200 HOMES BURN AS BUSH ADMINISTRATION FUNNELS "FUEL-REDUCTION" MONEY TO WILDERNESS LOGGING

The human-caused Aspen fire burning on Mt. Lemmon outside of Tucson, yesterday burned through the mountaintop village of Summerhaven, destroying over 200 houses and structures. The lack of fuel-reduction treatments conducted outside of Summerhaven starkly illustrates the shortcomings of the Bush Administration’s so-called “Healthy Forests Initiative,” as well as the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, passed by the House of Representatives in May and currently pending before the Senate.

With support from local residents, scientists, and conservationists, the Coronado National Forest attempted to burn and thin dense stands of small trees surrounding Summerhaven. It estimated that the project would cost in excess of $1 million, prompting Center for Biological Diversity director Kieran Suckling to predict: "you can be quite sure the Bush administration isn't going to favor doing anything of this sort on Mount Lemmon. Instead, it will divert millions of dollars to log large trees that are dozens of miles from the nearest house." Those predictions came true. A Forest Service official was quoted on 6-20-03 in the Arizona Daily Star as stating “We had an allocation of $120,000 last year. That wasn’t enough. We had to beg, borrow and steal to get $50,000 more.” With such little funding, the Forest was only able to treat 200 acres last year, prompting Summerhaven residents to circulate a petition demanding treatment of a defensible perimeter around the community. According to Forest Service documents, a key project to reduce hazardous around Summerhave has been on hold since October, 2001 due to lack of funding.

Meanwhile, the administration is spending tens of millions of dollars subsidizing the logging of large trees in roadless and wildland areas dozens of miles away from the nearest town.

OH! I FINALLY GET IT!

Bush = bad guy

Clinton = good guy

That would mean Boxer's a good guy too! Egads, I've been so mislead.

Thank for showing me the light! Oh, I've got so much to do... gotta buy one of those electric cars, never buy another leather wallet again, better quit my job (capitalist pigs) and I'll rush right out and donate to the anti-recall Davis campaign.

Yikes, I'd better get to the store... not a smidgeon of tofu in the house, poor me!


Yeah, like that would ever happen.

Sheesh, what a troll.

OK blu. In your opinion, what kind of trees are OK to cut down???? Big ones or little ones??? If the forest service had gone in and thinned out the small dense growth you'd be bitching that they were killing small trees that one day would grow into big trees.

Copper

little trees that are near to homes are OK to thin out. It's the big trees that are very fire resistant that the logging companies want to cut.

I don't have a problem with slowing down logging. Why are you posting this article. You are just trying to bash Bush. I voted for the guy, I would again. But he ain't my hero or anything. I love the forests as much as you. I would love to see logging slow way down. I believe there is enough recycling and wood substitutes out there to curb logging dramatically.
Hopefully you can see that forests being cut down is a far greater problem than us riding around on barren sand dunes!

I would have a forest thinning program funded by private business than by MY tax dollars. There is no reason why a private logging company can not properly remove both small and large trees in a healthy fashion to promote a healthy environment that is also fire resistant. There would have to be rules and the companies monitored.

There are forestry experts who say this can be done but any attempt at this new approach has been stymied by these extremists that seem to care more about stopping private enterprise than forest health.

I'm not in favor of clear cutting or cutting all the big trees down, but there can be a responsible way to do this to ensure a beautiful, healthy forest for ALL of us to enjoy in the future.

I want to be able to ride on forest trails for years to come, not ride through a burned out landscape of needleless, dead pine trees that some extreme group sued to keep from being cleaned up so new trees could be planted there.

Of course, these extremists don't really care about the environment. That has been proven by their unreasonable lawsuits that have repeatedly caused much more harm to the environment than if left alone. They only care about the controlling the populace, the money they get in, and inflating their own egos with all the lawsuits they win, while jamming up the system, preventing the REAL scientists from ACTUALLY helping the environment.

Of course, most of these extremists have never walked, or ridden in, the Arizona forests that are now burning.

I'm sure that's from an objective source. I can't believe anyone replies to this a-hole.

Kieran Suckling

Newsflash:

The logging industry has been slowed down. Almost to the point of stopped.

