Posted on 01/27/2002 6:47:42 PM PST by brityank
Health & Science: Environmentalists, Forest Service debate Sierra Nevada logging plan
Copyright © 2002 AP Online
By SCOTT SONNER, Associated Press
RENO, Nev. (January 27, 2002 8:25 a.m. EST) - The federal government and environmentalists engaged in a bitter dispute over the answer to a thorny question: Are burned trees no longer alive?
The debate has resurfaced as the Forest Service tries to log fire-killed trees in the Sierra Nevada and elsewhere in the West as part of an effort to reduce fire threats.
Environmentalists have successfully appealed to suspend logging in some cases, arguing that many trees are merely scorched and the logging plan is just a ploy to turn timber into profit.
The dispute is part of a larger debate that has raged for years over whether logging helps or hurts a forest after wildfires or insect infestations. Scientists have argued before Congress on both sides.
In the Sierra Nevada, opponents say the Forest Service is exaggerating fire damage estimates in the forests along the Pacific Crest Trail to dodge environmental restrictions so it can harvest more so-called dead and dying trees - some older than 200 years and bigger than 3 feet in diameter.
"This is very high quality old-growth forest, nesting habitat for the California spotted owl, and they are talking about virtually clearcutting it under the guise of salvaging fire-scorched trees," said Chad Hanson, director of the John Muir Project, a nonprofit environmental group.
Hanson and others challenging the logging say the fire that burned two summers ago through the rugged mountains of the Plumas and Lassen national forests caused far less damage than the Forest Service claims.
"Most of these trees are not dead," Hanson said. "Many are not even visibly burned."
Forest Service officials have heard the charges before. They are confident that the forest will benefit if some of the trees are cut, providing enough lumber to build 7,000 typical three-bedroom homes.
"It is restoration work. There is no guise to it," said Ed Cole, supervisor of the Lassen National Forest. The salvage project calls for commercial loggers to remove the wood and compensate the government.
Part of the disagreement centers on the difficulty of determining when a tree is dead.
"You can have a green tree standing out there that is a dead tree," Cole said.
The Forest Service expects most of the disputed salvage operation to eventually resume. They say the appeal was granted to gather more information on the affect on the California spotted owl, not because of violations of federal forest protection measures.
Environmentalists argue that if the Forest Service was true to its claim that the health of the forest is the priority, it should wait a few years to see if the scorched trees die.
"What's the rush?" Hanson asked.
But agency officials and leaders of the timber industry counter that the wood will rot, lose its market value and add to the buildup of fuels that stoke future fires.
"If you don't remove it this way, sooner or later it will be removed at taxpayer expense. We'll have to pay hard money to haul the stuff, pile it and burn it."
An increasing percentage of the Forest Service's timber operation has been in salvage operations the past decade, while the logging of green trees has declined dramatically, from about 12 billion board feet nationally in 1990 to about 2 billion board feet last year.
Earlier this month, a federal judge barred the Forest Service from logging 46,000 acroes of burned timber in Montana's Bitterroot National Forest. The judge said the agency had violated its own rules in approving the plan.
Hanson maintains salvage logging actually increases fire risks by removing large trees that provide shade and store water. "The Forest Service is trying to get the vast majority of its logging projects out everywhere through post-fire salvage sales," he said.
Phil Aune, a vice president of the California Forestry Association who worked 35 years for the Forest Service, accused Hanson and others of abusing the appeal process to delay salvage projects.
"The tactic is the same with every major wildfire across the Western United States - delay long enough so the economic value goes away," said Aune.
"The tactic is the same with every major wildfire across the Western United States - delay long enough so the economic value goes away," said Aune.
The tactic is the same across the whole country; delay and obfuscate and bleed them dry -- using taxpayer funds to promulgate their watermelon agenda.
Are they coming out of the closet?
Heaven forbid that someone should turn a profit!
The mortality standards at the 2000 Storrie fire were written in November by Sheri Smith, the Forest Service's supervising entomologist for northeastern California.Smith said she began research 13 years ago out of concern that the agency's 4-decades-old standards - primarily 50 percent crown scorching - meant too many live trees were being given up for dead.
"I have the same concerns that Mr. Hanson has - I don't want to see trees cut that aren't going to die. But what I want to do is provide the best scientific data for basing decisions," Smith said.
"I'm the one who is going to get called into court for the deposition and I'm going to be the one the judge asks what kind of data we have."
The 65 percent standard is based on more recent research with pine trees dating to 1994, including some in the Lake Tahoe region, she said.
"I take it very personally when people say the guidelines are not based on science. My No. 1 concern is forest health protection. I don't get paid any more or less at the end of the day if they cut more trees or less trees," she said.
The watermelons won't be happy until the FS raises the level to 99%; and they'll still bitch over the one!
What kind of nonsense is that? - Every tree is going to die! - Most of the trees in the Sierra die before they are 200 years old; many due to beetle infestations that occur when the canopy becomes too dense, keeping the sun from hardening the bark.
The losers: The forrests, the economy, the tax base, the citizens.
The winners: communists engineering the destruction of America.
That pretty much sums up all their tactics. Destroy the economic value, first. Then take over.
What? This isn't a thread about Sierra Nevada Brewery? Sorry....
While many patriotic Americans (and anti-communists worldwide) are aware, President Ronald Reagan was pivotal in proving that the economics of communism do not (and can not) work, ever anywhere, they are not so much aware that the communists fled to enviromentalism and animal rights as cover for their movement. Economic class warfare no longer worked for them, so they just change clothes, THEY DID NOT DIE OUT OR GIVE UP. Watermelons are what they are, green on the outside, RED ON THE INSIDE.
No kidding. And drag out the process until the total cost becomes astronomical.
In late '97, a weather anomaly (it is believed the jet stream touched down) flattened four million trees in the Routt National Forest. Some suggested that without quick action, bark beetles would infest the blowdown and then move on to nearby standing timber. The usual suspects conspired to slow the process. The beautiful people of Steamboat Springs screamed bloody murder that they didn't want logging trucks driving trough their town.
There is now a fair chance that the beetles will defoliate the trees at the ski resort. Of course, they'll also leave thousands of acres of standing deadwood in their path. The next thunderstorm will take care of that.
I sometimes wonder if any of these people have ever actually been out of their apartments, let alone spent any time in the woods.
Sounds like a subset of "people before profits." Another fraudulent left-wing construct.
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.