly 75 percent of in-state lumber production the commission estimated for 1988, based on production, consumption and the state’s population.

Logging during that period dropped more than 90 percent on public land and 40 percent on private land, the tax records show.

The release comes as the U.S. Forest Service advances a plan to triple logging in 11.5 million acres of national forests in the Sierra Nevada, and hurries to log beetle- and drought-killed trees still standing in Southern California after last fall’s record wildfires.

The commission, like the Forest Service, argues much more logging is needed to trim the fire threat, though environmental groups dispute logging away from threatened communities.

It also comes amid the debate over the loss of American jobs overseas. Citing industry sawmill closure figures, the commission projected the decline in logging has cost 15,000 forestry jobs in California since 1988. More than 80 sawmills have closed, with fewer than 50 remaining. The closest sawmill to the San Bernardino Mountains is 250 miles from the massive stand of dead and dying trees there.

Many of the logging and mill jobs are now overseas, where environmental standards for timber harvests are often weaker, said commission President Donn Zea.

He criticized government policies that have nearly doubled the cost of timber harvest permits the last five years. In just that period, the number of permits has dropped 30 percent and the acres harvested by half, according to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection figures.

The commission cited estimates the state’s forests are growing at the equivalent of 2 billion board feet each year, or enough wood for 130,000 homes.

ON THE NET

California Forest Products Commission: http://calforests.org

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

In our last update we explained the threats the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club’s Conservation Alternative 6 posed to fire suppression and management. This week we will discuss the impact Alternative 6 would have on roads.

In this issue:

1. Roads/ Recreational Access – The Sierra Club’s and Center for Biological Diversity’s campaign to remove our historical access

2. Upcoming Forest plan meetings for the Angeles and Los Padres National Forests (Wednesday, May 26th to Wednesday, June 2nd)

3. Meeting instructions and protocols for sound management advocates

1. ROAD/ACCESS

As we mentioned last week, Alternative 2 for the Cleveland National Forest and Alternative 4 for the Angeles, Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests are the preferred alternative plans. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Sierra Club supporters are attending the current forest plan meetings pushing for the adoption of Alternative 6 instead of the alternatives chosen by the Forest Service; and they are in a panic.

The Warrior’s Society does not see a great need for new roads or trails, but we do see a need to protect roads and trails we’ve used historically. The proposals being advocated by the CBD and the Sierra Club would result in the loss of much of our access. The Roads issue, combined with the proposals related to mountain biking, would remove mountain bikers from 99 percent of the trails in the Trabuco District here in Orange County, including the San Juan Trail.

The goal of the CBD and the Sierra Club is to remove as much public access as possible; but rather than being honest with the public they have hidden their agenda in a deceptively simple slogan “Protect and Restore our Forests!” instead of the truth – we must stop you from accessing the forest. If they were honest they’d name their Alternative “Remove Public Access from the National Forests Alternative 6.”

Their proposed mountain bike recreational policies would force mountain bikers onto fire roads (as I will explain in next weeks update), but these fire roads will also be subject to removal. Their Road Removal Strategy (RRR) that identifies roads for removal and “obliteration” would have a dramatic effect on our access. Here in the Trabuco District of the Cleveland National Forest, Maple Springs Road (the road that begins at the end of Silverado Canyon) Trabuco Canyon Road (the road the leads to the Holy Jim Trail), the Indian Truck Trail, and the Harding Truck Trail would not meet their qualifications. I’m sure this is the case with many of the roads in your forest as well.

The Forest Service Fire agency representative alluded to the ramifications of adopting the Alternative 6 road management proposals and the negative consequences they would have on fire suppression and management. If you read Alternative 6 you will see there are numerous conflicting statements, such as existing roads should be minimized or obliterated if they do not meet their standards within a short time period – and yet prescribed burns should only be conducted using existing roads.

Their proposals do not take into account the lack of funding to pay for the personnel needed to evaluate the road system or to fund repairs, which would require a multi-million dollar funding increase. They propose that no new roads shall be built to conduct undergrowth fuel reduction or prescribed burns (“no new road construction or reconstruction”) and yet somehow these very programs of manual fuel reduction and prescribed burns are to be increased in number. How can you control a controlled burn if you remove the roads that make controlling them possible?

The page numbers are for reference and indicate the pages in Alternative 6 where the information was taken.

