EnviroWackos responsible for YOUR forests that are now BURNING!
06-21-2002, 11:41 AM
#1
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Niskayuna, NY
Posts: 5,548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EnviroWackos responsible for YOUR forests that are now BURNING!
This is taken from TODAYS Wall Street Journal. Page A8, columns 1 and 2.
The Fire This Time
In December 1995,a storm hit the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California, tossing dead trees across 35,000 acres and creating dangerous fire conditions. For three years local U.S. Forest Service officials labored to clean it up, but they were blocked by environmental groups and federal policy. In 1999 the time bomb blew: A fire roared over the untreated land and 90,000 more acres.
Bear this anecdote in mind as you watch the 135,000 acre Hayman fire now roasting close to Denver. And bear in the mind the rest of this summer, in what could be the biggest marshmellow roasting season in half a century. Because despite the Sierra Club spin, catastrophic fires like the Hayman are no inevitable, or good. They stem from bad forest management-which found a happy home in the Clinton Administration.
In a briefing to Congress last week, U.S. Forest chief Dale Bosworth finally sorted the forest from the tree huggers. He said that if proper forest management had been implemented 10 years ago, and if the agency weren't in the grip of "analysis paralysis" from environmental regulation and lawsuits, the Hayman fire wouldn't be raging like an inferno.
Mr. Bosworth also presented Congress with a sobering report on our national forests. Of the 193 million acres the Forest Service administers, 73 million are at risk from severe fire. Tens of millions of acres are dying from insects and diseases. Thousands of miles of roads, critical to fighting fires, are unusable. Those facts back up a General Accounting Office report, which estimates that one in three forest acres is dead or dying. So much for the green mantra of "healthy ecosystems".
How did one of Americas great resources come to pass? Look no further than the greens who trouped into power with the last Administration. Senior officials adopted an untested philosophy known as "ecosystem management", a bugeois bohemian plan to return forests to the "natural" state. The Clintonites cut back timber harvesting by 80% and used laws and lawsuits to put swathes of land off-limits to commercial use.
We now see the results. Millions of acres choked with dead wood, infested trees and underbrush. Many area have more than 400 tons of dry fuel per acre-10 times more than the manageable level. This tinder that turns small fires into infernos, outrunning fire control and killing every fuzzy endangered animal in sight. In 2000 alone fires destroyed 8.4 million acres, the worst fire year since the 1950's. Some 800 structures were destroyed-many as fires swept across Los Alamos, New Mexico-and control and recovery costs near $3 billion. The Forest Service entire budget is only $4.9 billion.
That number too, is important. Before the Clinton Administration limited timber sales, U.S. forests helped pay for their own upkeep. Selective logging cleaned up grounds and paid for staff, forestry stations, cleanup and roads. Today, with green groups blocking timber sales at every turn, the GAO says tax payers will have to spend $12 billion to cart off dead wood.
It's no accident that two of the main Clinton culprits-former director of Fish & Wildlife Jamie Rappaport Clark and former Forest Service boss Michael Dombeck-have both landed at the National Wildlife Federation, which broadcasts its internet homepage, "Fires Are Good".
Fixing all this won't be easy. After 30 years of environmental regulation, the Forest Service now spends 40% of its time in "planning and assesment". Even the smallest project takes years. Mr. Bosworth has identified the problems, but fixing them will require White House Leadership and Congressional cooperation.
One solution would be to follow the lead of private timber companies, whose forests don't tend to suffer such catastrophic fires. Their trees are an investment; they can't afford to let them burn. Americans should feel the same way about theirs.
WELL SAID!
The Fire This Time
In December 1995,a storm hit the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California, tossing dead trees across 35,000 acres and creating dangerous fire conditions. For three years local U.S. Forest Service officials labored to clean it up, but they were blocked by environmental groups and federal policy. In 1999 the time bomb blew: A fire roared over the untreated land and 90,000 more acres.
Bear this anecdote in mind as you watch the 135,000 acre Hayman fire now roasting close to Denver. And bear in the mind the rest of this summer, in what could be the biggest marshmellow roasting season in half a century. Because despite the Sierra Club spin, catastrophic fires like the Hayman are no inevitable, or good. They stem from bad forest management-which found a happy home in the Clinton Administration.
In a briefing to Congress last week, U.S. Forest chief Dale Bosworth finally sorted the forest from the tree huggers. He said that if proper forest management had been implemented 10 years ago, and if the agency weren't in the grip of "analysis paralysis" from environmental regulation and lawsuits, the Hayman fire wouldn't be raging like an inferno.
