Cafeoutdoors.com: Forest Fires are for Suckers?like you!

since you are an idiot, here's something for you to read and not absorb from idahoforests.org

Forest Health:
The next critical issue in Western land management

This year's fire season was, reportedly, the worst in five decades. Hundreds of large and small forest and range fires raged throughout the western United States. Regular fire crews, even supplemented by the military and firefighters from overseas, could do little more than protect structures - and even some historic-buildings were lost.

Why did it happen? What could have been done to prevent it? Can we expect more calamitous fire seasons in the future? Historically, fire was nature's way of renewing the forest. Periodically, relatively small fires created a shifting mosaic of all types of tree cover including patches of seedlings, groups of young trees and open stands of mature groves.

For much of the past century, however, fire has been suppressed on western forests. This has allowed the buildup of massive fuel loads in many areas, fuels just waiting for an errant lightning strike, a tossed cigarette or a forgotten campfire. The U.S. Forest Service estimates some 39 million acres of National Forests in the interior West are at high risk of catastrophic wildfire.

According to a 1999 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), "...large-scale fire suppression disrupted the historical occurrence of frequent, low-intensity fires, which had periodically removed flammable undergrowth without significantly damaging larger trees. As a result, vegetation has accumulated, creating high levels of fuels for catastrophic wildfires and transforming much of the region into a tinderbox." The number of large wildfires, and of acres burned by them, has increased over the last decade, as have the costs of attempting to put them out. Those who have said this disaster could not have been foreseen or prevented haven't been paying attention. The GAO report was just the latest in a series of warnings that have come from professional foresters and others over the course of the last decade.

"Are our national forests healthy?"

In the winter of 1994-95, Evergreen Magazine devoted an issue to forest fires in the West. The issue was entitled "The West Is Burning Up! Should We Stop These Fires or Should We Let Nature Take Its Course?" Five years later the Winter 2000 issue is entitled "Should We Let Diseased National Forests Die and Bum?"

In the last five years, forest health has remained a major national issue. There have been GAO reports to Congress, a joint report on the health of Idaho forests by the Idaho Department of Lands and the U.S. Forest Service, Congressional hearings, numerous scientific studies and treatises - even a movie about fire fighting pilots.
The U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905 to manage the federal forest reserves which were established time "to im prove and protect the forests within their boundaries, or to secure favorable water flow conditions and provide a continuous supply of timber to citizens." (GAO Report, Forest Service Priorities, June 1999)

In 1910, massive wildfires scorched 3 million acres in Idaho and Montana and 86 people were killed. The public demanded action. Suppressing and aggressively fighting any and all fires on federal forestlands became an unquestioned policy. Almost a century later, the political cause of the day is forest health with public voices across the nation demanding a change. National ad campaigns by environmental activists demand that no logging be allowed in our national forests in order to preserve them for future generations. Management has become a negative term along with logging, grazing, mining and multiple uses.

With more than 39 million of the 192 million acres of the national forest system ripe for catastrophic fires, a debate has raged for almost a decade on whether or not there is a problem and if there is one, how best to handle it.
One might dunk that determining the health of a forest would be easy. However, according to experts, there are 85 different definitions of forest health. The 2000 fire season has stirred the debate with more than six million acres burned along with homes and historic buildings across the West.

"The actions we take will have consequences, just as the political decision in 1910 to fight all fires did...

The number of large wildfires, and of acres burned by them, has increased over the last decade, as have the costs of attempting to put them out. We are at a crossroads. As with many environmental issues, the political sometimes drowns out the scientific. The actions we take will have consequences just as the political decision in 1910 to fight all fires and the policy decision by the Clinton Administration to curtail logging on the national forests have consequences today.

Prior to settlement of the West by Europeans, fires played a role. These fires were moderate and more frequent, burning along the ground and clearing fuel and surplus plant life.

Can ailing forests heal themselves?

