|
WASHINGTON
- August 18 - The New York Times, August 12, 2003
"The problem with the plan is that it is hopelessly, perhaps deliberately, vague. It does not specifically require that the money be spent where it would obviously do the most good, at the urbanized edges of the forests, where homeowners and their property are most at risk. Indeed, its mandate is so broad that it practically invites commercial logging on millions of acres in remote areas of the national forests, where fires pose little or no threat to people or property but where the trees are the biggest and the opportunities for profit are the largest."
Arizona Daily Star, August 12, 2003
"The risk is especially high in what is called the wildland-urban interface, referring to those areas in which homes and businesses have been built in heavily forested areas. Fire suppression efforts around those areas have led to such substantial fuel build-ups that the main issue appears to be not whether some of them will burn, but when. It is essential to thin out these and other areas of the country's national forests. To that extent, Bush clearly is right.But his initiative does little for the "wildland-urban interface," while it does much for allowing logging companies to cut down larger, older and less vulnerable trees in remote areas."
Great Falls Tribune, August 12, 2003
" . . . firefighting priority and most of the expense goes to fighting blazes in the vicinity of homes and businesses that have been allowed in the forests, but the bill would do little to direct resources to those areas. If the full Senate passes the bill as passed by the House, fires such as those burning and threatening homes and businesses today will still threaten homes and businesses in the future. In forests, as in dentistry, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Since any more it seems government has only an ounce of money, we should be putting it where it would do the most good."
The New Mexican, August 12, 2003
" . . . the Bush plan tends to ignore the kindling; it would allow, even encourage, large-scale logging of the big, fire-resistant trees the bill sounds as if it's out to save. In many cases, the logging would take place far into the forests, which could mean more roads, more erosion and more destruction of our nation's woodlands . . . Our nation's legislators instead should reiterate their warnings of forest fires' real dangers -- to homes and to water supplies. And when they go back to Washington, they should draft a Healthy Forests Initiative worthy of its name."
Houston Chronicle, August 13, 2003
"The Healthy Forests Restoration Act proposes to dampen forest fire risks by reducing the forest materials that could fuel a conflagration. "Fuel reduction" is a respected method of fire prevention but generally requires the creation of forest breaks along the perimeter of homes and communities. The legislation in question, sponsored by Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., and passed in the House last May, would allow logging companies to thin overgrown forests without actually specifying that such cutting take place near developed areas in need of fire protection."
###
|
