[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ft-l] President's Bush's new forest policy for logging and forest fires
Whoops, an apology is in order. I have Outlook set up to send both the FT-L
and AT-L messages to the same folder and did not notice that that message
was FT-L. We had a major flame war on AT-L about political messages which
resulted in the list being split into a new list for political rants and the
original hiking list. So please accept my apology Kent.
That being said I'll now attach my reply to him here:
Thinking on this I don't understand how anyone can logically oppose a
program of reducing the fire load of the forests. I had a long talk with a
Ranger at Bryce when we were out there. He said that Bryce and a lot of
other National Parks are doomed unless drastic action is taken. The fire
load is so high, something like twenty times historical values, that once a
fire gets started the whole park will be reduced to ashes. Fire fighters
will have no chance of stopping such a fire he said. Flames would be over a
hundred feet high, and old growth trees will be completely destroyed along
with most of the wildlife.
All this can, as I'm sure you know, back to the NPS and Forest Service
policies adopted back before WWII after some major fires demolished a couple
of towns with great loss of life. But it's rather obvious now that the
policy was just wrong. But even tho just about everyone admits that the
policy was wrongheaded some groups refuse to consider taking corrective
action so that the natural cycle of wild fires every 20 years or so can be
allowed to start again.
I work near Gainesville at the Deerhaven Generating Station, you may be
familiar with the site. Its between Gainesville and Alachua and we have
about 1200 acres of land. Most of it is forested. The City has gone thru a
wise policy of getting the UF Forestry people to help reduce the fire load
in these woods. Over 3 or 4 years they have thinned the woods ( having a
commercial logger do the work), done controlled burns and created a system
of woods and meadows on the property. All of this was done in sections so
the critters living there (and there are a lot of them on site: deer,
turkey, otter, eagles, osprey and so on.) have been able to move to a
unaffected section of the site when work or burns were being done.
The site still looks a bit ugly but I think that after another year or two
it will look rather good as the litter decays off and the burns fade. I
assume this is the same thing that the feds want to do in the National woods
and forests. The creation of meadows in the solid block of trees is supposed
to benefit the wildlife population, the biological productivity of forests
is supposed be much less than that of meadows. Also if this area was open
for hiking I think a mix of trees and meadows would be more attractive. By
meadows I mean that they thinned something like 80-90% of trees from narrow
wandering strips of land leaving large blocks of trees in between. They left
the largest trees behind.
The political aspect of your complaints is pointed out by the fact that NO
environmental organizations raised a cry when Senator Daschle exempted all
of South Dakota from any lawsuits which would prevent the same process from
occurring in his state. Environmental groups have blocked fire load
reduction in the Black Hills for more than 25 years IIRC. He slipped a
proviso in some unrelated legislation to do this. The silence is even odder
since his opponent, a republican, suggested doing the same a couple of years
ago and drew outraged opposition, just like yours, just for suggesting it.
Daschle does it and only silence is heard from people like you.
How do you justify that?
Ummm, that wasn't a troll. Kent is the liaison between FTA and the Forest
Service, as such we generally take notice of what he posts here.
Lee I Joe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of J Bryan Kramer
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 2:14 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [ft-l] President's Bush's new forest policy for
> logging and
> forest fires
> I thought this sort of radical trolling was banned from this
> list. Take to
> the Abbey list.
> -----Original Message-----
> FYI- President's Bush's new forest policy for logging and
> forest fires.
> Forests won't burn if you log them first.
> FT-L mailing list
FT-L mailing list