As most of you are aware, we're suffering from an enormous wildfire, here in Orygun. The largest in the state's history--the Biscuit Fire, now pushing half a million acres, with no end in sight, other than the winter rains, if we get them.

The fire has been used by radical rights to point fingers at "environmentalists" who caused all this alleged fuel buildup by fighting clearcutting and other logging proposals over the years. It's being used by the Forest Circus, Oregon Dept of Forestry, and US Bureau of Mismangement to promote an entirely new strategy in managing the forests: Preventive logging and thinning. It's being used by "environmentalists" to point fingers at logging in general, as they say that logging itself is the cause of most of the excess fuels (logging debris, young stands of conifers, brushfields, etc.)

Everyone, it seems, believes that SOMETHING needs to change, as the fire prevention practices we've been using for the last several decades has "obviously" failed. (These practices consist of, in a nutshell, putting out every fire we've had ASAP.)

I'm one of only a few (actually only myself and my honey) who see a problem with the belief that the current firefighting system is a failure.

First of all, the Biscuit Fire could have been put out by a couple dozen firefighters when it first started. Siskiyou National Forest, where it started, claims there were none available. Now comes a statement from Calif. Dept. of Forestry that they offered to attack the fire when they first learned that SNF had a shortage of personnel, and SNF declined the offer.

Not to mention, it seems intuitively obvious that some of the firefighters who typically hang around fire camp with nothing to do, due to the understandable lack of organization at a typical fire camp, could have been assigned to the fire for a day or so, until more firefighters could be imported.

Furthermore, ALL the firefighting agencies refused to allow me, or anyone else who tried to volunteer, a chance to help out. They say the only way to help in the effort was to "get trained" by a fire fighting instructor, and btw, the instructors are too busy fighting the fire to take time to train others. (irrespective of the fact that I and many others are already trained in firefighting, in my case by SNF)

FURTHERMORE, the fire is now being fought, after better than a month, by almost 7000 firefighters, from all over the world. If we can afford to import personnel from as far away as New Zealand now, why couldn't we have paid to bring some of them over when it would have done a lot more good--at the start of the fire?

Now, as to reforming the approach to firefighting (and did you know that the Forest Circus has invented a new icon to replace Smokey The Bear? Yep, here's introducing "Reddy The Squirrel" who says, "remember, NOBODY can prevent forest fires-we have to be REDDY" :( So sorry, Smokey!)

So the Circus, et al, want to begin a program where they'll "clean up" the forests. They want to trim, and then burn, "ladder fuels" --the lower branches of trees, and cut and burn brush, so that a wildfire, whenever it does occur, will have a lesser chance of turning into a crown fire.

I think this is an admirable idea. Problem is, they estimate that the cost to do so will be about $1000 per acre, for the first yearr, with subsequent reentry for $200-500 per year. Thus, first year costs alone would amount to $11,200 per person, for the first year alone. This is for the folks in my county, Josephine, and the next one to the east, Jackson County. If we take the costs for all the forestland in the state, and amortize it for all state residents, it would be somewhat less--only $8500 per person, or $34,000 per four person family!

I'm composing a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, which I can't submit for thirty days since my last one, so I have a week or two to compose it. I'd love to hear you folks' thoughts on this. Should we ask the feds to subsidize our forestry practices, since obviously we Orygunians can't afford the costs on our own, or shoule we just stick to nailing the fires fast and hard when they first start, or do y'all have any ideas which I haven't thought of?

I'm sure that some of you may want to address the "rural cleansing" aspects of this whole mess, but I hope we can mostly focus on the practical aspects, and not get sidetracked on conspiracy theories for the moment, ok?

-- Anonymous, August 21, 2002

Answers

The major objection I have to cleaning up the underbrush and such in forests is roadbuilding. You can't "clean up" the forest without building roads into pristine areas. Once there is a road it will NEVER EVER go away! This means of course that any idiot with a vehicle can now have access to areas previously accessable only by foot or horse. Of couse with more people in these areas we will lose much of the biodiversity that sustains the web of life.

