[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



I keep seeing the figure of 190,000,000 acres as the size of public lands
that need fire load reduction. Now if there are 500 trees per acre and there
should be 35 trees an acre that means 465 trees an acre need to be removed
along with underbrush. If you used a crew of ten men and they could remove a
tree a minute ( darn unlikely) it would take them one day to clear one acre.
At $10 an hour that would be $800/acre in just labor costs to clear the
land. That works out to $152,000,000,000 in labor costs for the entire 190
million acres, add another $100,000,000,000 or so for equipment,
infrastucture and disposal of the stuff you removed. Do it over 10 years and
you are talking about $25 billion a year. Where is that money going to come
from?

And you guys still have not said anything about Daschle/

Bryan

>
> Two things I have never understood about the timbering
> policies in the National Forests and federal fire-fighting
> policies vis-a-vis the USDA Forest Service.
>
> 1) The timber companies make money on the timber harvests
> but the Forest Service has to build all the infrastructure
> to support the timber harvests (eg roads surrounding and
> into the harvest area, clean up after the logging, etc).
> Because of that many times the Forest Service (ie, the US
> taxpayer) actually loses money on the timber sales.  Even if
> one accepts that logging is a wise use of our public lands,
> I can't see why my tax dollars should be used to support
> individual timber companies at the expense of other users of
> our public lands.
>
> 2) It seems in normal fire years the FS budget can barely
> manage to provide enough money for fire fighting and during
> bad years the FS and other public agencies go into debt
> fighting the fires. To me this means that there is just not
> enough funding for fire control on public lands.  Points out
> the fact that much of Congressional budgeting and allocation
> is reactionary and political in nature rather than planned
> for wise use of our resources.
>
> Cricket
> _______________________________________________
> FT-L mailing list
> FT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/ft-l
>
>