Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Our Burning Forests Are The Legacy Of Radical Environmentalism
TooGood Reports ^ | June 26, 2002 | Mary Mostert

Posted on 06/26/2002 7:33:52 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen

It´s only June, the hot, dry months of summer are ahead, and according to the Washington Post, "there are six major fires in Colorado. Fires are also burning out of control in California, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona, where a large and dangerous fire in the tinder-dry forests of the eastern part of the state raced through a hastily abandoned town today, chasing firefighters off the line and prompting an evacuation warning for thousands of residents."

MSNBC reported "About 393,000 acres have been consumed in eastern Arizona by two fires — the Chedesky fire and the larger Rodeo fire — which joined late Sunday into one massive blaze. The area consumed is greater in size than the city of Los Angeles and more than 16 times the size of Manhattan."

That is the largest fire in history, we are told, and it has happened about 30 years after a few city-bred college graduate students sounded a false alarm about the Northern Spotted Owl being "threatened" by timber harvest in the forests of Northern California.

In the intervening years we have had a huge amount of money spent by radical environmentalists such as the Sierra Club to, in their words, convince the American people that "we need to protect, not log, our national forests."

This notion that logging destroys national forests is based on a very simplistic notion – that left alone, forests will continue to grow until they are hundreds of years old. Actually, in the dry Western states, the forests are mostly conifers that grow where there is low rainfall. Most of the pine trees have a life span of about 100 years.

It was just about 100 years ago that America began to try to protect the national forests by quickly putting out any fire. About thirty years ago, the environmentalists began their determined, and largely successful effort to halt logging in our forests.

So, what has happened in those largely conifer Western forests in the meantime? They have been largely overrun by brush that creates the kind of mammoth fires we are now witnessing in the West. Fire is nature´s way of keeping conifer forests healthy, as even the Sierra Club is now belatedly beginning to comprehend. Without the small regular fires that we have been putting out in our forests for the last 100 years what we now have are forests overrun by brush that not only strangles the conifers but also changes the ecology of the conifer forests.

Instead of allowing nature to take its course in the conifer forests, 93 years into the forest policy of preserving the underbrush in our forests, a new policy was introduced that halted logging and removing dead and dying or over crowded trees and underbrush in the forests. During the eight years of the Clinton Administration, the forest-destruction policies sharply accelerated, with Vice President Al Gore as its chief proponent. In his book, Earth in Balance, published in 1993 he wrote, of "the heated dispute between the timber industry in the Pacific Northwest and conservationists eager to protect the endangered spotted owl." (Page 194)

Actually, the spotted owl was never endangered. The spotted owl boondoggle was the result of an owl counting venture in 1972 when Eric Forsman, a city-bred graduate student at the Cooperative Wildlife Research United at Oregon State university, reported, after only a year of study, that Spotted Owl pairs were found only in areas of old growth forests slated for timber harvest.

Yet, Spotted Owls in California have been found nesting in a K-Mart sign and they increased in the El Dorado National Forest in the early 1990s after a severe fire that burned a huge segment of the forest. Gore has a major role, he tells us, in implementing "Save the Spotted Owl" regulations that reduced or stopped logging in National Forests.

However, a widely ignored July 23, 1990, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report warned:

"Past fire protection practices in the forests have caused abnormal fuels conditions to develop" and noted that the practice of "protecting snags, dead but standing trees which are favorite nesting spots for the Spotted Owl are obstacles to fire suppression" and that "current practices are creating forest conditions that most likely will lead to large, high severity fires."
In 1997 I attended a Congressional hearing held in California on the issue of management of the 10 million acres of National Forests in the Sierras where the supervisor of a one of the California forests stated, "It is not IF the forests will burn, it is only a matter of WHEN they will burn, because of the huge amount of fuel we have allowed to grow in them."

In 1995 as Editor of the Michael Reagan Monthly Monitor, I interviewed Keith Butts, who grew up in the Oregon woods where his father was a logger and then spent 40 years in the U.S. Forest Service as a ranger. He said he was involved in four different theories of forest management in those 40 years.

In the 1950s, U.S. Forest management regulations required taking down any tree that would not live another 20 years. In the 1960s, regulations changed and entire blocks of trees were removed if 50% of them would not live another 20 years. Marketable trees in a block would be taken down, and the remaining saplings would be left to grow.