To view the Conservation Alternative 6 go to our web site at:

http://www.warriorssociety.org/ConservationAlternative2002.pdf

To quote directly from their alternative on page 344 and 345 (with examples of what roads in the Trabuco District, near Orange County, do not meet these criteria):

The RRR strategy shall identify roads subject to the removal as follows:

* Roads within and Adjacent to aquatic areas, riparian zones, coastal sage scrub, and other sensitive, ecologically significant habitats. (Maple Springs/Silverado, Trabuco Canyon)

* Roads occurring within habitat for TES species management indicator species that are sensitive to the direct and cumulative effects of roads. (Maple Springs/Silverado)

* Road in watersheds that feed into habitat for TES species and management indicator species that are sensitive to the direct and cumulative effects of roads. (Maple Springs/Silverado)

* Roads with the potential to deliver high levels of sediment to streams. (Virtually every road)

* Roads in watersheds with existing sedimentation or peakflow flooding problems. (Maple Springs/Silverado, Trabuco Canyon)

* Roads in watersheds with significant hydrologic problems, areas prone to mass failure, or other hazards. (Maple Springs/Silverado, Trabuco Canyon)

* Roads with stream crossings that cannot currently convey flow and sediment associated with a 100 year flood event. (Maple Springs/Silverado, Trabuco Canyon)

* Roads bisecting adjacent roadless areas, regardless of their size. (Maple Springs/Silverado, Trabuco Canyon, Harding Truck Trail, Indian Truck Trail)

* Roads surrounding designated Wilderness Areas.

* Roads identified as currently or potentially contributing to the invasion of exotic species. (Virtually every road)

* Roads leading to high fire-risk areas. (Virtually every road)

* Roads in watersheds with already high road densities.

In addition they would also require all roads on that are on native surface (dirt roads) to be rocked or graveled within 2 years. These standards supplement any other provisions or recommendations, including those related to recreation, in their alternative.

You can understand after reading these standards why the Forest Service decided to balance conservation and access by choosing reasonable draft alternative plans 2 and 4 instead of Conservation Alternative 6. They did not want to risk the lives of fire fighters or the lives of the public by choosing an alternative that would severely limit access for fire suppression and management – as well as severely limit the public’s ability to access the forest for recreation.

The Forest Service is already under funded and we’ve just touched the surface of the proposals being put forth by the CBD and the Sierra Club. To fund their proposals would require a multi-million infusion of funding that is unlikely to happen – and I believe they know this. If their proposals and road standards are instituted in the Forest Plan, the Forest Service would not be able to meet the requirements or assessments within the time limits allowed (2 years to assess) and the CBD and the Sierra Club would have grounds to sue to close roads – because they did not comply with the Forest Plan requirements.

Either way, they will have achieved their goal of removing access and continue on their march to lock up our National Forests and limit public access, the goal of the Wildlands Project, which I will explain in my final update.

As I said; the devil is always in the details…

How can you sum up the road management proposals of Conservation Alternative 6 being advocated by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Sierra Club?

The long version is:

“Protect and Restore our Forests!” means we must make every effort to remove roads that have been historically used by hikers, equestrians, mountain bikers and motorized vehicles for recreational access. We must remove roads that have been used by fire agencies for fire suppression and management, thus increasing the chance of the same devastating fires that have burned 19 million acres of habitat since 2000 and puts both fire fighters and the public’s lives at risk. We must remove any evidence that “evil mankind” has touched this “holy” and “sacred” ground. It is Jihad – a Crusade.

The short version is:

“Protect and Restore our Forests!” means we must remove roads to prevent public recreational access and limit the ability of fire agencies to access our forest for fire fighting and suppression.

Like sheep led to slaughter by a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the Sierra Club has abused the public’s trust by not revealing the true agenda of the slogan “Protect and Restore our Forests!” and the detrimental effect it will have on their ability to access their forests. But to them this is not about honesty, it is a holy war, a Jihad and Crusade against the public’s freedom to responsibly access their forests. As true believers in the evilness of mankind they will stop at nothing to keep humans off this holy ground.

It is a tragedy to see what the Sierra Club has become. From their beginning as a legitimate mainstream organization whose goal was to protect our forests for the use and enjoyment of future generations, to its’ current religious-like fanatical belief that evil human presence/access must be removed from our National Forests at all cost; freedom be dammed!

We will be evaluating and commenting on the forest plans before the comment period ends in August. We will be releasing these comments to our supporters with a link to the Forest Service web site so you can comment too. Please do your part to protect your access by visiting our web site in late July for this information or sign up on our email list to be kept informed on the forest plans and to be notified when to comment. Our web site is warriorssociety.org.