[quote]Newsflash:

The logging industry has been slowed down. Almost to the point of stopped.[/quote]

That coupled with our abilities to put out fires quicker than in the past is one reason a fire like this is out of hand now. The same thing is gonna happen in Alaska because the logging has pretty much stopped.
The bark beetles dont eat the small trees, they eat the big ones and since we can no longer log these trees, they become a fire hazard.

The Spruce beetle in Sewerd Alaska is responsible for killing off hundreds of thousands of acres. You drive down the road and an entire forest is dead.

We can thank people like Blue and the sierra club for this devastation.

It is Bush's fault. Everything is Bush's fault. Everything is the fault of the right. The socialists and liberals could have really advanced society if it wasn't for the vast right wing conspiracy and Bush as their leader. :dozey:

Global Warming; Blame Bush.
Ozone Hole; Blame Bush.
Pollution; Blame Bush.
Terrorism; Blame Bush.
Death; Blame Bush.
War; Blame Bush.
Famine; Blame Bush.
Pestilence; Blame Bush.

:roll: :dozey:

[quote]Global Warming; Blame Bush.
Ozone Hole; Blame Bush.
Pollution; Blame Bush.
Terrorism; Blame Bush.
Death; Blame Bush.
War; Blame Bush.
Famine; Blame Bush.
Pestilence; Blame Bush. [/quote]

The US is the pre-eminent economic and industrial presence in the world. All of the above problems have links to US activities. Bush is our president. If his policies do not address the problems, then we blame him. Get it?

I blame people like you.

[quote][quote]Global Warming; Blame Bush.
Ozone Hole; Blame Bush.
Pollution; Blame Bush.
Terrorism; Blame Bush.
Death; Blame Bush.
War; Blame Bush.
Famine; Blame Bush.
Pestilence; Blame Bush. [/quote]

The US is the pre-eminent economic and industrial presence in the world. All of the above problems have links to US activities. Bush is our president. If his policies do not address the problems, then we blame him. Get it?[/quote]

Oh Ef me! I was hoping it wouldn't come out this way, but I'm busted! It's all my fault! That's right me. All the world problems are my doing. Sorry, I'll start working on cleaning it all up, please be patience.

IMPEACH Derwud!!! Flame him!!! :whatever: :dis:

Blue, you care to reply to my post.. how you greenies are causing more harm than good is stopping the logging and pre-venting the removal of the dead adult trees..

[quote]IMPEACH Derwud!!! Flame him!!! :whatever: :dis:

Blue, you care to reply to my post.. how you greenies are causing more harm than good is stopping the logging and pre-venting the removal of the dead adult trees..[/quote]

Easy there Chummin, work with me not against me to fix all these problems.

As for the Blue guy, ask him to do the same!

Funny how crud for brains gets upset when a bunch of enviro freaks homes burn down cause they didn't have a defensible area around them. They wanted to live in the woods, pay the price. But wait, lets make the government come in and protect OUR homes. We don't want anyone cutting down trees anywhere else, just make OUR homes safer. Hey , screw all you green hypocrites. Its bad to cut trees unless it benefits YOU. See thats the green problem right now, everyone knows you scum are full of it. Your games over, nobody cares when you cry anymore.

[quote]little trees that are near to homes are OK to thin out. It's the big trees that are very fire resistant that the logging companies want to cut.[/quote]
And since BLUESKY said it it must be true.

[quote][quote]little trees that are near to homes are OK to thin out. It's the big trees that are very fire resistant that the logging companies want to cut.[/quote]
And since BLUESKY said it it must be true.[/quote]

Lets see, little trees are ok to thin out and big ones are fire resistant. hmm. what a moron.. thinking like that would get us no forests anywhere ever.. Little trees need bluesky..literially.. :roll:

http://www.headwaterspreserve.org/html/pub..._article_6.html

In response to last summer's catastrophic forest fires throughout the West, the Bush administration is pushing a so-called "healthy forest initiative"
that would give timber corporations a smokescreen to log protected old-growth forests on public lands and wilderness areas in the name of fire prevention. Ominously, Bush's "healthy forest initiative" would also suspend environmental laws and limit public participation and judicial review.

