I see the logic behind this – if you cut down the trees, there will be nothing to burn, but the result is the same – no forest. This is yet another lame-brain idea from the corporate puppet Bush. Do not think for a second he his doing this for the good of the forest or serving the people – it is all about getting the timber industry back into our National Forests.
Are you sure you're on the right site? Go to a Sierra Club website for your tree-hugging, Bush-bashing. What would our alternative be? Gore? By the end of his term,
we would be left with nothing. As it is, the roadless intiative has created enough problems already. Bush's plan is not to eliminate the forests, it's meant to remove
some of the excess fuel to prevent such catastropic fires. Over 6 million acres have burned this year alone.
Idyllwild? Isn't that the home of the CBD?
He who lives by the sword, gets shot by those who don't.
I am very familiar with the issues, and with the misdirection and priorities of the present administration. I disagree with the solution to this issue. I don’t think the alternate would be Gore – I am not sure if he knows how to fight fires. Living in the forest and dealing with fire abatement issues every year it is very apparent what needs to be done – development and manage fire clearance areas around homes and populated areas. Not logging. If you would care to discuss all the other issues and accusations you lumped together in your post, I would be happy to respond – just e-mail me.
Kim..Simply clearing fuel from homes and property is not nearly enough. How can you say logging and fires net the same result? The current rash of fires are completely out of control leaving only scorched earth. Logging is managed...the loggers are REQUIRED to re plant and control erosion. Have you ever seen a forest 2 years after being logged? It's beautiful, healthy, and not a risk like the old growth sections are. We could also go into jobs, community benefits, etc. but that is another arguement all together. A healthy, THINNED, managed forest can survive a wildfire..the unmanaged dense forest burnes to ashes leaving nothing but problems. I'll take the managed route anyday. Look at the science and stop listening to the doomsday crowd.
Kim- your issue with weed abatement up in Idyliwild is nothing compared to forest thinning and fuels management. just because you can switch from 30" to 100 feet because we tell you too will not save your house when a fire runs up Bee Canyon or Castille Canyon with 100-200 flame lengths off all those bug kill trees. Yes, I Know very well what the fire issues are in your neighborhood since I work for CDF in Riverside County. I have even been to fires in your neck of the woods over the last 13 years. from the Ronald MacDonald childrens camp this last April to Poppet Flats in 1989. That pretty mosaid being put up around your little village is designed to slow a fire down so we can stop it, but it will in no way stop it on its own.
Don't be fooled by all the LIES being tossed out there by the econazis. A healthy forest needs both fire and thinning to be healthy. There are studies that show huge devastating fires along the Sierras before man became involved in the eco system. Fires that would take 200-300 years for recovery. In a managed scenario, you will still have fires, even bad fires, the damage will be restricted to smaller areas. The "leave only footprints, take only pictures" theory of the Sierra Club will guaranty devastating fires every 20-30 years. That is how long its been since logs were last taken from around your village on the hill.
I think you lost the jest of my first two posts. I am all for a comprehensive fire reduction plan (and I am not speaking of weed abatement). You sure have a lot more confidence in our government's ability to manage a forest then I do. The fire problems we are suffering in the western states are the results of a "forest management plan". The issue of Idyllwild was brought up because this forest is a prime example of the conditions that develop years after logging. The elimination and thinning of trees offer little or no canopy and the result (is basic science) eliminates the competition for light and moisture which allows the undergrowth to flourish. The Idyllwild area and many other areas where the trees are gone or thinned are among the worst fire hazards in the west. I am skeptical being that there is no profits to be made thinning brush and immature trees (which are the primary fuel in many forest areas that have been logged) so I anticipate all the fire reduction efforts will be focusing at logging “sellable” trees, and we will see little, if any, fuel reduction efforts being taken where there is a critical need. So, we will see what happens. I hope I am wrong. However, studying the political motives of the present administration lead me to these conclusions. Doonsday’ish – hardly. It is my patriotic duty to question our government, and I am glad to see people challenging my post – it shows that there is someone out there that cares.
Finally - Don't assume that because I question the motives behind different issues means that I support some eco-nazi or Sierra Clubbers. I feel these are rather immature responses. I place tremendous value on the use and "management" (notice the quotes) of our public lands. I do not see the credibility when individuals "jump on the band wagon" against every single pro environment issue - "Choose your battles well". Our public lands must be handled responsibility.