2. UPCOMING FOREST PLAN MEETINGS FOR THE ANGELES AND LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST (WEDNESDAY, MAY 26TH TO WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2ND)

ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST

May 26 (Wednesday)
Santa Clarita Activities Center
20880 Centre Pointe Parkway, Santa Clarita, CA
3:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

May 27 (Thursday)
Ramada Inn, Emerald Room
300 W. Palmdale Blvd.
Palmdale, CA
3:00 – 8:00 p.m.

LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST

May 24 (Monday)
Frazier Park Community Hall
300 Park Drive, Frazier Park, CA
6:00 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.

May 25 (Tuesday)
Soule Park Golf Course Banquet Room
1033 East Ojai Avenue, Ojai, CA
6:00 – 8:30 p.m.

June 2 (Wednesday)
Pacific Valley Station
Highway 1, Pacific Valley, CA
5:00 – 8:00 p.m.

3. MEETING INSTRUCTIONS AND PROTOCOLS FOR SOUND MANAGEMENT ADVOCATES

The following information is needed:

We need to know what trails are contained within the specially designated areas: Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Natural Research Areas and Special Interest Areas.

Questions to ask related to these areas:

1. How could the Preferred (or other) Alternative management affect trail xyz in the future?

2. What is the real “need” for a particular direction or designation?

3. Are the proposed wilderness areas, or areas with the Primitive ROS (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum) designation at high risk for fire, which could affect local communities, and what strategies are being implemented to address fire suppression and management of these areas? Alert your local fire marshal and Fire agency union representatives and ask them to review and comment on the fire management proposals being advocated in Conservation Alternative 6, which is advocated by the Center for Biodiversity and the Sierra Club (copies can obtained from the Warrior’s Society) and in Alternative 2 (for the Cleveland) and 4 (for the Angeles, San Bernardino and Los Padres National Forests). Also ask what threats are being posed to these areas that they warrant wilderness protection? Are the threats real or overblown, etc.

These questions will help guide what information needs to be collected for DEIS Draft Plan comments, and future actions (appeal) if needed, to show a particular direction or designation is simply not needed.

Remember when evaluating these areas:

Your feedback will be most helpful if you:

* are as specific as possible with your comments

* describe the location(s) where your comment applies; note the National Forest, Planning Place(s), or name of proposed wilderness area, Wild and Scenic River, Natural Resource Area, Special Interest Area you are commenting on) and provide pictures if possible.

* indicate where clarification is needed on what trails will be affected

* suggest alternative management approaches or solutions to the specific problem(s) that warrant specific designations.

What ever information you can provide would be most helpful, so don’t feel overwhelmed. We are going to compile all the information received after the meetings are over and formulate our appeal. Your help will be a big part of influencing these plans.

PROPOSED DRESS AND BEHAVIOR CODE FOR FOREST PLAN OPEN HOUSES

1. THE TASK: inform our motorized, equestrian and mountain bike recreation representatives (whom are planning on) attending the Forest Plan Open Houses to wear “business casual” attire, preferably kaki, and or, green unmarked garments.

2. DEFINITION: These are public business meetings, not club social events. Hence the concern and suggestion is, “Please, resist the temptation to wear your favorite ‘motorized, equestrian or mountain bike recreation interest’ apparel.”

3. RESULT: Adhering to this simple “plan of action” will help minimize the initial “stereotyping” from opposing non-recreational representatives. This will enhance our effectiveness in discussing opposing opinions and give us the freedom to roam the room with less likely-hood of confrontation.

4. PROPOSED GUIDELINES:

DO’S: DON’TS:
FS appreciation pins Club, org., assoc., or council, attire.
Smokey Bear nick-knacks
Green hued shirts or polo’s
Conservative shorts, slacks or denim.
Conservation sponsored clean-up T’s,

PROPOSED CONDUCT CODE FOR RECREATION ATTENDEE’S

1. Don’t argue! Remain calm. On either end of the spectrum we will encounter folks that can be quite vocal and militant.

2. Assign a knowledgeable group representative for each meeting, to address your initial questions and concerns and plan for action. If you have no knowledge of the Forest Plan Alternatives don’t get caught airing your lack of understanding outside the privacy of your group.

3. Identify those in your group that have experience speaking at public meetings and ask them to act as your liaison and address those in attendance. They must also try to neutralize the emotions of those fed up with the religious fanaticism of the environmental movement. Ask these individuals to share their prime concerns within the control of your group. Use a “reflective listening” technique such as, “So, what you are saying is, you are adamant about this boundary being here, as opposed to there?” Or, escort that person to a FS person you trust, to privately address their fear.

Please follow these instructions so you can be an effective representative of the recreation community.