Contrary to sound fire prevention practice, the administration's plan promotes logging the largest, most fire-resistant trees in roadless areas far from the urban-wildland interface which are home to most of our remaining ancient trees. Forest biologists and ecologists agree that commercial logging of large fire-resistant trees actually increases the danger and severity of forest fires instead of reducing fire risks because it leaves behind more flammable needles, brush, and smaller branches and limbs, and brush. Logging the largest trees removes a forest's shade canopy, allowing the forest floor and natural debris to dry into prime fuel for wildfires.

A September 2000 report by the U.S. Department of Interior and a 2001 audit by the U.S. Department of Agriculture both found that wildfires are more severe in areas where extensive logging and road building has occurred. Logging roads also increase the presence of the leading cause of wildfires: humans. According to federal statistics, humans have started 88% of our forest fires!

QUOTE

According to federal statistics, humans have started 88% of our forest fires!

Kill all people! Or am I taking your comments out of context?

QUOTE

Logging the largest trees removes a forest's shade canopy, allowing the forest floor and natural debris to dry into prime fuel for wildfires.

Then the small trees cannot grow up to big ones becuause they need the light.. You read or hear anything you want. When you want the truth, go to Alaska and WITNESS it!
One thing they fail to mention and you fail to mention all the time is the bark beetles. They choose trees of 6" or more becuase the bark on smaller trees is just not their.
These beetle thrive in an area destroy all the larget trees of that area. Lightning strikes and burns that area killing those beetles.
Years later that area has all NEW growth. Years later the beetls strike another area and the cycle repeates.
NOW we humans put fires out to save your beetles. The beetles eat the trees and they grow to out of control proportions.
Now we thin the small trees..
Then we get what Blue wants. A completely dead forest that will burn at will.

SUNLIGHT does not dry out stuff on the floor of the forest. :roll: Those BIG trees, they have needles and leaves.. those will dry regardless of light. They will fall to the floor of the forest regardless.

How are these large trees fire resistant?? You seen teh news lateley? Ive seen some of the biggest trees in the world burn do to Lightning.. Its all WOOD.. WOOD burns.. :hot:

Blu, Were you abused as a child?

Andy

http://www.mrc.com/issues/old_growth_policy.html

Redwood Old Growth Characteristics
Trees generally are in the upper 20% diameter class of the species on site
Deep, plate-like bark patterns, fire resistant

Douglas-fir Old Growth Characteristics
Trees generally are in the upper 20% diameter class for the species on site
Bark deeply fissured, thick and fire resistant

Is this your other site?

http://moveon.org/

I have avoided this site for a very long time. Something never change. BlueSky hasn't changed. I guess it is nice to know that some things never change :roll:

I gave up months ago trying to get BluSky to answer a few simple questions, but we all know he/she lives for the attention.

I do have a question for BlueSky. :?:
Given the fact that you are so against the cutting/clearing of large trees, what, if anything have you done pollitically to address lumber exports? Do you have any idea just how big the export industry is?

In a nut shell, this is the problem with our forest!

Tree density in our forest system is on average 3 TIMES greater than what a healthy sustainable forest system should be. A healthy system should average 40 trees per acre. But thanks to the "TREE HUGGERS" and their asinine forest policy's and abuse of the court system in an effort to tie the hands of the USFS, tree density is over 120 tree per acre. That density along with the bark beetle infestation and the continuing drought are the problems. Not President Bush's forest policy. :roll:

The solution is thinning the forest! That means CUTTING trees! All sizes of them! Not just the small ones. The first to go regardless of size are those infested by beetles or weakened by drought. Then a systematic reduction of trees until a healthy and sustainable number is reached. You don't have to like it or believe it! But the solution is achievable! I guess ****sky just cant see the forest's future for the "trees"! :roll:

QUOTE

Do you have any idea just how big the export industry is?

My understanding is that the US is a net importer of lumber.

QUOTE

QUOTE Do you have any idea just how big the export industry is? My understanding is that the US is a net importer of lumber.

One must seperate hardwoods / exotic's out of the imports. Speaking for all products in general, US import / export figures is the biggest political smoke screen that has been going on for years.

QUOTE

QUOTE Do you have any idea just how big the export industry is? My understanding is that the US is a net importer of lumber.

