Oh, I don't know. Depends on who or what he's going to use it on... 
Posted on 09/06/2002 10:58:25 AM PDT by NorCoGOP
AUSTIN, Texas -- The best way to rid the world of the AIDS epidemic is to quarantine and kill those infected by it. Most people would agree that this statement is not only false, but extremely misanthropic and merciless. In the same way, the idea that cutting down old growth trees in national parks in the name of fire prevention should be seen as absurd as the previous statement. This gross misjudgment is exactly what President Bush is currently trying to feed the American public.
Most of the nation, as well as the world, is presently coming to terms with the destructiveness of wildfires. About 190 million acres of U.S. land have already been torched by uncontrollable blazes. Although this pales in comparison to fire-related sylvan losses in the rest of the world, it is a very serious problem, particularly because the fires continue to come perilously close to people's homes. As has been proven hundreds of times in the past, when a mass of people feel threatened, they will look for a quick solution to their feelings of impotence. Again, as history has shown, this has led to colossal disasters. In the face of the destruction of property and the potential loss of life, President George W. Bush has offered a delightful option: cut down trees in nationally protected parks and build roads through them to slow fire from spreading.
While this "solution" might be hailed for its speed and decisiveness, it is unimaginably ill-conceived. According to the U.S. Forest Service's chief fires specialist Denny Thursdale, trees bigger than three to four inches in diameter do not pose a threat. What causes wildfires to spread so quickly through an area is the overgrowth of underbrush and saplings. Of course these do not hold any commercial worth to the timber industry, which has eyed the western United States for its huge expanses of mature, old growth trees. The irony is that this forest "thinning" plan is aimed at temperate forests - mostly in national parks - while 80 percent of the wildfires have raged on non-federal owned chaparral and grasslands which are mostly devoid of timber interests.
Recently Bush visited Oregon and experienced its "war" against wildfires first hand. Apart from the belligerence that comes with insisting that everything is a war, he called for a relaxation of the red tape that is wrapped around requests to log the last tracts of unspoiled land. This completely ignores Clinton's monumental decision to protect the vulnerable national parks from New Hampshire to California on Jan. 5 of last year. From the date that this was passed, timber industry lobbies in Congress have worked to overturn the decision. With the toll wildfires have taken and Bush's unabashed gung-ho attitude, they needn't work too hard.
The Forest Service's expert Jack Cohen recently published studies that confirm the best way to protect American families is to reduce the flammability of their homes. A disastrous example to look at would be the Fort Valley timber sale on the Coconino National Forest in northern Arizona. The project was designed to remove flammable undergrowth. However, like all commercial logging projects, it focused on removing mature trees more than five feet in diameter. This eliminated the forest canopy, resulting in the removal of hundreds of habitats including that of the goshawks, an already-imperiled species of hawk. In addition to this, logging mature trees not only ignores the true root of the problem, but leaves behind extremely flammable material such as dry twigs and branches in its wake.
Just as President Bush restricted individual rights and ignored social issues in the name of the war against terror, he is now relaxing environmental laws in the name of the war against fire. This blatant abuse of the American's public support cannot be denied. With the events that pulled the nation together a year ago, come a very important responsibility that only American citizens themselves can carry out: To monitor potential abuses of power, be they by foreign antagonists or domestic. Only in this way can we hope to avoid possible disaster.
I read this and thought that the rest of the article would make as much sense. Boy, was I wrong.
When and where has Bush ever proposed cutting down old growth trees in national parks? I can see cutting down a diseased old growth tree or one that needs to be thinned. I really don't think Bush, or anyone else, is saying we should clear cut the Redwood Forrest.
Does anyone with any common sense think that there is another way? This virus is mutating beyond control and the current treatment just allows those who are infected to spread it further.
Quarantine, not kill, those infected. When those people inevitably die, it has not been spread further.
Yes, it's pretty cold, but until there is a cure, this is the way to handle it.
OK, on the real topic of forest thinning. These activists need to pick up a machete and a chain saw and clear out the fire hazard themselves - or shut the hell up.
As redundant as that statement is, it sure is true!
" It seems that left are all on the same page."
They always are; that's why they are winning.
Old growth is exactly what we need to cut, so that the next generation of trees can also become 'old growth.'
It seems that they are trying to do with trees what they have been doing to people: kill the babies and have the old die without a new generation. The Death Culture is the heart of liberalism.
We disagree. Old growth forests are a valuable research asset. Using them for lumber is un-necessary in the face of a global timber glut. You might want to ask yourself why no one is growing timber of equivalent quality before you make that assertion.
Oh, I don't know. Depends on who or what he's going to use it on...
You're able to speak as a qualified conservationist, watch out for flames from those that don't know you.
As much as we despise the envirals, we all agree there are certain trees that shouldn't be cut. We have some 500 year old Cypress Strands down here that are truly magnificent.
That said, there's plenty of Old Growth that can be cut. Saving it just for the sake of saving it can be counterproductive.
That's one thing the Greens screwed up for everyone. The ability for us all who care about the environment to look at anything rationally and logically anymore.
I can't see burned timber as much of an asset for any purpose. - Unless those forests are logged enough to break the crown open, sooner or later thay will burn destructively.
I believe it was you that posted an article some months ago that exposed how much western forests have densified in the past century or so. - It is that crown density that makes the fires impossible to fight on a small scale basis. ( that's not my idea, it comes from rank and file CDF smoke eaters)
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.