The endpoint is that the healthy trees are removed, the fuel overburden is unabated, and fire still sweeps through the forest. This time, though, there's fewer healthy trees left to repopulate the forest, as the lumbering companies have removed them. Since the lumber companies only take certain species of trees, the balance of species in the resultant forest is out of whack and they are less likely to reforest properly and provide the same habitat as they once did. "Healthy Forests" is a rhetorical deception; it will in fact leave us with no such thing.
Now, if you want to see how a problem like this should actually be handled, go to the Superior National Forest web site. This is the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, where a huge storm in 1999 blew over hundreds of thousands of acres of trees at once. Fearful that all that dead wood would burn up and totally destroy the entire area (heavily used by canoeists, fishermen, and others for recreation), numerous alternatives were considered. Logging the downed trees was considered but eventually found unattractive; conventional logging would require building roads thoughout the entire area, destroying the wilderness character, and helicopter logging was uneconomic. Instead, the area was divided up into sections, and the overburden is being burned off section by section in controlled fashion.
This would work fine for the forests in California, Arizona, etc., as well. But getting rid of the fuel overburden in those forests, which is what causes the fire risk, is not the priority of the Bush administration. Allowing lumbering companies to cherry-pick the best healthy trees, which does nothing to reduce the fire risk, is.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
For real time political chat - Radio Free Republic chat room
I'm glad we aren't as cynical. All those people lost their homes, and some lost their lives. And their blood is on the hands of the environmentalists and their enablers.
There is little doubt that the phrase is correct.
But just where is the most important "conservative" mainstream newspaper helping expose those playing this rotten, fuel providing, little game?
So many important questions, and the most important serious newspaper in the country has no front page exposure, explosive or otherwise, of these unholy alliances? Or has Mr. Gigot somehow not gotten around to discussing his insinuations it with the newsroom?
Will somebody please remind me why the Wall Street Journal is a conservative icon? I would really like to know. They seem to be long on irritating us by telling us of the political shenanigans going on in the Senate but short on fingering the culprits (they imply they know who) pay the freight for the obvious obstruction. This all the while forests are placed off-limits, and decay and burn. And when deaths occur because the political class wants to make respective hay through delaying tactics, the deaths are tantamount to criminal manslaughter if not murder.
Look. He's of the hostile-to-us-non-elites TV medium.
By what magic do you suppose such a creature is about to be allowed to provide a different view of us?
Do you really think this man is one of a crew of new brooms who will clean up the seemingly-everyday-more-disreputable world of TV news and change it into even a fair minded medium, let alone a conservative ally?
How can you really think he's really your friend or capable of being our future friend if when even the WSJ can't or won't inform us with enough information that would provide us the means to demand that government financially ruin these miscreants and thereby defund their political stooges?
You have even claimed that Hugh Hewitt would be interested in Carry_okie's ideas. Yet that man has never referenced any of C_O's wonderful ideas, or hinted at even a single of his links between enviro-groups and their questionable government and business cronies and funders of those groups. Hewitt hasn't done it anymore than has Paul Gigot with extreme green groups, which is so typical of his cutsey little phrases that hint but don't reveal.
This is the kind of thing that makes me question the judgment of any person at FR who thinks any broadcast media, even that of "conxervative" talkshow hosts, are anywhere as really concerned as the average FReeper with the dirty dealings that go on at the higher, money-manipulating levels of our society.
That level, in case you haven't figured it out, includes those who pay talkshow hosts and TV media commentators and pundits who get multi-million dollar bookdeals.
And you know I have good reason for my skepticism when even the venerable WSJ can't be counted on to deliver all the facts we need to know.