Bush's 'Healthy Forests' plan more bad news for California

[Judi Lynn]

Bush's 'Healthy Forests' plan more bad news for California


Last Updated: December 30, 2004, 04:29:27 AM PST


Two recent moves by the Bush administration and the U.S. Forest Service may leave communities throughout the Sierra at too great a risk from fire.

First, the administration altered a management plan for the Sierra's national forests to emphasize more thinning operations deep in the forest and fewer near communities, where the projects are more expensive for loggers. And now the Forest Service is proposing to shift some funds designated to protect those communities and spend them in other states. Maybe that's good politics, but it's bad fire management policy for Sierra communities.

With an inadequate budget to start with, the Forest Service is proposing to shift 15 percent of its "hazardous fuel reduction funding" away from expensive areas to less expensive ones. That may sound like more bang for the buck. But isn't the intent of this program to make communities more secure, as opposed to cutting down the maximum number of trees? For the Sierra, losing that 15 percent of funds could actually translate into much deeper cuts in some vital programs, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein has pointed out in a letter to Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey. It would reduce by up to 90 percent the funds available for thinning projects on state and private lands around communities as pledged under the president's "Healthy Forests" plan.

Feinstein has an uphill fight on her hands. After four years, it's abundantly clear that the Bush administration's funding priorities do not include California. California is increasingly on its own to solve its many problems.
(snip/)

http://www.modbee.com/opinion/story/9681966p-10565336c.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

4. What's your source?

I seem to remember quite a few fires that were the result of arson--and happened quite close to "civilization". And if it's hard to get firefighting equipment into the deep woods, won't it be hard to get logging trucks in there? Of course, we usually end up paying for the roads used by the lumber companies.

The purpose of the new plan was supposedly to protect communities--somehow, I just don't trust Bush & Co.

[wicket]

6. Sorry but, this is Bushco propaganda

"We need to cut down the forests to save them!!!!"

:eyes:

[Supersedeas]

10. forests in the lumber mill (of campaign supporters) are safe from fire

[salin]

8. point is - part way through they are moving funds to STOP doing this

that is the point of the story. Too expensive for loggers to get that lumber... want to move it to where it is cheaper - so the rationale for further opening these forests to private interests (notice - we pay to upkeep the land but don't receive the monetary benefits of private timbering - or mining (they have opened up more public lands on that front as well.)... that rationale was simply - bs since now they are moving away from the efforts to thin those forests...

[idiosyncratic]

13. You are so wrong! The forests that need to be thinned are near

population centers. To log deep in the forest, roads need to be built. This whole "healthy forest" idea is a sham and it makes me very angry!

:argh:

[Demeter]

15. That's Okay! When the trees are gone, just have to worry

about mudslides.

[miss_kitty]

17. "thin the deep forest"

Christ! What will the morans of the world come up with next?

Fire is a necessary part of a healthy forest ecosystem. look it up and learn something, would ya? :eyes:

[sandnsea]

19. *sigh*

If you thin around a community properly, the fire really stops dead in its tracks when it hits the properly thinned area. Stunning!! No shit!! Gasp!!!!

Cutting trees down in areas that you can't get to by road is called logging wilderness.

:argh:

[Piperay]

21. Uh huh, better yet

how about we just concrete them all over and they we have no fire worries whatsoever. :think:

[SoCalDem]

24. WRONG

As a Californian, all I can suggest to you is this..

google California fires.. They start (usually) near roads ! Most of the recent ones are ARSON..started by firebugs who get a kick out of tormenting people..

The trees are NOT the problem..

Don't drink the koolaid (especially the Righty-Red flavor):hi:

[Tony_Illinois]

2. See Link Below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2860085

[salin]

12. thanks for the link.

[salin]

3. This should only be a surprise to those

who actually believed the hard sell on this approach was really based on public policy (the idea that thinning the forests would lead to less fire risk). Note how hard they pushed on this "public policy" after the San Diego fires.

We knew it was all about opening more logging opportunities to industry. So of course, the admin would be persuaded (bought) to based on industry costs (and their bottom line dollars) rather than any real public policy point (and, if I recall the premise of the public policy was somewhat controversial in the first place.)

My question - the story implies but doesn't clearly explain that this leaves communities in the Sierras at higher risk of forest fire than before. Only allusion to how is that with the cut in 15% of funds that other programs might be cut. Anyone have more info on this issue? It could be the type of story (put together with the fake public policy rationales for our approach to the madcow issue and others) that can be put together to wake up some of our brethren who don't pay close attention to the news to demonstrate how far this administration and current version of the GOP always puts the needs of business at first, and while giving initial voice time to public policy rationales (to sell their programs) they seem to perpetually end up putting the public at great(er) risk in the interest of big industries.

