Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Bush Puts Giant Sequoias on the Chopping Block

Under the guise of forest fire prevention, the Bush Administration's Forest Service has proposed logging in California's Sequoia National Monument, home to some of the world's tallest and oldest trees, reaching ages of 3,200 years or more.[1] Also at risk are the Pacific fisher, the California spotted owl, and many other threatened species dependent on ancient forest habitat.[2]

Established by President Clinton in 2000, the Monument designation was the culmination of years of work by environmentalists. But in its draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for management of the Monument, the Forest Service chose the most environmentally destructive of six alternative management plans, the one calling for the most intensive logging.

Under the Forest Service's "preferred alternative," 80,000 acres would be opened for logging, including trees up to 30 inches in diameter, a size not permitted in most National Forests throughout the Sierra Nevada.[3] The Forest Service's proposal calls for 180 clearcuts, producing 10 million board feet a year.[4]

The Forest Service plan is based on the idea that if the ancient Sequoias aren't logged, they will be vulnerable to catastrophic fires (despite the fact that they have somehow managed to survive for thousands of years on their own). But the real motivation may lie in a sentence buried deep in the EIS, which says logging in the Monument "might make the difference between continued operation and closure of the one mill available to serve the Monument."

If fire prevention is actually the Forest Service's agenda, experts cite better ways to accomplish this, such as thinning the forest near homes and businesses, and increasing the number of prescribed burns.

Logging in the Monument will actually increase the likelihood of severe fires, since removal of the large trees reduces the cooling shade of the forest canopy, and because highly flammable brush accumulates in open areas where logged trees once stood.[5]

In a final insult, the Forest Service plan will actually be subsidized by taxpayers, to the tune of $34 million. Much of that will go toward road building, even though there are already 900 miles of roads in the Monument. And nearly $14 million of taxpayer money will be spent for "mechanical thinning of conifer" -- otherwise known as logging. [6]

Environmental groups prevent harvesting of even DEAD trees, in certain areas, forcing live trees to be cut elsewhere. Does that make sense? Why not let lumber companies remove the dead, burned trees, and replant an area instead of letting the beetles reproduce out of control in these areas, to infect healthy areas next year? Why tie up the courts, preventing this action, so the beetles can reproduce and infect healthy areas? Why not harvest wood from trees that are already dead from fires, instead of letting that wood go to waste and then having to harvest healthy trees?

Within a year or two following the fire, many other organisms respond to the fire-induced changes. Insects such as bark beetles colonize burned trees that still have a viable inner bark.

The following 2 articles show how these beetles flourish after a fire, and then infect other trees.

www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/natres/06309.html

forestfire.nau.edu/beetles.htm

If the evil lumber companies are making so much money off this lumber, why does the government have to pay to have the forests thinned? Wouldn't lumber companies do it for free? Why do people, fortunate enough to live in these areas, have to pay many thousands of dollars to have the forests thinned around their homes? Why do environmental groups file law suits to try and stop these homeowners from improving their property? Remember all the law suits preventing home owners from clearing dry grass from around their homes due to the kangaroo rat? (And they were winning these court cases and imposing fines on these homeowners, until the devistating Oakland fires hit. Funny how things like the endangered species act has actually made things a lot worse for certain endangered species.)

Why has the forestry department been trying to get this done for the last 10 years, and it takes catastrophic fires to get the democrats to finally agree to it? And now that the fires are not currently burning, why have the democrats changed their story and are now dragging their feet? Why is the forestry department ignored when it says it will take years to thin the forests to a healthy level? Don't these idiots realize that when the next fire strikes, it will be too late to act then? Don't these fools realize that EVERYTHING dies in one of these enormous fires, unlike smaller fires that just kill some things. If we want to prevent fires like these 2 years from now, we must act now. Acting now will not even stop these kinds of fires in 2004 or 2005.

www.washtimes.com/national/20031027-104431-8551r.htm

When will the activists in this world develop common sense? When their actions are no longer governed by their emotions, but by reasoning, maybe?

Definitions of an activist: 1)"A child that screams and stamps his feet because he doesn't get his way" 2)"Someone who lets his emotions take precedence over his reasoning ability, if he has any"

Rodney

Jeez, it seems like the urge to disagree with Pulatus has shadowed any glimmer of sanity left in that head of yours. We're talking about living creatures that have remained here for thousands of years. And you believe that just because some new home-owner meanders his way through escrow, he's entitled to "thin-out" these ancient relics. The law may state that you're permitted to do it, but that doesn't make it right.

So you think it is better for enormous fires to kill every living thing that exists in that forest than to thin the forest a little so there are just a few small fires that allow most things to survive? Fires so large, that the seeds that are normally released in small fires to re-seed the forests, are now incinerated? Fires so large, that they kill thousands of times more life (trees included) than any irresponsible logging company could ever do?

That's clear thinking? I'll disagree with that everytime, no matter who says it. I just happen to disagree with pulatus a lot, because I find most of his post to be politically correct nonsense. Always worrying about a small portion of an equation at the expense of the big picture.

I'll also disagree with any organization that has an interest or bias on a subject over someone who doesn't. It is know that the lumber industry used to exploit the forest in the past. It is know that the environmental groups are exploiting corporations and tax payers by making millions bringing lawsuits. So why take either of their sides? What is the forestry department gaining when it recommends to thin the forests? What are the firefighters gaining? The firefighters are putting themselves out of a job by taking this stand! These people are doing this because they love the forests, not because they are getting rich off these "high paying" jobs. Ever met a rich forester or firefighter that became rich off his salary?

Take a look at this graph from a liberal newspaper that ran a series of articles on the environmental frauds. Notice how the fall in logging coincides with a rise in forest fires?

Still think allowing forests to overgrow, so they have hundreds of times more fuel for a fire to burn, is a good idea? I don't.

Think about it,

And more importantly, we should do what is right for the environment, not just what makes some environmental activists "feel" better about themselves--the ultimate form of selfishness and hypocrisy.

Rodney

And that chart isn't even current-it only goes up to 1997. Things keep getting worse. In the San Diego fire alone, (October 2002 only) there was 312,000 acres destroyed. Almost the same damage as the six year period shown on the chart, all in just one fire, during one month! Think about that one! (Unless you can't look at the facts because they disagree with you being politically correct)

Rodney

many, many species rely on dead trees for food, cover and of course nutrients to replenish the soil. Please get a better understanding of forest ecosystems before defending the distruction of them.