Cascadia Forest Defense: Good News Update!

got some good news. So I'm gonna be talking with Sam, who was on a previous episode discussing a forest defense, about an update on on all of the things that we were talking about a few weeks ago. Um, So yeah, I think we can. We can pretty much get into it and then then we'll talk about some other stuff around kind of forests in general. So hello, Sam, Thank thank you for joining me again to talk about trees,

one of one of our favorite topics. Hello, my pleasure always. So. I think it was like a day or two after we drafted the episode or something, or I think I think it was. Actually it was maybe maybe even like right like right before, um, we got some extra extra news about all about the post about the postfire logging um near the bright Bush Watershed. Um, yeah, what happened there? Yeah? Yeah,

it was pretty wild. Actually, it was really serendipitous timing too. UM. We as I think we mentioned in the last podcast, we were awaiting the first hearing for the court case. Essentially, you know, we believed that the plan to log in that area for myriad reasons was not only unethical but also illegal. Um. And so it was going to court and we were awaiting a hearing that happened on December three, Friday.

And typically the judge does not rule from the bench in these sorts of hearings, and so we did not expect the decision on that day. UM. But sure enough, the judge felt uh strongly enough about this case and sure enough about her decision that she did roll from

the bench and ruled in our favor. And so yeah, victories. UM. Now we have um a preliminary injunction in place, meaning that no logging can happen there, um at least until this uh timber sale has its real day in court, or until the four Service just drops this Shenanigan entirely,

which hopefully they will do. But we'll see. Yeah, so they they blocked, they blocked the posts part logging and the the the basically started start starting to clear cut these areas without without actual like public and puting, without actually going through the process. As flawed as the process, maybe they were just skipping it entirely. So that that was that was that was blocked by this, by by this legal case. Um what was I guess? Yeah, well what was what was the uh? What what was what?

What was the reaction like in in in the room and in the very US signal chats this happened, Yeah, in the ether spheres, Um, the reaction was super awesome. I mean, so many people love this place and that was kind of the whole point of what we were trying to do when we did the direct action out there a number of weeks ago. It was just demonstrate how many people love this place and how the four Service wasn't going to get away with what they're planning

to do. Um, because people, as we promised, would be back if they tried to log it and move forward without logging, which, as you pointed out, and as we said last time, was super sketchy, not only because it was a terrible plan that they were planning to do um in this beloved for us, but also because it was behind locked gates that in the public wasn't allowed into and so UM, it was just this you know,

travesty that was about to happen. And when we found out UM, and when we heard the judges incredibly strong ruling, UM, we you know, were absolutely overjoyed. UM. The news spread, you know, like wild fire, excuse the pun it do it um, and just you know, all the signal threads were popping. People were putting it on Twitter. People were reposting the sexy photos of the blockade with the giant slash pile and the fire truck and the band on

top of the fire truck. And I just wish that we all could have hung out again and had another dance party because it was the best that doesn't incredibly incredibly rad UM was was like your this is this is this is something I don't I don't don't actually know, but I was like it was like the documentation that was taking place by by going to these places and

showing hey, this is where they're cutting. Was that brought up in the court case in terms of like, hey, this is we actually went and saw what's actually happening. So it was was that type of evidence used and did it in your mind like um um uh kind of be a small part of like the result of the ruling. Yeah, it definitely was. And that is such an important point and I really hope that everyone who's listening can just like put that in their minds for later.

