> Received: by tao.sosc.osshe.edu; id AA26299; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 09:27:34 -0700 > From: Bret Diamond <diam9018> > Message-Id: <9609051627.AA26299@tao.sosc.osshe.edu> > Subject: Re: Who is going to pay for the "To burn or not to burn?" > To: 374@chinook.fishbone.com, West@chinook.fishbone.com, > 12th@chinook.fishbone.com, Avenue@chinook.fishbone.com, > Suite@chinook.fishbone.com, 5@chinook.fishbone.com, > Eugene@chinook.fishbone.com, Oregon@chinook.fishbone.com > Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 09:27:34 -0700 (PDT) > In-Reply-To: <322D1F52.7985@forestnet.com> from "Martin J. Desmond" at Sep 4, 96 02:18:58 pm > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] > Content-Type: text > Content-Length: 2775 > > > On 9/4/96 Martin Desmond writes: > > > > 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. > > While I certainly agree with your first point, the irony of your second > point is the root of the problem. For seventy years the FS and BLM have > largely ignored the fuel loading problem, even with large staffs and > budgets, because their primary focus was timber extraction not forest > health. The timber industry has been extracting the profits from our > national forests for over 50 years, while earning themselves 100's of > billions of dollars in profit. Now that our forests are facing iminant > fire danger, the industry can't be bothered cleaning up its mess unless > valuable old-grwoth timber sweetens the salvage sales. Why should the > taxpayers have to foot the bill for roadbuilding, fire supression, > replanting etc. when the industry walks away with the profits? > > > > > 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. > > Environmental groups are objecting to the suspension of the law in order > to financially benefit timber interests ala salvage rider. The is > cerntainly sufficient language in fedral forest policy (FLPMA, NEPA, > NFMA, etc) to allow for real salvage logging. But the true salvage sales > (dead and really dyding timber--not just old-growth that isn't adding > biomass) receive no bids--only sales that include mostly healthy > old-growth timber receive bids becuase they are the only salvage sales > that are profitable. During the drastic over-cutting of the 80's, the > industry couldn't be bothered with salvage sales, now the hide behind > forest health in an effort to keep profits levels up. While there may in > fact be some environmental groups that will always oppose any further > logging on national forests, most of us remain committed to ensuring that > repsonsible, sustainable logging practices be implemented on our naitonal > forests, and cerntainly only logging that complies with existing law > should fit those criteria. If you can't log within the confines of the > law then don't log at all. > > Bret Diamond > Oregon, USA >
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0