The consequences of the decision to exclude fire from the national forests that resulted from the 1910 fires, coupled with the more recent legal and policy decisions to reduce logging and active management on the forest, has given rise to a forest health crisis. Without less intense ground fires and without active management using thinning and logging, the forest has become overloaded with fuel. Fire requires three things: heat, oxygen and fuel. Of the three, only fuel can be controlled by man. More and more scientists are sounding the alarm: our national forests are overgrown. The answer to this forest health problem would seem to be easy. All we need to do is go back to conditions that existed before 1850. If intense fire management has changed our forests, then re-introducing fire should take care of the problem. Right?
Wrong. More and more professional foresters and scientists are challenging the idea that fire is the solution. They question the value of turning back the clock to pre-1850, and even our ability to do that.

Analysis by the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Program scientists showed that the acres of federal forestlands at risk of catastrophic fires have tripled in the past century. Now 60% of the federal forests are in danger.
In scientific, peer reviewed studies and testimony before Congress, scientists and foresters call attention to the accumulated fuel. They point out the threat to ecosystem integrity, water quality, habitat and the long-term productivity of the forest if we do not do something to manage the fuel buildup. In 1999, professional foresters in eastern Washington and northern Idaho pointed out: "The severity of wild-fire, epidemic native insect populations and introduced diseases and insects have caused a serious decline in forest health ... Reintroducing fire as the only means of improving forest health is not a viable option." (IESAF 1999)

In 1997, the U.S. Forest Service announced its goal to improve forest health by resolving the problems of uncontrollable, catastrophic wildfires on national forests by the end of fiscal year 2015.
But, according to a 1999 GAO report, the Forest Service lacks adequate data to develop the cohesive strategy it needs. And efforts to reduce accumulated fuels can adversely affect the agency's achievements of other stewardship objectives. For example: "Controlled fires can be used to reduce fuels, but (1) such fires may get out of control, and (2) the smoke they produce can cause significant air pollution. As a result, mechanical methods, including commercial timber harvesting, will often be necessary to remove accumulated fuels. However," the report continues, "mechanical removals are problematic because the Forest Service's (1) incentives tend to focus efforts on areas that may not present the highest fire hazards and (2) timber sales and other contracting procedures are not designed for removing vast amounts of materials with little or no commercial value."

"A cohesive strategy is needed..."

The report says that removing accumulated fuels may cost the forest Service hundreds of millions of dollars per year. "But the problem is so extensive that even this level of effort may not be adequate to prevent many catastrophic fires over the next few decades. This report recommends the development of a cohesive strategy to reduce accumulated fuels on national forests of the interior West in an effort to limit the threat of catastrophic fires."

Such a cohesive strategy, forest experts now believe, will require active management, including commercial harvest. In a report prepared for the Idaho Land Board this year by Professor Jay O'Laughlin, Director of the Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, he notes that "...the means of attaining forest restoration goals through active management are logging and prescribed burning, and these methods are not universally accepted. Some people distrust federal land management agencies, programs and projects featuring active management."

O'Laughlin notes that the only two methods of reducing fuel loads on our forest are prescribed fire and logging - and many sites are too heavily choked with small trees and vegetation to use fire without longterm, possibly permanent damage. Fires now bum hotter with more destructive potential than ever before, leaving effects on the terrain and in the soil that can last for generations and can even be permanent.

Other considerations also limit the use of prescribed fire to a fraction of the lands needing treatment. Professor William McKillop of the University of California, Berkeley, notes that "...air quality restrictions and budgetary constraints are major barriers to [fire's] large-scale implementation. In addition, there are limited periods when all of the factors such as fuel loads, moisture, existence of defensible perimeters and weather conditions are at levels appropriate to bum. Furthermore, ...the dangers of fire escapement require crews to stand by and have good access by road...

"Fires now burn hotter and with more destructive potential than ever before..."