My experience is, when someone says, "It's my understanding" that they haven't a clue what they are talking about. Someone is pulling stuff out of the ****Sky.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/070603F.shtml

Saturday 05 July 2003

More than 23 million acres of the world's forests - enough to cover the whole of Scotland - are disappearing each year because of logging, mining and land clearance for agriculture.

The scale of deforestation is so great that some countries, such as Indonesia, could lose entire rainforests in the next 10 years. The appetite for wood for furniture, floors and building in Europe and North America is shrinking the world's forests at a rate of 2.4 per cent every 10 years, official figures show.

a daisy skips beneath silver marbles

Guess I better go buy some new furniture before they run out.

hey blu!!!!! now i have an idea why your always trying to start things in here, it's to cover up the fact that you environmentalists have WAY too much time on your hands for doing other dasterdly deeds

http://newsobserver.com/24hour/nation/stor...p-5186512c.html
:shock:

Forests are a RENEWABLE resource. Thinning the forests is the only way we can get them back to a healthy balance.

Earth First!! ( we'll log the other planets later) 8)

[quote]
Forests are a RENEWABLE resource. Thinning the forests is the only way we can get them back to a healthy balance.

Earth First!! ( we'll log the other planets later)
[/quote]

Think of it as being analogous to electrical cogeneration facilities. They use the heat coming off the engine that drives the generator to create steam for use in driving another generator or for heating something in a process.

One thing in, two usefull or beneficial things out. Similar to logging. You perform one task and get two beneficial things out. Lumber and fire prevention. Everybody wins!

Clear cutting is the best way to prevent forrest fires and provide us with the materials needed for jobs.

QUOTE

[b][size=24]Clear cutting is the best way to prevent forrest fires and provide us with the materials needed for jobs.

you heard it here folks! off-roader believes in clear cuts!

the question is, what will you do when the forest is all cleared out?

QUOTE

the question is, what will you do when the forest is all cleared out?

Grab my bottle of Jack Daniels, the cocaine, and my assault rifle and go hunting. The little bunnies won't have any cover and will be easier to hit.

Jeeze Blew, your mom told me you were slow (or mumbled, as it is hard for her to talk with her mouth full) but I didn't think you were that dense.

Just in case this was lost on you Blew; Look up the word sarcasm.

At least we don't burn down buildings and cars! So burning up two buildings? all that lumber destroyed, those poor trees cut down for nothing!

Do you get the sarcasm!!!!! Breathe a little more, you might learn to relax and enjoy life! >:<

[size=24]Hey Blue balls, it took me about 5 seconds to find this story about people actually working to find a solution for the future, rather than just crying and bitching about everything like you do. I'm sure there are hundreds of scientists around the world working on similar projects. So SHUT THE HELL UP ALREADY!!!

QUOTE

The research of two University professors has found fibers from an African plant that might be used here as a valuable wood substitute...

http://www.dailyillini.com/mar01/mar09/new...es/news07.shtml

Hey Blue Balls, I noticed you are online right now. So how about an intelligent response to my last post? Can you handle that? Or did I finally stump you?

If you do reply, make sure you have a valid response. Otherwise don't bother.

[quote][quote][size=24]Clear cutting is the best way to prevent forrest fires and provide us with the materials needed for jobs. [/quote]


you heard it here folks! off-roader believes in clear cuts!

the question is, what will you do when the forest is all cleared out?[/quote][/quote]

well blu, i see once again that you can STILL take a sentece out of context to suit your own needs..........when will you ever learn..........[b]THIS IS FOR THE GROWN UPS THAT ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN SOMETHING!!!

[quote]Earth First!! ( we'll log the other planets later) [/quote]

You just gotta love that!

"Healthy Forest Restoration Act." HR 1904 does nothing to protect rural homeowners from wildfire. Instead it plays on the public's fear of fire to limit citizen participation and undermine our nation's environmental laws in order to increase logging on America's National Forests.


