Posted on 06/25/2002 11:33:08 PM PDT by dittomom
The smoke is overwhelming. The heat is overpowering. And that's just the rhetoric about Arizona's mammoth forest fire.
While the flames rage across the high country, the debates rage over what to do about our overgrown, tinder-dry forests and over who is to blame for their sorry state.
In the blaze of competing sound bites, it's easy to miss the most important point: There are broad areas of agreement. Broad enough to create a blueprint for reducing the risk of future infernos.
• 1: Fires are a natural part of the Southwest landscape, a periodic housecleaning that gets rid of brush and small trees, while leaving the large trees a bit charred but intact.
• 2: Thanks in large part to a misguided policy of snuffing out every fire, today's forests are jammed with small trees, up to 100 times more than is healthy. They provide fuel for monstrous fires and a "ladder" for flames to reach the crowns of trees.
• 3: We must thin at least part of the state's forests, and the most critical spot is along the fringes, where homes border the woods.
There are two major tools to clear excess underbrush and small trees: cutting and burning. Both generate controversy. Both must be put to greater use.
Prescribed burns, deliberately set by forestry officials, got a bad reputation after a New Mexico fire went out of control and incinerated parts of Los Alamos. But they are an efficient way to thin forests. We should pick up the pace of intentional, carefully monitored fires once Arizona emerges from the drought and it's safe to do so.
In the meantime, we must educate the public about the need for prescribed burns. With more and more people moving into the woods, uninformed residents are quick to object to the smoke and ashes of a burn. Certainly, the smoky air can create unhealthy conditions for anyone with breathing problems. Those people should have ample notice, so they can stay indoors or even leave for a day or two.
Talk about cutting down trees, and everyone expects the environmentalists to scream. But Arizona's major environmental groups say they favor chopping out brush and smaller trees when it's not practical to burn them. The caveats: The focus should be on the forest fringe, cutting trees no larger than 12 inches in diameter.
Certainly, forested areas close to houses should be a top priority and will take years to deal with. That gives us plenty of time to discuss how and whether to treat more remote spots.
Some might argue over the size of tree. But the 12-inch limit covers the most troublesome overgrowth and is a reasonable place to start. We should also continue to research the best approach for the health of the forest.
We should also encourage commercial uses for small-diameter timber and forest debris. Some exciting projects are in the wings, including a small electricity-generation plant.
Even with such ways to offset costs, undoing a century of forest mismanagement won't be cheap or quick. Last year, federal agencies spent $17 million to thin 121,000 acres of Arizona's forests through cutting or burning. At that rate, it would take three years to treat the amount of land that the "Rodeo-Chediski" fire ate in barely a week.
But the Rodeo-Chediski fire is also showing the value of forest thinning. One reason Show Low has survived so far is that the fire slowed when it hit 10 square miles of forest that were treated several years ago. South of Heber, it was the same story: Flames were blazing through treetops and racing across a square mile in just four hours. But the fire dropped to ground level, doing far less damage, when it reached a treated area, and it took two days to cross a mile of forest.
In a state where the national forests alone cover 11 million acres, we must put up the money and muscle to clean up our forests faster.
If we don't do it the right way, Mother Nature will do it the hard way.
HUNH? Plenty of time? Both fires (that have now merged into one) began in the "remote" areas of the forest. And because nothing was done there for so long, the fires quickly spread to the populated areas.
The angle to use is to suggest environmentalists do what citizens do. Vote for representatives who support their policies. Don't shop for sympathetic judges and don't distract the Forest Service while it is trying to save property, homes and lives.
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.