National Forest - Bush road building misinformation?

[wacki]

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

[cardcounter0]

Yes. Yes. A vast, dry tinderbox. We got ya.

Fire. Raging infernos. We must let private interests immediately start chopping down trees on public lands. Terrorist right now could be plotting to set huge forest fires. Stop the terrorists. Cut down the forests before they burn. Fire! Fire! Run and hide. Only Private Lumber Concerns can save you now.

A vote for keeping private interests from using public lands is a vote for commie liberal-leaning terrorists!

[cardcounter0]

"Either spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to cut down trees in 23 million acres of land ..."

So it is going to cost over $4 million per acre? Not even Halliburton could do it that expensively.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. Yes. A vast, dry tinderbox. We got ya.

Fire. Raging infernos. We must let private interests immediately start chopping down trees on public lands. Terrorist right now could be plotting to set huge forest fires. Stop the terrorists. Cut down the forests before they burn. Fire! Fire! Run and hide. Only Private Lumber Concerns can save you now.

A vote for keeping private interests from using public lands is a vote for commie liberal-leaning terrorists!

[/ QUOTE ]

If this information is wrong, provide some links saying the fire hazard is overstated. If there is no fire hazard, then I say don't let the loggers in. If there is, then let the loggers in. That's all I'm saying. I don't think loggers should be let into Quetico Park or Boundary Waters. Ever! That area is always soaking wet. No motors at all are allowed, and in my opinion that is a good thing for that specific area. Fire is not a problem, and people can still enjoy the back country via canoes. The west is a completely different story.

If you disagree, please provide a logical arguement with links/information instead of mocking me without providing any proof.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
"Either spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to cut down trees in 23 million acres of land ..."

So it is going to cost over $4 million per acre? Not even Halliburton could do it that expensively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your math is off by a few million per acre.

$10 per acre x 23 million acres = $230 million.

$4 million per acre x 23 million acres = $92,000,000,000,000
or 92 trillion. So your right not even Halliburton could do it that expensively.


If you could thin out an acre of land for $10, in the back country without aid of roads none the less, you would be the man!

[cardcounter0]

By definition: a wilderness area is wilderness.

What is there in the wilderness out west to burn, but the wilderness? What would one be saving from burning in the wilderness? The wilderness? So let's build roads and chop down the wilderness to save it from burning?

Father to child: "Yes, on this vast plain used to be a huge forest wilderness, but we chopped it all down so it wouldn't burn and be destroyed."

Fire is nature's way of 'saving' the wilderness. I drove thru Yellowstone National Park when the whole thing was on fire. The park rangers stopped all traffic at one point, wouldn't let cars thru for several hours, and then with instructions of keep driving, don't stop. Park is still there, wilderness has recovered, better than ever.

Let it burn. The forests have been around for a lot longer than lumber compaines. I wondered how they survived before?

[cardcounter0]

No need to clear out anything. So who do you work for in Bloomington that is so intent on chopping down the western forest? Or is it a mining interest just waiting to strip mine some public land? Drill for oil in Yosemite? Mine copper in Colorado National Forest? Or just make money grazing cattle?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
By definition: a wilderness area is wilderness.

What is there in the wilderness out west to burn, but the wilderness? What would one be saving from burning in the wilderness? The wilderness? So let's build roads and chop down the wilderness to save it from burning?

Father to child: "Yes, on this vast plain used to be a huge forest wilderness, but we chopped it all down so it wouldn't burn and be destroyed."

Fire is nature's way of 'saving' the wilderness. I drove thru Yellowstone National Park when the whole thing was on fire. The park rangers stopped all traffic at one point, wouldn't let cars thru for several hours, and then with instructions of keep driving, don't stop. Park is still there, wilderness has recovered, better than ever.

Let it burn. The forests have been around for a lot longer than lumber compaines. I wondered how they survived before?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a bit more complex than that. Redwood trees and other evergreen trees actually require fires to survive. Some species have pine cones are actually fire activated. They open and release the seeds after being exposed to fire. Other trees have fire resistant bark. Not all species of plants, are like that. Some species of plants, trees, and animals actually respond very poorly to fire. I will admit that this is the first valid arguement that has been posted. I just don't agree with it in every area, and neither do the vast majority of wilderness firefighters, national rangers, fellow scientists, that are very liberal I might add, that I work with, etc.

[cardcounter0]

One 2000lb Daisycutter per acre should do the trick.

SO what vested interest do you work for again?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
No need to clear out anything. So who do you work for in Bloomington that is so intent on chopping down the western forest? Or is it a mining interest just waiting to strip mine some public land? Drill for oil in Yosemite? Mine copper in Colorado National Forest? Or just make money grazing cattle?

[/ QUOTE ]

That location is old. I am currently in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, and my location changes frequently, and will continue to do so for the next couple of years. Who I work for is irrelevant. But if you must ask, I am a computational biologist (Bioinformatician) currently doing research for an academic institution. That is all you need to know.

Look, I'm not saying let the loggers in. All I'm saying is if there is a fire hazard, and the environmental scientists that know the forests the best say the forest needs to be thinned out a little, then why not let the loggers in instead of making me, and you, pay for it via tax dollars? If the scientists, DNR, wilderness firefighers, or the park rangers say it doesn't need to be thinned, then don't let them in.

There is no consipracy, its a simple question. If there is a fire hazard, and the forest needs to be thinned, why not let the loggers in to do it for free instead of wasting taxpayer money.