Capitol Q&A: Was Clinton Right to Ban Fire Roads in Forests?

For a century, the U.S. Forest Service suppressed minor wildfires rather than let them burn out the underbrush in National Forests. As a result, the General Accounting Office (GAO) told Congress in 1998, "vegetation accumulated, creating high levels of fuels for catastrophic fires."

In 1999, the GAO told Congress that because of the way the Forest Service was administered by the Clinton Administration "many acres of national forests in the interior West may [still] remain at high risk of uncontrollable wildfire at the end of fiscal year 2015."

In January 2001, President Clinton approved the "Roadless Area Conservation Rule," which restricted the building of roads on 58.5 million acres of National Forest land. In the West, people call the unpaved roads through these forests "fire roads"—because they provide access for firefighters.

On May 4, Agricultural Secretary Ann Veneman announced that the Bush Administration would implement Clinton’s roadless rule. "This administration," she said, "is committed to providing roadless protection to our national forests."

A week later a federal judge in Idaho slapped an injunction on enforcement of the rule, but Veneman indicated her department would move forward with plans to implement it pending the outcome of litigation.

Given the potentially lethal fires that have raged through National Forests in just the first few weeks of this hot season, Human Events Assistant Editor David Freddoso asked members of Congress whether Clinton’s roadless rule was a mistake.

Given the fires that are raging out West, was President Clinton mistaken to ban the building of fire roads on 58 million acres of national forests?

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R.-Md.): I’m not an authority on national forests, but I think that there are a lot of things that we’ve done in the past that we can point to as probably causes of our present problems out there. One is that if you put out little fires as they occur, that would have burned out when it wasn’t so dry, those little fires produce firebreaks. Now we don’t have any firebreaks. So the fire gets going, and where is it going to stop? Clearly you need fire roads. . . .

Bartlett: In wilderness areas? It depends on what wilderness are. The wilderness area that has plenty of rainfall, where fires aren’t a threat—I don’t want roads in there. I’m kind of a wilderness freak, in spite of the fact that I’m a strong conservative. But where the wilderness is likely to go up in smoke without fire roads, heck yeah, they ought to be there. It’s a matter of common sense. We ought to put them where common sense dictates they ought to be.

Given the fires that are raging right now in your state and in Colorado, was President Clinton mistaken to ban the building of fire roads on 58 million acres of national forests?

Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.): Yes. Yes. We have a lot of issues. He was also wrong to support efforts to stop thinning in the forest and forest management in general. And now we’re paying the price. The radical environmentalists have just run amok. And we’re paying the price for it now.

Flake: Yes. We’ve got to move in, not just on the roadless rule, but on a number of issues to get around these restrictions and these frivolous lawsuits that are keeping us from maintaining the forests. Here’s how ridiculous it has become: Today’s East Valley Tribune in Arizona reports [how] the environmentalists are on the run right now. Get this, they said today: We’re not opposed to forest thinning. And they were asked: Under what conditions? And somebody from the Forest Guardian said that so long as it’s not commercial interests doing it, as long as it is with solar-powered chainsaws. No joke. No joke. That’s what we’re dealing with here. They say they want to come to the table and work with people, and they come to the table with solar-powered chainsaws. I mean, if it weren’t so deadly it would be laughable. It’s just ridiculous.

Given the devastating fires out West, was President Clinton mistaken to ban the building of fire roads on 58 million acres of national forests?

Rep. Wally Herger (R.-Calif.): I think we should ask that to the people out in Colorado and last year New Mexico where the fires are burning. In my own state, our fires don’t begin until a little later on, where they can’t get to to put these fires out. Whether or not he was mistaken—I think it’s clear that he was. That’s only part of what he was mistaken at. I mean, our forests are anywhere from three to ten times denser than they were historically, because we eliminated fires about a hundred years ago, and we need to go in and begin thinning them out so as to remove the fire hazard. And yet, we’re not doing any of that, basically. So yes, he’s about as mistaken as anyone can be and I’m afraid we’re going to be paying for it for many years to come.

Herger: Well, I believe absolutely. But our problem is, we have an overwhelmingly strong, radical environmental movement, which was reported in our own Sacramento Bee here last year, that raised three-and-a-half billion dollars a year that they put into campaigns and hiring lobbyists and lawyers, and they’re out suing on everything that happened. So . . . even though we drastically need to be doing that, I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

Given the fires that are raging in Arizona and Colorado, was President Clinton mistaken to ban the building of fire roads on 58 million acres of national forests?

Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.): Actually, the Clinton policy was to close roads already built, primarily. And as a result, we don’t have access to some portions of the forest, and it does potentially hinder firefighting activities. . . As a general policy, we’re going to need to know that we can get into the remote areas of a forest that may be subject to fire. We also have to be able to treat those areas of the forest that require some degree of access. And when I say treat, I mean going in with equipment to thin the forest so it no longer has the kind of fuel that is fueling these fires. That thinning, by the way, is primarily for the purpose of restoring the forest to the prime ecological condition that it used to be in, when instead of being choked by literally billions of little runt trees and brush, you had a few hundred—in a given acre or two—of big, beautiful trees, spaced apart, with grasslands in between, and when the fire came through, it didn’t burn the big, beautiful trees.

Senator, environmentalists in your state have said that they would agree to thinning the forests, provided it’s not done by commercial interests and it’s done with solar-powered chainsaws. What’s your reaction?

Kyl: (Laughs.) Well, that sounds like some of my environmental friends. . . . We don’t have enough money in the treasury to pay for somebody to just go out and do this. So you have to get somebody to do it who is willing to do it for the money they can make. . . . [W]hat we’ve found is, it’s possible to make money by taking this small diameter timber and using it for fiberboard, plywood, poles for cabins and fences and that sort of thing, and even in some cases, smaller lumber.

Should Congress act to reverse the previous administration’s foresting policies with respect to fire roads and thinning?

Given the devastating forest fires out West, was President Clinton mistaken to prevent fire roads from being built on 58 million acres of national forests?

Rep. Major Owens (D.-N.Y.): I have no idea. I’m totally ignorant on the subject.

Given the devastating forest fires blazing out West, was President Clinton mistaken to ban the building of fire roads on 58 million acres of national forests?

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R.-Ala.): You know, I’m not real sure of the details of that, but I do think that President Clinton pursued policies with regard to our national forests that were not scientifically based, that were often driven by environmental extremists, and have been unhealthy. . . . We’ve got to get our heads on straight, and we can thin these forests scientifically, and we can, as a result of that thinning, at least get enough revenue from it to pay the cost of the thinning, and perhaps also do some improvement in the forests.

Congressman Waxman? Dave Freddoso, Human Events. Congressman, given the forest—

Rep. Major Owens (D.-N.Y.): I have no idea. I’m totally ignorant on the subject.

This man should be commended. Anyone else in Congress would have considered "total ignorance" one of the major qualifications that was needed before one could pass legislation in a certain area of expertise.

Having said that, it should be pointed out that Major Owens probably represents a district in New York City that hasn't had a tree in decades.

In January 2001, President Clinton approved the "Roadless Area Conservation Rule," which restricted the building of roads on 58.5 million acres

At the rate forests are burning, the question of Clinton's roadless policy is self evident. Although it will probably be a moot point when we reach 10-20 million acres burned. Pretty easy to drive through a wasteland.

As one who lives within a few yards of a major western forest, I can tell you this, it isn't just the 'roadless' legislation that has created tinderboxes of mammoth proportions - it is ALL of the envirowacko legislation, lawsuits, propaganda that has all but brought a halt to logging.

We used to have a small mill that provided the major source of employment for locals, the loggers who provided the timber, also thinned the forests and kept them much healthier than any of them appear today - but with all the restrictions from the spotted owl onwards, the logging was halted, the mill went belly up and was sold to a Chinese company and after being dismantled and shipped eastward, now resides in North Korea.

Thank you, Robert Redford and all the rest of the criminally ignorant environmentalists.

My parents had 60 acres in Northern Michigan when I was a kid where we camped on our vacations. It had a logging trail to the middle of it where guys from some timber company would come and look for trees tall and straight enough to become telephone poles. They kept the trail cleared for their benefit but it also made it great for us because we didn't have to keep it cleared and we could get back to the fun places to play without having to climb through brush. The big benefit for us kids were the great climbing trees.

What will it take to reintroduce thinning the forests? One of the hallmarks of our time is the great lack of common sense.

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.