WolfeNotes.com

 Reflections on “Independence Day” Amidst the Surveillance State

the author debates history (Bordentown, NJ - 4/27/13)

The debates spawned by the Snowden NSA domestic spying disclosures have cast a long shadow on this year’s “Independence Day”, forcing reflection on the importance of dissent, freedom of conscience, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom from government control, also sometimes thought of as the right to privacy.

Snowden’s disclosures were classic whistleblower acts of conscience –  exposing massive government wrongdoing and violations of the Constitution and laws against warrantless surveillance and restrictions on NSA encroachment in domestic affairs.

The NSA domestic spying operation monitored all phone calls, emails, and internet activities, disclosing not only the “metadata” pattern of an individual’s communications, but also the content of the communications.

Yesterday, the NY Times reported that domestic surveillance even includes the monitoring of snail mail. Some mail monitoring was targeted on individuals and political groups defined by the FBI as “eco-terrorists” (for an example that it does happen here, see my prior post: Green is The New Red).

[Update – watch this presentation of the 10 stages and tactics corporations have used to manufacture “domestic terrorist” rhetorical and legal frameworks for targeting animal rights and environmental activist – and the story, “From Activist to Terrorist” – scary.]

But long prior to Snowden’s disclosures, there have been numerous troubling reports of  FBI and Homeland Security abuses, including infiltration and spying on domestic political groups.

Other credible reports suggest that Homeland Security was involved in monitoring and even coordinating the national crackdown on the Occupy Wall Street Movement (outrageous and illegal tactics that take us back to the days of “Cointelpro” and the Church Committee).

I personally have witnessed the repressive tactics and experienced abuses by the Surveillance State – [and been manhandled by police repression,  part of crushing the Occupy Movement].

In regard to first hand experience with “Homeland Security”, in 2008, I was detained by local police, photographed, and my car was illegally searched.

Days later, I was investigated – visited at my home – by FBI and US Homeland Security agents, accompanied by the Hunterdon County Prosecutor. All merely for taking photographs of what Homeland Security laws define as “critical infrastructure”  – south jersey oil refineries and chemical plants.

One investigator even went so far as to suggest that I might be  “Chechen rebel” (I was observed near a chemical plant close to a school with a backpack on). (a later FOIA request revealed I had triggered a regional FBI/Homeland Security alert, and may have involved the Fusion Center. Since then, several episodes and police stops strongly suggest I am on some kind of watch list).

It mattered not one whit to those local police and federal investigators that I was a columnist for the Star Ledger (@ NJ Voices) engaged in journalism and in political advocacy as a blogger and environmental activist. They showed nothing but contempt for my constitutional rights.

And prior to that, in 1994, I learned exactly how far government will go to crush whistleblowers who embarrass powerful high level officials, like Governor Whitman.

Which all takes me to the title of this post on “Independence Day”.

Many historians agree that Thomas Paine’s writings, pamphlets, dissent and political organizing and agitation were instrumental  in the American Revolution.

Paine’s most famous pamphlet “Common Sense” was published in January of 1776, which helped spark the Declaration of Independence later that year.

Paine worked secretly, essentially what we call today underground. He met and spoke with confidential and secret sources and had secret affiliations. He published “Common Sense” anonymously.

He had to do that because publication was treason – virtually the same  crime some have accused Snowden of, including the US government, who has indicted him under the Espionage Act.

Paine functionally was today’s equivalent of a blogger, a protester, a dissident, a political activist and organizer,  a reporter, a publisher, and a media outlet.

He stomped on some powerful toes and posed an extreme existential threat to the then established government.

Paine was the Wikileaks, Guardian, NY Times, and Snowden of his time – all rolled into one.

If King George had a domestic Colonial equivalent of the NSA, do you think there would have been any chance for Paine to actually publish “Common Sense”?

What impact would Paine’s imprisonment prior to publication have had on the Revolution?

Something to think about, as the US National Security Surveillance Police State proliferates.

