Thank Will for getting this out to a wider audience. Such a very very small percentage of Oregon's once great ancient forests remain--and the Trump Republicans want to wipe out the very last ones--this is not an Oregon issue but a global issue--forests rivaling the Amazon rainforest in biodiversity and some of the heaviest and tallest trees on the planet capturing and storing far more carbon than small trees--and the beauty--oh my--to cut them down is immoral. --Marina in Oregon
Will, how do you justify using generative A.I. to write these articles when the A.I. Data centers that are proliferating at an extreme rate here in Canada and in the US are resulting in deforestation, destruction of salmon habitat, displacing indigenous people from their traditional territory, poisoning water and causing droughts?
How can you reconcile this with your stated role as a conservationist?
Now the most corrupt administration in our nation’s history is placing America’s magnificent old-growth forests on the chopping block. Our greatest natural treasures are being parceled out to the billionaires who bankrolled this President.
Tonight, our Grifter-in-Chief will deliver the State of the Union. If you’re a billionaire, the state of the union has never looked brighter. For everyone else, it feels like a slow unraveling—an unprecedented assault on democratic norms and rights playing out in real time.
It’s time to raise our voices in the halls of power. It’s time to remind the party of the one percent that accountability is not optional and that power in a democracy is never permanent.
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, our government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy must not be allowed to endure.
This is what I submitted to the BLM if anyone else wants to use this language:
Dear Bureau of Land Management,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the current planning effort. I am writing to object to the BLM’s proposed approach and to request significant changes before any decision is finalized.
First, it is unreasonable that the BLM has framed the range of alternatives as essentially “do nothing” versus “maximize logging.” NEPA requires a robust consideration of reasonable alternatives, and there is clearly a middle ground that would allow modest, sustainable levels of harvest while maintaining meaningful protections for old-growth forests, listed species, water quality, and recreation. I urge the agency to develop and fully analyze additional alternatives that reflect this more balanced approach.
Second, I challenge the claim that increasing industrial logging and plantation-style management will reduce wildfire risk. The best available science shows that large-scale clearcutting and dense, even-aged plantations can actually increase fire danger, not decrease it, particularly under extreme weather conditions. This fire-risk argument should not be used as a blanket justification for expanded logging.
Third, the proposed 25‑foot streamside buffers are grossly inadequate for protecting endangered salmon and steelhead and for maintaining clean, cold water. The BLM knows that effective riparian protection generally requires far wider buffers to support shade, large wood recruitment, bank stability, and overall aquatic habitat integrity. I urge the agency to significantly increase riparian buffer widths in all alternatives.
I am also very concerned about the treatment of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) in this planning process. Under FLPMA and BLM’s own regulations, ACECs are to receive priority for designation and protection during land use planning, and planning documents must analyze proposed ACECs and evaluate the need for special management attention to protect their relevant and important values. That obligation extends to reevaluating existing ACECs as well. I urge the BLM to fully and transparently review all existing and proposed ACECs in the planning area, and to maintain or strengthen protections rather than weaken them.
These are not abstract policy issues to me. I care deeply about specific places such as the Valley of the Giants, Mary’s Peak, Alsea Falls, the Sandy River, the North Fork Clackamas, and the Upper Molalla. These landscapes support fish and wildlife, clean water, recreation, and local communities, and they hold real personal and cultural meaning. Decisions made in this plan will directly affect their future, and that matters to me.
Finally, I object to any decision of this magnitude moving forward without meaningful, in‑person public engagement. NEPA and Departmental guidance emphasize involving the public early and continuously at a level commensurate with the scale of the decision, and that necessarily includes providing opportunities such as public meetings where communities can ask questions and share local knowledge. The BLM’s indication that it does not intend to hold public meetings for this planning effort is unacceptable. I urge the agency to schedule accessible, well‑publicized public meetings in affected communities and to provide ample time for comment.
