from Cascadia Forest Defenders

Since the beginning of June this year, we have been occupying Unit 8 of the White Castle Timber Sale. We are tree-sitting and physically blockading logging of this ecosystem because we are opposed to the destruction of native forests in the name of bad science, clearcutting and what this timber sale proposes for the future of forestry practices in Oregon.

The BLM is proposing a closure that would restrict access to the timber sale. For more information about the closure, read this. We are asking for people to send comments to the BLM voicing their opposition to the closure by writing to: [email protected]. Thank you!

We will stay until the timber sale is dropped and the forest is protected. The weather and law enforcement are likely to get less friendlier but we will persevere. Too much is already gone to not fight for what remains. And we need your help! We need folks to join us in the woods, help us collect and transport supplies and we need folks to keep spreading the word.

If you want to come out to the woods or support us get in touch by emailing us at [email protected]. We have open weekly meetings Mondays at five in the Owens Rose Garden in Eugene, OR, which all are invited to attend if you are interested in finding out more of what we are about or want to find a way to plug in.

The White Castle Variable Retention Harvest (VRH) or the Roseburg BLM Pilot Project is 190 acre clearcut near the town of Myrtle Creek in southern Oregon. All of the timber sale is within area proposed as critical habitat for the survival of the Northern Spotted Owl and is in the home range of five different owl pairs. Located in between the ‘dry eastside’ and ‘moist westside’ forests, White Castle has incredible biodiversity, with Western Red Cedars and Sugar Pines, swamp ecosystems beside poison oak patches. White Castle is also located within the watershed of Myrtle Creek and the surrounding communities.

To view the Timber Sale prospectus ( the document that the BLM produces giving you all the information about logging plans and ecosystems of a given timber sale) follow this link

A ‘Variable Retention Harvest’ (VRH) , as far as we can tell, is the new code for clearcut that is proposed on Bureau of Land Management land in Oregon. VRH clearcuts 70% of a forest leaving the remaining 30% in little scattered patches. The science, developed by Drs. Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin, is that there is not enough young forest around for species that need more meadow-like habitat, like butterflies and moths. We refute this by encouraging people to go take a look outside anywhere in Oregon.  Less than 5% of Oregon’s forest have not been clearcut while the Bureau of Land Management harvests of millions of board feet annually. We view variable retention harvests as an attempt by the BLM to cut the last of the old forests look like something that is good for the environment and endangered species.

The BLM states three needs that this the White Castle Variable Retention Harvest will fulfill.

First: “to create complex, early successional habitat that will function for up to thirty years.” The main problem with this premise is that early successional (young) forest is abundant on the landscape. The BLM argues that the existing young forest is not of high quality, but failed to define the metrics of this quality. Even if the BLM had demonstrated a need to create this type of habitat, there is no need to sacrifice mature native forest to accomplish these goals. Restoration thinning on a previously cut plantation would serve the same ends and be much more environmentally appropriate.

Second: “for the purpose of applying Recovery Actions from the Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan.” The first premise of this plan is to protect the best of the spotted owl’s remaining habitat. This sale is inside of the home range of five northern spotted owls and is designated critical habitat. The White Castle project would destroy the very habitat which the Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan proposes to protect.

Third: “to design and offer timber sales that will provide jobs and contribute timber for manufacturing.” It’s true that rural communities like Myrtle Creek are somewhat dependent on timber revenues, but there can be projects which can provide these opportunities while serving actual ecological needs. The BLM has created an unacceptable plan to log native forest and should shoulder the blame for failing to provide appropriate projects which would meet ecological and economic goals.

While variable retention harvests and the beauty of White Castle are enough reason to blockade as is, the timber sale is also tied into wider battle of the fate of public lands in the Northwest. The O & C Lands make up more 2.5 million acres of forest and the many proposals currently exist to try to use these lands as a cure to county budget problems, shortage of profits for timber companies all the while trying to maintain the facade of ‘it being good for the environment’. Variable retention harvests are the BLM’s own solution to opening up the cut while keeping environmentalists happy and White Castle is one of the first proposed sales of this new variety on the O. We are not interested in any proposal or course of action that sacrifices the remaining forests for short term solutions. We hope that the fate of the O&C Lands supports the longterm survival of both Oregon’s ecosystems and people.

