[Vision2020] Whackos and the Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity

[Sunil Ramalingam]

So 'true environmental progress' would be those things with which you agree? 
  Exempting projects from review is TEP?

Sunil


>From: "Glenn Schwaller" <vpschwaller at gmail.com>
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] Whackos and the Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity
>Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:50:50 -0700
>
>Yes Mr Solomon,  it was indeed the Nixon administration who formed the
>Environmental Protection Agency and the National Environmental Protection
>Act.  According to the NEPA web site, their stated purposes were:
>
>       "To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and
>enjoyable harmony between man and his environment."
>
>       "To promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the
>environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man."
>
>       "To enrich our understanding of the ecological systems and natural
>resources important to the Nation."
>
>Unfortunately these directives have been used, abused and misused by
>environmentalists and the Carter and Clinton administrations to bring true
>environmental progress to a standstill.
>
>To address the wildfire crises that have plagued the county in the past
>several years, the NEPA directives have been abused to bring more than a
>doubling of NEPA-related lawsuits since 1997.  This increase has been led 
>in
>part by the Healthy Forests Initiative, proposed by President Bush in 2002.
>This called for thinning forests to reduce wildfire danger and exempted 
>many
>logging projects of 1,000 acres or less from review.  The inability of the
>Forest Service to provide for management by controlled burns, logging, and
>removal of burned and insect-infested trees has contributed enormously to
>the current wildfire problems.
>
>In the past two years over 700 Forest Service proposals for controlled
>thinning have been forwarded to the GAO for review.  Sixty percent of these
>proposals have been tied up in litigation spearheaded by the Sierra Club,
>Alliance for Wild Rockies, and Forest Conservation Council, to name a
>few.  These
>frivolous lawsuits have delayed efforts to treat 900,000 acres of forests,
>results in the Forest Service spending over 50% of their time and more than
>$250 million dollars in addressing these lawsuits.
>
>The cycle of uncontrolled, devastating fires will continue as long as the
>Forest Service continues to be hamstrung by a handful of radical, ignorant
>whackjobs.
>
>GS
>
>
>On 10/26/07, Mark Solomon <msolomon at moscow.com> wrote:
> >
> >  The Endangered Species Act was signed by that known environmental 
>whacko
> > Richard Nixon.
> >
> > m.
> >
> > At 3:19 PM -0700 10/26/07, Glenn Schwaller wrote:
> >
> > It has EVERYTHING to do with whacko environmentalists and the radical
> > policies implemented by the Clinton administration, which brought an 
>abrupt
> > and unfortunate end to rational forest and brush management techniques.
> >
> > Only a few short years ago these enviro-freaks successfully passed laws
> > prohibiting SoCal residents from clearing brush near their homes because 
>of
> > an "endangered" kangaroo rat and the spotted mesquite weevil.  Do you 
>think
> > that had controlled burns and brush clearing be allowed, these 
>catastrophic
> > fires could have been avoided, or at least lessened in their intensity, 
>thus
> > preserving homes, (as well as the legally-privileged weevils and rats, 
>who
> > by the way lost their lives and homes as well . . )
> >
> > As far as any "global warming" connection to the fires, I would think if
> > there was any influence at all it would be to REDUCE the incidence of 
>brush
> > fires.  Global warming would create a more hot and arid climate with 
>reduced
> > rainfall, hence reduced growth of brush to fuel the fires, hence less 
>fire.
> > So what ya need is a long term drought to cut down on the amount of 
>brush to
> > burn.
> >
> > GS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/26/07,* Sunil Ramalingam* <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Roger,
> >
> > I don't disagree that there's a lot of underbrush in lots of national
> > forests, along with a lot of skinny trees that will never get big, that
> > are
> > great fuel for fires.  This has little if anything to do with the 
>actions
> > of
> > environmentalists.  This is from a century of putting out fires when
> > they're
> > small, and a lot of that had to do with preserving timber.  Firefighting
> > has
> > been in transition away from that practice for a while now, but there's
> > plenty of brush out there.
> >
> > I disagree that it's the USFS policy to not clear out brush.  
>Prescription
> > fires are lit to clear out brush, and a lot of those take place every
> > spring
> > and fall.
> >
> > This is a separate issue from the SoCal fires.  The vegetation in these
> > areas is primarily brush, not timber.
> >
> > I think you're making blanket statements about environmentalists
> > here.  Some
> > don't want any intervention, some agree there should be some 
>intervention.
> > Those saying there should be no intervention aren't making any of the
> > policies currently in place.  I consider myself an environmentalist, but 
>I
> > don't think we should let all fires burn freely.  At the same time, even
> > though I fought wildland fires for ten summers, I don't think we should 
>be
> > putting them all out either.  I certainly think anyone living out in the
> > urban-rural interface should be clearing out the brush around their
> > property.
> >
> > Sunil
> >
> >
> > >From: lfalen < lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > >Reply-To: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > >To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >Subject: [Vision2020] Fw: Re:  Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity
> > >Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:08:02 -0700
> > >
> > >Sunil
> > >There seems to be a problem with "reply all" for this email so I am
> > >forwarding it instead.
> > >
> > >The underbrush problem is a general one. Not clearing out underbrush is
> > >part of the Forest Service's policy. It has been well documented that 
>at
> > >least some vocal environmentalist do not want any intervention by man 
>or
> > >management of the forests. This includes thinning out underbrush  or
> > insect
> > >control. Dead trees due to insect infestation adds to the fire hazard
> > >provided by underbrush. They are partly right in that before man's
> > >involvement ther were small fires that cleared the underbrush which
> > >prevented a hotter fire from wiping out the entire forest. Not all
> > >environmentalist or forest managers see it this way. There is 
>legislation
> > >being proposed at the state and national level to change this policy.
> > >Roger
> > >-----Original message-----
> >
> > >
> > >From: "Sunil Ramalingam" sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> > >Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:05:05 -0700
> > >To:
> > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity
> > >
> > >Roger, what is the basis of your statement:
> > >
> > >'The extent of the fires we exacerbated by the dense underbrush that
> > >resulltd from environmetalist not allowing it to be cleared out,'
> > >
> > >and which fires are you talking about?
> > >
> > >Sunil
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >                http://www.fsr.net
> >           mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
> >
> >


>=======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================