Mr. Bosworth also presented Congress with a sobering report on our national forests. Of the 193 million acres the Forest Service administers, 73 million are at risk from severe fire. Tens of millions of acres are dying from insects and diseases. Thousands of miles of roads, critical to fighting fires, are unusable. Those facts back up a General Accounting Office report, which estimates that one in three forest acres is dead or dying. So much for the green mantra of "healthy ecosystems".
How did one of Americas great resources come to pass? Look no further than the greens who trouped into power with the last Administration. Senior officials adopted an untested philosophy known as "ecosystem management", a bugeois bohemian plan to return forests to the "natural" state. The Clintonites cut back timber harvesting by 80% and used laws and lawsuits to put swathes of land off-limits to commercial use.
We now see the results. Millions of acres choked with dead wood, infested trees and underbrush. Many area have more than 400 tons of dry fuel per acre-10 times more than the manageable level. This tinder that turns small fires into infernos, outrunning fire control and killing every fuzzy endangered animal in sight. In 2000 alone fires destroyed 8.4 million acres, the worst fire year since the 1950's. Some 800 structures were destroyed-many as fires swept across Los Alamos, New Mexico-and control and recovery costs near $3 billion. The Forest Service entire budget is only $4.9 billion.
That number too, is important. Before the Clinton Administration limited timber sales, U.S. forests helped pay for their own upkeep. Selective logging cleaned up grounds and paid for staff, forestry stations, cleanup and roads. Today, with green groups blocking timber sales at every turn, the GAO says tax payers will have to spend $12 billion to cart off dead wood.
It's no accident that two of the main Clinton culprits-former director of Fish & Wildlife Jamie Rappaport Clark and former Forest Service boss Michael Dombeck-have both landed at the National Wildlife Federation, which broadcasts its internet homepage, "Fires Are Good".
Fixing all this won't be easy. After 30 years of environmental regulation, the Forest Service now spends 40% of its time in "planning and assesment". Even the smallest project takes years. Mr. Bosworth has identified the problems, but fixing them will require White House Leadership and Congressional cooperation.
One solution would be to follow the lead of private timber companies, whose forests don't tend to suffer such catastrophic fires. Their trees are an investment; they can't afford to let them burn. Americans should feel the same way about theirs.
WELL SAID!
Last edited by Shane; 06-21-2002 at 11:51 AM.
Platinum Member
06-21-2002, 01:32 PM
#4
Official OSO boat whore
Charter Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mequon, WI
Posts: 6,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Um, to be honest, that article sounds a little biased. A 8 year policy will have little impact on a forest that lives for 200 years. In reality, this problem goes back to the approach of putting out every fire that exististed up to the 80's. The small controlled fires would burn out the underbrush that has accumulated to the point now that we have tinder boxes. Of course, clear cutting also is a good method of controlling a fire, but if you've ever seen a clear cut forest, it'll bring tears to your eyes.
06-21-2002, 01:37 PM
#5
Registered
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Chesapeake Bay
Posts: 798
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Cord
Um, to be honest, that article sounds a little biased. A 8 year policy will have little impact on a forest that lives for 200 years. In reality, this problem goes back to the approach of putting out every fire that exististed up to the 80's. The small controlled fires would burn out the underbrush that has accumulated to the point now that we have tinder boxes. Of course, clear cutting also is a good method of controlling a fire, but if you've ever seen a clear cut forest, it'll bring tears to your eyes.
Um, to be honest, that article sounds a little biased. A 8 year policy will have little impact on a forest that lives for 200 years. In reality, this problem goes back to the approach of putting out every fire that exististed up to the 80's. The small controlled fires would burn out the underbrush that has accumulated to the point now that we have tinder boxes. Of course, clear cutting also is a good method of controlling a fire, but if you've ever seen a clear cut forest, it'll bring tears to your eyes.
06-21-2002, 01:47 PM
#7
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Grand Haven, MI USA
Posts: 3,124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was a great article. It is so true that we need to look at our enviornment as an investment that will pay a dividend for all time. These jackass envirowackys cannot see their own forest for the trees. They look at short term and try to tell us it is long term. We are not stupid. Is it any wonder why we are mad? NO. I ride dirt bikes often. We use CCC trails that are no wider than our handlebars. We use guards to protect our levers and knuckles from trees and brush. You would be very hard pressed to find one of these trails walking thru the woods. We are always amazed when we see a fresh cut tree in our path. Many times they are laid on a corner so if you hit it you will roll out and crash. These are the same idiots who think WE are hurting the woods. At least we are not cutting down live trees to intentionally hurt someone. Whose side are they on? Is a trees life worth more than mine? I don't think so!!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
LadySunseeker
General Boating Discussion
2
11-15-2002 11:27 AM