For more information about O & C Lands check out the ‘O&C Lands’ tab on this website.

There are only six deputies in the Josephine County, Oregon Sherriff’s Office, and resources are so sparse that a woman was raped last year after an emergency dispatcher told her four times over the phone there was no one to help her. It was last August, and a woman was brutally raped and sodomized by her abusive ex-boyfriend after unsuccessfully pleading with a 911 dispatcher for over 10 minutes. “I'm not letting him in, but he's, like, tried to break down the door, and he's trying to break into one of the windows,” the woman is heard telling the operator in the calls. “He put me in the hospital a few weeks ago, and I've been trying to keep him away,” she said. Four times during that call, the operator told the woman that she wasn’t able to provide assistance. “I don't have anybody to send out there,” she kept saying. “Once again, it's unfortunate you guys don't have any law enforcement up there.” At the county jail, staffing cuts caused by a lack of funding has formed a revolving door system where inmates are released sometimes right after being arrested because there’s seldom enough money to keep facilities functioning at even the bare minimum. There are only six deputies in the Josephine Sherriff’s Office, and recently the department’s canine unit was cut to a single dog. “You may want to consider relocating to an area with adequate law enforcement services,” the department cautioned the county’s 80,000 or so residents last year. Although a Wild West-like scenario has spiraled out of control in the Pacific Northwest, residents voted against a measure Tuesday that would have funded much-needed law enforcement operations at the cost of only a 3 percent tax levy. The measure would have bumped the county government tax rate — currently the lowest in the state — to $1.48 per $1,000, in turn costing the average homeowner in Josephine around $85 a year extra. But even after news of last year’s rape went viral, residents narrowly decided this week to halt any attempt to milk mere pennies on the dollar for an added sense of security. On Tuesday evening the decision was too close to call in Josephine, but by Wednesday afternoon the county clerk acknowledged to RT that the public safety levy was voted down by a margin of 51 to 49 percent, with barely 500 ballots deciding the fate of a county where calling 911 is no longer the way to handle an emergency. “There isn’t a day go by that we don’t have another victim," Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilberson told Oregon Public Broadcasting last week. Speaking to OPB, Gilberson directly blamed the ongoing inability to fight crime on budget restraints. "If you don’t pay the bill, you don’t get the service," he said. Policing Josephine County wasn’t always a problem. In 2000, Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act and as a result began sharing revenue made off of timber grown on public land. “Federal forests make up 60 percent of the land in many rural Oregon counties. Because federal land isn’t subject to property taxes, the federal government for decades shared timber sale revenue with the counties,” the Oregonian recently noted. Those funds were until recently divvied up among rural counties to help line the pockets where sparsely inhabited towns were losing out on taxes brought in by more densely populated regions. The act has expired, however, and the result has been the rapid defunding of public programs in some areas, including the Josephine Sherriff’s Office. Since the expiration of the bill, the county has lost millions of dollars in revenue that for more than a decade was a routine handout. In the case of last August’s rape, a 911 dispatcher stayed on the phone with the soon-to-be victim for over 10 minutes, instructing her to hide in her house while emergency options were considered. “None of the sheriff's deputies in Josephine County were on duty,” explained Amelia Templeton of OPB. “So dispatch transferred the call to the Oregon State Police, but they also didn't have anyone available.” “And four times in total, she says there isn't anyone who can help,” she said. The expiration of the act that provided the city with timber revenue forced the Sheriff’s Office to cut its budget in half and most law enforcement operations have ended. Had voters agreed to a tax hike on Tuesday, the county expected to raise $9.5 million during the next year and slightly more annually through 2016. Those funds, the voters were told, would be used to increase inmate capacity at the county jail, provide the resources for the District Attorney’s office to prosecute more criminals and, generally, bring the force back up to snuff. “I’m not going to vote for it,” Josephine County convenience store owner Les Monk told Templeton. “Things are no worse or better now than they were when they were fully funded." For Monk — and presumably the 13,365 other “nay” ballots casted on Tuesday — things are just fine in Josephine. Monk told Templeton that he carried a knife for his own protection and suggested that paying money for an inefficient police force wasn’t worth his tax dollars. “People have to understand you will, and are able, to defend your property,” he said. According to Templeton, an attorney for the rape victim said the woman felt hopeless, alone and very scared when she waited, unsuccessfully, for police assistance last year. Sheriff Gilbertson admitted that it’s a very real problem. "It's devastated law enforcement," Sheriff Gilbertson told The Oregonian. "The criminals now act with impunity and a sense of entitlement." "It's been a deteriorating situation for a long time," added Greg Wolf, intergovernmental affairs director for Gov. John Kitzhaber, "and we can see that we're going to hit a wall unless we come up with some dramatic solutions." Nearby on Tuesday, voters in Curry County voters rejected a $4.5 million effort that aimed to reverse the dastardly trend there. And in Lane County, a five-year, $80 million property tax levy was approved amid similar circumstances — but only after eight previous attempts stretching all the way back to 1998 were rejected by voters. "We've essentially eviscerated law enforcement staffing over the last 45 years," Lane County District Attorney Alex Gardner told a legislative committee earlier this year. With this week’s vote, Lane County can start to pick up the pieces. In Josephine, however, residents have a long ways to go. Speaking to OPB late Tuesday, reporter April Baer said Gov. Kitzhaber is now expected to declare a public safety emergency and likely and impose a temporary tax to keep at least some law enforcement operations functioning through the end of 2014.

