Kerry's forest ideas out of step with sound ecosystem management
dlemessurier at cox.net
Sat Jul 10 14:41:35 EST 2004
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:52:56 GMT, brutus at u.com (Fresno Farms) wrote:
> On 9 Jul 2004, Larry Harrell:
>> (Lloyd Parker)
>> > (Larry Harrell) wrote:
>> > >So, now you wish to impose your "preservationism" onto private
>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.
How the H... did forest restoration become a political issue in your
mind? Attacking the Healthy Forests act and the relevant rule changes
from a political point of view is assinine. Restoration either needs
to be done or it doesn't. The question is how do we fund it. It's not
"Don't do it because it's a Republican initiative". You're too angry
left. (And NO ONE should be proud of that!)
>> 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?
>> > > 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.
Burn them? BURN THEM? Now that's stupid if you are talking about
controlled burns. Think Los Alamos.
>> How many mega-tons of CO2 would be put
>> into our air if we allowed 7 million acres to burn EVERY
>> 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> )
>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.
Sorry, you are wrong. The scientists estimate that under current
conditions 50% of the forests in the West will burn in the next 25
years. So no, the forests can't wait.
More information about the Ag-forst