Kim- what you fail to understand is that there will never be another tree sold of the Cleveland or San San Bernardino National Forest because of politics(the green kind) There used to be harvests off the Berdoo up until about 1982. That is when enough environmental pressure was used to end the "forest killing practices" of the timber industry. Just for the sake of science, do you understand that some species of trees require clearcutting to allow the species to grow the next generation? Trees have a life span just like any other living. Until they die and rot to the ground, they inhibit the new growth of their own species. removing some of these older trees allows the next generation to begin growth without having a die off period where you have unhealthy trees that are now succeptible to things like root rot, bug kill, and leaf freeze. These are the things that set up catastrophic fires, not just drought. We have had plenty of droughts over the last century without catastrophic fires like you are seeing now. When you look at the time line, you will see a marked increase in catastrophic fires after about 1975, approximately 10 years after the first big push for anti-timber industry and the beginning of the huge reduction in timber harvests. Man was removed from the equation, not anything else, just man. You make a huge assumption in the belief that industry just wants to come in, clear cut, and bail out. that is not the case. There are huge timber plantations here in California, some private held, some owned by the state. They do not have the problems the Federal forests have because harvests and mans ability to manage have not been removed from the landscape. That is not the case with the federal lands, especially wilderness areas. You talk about "managing the lands" to manage means to use efforts by man to direct and control an outcome. The environmental push is to remove man entirely from that equation.
As for Idyllwild, check out the facts about the continued loss of forest to sage and brush over the last 100 years in southern California. You will see that this is just a natural phenomenon and has been occuring over time. Ice age, seas to land, forests to meadows. Those hills below you in Sage and Anza were once covered in Pines and Oaks. Man didn't remove them, nature did.
Because often enough the outcome is the direct result of the political motivation. If the motivation is corporate driven for profit, then years from now we will be in the position (again) to try and fix the problem, which often is compounded. Study past government programs that deal with public resource issues. How long can cycles like this exist?
You will never convince them of any other train of thought other than Bush = God and anybody who supports ANY policy to promote/protect the environment is a tree hugging, sierra club supporting, eco-nazi. Trust me, I've tried.
It is however, refreshing to see others on here with your perspective.
Kim- I hope you realize that everything under the sun in this day and age is both political and $$$ motivated.Period. No matter which side of the green fence you are on, politics and money are the bottom line. Will the loggiong companys make some money off of this plan? Hell yes..and why not? Someone is going to..why not them? Responsible logging and mining can be done. I have a very simple theory...Why not have large swaths of old growth cross-sectioned with agressively thinned and harvested areas? Seems to me you could have your "hands off" areas and sections that could be used to keep a large fire under control. Sure seems simple to me....
What you say is true - sadly. I don’t want to believe it though. And I can’t understand why American’s put up with it. I guess the day and age of principle is long gone. Your proposal seems interesting - I am, by no means, in any position to suggest a solution. In addition, I still want to believe that our representatives would have the knowledge to get the expertise needed to develop a comprehensive plan based on what is truly needed.
All donations to the Bush Campaign took place during the 2001-2002 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, July 29, 2002.
1 International Paper $478,708.00
2 Georgia Pacific Corp. $329,342.00
3 Weyerhaeuser Co. $107,611.00
4 American Forest & Paper Assn $97,810.00
5 National Hardwood Lumber Assn. $65,806.00
6 Forest Farmers Assn $52,400.00
7 Boise Cascade $48,050.00
Total from top 20 $2,369,446.00
Data is public record and provided by Center for Responsive Politics
It just goes to show there is no differance between the demos and repubs...the #1 corporate donator to clinton was global crossing. Grey Davis was the #2 largest recipient of $$$ from Enron. They are all the same bunch of wind bags. In my case, Bush is the less of 2 evils for the simple reason of access to public lands. You really do not want to compare corporate donor laundry lists...the dems are every bit as guilty of being lobbied to death by special interest groups. I still believe that if common sense would prevail, there is a balance and compromise between the greens and the access groups. It is too bad the greens do not know how to negotiate.
kim- you again make an assumption that just because a company gives to a politician, they will in turn take whatever the politician gets for them and abuse the hell out of it. I have worked for the California Dept. of Forestry since 1985, before that the USFS. Back then there was a huge difference between the 2 because the environmental movement had been placing their team in the federal work force for much longer thanthey had the state side. They have influenced land use issues from the inside out and what that did was keep it out of the publics eye for a long time. Because they were so successsful atthe federal level, they now have begun to push their folks into places of power in state agencies. What you have to understand is that they do not see compromise as successful, so they don't even approach the table. So much has been taken away in the last 2 decades from multi-use, that we really have no room left for compromise. So we now fight for the last 50% of what we had. I am not anti-environment, I am an environmentalist, I just believe that man can participate in the environment. Most environmentalists making wholesale decissions about the environment do not.
jr- does it seem like a compromise that 80% of the timber harvests in California have been halted in the last 2 decades? kim- does it seem like a compromise that 50% of the lands you use to be able to recreate on are no longer multi-use? by looking at it this way, do I now seem like a hell bent burn it all and leave the slash to mother nature type? just who is the extremist in this scenario?