How important it is for people to be UM field surveying or sometimes we call it ground truth thing um these places and actually collecting documentation photographic evidence. UM. A lot of folks do kind of like we call community surveying and collect um some site specific um kind of like uh, community science sort of stuff. UM. But all of that was used in court and it was super awesome. UM. I actually was one of the standing declarence, so I got to submit a lot of evidence from my many

years of traveling that place. UM, and that all of that was referenced in court. So so so important. UM. Even you know, when the forest services essentially trying to kick everyone out and keep everyone out of these places, it's really important to go um and see them anyways. Obviously, you know, everyone needs to consider how they do that and their own security and safety. UM. And it's becoming difficult. Um, but certainly putting eyes on threatened places is one of

the best tools we have to save them. Yeah. And I just think that's really important to really focus on that as like a thing because like, yeah, stuff that people did actually had an impact on this not happening right now. Um. And yeah, but by going out there and documenting and then talking about it, um, it has like an actual like causal relation, which is very hard to It's it's it's hard to get direct causal stuff

to happen in like the general umbrella of activism. Um. And it's I think it's it's just really exciting that that that this happened. Yeah, that's so true. It does feel in the general umbrellaive activism really hard to point to things that we do that are actually making an effect, and this is totally one of them. I mean, when if and when this case does have its day in court, um,

you know, outside of the preliminary injunction itself. UM, I am sure that so much of that evidence from all the folks who've been traveling there, um and documenting it will be used. We documented, you know, so many green living trees and places the Forest Service that were dead. Um. You know, so many like unused roads in places the Forest Service said they needed to log alongside these roads because they're so traffic and they're posing a safety hazard.

And so it's basically like, you know, the best way to expose their gas lighting and lies is to just go document what's there. Yeah, because a big part of their ability to do this is utilizing deception in terms of like and and and utilizing like non information, like they're just not talking about the stuff that's actually happening, or they're doing like white lies to make it sound better.

So they're just they're they're lying about the type of like um uh, the type of sales that they're doing with these with these treets, and like how they're classifying the trees that they're logging to like get it past all of the loopholes. But they're not actually like that, that's not actually reality. They're just changing the terms to make it fit what they want. So like as so as soon as you start looking into this stuff, it gets all it gets very sketchy because it is they're

just lying about a lot of this stuff. Like if you're like listening and be like, oh, you know, be these people just love trees, Like, yes, we do love trees, but like the actual thing that's going on is like they're lying about the types of damage that's being done, they're lying about what areas this is happening in all to just rack up more timber sales. Like that that

that is that that that is what's actually happening. Um. And that's so so important to say, like loudly and clearly, because the Forest Service and other management agencies are experts in making the public feel dumb and wrong and misinformed. And right now, even we sound a little wing nutty being like yeah, you know, but like let us be clear, a federal judge agrees with us. Yeah, you know, like we're not the ones who are wrong here, and I

think you're totally right. You know, they're using a mixture of blatant lies, um, but also euphemisms like we on. They don't they don't use the word clear cut anymore. They're using all of these euphemisms, you know, regeneration, harvest, I ship you not a lot of and a lot of this stuff that they're deciding to do is like not open to the public. You need to do, like fully requests to to to actually learn what they're doing because they don't talk about it like that. It is all.

It is all extremely sketchy. And yeah, like the fact that like a federal a federal judge agreed with like green activists is not a sentence you here often so like it's like yeah, like this is actually a thing, and it's it's important to remember, like you are not immune to propaganda, like all a lot of this stuff is uh is has people who want a lot of money are vested in making people believe things about about

about about like force management and all this kind of stuff. Um, yeah, I know it may it may sound crazy when we're talking about you know, the secret Illuminati of the Force Service, but like no, like it acts like it's it is. It is a governmental organization. All governmental organizations are kind of sketch, especially when their sole purpose is to one of their purposes is to make money or assistant like sales of something like yeah, it's it's gonna have some

sketchy stuff. Um. Absolutely, and also you know in the realm of just like the propaganda machine. Um we you know, just the other day, Um, a hilarious response piece came out from the Timber Industry and Organization called Federal Forest Resource Coalition, which is just a coalition of loggers. UM put out this hilarious little mini video responding directly to the line that we've been using in forest events, which

is worth more standing. Our forests are worth more standing, And they put out a hilarious response that is essentially you know, pushing this timber sale, this logging propaganda, saying well, actually, our forests aren't worth anything standing after they've been burned, and they're contributing to the climate crisis, and they're destructive, you know, and all these things, and so totally, I mean, even people who see it with their eyes can be

convinced by these voices that they're wrong because they're so good, so good at making us feel just like we're the wrong ones, but we're not. Yeah, in terms of like this the secretive kind of decision making and stuff behind the scenes, in terms of like the types of like terms they are using to to you know, do like restoration, thinning, um and all this stuff around around trying to like basically just just take as many trees from the Bright

British Watershed as they can. I know. The judge said that she was quote disappointed in the agency, uh for for all of their silly behind the scenes trench coat meat in the dark alley way to pass off information type of thing um, which is yeah, like so what what what is? What is some of the other kind of um stuff that the four Service and the related organizations were trying to we're trying to hide like what

like what what? What What? What? What? What was the stuff that like came out um via this legal process that was like yeah, what was it was? The was so a few of the actual things that they were that they were trying to do that eventually like came to light. M hmm. The major thing is that they were trying to get away with changing the logging contracts without doing

any additional environmental analysis or public engagement process. And so there were before there were there was a plan to do what they what we had fought them so hard to get them to agree to do, which was not log a bunch of these this older stands protect tree. They had a diameter limit on trees that they were

going to log. So we basically like slapped their hands off of all of these trees and finally were like, okay, we won't sue you if you move forward with the plan as stated, and it had very strong sideboards, and you know, even local folks were like, okay, go do this. And then the fires came through, and so what they were trying to do was just change the plans. They turned it all into clear cuts in the forest that

we slapped their hands off of. And they were trying to argue that they didn't need to do any an additional analysis and they didn't need to engage the public, and even in court, you know, that's what they were arguing. Um, They're they're doing some stupid magic math and you know, somersaults, um to try and explain how they had already done an analysis that accounted somehow for the fires that no

one could have ever predicted before. At ye. So the judge was like just you know, she was just roundly like, y'all couldn't have predicted. I like to give her, you know, Southern accident, y'all, I couldn't have predicted, Judge Akins still the South. No, Uh, you couldn't have predicted. Uh, you know that the fires were going to burn through, and so there's no way you could have done analysis for fire that you didn't know what's going to happen here

us silly little beasts. But she did talk to them, you know, as if they were just naughty little children, which I loved to hear. You know, the disappointed in the Forest Service was a major move, and I think the other one that came up is just you know, the Forest Service was arguing that they need need it quote need to do this logging um, for restoration, for economic recovery, um, and to prevent future wildfires from severely burning in the area. All of that to BS. Like.

One thing that the judge said that was super strong, UM was that she sees and obviously I'm paraphrasing here, um, but she she sees that the community loves this place. It's obvious that this is like a beloved place, and she, you know, essentially understands that the forest is worth more standing. She said that she wanted she thinks that the forest needs an opportunity to recover from the fires. And so basically just called the BS on the Forest Service for

their hilarious, you know, justifications for logging. All the We're gonna save the forest by logging. It is just not

it's not right, it's not accurate. In the judge agrees. Yeah, I'm very very excited about about this ruling and what it means for the future and at least at least at least postponing this until um if if if the if the lawsuit is going going to go through, or if or if they're just gonna drop this, which they also very well, maybe they might decide to focus on another part that is that they just don't tell anybody about and start doing it there and then you know,

we'll we'll start we'll start this again. But for this particular area, UM, that is that is very exciting, and yeah, it is. It is rare for a federal judge to agree with people on this topic. UM. And now I want want to talk about a few other kind of stuff around like forests, um and how and how these

kind of types of things work. I didn't get an interesting comment which I totally agree with in terms of like how propaganda works in this department, um, and how like how like logging towns operate, or how like towns became logging towns, how like they're basically able to convince local populations that logging is is like good because like yeah, like they're they're gonna they're gonna move into this town. They're gonna restore the town because they're gonna bring in

