Those of us who support Bush because of the WoT, despite opposing him on gay marriage and stem cell research, now have to deal with a questionable environmental proposal concerning the national forests. The administration wants to open up a great deal of restricted land to logging interests.
Under the proposal, governors would have to petition the federal government to block road-building in remote areas of national forests. Allowing roads to be built would open the areas to logging.
The rule replaces one adopted by the Clinton administration and still under challenge in federal court. It covers about 58 million of the 191 million acres of national forest nationwide.
I’ve lived long enough in California to know this issue isn’t as simple as I used to think it was. Neither side is free of hypocrisy, to put it mildly (most of us, I’ve noticed, live in houses built of trees). Still, it’s disturbing. And in an election year the discussion of this proposal is as likely to be Solomonic as I am to be the next astronaut.
UPDATE: Some have asked if the knowledgeable posters here have changed my opinion on this issue. To some extent, yes, but I have for some time been a pragmatist on environmental laws. Some are good (the air is a lot cleaner in my neck of the woods); some are not. More research-less emotion.
This is one of those issues (aren’t they all) that people are prone to dig in their heels about and start screaming bloody-murder if anyone even suggests that it “ain’t as simple as it seems”.
This proposal is considered “anti-environment”, but is it really? I don’t claim to know but I sure do know that there’s a whole lot of arguments on both sides – and that’s before we even climb out of the enviroswamp and wade into the muck and mire of states rights, federalism, and proper/desireable use of public property. And after all that we can try to swim through the flotsam and jetsom of economic impact. Not only are our houses made of wood, but so are the paper towels we’ll need to clean up the mess created by the pissing contest this will provoke. And those saw mills and paper mills do employ people and, generally, employ people in locations where other employment isn’t always readily at hand.
Isn’t the point of opening up the logging roads to be able to go into the forrests and clear out the dead wood that builds up over time and turns the forrests into tinderboxes? Aren’t we tired of seeing huge portions of states burn down every year because environmentalists are so opposed to logging that they oppose anything that would benefit the loggers, even cleaning and clearing the forrests to make them healthier?
As you are a resident of California, I’m kind of surprised to hear you saying these things, Roger. Proposed logging, etc., still requires permission from the Fed, yet each state can petition within their territory. Sounds reasonable to me.
Also, a large part of the problem with huge wildfires is due to old growth forests not being thinned out or having smaller, controlled burns. Thus, when I hear Bill Richardson fighting this, I’m even more surprised. I lived in NM during a time when there were several wildfires that destroyed lots of acreage (and a number of homes)….all on Gov. Richardson’s watch.
I’m not here to say clear-cutting is good. I would just say that a balance has to be achieved, and this seems to be a step in the right direction. After all, having 1/3 of the national parks shut off seems a bit ridiculous -especially when 1/3 = 58 million acres. How many wildfires started in these areas that were sealed off, I wonder?
Summarizing what I said above: Money spent fighting fires can be turned into money made preventing them.
Hopefully the government will be prudent enough in approving proposals that do not clear-cut (of course, do I really trust them to do that? Hmmm…).
Having seen one from the inside, I’d rather thin out an existing forest than lose it all to a wildfire.
Given the existing (and growing) population pressure in this state, human management of the remaining undeveloped land is not only materially necessary, it is responsible and morally imperative.
The “just leave it alone to be itself” school of thought leads to such absurdities as the current policy of encouraging an entire community to lock its children and pets inside when a mountain lion is seen, rather than track down the mountain lion.
Of course, this is a state where a mountain lion that kills a child will get more money donated to help its cubs than the bereaved family gets to bury their baby…
I have no way to know which “side” of the environmental impact debate is more, or less, correct. I do know that I’ve long since grown very suspicious of the “environmentalist” side. One can often understand the motivations behind businesses (making money! but rarely wishing to kill the goose laying their golden eggs).
But the environmentalist side seems much harder to see into. If one is a “protect the environment at any and all costs” type, wouldn’t one want, just to grab a handy example, Saddam Hussien drawn and quartered just because of the destruction of the salt marshes and the pouring of oil into the Gulf and the burning of oil wells? I have a friend who knows the science behind such things and he tells me that, without a doubt, the wildfires we see anymore all summer on the nightly news pour more CO2 and other bad stuff into the air than even a large, old, and relatively inefficient coal-fired power plant will produce in its entire working lifespan – by a huge amount no less. He also insists that the recycling industry, even now after many years of hard work, has not yet reached the break even point in terms of energy consumed and pollution prevented – uses more energy and creates more pollutants than simply crushing, tossing, and making new would do. It would be somewhat easy to dismiss this friend’s information as coming from a bias source, but he’s made a good living for many years in the “fad/enviro-friendly” end of the energy business.
I don’t know how anyone who is not directly effected can spend the time and energy necessary to become educated enough to make sense of it. For me, that means I don’t want either side to “win” – I want both sides to be kept on some form of legislative leash.
I generally feel the same way about the “stem cell” research and nanotechnology issues. I don’t see why either side should have all they demand. Healthy tension and mutual resistance seems good to those, like me, who can’t get at all details.
Many outdoor recreationists including hunters opposed the Clinton admin roadless initiative because it was seen as a move toward restricting public access to the national forests.
Hunters depend on logging roads in the national forests for access to good hunting territory. Logging also opens up forest to big game by the way – deer for example do not do well in old growth forest but rather do best in areas with a patchwork of forest and open ground. The initiative was seen as the Clinton administration pandering to a narrow environmentalist agenda of closing our forests to the many people who use them – not just to loggers.
The environmental movement, like so many others it seems, has veered violently to the left in the past twenty years or so. They are strongly anti-capitalist, and it is not uncommon to hear prominent members state that they’d rather see a forest burn to the ground than see a logging company make a dime of profit from it.
The folly of this is remarkable considering the fact that, a) lumber is a renewable resource, and b) due to pressure from environmentalists our domestic lumber production is wholly inadequate to meet our needs and we therefore import most of our lumber at great expense , much of it from S. America where there are no restrictions against clear cutting.
These mega-fires we’ve seen lately are the result of an unnatural accumulation of fuel due to years of fire suppression and burn with such a ferocious intensity that they destroy everything in the forest, including the topsoil which is sterilized and takes an inordinate amount of time to replenish itself. Ironically, they are far more destructive than even clear cutting.