There are 5 areas of concern with the so-called "Healthy Forest Restoration Act" of 2003 (HR 1904), this bill:


1. Does not ensure any increased protection for communities at risk from fires. Protecting communities and lives must be the top priority for fire legislation.
2. Focuses logging in the backcountry miles away from communities at risk.
3. Takes away citizens democratic right to participate in decisions about how our public lands are managed by gutting the National Environmental Policy Act and repealing the Appeals Reform Act.
4. Interferes with the Independent Judiciary by restricting the public's democratic rights to seek redress in the court involving grievances with the federal government for damaging logging projects.
5. Fails to protect currently healthy forests such as roadless areas and mature and old growth forests and relies on logging the largest, most fire resilient trees to pay for hazardous fuels reduction landscape wide. The industry will get paid in tress to log from our forests that are currently healthy and most resilient to fire, thereby exacerbating future restoration and ecosystem damage costs to taxpayers.

QUOTE

I do have a question for BlueSky. :?:

Better luck next time, ocean1.

I think Bluesky is too sexy for your question.
[img]http://www.stannards.co.uk/fred.jpg[/img]

QUOTE

\"1.  Does not ensure any increased protection for communities at risk from fires. Protecting communities and lives must be the top priority for fire legislation.   2.  Focuses logging in the backcountry miles away from communities at risk.   3.  Takes away citizens democratic right to participate in decisions about how our public lands are managed by gutting the National Environmental Policy Act and repealing the Appeals Reform Act.   4.  Interferes with the Independent Judiciary by restricting the public's democratic rights to seek redress in the court involving grievances with the federal government for damaging logging projects.   5.  Fails to protect currently healthy forests such as roadless areas and mature and old growth forests and relies on logging the largest, most fire resilient trees to pay for hazardous fuels reduction landscape wide. The industry will get paid in tress to log from our forests that are currently healthy and most resilient to fire, thereby exacerbating future restoration and ecosystem damage costs to taxpayers.

1) Reduced Fuel does ensure any increased protection for communities at risk from fires.
2) If a Forest burns and no city is near by, does it still burn?
3) So we should allow massive forest fires to keep burning up public and private land, just so people like you can protest for years about it, meanwhile the forest still burn!
4) Just like the environmentalists have stripped us of our rights!
5) Do you have a better plan that can be put into place right now, when it's needed, not 5 years from now when there is nothing left to save?

Again Blue, be part of the solution and not a hater!

Watch your In-Laws home and memories burn, Watch a fire come within miles of your house and then tell me we can wait for you to come up with a better solution, sorry I can't!!!!!!!

QUOTE (\"PoiksI think Bluesky is too sexy for your question. [IMG)

http://www.stannards.co.uk/fred.jpg[/IMG]

I had no idea that Blue was so damn Sexy! I have so much more respect for him now!

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/2...barkbeetle.html

QUOTE

SAN BERNARDINO – The U.S. government approved a $30 million emergency allocation so California can fight bark beetle infestations in its forests, most immediately in Southern California, where the infestation is the largest in a half-century.   \"This is very good news especially for residents of San Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego counties, where the bark beetle infestation is at its worst,\" said U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. \"Trees have fallen far faster than they can be cut down and removed. As a result, we are now in danger of major conflagrations in our forests.\"   The funds were approved Sept. 17, said U.S. Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands.   Four years of drought and an attack by the mountain pine bark beetle have killed nearly all the trees in and around much of the San Bernardino National Forest, they said. A total of 400,000 acres of forestland and about 1 million trees have been destroyed throughout Southern California.   The congressman said the worst fire danger surrounds 60,000 residents. The U.S. Forest Service has ranked the fire danger in Southern California the most dangerous in the nation because most of the land is urbanized.   \"The situation in our Southern California mountains is a disaster waiting to happen,\" Lewis said.   Early this month, a 1,352-acre arson fire burned in the San Bernardino National Forest in dense area that had not burned since 1956.

QUOTE

Four years of drought and an attack by the mountain pine bark beetle have killed nearly all the trees in and around much of the San Bernardino National Forest, they said. A total of 400,000 acres of forestland and about 1 million trees have been destroyed throughout Southern California.

**** says, "save the trees". :rant: WHAT TREES YOU IDIOT? :roll: Thanks to you and your kind, the forest are dying at an alarming rate! :shock: I know, I know, Bush killed them! :roll: GET A CLUE YOU MORON! :x