new money through like a logging industry. Um. And yeah, this is a very like, very like a tipic coal move, whether it be for like you know, coal mining, whether it be for pipelines. In terms of like big companies going into small towns to be like, hey, we can promise you economic growth if you can like assist in this you know, extractive process, and they'll be able to convince them with you know, misleading statistics and you know

all that kind of stuff. In terms of logging industry is getting getting really good at radicalizing rule populations to have them believe that it's one not it's it's not like economically destructive to take down trees. They might even say it's like good, um and all all that kind of stuff has have Has there been like any outreach in terms of kind of addressing addressing people in small towns who like maybe used to like you know, rely on unlogging or something and how does how does that works?

I know, like they'll be like, oh, but you people come from the city and now you're coming out here into like the woods where I live, and I think it's good that they're chopping down these trees. Right, there's there's there's there's like that kind of that that kind of disconnection because again, no one, no one's immune to propaganda. You can you just you just just have to find

the specific one. Um. See. I'm just curious about, like in terms of in terms of like forest defense, how often this comes up and how and how you kind of yeah, I don't know what's what steps to make to to be like to tell people, hey, maybe you're believe these things because timber industries told you them, Like how how how how do you start that conversation with people? Yeah, this is like actually the heart of the forest defense work ahead, what you're talking about right now, the heart

of our work ahead. Um. And I would also say, you know, there's a there's certainly, um a dichotomy that the media especially likes to present between the rural logging communities and you know Portland or city based in the metalists and the hippie environmentalists too like come in and yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, And everyone's familiar with that, and there's of course some truth to that, but I want to say, like super clearly there are so many rural folks who

do not support the logging industry, and so that's like a false dichotomy that gets presented to us right off the bat, and a lot of those you know, for in the in um the work that I've been doing on forest forest defense, essentially, we're always connecting with folks on the ground in literally the backyards of these logging proposals, and many of them are super uninterested in having their

backyards clear cut. And so we you know, the we we pushed directly against that mythology that you know it's just environmentalists coming in from Portland, because we work directly with people, including for Brighton Bush, but with every single thing that we work on directly with people who are literally on the front lines of that logging. That said, there is absolutely um a huge pull um. You know

Oregon specifically as you know, famous for logging. Like we talked about last time, there's a logger on top of the capitol. Um. You know, are the mayor of Portland's logging money? Yeah, it's in Oregon's Oregonians blood. Yeah. And for rural Oregonians, Um, there are economic realities where in some cases, some counties benefit from UM logging in their total from the logging industry, their school you know, schools

are tied to logging money UM. And there's you know, in a lot of ways, a narrative that is not really accurate anymore, but has like an element of nostalgia to it, like you know, logging towns and UM this old story about how things used to work with small, small family logging. That's not how it is anymore. But that narrative that like nostalgic narrative, carries on into a

lot of communities. And so what the way that I like to cut through that UM for people is by making it really clear that there's a difference between small you know, family loggers of lore UM and and you know of you know, people's what people are attached to, and the kinds of what we're seeing today is we're king at Wall Street logging. We're looking at Wall Street invested UM invested huge you know corporate industries who owned who can who still own like you know, huge percentages

of our drinking water sheds of our UM communities. Some some of the communities on the coast are owned primarily by private industrial Wall Street funded UM logging corporations, and that's you know, those aren't mom and pop. They're not living in the community. They're living often not even on the Pacific Northwest. These are rich ass assholes who are destroying our bioregion. And you know, I think that making it clear that those aren't those folks are not like us.