Just one more example of “well intentioned” leftists and there disastrous unintended consequences.
Her is an excellent article by Michael Chrichton about environmentalism as religion.
http://www.perc.org/publications/articles/Crichtonspeech.php
I find the fascination with “old growth forests” to be remarkable–My imperfect understanding is that old growth forests are simply a cycle in an ever evolving ecosystem, and “saving” them for posterity while admirable may not be consistent with a normal cycle of ecological growth. That said, I do believe in the willy nilly destruction of all old growth areas–thus the balance required by all sides. Perhaps we have forest biologists who could enlighten me one way or the other. What did H.L.Mencken say? for every complex problem there is a solution: neat simple and wrong.
sorry: I do NOT believe in the willy nilly destruction…..
RogerA,
Its partly that “Salesman” or “Marketeer” mentality that, IIRC, Heather made note of in this or another nearby thread. If you want people to “buy” what you’re “selling”, you can’t very well call it, “a big patch of really old trees of interesting varieties that nobody has gotten around to cutting down yet.” So the marketeers cook up a crafty name that has the right psychological impact (at least the right initial impression impact) like “old growth forest”.
Then they go out and point to the types of trees that live hundreds upon hundreds, or even thousands of years and point to those as “old” so that we make associations between those trees and “old growth forests”. They can’t have the common idiots recognizing that, for the most part, these old trees are forever falling over dead and being replaced by their offspring. Label the forest rather than the trees and the young are suddenly old. Sometimes its useful to recognize that people have some difficulty seeing the trees ’cause they forest is in the way.
Unfortunately this whole issue for the majority of Americans does not involve anything more than emotion. Keep the forests pristine.
Though I think there may be a growing segment of the population who understand the destructiveness of forest fires. And from an unlikely source..the Weather Channel.
The Weather Channel is extremely popular in this country, and not as a channel folks turn to once or twice a day for a minute or so. Many people sit and actually WATCH it. ::blush:: I was reading recently that they get as much as a 35% share of the cable audience.
And when those forest fires burn and Jim Cantore shows the smoke on the satellite views it gives one a pause that is not refreshing. It’s one thing to hear on the news that there is a fire in such and such a state that has burned x acres, and quite another to view it in a satellite photo.
Paul,
Mt. St. Helen did a pretty good job of “clear cutting”. Well, cutting at least. Were those “old growth forests”? Seems to me, if we care about clear cutting of old growth forests, we oughta be figuring out how to put corks in some of those rotten volcanoes!
BTW, I’m pretty sure it was in Time Magazine about 3 or 4 years back, but I once saw an article that claimed fully 50% of “greenhouse gasses” put into the atmosphere came from coal mine fires in China and India. The amount from auto emissions, particularly US auto emissions, was down around 10 or 15% IIRC. It seems to me that those intent on solving the problem of greenhouse gasses emitted into the atmosphere might better focus their attentions on coal mine fires in China and India. A mere 30% improvement in that source would equal doing away entirely with automobiles. There’s a bumper sticker there somewhere; “Think Globally – douse those freakin’ coal mine fires!”
Syl,
The Weather Channel is one of the more fascinating pop culture phenomenons available. I’m not ordinarily a watcher, but as soon as the weather gets really nasty and could not be more obvious and can be viewed in all its glory through any available window – Baddabing! on goes the Weather Channel. Wassupwitdat?
We burn down a fair portion of my beloved Land of Enchantment every summer. Many of the fires are started by careless humans, but many are also started by lightning strikes. The result is the same. Common sense argues that thinning is probably a good thing, and that logging roads provide ready access for fire fighters, not to mention fire breaks, but the answers are ultimately technical. Surely we have solid answers rooted in science. Does thinning a forest make it less likely to burn? Likewise, I’m sure we have a pretty good handle on the effect on wildlife.
But unfortunately, our public science has become political. It’s hard to know what’s true when we have very vocal liars on both sides of the question. maybe it’s time to let common sense rule. I can tell you that the average man on the street or in the forest here in New Mexico loves our National Forests and bosques, and it’s sickening to watch them burn. There’s got to be a sensible way to help control these fires, and if someone can make a buck, all the better. Good logging roads and sensible thinning makes sense to me.
First, a couple of numbers to give a bit of perspective. 58 million acres is about 5% less than the area of Oregon. It is approximately 2% of the the area of the United States. We’re talking about a lot of land here.
Second, I believe (although I’m willing to be corrected) that there is more forested area in the United States than there was 400 years ago. We aren’t running out of trees.
Third, this may just be an opening bid; the Bush administration may actually be angling for, say, 30 million acres. That would still be a lot of land, of course, but it’s also a lot less.
There are some disturbing things about the way the Department of the Interior administers the national forests. Specifically, it sells off logging rights for about 3% of what it has cost to administer the land to which rights are sold, and it is not possible to buy the logging rights and not use them. If I really like that ten acres over there and would like it to stay tree-covered, I can’t buy the right to keep the parcel tree-covered, even if I were willing to pay much more for that right than, say, Boise Cascade will pay for the logging rights, so the free market can’t play any role here.
It’s possible that I’m wrong about some of the “facts” that I’m reporting here. I welcome corrections – preferably with links to web pages so that I can improve my knowledge.
All:
Paul’s 8:51 post has a link to a Michael Crichton speech that is absolutely essential reading for anyone trying to understand the environmental movement.
I urge you to read it.
Knucklehead
“Baddabing! on goes the Weather Channel. Wassupwitdat?”
LOL! Radars? Learning how long ’til the bad stuff is gone from your area?
I’ve been a Weather Channel fan and watcher since it began in the mid eighties or so. Since Michelin was about their only advertiser. I used to be criticized because ‘who cares what the weather is in Indiana when you live in New Jersey?’ (When I lived in New Jersey)
But the weather in Indiana will affect the weather east of there in a day. You see the overall patterns. You learn stuff. You really do learn stuff, and not just which Weather Channel gal got pregnant this month.
I cried when John Hope died. He was in his eighties but was damn good explaining stuff during hurricane season and he had such a perky sense of humor.
One quite famous country singer (don’t remember her name) was on one of the late-night talk shows where she admitted she was a Weather Channel watcher. The host says, like, you mean you turn to it to get your local weather a couple of times a day. She said, no! She watches it like a soap opera for a couple hours straight.
Heh. There’s a lot of us out there. A LOT of us. Though I don’t watch as much since 9/11.
Hmmm.
1. “Logging also opens up forest to big game by the way – deer for example do not do well in old growth forest but rather do best in areas with a patchwork of forest and open ground.”
That’s because deer are browsing animals. In an old growth forest not enough light reaches the soil, so bushes cannot grow. In an old growth forest deer would starve to death.
2. Yes I’ve heard many times that there are more trees today than there were a few hundred years ago. Makes sense to me. We don’t burn all that much wood to heat our homes.
3. Frankly I’d rather see forests clear cut, and the wood made useful, than losing them to a forest fire. So a reasonable use of forests sounds fine to me.
Then again I grew up in New Hampshire so I view trees as not something mystical but rather a bunch of planking with roots attached.
*shrug*.
Knucklehead,
Interestingly enough, in addition to greenhouse gasses and harmful particulates, coal fired electrical powerplants release far more radioactive substances into the atmosphere, and thus into our lungs and bodies, than we would be exposed to from nuclear powerplants.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Also, a little discussed fact about hydrogen as an energy source is that in order to produce free hydrogen you need a method of electrical production than provides an excess of power in off peak hours that can be shunted off to be used to separate H2O molecules into free oxygen and hydrogen. Oil or coal fired plants produce power as needed and any excess used to produce free hydrogen would be a net loss in energy per the second law of thermodynamics, and thus not economically viable.
In order for hydrogen to be produced without added prohibitive cost a steady source of electrical power generation is needed. The two that come to mind are hydro-electric and nuclear, where production is constant and an excess in off peak hours is available.
The conundrum that the environmentalists find themselves in is that they have committed themselves to a whole host of counterproductive policies (but isn’t this true of the left in general?), one of which is their violent opposition to nuclear power. This is one area in which France is way ahead of the United States.
Syl,
I understand what you’re getting at. I’ll watch it for hours also when the reason I turned it on was nothing more than semi-idle curiosity about how long nasty weather is going to last. Its on and then suddenly its interesting. And I’ll be darned if I’ll turn on any network version “Stormwatch 2004: the end of the world as we know it! Stay tuned in with us so we can show you all the mayhem and madness”. Its weather. If you have to go out you’ll go out, if you can stay in you’ll stay in. It will last as long as it lasts and then change to something else. You’ve lived in NJ so you are well familiar with the expression, “Hey, if you don’t like the weather just wait a few hours and it will change.” The Swedes (actually all Scandinavians seem to agree) have my favorite adage concerning weather, “There is no such thing as bad weather, there are only improperly dressed people.”
BTW, the StormWatch 2004 nonsense gives some idea of at least part of what the MSM is all about. They want our eyeballs glued to their broadcast. They can’t just say, “Hey, its snowing. Pretty hard. Plows are out working, everything will be normal within 24 hours. Now back to our regularly scheduled moronic programming.” Its gotta be “Oh my GOD! Look at this! The worst since snow was first discovered or at least since the blizzard of the last ’04. Somebody somewhere has died or at least wrenched their back shoveling! Stay with us and we’ll show you some auto wrecks and hard working salt truck drivers!”
Paul,
My energy generation expert friend has said, many times, that nuclear power is – no contest – the safest, cheapest, and best way to generate electricity. He claims the engineering today is rock solid and disposal is not an issue (on the disposal issue I’ve often wondered why this is a problem since, after all, we’ve spent quite a few centuries now digging really big holes really deep into the earth – tossing some spent rods into them can’t be all that hazardous, can it? We might want to add a couple layers of hi-qualty shrink wrap to keep water out, but really, is there any shortage of safe places to put some spent fuel rods?)
He just laughs when anyone gets all whacky about nuclear power. He makes his living off everything but, so he’s happy we’re all so knuckleheaded on this issue. Americans are pretty wacky about nuclear power. But once we get our “Three Mile Island” style things to fret about we don’t want to hear anything. Its like “Watergate” and “Nixon” – the absolute apexes of “runaway government” and “lunatic, horrible president” (well, up till now, of course). If the worst our government has gotten away from us in the last 40 years is Watergate, we really need to count our blessings. And Nixon sure was an odd, twitchy little character with a problem or two, but comeon – he was no Stalin or, perish the thought, Chirac.
I’m going to write something about stem cell research.
We’re making breakthroughs using adult cells.
And something interesting to discuss in the future.
The younger generation – including the spawn of the Berserkeleites, is against abortion on demand. And med advancement is changing the debate. Wasn’t there recently a report that a 12 week old fetus looked like it yawned, rubbed it’s eyes and moved its feet?
So, where are these embryonic cells going to come from? The 3rd world? What a propaganda coup, forcing poverty-stricken brown girls to have abortions so white people can live longer.
—
I felt schaudenfreude when San Diego burned, especially since I read a comment from an envirwhacko saying most of their contributors were in that area.
Cause meet effect. Your dollars and policy in action. 40% of this country is offlimits because it’s protected forest. We can afford to do this. Especially when envirowhackos have oil wells on their property to make money.
—
NASA tracks the black cloud of pollution from China. I remember watching it going across the Pacific.
And that thing was humongous.(sp)
When all the forests are burned to the ground or eaten alive by tree beetles which are now spreading from the dead trees to the healthy trees, we will not have to worry about road access.
I just returned from New Mexico myself, I lived in NM for almost thirty years. Due to a lack of “tending the gardens” over the past decade or so, the place is rotting away.
In this day and age, this should not be happening at such a rapid pace, we do have the resources to be able to tend to our gardens effectively but the current environmental policies in place are preventing us from tending these gardens.
I agree Michael Crichton’s speech on the Religion of Enviromentalist is a must read!
You know it’s funny that my whole shift away from my generation’s default leftist Gramscian thinking was precipitated by the environmentalists, due to of all things, mountain biking.
I’ve always been an outdoor enthusiast, but when I discovered the joys of covering large areas of rugged, technically challenging terrain on a bicycle I was hooked.
I also discovered an unbelievable amount of insane foaming at the mouth hostility from a heretofore benign (to me anyway) group of people who called themselves environmentalists. Apparently, I was unaware that my bicycle was causing “irreparable damage” to the environment. Huh?! In fact, one overzealous ranger threatened me and my wife with $750 dollar fines EACH for riding on a trail that was built by bikers in an area that was composed of grass and chaparral growing over mine tailings, of all things. I found out that the maximum fine in any of these parks was $100, and this ranger flat out lied.
This piqued my interest and I began to investigate the Sierra Club and other environmental groups and became quite alarmed at the degree of extreme reactionary rhetoric and scientifically unsound positions these people espoused.
Then 911 happened, and whatever leftist sentiments I might have had left were pretty much left behind in the smoking ruins of ground zero.
So this knee jerk approval of anything “environmental” is right up there with blind acceptance of the righteousness of the UN as far as I’m concerned, and I think the Republicans have a much more level headed and scientifically sound agenda, regardless of the preachings of the MSM. It’s the same old story of the left sinking its tentacles into emotion laden issues and trying to grab power through fear and distortion.
Here is a link to a lot of information on the subject. Of particular interest is the section devoted to Dr. Bill Wattenburg, a man with impeccable scientific credentials coupled with a colorful life as a cowboy, inventor, activist, and ribald adventurer.
http://www.pushback.com/
BUSH PAYS OFF TIMBER COMPANY SUPPORTERS BY REFUSING TO ADMINISTER FEDERAL LANDS
Why are we not surprised. The so called leader of the radical right wing, G. W. Bush has issued an edict that he believes will enable all of his logging buddies to clear cut as many trees on Federal land as they want.
Remember, Ronald Reagan did the same thing during his tremulous tenure in the White House. If you want to have an opportunity to see the results of this disasterous policy just take a drive along the “Avenue of the Giants” in Northern California. Park your car and walk into the trees about 100 yards. You will find a devistated ex forrest that will take a million years to recover if it ever does.
Way to go George, since you are not satisfied by your phoney wars and idiotic constitutional amendments you decided to ruin our forrest land as well. Hope you enjoy the vacation you are going to get after you lose the election this November.
http://forums.prospero.com/kr-question/start
Honesty
To be truly ‘honest’ you would have to read and acknowledge all the previous postings on the subject before you leap in with your anti-capitalist anti-forest-management rant. There is a logic to views opposing yours. At least listen.
Nature is CRUEL and UNYEILDING and not something to be left alone unchallenged. You wouldn’t last a day in an old forest. If you weren’t bitten to death by spiders, the raccoons would scare you to death and the bats would make you go insane. Poison ivy is really nice to get this time of year too. And don’t go picking up any rocks, those snakes are friendly too.
And if you wish to be one with nature, get rid of all our cities. The only creatures comfortable in cities are rats, roaches, pigeons, and humans. A dog wouldn’t even survive on its own. Where are all the snakes, insects, poison foliage and detritus that makes nature so appealing to you folks? At least be consistent in your goals. Bring poison ivy back to New York!
I hate to say this, BUT…environmental ‘scientists’ are about as truly knowledgable as ‘reporters’. Like journalism majors for those who cannot master an honest humanities major [such as English Lit], environmental science majors are for those who are not capable of doing science in the ‘hard science’ category.
The environmental science majors I have looked into have watered down courses in math and science (mostly chemistry of sorts) with very little depth and rigor. The courses themselves are about on the level of a good high school AP/Honors course. Their knowledge level is about what you should bring to higher education from your high school or prep school.
OTOH, the indoctrination is what sets these courses off. Very little evaluation of data, but long on a Dr. Feelgood approach to the environment. No practice in critical evaluation (e.g. Does the analytical data represent something real or is it artifact of the measurement technique) along with a blind reliance on one method or machine or measurement.
You won’t have rational thought or rational analysis in environmental issues until you get some investigators who are capable of real scientific reasoning. And these will not be found in the products of environmental majors today.
(dis)Honesty2–
Do you know anything about trees? The Sequoias are at most 3,000 years old. The ones that might be cut down under the plan are 100 years old. I would say it would be fair trade to cut down a few 100-year-old trees to save some 3,000-year-old ones, wouldn’t you?
Excerpt from this story below:
Sequoia National Forest Supervisor Art Gaffrey, who oversees the monument, says Clinton intended the monument to be a kind of experimental forest, where different management scenarios could be tested for their effect on forest health.
The Antiquities Act allows the creation of monuments for things of historical value and scientific research, says Gaffrey. This is not a national park. It’s a national monument. It is different than other monuments … that preserve an entity as though it is never changing. The monument is one of only four national monuments managed by the Forest Service; most national monuments are managed by the Park Service, while many other Clinton-era monuments are the responsibility of the Bureau of Land Management.
Gaffrey’s proposed plan could allow logging of giant sequoias up to 30 inches in diameter typically 100-year-old trees and clear-cuts up to two acres in size. Logging could be allowed on up to 8,000 acres of monument lands each year, and would support up to 55 jobs.
As to Bush’s “logging buddies,” who are they exactly? Do they come over to the ranch and help him cut down alders? Just curious, since I’ve never heard any of their names before.
Honesty, you really exemplify everything Michael Crichton talked about: scare tactics, preachy, moralizing statements ungrounded in reality, delivered with the zeal of converting infidels. You have not even considered there may be two sides to the argument, as Roger has done. Ignoramuses like you are a major reaon why so many Americans recoil from the environmental movement, and rightly so.
Honesty,
As I’ve admitted earlier in this thread, I don’t have any particular knowledge regarding the “environmental” catfight. I do, however, have some suspicions of the motives of some who claim to be environmentalists.
But anyway, your comment piqued my interest so I went and googled up the Avenue of the Giants. I see a whole lot of info about the history of this 31 mile stretch, about logging and mills operating well into the late 50′s and early 60′s, about floods and some fires and whatnot. But I don’t find anything that seems to be screaming about some irrecoverable damage done circa 1980-1988.
Are you informing us that the Avenue of the Giants, thanks to Ronald Reagan’s logging buddies, is nothing more than a 100 yard deep facade on either side of the road? Hmmm….
While no one is recommending widespread clearcutting one of the places I frequent in the summertime is the area around the little town of Downieville, CA. The whole region was subject to clearcutting in the past 100 years or so and you’d be hard pressed to tell now as the forests are healthy, luxurious, and contain many huge trees.
There are modern logging practices that are far less intrusive, can make use of smaller trees, and can help to properly thin forests so they aren’t totally destroyed by crowning fires when they do burn.
http://www.pushback.com/environment/forests/ModernLogging.html
People like “Honesty” so typify the environmental movement these days. Rhetoric of a level of outright falsehoods that would make Michael Moore blush.
Arizona has the world’s largest Ponderosa Pine forest – for now.
When I moved here (early 70s), there were a number of logging companies and sawmills. Now there is only one, run by the White Mountain Apaches, who are exempt from the Environmental religion. The environmentalists drove the rest away.
There was also plenty of fine forest land, suitable for recreation and wildlife, and if there was any clearcutting, I never saw evidence of it.
In 1990, the largest forest fire in Arizona history was about 50,000 acres.
In 2002, we had a forest fire of 467,000 acres. It burned many homes and almost destroyed the relatively large town of Show Low. Here is how the residents of Heber (where many homes were lost) felt about the situation.
This year, we have had a number of fires. One was 120,000 acres.
These are highly destructive, unnatural fires, because the excess fuel load causes very high burn temperatures, chemically altering the soil and delaying regrowth for an expected 200 years. If one thins the forest, natural forest fires can burn without damaging the forest. That means the fuel load must be reduced – the undergrowth and old trees that are too close together. 100 years ago, one could ride a horse at full gallup through the Mogollon Rim forest (the huge Ponderosa forest in Arizona). Now there are parts you cannot get through on horseback.
At this point, according to my uncle, a retired forester and professor of foresty economics, the logging companies are not that interested in Federal forests, because of the uncertainties due to changing federal policies and lawsuits from environmentalists. Instead, they own tree farms. Perhaps with this proposal, that will change.
Our forests are burning for several reasons. The primary one is overgrowth – too much fuel. This was initially caused by the Smokey The Bear policy of stopping all fires, itself inspired by a very deadly (100s dead, millions of acres) fire series in the Northwest in the early 20th century. However, in order to remove overgrowth, many legal barriers need to be overcome. Hence the costs to the government of saving the forests is very high. It would be logical to trade logging rights for appropriate thinning. But in Arizona, one has to prove that the Mexican Spotted Owl won’t be harmed (that fires harm the Owl’s is not an issue – they don’t get permits and do environmental impact studies, and environmentalists can’t sue them). Environmentalists have a hatred for logging countries that is as unyielding and irrational as their hatred for George Bush.
There are attempts to thin the forest around Flagstaff using controlled burns of the undergrowth. A respected professor at NAU (Flagstaff) believes that this is sufficient, but there is a lot of controversy about that position.
By the way, for those interested in old growth forest… The Northwest has no old growth forest at all, except on the islands. The area was 100% clearcut about 100 years ago.
Also, USFS personnel spend about 50% of their time answering environmentalists lawsuits, instead of other work, such as safeguarding the forests, thinning it, enforcing the laws, etc.
The other main reason for fires is our current drought (California, intermountain and rockies regions), forecast to last another 15 years (according to a climatologist friend I just spoke with). Not only is fuel drier, but also a significant number of trees (maybe 30% in some areas by my visual estimate) have died from bark beetle infestation, which is caused by the drought and too high a tree density (selective logging, in other words, would have helped with this outbreak, the worst in history). These trees are like giant old christmas trees – extremely flammable – and are often in little clusters, which can reach a high fire temperature in almost no time. I think this is a hazard for crown fires, which are the worst kind. I don’t know if the Land of Enchantment has the bark beetle problem.
I spent most of my childhood in New Mexico (Land of Enchantment – Albuquerque). We spent many happy weekends in the forests of the Jemez and the Sangre de Christo mountains, and even the Sandias (no fish) and Monzanos (very few fish). The Sangre de Cristos had areas wild enough that wildlife behaved as if it had never seen humans (in other words, the Texans didn’t know how to get there). These spots were accessible only by logging roads and then hiking. I never saw a forest damaged by loggers, but I saw lots of stumps from cut trees.
It is obviously possible to log forests without wrecking them. I’ve seen it.
Environmentalism, like a lot of feel-good causes, started out doing good – it was essentially an extended conservationism. Today, just like the civil rights movement, it has gone from a positive movement to one that, on balance, is damaging. The leaders of some environmental groups (Sierra Club, for example) are far more extreme than their literature tells you.
In Arizona, we have had environmentalists sabotage a ski lift (cutting the bolts on the chair lift support towers), cut down power lines leading to a Uranium mine, try to cut down the main power line leading to the nation’s largest nuclear plant, and burn down a bunch of houses under construction in Phoenix (the latter distracting the FBI counter-terrorism squad when a 9/11 terrorist was taking flying lessons here).
Environmentalists have tried to have a large part of the state set aside as habitat for the “endangered” Mexican burrowing owl – of which only 18 are believed to exist in Arizona but which are common in Mexico – in other words, they are not endangered. They want to set aside 64 square miles per owl.
There are believed to be 18 pygmy owls in Arizona. Environmentalists want to set aside 64 square miles of land per “endangered” owl! However, the “endangered” owls are common just across the border in Mexico. That same link tells you about how the Gentry Indigo Bush could stop a power line.
Mount Graham (currently burning) was selected for a major astronomical observatory. Tucson, AZ is a center for Astronomy, with optical facilities for making huge telescopes at UofA, and the nearby Kitt Peak (which has many telescopes) and the Multiple Mirror Telescope. Environmentalists fought against the project because it would “endanger” the Mount Graham Red Squirrel – which is a subspecies of the common Red Squirrel – in other words, they fought in the courts to protect a subspecies, even though anyone who has been to a mountaintop observatory knows that nearby cute animals, like squirrels, thrive there. After years of fighting, they lost. At that point, an Indian tribe suddenly declared that Mount Graham was a sacred religious site (every hill, bump and mountain is a sacred religious site for some tribe here). More litigation. Ultimately the astronomers won, and there are now telescopes there with more being built. Which was a greater danger to the squirrels – astronomers (and earlier, construction crews being very careful) or forest fires?
What the environmentalists didn’t tell their supporters is that the mountaintop already has private houses on it and a large radio site.
A new technology telescope was to be built at the base of the mountain. An urban Indian from Tucson built a sweat lodge nearby. Then he used its presence (1 km away) to fight the telescope.
This same scenario is being played out in my other home town – Lawrence, Kansas, first the environmental lawsuits, then an Indian sacred site, to block a bypass road. At least in Lawrence, there is an unusually ecologically diverse wetland (Haskell Bottoms) to be protected, but building the highway would only fill up a little bit of it.
The environmentalists and the multiculturalists are completely against any progress, and will use these kinds of tricks to stop it.
To get to the president’s proposal, all he is doing is reversing a Clinton administration 1999 move to prohibit road building in certain areas. Clinton’s Secretary of Interior, Bruce Babbitt, was former governor of Arizona and is an environmental extremist. His family has a huge ranch in the Ponderosa Forest already – why should anyone else have access?
The president’s proposal is consistent with the conservative view of states’ rights (which once was a code word for racism but no longer – it is a reiteration of a strong constitutional principle). The federal trampling of states’ rights, especially in the area of environmentalism, caused the long simmering “sagebrush rebellion”, which is a loose mountain and intermountain states reaction to having local resources controlled by eastern bureaucrats. The most recent example of this is in the Klamath Basin farmers vs. fish conflict. Unfortunately, this sort of overbearing and insensitive federal action empowers the militia movement – the tin foil hat conspiracy crowd from which Timothy McVeigh emerged.
Bush just gives the power to the locals. It is a classic conservative position. Let the governors explain to their own people which approach they take – roads or no roads or in-between.
There has been a lot of environmental damage by past practices. Ironically, the most significant world-wide is farming, and yet (at least until recently) the same people who supported environmental extremism also supported farm efforts such as “Farm Aid.”
Go figure.
Knucklehead,
The troll is insane. He’s absolutely mistaken about the Avenue of the Giants.
There are areas in Oregon where if you walk a short distance into the forest from the highway you’ll find clearcuts. These are private lands belonging to timber companies.
I wonder if the troll lives in a wood framed structure, reads books or newspapers, uses TP (or maybe he relies on corncobs), and appreciates the clearcutting of his beloved South American rainforests that help supply his need for wood products, which could be harvested responsibly in the U.S.A. if the environmental lobby hadn’t hamstrung the domestic lumber industry.
I love trees but I also know people who live in affected regions. It’s terrifying to see messages show up once in a while on the email list where they say that they’ve got to evacuate immediately and wondering if there will still be something there when they go back. There has to be a fair balance.
Syl
It is absolutely true that adult stem cells are preferred for brain research. I’ve mentioned this before but I’ll say it again: pluripotent adult brain stem cells (from organ donors) are partly differentiated which makes them preferable. If they are ever used for treatment, you don’t have to worry about a kidney developing in your brain.
Sadly, Alzheimer’s is a disease which stem cells seem poor choices to treat. I don’t know the technical reasons, but it is a fact. The Reagans have been badly misled, but in their grief, you can’t blame them.
In general, if sources of pluripotent stem cells are available for the cell type needed, they are going to be preferred over fetal stem cells.
There are plenty of scientists who will preach the praises of fetal stem cells, but there is a hidden political agenda: they so resent the restrictions placed on science by mere politicians (you know, the people we elect who spend give our tax dollars to the scientists) that they exaggerate the benefits of fetal stems cells and deprecate the value of older stem cells. In this political year, naturally the debate will be politicized on both sides.
Furthermore, fetal stem cell research is still doable. There is no prohibition on privately funded research, and there are a series of fetal stem cells which can be used with federal funding.
As conservatives observed way back when I was a kid watching the Kennedy/Nixon campaign, with federal money comes federal control.
There are a couple of political/administrative tension areas that should be understood here. One is that the way the laws are currently written Wilderness Areas are designated by Congress. A President cannot unilaterally designate Wilderness Areas but apparent can unilaterally designate National Monuments, Wildlife Refuges and other smaller administrative units.
The Clinton administration adminstrative rule, done in the last month of their term, was an end run around the law on Wilderness Areas. I guess you have to ask yourself, if this was such a great idea, why wasn’t it done in January of 1993 instead of January of 2001.
Another tension area not generally familiar to people who live in the east, is the fact that large portions of the states here in the west (I’m in California) are controlled by the Federal Government. The governors and legislatures of most of these states are always somewhat nervous about the Federal Government making unilateral decisions that affect them without their input. That was a big part of the news release today in that the governor of Idaho was involved in rolling out the new policy.
Western governors hark back to the large National Monument that Bill Clinton unilaterally declared in southern Utah in the late 90s and the governor of Utah found out about it on television news.
An you are right, the fuel problem is horrible here but we all need to understand that lots of what needs to be done is controlled burns and brush clearing, not logging. That costs money – though arguably cheaper than fighting fires.
Also, by the way, the US Forest SErvice is part of the Department of Agriculture, not Department of the Interior
On the Weather Channel
An odd side topic. I’m a weather nut. I chase tornados for 2 weeks every year. I’m a weather spotter in Phoenix (for our monsoon storms), and I help the National Hurricane Center with communications. I usually chase with a husband/wife team of meteorologists who both work for the weather channel. I appear in one or more Weather Channel documentaries.
I never watch the darned thing.
Go figure.
Roger, have any of the very knowledgeable posters on your blog actually changed your mind on this issue?
Also, does the proposal contain any information on monitoring the logging companies to make sure they’re not cheating?
Amusingly during lunch hour today, in the downtown pedestrian mall I encountered some environmental protestors with signs decrying the Bush administration for “destroying our wilderness”. Engaging one protestor in debate I discovered a level of ignorance and inability to articulate a rational argument unmatched in my recent experience.
I find it especially amusing that this idiot was willing to call President Bush ignorant but then was baffled in discussing his own chosen topic with me.
TRFarmer
I wasn’t aware that USFS was not under Babbitt. Well, it had the same effect.
Whether controlled burning is enough depends on who you ask. When you have a lot of mature trees close together (which is the norm in the Mogollon Rim forest), you have to cut down some of them. Controlled burns don’t do that – they take out underbrush but not larger trees.
Note that the fire problem covers a vastly wider area than the roadless areas proposal Roger mentioned.
The roadless areas proposal doesn’t seem to put the areas in more danger from logging than they were in prior to Jan 12, 2001 (8 days before the end of the Clinton term). I would guess that the areas are roadless because they were lousy logging terrain.
Paul
A good read on both environmental organizations and the issues is The Skeptical Environmentalist
I look at environmentalism as the product of a religion and leftism. In its extreme, it takes on the characteristics of a religious cult and a terrorist group.
But normal environmentalism is a religion to its adherence, a big, profitable business to its leaders, and leftist in its approach of using overwhelming government regulations and massive numbers of lawsuits to fight every issue.
For those who care about the environment, there is another “ism” that is a lot more sane than environmentalism: conservationism. It recognizes that the environment per se doesn’t have a “purpose,” but rather is used for the benefit of man. That means that adequate amounts of all sorts of environments be protected appropriately – whether for biodiversity or for beauty or for huntintg. It is Teddy Roosevelt’s way of looking at nature, as opposed to that of an over-aged flower child.
Those of us who have lived in the mountain/intermountain states (California doesn’t count if you live on the coast) have long appreciated our natural resources – for our use – not for the preservation of the left handed farting bird.
John Moore:
Bingo. I started to write something like “Too bad Teddy and his legacy are dead.” But his legacy isn’t dead, just ignored by the dominant culture. Many recreational fishermen I know are very active in salmon stream and habitat restoration here in the Northwest. Turkey hunters (like yours truly, the masochist who sits under trees at 4AM in the cold) are also active in the same kinds of causes. I’m sure that the concrete efforts by both groups far outweigh anything accomplished by the spittle-flecked wackoes.
I also want to make one other point.
OBL or one of his minions put a plan together as to how to bring US to our knees.
One way was to start forest fires to cause tremendous economic damage.
I believe this plan showed up this year on the net.
First let me say that I have not read the Presidents proposal, so I really have no idea what the impact possibly is. But, I do have a few observations.
First, in most of the post above the people have talked in terms of specific regions of the country and how it will affect their backyards. This is understandable; it is very hard to think about large areas of land at all, let alone across many different ecotypes. (An aside, I am working on a model for short term weather impacts on tree growth in the Pacific Northwest and it is hard for me to keep all of it straight even though it is my job). So I will make a simple seeming statement, the only appropriate management is the one designed specifically for the site that the forest is on.
It is impossible to manage a dry forest with the same number of trees and growth rates as a wet forest. The example given earlier of very sparse Ponderosa pine stands (15 to 20 trees per acre in old stands, or about one tree 2500 sq.ft) is really a good illustration. Before fire suppression had become a national priority on average the Ponderosa pine forest burned every 5 to 12 years. Because these fires lacked fuels and they did not kill the large trees and had a minor impact on the soil and generally the land scape recovered in a few years.
In contrast, the wet forest in the PNW generally burn about one every 200-500 years and those fires are very large and devastate the forest and in about 125 to 150 years you canít really tell unless you know what you are looking at. In addition a wet forest will hold about 10 to 15 more trees of the same size as a dry forest. Setting a fire in the PNW every 10 years as a management tool is a very bad idea, but it will work in the Ponderosa pine forest.
In some cases you will need to log and burn both. In some cases you will need to cut the small trees (hard sell because there is no money in small trees) and is some cases you will need to cut larger trees. There is no one size fits all answer to our current fuel and fire situation.
Second although it seems like a lot of land of those 53 million acres only very little will actually be impacted by roads. Roads tend to be small on the overall landscape. In addition these roads take a long time to build and the USDA/FS has to jump through many hoops. It is a several year process to get approval to build a road and a bit more time to actually build it. There is an appeals process and a comment period about any new construction built into the process. This is not an emergency or even something that can be implemented in a hurry.
What we need to do is think about what we want the National Forest for and then manage them according to those values and principals.
And since Klamath Falls was mentioned, have any of you ever wondered why the whackos have such deep pockets?
I read an article about Klamath Falls at the time.
Seems the group fighting it is allowed to use taxpayer money for the lawsuits.
One irate farmer pointed that out. His side doesn’t get the same dip trip to the well, they had to fund their defense themselves.
Andrew Hill,
“What we need to do is think about what we want the National Forest for and then manage them according to those values and principles.”
Best comment on the thread – my compliments.
A debate about developing a metric incorporating preservation of wilderness for future potential use in rational economic terms would clear the air considerably with regard to environmental issues. There is a value to leaving certain areas undeveloped but locking up 191 million acres is just silly.
Andrew Hill
Thanks for that fresh breath of reality.
Rick,
Thanks for the compliment. One thing to keep in mind is that the land the Forest Service has is what was left over after settlers got their chance. As a result most of the land owned is marginal for either agriculture or forestry.
The reason that there is any cutting on Federal land is because it is subsidized. Generally, lands the feds have are places where the trees grow slow and are somewhat hard to get to. The good land was made into cities (Seattle sits on some of the best timberland in the world, but no one is pushing the citizens to move out and let the trees grow
)and tree farms.
The cost of maintaining the infrastructure is high and the returns are low on poor sites like much of the FS land, if you were in business and owned those lands you would probably go broke.
I have to go. I hope to be able to chat later.
Andrew
John Moore,
I have Bjorn Lomberg’s book in a pile of “must read’ tomes. Unfortunately it seems these days I read so many blogs and online news sources that I’m too burned out to read any more. An upcoming vacation in my RV sans computer will hopefully provide an opportunity to do some catching up.
Rick Ballard:
“A debate about developing a metric incorporating preservation of wilderness for future potential use in rational economic terms would clear the air considerably with regard to environmental issues.”
The operative word here is rational. The environmental lobby is not rational, and certainly not inclined to view wilderness in terms of economics, rational or not. I agree with you of course, but I would suggest that you go to the link to Michael Crichton’s excellent dissertation on the environmental movement that I posted at 8:51 to see what we’re up against, if you haven’t already.
Paul,
I reread Crichton’s speech when you linked it – I agree that it is a very clear statement regarding the nature of the environmentalist’s “religion”. I’d definitely second John Moore’s recommendation of the ‘Skeptical Environmentalist’. It lays a factual predicate for everything Crichton said.
BTW, apologies if this is redundant, but its somewhat on topic – see Instapundit’s “Oh THAT Liberal Media” link to the Media Research piece about an interview with Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek (couldn’t get the link to preview properly, and you guys get all nervous and jerky about long URLs, so I won’t put the URL up).
Andrew Hill
I thought a lot of the federal land in the west is a result of requirements for joining the union. Over 75% of Arizona is federal or Indian land. In Arizona, the national forests and BLM land contain lots of good property. For the most part, private land exists as a result of mining (patented land). The feds and Indians own the rest.
One advantage of giving some control to the states is it allows localization (and hence specialization) of decision making. One of the complaints of many in the west is that city-living environmentalists from back east are determining too many things about our environment.
In Arizona, we need thinning. We know that. Thinning would reduce the fuel load (and hence temperatures) and also reduce the rate of spread of bark beetles and other similar parasites.
Whether the land is worth logging is another issue. A friend tells me a new sawmill is being built in the Flagstaff area, in which case somebody has found a way to make money by cutting the Ponderosa. I believe Flagstaff, unlike some other areas, has had some relatively rational interactions between environmentalists and residents (again, according to him).
Basically, in Arizona, the closer you are to Tucson (U of A, start of Earth First!), the more trouble you have.
Sandy P
I had thought of the forest threat. I didn’t know it had been discussed by AQ.
The use of Federal money to file lawsuits has long been a habit of leftish groups – environmental and legal foundations and organizations. Few people realize that they are paying for the lawyers that fight against their interests.
Paul
My book reading has gone down too. Blogging seems to do that. I haven’t read all of the Skeptical Environmentalist, but have read important chapters. It gives good insight into how environmental scares are used to bring funding to organizations that exist, as far as their leaders go, just to spend that money.
The fact is that environmentalism is a big business – much bigger than, for example, logging. It has a tremendous amount of power.
Those who have come from the left and fear the lobbying power of corporations need to understand that environmentalism often exceeds that power substantially. Furthermore, they engage in blackmail in a manner similar to that used by Jesse Jackson. They intimidate corporations into making big donations, with an implied quid pro quo of not attacking that corporation. Even as noble sounding an organization as the Nature Conservancy has a slippery history.
Basically, expect the same sorts of nasty actions from environmental organizations as you would from unscrupulous corporations (and as a capitalist, I want to point out that many corporates are scrupulous, and not all environmentalist groups are bad, although some have good intentions with wacky ideas).
Hate to bring the left/right back in, but many conservatives refer to environmental groups as “watermelons” – green on the outside, pink (or left) on the inside.
John Moore–
Boy, we could have some fun with that watermelon thing.
Peacenik = Grapefruit: yellow on the outside (sometimes pink), red on the inside.
Fun with vegetables has long honorable tradition. Back in the Commieland my University was known as a radish: red on the outside, white on the inside
John Moore:
I listen to Dr. Bill Wattenburg on KGO when I can Friday and Satuday nights on the drive home if I get out of my gig before 1 AM and he has all kinds of stories about the big business aspect of environmental groups like the Sierra Club…swanky soirees in high dollar hotels, big salaries for execs, etc. He also testified in congress in CA against the use of MTBE as an oxyginate when the Sierra Club and other groups successfully lobbied to add that useless and expensive poison to our gasoline. What a fiasco.
I know the term watermellon well, having met real and rather irate specimens on the trail. One even had the foolish temerity to grab the handlebars of my $4000 mountain bike. You have to be both fearless and very fit to be a hardcore mountain biker (I have broken bones to prove it), and it is highly unadvisable for your average granola munching mushroom eating hiker TO PISS ONE OFF. I’m sure this particular fellow will never… ever… make that mistake again.
John Moore,
You may be right about how the feds got land in the SW. Most of my references are in the east and the Pacific NW. I was writting out of that frame. I will fact check my self and post sometime tomorrow.
Andrew
“The rule replaces one adopted by the Clinton administration and still under challenge in federal court.”
is this one of those late clinton signings (signed a few days before leaving office) that is only now being reversed?
Yes, it was signed Jan 12, 2001.
“Yes, it was signed Jan 12, 2001.”
ah… nice one bubba.
thanks john.
Like the grapefruit tag. Seems to fit the peace-loving protesters who like to confront (and occasionally physically assault) the women and children at our marches but who scurry off like roaches when one of the men approaches, usually heroically shouting trendy soundbites as they retreat…
Roger,
I’m responding at this point to your statement about supporting Bush because of the WoT. This strikes me as very odd. Bush compared to whom? Certainly, Gore, Kerry, McCain or any number of others could have done as well and almost certainly better.
I note your points about Wilson (presented in a somewhat inflammatory manner) and am inclined to agree, but again it seems you miss the real point. Someone in the Bush admin (Rove? Card? Who cares?) outed Wilson’s wife. Then, Novack compounded the situation by being the outer’s vehicle. Maybe, Wilson has a right to lie considering the treatment of his wife, no? Maybe the Bushies aren’t supposed to commit felonies by revealing the ID of agents? Not setting a real good example. Not being a uniter, not a divider.
Similarly, those who knock the distortions in F911 miss the point. Yes, Moore is a propagandist who will lie to make his points–but, of course, we didn’t entrust him with running the country. The fact that Moore may lie when it’s (occasionally/frequently) convenient does not automatically mean the war in Iraq is justified. This is precisely the leap that the righties all seem to make. Over and over again.
Wilson’s a liar, therefore the war in iraq is good. Moore’s a liar, therefore the war in Iraq is good. Un-huh, and this justifies lying to the country about the (nonexistent) WMD, lying to the country about the (nonexistent) Saddam-Bin Laden connection, lying to the country about Vets benefits, lying to the country about leaving no child behind, throwing up an anti-gay marriage amendment as a litmus test to be used in the coming elections, slandering Richard Clarke, slandering Paul O’Neill, etc.
For these reasons, you support Bush? Re-think it, Roger.