Montana Forests at risk!!

[Ithaca 37]

"The report said the 10 forests most at risk were:


* Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest -- Arizona


* Bitterroot National Forest -- Montana


* Black Hills National Forest -- South Dakota


* Checkmegan-Nicolet National Forest -- Wisconsin


* Washington-Jefferson National Forest -- Virginia


* Kootenai National Forest -- Montana


* Mississippi's National Forests


* Plumas National Forest -- California


* Tongass National Forest -- Alaska


* Umpqua National Forest -- Oregon"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&ncid=585&e=8&u=/nm/20030603/sc_nm/environment_forest_dc_1

 

[Hangar18]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bitterroot National Forest in Montana and the Tongass National Forest in Alaska are among 10 forests most at risk from the Bush administration's policies, environmental groups said on Tuesday.

A coalition including Greenpeace and the National Forest Protection Alliance prepared a list of 10 U.S. forests based on threats to water quality, endangered species and old growth trees as well as timber sales and roadbuilding.

The groups complained the Bush administration has limited public comment, trimmed environmental protection laws and used the fear of wildfires to push for the removal of big trees coveted by the timber industry. Last year, more than 7 million acres of U.S. land went up in flames.

President Bush announced a forest initiative last year, directing federal agencies to develop measures to reduce the threat of wildfires and eliminate appeals that block forest projects from moving forward.

The Departments of Interior and Agriculture announced such changes last week. Accompanying legislation has been passed in the House, and the Senate is expected to act this month. generation," said John Passacantando, executive director with Greenpeace.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A picture is worth a thousand words, right?

Edit:
Just for the sake of fairness

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-03-2003 21:46: Message edited by: HANGAR 18 ]</font>

 

[cjcj]

good cartoon hangar it`s the eco -wacko`s who are mostly to blame for all of the huge fire`s that burned in arizona last year! plus the asshole`s who started them, including the fires started down south by the illegal scum![but the greener`s never ever talk about it]

 

[Ithaca 37]

An arsonist starts a fire and the environmental groups get blamed!

 

[cjcj]

yes the enviro`s get blamed because it could`nt be put out! i did blame the a-hole`s who started them, but the year`s of so called enviro`s stopped all logging and allowed the buildup of fuel are what were a direct cause of these fires burning out of control.

 

[FEW]

The dumb ass arsonists got the blame for starting the fires. The treehuggers got blamed for it spreading so far so fast. Due to the fact that it would have been easier to control if we had been doing regular controlled burns, which the treehuggers have a fit about. That was the way I understood it anyway. I do know that any person involved with sierra club or greenpeace better keep driving when they pass through heber/overgard area. I saw a blazer up there 2 weeks ago with an anti sierra club message painted on the window and saw a few signs near burns saying stuff like "thanks greenies" and "we love our forests but not the greenies" plus a bunch of other anti enviro one liners.... I would say they are holding a grudge whether it was the treehuggers fault or not.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-04-2003 10:48: Message edited by: FEW ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Which groups have policies against controlled burns?

 

[RockyDog]

What a bunch of shit, here in the bitterroot the logged areas burned the worst.

 

[FEW]

Ithica. If you are asking me I do not know. That is just what I have heard and read since the fires.

 

[FEW]

Arizona governor Jane Hull has blamed eastern environmentalists for the wildfires now consuming hundreds of thousands of acres in her state. Governor Hull says the environmentalists have lobbied against controlled burns of underbrush and created the dangerous and combustible situation that has lead to the tragedy in Arizona and Colorado. The forest service spends 40 percent of its annual budget defending itself against environmental groups.

http://new.crosswalk.com/news/1143766.html

 

[cjcj]

few is right! this is what we have been told by the forest service,blm.etc. even the pres. g.bush has put blame on the enviro-wacko`s [jim paxton] i think it`s his name blamed year`s of underbrush,and non-logging for the FUEL that allowed these fires to get out of control! now i get most of my info. from watching the new`s, reading, and radio, and my computer skill`s are non-existant! so i can`t post all of the stuff that most of you guy`s can. and please explain, HOW and WHY the logging area`s of the BITTEROOT`S were burned the worse.

 

[Washington Hunter]

I can't believe this...now we're back to the theory that logging prevents forest fires! Where do people come up with this stuff? And environmentalists are to blame for all the big fires last summer...give me a break! Are you gonna blame them every time it rains too? If anybody is to blame I would say it is the government (Forest Service and BLM) for their policy of putting out all fires for almost a century now. That is the reason for the extremely large fires, not a lack of logging. That is just ridiculous.

 

[FEW]

I never said anything about logging, it was about prescribed burns dumbass.