Read the history:

Publication history

Thomas Paine began writing Common Sense in late 1775 under the working title of Plain Truth. With the help of Benjamin Rush, who helped edit and publish it and suggested changing the title, Paine developed his ideas into a forty-eight page pamphlet. He publishedCommon Sense anonymously because of its treasonable content. Rush recommended the printer Robert Bell and promised Paine that, where other printers might say no because of the content of the pamphlet, Bell would not hesitate nor delay its printing. Paine and Bell had a falling out, but Bell still felt strongly about printing a second edition. Bell added the phrase “Written by an Englishman” to his second edition without Paine’s permission.^[7] Paine had stressed that it was “the Doctrine, not the man” that was important. Paine wanted to remain anonymous for as long as possible and felt that even such a general phrase as Bell’s addition would take attention away from the ideas in his pamphlet.^[7]

That didn’t seem to matter, though, because printed by Bell, Common Sense sold almost 100,000 copies in 1776,^[8] and according to Paine, 120,000 copies were sold in the first three months. One biographer estimates that 500,000 copies sold in the first year (in both America and Europe – predominantly France and Britain), and another writes that Paine’s pamphlet went through twenty-five published editions in the first year alone.^[3][9] Aside from the printed pamphlet itself, there were many handwritten summaries and whole copies circulated. At least one newspaper, the Connecticutt Courant, printed the entire pamphlet in its February 19th issue (1776), and there may have been others that did the same.^[10] While it is difficult to achieve a fixed figure for the number of circulated copies, what is certain is that Paine’s words reached far and wide out to most of America’s 2.5 million colonists. His pamphlet was read at countless town meetings and gatherings even to those who could not read.

Paine managed to carefully maintain his anonymity, even during potent newspaper polemics generated by Robert Bell, for nearly three months. His name did not become officially connected with the independence controversy until March 30, 1776.^[11] He donated his royalties from Common Sense to George Washington‘s Continental Army, saying:

As my wish was to serve an oppressed people, and assist in a just and good cause, I conceived that the honor of it would be promoted by my declining to make even the usual profits of an author.^[12]

—Thomas Paine

Source: Mr. Fish (published at Truthdig.com)

Superb illustration by Mr. Fish – stop by and visit, and get one before they’re gone!

 A Mishmash of Competing Forest Management Objectives and Contradictory Evidence

We don’t need a forester to well which way the wind blows

Sandy blowdown on Baldpate Mountain, Hopewell, NJ (11/4/12)

[a] mosaic of different age classes and cover types supports the high species biodiversity of the region, according to the 2002 USDA Forest Service report on the NJ Highlands. (Source: NJ DEP)

[Update below]

According to the proponents of the “Forest Stewardship” bill now on Governor Christie’s desk, NJ’s 1.8 million acres of forests are in poor health and require “active management” and “stewardship”, including commercial logging.

Basically, the argument goes that NJ’s forests are not like the ancient northeastern forests. They emerged from a recent series of human landscape alterations, including clear cuts for timber, farming, and mining. As a result, forests are of a similar “age class structure” and lack sufficient diversity required to promote forest health and wildlife habitat.

According to proponents, there are too many old mature trees and too much canopy cover, and not enough early successional forest edge habitat type. Old tress must be cut to allow young trees to emerge.

Here is a recent example of that logic, according to DEP

The plan seeks to balance the diversity of age classes found on the WMA. The resource assessment found that 99.7% of the upland forest is aged between 85 and 100 years. Such a forest offers almost no opportunity for wildlife dependent on early successional forests, generally aged between 0 and 20 years.  […]

Wildlife dependent on early-successional forest habitat are in serious decline in New Jersey. The most significant example of decline within these species is the golden-winged warbler. Only about 25 breeding pairs of this bird remain within the State. […]

The Division has determined that action is necessary and through the production of this Forest Stewardship Plan endeavors to create habitat for the golden-winged warbler on a suitable scale as to maintain and enhance this and other species dependent on early successional forest.

This logic also suggests that natural means of forest disturbance that tend to help regenerate and diversify healthy forest community structure – like fire – have been suppressed by humans, leading to the current situation that requires active management, i.e logging those forests to simulate the disturbance historically provided by natural events.

Here is the professional foresters’ justification for the need for “active management”, including “forestry”:

By practicing forestry on this WMA, the Division seeks to mimic the natural disturbances that would cause early successional forest to be created, while generating income from forest products to offset the costs of creating habitat and other management activities suggested herein.