[Bridget Burke]

5. I remember hearing how the San Diego fires would be used...

To excuse more logging. Even though they were mostly brush fires--no forests involved.

[montana_hazeleyes]

7. I'm so tired of this little phoney cretin

getting away with "punishing" any one or any state that doesn't kneel down to him. He is really mentally ill. He really believes he's entitled to be where he is, that he earned it. He's a little "king of the world" in his own mind.

It's all so insane!

[salin]

9. sadly it seems to be an infectuous form

of insanity.

[Gregorian]

11. It's not about forests. It's about corporations and money. Period.

Forests took care of themselves for thousands of years. The only thing loggers do is DEFOREST. That's it. They remove trees.
The funny part is that all of their scheming and phoney plans will only hurt their children and their children's children. They don't care about the future, only their pocketbook.

[Deja Q]

14. Precisely. Once again, money is the root of all evil. QED.

[Demeter]

16. Love of Money is the root of all evil

and Bush epitomizes that!

[Piperay]

18. 'California on it's own'

yeah but we have a repug Governator...doesn't that count for anything with the chimp regime. :silly:

[tanyev]

20. Wasn't there something about

Bush not giving California enough assistance during some previous fires when then Gov. Davis kept asking for help? Maybe Little Boots is a pyro. Or it could just be more of his vindictiveness toward the "evil libruls" in California. Those wealthy, bleeding heart celebrites must really get under his skin.

[sandnsea]

22. Funny thing

The people in those mountains voted for Bush. I just had a spat on DU the other day with someone from the Sierras who was raving about Bush and the thinning and the stupid environmentalists who were going to let all the trees burn to the ground. Would love to find her to show her the stupid thinning was the exact bullshit I said it was.

[Dem2theMax]

23. How about some bad news for * ?

http://moveoncalifornia.org/

As the fifth wealthiest NATION in the world, California can do just fine without *. Can he do just fine without us? Let's find out.
:evilgrin:


As to fires, forests and logging, it's all about the money to him.

Fires deep within a forest are usually started by lightning and are many times left alone to burn, hence the term, 'let burn' fires.
Here in San Diego, it wasn't forest that burned, it was brush, just like the kind you-know-who is so fond of clearing. :puke:
Most forest fires are caused by arson or carelessness or really stupid hunters who are lost. :mad: I'll never get over that idiot hunter. aaarrrrgggggg.

We had some forest burn, but most of what got hit was homes in lower hilly areas full of brush. As to thinning the forest, we have dead trees that need to be taken out due to a bark beetle infestation. If they take out the DEAD trees, our forests will be safer. We don't need logging to do that.

In other words, * is off his rocker once again.

[XemaSab]

25. Taxpayers

pay to build the roads deep into the forest so private companies can harvest trees. This is appalling.

Also, I live in the Sierras in California. I know that my house is at risk. I'm aware of this. If my house burns down, it'll be a massive, massive bummer, but I live in the woods and that's the risk I take.

The problem with forest and "fuels" management is that people get cheesed off no matter what the agencies do. A few months ago there was a good sized fire in Yosemite that the park service decided to let burn, and the tourists were very angry that their vacations were ruined by heavy smoke in the valley, the local merchants were upset that they were losing tourist revenue, it was a minor fiasco.

Most people have no clue what a healthy forest looks like. They see thick stands of young trees and think that's natural. People don't want to take responsibility for cutting a fire break around their houses, 'cause they like the thick greenery. If the forest service came into private lands and did what needs to be done to restore forest health and protect communities, people would think their forest had been raped. People also don't understand that dead trees are part of a healthy forest. Healthy forests don't have a lot of young trees.

I did surveys summer before last in the burned areas of the Biscuit fire in Oregon, and it really opened my eyes to what creates catastrophic forest fires. The big, old stuff looked untouched. The middle-aged stuff had burned good but there were still snags and a few living trees. The regenerating clearcuts that had been brushy fields of small trees (5-10 year old pines) looked completely nuked. Nothing left. Yet the forest service's response to a fire is to go in and "salvage log," which creates ideal conditions for another catastrophic fire.

What most of our forests in the west need is a savage thinning, leaving only big, old trees and some snags, but cutting young trees generates little revenue, so it's not part of the plan.

[Thor_MN]

26. Next up, Bush's Healthy Lungs plan to reinvigorate the tobacco industry

It would provide tax free cigarettes to anyone under the age of 18, or making more that $100K per year.

[Oreegone]

27. Heathly Forests?

Please refer to it as the: NO TREE LEFT BEHIND plan then people will understand of what you speak...

[caligirl]

28. These are the repug areas too. So if he wants to hurt Ca he is hurting

his own supporters.