In summary, I ask the BLM to: (1) develop and analyze additional, more balanced alternatives; (2) drop the unsupported wildfire justification for industrial logging; (3) substantially increase riparian buffer protections; (4) fully reevaluate and protect existing and proposed ACECs; (5) recognize and protect the specific landscapes that communities care about; and (6) commit to robust public involvement, including public meetings, throughout this process.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed intent to revise resource management plans for Northwestern and Coastal Oregon and Southwestern Oregon in Oregon/Washington. While I appreciate your efforts to manage the land, I believe the plan falls short of protecting the environmental and ecological values that this land holds.
As you consider the project, I demand that you analyze and consider additional alternatives that would modestly increase harvest while maintaining meaningful protections for old-growth, listed species, water quality, and recreation. The current proposal offers only two options: do nothing or maximize logging. I urge you to explore alternative options that balance economic and environmental interests.
Furthermore, I challenge the fire argument that increased logging will reduce wildfire risk. The scientific consensus is clear: industrial clearcutting and plantation management actually increase the risk of wildfires. I urge you to reconsider this claim.
In addition, I raise concerns about the proposed streamside buffers. Twenty-five-foot buffers are woefully inadequate for protecting endangered salmon and steelhead, an agency well aware of the issue. I call on you to consider implementing more effective buffers that would safeguard these critical species.
The BLM is required to reevaluate all existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) in the planning area, which number over 100. I have personally visited some of these areas, including the Valley of the Giants, Mary's Peak, Alsea Falls, the Sandy River, the North Fork Clackamas, and the Upper Molalla. These areas hold significant ecological and cultural value, and their protection is essential. I urge you to take a thorough and rigorous evaluation of these designations.
I understand that the planning process is a complex one, but public input and participation are crucial. I demand that the BLM hold public meetings to gather input from local communities, environmental organizations, and individuals like myself. The lack of public meetings announced by the BLM is unacceptable for a decision of this magnitude.
I urge you to reconsider the proposed plan and take a more holistic and inclusive approach to managing this land. I look forward to your response and hope that you will take my concerns seriously.
It’s not just about the timber money. These same lands house a store of minerals they want to extract that they have also been gunning full speed ahead for. Is this a 2-in-1 method of doing both? I don’t have the time today to dig into the research, but perhaps you know the answer?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Sigh. IF done, this would impossible to reverse. These are the very places that make Oregon special. These are the places that hold some of the environmental and ecosystem balance in the northwest. That balance exists for our survival as well as planet health.
Done--I'm sickened by the thought of this. I just visited Oregon and Washington in the fall, and it was so beautiful. These old-growth forests won't regrow in a decade or two. Disgusting and vile behavior again for this administration.
No, if you are hand writing & sending snail mail, it’s the Bureau of Land Management. The addresses for email, federal register comment, & regular mail are included at the end of the article.
I live on the edge of the Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska, at the northwestern end of the west coast of North America. It’s a temperate rainforest, the same type of forest and ecosystem as Coastal Oregon, just a few degrees cooler and even more wet, lush and wild. I’m very afraid that the plans of the Forest Service will be as rapacious and corrupt as they are in Oregon. The Tongass is the largest National Forest in the US. Over 17 million acres. Large areas of it are uninhabited pristine wilderness with thousand year old trees, hundreds of salmon streams and more bears than humans. I’ve always said that if they want to cut down my forest they’ll have to kill me first, and now it looks more likely than ever.
Yes and no. She’s generally pro-“extractive” industries, especially in other parts of Alaska. But in reality she works for whoever pays her the most. In the case of the Tongass that means commercial salmon fishermen and tourism against the timber industry, which is a much smaller business overall. So that may actually be the thing that saves our forest. Hopefully. I think if the feds want to do large scale clear cutting the pushback by the fishing and tourism industries will be very intense, and I think in this case that Lisa might side with them.
The the thing that is unique about the Tongass, among other things is that about 1/3 of the old growth trees are hollow inside due to saprophytic fungi that slowly consume them and appear later as polypore shelf mushrooms on the outside of the tree. Combined with the remote nature and steep rough terrain, logging here is very difficult, dangerous and expensive. In fact since the designation as National Forest it had cost the Forest Service over 50 million dollars to subsidize the timber industry. So it’s not even profitable.