With talk about "environmental terrorism," the Oregon House approved two bills Monday that target tree sitters and other environmental activists who interfere with logging in state forests.

House Bill 2595, which passed 43-12, would create the crime of interference with state forestland management. House Bill 2596, which passed 51-4, would allow private contractors with the Oregon Department of Forestry to sue environmental protestors for the cost of damaged equipment, employee wages, attorney fees and similar costs. Both bills head to the Senate.

The legislation comes amid divisive efforts to increase logging in Elliott State Forest near Reedsport and proposals to increase logging in federal forest lands. Environmental activists affiliated with Cascadia Forest Defenders and Cascadia Earth First!staged protests at Elliott State Forest in recent years and at the Oregon State Capitol in May and June 2012, which led to arrests.

"They are known to overturn their vehicles on roads, chain themselves to trees, chain themselves to equipment, damage equipment, dig ditches in the roads, drive spikes in trees to cause injuries to workers, among other dangerous acts," said Rep. Wayne Krieger, R-Gold Beach, who carried both bills. "This type of conduct cannot and should not be tolerated."

House Bill 2595 would allow district attorneys "to charge these terrorists with a crime and make them accountable," he said.

Krieger also cited protests at a State Land Board meeting in 2011 and sit-ins in the offices of Secretary of State Kate Brown and Treasurer Ted Wheeler in June 2012, when protestors locked themselves together. One protestor also urinated on the carpet in the offices of the treasurer, and protestors howled and made animal noises, Wheeler's spokesman said.State police arrested six protestors.

The bills passed despiteconcerns from environmental activists and the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregonthat they would infringe upon free speech rights of environmental protestors. Activists can already be prosecuted for disorderly conduct, trespass, property damage and criminal mischief, said Becky Straus, legislative director of ACLU of Oregon.

"House Bill 2595 is effectively criminalizing civil disobedience for one particular group, and we think it's really very dangerous to give this sort of discretion to law enforcement," Straus said. "It's taking conduct that can already be penalized under our criminal code and heightening the criminal penalties of the conduct, simply because of the content of the speech and the type of person who engages in the conduct."

