Posted on 07/03/2002 3:00:31 AM PDT by Gillmeister
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. . . .
Should Congress overturn the roadless ban?
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.
Should Congress take steps to overturn that policy?
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.
Should Congress overturn the regulation on fire roads?
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?
Kyl: Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Henry Waxman (D.-Calif.): Human Events?
Yes. I interviewed you, like, three months ago or something.
Waxman: Yes, I remember that.
Congressman, given the forest—
Waxman: I’m in the middle of a conversation right now.
.... hard to argue with that...
"Actually, I am busy trying to extract my big fat nose from some enviral weenie's posterior," replied Waxman."The greenies bring me lots of green and I was bending over to shovel some into my war chest and my nose got caught in some tree sitter's anal cavity. Could you pass me some of that organic 10W-40 please."
But you can bet he voted for any measure that the watermelon enviralists pushed to the table.
Ping.
There were two serving our nation infamously as co-presidents. I would say that Field Marshal Hitlery von Rotham Klintoon, Protectoress of Kosovo, made most of the "important" decisions as the Marxist-rapist was busy most of the time masturbating in a sink or shoving his leftward leaning penis into some fat girl's gaping pie hole.
His actions were enough to transform a nice Wellesley girl into a flaming communist and lesbian. How fortunate for the Empire State that she serves them as their senator.
You know I hate it when they quote people out of context. What Rep. Owens really said was: " I have no idea. I'm totally ignorant. On the subject of race I am fully informed. Do you have any questions on racial matters?"
He put on a plaid shirt to express is solidarity with our mother the earth and our friends from the forest floor.
In the early 1970s, Congress enacted legislation authorizing clear cutting in the National Forests. To offset the furor by the enviros over clear cutting, Congress also enacted legislation authorizing the Forest Service to do nationwide assesments/studies of the Forests as to the health/condition of the Forests. There is no set schedule on these assessments but they are to be occasionally and appropriately.
There were many policy changes in the National Forests during the 1990s based on imput from the courts, Congress, and the Clinton administration. The roadless policy put in place by Clinton was, however, based on an National Forest Assessment that he called for in the mid-90s and completed in the late 90s. These Assesments can be seen at the individual Forests web sites.
As stated above, the Bush Administration indicated that it would do the studies and has recently called for another National Assessment. The Assesments have begun and are in the "public imput" stage. These new assessments can also be found at the individual Forests web sites.
Although Bush, early on, was able to make some key appoinments, transfers, and force out trouble makers throughout the federal land agencies, he was delayed in making the changes down at the individual forest level until 60-90 days ago.
It is important to note that although Bush has called for the new assesments, it is unclear as to what aurhority/justification the assessments will give Bush in dealing with the roadless issue.
On a related note: Jack Blackwell, appointed to PSW Regional Forester by Bush, announced this week the "hiring" of a group of "scientists" to review the Sierra Framework.
Yeah, I was a hiker/camper once but now I prefer to drive/4 wheel to areas of interest.
So much for equal access. And it will be a generation before the forests in Colorado/Arizona/California/New Mexico grow back.
I beleive him.
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.