RE: Politics, Fires and Trails

["Bob Morris" <bobmorris@rmci.net>]

Jerry:

Tantamount to these articles. Personal experience has shown much truth in
the matter.

We ride several times a week in lands managed by private parties, Boise
Cascade, the Idaho Department of Lands and the US Forest Service. Our choice
is the Boise Cascade lands where pre-commercial thinning is rigorously
practiced. These lands are quite park like with green grass growing under
the trees. Tree spacing about 25 to 30 feet and absolutely no ladder fuel.
The State lands are not quite as nice but still rather open and nice to ride
through. These lands are managed for the endowment of the state education
system. The USFS lands can only be used where there is a trail or road. The
dog hair condition is such that the elk and deer can hardly penetrate. The
fire potential is extreme.

So, where does recreation take place? On the state and Boise Cascade land!
And who do the environmentalist castigate? The State and Boise Cascade for
ruining the environment. If only the city dwellers could get out and see the
difference. If they could only experience it first hand. The managed forest
provides shelter and food for the wildlife, the unmanaged USFS land supports
chipmunks and squirrels at the most. It is disheartening to say the least
and even more so to the old FS people where "from the land".

Bob


-----Original Message-----
From: hikryrdg [mailto:hikryrdg@evansville.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 7:56 PM
To: Ridecamp
Subject: RC: Politics, Fires and Trails





