Posted on 01/01/2002 2:36:39 PM PST by brityank
Agriculture chief upholds management plan
for 11.5 million acres of Sierra
By JIM WASSERMAN Associated Press Writer 12.27.01SACRAMENTO (AP) - The Bush administration announced support Thursday for a Clinton-era management plan that giving a new environmental tilt to managing 11.5 million acres of national forest in the Sierra Nevada.
U.S. Agriculture Under Secretary Mark Rey, who oversees the U.S. Forest Service, upheld earlier agency decisions that rejected appeals by loggers, ski resorts and off-road groups hoping to kill the plan.
"The plan is a final agency decision which is now being implemented," Rey said.
The management plan, formally called the Sierra Nevada Framework, shifts the Forest Service's emphasis from logging old-growth forests to protecting them on 4 million acres. It also bans logging on most trees larger than 20 inches, while limiting logging in a 460-mile stretch of California and Nevada to levels one-tenth those reached during the Reagan administration in the 1980s.
California Forestry Association President David Bischel called Rey's ruling the "worst decision they could have made" and one that will "add to the risk of catastrophic wildfire."
His and other opposition groups may take their cases to court. More work remains on the plan, Rey said, and he asked supporters and opponents to delay legal action until they see the results.
Forest service officials, after nine years crafting a management vision that began aiming to protect the endangered spotted owl, are now working on revisions to better prevent destructive wildfires. Pacific Southwest Regional Forester Jack Blackwell will announce a so-called "action plan" early next week, officials said.
Environmentalists fear those might be a backdoor way to accomplish more logging in the nation's longest unbroken mountain range.
Rey, a former timber industry lobbyist, declined to offer details on the action plan, saying it will be announced soon.
But environmental spokesmen had nothing but praise for Rey's decision not to throw out the Sierra Nevada Framework.
"Today the sun is shining on California's Range of Light," said Jay Watson, regional director of the Wilderness Society.
Craig Thomas, spokesman for the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign, agreed, saying, "I think California is leading the way in terms of this agency bringing its credibility back."
Bob Roberts, director of California Snow, a group of Sierra Nevada ski resorts, said Rey should have scrapped the plan.
Ski resorts won't be able to add new lifts if they can't remove trees larger than 20 inches in diameter, Roberts said, which makes him "feel recreations has been a casualty of the process."
© 2002 SierraTimes.com
Now tell me how in holy tarnation is any 3rd party candidate doing to make any headway with the CFR running the show? And, in the absence of any meaningful 3rd party candidate making any headway whatsoever, is there another solution to this deplorable situation?
(Ronald Reagan)
Happy New Year, Snow Bunny, and thanks for all you do.
If the enviro-freaks are for it, I'm against it!
PERIOD!
Does that make you an expert?
The forest dept. has mismanaged. The biggest mistake was stopping fires and not letting the fuel burn off. And who's fault is that?
You are mouthing a popular story. It is also false. Fire suppression in California has been going on for at least 60 years. The depression put loggers out of business and Roosevelt was trying to preserve forests. People were burning them to get salvage jobs. Sound familiar?
The real fault is a political management system in general. What was the purpose of nationalizing the forests in the first place (1880)? Why? It pleased commercial Eastern timber interests! It was sold as an environmental program. Why are we STILL managing forests by political caprice? Now the popular whim is to PRESERVE the forest, until it flames into nothingness. Burning it to a crisp with this fuel load is just as bad.
How will we pay to fix it? Who is equipped to do the work?Isn't it just a touch too complex to manage by central planning, much less politics?
With all the homes in the Sierra they have to stop the fires to save the homes.
This is only partly bogus. There has been fire suppression where there are no homes. Fire risk is just as bad in the urban Bay Area as it is up there. Homes are at risk in either case. Why are the houses in mountainous timberland? Did suppression of a viable timber industry reduce the purchase price of the land? Did the incessant promotion of the importance and value of forest recreation by the environmental movement play a part? You betcha.
Why don't homeowners manage their fuels? Controlled burning is being suppressed. Who wants that? The environmental advocates of Clean Air want fire suppression, even where there is no air pollution problem. Some also want to burn the homes! It is good for urban real estate prices. Bankers love that. So do construction companies, multinational timber interests, real estate manipulators, bureaucrats, unions...
There is so much fuel from all the years to Smokey the Bear that the situation is bad. Giving the lumber industry all they want would be a disaster.
Listen up chump. The BIG timber industry doesn't want the National Forests logged and WANTS them to burn. They don't want the competition. It's the small mills that are hurting the most and the big guys want those out of business. Sure enough...
The sierra is the life of California. The bay area gets power from the Sierra, LA gets water, the central valley gets power and water. Lumber and "recreation" are secondary issues.
Another greedy power freak, eh? You just want to control it all to please you, just like everybody else. You just don't want to pay for the service. That's why people want the government to do it.
I agree with thinning, but clear cuts are a major mistake.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends upon the nature of the habitat and the reentry time. I would clearcut an historic meadow in a heartbeat, but that wouldn't be the end of it. The system is really hurting for meadows, but meadow-restoration jobs are a lot of work. Shows what you know.
If any one party gets all they want I would think there is a problem. I agree with the line that if neither side is happy that it must be a good compromise.
You have no business knocking CDF. They have more than their share of bozos, but they have some very good people too who really want nothing more than to a good job of caring for forests. One would think that some of them had a reason to dedicate their lives to forestry. They don't get the freedom to do it, in part because of "experts," like you.
Ditto, Bro!
They banned the first one in most states because then all the people would realize just what a politician is.
This homeowner just spent a four day weekend doing exactly that. - We had to wait 5 months to do it because the forest manager got all burning cancelled at the worst possible time, leaving massive amounts of unburned fuel waiting like cans of gasoline in inhabited areas of the forest.
It's really amazing that we didn't have more fires than we did this past year. - Well-meaning actions by by people given unwarranted power can have disastrous results.
Your view may be overly bleak. - Those WW I era lumber mills needed updating anyway, and the hands have not disappeared, they have just lowered their standard of living; they have no choice. - Re-education, and relocation are out of reach for many.
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.