Daschle on Forests - Do what I say, not what I do...

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Senate Majority leader Daschle (Democrate for y'all from outside the US) was one of the advocates of tough environmental standards for our forests a while ago over the objections of professional forest managers who argued that the bill would lead to massive fires and that there was a smarter way to protect the forests. The environmental controls, which can be characterized as "Don't touch the forests under any circumstances" have lead directly to the destruction of millions and millions of acres of the same forests the bill was supposed to protect.

Earlier this summer, as forest fires ripped through forests all around his home state, Senator Daschle slipped an exemption for the forests of South Dakota into a homeland security bill. I guess he didn't think anyone would notice. He also included an exemption from lawsuits for his state so that the fire prevention steps could be implemented without the (frequent) obstruction from lawsuits brought by the people who don't want the forests touched at all.

A couple weeks ago, President Bush described the terrible destruction to forests, property and lives caused by the wildfire and asked Congress to pass a bill to protect all the national forests based on the plan that Senator Daschle had put into place for his own state.

The debate rages: The newspaper article below describes the actions as of yesterday.

Wildfire-control bill stalls on objections from Democrats By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Negotiations broke down yesterday over the Bush administration's plan to curb forest wildfires, and Democrats may block a final vote on the measure today.

"There are all kinds of tactics being used to keep us from voting," said Sen. Michael B. Enzi, Wyoming Republican.

Debate over the amendment to the Interior Department spending bill to allow the thinning of bug-infested trees has broken down along party lines, after initially being supported by Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

Republican senators say Mrs. Feinstein is still trying for a compromise and the Bush administration remains optimistic a compromise will be reached this week.

"As best I can tell, there are people on both sides of the aisle trying to come to an agreement," said Mark Rey, undersecretary of agriculture.

"My sense is they are working awfully hard to try to find common ground," Mr. Rey said.

Democrats are offering their own version, but both sides say they lack the 60 votes Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is requiring for passage.

"There is no question that on controversial issues, this Senate must acquire 60 votes to pass an amendment," said Mr. Daschle, South Dakota Democrat.

"Over the course of the last several weeks, we have attempted to find common ground and, at least to date, have failed," Mr. Daschle said.

The 60-vote requirement is being challenged by Sen. Larry E. Craig of Idaho, the lead Republican sponsor of the measure.

"You know the rules as well as I do," said Mr. Craig, who is insisting the Democratic and Republican versions be decided on a simple majority vote.

Mr. Craig said that the Republicans will continue to push for passage of the measure.

"We are a long way from this issue being over," he said.

The sticking points are judicial review of tree-thinning projects and limitations of tree thinning in watersheds — primary sources of drinking water.

President Bush and Western lawmakers have modeled their approach to fire prevention after exemptions Mr. Daschle allowed for a timber project in his home state of South Dakota, which was first reported by The Washington Times.

To date, 65,000 fires have burned 6.5 million acres nationally, and the fire season will continue into next month.

"If this had been Hurricane Andrew, help would have been parachuted in," Mr. Craig said.

Mr. Craig said his amendment would allow thinning of fuels in 10 million of more than 33 million acres listed as being in danger of catastrophic fire. No old-growth trees would be affected, and no new roads would be constructed.

The Democrats' version focused on 2.5 million acres near communities. But Sen. Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico Democrat and chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee announced yesterday his plan would double the acreage to 5 million.

"We have had one of the worst fire seasons on record this year, and no one wants to see a repeat of it," said Mr. Bingaman.

"I believe that my approach is a balanced yet aggressive way to reduce the threat of wildfire in the West," Mr. Bingaman said.

Negotiations on the House side are making more favorable advances and both sides are meeting on a daily basis, said a Republican staffer.

"But success is far from certain, given what we've seen in the other chamber. The game is far from over," the staffer said.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

The media approach to thinning.....

NPR search(From the Wash Times).

Matthew Koehler, a member of the grass-roots activist group Wild Rockies, wrote this correspondence to his organization (leaked to Inside the Beltway) on Tuesday:

"Folks: A correspondent with NPR [National Public Radio] is looking for a 'thinning' project that clearly illustrates why we are distrustful of the USFS [U.S. Forest Service]/timber industry. Ideally, this bad 'thinning' project needs to have already been completed as the correspondent wants to visit the site and talk with folks on the ground.

"I spoke with a few people yesterday and the general impression that I got was that a lot of the bad 'thinning' projects have either been successfully appealed/litigated or are tied up in the appeals/litigation. I've also heard that lots of bad 'thinning' projects are coming down the pipeline. So, if anyone has a bad 'thinning' project that has already been logged, please get in contact with me so we can get you in contact with NPR ASAP. Thanks.

"This is what the [NPR] correspondent wrote: 'Hey there. Put on your thinking cap and give me your best example of a 'thinning project' where they went in and did the opposite. I'm working on a story about trust, which is at the heart of all this, and I want to use just one example of where the FS [Forest Service] and the industry flagrantly abused the public's trust on a thinning project. In short, concrete evidence as to why the environmental community is distrustful of the FS and industry's so-called thinning projects.'"

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I guess no one cares about protecting our forests.

 

[SINthysist]

The bigger, ignored story is Dashle's complicity in the deaths of several persons in a web of dirty dealings that include his wife who continues to run around Washington lobbying...

But Cheney-Haliburton is the one pursued relentlessly.

That was a mere rip-off!

 

[SINthysist]

They only care about forests when arguing for Kyoto or against the logging industry.

