Back to Home Page

On August 23, 2010  Forest Watch filed a lawsuit  to block the Forest Service to continue to do the brushing alongside public and Forest Service access roads that had been done for decades, the money to be used fore this was part of the Federal stimulus package, ARRA funds and other money. The end result of the lawsuit was to force the Forest Service to stop maintaining roads and to lock gates which give we the  public,  access to our public land. As was said, a Forest Service employee could not even kick a rock out of a stream bed.

Lawsuits such as this are a tactic pioneered by The Center For Biological Diversity, the purpose is to handcuff an agency and prevent it from doing its job. For example; it has been reported to us that 60% of the Inyo National Forest budget goes to fighting these lawsuits.

Page 7, Section 10. Irrelevant, as it concerns the Inyo National Forest, not the Los Padres National Forest.


The Center For Biological Diversity is essentially a litigation group using lawsuits to accomplish its goals rather than negotiation and mediation.

Page, section 6, They got me there, Enviromental Defense Center, not Center for Biological Diversity.  Claiming that Forest Watch and Center for Biological Diversity are affiliated, cannot be seen by a reasonable person as malicious. Review the actions both groups have taken together, that is affiliation. Yes, in this section remove the words Center for Biological Diversity and replace with Environmental Defense Center.

The Executive Director of Forest Watch,  is a former staff member of the EDC. There, all better, and what reasonable person would consider my confusing the two, malicious, heck, I confuse my daughter and my sister.
.
Critique of CBD
The Center for Biological Diversity and its Repetitive Problems with Science


Forest Watch has  filed this  lawsuit which has resulted in the following effects.
> It has stopped the Forest Service from carrying out its congressional mandate of Multiple Use.

> It has created  defacto  roadless  areas, which appears to be a goal.  In  addition  preventing  the repair and maintenance  of the  Forest  roads  prevents  fire prevention and suppression activities. The result may well be, that a devastating wildfire could result. The environmental consequences of that will far outstrip any possible harm that would result from normal and annual road maintenance and repair activities.

>The Forest Service agreed to not fight the proposed suit, which Forest Watch agreed to stop with requirements and payment to them for legal fees and their time. 

> The Forest Service was required to pay $60,000 to Forest Watch. Forest Watch and their two attorneys split the payment. Your tax dollars at work. If the FS legal fees were anywhere near  $60,000 this lawsuit has cost you, the taxpayers of American over $110,000.

Page 6, Section 9. "Defendants agree to pay, and Plaintiff agrees to accept the lump sum total of $60,000 (sixty-thousand dollars) in full and complete satisfaction of any and all claims, demands, rights, and causes of action pursuant to any statute and/or common law theory, for all attorney fees and costs Plaintiff incurred in anticipation of or in connection with this litigation."

This phrase occurs in the settlement. Now, i can assume that the Forest Service also had attorney costs, this lawsuit had a direct cost of around $100-120,000 to the taxpayers of America. Forest Watch states in the letter that they had attorney costs and other costs in excess of $60,000, yet the settlement clearly states "for all attorney fees and costs Plaintiff incurred in anticipation of or in connection with this litigation."
 
> In addition the settlement required that the LPNF also inform Forest Watch of everything they are doing OR if something comes amiss in any work.

> That more biologists attend every work party and have visited a site beforehand.

> The settlement will cost  LPNF (and you the taxpayer) at least $50,000 more a year instead of just getting things done.

Page 6, section 9, continued on page 7. The response of Forest Watch is disengenous again, the $50,000 figure may well be in the Forest Service budget, but, allocated for other uses.  And example could be, a project to rehabilitate X, the dollars allocated to project X must be reallocated to fund portions of the settlement.

> Why don't all of us user groups get the same notification if Forest Watch is, or best yet that LPNF not have to inform Forest Watch of everything.

>The most shocking  of the stipulations which you will see is that the paid staff of Los Padres Forest Watch has been been given control over the professionals of the United States Forest Service.

Limiting public access by whatever means allows illegal groups such as pot growers and their attendant pvc pipes, herbicides, brush clearing, trash and cooking fires to carry out their activities with less chance of discovery.

Los Padres Forest Watch seems to be much more interested in preventing the Forest Service from carrying out their Congressional Mandate than they are in helping the Forest Service to carry out that mandate.

In September 2011 there were a series of lightning caused fires in and adjacent to the San Rafael Wilderness. One of these, the Buckhorn Fire was approachable by road, however, this was one of the roads unrepaired due to the lawsuit.  Response to this fire with engines was delayed by the time it took to "walk" a bulldozer to the landslide many  miles into the hills, and then clear the landslide by fire emergency authorization. It is unknown how much land the Buckhorn fire burned due to this delay, which was entirely the responsibility of Forest Watch.

Page 4. Section 7. Forest Watch has a carefully written script that they use to deny being responsible for road closures in the Los Padres National Forest, however, their script is disengenous at best. Now, Forest Watch can state that accusing them of responsibility for road closures is  malicious and defammatory on the part of Los Padres Forest Council. But, there are hundreds of forest users who have no acquaintanceship with or knowledge of this website or the opinions of Los Padres Forest Council who share the opinion that Forest Watch is responsible. The lawsuit is a public relation debacle for Forest Watch, and that has  nothing to do with any actions of myself or the council.

Page 11, Section 13. It is obvious that no one from Forest Watch traveled the Buckhorn road this season prior to the Buckhorn Fire, I have. I know what it took to, in the words of Forest Watch, "improve the condition of the road"


Here is the complaint filed by Forest Watch; Complaint

Here is the Settlement: Settlement

Here is the Final Stipulation

Page 6, section 6 paragraph 3; That Forest Watch is controversial is fact, not opinion. There are many Forest Users, ranging from Sierra Club members to Off Road Enthusiasts who sharply disagree with the action and tactics of Forest Watch.  Forest Watch states they do good work, that is certainly true, that they do work that negatively affects Forest Users and the health of the forest is also true.

Back to Home Page