It is of public record that major corporations can expect a return of $10.00 to every $1.00 of money donated to the campaign of an elected official that influences policy. No assumptions. That’s is a damn good return, and the reason why so many corporations pour money into campaigns. I don’t expect all corporations to “abuse the hell out of it” – but perhaps the corporations that abuse the hell out of the political system. I am sure you can guess by now that I am all for campaign reform – but that it another matter. It would be a good bet, based on history, and if the American people let Bush have his way, International Paper will see 47 million dollars come their way. It is said that we now have, "The best political system money can buy". Americans – we need to get back OUR government. Please, get yourselves, and anyone else you know registered to vote, and vote. (Little plug)
Clarification – I do not believe environmentalists should dictate public policy, just as strongly as corporations shouldn’t. Martin, I would feel more confident having you as part of the decision making process for a fire reduction plan rather the having all the hidden political agendas that will be of influence. I do have a question that I cannot find the answer to – how much of an influence did the various Forestry Departments or other experts in the field have in defining Bush’s new timber policy?
I am adamant in the belief that public lands belong to Americans, and they should forever have free access. These are our lands to enjoy, and we must be the caretakers so future Americans can enjoy.
kim- for what it is worth, many state agencies are currently locked in battles with federal agencies about who should have more say in how and who deals with local issues pertaining to specific forests. The feds issue blanket marching orders from D.C. and the forest and district rangers for the USFS, BLM, National Parks, BIA and now Fish and Wildlife have to impress them upon the local inhabitants in the areas they serve. There are a couple legislative bills that would change this to focus more on local control and decissions, but they are still in their infancy and it is most likely they will run into lots of flak in DC because those folks don't like to lose their power to local pions. I can tell you that my agency has begun to counteract some of the decissions made by the USFS and BLM in recent history. In 1996, the Pechanga Fire ended up burning over 19,000 acres and costing somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 million dollars. The fire could have been stopped on the first night with a dozer control line that would have held it around 200+ acres. The BLM said no dozer line over their land because there was a possibility that they land may be put up for wilderness in the future. This was in 1996. Today the land is not wilderness, it was all burned to grasslands, the drought has made recovery harder for the pant species in the area, 12 million dollars was spent to eventually "manage" the fire instead of controlling it, and lots of overtime was made by feds.
Fast forward to now. The current MacNalley fire in Sequoia National Forest. Became a managed fire almost immediately. CDF pulled its resources and personnel because it was felt they would be needed in other places to "control" fires rather than watching this one burn. The feds have a control date of " when it snows..." . Just recently, the Pines fire in San Diego had a similiar instance come up with the BLM. A control line was proposed through BLM land. To be successful, it would have to be several dozer blades wide. The BLM balked at this and said single blade only. CDF took it upon themselves to put in a multi-blade line based on the essential theory that as the managing agency, its job was to protect life and property first, resources second. The line was constructed and the fire was contained shortly thereafter. I cannot begin to tell you how often this comes up now. 10 years ago, everyone was on the same page- life and property first, then protect the resources. Several federal agencies have flopped that theory around because it is felt man has no business living in the forests and if they get burned out, maybe they won't come back. This battle has even entered tha agency I work for. The director of the largest all risk fire department in the U.S. ia an appointee by the Governor of California. Gov. Davis decided it would be best to place an environmental planner with heavy Sierra Club backing to lead our department. She has no fire control experience, but the Sierra Club paid Davis lots of money into his campaign fund, so they thisnk she can do the job. How much is that worth on your dollard back scale?
Great information – My dollar backed scale? I wish I never saw it . . . Just reinforces the point how big money (Sierra Club) influences decision making among the ranks. I reiterate - I do not believe environmentalists should dictate public policy, just as strongly as corporations shouldn’t.
Martin, what can be done? What are the bills being considered? Since you are close to these issues, do you have the case numbers? If we knew about these issues and studied them, perhaps some of us could write our representatives and advocate others to request their consideration. If we, the people, do nothing then it leave the door open for any lobbiest.