You know, those are not like rural Oregonians. Your those are not your friends. Those are not you know, your pals or your neighbors. And just cutting through that narrative that like, oh, you know logging communities, Um, you know, loggers are your friendly neighbor. Actually no, loggers are Wall Street, Um, you know, investment corporations, rich money people who are doing

this destruction. And just kind of like breaking that. I guess, like that, um, that attachment that people have to this idea, that's just not a reality anymore. The reality is that people who are for logging in rural communities are they have a lot more common with those of us who are fighting logging than the actual people doing the logging, if that makes sense. Like there's a lack of understanding

of what the logging industry actually is. It's like back to that nostalgia, like people who are against logging in rural communities. UM, you know, often genuinely do not realize that this is Wall Street and like who's doing this logging. They're still thinking it's their you know, neighbor or their

friend and it's you know, these stories. But you know, the reality is that, you know, this is corporate timber owners who are maximizing their financial gain by buying out small landowners all over the place, UM ensuring that they aren't taxed by lobbying heavily in the government, so they don't you know, have any sort of taxation that then

goes back to benefit our communities. Don't even get me started about how many taxes the timber industry skips out on that could actually benefit our communities and our schools and our libraries and our fire departments, but aren't. UM.

And then they're adopting exploitative labor practices. Basically, you know, the contracted workers who are in the logging industry right now, who are doing the logging and hauling UM and reforestation so called reforestation planting of mono crop plantations, they are experiencing flat wages and declining work quality conditions. UM. Meanwhile, while the corporate timber forms are expanding their profits um and you know, getting more wealthy investors. So that is

the reality of the timber industry. These are not you know, your friendly neighborhood loggers anymore. So a few other points I wanted to bring up, kind of on force itself. Someone someone said something about how we talked about like old growth, and and I guess they think that we said that all forests in this area is old growth. And that's not something we actually said old growth. This

is a specific term that means a specific thing. And yeah, regardless of it being old growth or not, they still shouldn't be cut down. I don't know, So I'm not sure why this point was really raised, because we didn't I did. I don't think we did, uh say that every that every tree there is is old growth. Um. A lot of them were planted in the past few dred years. Um. But that that doesn't mean like they're

like much less important. It's like that just because they're not old growth doesn't mean we shouldn't be preserving this particular watershed in this particular environment and not be clear cutting all of it. Yeah, old growth is like like the term old growths just like become fetish ezed to

me and this like this thing that you know. This is also to be clear, that's not an agreement on what old growth actually means across the board, even between agencies, Like there's an arbitrary date cut off that the federal government uses to define old growth. Um. But obviously if you walk into a forest stand, this a healthy you know, a healthy old growth stand is complex in terms of age diversity. There's going to be old growth individual trees,

there's going to be a lot of younger trees. Is gonna be horizontal and vertical diversification, Like old growth is complicated, it's messy. But the whole point is like you're right, like it doesn't actually matter if it's like quote in the cat the small narrow category of what the Forest Service would define as old growth, if it's a forest that's been around for you know, a hundred years or even you know, I would argue, if it's a forest that's over like seventy or eighty years old, what are

we doing cutting that down? That? Especially now you know that's storing so much carbon safely in the ground, and also by that age, it's had the opportunity you know, to to become more diverse than these like mono crop plantations that we're seeing younger forests. So I would argue any forest that's not a monocrop plantation, a young monocrop plantation, should absolutely not be clear cut. It's just an inappropriate

activity to do in native forest. And speaking of a clear cut, there was another Another comment was about how clear cutting can sometimes be good because it creates new environments for other animals and living things to exist in. And I find this to be a really weird comment to make. Um, I don't I don't quite understand this, this kind of idea, because yes, of course, if you cut down a forest, you are creating a new environment, but that's not where that environment should be, nor is

it where it is. It's like if you if you erect a whole bunch of concrete skyscrapers where a force used to be. Yeah, you're also making a new environment. But I would say we probably shouldn't do that, though I don't. That's not that's not a good thing. The same thing with like the people obsessed with like putting solar panels in the desert, Like the desert is an

actual environment, like it has. There is reasons for why deserts need to exist and that have this whole like a whole a whole whole environment and the whole um I forget the word, but like it has an entire system of living things that exist there that should Um, we we don't need to terraform everything. I don't think that's like, I don't we shouldn't. I think preserving the environment in general, presuming the environments that are existing and

who are creating like ecosystems, is a good thing. I think generally the less terraforming probably probably the better, at least right now when we're be like with a massive like looming climate crisis that's caused by us terraforming the earth. Um, maybe we should not do that as much. Yeah, we could call about a general role like no more terraforming, You'll just leave it. Let's just let's just leave let's leave us for a bit. We just address some other things.