 

[Oak]

FEW, I don't know if I'd use politicians as good sources of facts. You don't believe everything they say, do you?

Oak

 

[FEW]

Yeah actually dude I do believe everything they say. Even that bill clinton did not inhale.

Anyway it was not just the politicians, everyone was all pissed about how "the enviros made it worse by making it hard for the fs to do prescribed burns" blah blah blah. I never said whether I thought it was true or not just explained what I knew about it. To me it makes sense that if there had been prescribed burns in the areas the fires would not have spread as fast. I am sure there are other risks that go along with prescribed burns also. I do not know enough about it to have an educated opinion, which is why I only stated what I had personally heard and read.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-04-2003 17:36: Message edited by: FEW ]</font>

 

[cjcj]

the truth is this is a complex issue[fires] and there are several factor`s involved, drought,lack of access to the fire,human`s, lightning,lack of controled burn`s, undergrowth, etc. but the enviro-wacko`s who stop logging and control`s burn`s etc,. are exemp from their part of the blame! NO WAY!

 

[BuzzH]

cjcj and FEW, you guys need to study the issues a bit more. Like Oak said, dont get your facts from the six o'clock news.

Environmentalists have not caused the big fires we've had lately.

Lets take a look at what happened after the bad fires years of 1910 and 1919. You know the whole smoky bear campaign, the 10 0'clock rule (FS policy that said all fires must be out by 10 am the day after detection), aggressive fire fighting for no less than 80 years, etc. You get the point.

What most dont understand is that there is price to pay for any land management decisions and policy. We're paying the price now for what was thought to be the proper way to deal with fire. We have forests plugged up with huge amounts of fuel, we have stand dynamics, species compositions in stands, etc. that are completely out of wack, all because of fire suppression, not because of environmentalists. I'd challenge that any good "Enviro greenie" would never have supported the fire suppression efforts, but would have embraced a "let it burn" policy...a policy that loggers themselves dont like.

So, blaming environmentalists, while convienant and easy to do, is ridiculous and unfounded BS. Any politician thats pushing that shit, is not only an idiot, but also not very aware of the problem and doesnt even grasp a small understanding of the problem. GW doesnt know shit about Forest Health, all he's doing is pushing an agenda and an end to a means....

Now that we know that fire suppression is the culprit, how do you fix it?

Thats another pretty contentious issue and there isnt an easy fix. It took nearly 100 years of mismanagement to get the woods in the condition we see today.

I'll tell you this the only, and I mean only way to fix this problem is to apply lots more fire to the landscape. That means we're going to burn up merchantable products at times, but thats the price we're going to pay, either by prescribed fire or wildfire.

I'd even argue the case for logging in some situations to reduce fuel loads and improve the health of the land. The problem I have with GW's plan, is that a good portion of the funding for reducing fuel loading has to come from timber reciepts. Any time that has to happen, I dont believe that the best management decisions will come from that. But, I'll wait to see what happens before I judge GW's plan, but from what I've seen so far, I aint impressed.

The problems also run deeper than just what the FS can do. Many private and state lands are in the same condition. We just dont have the authority to tell people what to do on such lands.

This is a very complex issue and there are no real clear answers. The one thing I know for sure is that logging, prescribed fire, and fuel reduction programs may help, but they wont turn the woods "fireproof" when we experience fire years like 1910, 1919, 1988, 2000, etc.

 

[RockyDog]

AMEN Buzzh. Very well stated.

BUT, our governor Judy Martz (aka the self proclaimed lapdog of industry) said it was the enviro's fault. So, it must be so because politicians never have an agenda.

 

[FEW]

Buzz good post. however like I have said several times now, I WAS ONLY STATING THAT THE NEWS AND OTHER GROUPS OF PEOPLE BLAMED THEM, I NEVER SAID I THOUGHT THE ENVIRO WACKOS WERE AT FAULT FOR THE FIRES!! Just wanted to make that clearer.

 

[cjcj]

well buzz that`s a fair post, ROCKY DOG i`m still waiting to hear how a logged area burned WORSE than a non-logged area. but buzz i don`t get all of my info from media,[just most] then i have to sort out the spin and try to use what seem`s, sound`s, and look`s logical. i went up to the rodeo/chedeski fire 3 time`s and talked to some people firsthand F.S. G&F and resident`s and as i was saying it`s a complex issue [you can`t alway`s mess with mother nature] but i stand by my opinion that the enviro`s play a major part, and what pisses me off about them is the let their liberal politic`s get in the way of the truth! [not one peep out of any enviro-group when the illegal`s set several fire`s on our border] if it had been a hunter on a quad without a spark arrestor they would have been all over it!