It seems as if Bush and company sit around trying to figure out ways to destroy our Earth as fast as possible. Here's an e-mail the Bushwatch people sent me today.

If you are concerned about President's recent "Healthy Forests Initiative" contact those who can make a difference. Go to The Wilderness Society 's action page on this issue http://www.wilderness.org/takeaction/?step=2&item=1818 or NRDC: Natural Resources Defense Council's page http://www.nrdcaction.org/index.asp?step=2&item=1312 Here's the story: Bush's Forest Proposal a "Smokescreen," says NRDC WASHINGTON, D.C. — Protecting homes and communities should be the first priority of any national forest fire plan. Unfortunately, the plan unveiled today by President Bush is a smokescreen that misses the target in reducing this threat. Instead, the president's so-called "Healthy Forests" initiative exploits the fear of fires in order to gut environmental protections and boost commercial logging. (August 23, 2002) Environmental News Network - ENN.com

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2002

No time to answer now, but 1000+ protesters in Portland Orygun gave Prez Bush pause the other night...

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2002

Forest Service Mislaid $215 Million By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ASHINGTON, Aug. 24 — The United States Forest Service, now battling one of the worst fire seasons in history, "misplaced" about $215 million intended for wildfire management because of an accounting error, a watchdog group contends.

The Forest Service says the money is being recovered.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, an advocacy group based in Washington, made public on Friday an internal memorandum from the Forest Service chief, Dale Bosworth, that said the error, made nearly two years ago, had been discovered as the agency tried to improve its accounting practices.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2002

Here is a copy of the letter I sent Bush and co. I customized a form letter:

I strongly oppose your "Healthy Forests Initiative," which would not protect communities from fire, but would weaken environmental laws as you very well know. This initiative spells doom for forests, biodiversity, communities at risk of wild fire, and for your own credibility. You are not fooling anyone with this smokescreen.

Having failed to scapegoat environmentalists for this summer's fires, you've decided to take on environmental laws themselves, and give a gift to the timber industry at the same time. A fact I'm sure you'll remind them of when you are looking for donations to the next presidential election campaign.

We can protect homes and communities without sacrificing the health of our forests to do so. Science, and many policy makers, agree on this point. In fact, your administration has already endorsed the landmark, collaborative, science-based strategy crafted by the Western Governors' Association last May. All parties who signed the plan, including Secretary of Interior Gale Norton and Agriculture Secretary Ann Venemann, agreed that fire risks could be reduced without any change to existing law.

I often wonder what you will tell your grandchildren and great-grandchildren when they ask you why you consistently made decisions that you knew would damage the earth and all living creatures including themselves. You still have time to turn things around and make decisions that will go a long way toward leaving them a truly healthy planet. Those kind of decisions won't be popular with big business, but they will be very popular with the people you are supposed to be serving.

_____________________________

Hey joj, do you know about the Northwest Environmental Watch? They do very good work on the environmental protection front lines in your neck of the woods. I support them financially and I strongly encourage all others to do so also.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2002

Another brilliant Bush appointee.......

"Allan Fitzsimmons, the man chosen by the Bush administration to head its wildfire prevention program, does not believe in ecosystems and says the extinction of threatened and endangered species would not be a crisis. Fitzsimmons was tasked last week with reducing fire danger on Interior Department lands through the newly formed Healthy Forests Initiative, but environmentalists say the appointment confirms their fears that the initiative is just a smokescreen for expanding logging on public lands. President Bush wants logging companies to thin forests, theoretically to reduce fire danger, in exchange for the right to harvest commercially valuable trees. Under the White House plan, forest protections would be suspended and it would be harder for environmentalists to sue to block thinning. Fitzsimmons, a free- market policy analyst aligned with libertarian and conservative think tanks, has written papers calling ecosystems human constructs and criticizing those who try to "accommodate nonexistent ecosystem needs."

-- Anonymous, September 10, 2002

Obviously, the best thing for ecosystems to do, here in the west, is to hide under a rock. Depressing.

-- Anonymous, September 11, 2002