But for real, though, whoever wrote that comment, I mean that is is a timber industry talking point that at the time it's literally that is literally and whether they meant it or not, you know, this is how the timber industry gets us. They're real good at this. This is there, you know, nice sounding talking points that we rebut all the time, um, you know, not just in

media but also in court. Um. And the talking point is clear cuts mimic natural disasters like severe fires by replacing you know, And it's part of the totally don't look at a clear cut, go look at a fire. It's a completely different experience than I could go down that rabbit hole all day on fire ecology another time maybe, but suffice it's to say, you know, what they're arguing is that they're creating young forest or quote early several habitat by clear cutting an old forest. But what they're

actually doing is DeForest station. They're replacing an old forest with something that's not a forest. A young mono crop plantation is a crop. It is not a forest, and so they are deforesting, and um, it is ecosystem. It is ecoside, and um, yeah it is. It is egoside.

And I think, yeah, the insistence that like it's it's good because it will allow some species to exist in this new environment, like yeah, but there's other environments where they can't exist, and we don't we don't need to be destroying the ones that are already kind of important and doing good stuff to make room for other ones that aren't already there. And they argue that the deer and the butterflies love the clear cuts, and so just call that out as bullshit next time y'all hear that.

It's you know, spread the word that is some timber industry bs. They're tricksy, but don't let them get you. And the last thing I wanted to mention is why blocking off access to these areas is bad? Um, because I got someone someone said something like, um, you know, because fires are human caused, closing off public lands is it can be good because then fire someone get hurt in those areas, And this really just misunderstands why fires

get started. And also it's just a bad thing to do anyway, because like fire, if you look at like the map of where wildfires start, um, almost all of

them are on the path of highways. Um, specifically in California that when when the fires were really there was there was a firefighter who who who made a great video about like why the fire line was all next to the highway, And there was like conspiracy theories of like including the Antifa's driving down highways and setting the forest on fire, which was which was an actual popular

talking point because we live in the hell world. Um, but like you know, he's explained like the reason why, Like they are like human caused, but they're not, like a lot of them aren't intentionally caused. It's because that's where power lines run, and this is where a lot of sparks can ignite stuff on the edges of of highways that will then take out part of the forest. Now, every once in a while there's a gender reveal party that goes horribly wrong and does and and does ignite it.

That is true, and I think the solution to that is not closing down the forest. It's not having gender reveal party that we stopped selling uh on Amazon. I'm all thor Tanna right as an idea, But how about let's stop selling blue and pink Tanna right packets to people who don't know how to use explosives genuinely don't know because yeah, like they're not they're not actually using tanna right for what it's meant for, and they're not using it to do like like training, Um, they're using

it to say that they're having a baby. And this has caused a lot of wildfire death. So how how about we just stopped selling uh the gender reveal party bombs. I think that'd be a better solution than closing down massive swaths of public land. And how about our power line companies get their ship together and stop. Yeah, do actually have a plan for planned power shutoffs? And actually, you know, we know now actually Pacific Corps is in

court right now because they started the Santiam fires. Their power lines started the Santa Inspires and the Archie Creek fires and probably more. And so yeah, how about the

power line companies get their ships together? But I feel like the other huge thing here is that, you know, the suggestion that we should close off these forests to the public to me is just like more uh you know, it's you know, blatantly it's racist, um, and it's you know, I think it's wrong because these lands, these belong to indigenous people. We should be giving these lands back to

indigenous people. And as you know, when we're talking about like rural communities to and adjust transition, like rural community members should actually have more say in what happens in their backyard forests should be able to be more engaged um in you know, the forests that literally provide them with their drinking water, um, and you know all of the things that they need um to survive. So we should not be you know, locking off these lands and