In the 1970s, Butts said, "Forest Service management decided to start clear-cutting." The Sierra Club and other environmentalists blame clear-cutting on the logging industry. However, according to Butts, the clear-cutting regulations imposed by the Forest Service were vehemently OPPOSED by the logging industry!

"In the 1980s, supervisors began ordering roads closed to keep the public out of the woods." Butts said. "In the 1950s, the forests were managed for the benefit of the taxpayers and actually financially sustained themselves. (Today everything in the woods can be used. Nothing needs to be burned. Portable chippers can be brought in to chip up the slash (branches and underbrush) for wafer board that is used for building. Keeping the underbrush under control would prevent the worst damage of wildfires and fire storms that destroy millions of trees, millions of dollars worth of property and sometimes kill firefighters.

"We are now either burning on purpose or letting wildfires consume millions of acres of trees, yet the Black Forest in Germany has been preserved for hundreds of years by good management that picks up every fallen branch to prevent fires."

Sadly, the voices of those who actually knew the forests were in danger never had the dominant media tell its side of the story, so we are left with city-bred environmentalists like Al Gore keeping loggers and portable chippers out of the forests, while the underbrush continued to grow.

The natural result is the Colorado Monster Fire, which has already consumed nearly 400,000 acres and, at this writing, has driven 25,000 people from their homes is the legacy of Clinton-Gore environmentalism which flatly refused to allow the logging and lumber industry to use the trees.

They chose to allow millions of trees in our forests to be burned up rather than thinned out and used to build homes or manufacture paper.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: enviralists; esa; forestfires; gop; green; landgrab; publiclands; reuters; ruralcleansing; usfs; wildfires
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

1 posted on 06/26/2002 7:33:52 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
The natural result is the Colorado Monster Fire, which has already consumed nearly 400,000 acres and, at this writing, has driven 25,000 people from their homes is the legacy of Clinton-Gore environmentalism which flatly refused to allow the logging and lumber industry to use the trees

Yeah ok, that makes sense. Cut down every forest in the US so there aren't any fires. Yup.

2 posted on 06/26/2002 7:47:42 AM PDT by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen; *landgrab; *Green; *Enviralists; farmfriend; marsh2; dixiechick2000; ...
In 1995 as Editor of the Michael Reagan Monthly Monitor, I interviewed Keith Butts, who grew up in the Oregon woods where his father was a logger and then spent 40 years in the U.S. Forest Service as a ranger. He said he was involved in four different theories of forest management in those 40 years.

In the 1950s, U.S. Forest management regulations required taking down any tree that would not live another 20 years. In the 1960s, regulations changed and entire blocks of trees were removed if 50% of them would not live another 20 years. Marketable trees in a block would be taken down, and the remaining saplings would be left to grow.

In the 1970s, Butts said, "Forest Service management decided to start clear-cutting." The Sierra Club and other environmentalists blame clear-cutting on the logging industry. However, according to Butts, the clear-cutting regulations imposed by the Forest Service were vehemently OPPOSED by the logging industry!

"In the 1980s, supervisors began ordering roads closed to keep the public out of the woods." Butts said. "In the 1950s, the forests were managed for the benefit of the taxpayers and actually financially sustained themselves. (Today everything in the woods can be used. Nothing needs to be burned. Portable chippers can be brought in to chip up the slash (branches and underbrush) for wafer board that is used for building. Keeping the underbrush under control would prevent the worst damage of wildfires and fire storms that destroy millions of trees, millions of dollars worth of property and sometimes kill firefighters.

"We are now either burning on purpose or letting wildfires consume millions of acres of trees, yet the Black Forest in Germany has been preserved for hundreds of years by good management that picks up every fallen branch to prevent fires."

Sadly, the voices of those who actually knew the forests were in danger never had the dominant media tell its side of the story, so we are left with city-bred environmentalists like Al Gore keeping loggers and portable chippers out of the forests, while the underbrush continued to grow.

Some good info passed on here; anyone have any info on the Black Forest practices?

