Posted on 12/27/2003 12:54:15 PM PST by Holly_P
Three ferocious wildfire seasons in a row have sparked an equally heated debate about who or what is to blame for the infernos. Although decades of short-sighted federal fire suppression policies undoubtedly set the stage for the conflagrations, it’s also become clear that, more recently, “analysis paralysis” inside federal land agencies and the obstructionist tactics of environmental advocacy groups conspired to prevent the nation from moving faster to address the approaching danger.
Although environmentalists and government officials vehemently denied the charges — arguing the real problem is allowing people to live too close to forests — recent evidence suggests such critiques aren’t far off the mark.
The city of San Bernardino, Calif., ground zero for fires that last fall claimed 22 lives and burned 800,000 acres, received federal funding in 1995 to use controlled burns to clear out the brush that served as a tinderbox. But as a recent Los Angeles Times article pointed out, “It took seven years for the Fish and Wildlife Service to conclude that the burns would not jeopardize rare animals and plants,” in the area. And its decision on the matter came only “a few months” before the wildfire erupted. “When the fire hit,“ the paper reported, “the city was preparing public hearings on the controlled burn” that might have lowered the risk and lessened the fire damage.
Even by government standards, seven years to get an approval to clear away brush and other fuels is a long time. According to the article, “Fish and Wildlife officials in the Carlsbad (Calif.) office acknowledge that they took too long to process the city’s permit, saying some former employees may have dragged their feet because they opposed controlled burns.” And another area newspaper reported that office personnel opposed the burns because they believed they might encourage development.
There you have it: a confirmation from the officials themselves of the charges leveled by critics. Clearly, the department took too long to process the permit, and the reason had something to do with employees with a bent against controlled burns, and possibly some other agenda.
One member of California’s congressional delegation has asked for an investigation of exactly why USFW took so long to conduct fire mitigation activities in the area. But we hope that any such probe is widened further, to take a broader look at the question of whether systematic resistance to responsible forest management practices, either by government insiders or outside advocacy groups, contributed to a forest health crises that is taking such a horrendous toll in terms of lives, taxpayers money and public resources that have gone up in smoke. The American people are owed such answers.
More of the same dam stupidity
With the 30th anniversary of the Endangered Species Act approaching — it’s Sunday — we thought we might highlight one more of many idiocies perpetuated in the name of this out-of-control law, which has proven far more of a danger to humans, their property rights and economic interests, than a benefit to threatened plants or animals.
Today we point readers toward the Missouri River, a mighty waterway vital to the economic well-being of many of our plains state neighbors, but whose usefulness is currently threatened by a federal agency’s finding that barge traffic and power plants operating along the river are less important than spawning sturgeons and nesting birds. The dams were constructed with billions of taxpayer’s dollars to control flooding and maintain predictable water flows year-round, in recognition of the river’s role as an economic artery for the region. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently ruled that dams operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are posing a threat to the spawning of the allegedly endangered pallid sturgeon, and two protected bird species that seasonally nest on sand bars.
As a result, USFW ordered the corps to lower river water levels to accommodate the birds and fish. If enforced, the lower river flows could halt barge traffic on the river in prime summer months and possibly affect the operations of power plants along the river, forcing them to lower electrical output even as summer demand is peaking. A spokesman for the Coalition to Protect the Missouri River said that could put “the final nail in the coffin of all navigation” on the river.
It isn’t the first time dam operations critical to the wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of Americans have been dictated by the ESA. As we’ve noted previously, a federal judge not long ago forced a northern New Mexico water district serving Albuquerque and other nearby communities to flush millions of gallons of precious drinking water down the Rio Grande in response to a lawsuit claiming an endangered minnow needed the water more than people did.
The court order has since been over-ridden by incensed members of Congress — even while the law that regularly results in such inverted priorities remains politically untouchable.
The economic impacts of lower river flows on the Missouri, while not yet fully quantified, could obviously be huge. Yet it’s far from certain the lower water flows will do much to help the sturgeon. A biological assessment conducted by the Corps maintains the species can be protected without lowering water levels, a position supported by wildlife agencies in some states directly impacted by the ruling.
Perhaps members of Congress from states most affected when the barges run aground and power plants have to power down will be spurred to override the agency’s ruling. But rather than dealing with such outrages piecemeal, wouldn’t it make more sense to reform or repeal the law that leads to such absurd inversions of priorities?
I got it, why not kill all the people so the forests can thrive?
ROFLMAO. The scary thing is, you are probably closer to the truth than most would imagine.
Since Bob replied to the last part, I'll respond to the first part of your fantabulous reply!!!
Don't even need to do that as we're now living in "THE GELDED AGE!" (just ask Hitlery who has promoted all these "Year of the Woman" deals in politics)
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
There is a better way.
This book proposes a free-market environmental management system designed to deliver a product that is superior to government oversight, at lower cost. It provides examples illustrating how the system might work and proposes an implementing legal strategy. Though environmental in origin, the principles this book describes are applicable toward privatizing nearly any form of government regulation.
This book examines where we are going and what to do about it from the perspective of an amateur ecologist developing habitat restoration processes as a hobby. By profession, the author is a medical device engineer, representing neither of the polar opposites of the environmental debate. The combination of multinational regulatory, industrial, and "hands-on" experience is sadly lacking in policy development all too often dominated by lawyers, activists, or other interest groups. The goal is to introduce a system design, capable of reversing the growing reach of regulatory government and motivating the human and ecological benefits through the responsible expression of individual liberty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.