 

[SINthysist]

Plus it's not current... You need a good anti-Bush angle or a good anti-war angle or a discussion on knot-hole fawking...

 

[SINthysist]

Personally, even though it's referred to as a "Woody," I'd rather knot...

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I'm back for a minute.

The article is from a neutral paper, one that isn't anti-bush or anti-Cheney. That is the cause for the unusual perspective.

 

[SINthysist]

LOL

LOL

absolutely fucking LOL

Washington Times unbiased...

OMG LOL

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

LOL

LOL

absolutely fucking LOL

Washington Times unbiased...

OMG LOL

I thought that you'd get a good laugh from that. LOL. After all, it's "America's Paper".

 

[SINthysist]

I'm laughing a SECOND TIME!

 

[Unclebill]

"There is no question that on controversial issues, this Senate must acquire 60 votes to pass an amendment," said Mr. Daschle, South Dakota Democrat.

I'm wondering where this Fascist asshole gets this 60-vote requirement. It's NOT in the Constitution which is the charter under which the Congress operates.

But then this asshole doesn't have any regard for the Constitution anyway based on his voting record and advocacies.

Typical of the Fascist statist mentality, make up your own rules as you go along; flexibility of rules is the indispensable tool of tyranny.

It's the same principle as the use of commitees to undermine the Constitutional process of confirming the judicial nominations. He knows he can't achieve his political goals within the constraints of Constitutional authority so he uses whatever means available and is succeeding.

Typical political ploy of playing on the ignorance of people to implement tyrannical whims.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I think it's the "any means to an end" psychosis where "the end" is continuation of his powerful political position.

 

[SINthysist]

Pure Machiavellian... That's what The Democratic Party has become under the continued leadership of the Clintons. I hope the REAL Democrats stand up to them and send them packing to the Greens...

 

[Ishmael]

I just love it when politicians try to manage resources.

It has long been known by wildlife and forestry scientists that fire is required on a reqular basis to burn off the duff (over burden) before it reaches a dangerous thickness. Some species of trees, the Sequoia for example, require fire for the seeds to germinate.

As the duff increases in thickness, the seed germination rate goes down and any fires that do occur burn hotter and longer with increasing possibility of 'crowning'. Once a fire crowns, the soil is left bare to erosion.

A normal ground fire leaves the trees alive and intact. The root systems hold the soil in place. A 'normal' fire in a Ponderosa Pine forest requires approximately 3 years for full recovery. A 'crowned' fire may require 10 years or more.

Old growth forests are the deserts of the woodlands. It is a minimalized habitat. The Elk and Deer are browsers and as such require open spaces where herbs grow. These plants do not grow in an old forest. The shade from the large trees restricts the growth of smaller, more food worthy, plants.

But what really irritates me is that the organizations that want a 'hands off' approach to forest management are funded by city dwellers that if dropped in a forest couldn't find their ass with both hands and a flashlight. They are against the regular burning of the duff because it sounds good. That and far too much "Smokey the Bear" as children.

Another case of 'feel good politics' trumping science.

Yes, and Daschele is a disengious SOB.

Ishmael

 

[zipman]

I just love it when politicians try to manage resources.

It has long been known by wildlife and forestry scientists that fire is required on a reqular basis to burn off the duff (over burden) before it reaches a dangerous thickness. Some species of trees, the Sequoia for example, require fire for the seeds to germinate.

As the duff increases in thickness, the seed germination rate goes down and any fires that do occur burn hotter and longer with increasing possibility of 'crowning'. Once a fire crowns, the soil is left bare to erosion.

A normal ground fire leaves the trees alive and intact. The root systems hold the soil in place. A 'normal' fire in a Ponderosa Pine forest requires approximately 3 years for full recovery. A 'crowned' fire may require 10 years or more.

Old growth forests are the deserts of the woodlands. It is a minimalized habitat. The Elk and Deer are browsers and as such require open spaces where herbs grow. These plants do not grow in an old forest. The shade from the large trees restricts the growth of smaller, more food worthy, plants.

But what really irritates me is that the organizations that want a 'hands off' approach to forest management are funded by city dwellers that if dropped in a forest couldn't find their ass with both hands and a flashlight. They are against the regular burning of the duff because it sounds good. That and far too much "Smokey the Bear" as children.

Another case of 'feel good politics' trumping science.

Yes, and Daschele is a disengious SOB.

Ishmael

Excellent well articulated post. Too many people (especially city dwellers - and I'm one) fight to protect the environment without understanding the true issues. Being an avid outdoorsman, I know of the necessity for fires to preserve a healthy forest, and have often heard enviromentalists without a clue argue that forests should be untouchable.

It's a damn shame people don't educate themselves before taking up a cause.

 

[Ishmael]

Excellent well articulated post. Too many people (especially city dwellers - and I'm one) fight to protect the environment without understanding the true issues. Being an avid outdoorsman, I know of the necessity for fires to preserve a healthy forest, and have often heard enviromentalists without a clue argue that forests should be untouchable.

It's a damn shame people don't educate themselves before taking up a cause.

Thanks ZM.

For those interested, there's an excellent article on the need for fire as a managment tool in no less than the Sept. 1996 issue of National Geographic. The National Geographic Society has been part of the eco-crowd since the 80's so one can hardly point to them as the 'puppets' of big biz. About every third year they feature an article about this issue.

For the reading impaired, the article is chuck full of pic's and drawings.

Ishmael