keeping humans out. Humans have a place in these lands. I've always had a place in a role in these lands. And um, if we take leadership from the right folks, then we could totally live in a much more reasonable way than the gender reveal party path. And I don't know if you know this, but like being in the forest is great. It's like it is great to be

surrounded by giant trees. It makes you feel awesome. The last thing I want to talk about is um you you mentioned before, like getting people who live in these rural areas who used to rely on logging, getting them are involved and doing a just transition, because this is a topic that comes out that comes up on climate change like everywhere in terms of like you know, like countries that are still developing not being able to have access to the same amount of fossil fuels that countries

like the States you know had when they when when they were developing, and like how is that fair? Right? This is this is like this is a very common thing of in terms of countries that are better off. Um need will you know have kind of kind of like a duty to assist assist countries that are trying to develop and trying to get better standards living. Um, because we profited off a fossil fuels and now they won't have the same opportunity if we're trying to you know,

get to a carbon neutral world. Um. So in terms of like a just just transition, this is something like you know, a COP twenty six there was supposed to be funding for adaptation efforts in in the developing countries. Now that failed because of course it did, It's COP

twenty six. But in terms of like, in terms of like this this idea of a just transition, how do you see this like locally in the rural environment within the States and for for like these types of areas, because like, yeah, because it's similar to like coal mining the towns, similar to you know, logging towns. How how does how how do you see this working? Yeah? This

is something I think about so much. Um. And we actually put out a platform called a Green New Deal for our Forests in the Pacific Northwest that talks like all about what a just transition could look like for communities.

But I mean, this is a dream and I think it's like a really inspiring uh inspiring path forward because what it means is that, you know, we're not saying to end logging, and we're not saying that rural communities basically need to like stop existing and getting funding from logging. What we're saying is that rural community members, what we that nostalgic dream that are that people are playing to,

we actually want to have something in that regard. We would like people to you know, engage with and interact with their local forests. Now that shouldn't look like clear cutting them, because um, that's irresponsible and that doesn't benefit local communities or you know, benefit of future. But that could look like restoring these young mono crop plantations into complex,

healthy forests. It could be looked like bringing fire back onto the landscape with prescribed fire and cultural burning, taking

lessons from indigenous folks who are doing network um. It could look like education and recreation and so many things of like you know, hands on engagement with backyard forests that surround us um and you know that that could look like basically firing the freddies and uh, taking this land and giving it to local communities with um, you know, the with conservation goals, but also goals to economically support by all of those ways you know, jobs but also

jobs and recreation, um economically support local communities. So basically giving the land back to the local communities who rely on them and giving them power and control um to care for them in ways that makes sense because right now, while streets caring for our forests, and really it should

be us. And I think one other thing on this topic, for like how how well propagando works when I was at the stop line three purchase camps last summer in terms of like how do corporations get towns to start supporting these ideas and how do they like foster this hatred of environmentalism um, despite you know, these areas often being the worst impact one of the worst impacted ones by these like effort efforts. Right uh, you know, you're

they're chopping down forests near where this town is. Pipeline is going next to the town. If it leaks, it's going to cause all this problem to like their water fine stuff. But like how they do it's like the day of the direct action to block off the pipeline.

Enbridge was sponsoring like a town fair in like the little downtown area, and it's like this super surreal moment of being like, oh, this is like I've read this happened in like comics before, like and this this is like this is like one of Lex Luthor's favorite things to do. He'll like he'll like go into this like

small town. Who's gonna start like this evil you know, evil like a like lab at and he'll like fund like this small town event thing, and like I've seen this before in so many superhero comics, Like I've seen this trope and that I'm just like living it. You're

just like watching it happen. You're like driving past the town to go block up pipeline, and then you see like Enbridge with like a little stage and like a little like fair and like everyone in the towns like dancing and they're giving out like free drinks, and like oh no, like this is yeah, Like you're you're like living the things like you know, a lot of it. It's about like this idea of like rein like reinvigorating like like you know, like the like the spirit of

