Anti ENVIRAL BillBoard is up!!!! Take a Look!

EBUCK and the Fire Group ^ | 10/04/2002 | EBUCK

[EBUCK]

Here it is folks! It's finally up.

In the words of the Steve the BillBoard guy...

"This is gonna cause a $hit Storm..."

Enjoy

EBUCK

[stalin]

I agree that that is a problem. we have to manage all of them until the fuel load is lowered because of the mismanagment of the past. We need to lower the fuel load now that we realize that we screwed up by trying to stop all forest fires. It wasn't the environmentalists that screwed up though. This billboard is wrong.

[stalin]

Yes I do. The price of lumber is very imporant to me personally , not just the economy in general. The Bush admin thinks that the price of lumber is too low. So , they imposed tarffs on Canadian lumber. They think that there is a glut of lumber. I like the price low.

[editor-surveyor]

"Scientific American is not junk science."

Scientific American is not science, but it certainly is JUNK.

Nothing but biased, ignorant, academic posturing and psuedo-intellectual psycho-masturbational blather.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Scorched Earth Policy - Environmentalists would still rather see forests burn for the trees
Armageddon With Pine Needles
Our Burning Forests Are The Legacy Of Radical Environmentalism
ECO-WHACKOS CAUSE FOREST FIRES
Bush Fights Fire-Fueling 'Greens'

[supercat]

It wasn't the environmentalists that screwed up though. This billboard is wrong.

When the forests were being managed, was it imprudent to put out all fires that occurred there? Putting out fires in managed forests is, from everything I've seen, reasonable and prudent.

That the forsts were turned into unmanaged forsts without any sort of "transitional" effort is what caused the problem, and that transition was forced by the environmentalists.

[marsh2]

Good article on the cumulative effects of lobbying and litigation efforts of extreme environmental groups to affect management policies that result in fuel loading and limited access.
http://www.timberharvesting.com/vserver/hb/display.cfm?MagazineKey=4&IssueKey=157&SectionKey=150&ArticleKey=177

Out Of The Woods: Besieged By Federal Policies by
Cheryl Larson (excerpts - this was written two years ago but is still good.)


..."Today we are besieged by a flood of federal policies. They include the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and Planning Rule, the Long-term Road Management Rule, Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP), Off-highway Vehicle EIS and Plan Amendments, as well as new and pending listings to the Endangered Species Act. All of these new proposals, in addition to the requirements of the ESA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and so on, reduce the term "local management" to little more than myth.

"The district managers of our forests are as frustrated and overwhelmed as we are. They can no longer perform their jobs; jobs they were trained to do and have years of experience in doing. The multi-layering of past policies, appeals and litigation have resulted in stymieing active forest management. These new proposals only add to the heap, culminating in the president's Roadless initiative. The prohibition of building new roads is of relative little consequence, when you take into account that the procedures of preserving "roadless characteristics" are to be applied to lands that presently have roads. We all know how the ESA has become a tool to drastically reduce timber harvests on National Forest System lands over the last decade. So, too, these roadless characteristics will give environmental groups the loopholes they need to eliminate timber harvests, grazing, mining and most forms of motorized recreation from all NFS lands.

"We know this is their goal, as Chad Hanson of the Sierra Club stated boldly in an opinion piece, recently published in a local paper, that he has been working hard for the last 10 years to ban all logging on our national forests. Of late, there have been numerous encounters and conflicts between multiple-use advocates, and those who would prefer that all public lands be managed as wilderness. It appears to us that the president's initiative has provided them with the means to accomplish their desires; if not in the individual forest plans, then in the courts which they will not hesitate to make use of."...

"I found some of the remarks made by our Chief of the Forest Service, Michael Dombeck, in his May 22 address to the American Forest and Paper Assn., excerpts of which were recently reported in a local newspaper, to be rather naÔve for one who is in charge of our national forest. He apparently believes that fuels, left to build over the last decade and a half, can be dealt with in a mere five years and that then the threat of catastrophic wildfire will never again rear its ugly head.

"In the Roadless DEIS there are charts depicting the acres and incidences of fire on national forests since 1910. Has it not occurred to the planners that the dramatic increase of fire since 1984 directly correlates to the decrease of logging during that same period? Without the responsible, ongoing treatment of logging to continually remove trees that are susceptible to disease, insects and blow-down, our communities are at the mercy of fire. Without first mechanically removing the bulk of the fuels, catastrophies will become the rule, rather than the exception."...

[farmfriend]

Nothing but biased, ignorant, academic posturing and psuedo-intellectual psycho-masturbational blather.

Ah, come on. Tell us what you really think.

[farmfriend]

See Marsh2's post # 226.

[mafree]

One day these enviro-wackos will wake up when these fires they want to keep burning kill someone.

[editor-surveyor]

The fires already have killed 28 firefighters.

[mafree]

Man that's awful- maybe their pics need to go on the next billboard.

[G Larry]

The enviros would rather that more firefighters die than any logging company make a nickle from thining the forests.

[ChadGore]

I love freepers bump !

[clamper1797]

To bad the environwacko's could not be mad to fight the fires their idiotic policies cause

[stalin]

I just read it. The bottom line is that there isn't an incease in fires there is an increase in their serverity due to the increased fuel load.

If logging were to cut down small and medium trees instead of the biggest this problem wouldn't have accured and as you pointed out in a previous post we don't need the biggest anymore.

The logginf that has been prevented was of the biggest trees it didn't lower the fuel load of the trees that make the fire intence unless it was clear cutting which is devestating to the evnironment. 1000times worse than any fire could be.

If we had listened to the environmantalists , preserved the old growth only cut medium to small trees and not fought all fires we wouldn't be having the problem of intence fires killing everything like we have now.

So , the billboard whould say. Sorry we didn't listen too you scientists and environmentalists. You were right.

[stalin]

With hindsight , it wasn't prudent. Now everything is destroyed instead of the brush and small trees.

The forests we had were being managed in a way that would make them tinderboxes. The so-called unmanaged were also. We were managing them by stopping the fires.

Now , if the timber industry paid 100% of the cost for stopping fires on their land and the tax payers paid $0 , that wouldn't be bother me. They would be creating a hazard to adjoining forests though.

[Ditter]

What a GREAT sign! If I could, I'd come to Oregan just to see it.

[FireTrack]

My compliments to the design team! It's high time we put the conservationists back in charge and send these "environMENTALists" packing...

[LurkerNoMore!]

It's high time we put the conservationists back in charge and send these "environMENTALists" packing...

Right on the money.

Speaking of packing.... you may want to pack a sweater or two. I hear it is chilly up there. :-)

[FireTrack]

"Speaking of packing.... you may want to pack a sweater or two. I hear it is chilly up there."

It's chilly here too... LOL