If you wanna win this you need pictures. People get emotional with pictures of beauty and destruction. Look at Covid. It only worked because of emotions. I say this because I want you to win. I'm in Oz
Thank you so much. I had no idea and will pass this on right away, as well as email the people/organizations you suggested. Comments before me have said it correctly. Trump and his kind are bent on the total destruction of this country.....and we will do what we can and must to keep it from happening.
Thank you for getting the word out. This comes in conjunction with several other western forest-decimating actions this admin is taking, such as proposing to annihilate the Northwest Forest Plan, which provides protections for the Forest Service-owned mature and old-growth forests in Oregon and Northern CA. BLM removed its lands from that plan in 2016 to allow for increased logging, but kept some reserves -- it is those reserves that are now on the chopping block with this plan. And concurrently, both agencies are working to eliminate public participation opportunities. Please raise hell at every opportunity. Conservation orgs, like the one I work for, are working together to oppose this, and every comment from the public helps those efforts.
I just called about Steve Pearce's nomination to BLM. Can you please send a follow-up about. I ask this because I simply don't have the capacity this week.
Thank Will for getting this out to a wider audience. Such a very very small percentage of Oregon's once great ancient forests remain--and the Trump Republicans want to wipe out the very last ones--this is not an Oregon issue but a global issue--forests rivaling the Amazon rainforest in biodiversity and some of the heaviest and tallest trees on the planet capturing and storing far more carbon than small trees--and the beauty--oh my--to cut them down is immoral. --Marina in Oregon
Yes, yes, yes. Spot on Marina! It is a global issue and a tragic one. It's time to end this wanton destruction of our lands.
Thank you for spreading the word. And for all you do as a communicator speaking for the trees, the wildlife, our future.
Will, how do you justify using generative A.I. to write these articles when the A.I. Data centers that are proliferating at an extreme rate here in Canada and in the US are resulting in deforestation, destruction of salmon habitat, displacing indigenous people from their traditional territory, poisoning water and causing droughts?
How can you reconcile this with your stated role as a conservationist?
( for examples and data : https://substack.com/@gavinmounsey/note/c-200387727 )
Now the most corrupt administration in our nation’s history is placing America’s magnificent old-growth forests on the chopping block. Our greatest natural treasures are being parceled out to the billionaires who bankrolled this President.
Tonight, our Grifter-in-Chief will deliver the State of the Union. If you’re a billionaire, the state of the union has never looked brighter. For everyone else, it feels like a slow unraveling—an unprecedented assault on democratic norms and rights playing out in real time.
It’s time to raise our voices in the halls of power. It’s time to remind the party of the one percent that accountability is not optional and that power in a democracy is never permanent.
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, our government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy must not be allowed to endure.
Love it, Anthony and totally agree. We all must speak out against this. Every voice counts!
Thank you for helping get eyes on this
Grifter-in-chief is spot on. Going to use that one!
This is what I submitted to the BLM if anyone else wants to use this language:
Dear Bureau of Land Management,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the current planning effort. I am writing to object to the BLM’s proposed approach and to request significant changes before any decision is finalized.
First, it is unreasonable that the BLM has framed the range of alternatives as essentially “do nothing” versus “maximize logging.” NEPA requires a robust consideration of reasonable alternatives, and there is clearly a middle ground that would allow modest, sustainable levels of harvest while maintaining meaningful protections for old-growth forests, listed species, water quality, and recreation. I urge the agency to develop and fully analyze additional alternatives that reflect this more balanced approach.
Second, I challenge the claim that increasing industrial logging and plantation-style management will reduce wildfire risk. The best available science shows that large-scale clearcutting and dense, even-aged plantations can actually increase fire danger, not decrease it, particularly under extreme weather conditions. This fire-risk argument should not be used as a blanket justification for expanded logging.
Third, the proposed 25‑foot streamside buffers are grossly inadequate for protecting endangered salmon and steelhead and for maintaining clean, cold water. The BLM knows that effective riparian protection generally requires far wider buffers to support shade, large wood recruitment, bank stability, and overall aquatic habitat integrity. I urge the agency to significantly increase riparian buffer widths in all alternatives.
