I saw a massive post on this topic so I am reposting my response in an effort to prevent this information from being drowned out by the sheer volume of angry rants/posts.
CNN article
This is why I can't stand CNN, they constantly only report one side of the story.
heres a clue:
--------------------------------------
"Those forests are worrisome to farmers such as Woodall, who has enjoyed the rising price of sawtimber pinewood over the last 15 years. Prices now reach almost $40 a ton.
The restrictions doubled our prices, so if you went back it could cut our prices in half," he said. "A 50 percent cut in our paycheck could not be good"
--------------------------------------
They admit the man they are interviewing has a conflict of interest yet they play it off as something deeper more meaningfull when it's not. He claims to care about the forest, but if you look at the current state of our national forests (which isn't reported in this article) you might think otherwise. It doesn't take much brain power to realize that there might be more to the story than what is being reported.
I'm suprised no one has brought up the point that there is 23 million acres of federal land that is currently being described as a "vast, dry tinderbox" that is in major risk of a catastrophic fire. The government has two options. Either spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to cut down trees in 23 million acres of land and let them decompose naturally, or let the loggers in to cut them down for free. The advantage of the loggers is that they build dirt roads so that firefighters as well as people who want to enjoy the great outdoors, such as campers and bicycle riders, so that more people will be able to enjoy the great outdoors. Also, the risk of a catastrophic fire will be all but eliminated (from less trees and dirt road firebreaks), which means the forest will be safer for the trees and animals that live there.
The disadvantage, the forest isn't as prestine and untouched as extreme environmentalists want it to be.
interesting info:
================================================== =======
Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California joined 12 Republican senators in identified 23 million acres of federal land constituting what they described as a "vast, dry tinderbox" that could ignite at the careless drop of a match. California has 7 million of the 23 million acres scattered among the 50 states under federal control.
Feinstein stated "We have to move quickly otherwise we risk losing the majesty of the West."
Wilderness Designations do not allow the type of fire suppression proposed by the senators, which exposes the forests to the same type of catastrophic fires that have devastated not only the Forests in the Western U.S., but also the various species that call the forest home.
Many within the Forest Service and those involved in firefighting, in local cities, counties and the state, have voiced their objections to Boxer's wilderness bill because of the negative effect it would have on fire suppression and firefighting.
Tom Bohigian, Boxer's deputy state director keeps insisting that wilderness designations won't affect fire fighting.
But Jim Wright, deputy director of fire protection for the California Department of Forestry, said it's not that simple. He has seen wilderness fires grow because federal officials would not use a bulldozer to carve out a firebreak.
And while most federal agencies like the Forest Service are willing to negotiate on firefighting tactics - especially when fires threaten state-owned land - Wright has often agreed to tactics less aggressive than he would normally use.
"Once (a fire) is in a wilderness area, it's going to get bigger because of the prohibitions you have," Wright said. "You cannot . . . get right next to the fire line and work it directly with fire engines."
Bohigian's assurances have not persuaded the Regional Council of Rural Counties to drop its opposition to Boxer's plan. The council's 29 members represent half of the state's 58 counties. "I had a fire in my district, and when it went into (federal) wilderness areas, we had to just watch it go up the sides of the mountain," said council Chairwoman Linda Arcularius, who is also chairwoman of the Inyo County Board of Supervisors. "The engines couldn't go in, and a lot of their field crews couldn't go in."
Link 2 lots of Info:
http://www.warriorssociety.org/News/...ssAlert15.html
My opinion: I am a huge outdoorsman. I cave, mountain climb, camp, scuba dive, fish etc. I am all for having some untouched, mechanized free backcountry, Quetico Park and Boundary Waters is a perfect example. But if there is a risk of a raging wildfire, by all means let the loggers in. Plus I have been camping when a wildfire broke out, let me tell you, nothing looks better than a dirt road or a lake when you can see a forest fire on the horizon. In July 1994, a fire raced through a forest in Colorado at 52 miles per hour! Since American antelope is the world's fastest land animal over distance, and it can run at 35 miles per hour (17 mph less than the colorado fire), and only for four miles, I would think the antelope would be happy too.
Petition Link
http://www.petitiononline.com/NOonBOXR/petition.html