[Vision2020] Logging would avert fire, Otter says

[Donovan Arnold]

Otter does have a point. Cutting down all the trees does prevent forest fires. It also makes hunting easier. And nobody would get lost in a national park with no trees. We also wouldn't have to worry about a tree falling on our car or house. But most importantly, we wouldn't have to share our fresh water supply. However, there are a lot of down sides to cutting down all our trees, like not having oxygen. But what good is having enough breathable clean air when it means cutting into profits of campaign donors?   
 
Donovan Arnold

From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
To: Moscow Vision 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 5:57 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Logging would avert fire, Otter says


"'We’ve got a devastating fire coming at us … because of natural death of that forest and its coming at us,' Otter told a group of sympathetic Republican lawmakers . . . "

So, Otter and his corporate cronies want to clearcut the Idaho Wilderness region for fun and profit, huh?

Sympathetic Republican lawmakers?  Sounds more like an endangered species to me; "Sympathetic" versus simply "pathetic".

Courtesy of today's (February 29, 2012) Spokesman-Review.

---------------------------Logging would avert fire, Otter says
State control of timber urged at U.S. Capitol
WASHINGTON – Idaho is at big risk for a catastrophic wildfire because of the lack of logging, Gov. Butch Otter told members of Congress on Tuesday.
Otter said a disaster along the lines of the devastating 1910 wildfires could be coming, as the trees that came in after those fires are reaching the end of their natural life. That leaves plenty of decaying material on federal lands to burn.
“We’ve got a devastating fire coming at us … because of natural death of that forest and its coming at us,” Otter told a group of sympathetic Republican lawmakers from the West who are members of the Congressional Western Caucus on Capitol Hill.
Idaho Republican Rep. Raul Labrador, a member of the caucus, agreed with Otter. “Eventually it’s going to catch fire and it’s going to be devastating to Idaho and to the American economy,” Labrador said.
The 1910 fires, also known as the Big Burn, scorched about 3 million acres in Idaho, Montana and Washington.
Labrador and Otter want the state to take over management of federal timberlands. But Idaho environmentalists and the timber industry say the federal government is working with them in collaborative efforts to manage Idaho’s forests and reduce the fire risk.
The Forest Service has recognized that targeted logging near developed areas is helpful, said Bill Higgins, the resource manager of the Idaho Forest Group in Grangeville, one of the larger timber companies in the state.
“We are behind, but we are starting to see a change in course to more active forest management,” Higgins said Tuesday.
Higgins said fire suppression efforts for the past 50 years, as well as lack of thinning from timber harvest, does increase the risk of a big uncontrolled fire.
Idaho Conservation League Executive Director Rick Johnson agreed there is a fire risk but said it’s a huge oversimplification to suggest logging will fix that. The Wilderness Society responded to the criticism at Tuesday’s caucus hearing by noting the Forest Service last month announced Idaho would receive $5.7 million for three efforts to improve the health of national forests.
Johnson criticized Tuesday’s event and said cooperative efforts involving the federal government, the timber industry, environmentalists, local officials and others are better than what he called anti-federal “theater” and the state trying to manage federal lands.
“The state has different goals, whether it is cutting more trees or providing more jobs or what have you. It’s different than the longer-term, bigger, higher-profile goals of the federal government – protecting watersheds, long-term recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat,” Johnson said.
Otter told the Congressional Western Caucus on Tuesday that Idaho is unfairly treated among states because the federal government owns 63 percent of all lands in Idaho and manages nearly three-quarters of the forests.
“I’d hope there would be some discussion of letting the states be the stewards and reap benefits for local schools and communities off those forests,” Otter said.
It’s become an issue in the presidential campaign. Republican candidates Rick Santorum and Ron Paul proposed selling or transferring federal lands such as national forests to private interests or to the state. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney proposed transferring management of national forests to states to increase the revenues they generate.--------------------------- 

Question for Gov. Otter and his sidekick Labrador:  How soon do you anticipate opening a Walmart supercenter in Idaho's Wilderness region?



Seeya later, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho

"If not us, who?
If not now, when?"

- Unknown


=======================================================
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
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120229/2b619abb/attachment.html>