Beetles attack Santa Fe pine forests

Donald L Ferrt wolfbat359 at mindspring.com
Thu Dec 4 19:49:05 EST 2003


Larry Caldwell <larryc at teleport.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a3654e7f8c6e07c9899ba at news.west.earthlink.net>...
> wolfbat359 at mindspring.com (Donald L Ferrt) writes: 
> > "Don Staples" <dstaplesx at livingston.net> wrote in message news:<vsmon4dkieg0dc at corp.supernews.com>...
> > > "Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359 at mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > news:b9eb3efe.0311301104.3e0899ff at posting.google.com...
> > > > "Don Staples" <dstaplesx at livingston.net> wrote in message
>  news:<vshjqfmg9nb720 at corp.supernews.com>...
> > > > > "quibbler" <quibbler247 at atyahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > Please inform us on beetle ecology
> > > 
> > > I am sorry, do you have some aversion to doing your own research?  It is
> > > really very simple, even for you or any one else to lazy to try to learn a
> > > little about a subject before they jump off into a discussion.
> > 
> > No ole wise one = You tell me what this has to do with the Tongass!
> 
> Donald, you are just embarrassing yourself.  Pine beetles have nothing to 
> do with the Tongass, which is a coastal rain forest dominated by spruce, 
> fir and cedar.

Then there is no reason for Bush and Company to want to be logging up
there = So why include it in the Forest Health and Safety!

  
>  
> > Or any other place = aka could be global warming:
> > 
> > http://www.canada.com/vancouver/theprovince/story.asp?id=646E1746-A7DE-40A8-8739-B7BF4BE558A8
> 
> The author of that story doesn't know anything about pine beetle ecology 
> either, and didn't bother to ask anyone who would know.  While Canadians 
> have historically not been interested in their boreal forests except as a 
> resource to be mined, that does not excuse his abysmal ignorance.


The issue was increased warming for the Beetle to reproduce more
generations per year = Do you say that is wrong???

And the new bill seems to have problems:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/04/MNGIP3FR6Q1.DTL

Administration axes an environment safeguard 
Rule changed to expedite forest thinning 

Elizabeth Shogren, Richard Simon, Los Angeles Times   Thursday,
December 4, 2003
  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 


Washington -- As President Bush, with much fanfare, signed legislation
Wednesday aimed at speeding fire-prevention efforts in federal
forests, his administration quietly adopted a rule that will expedite
timber-thinning projects by removing a safeguard for endangered
species.

Under the Endangered Species Act, the Forest Service and other federal
agencies are required to seek confirmation from the Fish and Wildlife
Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service before taking any
action that may adversely affect any endangered plant or animal.

The new policy, which does not require congressional approval,
authorizes biologists for the Forest Service or other land management
agency to make the call that no endangered species would be adversely
affected, exempting them from consulting with the agencies whose main
mandate is protecting rare plants and animals.

The Bush administration stressed that the policy will not reduce the
level of protection for rare animals and plants.

"All of these land-management agencies have biologists who have been
trained to assess the likely impact of their actions on listed
species," said Steve Williams, director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. "By issuing these regulations, we are tapping into their
expertise and accelerating review of much-needed forest health
projects."

But environmentalists said the policy removes a key check and balance.

"The conflict of interest is that the agency whose top job is to do
the logging will make this decision, rather than the agency whose top
job is to protect threatened or endangered species," said Marty
Hayden, legislative director for Earthjustice, an environmental law
firm.

With this policy and the rest of its "healthy forests" initiative,
Hayden added, "The administration has used the emotional issue of
wildfire to get the kind of weakening of environmental law and
limiting of public involvement that they have wanted."

Cabinet members and lawmakers looked on Wednesday as Bush signed into
law the legislative components of his initiative, which is designed to
limit environmental and judicial reviews of thinning projects in
national forests in order to reduce the risk of wildfires like the
ones that recently devastated Southern California.

"This law will not prevent every fire, but it is an important step
forward, a vital step to make sure we do our duty to protect our
nation's forests," Bush said.

The bill authorizes $760 million a year for forest-thinning projects,
a $340 million increase, and targets at least half of the money for
thinning projects to the regions closest to populated areas.

Bush proposed his initiative in August 2002, during a visit to a fire-
ravaged forest in Oregon, and it was passed by the House in May. The
recent California fires, which killed 24 people, burned about 740,000
acres and destroyed more than 3,500 structures, provided the impetus
to the Senate's passage of the bill in late October and approval of
the final legislation by a House-Senate conference committee last
month.

Bush could benefit politically by this legislation, which could create
additional logging jobs; in 2000, he lost Oregon by less than half a
percentage point and Washington by less than 6 percentage points.

Environmental groups contend that the legislation will enable timber
companies to log healthy trees and will not do enough to reduce the
fire danger to homes.

But Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, chairman of the House Resources
Committee, called the measure an environmental protection bill. "The
70 million acres of land classified by the U.S. Forest Service as 'at
extreme risk' of catastrophic fire represent one of the single
greatest threats to our environment today,'' he said.



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list