Defendants convicted of interfering with forestland management for the first time would face up to a year in jail, a $6,250 fine, or both. Subsequent convictions would net a minimum of 13 months in jail and a $25,000 fine. The maximum penalty would be 18 months in jail and a $125,000 fine.

If House Bill 2595 becomes law, environmental activists vow to challenge it in court.

"I can assure you that as soon as this bill becomes law, we'll have as many people arrested and prosecuted under it as possible," said Jason Gonzales, a spokesman with Cascadia Forest Defenders. "There's no law that can stop somebody from acting on something they passionately believe in. There's not some level of punishment that will make us not want to do that."

View full size

Cascadia Forest Defenders has staged road blockades, tree sits and protests in Elliott State Forest in recent years. The group is opposed to an October 2011 decision to increase logging in the forest. Three environmental groups in May 2012 filed a lawsuit that said logging would threaten the marbled murrelet, a threatened sea bird.

Jim Geisinger, executive vice president of Associated Oregon Loggers, welcomed the passage of the two bills Monday. Although contractors can already sue for damages, current law is "a little vague and nebulous," he said.

"When protestors or obstructionist activities in the forest cause a contractor to go home, and they're unable to perform their duties, that costs money," he said. "The value of these bills is to put people on notice that there are consequences to their illegal actions."

Three legislative bills were recently introduced that would require all GMOs to be properly labelled, as well as prohibit the import and sale of GM salmon. The bill would not only require all GMOs to be labelled in the state of Oregon, but any food products that  contain GMOs that are not properly labelled beginning on January 1, 2014 will be deemed misbranded with the manufacturer held liable for breaking the food labelling requirements. If the bill isn’t passed, a new bill as a backup will be introduced that will at least require all GE salmon to be properly labelled. You can view the three bills below.

The Oregon House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources recently heard testimony on the three bills. Supporters of GMO labelling throughout the state have been busy spreading the word about the lack of proper GMO safety testing. GMOs have been linked to causing organ damage, gastrointestinal problems, allergies, and even cancer. Biotech employees are required to wear a full body suit and mask while spraying our food with toxic chemicals, on top of the GMOs. The Centre for Food Safety, a nonprofit public interest and environmental advocacy group, says GMO labelling legislation has been proposed in nearly half of all states. Even though a single one has yet to pass, awareness about the presence of GMOs throughout the food supply is growing.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Overview/HB2175

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Overview/HB2530

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Overview/HB3177

“The profit-driven motives to prohibit GMO labelling are reprehensible and represent an egregious indictment of the current health care system,” said Dr. Mary Zesiewicz, a board-certified psychiatrist, to state lawmakers in Colorado during a recent hearing. During her testimony, Dr. Zesiewicz explained that she has “seen an alarming increase in chronic health conditions” at her practice, many of which appear to be linked to GMO consumption. (2)

All across the world people are waking up and paying attention to what is happening within the food industry. It’s funny how the major shareholders in multinational food an biotech corporations are also major shareholders in major multinational pharmaceutical corporations, like fidelity investments, the vanguard group and state street corporation. A genetically engineered food is a product that has had its DNA artificially altered. The safety of genetically engineered foods for human consumption is not adequately tested. There have been no long-term studies conducted on the safety of genetically engineered foods. Over 50 countries that make up a majority percentage of Earth’s population currently require mandatory labelling for all GMO “food.”

Not to long ago, Barack Obama signed a bill into law that allows Monsanto and other biotechnology companies to override United States federal courts on the issue of planting experimental genetically engineered crops all across the US. This act gives more authority to the corporations then it does the US government. This new law forces the USDA to approve all GMO planting permits desired by the Monsanto corporation and other biotech firms no matter what. You can read more about it here.

GMO labelling was introduced to give people the freedom to choose between GMOs and conventional foods. If food is produced using genetic engineering, it must be indicated on its label. Although they shouldn’t be, labelling practices are quite complicated and must be regulated along side issues of legality, feasibility, standardization and coherence. What must be labelled and why shouldn’t be so complicated, but it is. It’s no secret that those who work for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the U.S. Department of Agriculture (UDSA) have admitted that corporate interests force the agencies to change policies that harm their agenda. The UCS sent question surveys to approximately 8000 workers from both the FDA and USDA, over half who work as field inspectors responded saying that their agency practices harm public health in order to appease corporate interests.

