Posted on 06/03/2006 8:50:21 PM PDT by CedarDave
A group of environmentalists and residents who live near the Santa Fe National Forest have won an appeal that will delay plans to thin more than 1,800 acres near the Santa Fe Watershed.
Project planners with the forest's Española Ranger District did not adequately collaborate with landowners, community groups and other stakeholders, according to U.S. Forest Service officials who reviewed the appeal.
"Local collaboration may have resolved some of the public concerns, issues, and alternatives to the project that surfaced during the public involvement process," Santa Fe National Forest supervisor Gilbert Zepeda wrote in his May 25 decision.
The Forest Service wants to use machines and prescribed fires to thin 1,825 acres immediately southeast of Hyde Park Road. The overgrown forests— parts of which contain more than 1,000 trees per acre— represent a significant fire risk to the adjacent Santa Fe Watershed and nearby communities, according to forest officials.
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...
Exactly. Once their homes burn up in the fire, however, they will be screaming that no one did anything to save their house. Too bad they don't understand that NM is a desert, and the forrests in the state are all dry as tinder, ready to go up at the slightest spark.
Why does the US Forest Service need to consult private property owners on this?
That's right. Not one life should be risked fighting the wildfire when it starts.
Jackasses, every one of them.
"President Bush (a.k.a. Chainsaw George and/or the Toxic Texan) is rapidly moving to implement his recently unveiled "Healthy Forests Initiative". The Bush administration on Thursday asked Congress to exempt up to 10 million acres of federal forest land from environmental reviews and citizen appeals to speed logging and thinning projects aimed at reducing forest fires. The U.S. Senate must be lobbied to ensure these policies are not enacted."
"The President is using the issue of fire prevention as a guise to enable timber companies to increase their logging on public lands."
"At least 13 die in California wildfires"
"California fires consume 500,000 acres"
"California fires claim more lives"
"California faces "worst disaster" as fires kill 18, destroy 2,000 homes"
"Firefighter's death raises wildfire toll to 20"
"Ten missing after southern California mudslide
The slides were exacerbated by a lack of ground cover due to a devastating wildfire that ripped through the area in late October, scorching tens of thousands of acres."
"As of October 31, 20 people were confirmed dead, including one firefighter, and over 3,500 structures, including 2,600 homes, have been destroyed. Losses are estimated at more than $2 billion."
Unfortunately not. The kind of eco-fanatics who espouse this kind of thing NEVER actually LIVE in the affected areas. No, they live in the center of major cities, in nicely "urban planned" eco-friendly neighborhoods.
That is true. I grew up under Capitan Mountian, and spent several summers on a bulldozer, creating fire lines on the private area of the ranch...left the big trees alone, but all others went. It opened the area up a lot. Everyone around there understood why we were doing it.
They deserve what they ask for. Idiots. These same A-holes cry about this fictitious "global warming" as well. They just can't get it through their heads that a healthy, growing forest absorbs much more co2 than a dead decaying one does.
No doubt they will demand water bombers to put out the fires. I say let it burn. We shouldn't interfere with mother nature.
At least Imus is bright enough to thin his little private playground. The wackos should follow his lead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.