In addition to being suppressed by humans, those ” natural disturbances” that replace the canopy and stimulate early successional forests occur on very long time intervals.

According to a NJ Audubon FSC standards based plan for the Pequonnock River – Newark Watershed, for hardwood forests, those disturbances occur on long intervals of 500 – 1,500 years:

So, given Sandy’s “wind event”‘ massive disturbance, I guess we won’t need the loggers in the forests for another 500 – 1,500 years! (Note: an issue now being explored by NJ Audubon and others, but not apparently in the context of this legislation. Why not?)

But, NJ’s forests, prior to Sandy, were already highly disturbed and fragmented by hundreds of miles of electric transmission, gas and oil pipeline, and railroad right of way (ROW), not to mention the miles of road cuts and acres of development that consumed and fragmented forests.

Those recent historical disturbances created thousands of acres of edge habitat and grass/shrub/early successional forest habitat (that’s why NJ forests have deer and invasive species problems).

In addition to all that, Superstorm Sandy – a “natural wind event” – just blew down thousands of trees in NJ’s forests, thinning the forest and “opening” the canopy to even more edge and early successional habitat types.

For example, according to DEP and Essex County (see Agenda item #11), over 1,500 trees were blown down in the 2,000 acre South Mountain Reservation alone.

So, there seems to be an abundance of exactly the type of forest disturbance and habitat type the proponents of “active management” claim is necessary to provide diversity and specific habitat types to support certain rare or threatened bird specie that are in decline, like golden wing warbler.

Perhaps those species are in decline as a result of factors other than lack of adequate suitable habitat type in NJ forests?

And of course, it all could be a smokescreen to justify commercial logging and provide habitat for more game animals.

Or it could be a scheme to promote “biomass” based energy, as DEP forestry recommends:

And of course, if you read the DEP forestry documents closely, you can find flat out internal contradictions, particularly to the low diversity/uniform age class structure argument used to justify logging, stuff like this: (see page 6)

Most of the forests of New Jersey date back to the turn of the 20th century through the 1920’s. At that point, the chestnut and oak forests were growing back after the heavy and widespread cutting for charcoal. However, an exotic fungus known as the chestnut blight would sweep through the region, eliminating the dominant chestnut overstory, leaving the oak-dominated forest present in much of northern New Jersey today. Other forest age classes were created from later abandonment of agricultural lands, and from forest regeneration harvests, as well as from natural events such as severe wind events, fire, and severe insect infestation. That mosaic of different age classes and cover types supports the high species biodiversity of the region, according to the 2002 USDA Forest Service report on the NJ Highlands.

So what is it?

A) High diverse mosaic of age classes and cover types, per US Forest Service, and a surplus of disturbed forest,  or

B) highly uniform age class structure and need for logging to provide disturbancee per DEP?

What are the all factors that are leading to declines in wildlife dependent on early-successional forest habitat?

How many acres of early successional forest habitat does NJ have?

What role is too much forest canopy cover playing in that alleged wildlife decline?

What wildlife species rely on large blocks on intact undisturbed forests? How will they be impacted?

What are the impacts on this kind of “forest stewardship” – which open the canopy and creates more light on the forest floor and edge habitat – on deer populations and invasive species?

The logging driven “forest stewardship” plans I’ve read provide no answers – and don’t even ask – these basic questions.

And yes, I find the DEP claim that cutting mature trees is needed to create “old growth” highly counterintuitive:

Given the manipulation needed to make such a change, it may be necessary to employ forestry techniques of certain types in order to aid in the eventual creation of functional old-growth forest out of the roughly 90-year-old forest that currently exists within this WMA. This may be counterintuitive to many who perceive old-growth forest as a virgin, uncut forest. Consideration has been given to the characteristics of the land being considered for Future old growth forest management area, and its likelihood to develop into functional old growth forest given minimal intervention.

[Update:

In federal studies and documents, there is no special emphasis on the need to create additional early succession forest or the species that require that habitat, including the golden wing warbler.

This raises the question of why the entire NJ forest stewardship effort is being justified on such narrow grounds.

The entire forest and its ecology are being reduced to one bird species, with the primary conservation management objective – cutting trees – tailored to that single objective.