Most foods that contain any genetically modified plants or micro organisms that were used in production require indication of some sort. This is a problem because numerous products are exempt from labelling obligations. These exemptions primarily concern additives, and processing aids, but also apply to meat, milk and eggs. The United States has openly admitted to believing that there is no difference between GMOs and natural organisms. The FDA and USDA, along with the Codex Alimentarius Committee, suggest that no country should require mandatory GMO labelling on food items. This is ridiculous, science has already shown that GMOs act differently in the body and are a threat to health. Workers usually have to wear full body suits and masks when spraying our food with toxic chemicals. They are toxic chemicals that are responsible for mutating cells and causing cancer. Cancer is a billion dollar industry and big pharmaceutical companies fund all major medical research.

The Council on Foreign Relations put out a statement not to long ago saying:

It’s funny how The Council on Foreign Relations is headed by the Rockefeller family. The Rockefeller’s and it’s foundation is heavily involved with all of the major food corporations that control the worlds food supply, not to mention that this family has their hand in the same corporations that control the health/pharmaceutical companies as well. Why do we give so much credibility to these corporations and the people that run them? Why do we continue to believe everything that is written and ‘sourced’ from corrupt organization? All it takes is a little research. People say “what can we do about it?” Well the first step is becoming aware, then the next step is to begin making changes you can make yourself. From there, things will expand outwards. Don’t forget, you always have a choice. You can buy organic, grow your own food or choose to minimize your GMO and conventional food consumption.

I live in Canada and fortunately my country does have a regulation on GMOs. But we are no different, the corporations that control the food industry and the governing bodies that set the standards are global organizations. Countries can easily hide behind the ‘right act’ simply by setting regulations. Canadian regulation of foods derived from biotechnology is a seven to ten year process to research, develop, test and assess the safety of a new GM food. By the time this is complete, the damage has already been done. The problem is, labelling is only required if there is a health and safety issue. The same group of people who fund the medical industry and all of it’s research are funded by the big pharmaceutical companies, which are the same group of people who own the food industry! Conflict of interest, don’t you think? It’s time to stop handing over our power to multinational corporations.

Sources:

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/regulatory_process/

http://www.cfr.org/genetically-modified-organisms/regulation-gmos-europe-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688 (1)

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/biotech/reg_gen_mod-eng.php

http://www.naturalnews.com/039734_Oregon_GM_salmon_GMO_labeling.html (2)

http://www.oregonrighttoknow.org

http://www.denverijournal.com/article.php?id=8362

#oregon tops nation in food stamp use (by @mediamonarchy) this one's for you: #InBend

http://bit.ly/tKYjoM from kezi: Oregon has the highest percentage of people on food stamps in the nation. A newly released U.S. Census survey reports 18 percent of Oregonians said they rely on a federal program for food. Food stamp use in Oregon surged 23 percent last year and has doubled in the past four years. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) says people can't get out of the cycle because of lower wages and continuing unemployment. "If you have a family of three or four and you were getting $17 to $18 an hour, you are now getting $10 to $12. Even if you are employed, you are going to go for the food stamp benefits," said John Radich of the Department of Human Services. In Eugene, 82,000 people used SNAP last month. The state received an award from the Department of Human Services for providing the easiest access to food stamps.

FREIGHTEST HITS- PART ONE (by WellSaidCrew) #NW #Oregon #Graffiti #Hiphop

#ScalarWaves #chemtrails #oregon #aug15

thanks to M-pi-R

#Oregon #Chemtrails #Aug15

Thanks to M-pi-R

#Anonymous #Oregon #Wyden #Thanks

A U.S. Senator from Oregon has once again taken a stand against his own party to defend what he sees as the inherent right to free speech on the Internet, placing a hold on a bill that could force search engines and Internet service providers to block websites deemed to be "infringing" on copyrights.

The Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act -- or "PROTECT IP" for short was part of a second attempt to pass provisions of the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), which failed to clear Congress during its last session thanks to a parliamentary maneuver by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).

And once again, Wyden has stepped forward to ensure those measures do not pass.

"In December of last year I placed a hold on similar legislation, commonly called COICA, because I felt the costs of the legislation far outweighed the benefits," he said in a prepared statement. "After careful analysis of the Protect IP Act, or PIPA, I am compelled to draw the same conclusion."

"I understand and agree with the goal of the legislation, to protect intellectual property and combat commerce in counterfeit goods, but I am not willing to muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth to achieve this objective," Wyden added.

Internet freedom advocates claim the proposed laws could be used to shut down websites that link to other websites that authorities claim to be carrying out infringing activities. Internet advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation said it was "no less dismayed by this most recent incarnation than we were with last year’s draft."

The PROTECT IP Act was supported by businesses and organizations across the political spectrum, from labor unions to the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, to the National Association of Broadcasters and the cable industry.

It was also widely supported by Republicans and Democrats in Congress -- meaning that if it weren't for Sen. Wyden, the bill would likely have passed.

Sen. Wyden's full statement follows.

####

Consistent with Senate Standing Orders and my policy of publishing in the Congressional Record a statement whenever I place a hold on legislation, I am announcing my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act.

In December of last year I placed a hold on similar legislation, commonly called COICA, because I felt the costs of the legislation far outweighed the benefits. After careful analysis of the Protect IP Act, or PIPA, I am compelled to draw the same conclusion. I understand and agree with the goal of the legislation, to protect intellectual property and combat commerce in counterfeit goods, but I am not willing to muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth to achieve this objective. At the expense of legitimate commerce, PIPA's prescription takes an overreaching approach to policing the Internet when a more balanced and targeted approach would be more effective. The collateral damage of this approach is speech, innovation and the very integrity of the Internet.

The Internet represents the shipping lane of the 21st century. It is increasingly in America's economic interest to ensure that the Internet is a viable means for American innovation, commerce, and the advancement of our ideals that empower people all around the world. By ceding control of the Internet to corporations through a private right of action, and to government agencies that do not sufficiently understand and value the Internet, PIPA represents a threat to our economic future and to our international objectives. Until the many issues that I and others have raised with this legislation are addressed, I will object to a unanimous consent request to proceed to the legislation.

BEND, Ore. -- Since 1998, when medical marijuana use became legal in Oregon, the number of cardholders in the state has swelled.

As of last month, there are over 38,000 legal patients, and the number grows every day. It's always been and will continue to be a controversial medicine. But it may be gaining ground, especially in our historically conservative part of the state. Case in point: Within the past three months, Central Oregon has seen at least five medical marijuana clinics or clubs set up shop here. And as we found, there was at first, outcry, then indifference -- and now, it seems, acceptance. "I hold it under my tongue and within minutes, the muscle spasms will go away. And with the small amount that I use, I don't have intoxication," said 66-year-old Sandee Burbank of Hood River, who showed us how she uses a tincture of the drug.

