Kerry's forest ideas out of step with sound ecosystem management
brutus at u.com
Sat Jul 10 12:52:56 EST 2004
On 9 Jul 2004, Larry Harrell:
> (Lloyd Parker)
> > (Larry Harrell) wrote:
> > >So, now you wish to impose your "preservationism" onto private
> > >lands?!?!
> > Nope, but tell them forest fires aren't going to be put out
> > if they're natural and insurance isn't going to be subsidized,
> > just like it should be
> > when people build on the beach and a hurricane comes.
> I just want to hear it from you point blank. So, you're in favor of
> letting endangered species habitat burn at high intensity?
I teeter between two solutions:
1) You bet your sweet ass. And
2) They could be protected (as in the Feinstein proposal) like
structures. Particularly immobile and the most endangered
species. So (say,) most spotted owl species, in my opinion, would
not qualify for total protection.
Sorry if this does not your Republican happy Hollywood movie
expectations. It's a matter of accepting reality -- we fucked up,
and Humpty Dumpty all over the place. The Republicans don't want
to pay a dime to fix this, so that's what "Healthy Forests" is
all about. I mean "don't want to pay a dime," in the context of
say, a 10 to 20-year true repair job, where people actually have
to be PAID [ EEK! ] to thin and to remove the understory fuel
buildup, then, maintain it.
> You're in
> favor of letting historical sites burn? You're in favor of letting
> recreational sites burn? Your in favor of letting watersheds that feed
> domestic drinking water supplies burn? And, finally, you're in favor
> of letting old growth, including Giant Sequoias, to burn at high
See above. Unlike the Republican view, reality is not
> Wildfire intensity CAN be mitigated by modern thinning and fuels
> reduction projects. I've been there and done that and I even saw more
> evidence TODAY! Many Bitterroot fires stopped when they came to
Funny how things work when welfare is not involved, and people
are willing to actually PAY to maintain something, isn't it?
Perhaps you could explain this to the free lunch Republicans who
squeeze America's public lands like a whore's tit?
> Now, I'm not advocating clear cutting as a fuels
> reduction technique (just to cut you off at the pass). Cutting out the
> "ladder fuels" greatly increases a stand's chances of surviving a
> modern firestorm. I know that it's going to take a long time for the
> public to trust the Forest Service again but, you do have to give us a
> chance to restore some balance to our vast forests that are unhealthy,
> unnatural and overstocked.
You are skatting a pretty tune. Your words are meaningless until
you start talking about the funding.
> Personally, I encourage citizens to get involved,
> monitor what we're doing (and what we're not doing) and make
> us do what we say we're going to do. There ARE still a lot of
> "dinosaurs" left in the agency who are EXTREMELY resistent to change.
That is EXTREMELY good advice.
> > >How many acres would the Biscuit fire have burned if we
> > >hadn't sent an army to try and put it out? Natural forests survived
> > >fires quite well and benefitted from the low to moderate intensity
> > >burns. Today's firestorms burn at high intensity, kill even
> > >fire-adapted pines and sterilize soils.
> > One reason being we've put out natural fires that could have reduced a lot of
> > the underbrush.
> > > You wish to preserve this
> > >tinderbox and produce the "Perfect Firestorm"? By allowing these
> > >massive fires to burn, you are actually allowing loggers to cut trees
> > >that wouldn't be cut in a "green sale". "Healthy Forests" will NOT
> > >make our forests fireproof but, it WILL increase their chances of
> > >surviving the fire.
Tell us how this would work in say, the San Bernardino National
Forest, say, the hundreds of square miles all around Idyllwild,
where the timber is highly uneconomic to remove.
> > All it will increase is timber company profits.
In fact, in the above scenario, as in much of the SW, where fire
danger and fire danger to human values is highest, this
suggestion is null. They would lose money to log it, which is
largely why they are not. These people are freaking out, and
right wing anti-enviro "Wise Use" is happy as hell as the rightly
frightened locals flock to their meeting to hear about how it's
all the enviro's fault.
> That is so very childish, unoriginal and not completely untrue. What
> else do we do with millions of excess trees?
Burn them, wisely. But this too takes money.
> How many mega-tons of CO2 would be put
> into our air if we allowed 7 million acres to burn EVERY
Sniffle. No biggy. Luckily, that could not be sustained. Sorry
if you wanted a Magic Wand and a happy ending. Did you say
something about being childish, unreasonable and immature?
> How many more acres of Canada will be clearcut to feed our
> voracious appetite for wood and paper products? Now who's thinking
> globally and acting locally? If you've got the science, the money and
> the lawyers, we'll see ya in court. (BTW, our winning percentage is
> running pretty damn high right now <G> )
Laugh. You are a funny guy. I'm told irony is beyond
> > >All I've seen is "preservationis rhetoric" from the Democrats who
> > >didn't vote for "Healthy Forests". I would be interested in specifics
> > >on how they would deal with 12 million dead trees on the San
> > >Bernardino and a similar number on the Bitterroot. "Healthy Forests"
> > >has already "Daschle-ized" 20 million acres.
> > >
> > >Larry, restoring National Forests, one tree at a time
Well, I'm quite sure your appeals to comic book reality and
feelsgoodism is swallowed and tastes real fine to the free lunch
Republicans. As you pont out, at the moment, you are holding the
cards. The good news is, in this particular issue we are not
losing a good solution, for none exists. The forests, unlike the
people at Idyllwill you are going to burn down, can wait.
** "Fascism should more properly be called
** corporatism, since it is the merger of state
** and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
More information about the Ag-forst