Check it out – and this is just for birds:

Breeding and Migrating Songbirds and Raptors

For thousands of years, the ridges of the Highlands have been used as a visual guideline for songbirds and raptors during spring and fall migrations, with the forests and wetlands providing food and resting places for the migrants. The forests, wetlands, and successional habitats of the Highlands support about 150 species of breeding birds. Many of these species are generally associated with relatively unfragmented, undisturbed forest interior habitats. Examples include wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), and hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina) which breed in the mesic forests, black-throated green warbler (Dendroica virens) and black-throated blue warbler (Dendroica caerulescens) which prefer the hemlock forests, Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) which breeds in riparian areas, and barred owl (Strix varia) and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) which prefer the large wooded swamps. The New York State Breeding Bird Atlas indicates a thriving population of cerulean warbler in the deciduous forests of the Highlands, one of the few concentrations of this species in the state. Golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), another rare breeder in the region, is locally common in the successional forests of the Highlands. The Highlands support 24 of the 29 middle and long-distance migrant birds whose numbers have declined significantly in the Northeast, as indicated by analysis of the breeding bird survey, and 26 of the 35 long-distance migrants ranked in a recent Partners in Flight study as of highest concern in the Northeast. These migrants include both successional and forest-nesting species.

There are 19 raptor species that utilize the Highlands seasonally or year-round, 10 of which breed in this area, including the regionally rare Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), northern goshawk, sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), red-shouldered hawk, northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), long-eared owl (Asio otus), barred owl, common barn-owl (Tyto alba), and, probably, northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus). Hawk watches occur at nine sites in the Highlands: Bearfort Mountain, Bowling Green Fire Tower, Breakneck Mountain, Waywayanda, and Windbeam Tower in New Jersey; and Mount Peter, Whitehorse Mountain, Bear Mountain, and Storm King Mountain in New York. These hawk watches have documented the importance of this region to both spring and fall migrating hawks. Species regularly observed include fall migrations of osprey (Pandion haliatus), sharp-shinned hawks, broad-winged hawks (Buteo platypterus), red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), and kestrels (Falco sparverius), and spring migrations of the same species along with red-shouldered hawks.

Check out the threats and conservation objectives:

VII. THREATS AND SPECIAL PROBLEMS: The most significant threat to the Highlands is the continued loss and fragmentation of the area’s forests and wetlands. For many of these forest lands, there is no regulatory protection. There are several large parcels of land that are currently threatened by development. The Sterling Forest Development Corporation had plans to develop over 1,619 hectares (4,000 acres) of Sterling Forest for residential and commercial uses and another 324 hectares (800 acres) for recreational areas in the heart of the Highlands. In addition to the direct destruction of habitat, the proposed development would have fragmented the remaining habitat, jeopardizing the maintenance of viable populations of area-sensitive and wide-ranging species.

VIII. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS: It is critical to the resources of the Highlands that the network of open space within the Highlands be protected and expanded in order to maintain the unfragmented forest core from the glacial moraine north to the Hudson and across the Hudson to the Connecticut border with linkages on forested ridges to the Delaware River to the south. All publicly owned land that is not currently protected open space, such as the Picatinny Arsenal and various city-owned watershed lands in the Pequannock watershed, should be transferred to public ownership for management as preserve areas. Large privately owned parcels that are threatened by development, especially Sterling Forest, should be acquired and transferred to state or federal conservation agencies or protected through conservation easements or other means. In addition to acquisition efforts, there need to be state and local incentives to maintain open space, especially forested areas. Because many of the habitat values of the Highlands are based on its large tracts of unfragmented forests and wetlands, these large areas must be preserved intact. Protecting only the small and localized rare communities will not be sufficient.

As rhetoric ramps up, NJ Audubon – the bill’s main supporter – remains silent

Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight has a good story today on the latest development in the increasingly polarized dispute over the proposed “forest stewardship” bill (see:

Clear-Cutting State Land: Responsible Stewardship or Betrayal of Public Trust?   Environmentalists deeply divided on best way to protect NJ woodlands, ask Christie to veto pending legislation

While the story is dead on accurate – and basically follows our preliminary Coroner’s report – the headline is slightly misleading.

Even DEP has emphasized that the forestry will be “selective cut”, so it is unlikely that the bill will promote what the public thinks of as massive clear cuts.