She may be perhaps one of Oregon's very first medical marijuana cardholders. That's because she helped write the legislation that became the law we have today. Burbank has been a medical marijuana advocate ever since she tried it in college. "This is a salve, and it's made from coconut oil and cannabis -- and that's all," Burbank explained. She says she's always had severe anxiety, suffers from injuries she got in a car crash and now… "I have arthritis, so I rub it on. When I found I could smoke cannabis and get that instant calm down that I would feel, I also noticed it made my pain, I would say -- it turns my volume down a little bit." Burbank is also one of the seven founding women of MAMA, Mothers Against Misuse and Abuse. In Portland and The Dalles, MAMA is a not-for-profit clinic that helps new patients connect with legal growers, schedules doctors visits to see if someone is a candidate, holds growing classes and yes, they smoke and eat it together in a tightly restricted area and time. And two weeks ago, MAMA expanded to Bend. "MAMA looked at it as a wonderful opportunity to teach people how to be careful with cannabis," Burbank explained. "Like any other drug -- aspirin, ibuprofen, methadone, morphine, like all the other drugs -- cannabis can have problems as well." Other than eating too much of it, Burbank says it's helping to solve more problems than it's creating. For many folks suffering, the allure of marijuana is simply the idea of getting off addicting and strong prescription drugs. Candidates must have physician records that show they suffer from specific ailments to be considered. Take a drive down Northeast Division Street in Bend and they may be hard to spot at first: two new cannabis clubs and another medical marijuana help clinic, just yards apart. Since voters shot down Measure 74 in November, dispensaries like California has. where patients can go and buy their medicine, are still illegal in our state. In fact, you're on your own to get it. However, state rules do allow a patient or caregiver to reimburse a grower for the cost of growing marijuana, with some exclusions, noted Keith Doyle, manager of The Herb Center, an "organic herbal farmacy' on Division Street. But Oregon's program doesn't keep a list of growers, won't give you advice on how to grow it yourself and won't give you seeds or starter plants. Some patients say they're forced to hit the streets and buy it the old-fashioned way, but others simply now go to a clinic to meet up with a state-registered grower and work out an agreement. However, cannabis clubs, similar to Central Oregon Alternative Therapy or The Herb Center, usually work by patients paying a membership fee, setting up an appointment, then under strict rules so as not to violate the law, they can walk out with medicine. Back in December, surrounding Division Street business owners were fearful of what it would do to their reputation. Now most of those businesses have changed their minds about their neighbors. "I don't want to be followed home, or think that I have a bunch of medicine at home, is why I don't want to be on camera," said Bryan, who doesn't want to use his last name. Bryan was going to be one of those neighbors. He and wife Laura just started the Patient Resource Center. They were close to setting up a clinic on Division Street, until they heard three others were already in the works. Now they run a phone line out of their home, helping callers with information and driving discreetly to a patient's home to deliver growers' excess medicine that Bryan says is free of charge and given purely out of compassion. "We've gotten calls from Bend, Prineville this morning, we got a call from La Pine last night," said Laura. "We have MS and fibromyalgia patients that it helps them sleep through the night, it's amazing." This couple agrees, Central Oregon is becoming more accepting of this age-old form of medicine. "The need is stronger than the means of the controversy," says Bryan. "There's more and more people becoming patients and more need for this so that is why these locations have opened up." The next hurdle for medical marijuana patients is the issue of how to get their medicine easier. Several Oregon lawmakers have proposed ideas for state taxation and growing cooperatives between groups of patients but so far, nothing has turned into a solid bill like that of Measure 74 that was voted down.

