Forest list archive: msg00024

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Who is going to pay for the "To burn or not to burn?"



I'm glad to see that the issue of wildland fire fighting is being
raised.  In my home state of Oregon, USA, we have had over 500,000 acres
burned in the last 30 days.  The cost will likely exceed $150 to $200
million dollars US just to suppress the Oregon fires.

To date, there have been over 5,700,000 acres burned in the United
States which is substantially above the five year average of 2.0 million
acres.  For folks that are interested in the daily blow-by-blow
description of the fires, you can check out
http://fwspceaa.nifc.r9.fws.gov/~amundsone/Situation_Report.html.

I believe that there are two primary reasons why these fires are burning
so many acres.  First, seven decades of fuel loading on these lands.
Second, the Forest Service and BLM have been downsized in personnel and
no longer have adequate resources to fight fire dangers that are much
greater than 20 years ago.

The big question, as addressed by Andrew Gray, is who is going to pay
for the fuel reduction costs.  Although I want to sound pessimistic, I
don't think that there will ever be a program to reduce fuels.
Environmental groups will object to any type of fuel reduction program
as simply an attempt to log trees.  Instead, we will simply spend
hundreds of millions of dollars every couple of years fighting fires on
public forests that will no longer be generating any timber sale
income.
--
Martin Desmond
ForestNet       http://www.forestnet.com
374 West 12th Avenue, Suite 5,  Eugene, Oregon  USA  97401
1-541-334-6235 (phone)    1-541-344-6179  fax



References:

[Metla] [Main Index] [Thread Index]

Mail converted by MHonArc 1.1.0