3 posted on 06/26/2002 7:58:07 AM PDT by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Yesterday, Bush said the Forest Service was going to have to start managing the forests again to prevent forest fires. Whether Bush is going to follow up on this or get mau-maued by the liberals as he wont, remains to be seen. I'd bet that there will be no follow up by Bush.
4 posted on 06/26/2002 8:01:19 AM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
Not clear on your comment, are you saying we should NOT allow thinning and clearing?
If so, you don't live out here, do you?
5 posted on 06/26/2002 8:02:31 AM PDT by Still Using Air
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Cut down every forest in the US so there aren't any fires. Yup.

That's not what this article is saying!

I come from a 'logging' town, that is all but shut down because of the environmentalists.... Even as I saw familes having to move elsewhere because there were no jobs either in logging, or the saw mill or pulp mill... even as I watched local business' go under when there were no loggers left to buy their goods, I thought, "Well, we can't keep raping the land..."

But, this article makes perfect sense. I remember in the 60's my dad talking about having to leave the saplings, about clearing the underbrush. That makes sense and money all the way around.

I don't agree with clear cutting, though.

6 posted on 06/26/2002 8:08:05 AM PDT by Minutes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Good post, thanks.
7 posted on 06/26/2002 8:08:41 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
You must have gone to a "Government School" 'cause you can't read....or comprehend.
8 posted on 06/26/2002 8:08:42 AM PDT by SpeakLittle_ThinkMuch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
*ping*
9 posted on 06/26/2002 8:09:31 AM PDT by EggsAckley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Related musing: Has anyone suggested that wild fires are terrorist acts-
10 posted on 06/26/2002 8:09:57 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
"Cut down every forest in the US so there aren't any fires. Yup."

Is that really the gist of what you derived from that article?!

SHEEEESH...MUD

11 posted on 06/26/2002 8:12:02 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Minutes
Nobody believes in clear-cutting, not even the timber companies. When forests are creatively thinned, there will be trees growing back, creating an endless source of lumber.
12 posted on 06/26/2002 8:13:40 AM PDT by EggsAckley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
"Yeah ok, that makes sense. Cut down every forest in the US so there aren't any fires. Yup."

We're not saying there shouldn't be fires; we're only saying relegate the fires to barbecue pits.



13 posted on 06/26/2002 8:14:01 AM PDT by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
I agree with this article... now is the time during this forest-fire media frenzy to lay total blame at the feet of the Sierra Club. The ash of lost homes should be on the hands of the radical "Earth-First" nutballs who try to control commercial development, prevent logging companies from making a living, and place the importance of beasts over mankind. The Sierra Club should be blamed for these disasters as an institution... instead of blaming any individual who might have actually lit the fire. The ideaology of the Sierra Club started these fires!
14 posted on 06/26/2002 8:14:42 AM PDT by CecilRhodesGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
No we need to cut down every enviromental whacko.
15 posted on 06/26/2002 8:17:49 AM PDT by tom paine 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
Oh oh! Here's another tree hugger that can't read. The article does not say or imply that all the forests should be cut down! Get a life! Go and help clear the dead trees and other fuels from the forest and really help conserve them! Idiots like you are responsible for the fires now burning down the forests.
16 posted on 06/26/2002 8:21:10 AM PDT by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tom paine 2
My thoughts exactly. Heads up to Michiganders: The Sierra Club is running an ad campaign in Traverse City and Grand Rapids to "hault logging in old-growth areas."

If I read the words "biological diversity" one more time, I'm gonna puke. They should move to China, where the government owns all property, if they want to experience "biological diversity."
17 posted on 06/26/2002 8:24:51 AM PDT by jaq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
That is neither what this article says nor implies. Your comment either indicates that you didn't read it, or you're an "environmentalist" and therefore by definition someone who cannot or will not comprehend how nature actually works.
18 posted on 06/26/2002 8:32:35 AM PDT by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CecilRhodesGhost
Sue their socks off! A major class action suit must be entered by the victims who lost homes and by the survivors of those that died as a result of the fires! The Feds and the States whose public funds are being used to fight the fires, should join the suit. Target the Sierra Club, every other tree hugger organization, Gore, Babbitt, the despicable Klintoons and every leftist organization, including the big Foundations that donate to the tree huggers who that made sure these fires would and will continue to burn! Then be sure to ban the Sierra Club from access to all public lands in perpetuity.
19 posted on 06/26/2002 8:35:27 AM PDT by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Bump!
20 posted on 06/26/2002 8:36:52 AM PDT by F-117A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson