BWAAHAHAHAHAHA
November 11th 03, 12:38 PM
On 08 Nov 2003 , (bud hufstetler) posted
these thoughts in :
> Jym Dyer wrote:
>
>
>>=v= For an intelligent look at what's fueling these
>>fires (as opposed to the lunatic Usenet rant posted
>>here earlier), I recommend Mike Davis:
>>
>>http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17066
>>
>>
> <excerpt from article referenced above>
> <quote>
> Meanwhile in the local mountains, an epic drought, which may be an
> expression of global warming, opened the way to a bark beetle
> infestation which has already killed or is killing 90 percent of
> Southern California's pine forests. Last month, scientists grimly told
> members of Congress at a special hearing at Lake Arrowhead that "it is
> too late to save the San Bernardino National Forest." Arrowhead and
> other famous mountain resorts, they predicted, would soon "look like
> any treeless suburb of Los Angeles." </quote>
> I suggest *you* read the full report the above quotes were taken out
> of context from. It paints an entirely different picture:
>
> WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
>
>
>
> OF
>
>
>
> DR. THOMAS M. BONNICKSEN
>
> PROFESSOR
>
> DEPARTMENT OF FOREST SCIENCE
>
> TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
>
> and
>
> visiting scholar and board member
>
> The forest foundation
>
> auburn, california
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> HEARING ON
>
> FOREST HEALTH CRISIS IN THE SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
>
>
>
>
>
> BEFORE THE
>
> COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
>
>
>
>
>
> UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> LAKE ARROWHEAD RESORT
>
> 27984 hIGHWAY 189
>
> LAKE ARROWHEAD, CALIFORNIA
>
>
>
>
>
> Monday
>
> SEPTEMBER 22, 2003
>
> 1:00 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> INTRODUCTION
>
>
>
>
>
> My name is Dr. Thomas M. Bonnicksen. I am a forest ecologist and
> professor in the Department of Forest Science at Texas A&M University.
> I am also a visiting scholar and board member of The Forest
> Foundation in Auburn, California. I have conducted research on the
> history and restoration of America’s native forests for more than 30
> years. I have written over 100 scientific and technical papers and I
> recently published a book titled <I style="mso-bidi-font-style:
> normal">America’s Ancient Forests: from the Ice Age to the Age of
> Discovery (Copyright January 2000, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 594
> pages). The book documents the 18,000-year history of North
> America’s native forests.
>
>
>
> Contact information is located at the end of this written statement.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> FOREST DEVASTATION AND RESTORATION
>
>
>
>
>
> With millions of dead trees covering approximately 350,000 acres of
> the San Bernardino Mountains, this forest is lost. Bark beetles
> feasting on over-crowded, moisture-stressed trees will have killed
> about 90 percent of the pine trees when they end their rampage. Then,
> Lake Arrowhead and other communities here will look like any treeless
> suburb of Los Angeles.
>
>
>
> Among the saddest aspects of this forest being wiped out is that the
> devastation was predictable and preventable. In fact, specialists
> representing many interests and agencies came together in a 1994
> workshop to do something about the unnaturally thick forests in the
> San Bernardino Mountains. They knew that communities like Idyllwild,
> Big Bear, and Lake Arrowhead were in imminent danger from wildfire.
> The workshop produced a report charting a course to improve the safety
> and health of the forest and surrounding communities. The
> recommendations were never acted on. Now, an entire forest is lost.
>
>
>
> Instead of acting to restore the forest and protect human lives before
> the crisis reached critical mass, politicized debates and overbearing
> regulations created inertia – a complete standstill during which the
> forest grew so dense, devastation became inevitable.
>
>
>
> Throughout the 1990s, extremists here advocated ‘no cut’ policies,
> wanting no active management for the forest. Their battle cry was
> “leave it to nature” despite indisputable evidence that the
> forest’s imperiled health was entirely unnatural, brought about by a
> century of absolute fire suppression and completely stifled
> harvesting. Now we are stuck with a dangerous, unsustainable forest.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, it is too late to save the San Bernardino National
> Forest. It is not, however, too late to learn from this disaster, to
> restore the forest to its original grandeur, or to save the forests of
> the Sierra Nevada that will undoubtedly face a similar fate if we
> continue down our current path. Indeed, we can anticipate similar
> catastrophes throughout our Western forests if we do not change our
> ways. We have already seen the beginnings of forest devastation in
> Arizona and Colorado.
>
>
>
> In the San Bernardino Mountains, there are simply too many trees.
> Drought has contributed to the crisis, but it is not the underlying
> cause. Forest density is ten times what is natural – 300 or more
> trees stand on an acre where 30 would be natural and sustainable.
> Over-crowded trees must fight for limited nutrients and water, and in
> doing so, become too weak to fight off insect attacks that healthy
> trees effectively repel.
>
>
>
> Our national forests, growing older and thicker, look nothing like
> their historical predecessors, with some having reached astronomical
> densities of 2,000 trees per acre where 40-50 trees per acre would be
> natural. Consequently, plant and animal species that require open
> conditions are disappearing, streams are drying as thickets of trees
> use up water, insects and disease are reaching epidemic proportions,
> and unnaturally hot wildfires have destroyed vast areas of forest.
>
>
>
> Since 1990, we have lost 50 million acres of forest to wildfire and
> suffered the destruction of over 4,800 homes. The fires of 2000 burned
> 8.4 million acres and destroyed 861 structures. The 2002 fire season
> resulted in a loss of 6.9 million acres and 2,381 structures,
> including 835 homes. These staggering losses from wildfire also
> resulted in taxpayers paying $2.9 billion in firefighting costs. This
> does not include vast sums spent to rehabilitate damaged forests and
> replace homes.
>
>
>
> The monster fires that have been ravaging our Western forests are of a
> different breed from the fires that helped maintain forest health over
> the past several hundred years. Forests that just 150 years ago were
> described as being open enough to gallop a horse through without
> hitting a tree are now crowded with logs and trees of all size – you
> can barely walk through them, let alone ride a horse. The excessive
> fuel build-up means that today, every fire has the potential to wreak
> catastrophic damage.
>
>
>
> Historically, our forests were more open because Native American and
> lightning fires burned regularly. These were mostly gentle fires that
> stayed on the ground as they wandered around and under trees. You
> could walk over the flames without burning your legs even though they
> occasionally flared up and killed small groups of trees. Such hot
> spots kept forests diverse by creating openings where young trees and
> shrubs could grow.
>
>
>
> We need to return our forests to their natural state. We need to
> alleviate the threat to thousands who live in danger throughout
> Southern California, and ensure that residents of Northern California
> and throughout the West are spared the trauma and fear that people
> here live with daily.
>
>
>
> Fortunately, we as modern foresters have the knowledge to restore our
> forests. We can minimize the fire threat, accelerate forest
> restoration, and protect human lives.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> THE ROAD TO RECOVERY
>
>
>
> The natural pine forest will soon be gone from these mountains. The
> most important question now is, what will replace it?
>
>
>
> There are two choices for the future of this forest, and no middle
> ground for debate. First, leave the forest alone. This would placate
> those who advocate ‘letting nature take its course’, though it
> would not result in the historically natural mixed-conifer forest that
> millions have enjoyed for centuries. Leave this forest alone, and we
> will perpetuate the unnatural thick forests of oak, fir, cedar, and
> brush – we will pass to future generations an unending cycle of
> destruction from fire and insects.
>
>
>
> Our second option is to restore the natural fire- and insect-resistant
> forest through active management. And we must consider the entire
> forest, not just small strips of land around homes or near
> communities. Removing fuels around homes makes sense, but to think
> that a 100-foot wall of flames ravaging a forest will lie down at a
> small fuel break, or that swarms of chewing insects cannot penetrate
> these flimsy barriers, is to live with a false sense of security.
>
>
>
> The recipe for restoring San Bernardino forests is simple. Cut the
> dead trees, remove or chip the slash to reduce fuels, and leave enough
> snags and logs for wildlife. Then thin what’s left to ensure that
> surviving trees grow quickly and to protect them from fire because
> they will become old growth in the future forest.
>
>
>
> Next, begin rebuilding the forest by planting native trees in gaps
> left by beetle-killed trees. Additional gaps will have to be opened
> and planted at different times and places to ensure that the restored
> forest has groups of tres of different ages. This will take five or
> more decades. By then seed from adjacent trees will fill new gaps and
> the forest will look relatively natural since some sites will grow
> trees 120 feet tall in 50 years. It will take centuries to replace the
> largest trees.
>
>
>
> This would be natural forestry not plantation forestry. That means
> using nature as a guide for creating a healthy, diverse forest that is
> fire, insect, disease, and drought resistant.
>
>
>
> Restoring the forest is easy. Paying for it is not. Reducing the fire
> hazard and restoring the forest could cost as much as $1,000 to $4,000
> per acre. Prescribed burning can help, but it is too dangerous and
> expensive to rely on, and brings with it air quality and health risks
> that will prevent its widespread use.
>
>
>
> Practical solutions for forest restoration must therefore include the
> private sector. Redirecting tax money to forest restoration would
> help, but there just isn’t enough to do the job. Success requires
> government and the private sector to work together. That means private
> companies harvest the trees needed for restoration and in exchange
> they get to sell wood products. This is just common sense – why
> allow insects or fire to wipe out our forests when we can use them in
> a way that also restores them? Wood is a renewable resource we
> desperately need.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> COMPLETE RESTORATION
>
>
>
> To fully restore our forests to health, we must fully understand the
> key issues in the forest health and management debate. Perpetuating
> myths in the name of advancing a particular cause does not serve the
> public interest. Our national forests belong to all people, and should
> serve all our needs. We need to dispel the popular misconceptions that
> mislead the public and hinder the implementation of sound forest
> policies. Only by understanding the facts can we make informed
> decisions about our forest heritage.
>
>
>
> Myth 1: All fires are good and forest management is bad.
>
>
>
> This argument confuses small, naturally occurring fires with large
> conflagrations, calls all of them good, and blames forest managers for
> wanting to thin our incredibly thick forests and remove the fuel for
> monster wildfires.
>
>
>
>
> Today’s catastrophic wildfires are bad for forests. When a
> devastating fire finally stops, it leaves a desolate moonscape
> appearance. The habitat for forest dwelling wildlife is destroyed,
> small streams are boiled dry, fish die and their habitat is smothered
> by silt and debris. The fire also bakes the soil so hard water cannot
> get through, so it washes away by the ton. All that is left are the
> blackened corpses of animals and fallen or standing dead trees. Often
> there are too few live trees left to even reseed the burn and the area
> soon becomes covered with a thick layer of brush that prevents a new
> forest from becoming established for many years.
>
>
>
> Historically, natural fires burned a far different kind of forest than
> the uniformly thick, overpopulated forests we have today. Forests of
> the past were resistant to monster fires, with clearings and patches
> of open forest that acted as mini-fuelbreaks for fires that were far
> smaller and far less hot. These light fires naturally cleared away
> debris, dead trees and other potentially dangerous fuels.
>
>
>
> Fires can’t burn that way in the forest of today. They bite into a
> superabundance of fuel, burn super-hot, destroy wildlife and
> watersheds, and leave a desolate landscape scarred by erosion and
> pitted with craters. This is why forest management, which involves
> thinning in order to make our forests more like they used be —
> naturally resistant to fire — is so desperately needed.
>
>
>
>
>
> Myth 2: Wildfires and massive insect infestations are a natural way
> for forests to thin and rejuvenate themselves.
>
>
>
> On the contrary, "no-cut" policies and total fire suppression have
> created the overcrowded forest conditions that enable fires to spread
> over vast areas that never burned that way in their known history.
> The resulting devastation is not natural. It is human-caused. We
> must accept responsibility for the crisis we created and correct the
> problem.
>
>
>
>
>
> Myth 3: If management is unavoidable, then deliberately set fires, or
> prescribed fires, are the best way to solve today's wildfire crisis.
>
>
>
> It is naive to believe we can have gentle fires in today’s thick
> forests. Prescribed fire is ineffective and unsafe in the forests of
> today.<I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"> It is ineffective
> because any fire that is hot enough to kill trees over three inches in
> diameter, which is too small to eliminate most fire hazards, has a
> high probability of becoming uncontrollable. Even carefully planned
> fires are unsafe, as the 2000 Los Alamos fire amply demonstrated.
>
>
>
> Not only that, there are very limited opportunities to burn. All the
> factors, such as fuel moisture, temperature, wind, existence of
> defensible perimeters, and available personnel, must be at levels that
> make it relatively safe to conduct a prescribed burn. This happens so
> rarely that it would be impossible to burn enough acreage each year to
> significantly reduce the fire hazard. Plus, prescribed burns
> inherently introduce air quality and health risk concerns.
>
>
>
>
>
> Myth 4: Thinning narrow strips of forest around communities, or
> fuelbreaks, is more than adequate as a defense against wildfire.
>
>
>
> Anyone who thinks roaring wildfires can’t penetrate these flimsy
> barriers could not be more mistaken. Fires often jump over railroad
> tracks and even divided highways.
>
>
>
> Fuelbreaks are impractical because forest communities are spread out,
> with homes and businesses scattered over huge areas. It would be
> virtually impossible to create an effective thinned ‘zone’ to
> encompass an area so large.
>
>
>
> In addition, fuelbreaks only work if firefighters are on the scene to
> attack the fire when it enters the area. Otherwise, it drops to the
> ground, and moves along the forest floor even faster than in a thick
> forest. Furthermore, there is always the danger of firefighters being
> trapped in a fuelbreak during a monster fire.
>
>
>
> Catastrophic fires roaring through hundreds of square miles of
> unthinned, overgrown forest simply do not respect a narrow fuelbreak.
> Frequently, firebrands – burning debris – are launched up to a
> mile in advance of the edge of a wildfire, and can destroy homes and
> communities no matter how much cleared space surrounds them. When
> catapulted embers land on roofs, destruction is usually unavoidable.
>
>
>
> Fuelbreaks are a necessary part of a comprehensive community
> protection program, not a cure-all solution in and of themselves.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Myth 5: Removing dead trees killed by wind, insects, or fire will not
> reduce the fire hazard.
>
>
>
> Experience and logic say this is false. Do logs burn in a fireplace?
> If dead trees are not removed, they fall into jackstraw piles
> intermingled with heavy brush and small trees. These fuels become
> bone dry by late summer, earlier during a drought. Any fire that
> reaches these mammoth piles of dry fuel can unleash the full fury of
> nature’s violence.
>
>
>
> Acting quickly to rehabilitate a wind or insect-ravaged forest, or a
> burned forest, is one of the surest ways to prevent wildfires or
> dampen their tendency to spread.
>
>
>
>
>
> Myth 6: We should use taxpayer money to solve the wildfire crisis
> rather than involve private enterprise.
>
>
>
> The private sector must be involved.
>
>
>
> A minimum of 73 million acres of forest needs immediate thinning and
> restoration. Another 120 million also need treatment. Subsequent
> maintenance treatments must be done on a 15-year cycle. The total cost
> for initial treatment would be $60 billion, or about $4 billion per
> year for 15 years. Then it would cost about $31 billion for each of
> the following 15-year maintenance cycles.
>
>
>
> This is far more money than the taxpayers will bear. But if private
> companies could harvest and thin only the trees required to restore
> and sustain a healthy, fire-resistant forest, it could be done. In
> exchange, companies sell the wood, and public expenditures are
> minimized.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, there aren’t any shortcuts. Human intervention has
> created forests that are dense, overgrown tinderboxes where unnatural
> monster fires are inevitable. This means we must manage the forest to
> prevent fires in the first place. We have to restore our forests to
> their natural, historical fire resistance. Thinning and restoring the
> entire forest is the only way to safeguard our natural heritage, make
> our communities safe, and protect our critical water sources.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> CONTACT
>
>
>
> Thomas M. Bonnicksen, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Forest Science,
> Texas A&M University, and Visiting Scholar and Board Member, The
> Forest Foundation, 853 Lincoln Way, Suite 208, Auburn, California,
> 95603. Telephone (530) 823-2363, cell phone (713) 854-2631, E-mail:
> .
>
> --
>
Shocked, I am shocked, I tell you. Who would have thought an
environmentalist would be unscrupulous enough to take quotes out of context
in an effort to make a point? Who would have thought a USENET
environmentalist would further spread that dishonest propaganda before
researching its sources. That must be embarrassing.
BWAAHAHAHAHAHA
these thoughts in :
> Jym Dyer wrote:
>
>
>>=v= For an intelligent look at what's fueling these
>>fires (as opposed to the lunatic Usenet rant posted
>>here earlier), I recommend Mike Davis:
>>
>>http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17066
>>
>>
> <excerpt from article referenced above>
> <quote>
> Meanwhile in the local mountains, an epic drought, which may be an
> expression of global warming, opened the way to a bark beetle
> infestation which has already killed or is killing 90 percent of
> Southern California's pine forests. Last month, scientists grimly told
> members of Congress at a special hearing at Lake Arrowhead that "it is
> too late to save the San Bernardino National Forest." Arrowhead and
> other famous mountain resorts, they predicted, would soon "look like
> any treeless suburb of Los Angeles." </quote>
> I suggest *you* read the full report the above quotes were taken out
> of context from. It paints an entirely different picture:
>
> WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
>
>
>
> OF
>
>
>
> DR. THOMAS M. BONNICKSEN
>
> PROFESSOR
>
> DEPARTMENT OF FOREST SCIENCE
>
> TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
>
> and
>
> visiting scholar and board member
>
> The forest foundation
>
> auburn, california
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> HEARING ON
>
> FOREST HEALTH CRISIS IN THE SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
>
>
>
>
>
> BEFORE THE
>
> COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
>
>
>
>
>
> UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> LAKE ARROWHEAD RESORT
>
> 27984 hIGHWAY 189
>
> LAKE ARROWHEAD, CALIFORNIA
>
>
>
>
>
> Monday
>
> SEPTEMBER 22, 2003
>
> 1:00 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> INTRODUCTION
>
>
>
>
>
> My name is Dr. Thomas M. Bonnicksen. I am a forest ecologist and
> professor in the Department of Forest Science at Texas A&M University.
> I am also a visiting scholar and board member of The Forest
> Foundation in Auburn, California. I have conducted research on the
> history and restoration of America’s native forests for more than 30
> years. I have written over 100 scientific and technical papers and I
> recently published a book titled <I style="mso-bidi-font-style:
> normal">America’s Ancient Forests: from the Ice Age to the Age of
> Discovery (Copyright January 2000, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 594
> pages). The book documents the 18,000-year history of North
> America’s native forests.
>
>
>
> Contact information is located at the end of this written statement.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> FOREST DEVASTATION AND RESTORATION
>
>
>
>
>
> With millions of dead trees covering approximately 350,000 acres of
> the San Bernardino Mountains, this forest is lost. Bark beetles
> feasting on over-crowded, moisture-stressed trees will have killed
> about 90 percent of the pine trees when they end their rampage. Then,
> Lake Arrowhead and other communities here will look like any treeless
> suburb of Los Angeles.
>
>
>
> Among the saddest aspects of this forest being wiped out is that the
> devastation was predictable and preventable. In fact, specialists
> representing many interests and agencies came together in a 1994
> workshop to do something about the unnaturally thick forests in the
> San Bernardino Mountains. They knew that communities like Idyllwild,
> Big Bear, and Lake Arrowhead were in imminent danger from wildfire.
> The workshop produced a report charting a course to improve the safety
> and health of the forest and surrounding communities. The
> recommendations were never acted on. Now, an entire forest is lost.
>
>
>
> Instead of acting to restore the forest and protect human lives before
> the crisis reached critical mass, politicized debates and overbearing
> regulations created inertia – a complete standstill during which the
> forest grew so dense, devastation became inevitable.
>
>
>
> Throughout the 1990s, extremists here advocated ‘no cut’ policies,
> wanting no active management for the forest. Their battle cry was
> “leave it to nature” despite indisputable evidence that the
> forest’s imperiled health was entirely unnatural, brought about by a
> century of absolute fire suppression and completely stifled
> harvesting. Now we are stuck with a dangerous, unsustainable forest.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, it is too late to save the San Bernardino National
> Forest. It is not, however, too late to learn from this disaster, to
> restore the forest to its original grandeur, or to save the forests of
> the Sierra Nevada that will undoubtedly face a similar fate if we
> continue down our current path. Indeed, we can anticipate similar
> catastrophes throughout our Western forests if we do not change our
> ways. We have already seen the beginnings of forest devastation in
> Arizona and Colorado.
>
>
>
> In the San Bernardino Mountains, there are simply too many trees.
> Drought has contributed to the crisis, but it is not the underlying
> cause. Forest density is ten times what is natural – 300 or more
> trees stand on an acre where 30 would be natural and sustainable.
> Over-crowded trees must fight for limited nutrients and water, and in
> doing so, become too weak to fight off insect attacks that healthy
> trees effectively repel.
>
>
>
> Our national forests, growing older and thicker, look nothing like
> their historical predecessors, with some having reached astronomical
> densities of 2,000 trees per acre where 40-50 trees per acre would be
> natural. Consequently, plant and animal species that require open
> conditions are disappearing, streams are drying as thickets of trees
> use up water, insects and disease are reaching epidemic proportions,
> and unnaturally hot wildfires have destroyed vast areas of forest.
>
>
>
> Since 1990, we have lost 50 million acres of forest to wildfire and
> suffered the destruction of over 4,800 homes. The fires of 2000 burned
> 8.4 million acres and destroyed 861 structures. The 2002 fire season
> resulted in a loss of 6.9 million acres and 2,381 structures,
> including 835 homes. These staggering losses from wildfire also
> resulted in taxpayers paying $2.9 billion in firefighting costs. This
> does not include vast sums spent to rehabilitate damaged forests and
> replace homes.
>
>
>
> The monster fires that have been ravaging our Western forests are of a
> different breed from the fires that helped maintain forest health over
> the past several hundred years. Forests that just 150 years ago were
> described as being open enough to gallop a horse through without
> hitting a tree are now crowded with logs and trees of all size – you
> can barely walk through them, let alone ride a horse. The excessive
> fuel build-up means that today, every fire has the potential to wreak
> catastrophic damage.
>
>
>
> Historically, our forests were more open because Native American and
> lightning fires burned regularly. These were mostly gentle fires that
> stayed on the ground as they wandered around and under trees. You
> could walk over the flames without burning your legs even though they
> occasionally flared up and killed small groups of trees. Such hot
> spots kept forests diverse by creating openings where young trees and
> shrubs could grow.
>
>
>
> We need to return our forests to their natural state. We need to
> alleviate the threat to thousands who live in danger throughout
> Southern California, and ensure that residents of Northern California
> and throughout the West are spared the trauma and fear that people
> here live with daily.
>
>
>
> Fortunately, we as modern foresters have the knowledge to restore our
> forests. We can minimize the fire threat, accelerate forest
> restoration, and protect human lives.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> THE ROAD TO RECOVERY
>
>
>
> The natural pine forest will soon be gone from these mountains. The
> most important question now is, what will replace it?
>
>
>
> There are two choices for the future of this forest, and no middle
> ground for debate. First, leave the forest alone. This would placate
> those who advocate ‘letting nature take its course’, though it
> would not result in the historically natural mixed-conifer forest that
> millions have enjoyed for centuries. Leave this forest alone, and we
> will perpetuate the unnatural thick forests of oak, fir, cedar, and
> brush – we will pass to future generations an unending cycle of
> destruction from fire and insects.
>
>
>
> Our second option is to restore the natural fire- and insect-resistant
> forest through active management. And we must consider the entire
> forest, not just small strips of land around homes or near
> communities. Removing fuels around homes makes sense, but to think
> that a 100-foot wall of flames ravaging a forest will lie down at a
> small fuel break, or that swarms of chewing insects cannot penetrate
> these flimsy barriers, is to live with a false sense of security.
>
>
>
> The recipe for restoring San Bernardino forests is simple. Cut the
> dead trees, remove or chip the slash to reduce fuels, and leave enough
> snags and logs for wildlife. Then thin what’s left to ensure that
> surviving trees grow quickly and to protect them from fire because
> they will become old growth in the future forest.
>
>
>
> Next, begin rebuilding the forest by planting native trees in gaps
> left by beetle-killed trees. Additional gaps will have to be opened
> and planted at different times and places to ensure that the restored
> forest has groups of tres of different ages. This will take five or
> more decades. By then seed from adjacent trees will fill new gaps and
> the forest will look relatively natural since some sites will grow
> trees 120 feet tall in 50 years. It will take centuries to replace the
> largest trees.
>
>
>
> This would be natural forestry not plantation forestry. That means
> using nature as a guide for creating a healthy, diverse forest that is
> fire, insect, disease, and drought resistant.
>
>
>
> Restoring the forest is easy. Paying for it is not. Reducing the fire
> hazard and restoring the forest could cost as much as $1,000 to $4,000
> per acre. Prescribed burning can help, but it is too dangerous and
> expensive to rely on, and brings with it air quality and health risks
> that will prevent its widespread use.
>
>
>
> Practical solutions for forest restoration must therefore include the
> private sector. Redirecting tax money to forest restoration would
> help, but there just isn’t enough to do the job. Success requires
> government and the private sector to work together. That means private
> companies harvest the trees needed for restoration and in exchange
> they get to sell wood products. This is just common sense – why
> allow insects or fire to wipe out our forests when we can use them in
> a way that also restores them? Wood is a renewable resource we
> desperately need.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> COMPLETE RESTORATION
>
>
>
> To fully restore our forests to health, we must fully understand the
> key issues in the forest health and management debate. Perpetuating
> myths in the name of advancing a particular cause does not serve the
> public interest. Our national forests belong to all people, and should
> serve all our needs. We need to dispel the popular misconceptions that
> mislead the public and hinder the implementation of sound forest
> policies. Only by understanding the facts can we make informed
> decisions about our forest heritage.
>
>
>
> Myth 1: All fires are good and forest management is bad.
>
>
>
> This argument confuses small, naturally occurring fires with large
> conflagrations, calls all of them good, and blames forest managers for
> wanting to thin our incredibly thick forests and remove the fuel for
> monster wildfires.
>
>
>
>
> Today’s catastrophic wildfires are bad for forests. When a
> devastating fire finally stops, it leaves a desolate moonscape
> appearance. The habitat for forest dwelling wildlife is destroyed,
> small streams are boiled dry, fish die and their habitat is smothered
> by silt and debris. The fire also bakes the soil so hard water cannot
> get through, so it washes away by the ton. All that is left are the
> blackened corpses of animals and fallen or standing dead trees. Often
> there are too few live trees left to even reseed the burn and the area
> soon becomes covered with a thick layer of brush that prevents a new
> forest from becoming established for many years.
>
>
>
> Historically, natural fires burned a far different kind of forest than
> the uniformly thick, overpopulated forests we have today. Forests of
> the past were resistant to monster fires, with clearings and patches
> of open forest that acted as mini-fuelbreaks for fires that were far
> smaller and far less hot. These light fires naturally cleared away
> debris, dead trees and other potentially dangerous fuels.
>
>
>
> Fires can’t burn that way in the forest of today. They bite into a
> superabundance of fuel, burn super-hot, destroy wildlife and
> watersheds, and leave a desolate landscape scarred by erosion and
> pitted with craters. This is why forest management, which involves
> thinning in order to make our forests more like they used be —
> naturally resistant to fire — is so desperately needed.
>
>
>
>
>
> Myth 2: Wildfires and massive insect infestations are a natural way
> for forests to thin and rejuvenate themselves.
>
>
>
> On the contrary, "no-cut" policies and total fire suppression have
> created the overcrowded forest conditions that enable fires to spread
> over vast areas that never burned that way in their known history.
> The resulting devastation is not natural. It is human-caused. We
> must accept responsibility for the crisis we created and correct the
> problem.
>
>
>
>
>
> Myth 3: If management is unavoidable, then deliberately set fires, or
> prescribed fires, are the best way to solve today's wildfire crisis.
>
>
>
> It is naive to believe we can have gentle fires in today’s thick
> forests. Prescribed fire is ineffective and unsafe in the forests of
> today.<I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"> It is ineffective
> because any fire that is hot enough to kill trees over three inches in
> diameter, which is too small to eliminate most fire hazards, has a
> high probability of becoming uncontrollable. Even carefully planned
> fires are unsafe, as the 2000 Los Alamos fire amply demonstrated.
>
>
>
> Not only that, there are very limited opportunities to burn. All the
> factors, such as fuel moisture, temperature, wind, existence of
> defensible perimeters, and available personnel, must be at levels that
> make it relatively safe to conduct a prescribed burn. This happens so
> rarely that it would be impossible to burn enough acreage each year to
> significantly reduce the fire hazard. Plus, prescribed burns
> inherently introduce air quality and health risk concerns.
>
>
>
>
>
> Myth 4: Thinning narrow strips of forest around communities, or
> fuelbreaks, is more than adequate as a defense against wildfire.
>
>
>
> Anyone who thinks roaring wildfires can’t penetrate these flimsy
> barriers could not be more mistaken. Fires often jump over railroad
> tracks and even divided highways.
>
>
>
> Fuelbreaks are impractical because forest communities are spread out,
> with homes and businesses scattered over huge areas. It would be
> virtually impossible to create an effective thinned ‘zone’ to
> encompass an area so large.
>
>
>
> In addition, fuelbreaks only work if firefighters are on the scene to
> attack the fire when it enters the area. Otherwise, it drops to the
> ground, and moves along the forest floor even faster than in a thick
> forest. Furthermore, there is always the danger of firefighters being
> trapped in a fuelbreak during a monster fire.
>
>
>
> Catastrophic fires roaring through hundreds of square miles of
> unthinned, overgrown forest simply do not respect a narrow fuelbreak.
> Frequently, firebrands – burning debris – are launched up to a
> mile in advance of the edge of a wildfire, and can destroy homes and
> communities no matter how much cleared space surrounds them. When
> catapulted embers land on roofs, destruction is usually unavoidable.
>
>
>
> Fuelbreaks are a necessary part of a comprehensive community
> protection program, not a cure-all solution in and of themselves.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Myth 5: Removing dead trees killed by wind, insects, or fire will not
> reduce the fire hazard.
>
>
>
> Experience and logic say this is false. Do logs burn in a fireplace?
> If dead trees are not removed, they fall into jackstraw piles
> intermingled with heavy brush and small trees. These fuels become
> bone dry by late summer, earlier during a drought. Any fire that
> reaches these mammoth piles of dry fuel can unleash the full fury of
> nature’s violence.
>
>
>
> Acting quickly to rehabilitate a wind or insect-ravaged forest, or a
> burned forest, is one of the surest ways to prevent wildfires or
> dampen their tendency to spread.
>
>
>
>
>
> Myth 6: We should use taxpayer money to solve the wildfire crisis
> rather than involve private enterprise.
>
>
>
> The private sector must be involved.
>
>
>
> A minimum of 73 million acres of forest needs immediate thinning and
> restoration. Another 120 million also need treatment. Subsequent
> maintenance treatments must be done on a 15-year cycle. The total cost
> for initial treatment would be $60 billion, or about $4 billion per
> year for 15 years. Then it would cost about $31 billion for each of
> the following 15-year maintenance cycles.
>
>
>
> This is far more money than the taxpayers will bear. But if private
> companies could harvest and thin only the trees required to restore
> and sustain a healthy, fire-resistant forest, it could be done. In
> exchange, companies sell the wood, and public expenditures are
> minimized.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, there aren’t any shortcuts. Human intervention has
> created forests that are dense, overgrown tinderboxes where unnatural
> monster fires are inevitable. This means we must manage the forest to
> prevent fires in the first place. We have to restore our forests to
> their natural, historical fire resistance. Thinning and restoring the
> entire forest is the only way to safeguard our natural heritage, make
> our communities safe, and protect our critical water sources.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> CONTACT
>
>
>
> Thomas M. Bonnicksen, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Forest Science,
> Texas A&M University, and Visiting Scholar and Board Member, The
> Forest Foundation, 853 Lincoln Way, Suite 208, Auburn, California,
> 95603. Telephone (530) 823-2363, cell phone (713) 854-2631, E-mail:
> .
>
> --
>
Shocked, I am shocked, I tell you. Who would have thought an
environmentalist would be unscrupulous enough to take quotes out of context
in an effort to make a point? Who would have thought a USENET
environmentalist would further spread that dishonest propaganda before
researching its sources. That must be embarrassing.
BWAAHAHAHAHAHA