>>
>>Fire or chain saw cleanups inevitable
>>Source: The Spokesman Review
>>Publication date: 2000-08-17
>>
>>Late-summer fires and smoke were a part of our
>>region's ecosystem long before white settlers arrived
>>and started plowing the grasslands and chopping down
>>the forests to build their cities.
>>Modern nature lovers who gripe about smoke as if a
>>pristine world would spare them from breathing the
>>stuff need perspective - and need to be careful what
>>they ask for. By demanding freedom from smoke, they
>>might make smoke more likely.
>>
>>Fire is nature's way to clear underbrush, insects and
>>disease from forests - and, by the way, from
>>grasslands as well.
>>
>>The fires that now rage across the Inland Northwest's
>>national forests are, primarily, the result of an
>>unusually dry summer. In that respect, they are
>>similar to fires that cleared and renewed our region's
>>forests for thousands of years. It ought to be noted
>>that some of this summer's fires are in wilderness
>>areas where logging has never been allowed. Surely, we
>>all recall the 1994 fires that swept through
>>Yellowstone National Park, likewise shielded from
>>logging.
>>
>>But it also is a fact - documented by forestry
>>research following the 1994 fire season - that the
>>past century's forest management practices have made
>>modern conflagrations worse.
>>
>>After logging operations, some forests have been
>>densely replanted with species that aren't as
>>resistant to healthy, brush-clearing fires as were the
>>native trees such as white pine.
>>
>>Protests rooted in ideology, not forestry, have
>>attacked attempts to spray tree-killing insects or log
>>trees that are infested, diseased and dying.
>>
>>When forest fire crews extinguish a blaze, they plant
>>the seeds for larger conflagrations. A century of fire
>>suppression has left national forests filled with
>
>>brush, dead branches, small trees - tinder for
>>firestorms of unnatural intensity.
>>
>>As a result, foresters now favor prescribed burns to
>>prevent disaster. And yet, when fires do occur, what
>>happens? Out come the fire crews. This is
>>understandable, given the desire to protect cities,
>>homes, timber and Bambi. But the contradiction speaks
>>for itself.
>>
>>Foresters face a difficult choice: Let fire cleanse
>>and renew the forests while rural homes burn and skies
>>fill with smoke. Or, suppress fires and clear forests
>>with chain saws, instead.
>>
>>Loud voices oppose either choice. On federal forests,
>>where management policy is subject to political
>>interference, this leads to the worst of all worlds:
>>Fires are suppressed, insects and disease run rampant,
>>and thinning operations are opposed. The result?
>>Firestorms - worse than the wildfires that are
>>nature's norm.
>>
>>After the 1994 fires, researchers warned that national
>>forests are a tinderbox. Already, some compare this
>>fire season to 1910, when massive fires swept across
>>Idaho and Montana. But forest conditions in 1910 had
>>not been altered by a century in which managers erred
>>and politics made the errors worse. Pray for rain.
>>And, for common sense.
>>
>>Publication date: 2000-08-17
>>
>>
>>
>>Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
>>Subject: Environmental Politics Have Been a Disaster for Our National
>>Forests; Guest Editorial 8/21 Salt Lake Tribune
>>
>>Environmental Politics Have Been a Disaster for Our
>>National Forests
>> Monday, August 21, 2000
>>
>>
>>BY ANNE M. HAYES
>>
>>
>>    Back on March 15, President Clinton traveled to
>>California's Sequoia National Forest to declare
>>328,000 acres as a national monument and cast himself
>>as the "savior" of these noble forests.
>>    But the truth about the state of our national
>>forests is another story, and unfortunately it is
>>being told in a very graphic and destructive fashion
>>as the latest summer heat wave is sending major
>>wildfires in 10 Western states out of control.
>>    The Sequoia National Forest, for example, was
>>never in jeopardy -- until now. In all of 1997, the
>>last year for which the Forest Service has tallied its
>>records, timber was cut on only a total of 1300 acres
>>in the entire forest. But already this summer, over
>>63,000 acres of the Sequoia National Forest have gone
>>up in smoke. In fact, the government's poor record of
>>federal land management in the name of "saving" these
>>forests from the chain saw may ultimately be
>>responsible for destroying all of them.
>>    Years of federal mismanagement to appease
>>environmental interests -- mainly,
>>   refusing to cut or clear any trees at all -- have
>>left the national forests in a state where overcrowded
>>and dead and dying trees have created a disastrous and
>>precarious situation. Trees and debris have created
>>fuel ladders that threaten even healthy trees; that
>>is, an older, healthy forest can withstand and survive
>>a fire if the fire merely clears low-lying brush and
>>grasses but leaves the crowns of larger trees intact.
>>    But the same is not true when dead and dying trees
>>are not cleared. Fires that would normally stay close
>
>>to the ground can "climb" up these trees and reach the
>>crowns of healthy trees, consuming them. Second, fires
>>that burn too hot can leave land barren by destroying
>>the organic materials necessary for forest
>>regeneration. Finally, when the fuel load is too high,
>>fires are hard or impossible to control -- just ask
>>the land managers in Los Alamos, New Mexico.
>>    These fires don't just "burn out." They rage so
>>hot and so large that they can "leap" across vast
>>expanses of land and burn whole landscapes.
>>    For all the direct costs of such fires -- lost
>>forests, evacuated communities, lost houses -- there
>>is a tremendous cost on our environment. Burning trees
>>release tremendous amounts of toxins and particulate
>>matter into the air, and the smoke and ash can travel
>>for many miles, affecting the air quality of
>>communities hundreds of miles away.
>>    The fires destroy habitat for wildlife, including
>>the habitats of threatened and endangered species such
>>as spotted owls and salmon. Forest fires can create
>>unstable soil conditions, leading to mudslides and
>>other sediment runoff that affect our streams and
>>rivers, and, ultimately, the coast. In other words:
>>unhealthy forests are bad environmental policy. And
>>the Western States are suffering the brunt of this
>>damage.
>>    The Western states contain 70 percent of this
>>nation's national forests. Just last year, 735,000
>>acres of California forest land went up in smoke. And
>>the numbers are mounting again this year. So what has
>>this administration done about this pressing
>>environmental problem? Worse than nothing. It has
>>implemented a "hands off" policy.
>>    According to the General Accounting Office, some
>>39 million acres in the Western states have been at
>>risk of catastrophic wildfire. And despite the fact
>>that the Forest Service has been aware of this problem
>>for years, the GAO concluded: "To date, we have not
>>seen the strong leadership or the marshalling of funds
>>and resources within the agency that would indicate to
>>us that the Forest Service feels a sense of urgency
>>and assigns a high priority to reducing the threat of
>>catastrophic wildfire."
>>    In short, the topic is not getting serious
>>attention because restoring forest health -- through
>>selective thinning and other active management
>>techniques -- does not conform to the environmental
>>extremist agenda of "preserving" every single tree.
>>    Make no mistake -- the effects of these policies
>>on our forests will last for decades.
>>    Land and lives will continue to be damaged unless
>>the federal government starts to manage our national
>>forests based on science and sense, not sound bites
>>and photo-ops. True conservation and environmental
>>politics are two different things. We cannot afford to
>>confuse them any longer, or our real environment --
>>the one real people actually live in -- will pay the
>>price.
>>    _________
>>
>>   Anne M. Hayes is an attorney with the Pacific Legal
>>Foundation, a public interest law firm with
>>headquarters in Sacramento, Calif. She can be reached
>>at amh@pacificlegal.org Website:
<http://www.pacificlegal.org/>www.pacificlegal.org
>
>>
>>
>>
>>



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=