Yes, there could be clear cut patches, but they probably would not be massive (but even small patch clearing can be a disaster, like DEP’s controversial proposed clearcut of 6 acres of mature massive sycamores on Bulls Island) – a plan a prominent NJ scientist called “a travesty”).

Unfortunately, the headline may allow the sponsors and supporters to claim that opponents are exaggerating. A better term would have been “commercial logging”.

But the key policy point is put front and center – the bill would allow commercial logging on state lands that must be managed as a public trust resource, not a commercial commodity:

“We need to protect these forests and the vulnerable ecological assets they hold such as forested wetlands and vernal pools through effective stewardship, not commercial-driven management,’’ said Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network.

The key legislative and political point also is made very clear. NJ Spotlight got it:

The bill, which won final approval in a 46-27 vote, was endorsed by some conservation groups largely because it requires the state Department of Environmental Protection to win approval from an independent Forest Stewardship Council for any forest management plan it develops.

In a letter to lawmakers last month, however, the DEP insisted this provision is an unnecessary and costly requirement.

As we wrote, the bill’s supporters in the NJ Conservation community only reluctantly agreed to support the bill as a compromise negotiated with the bill’s sponsors and the DEP.

That compromise was based on inclusion of protective safeguards, primarily via the independent Forest Stewardship Council’s (FSC) standards, backed by  the FSC certification of DEP’s statewide plan and individual forest management plans and FSC performance audits.

But, DEP has done a huge U-turn on FSC, initially supporting FSC and now rejecting it.

Here is DEP’s position on FSC, when that compromise was reached  which lead to the Senate substitute bill (March 19, 2012 – source: NJ Spotlight)

“An independent third-party certification system is the best way to steward our forests,’’ said Eric Olsen, of the New Jersey Nature Conservancy. “It sets a rigorous mark for management of our forests.’’

Lynn Fleming, state forester for New Jersey, also endorsed the system and said the state is seeking additional funding to manage its woodlands from the U.S. Fish, Game and Wildlife Service.

But here is DEP current position on FSC, as of June 10, 2013 (source: DEP letter to Chairman Albano – hit this link and scroll down to read that DEP letter)

The DEP’s remaining concern would be a mandatory Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification required for any stewardship plans we develop … While we respect FSC and recommended incorporating the FSC standards into the legislation, this mandatory certification is an un-necessary and costly requirement.  The DEP is the steward of New Jersey’s environment; we do not need our work validated by somebody else. Moreover, this unnecessary requirement adds a significant financial cost to the program, which will approach approximately $100,000 in the first year.

It is very clear that DEP opposes FSC and will not enforce FSC. So, the FSC standards, certification, and performance audits that conservation group supporters agreed to in order to support the bill are gone.

The bill does not require that DEP abide by FSC and does not require that forest and management plans comply with FSC, because to do so would require that DEP adopt regulations to mandate that forest stewardship plans comply with FSC standards, FSC certification, and FSC audits.

So, the bill has been gutted.

I have urged the bill’s supporters to reconsider their support and make a public statement (see: Open Letter to the Highlands Coalition and Other Supporters of the Forest Stewardship bill). 

That has not happened.

And, perhaps worse, NJ Audubon – who is the only entity that has FSC certification in NJ and therefore an effective monopoly on the market for FSC forest certification – was closely involved with Senator Smith in initiating the idea for the bill and served as the bill’s main supporter, has decided to duck the tough issue of whether they are acting more like a self interested consultant than a conservation steward (Audubon has ongoing forestry work with NJ DEP at Sparta Mountain and with PSEG on ROW).

As Tom Johnson wrote:

Even with all the criticism of the bill, it has won support from some conservation organizations, including the New Jersey Audubon Society, New Jersey Conservation, New Jersey Farm Bureau, and Pinelands Preservation Alliance.

A message to the New Jersey Audubon Society, the only organization in the state certified to produce Forest Stewardship Plans, was not returned. In the past, Bill Wolfe, an environmental advocate for the Public Employees for Environmental Trust (sic), argued there were conflicts of interest with the organization’s support of the program because it receives consulting and management fees for the program.

This is not a healthy situation and it must be resolved openly.

[BTW< the Farm Bureau is not a “conservation organization”. They represent and promote the economic interests of the ag and forestry industries.]