[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

Well it seems as though their major complaint is the fear that lumber
companies would _make money_ from reducing the fire load. Well heck, how
else would anyone pay for this? I think there are hundreds of millions of
acres that need to be worked on. I guess they would rather hire a few
hundred thousand new federal employees to do the thinning. What would they
do with the removed wood then? You can leave it behind since that is just
more fire load on the land. How would it be payed for: new taxes on lumber?

It seems to me that letting commercial companies thin these forests and put
people to work is the American way. The wood can go into homes and such and
we can stop buying some lumber from overseas. We get safer forests, fewer
uncontrolled blazes, put people to work, and Americans would get cheaper
lumber, a renewable resource. Assuming what I've seen at Deerhaven is close
to the model planned, then were are not talking about clear cutting or
anything like it. What is wrong with that?

I doubt that there is any major threat to wildlife, nothing like the threat
of being burned to death and reduced to ashes anyway. Just how many Spotted
Owls were creamated in that 500,000 acre fire in Oregon anyway. How many
salmon cooked in their creeks?  I'm just puzzled that people can ignore
these issues.


-----Original Message-----

I guess there is something to be said about the definite and major
differences in being a true Conservationist and
the "IN" practice of being an Environmentalist.

Brad Grant

----- Original Message -----
From: "J Bryan Kramer" <jbryankramer@msn.com>
To: <ft-l@mailman.backcountry.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 6:55 PM
Subject: RE: [ft-l] President's Bush's new forest policy for logging and
forest fires

> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> and forests. The creation of meadows in the solid block of trees is
> 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
> wandering strips of land leaving large blocks of trees in between. They
> 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
> 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
> since his opponent, a republican, suggested doing the same a couple of
> ago and drew outraged  opposition, just like yours, just for suggesting
> Daschle does it and only silence is heard from people like you.
> How do you justify that?

FT-L mailing list