I am also very concerned about the treatment of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) in this planning process. Under FLPMA and BLM’s own regulations, ACECs are to receive priority for designation and protection during land use planning, and planning documents must analyze proposed ACECs and evaluate the need for special management attention to protect their relevant and important values. That obligation extends to reevaluating existing ACECs as well. I urge the BLM to fully and transparently review all existing and proposed ACECs in the planning area, and to maintain or strengthen protections rather than weaken them.
These are not abstract policy issues to me. I care deeply about specific places such as the Valley of the Giants, Mary’s Peak, Alsea Falls, the Sandy River, the North Fork Clackamas, and the Upper Molalla. These landscapes support fish and wildlife, clean water, recreation, and local communities, and they hold real personal and cultural meaning. Decisions made in this plan will directly affect their future, and that matters to me.
Finally, I object to any decision of this magnitude moving forward without meaningful, in‑person public engagement. NEPA and Departmental guidance emphasize involving the public early and continuously at a level commensurate with the scale of the decision, and that necessarily includes providing opportunities such as public meetings where communities can ask questions and share local knowledge. The BLM’s indication that it does not intend to hold public meetings for this planning effort is unacceptable. I urge the agency to schedule accessible, well‑publicized public meetings in affected communities and to provide ample time for comment.
In summary, I ask the BLM to: (1) develop and analyze additional, more balanced alternatives; (2) drop the unsupported wildfire justification for industrial logging; (3) substantially increase riparian buffer protections; (4) fully reevaluate and protect existing and proposed ACECs; (5) recognize and protect the specific landscapes that communities care about; and (6) commit to robust public involvement, including public meetings, throughout this process.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Thank you
and another...
Dear BLM Decision Makers,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed intent to revise resource management plans for Northwestern and Coastal Oregon and Southwestern Oregon in Oregon/Washington. While I appreciate your efforts to manage the land, I believe the plan falls short of protecting the environmental and ecological values that this land holds.
As you consider the project, I demand that you analyze and consider additional alternatives that would modestly increase harvest while maintaining meaningful protections for old-growth, listed species, water quality, and recreation. The current proposal offers only two options: do nothing or maximize logging. I urge you to explore alternative options that balance economic and environmental interests.
Furthermore, I challenge the fire argument that increased logging will reduce wildfire risk. The scientific consensus is clear: industrial clearcutting and plantation management actually increase the risk of wildfires. I urge you to reconsider this claim.
In addition, I raise concerns about the proposed streamside buffers. Twenty-five-foot buffers are woefully inadequate for protecting endangered salmon and steelhead, an agency well aware of the issue. I call on you to consider implementing more effective buffers that would safeguard these critical species.
The BLM is required to reevaluate all existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) in the planning area, which number over 100. I have personally visited some of these areas, including the Valley of the Giants, Mary's Peak, Alsea Falls, the Sandy River, the North Fork Clackamas, and the Upper Molalla. These areas hold significant ecological and cultural value, and their protection is essential. I urge you to take a thorough and rigorous evaluation of these designations.
I understand that the planning process is a complex one, but public input and participation are crucial. I demand that the BLM hold public meetings to gather input from local communities, environmental organizations, and individuals like myself. The lack of public meetings announced by the BLM is unacceptable for a decision of this magnitude.
I urge you to reconsider the proposed plan and take a more holistic and inclusive approach to managing this land. I look forward to your response and hope that you will take my concerns seriously.
Hopefully yours
Thank you Viv, your letter will help me formlate mine.
Thank you!
Everyone should check out the map. It’s the orange parts, stolen from tribes, given to railroads, and now given to timber companies. It’s theft and welfare fraud. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/O%26C_lands.png
Thank you, Stephen!
It’s not just about the timber money. These same lands house a store of minerals they want to extract that they have also been gunning full speed ahead for. Is this a 2-in-1 method of doing both? I don’t have the time today to dig into the research, but perhaps you know the answer?