the town and injecting, injecting new life into it. So like, you know, this this is like a new one for like they're they're putting a pipeline down, but like, you know, it's the same thing for like you know, old like old coal towns, old logging towns, and these corporations will come in, you know, make the town more active again, start putting on events, make it feel like more of a place. And then that that gets so the company

gets associated with positive changes. Right, so then people who live in the towns like, oh yeah, and we're just doing all these good things for my town. That must mean they actually, you know, are gonna care about us here and then help and help us out. Meanwhile, these people from all around the country are driving through and trying to block the pipeline, and the police are driving everywhere.

Now it's all this chaos, right, these stupid environmentalists, they don't understand how this is gonna you know, it's it's we're creating so many jobs here, which actually didn't. Enbridge outsourced most of the jobs out of state, but they

lied about the type of job creation. You know, all all all all this type of stuff, and this is a very very common think totally and like timber unity is like delivering would to people when the when when the snow storm happened and everyone was cold and didn't have power, and they were you know, going door to

door with mutual aid support. Um. But that is why you know, a remember how everyone should remember how how tricksy and how dishonest these folks are, but also be why um, those of us who want to see a different way need to be doing mutual aid too, Like we actually need to be out there in our communities and making friends and building trust and not just showing up to function up when it's time to function up.

And I think that kind of like circles back to the point we talked about earlier, which is like building relationships with people on the front lines. Um. Looks like so much more than just like the defense of a bad thing in their backyards. It looks like, you know, mutual aid because the industry is doing it, um and

they're they're good at it, and we need to be better. Um. I think that rops up for us today what one thing I wanted, like, what what is going to happen going forward now after this, after this legal victory, what's kind of just just just just just just so people know, like what is like the next steps that are going to be taken on the legal process that will kind of determine what what happens UM with like you know, direct actions and going to see the forest in like

in the future. Yeah. UM, Well basically we're waiting UM for a date for this court case UM, and so that will hopefully be scheduled if it if it ends up having to go through, which it might not. UM. Obviously it is going to be an effort made on behalf of lawyers UM to try and get the Forest Service to just stop to just drop this Shenanigan UM and walk away UM while they're you know where they're at. Because we we do think we have a really strong case UM that will win in court if it goes

to court. So that's kind of like the legal avenue UM. Same story as what I said with the last time we talked. You know, if if logging is going to move forward in that area, whether that be because UM it happens in the future or because somehow this legal case is lost, direct action will happened. People will be out there in the way of logging. There's no way people are going to let that go down in the Brighton Bush community. UM, so right now we're kind of

in a waiting game. We're watching and waiting. Um, but you know, I hope the Forest Service knows now that they can't just get get away with stuff like this. People are watching, people are going to file public records request. We're documenting this and um, hopefully you know, we won't be seeing more of this, but because we live in the real world, the real sad world, we will be seeing more of this and so um, you know, we'll be out there again when the next forest is on

the chopping block, which is probably going to be you know, today, tomorrow. Yeah, it's kind of always the thing. Um. Well, thank thank you so much for coming on to talk about this and the uh rare rare good news episode of Hey something good happening. Thank you. Than in any other sources, people can kind of follow along on the fight that the people can find online. Yeah, make sure to follow Cascadia Forest Offenders and Portland Rise tide Um, who will

be definitely tracking and posting. You can also follow Cascadia Wildlands, who um was the lead nonprofit on the lawsuit and they've been posting about it too great all right, thanks everybody for listening. Uh go see a tree, touch tree. It could Happen Here is a production of cool Zone Media and more podcasts from cool Zone Media. Visit our website cool zone media dot com, or check us out on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever

you listen to podcasts. You can find sources for It could Happen Here, updated monthly at cool zone Media dot com slash sources. Thanks for listening.