In a 25-page dissent, Judge Paez of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals explained why the Forest Service’s controversial old growth logging project in the Five Buttes area of the Deschutes National Forest should be stopped. The Forest Service proposes to authorize commercial logging in an old growth reserve within the Five Buttes. In his dissent, Paez quotes one of our nation’s greatest conservationists, John Muir: “It took more than three thousand years to make some of these trees in the Western woods, — trees that are still standing in perfect strength and beauty …. God has cared for these trees … but he cannot save them from fools, — only Uncle Sam can do that.” Until recently, the 9th Circuit has been Uncle Sam’s voice of reason, protecting our old growth forests from arbitrary decisions by the Forest Service. I am a conservation advocate for the group League of Wilderness Defenders – Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project. We challenged the proposal to log the Five Buttes old growth and won an injunction from Judge Hogan stopping the project. But two judges on a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed Judge Hogan, authorizing the project to go forward. For citizens who value our National Forests, the law and the courts have been one of our strongest checks against government abuse. With the passage of the Northwest Forest Plan, the government set aside large forest reserves in western Oregon, Washington and California. Generally, the courts have sent a clear signal to the Forest Service regarding the management of these lands: disclose the best available science, consider alternatives to logging, limit commercial activity in old growth reserves, and disclose and avoid impacts on roadless areas. But recently the court has split, and its message to the Forest Service regarding our National Forests is far from clear. The courts are in conflict over the scientific standards used by the Forest Service to justify its management actions in old growth forests. Does the agency have to act in accord with scientific reason and pursue what is in the best interest of the people and our forest ecosystems? Or is mere lip service to the scientific requirements of the law sufficient justification to log? In its decision on Five Buttes project, the court decided that the agency could act on outdated and incomplete data. In his strongly worded dissent, Judge Paez explained that while the court usually defers to an agency’s scientific methodology, the Forest Service’s decision to log the Five Buttes was plainly, “nonsensical.” In his earlier decision, Judge Hogan found that the agency’s logging plan would degrade the forest for decades and that the agency did not support its claim that logging would reduce fire risk with scientific evidence. And yet Paez’s collegues, Judges Tallman and Smith allowed the Forest Service to proceed. The agency will aggressively log old growth forest and sensitive Spotted owl habitat in the name of forest preservation. The Forest Service claims that logging will save the owl habitat from wildfire, but admits that these logged forests will no longer provide suitable Spotted owl habitat. Wildfire is a natural part of these ecosystems. Fire does not destroy these forests, and for Spotted owls, studies show that fire is beneficial, that burned forests make good hunting habitat for the owls. While the risk of a catastrophic fire in the Five Buttes is currently unknown, the effect of logging, is certain. The Forest Services logging plan will significantly degrade the Five Buttes old growth ecosystem. Local citizens and volunteers with the Sierra Club, Cascadia Wildlands Project and the Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project spent years field checking the sale. These groups worked with local citizens to approach the Forest Service and ask them to modify the controversial plan, but the agency moved ahead without compromise. The Five Buttes is a majestic old growth forest near Davis Lake and Wickiup Reservoir, an area visited and enjoyed by many Oregonians. The logging project targets some of the most diverse old growth forests I have personally witnessed in the Pacific Northwest. This area is home to old growth Shasta Red fir, old growth Sugar pine, and old growth White pine as well as Douglas fir and Grand fir. Logging this forest will destroy the beauty of this area for our lifetimes and for those of our children and grandchildren. Without the scientific justification required by law, the Forest Service will cut the Five Buttes old growth in an area where the Spotted owl has been in steady decline. The destruction of significant nesting and roosting habitat is likely to drive the species further towards extinction. The protection of our old growth and endangered species ensures the viability of many other species with similar habitat needs. Ultimately, by protecting these forest ecosystems we are protecting ourselves, since forest reduction hastens climate change and makes its effects more catastrophic for biodiversity, community stability, and local economies. Mother nature does not suffer fools lightly. Karen Coulter, Director Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project Fossil, Oregon (541) 385-9167 League of Wilderness Defenders v. Allen, 615 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2010)

Chemical Layden ChemTrailSkys over Central Oregon February 10 2011 - Incubation Period 2-7 Days (via ChemTrailSkys)

#inbend #centraloregon #chemtrails #humanexperimentation

Central Oregoinians need to be Aware of what Test's are being conducted on them daily! Do you know of anyone who is Sick? Flu like Symptoms but not the Flu? Coughing? Fatigued? Tintanitus? Anxeity? Thyroid Problems? Look Up! Wake Up! Speak Up! is Our Motto!... Please Pay Attention and Watch these UN Jets fill Our Skys with Chemicals. These are Test's and they are all Documented. This is not a Conspiracy Theroy but It is a Conspiracy! They block the Sun & UV Rays with Grey Clouds on a Daily basis. Sunriver should be Livid! All of the Chemical Spraying Operations have been conducted and deployed without public knowledge and not one Human Health Risk Assessment nor Environmental Impact Study has been submitted for Public and Civil scrutiny. This alone is an egregious violation of Civil, Environmental, County, State and International Laws Speak to your Representatives! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edpVJ-...

Welcome to Central Oregon