The minerals are definitely part of the bigger picture play for them no doubt. We've covered some of their mining activities.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Sigh. IF done, this would impossible to reverse. These are the very places that make Oregon special. These are the places that hold some of the environmental and ecosystem balance in the northwest. That balance exists for our survival as well as planet health.
Yep. Really sickening.
Done--I'm sickened by the thought of this. I just visited Oregon and Washington in the fall, and it was so beautiful. These old-growth forests won't regrow in a decade or two. Disgusting and vile behavior again for this administration.
As am I - thank you, Eileen! Vile is right!
I posted my comment. I hope organizations like Earthjustice and other conservation groups will fight this and win in court if this goes through.
They will fight and with our voices they have a much better shot!
The link in the piece leads to an error, so here is the link https://eplanning.blm.gov/Project-Home/?id=a591dee8-500c-f111-8406-001dd8029ed0
Thank you, Jessica! Just corrected.
So, is it the office of inspector general that we write to?
No, if you are hand writing & sending snail mail, it’s the Bureau of Land Management. The addresses for email, federal register comment, & regular mail are included at the end of the article.
We can’t let this happen. Period.
Amen, Kara!
I live on the edge of the Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska, at the northwestern end of the west coast of North America. It’s a temperate rainforest, the same type of forest and ecosystem as Coastal Oregon, just a few degrees cooler and even more wet, lush and wild. I’m very afraid that the plans of the Forest Service will be as rapacious and corrupt as they are in Oregon. The Tongass is the largest National Forest in the US. Over 17 million acres. Large areas of it are uninhabited pristine wilderness with thousand year old trees, hundreds of salmon streams and more bears than humans. I’ve always said that if they want to cut down my forest they’ll have to kill me first, and now it looks more likely than ever.
Yes and no. She’s generally pro-“extractive” industries, especially in other parts of Alaska. But in reality she works for whoever pays her the most. In the case of the Tongass that means commercial salmon fishermen and tourism against the timber industry, which is a much smaller business overall. So that may actually be the thing that saves our forest. Hopefully. I think if the feds want to do large scale clear cutting the pushback by the fishing and tourism industries will be very intense, and I think in this case that Lisa might side with them.
A lot of blame lies with murkowski
I am sure this regime has its eyes on the Tongass. It will be happy to destroy all the natural beauty in our country.
He’s a megalomaniac
The the thing that is unique about the Tongass, among other things is that about 1/3 of the old growth trees are hollow inside due to saprophytic fungi that slowly consume them and appear later as polypore shelf mushrooms on the outside of the tree. Combined with the remote nature and steep rough terrain, logging here is very difficult, dangerous and expensive. In fact since the designation as National Forest it had cost the Forest Service over 50 million dollars to subsidize the timber industry. So it’s not even profitable.
If you wanna win this you need pictures. People get emotional with pictures of beauty and destruction. Look at Covid. It only worked because of emotions. I say this because I want you to win. I'm in Oz
Thank you!!
Thank you so much. I had no idea and will pass this on right away, as well as email the people/organizations you suggested. Comments before me have said it correctly. Trump and his kind are bent on the total destruction of this country.....and we will do what we can and must to keep it from happening.
Thanks you, Rebecca! Really appreciate it - every voice counts!
Thank you for getting the word out. This comes in conjunction with several other western forest-decimating actions this admin is taking, such as proposing to annihilate the Northwest Forest Plan, which provides protections for the Forest Service-owned mature and old-growth forests in Oregon and Northern CA. BLM removed its lands from that plan in 2016 to allow for increased logging, but kept some reserves -- it is those reserves that are now on the chopping block with this plan. And concurrently, both agencies are working to eliminate public participation opportunities. Please raise hell at every opportunity. Conservation orgs, like the one I work for, are working together to oppose this, and every comment from the public helps those efforts.
I just called about Steve Pearce's nomination to BLM. Can you please send a follow-up about. I ask this because I simply don't have the capacity this week.
Yes - thank you, Joe! We'll continue following up with that one.
https://eplanning.blm.gov/Project-Home/?id=a591dee8-500c-f111-8406-001dd8029ed0
Thanks, Jessica!