What does all this mean for the future of our national forests? It means we can restore them to good health. It means we can provide jobs while protecting clean air and water.

It means, over time, allowing fire to resume its natural role in forest management.
However, none of this can happen if inaction prevails. Professor Robert Nelson teaches, environmental policy at the University of Maryland. He's written a book length critique of the Forest Service. Here's a short excerpt: "The Forest Service in recent years has shown a preference for prescribed burning over mechanical treatment." This has caused several problems, he says. Not least among these is a reluctance to use logging in areas, which aren't suitable for burning.

In other words, if it can't be burned, it's left alone - allowing still more crowding and build-up of fuels. The time has come for action to restore our national forests to health, whether that means to their ancient conditions or something else. Continued inaction will mean more and larger catastrophic fires and the loss of one of our nation's greatest physical assets. It's time for the policy makers, the agencies and the public to become educated on the issues and reach some decisions. The forests are too important to leave to chance.

and here's another since you want a continuation of government owned and managed land

from the National Center of Policy Analysis, this is an executive summary, since I know you aren't one to read

The United States was founded on the principle of private property ownership as the ultimate guarantor of individual liberty and prosperity. Yet, more than 40 percent of the land is owned by government, and the federal government controls ocean resources within 200 miles of the coast.

Unfortunately, government has poorly managed the public's natural resources. It has been unable to balance public land uses, such as logging and recreation, with preservation of lands in their original state. Because of shifting priorities, national parks and forests have at times been either overused or neglected. As a result, public lands have been degraded and the wildlife that depends on them destroyed. Government efforts to regulate ocean resources have been even more schizophrenic, simultaneously subsidizing commercial fishing while imposing restrictions to halt declining fish populations.

National Parks. Too many people using anything will destroy it, and national parks ? many of which are ecologically fragile ? are no exception. The National Park Service has maintained low or no entrance fees to encourage the maximum number of visitors, but this has led to overuse and insufficient funds for properly maintaining roads and facilities. It has suppressed natural fires ? while spending billions of dollars fighting forest fires. And since deer, elk, pronghorn sheep and bison are popular park attractions, such predators as wolves and bears were hunted and trapped.

The Park Service has been successful in attracting visitors (287 million people in 1999) and increasing the number of grazing animals ? but at a high price.

* In the most popular parks, visitors regularly complain of air pollution from automobiles, cars interfering with scenic views and traffic jams hampering the natural experience.
* The absence of predators to regulate populations and periodic fires to stimulate plant growth led to an overpopulation of grazing animals.
* In Yellowstone, elk have almost entirely driven out deer, bighorn and pronghorn sheep, and even beaver populations, or pushed them into poorer habitats, leaving them prey to disease and boom-and-bust population cycles.

In contrast, individuals and private organizations have a long history of protecting environmentally valuable lands. For instance:

* The Audubon Society maintains more than 100 sanctuaries and nature centers comprising more than 300,000 acres.
* The Nature Conservancy protects and maintains 15 million acres in the United States in nearly 1,400 private preserves ? an area greater than the states of Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey and Rhode Island combined.

National Forests. Like national parks, national forests have also suffered from conflicting management goals and environmental degradation. Logging and the roads built to access timber have often been environmentally destructive. For instance:

* In the Northern Rockies, some trout and salmon streams have been severely damaged by several feet of silt or mud runoff from logging roads and clear cuts.
* Road construction created inroads for exotic, often harmful species of wildlife, plants and parasites.

The Forest Service has also tried the "let-nature-take-its-course" approach by designating roadless areas and limiting logging. But the forests' health has continued to decline because they are overcrowded with too many living, dying and dead trees:

* Historically, large ponderosa pines grew in stands of 20 to 55 trees per acre in the Western national forests; today they grow in densities of 300 to 900 trees per acre.
* National forests in California have an estimated 10 to 20 times more trees than is "natural."

When forests become too dense they are more susceptible to disease and infestations. Keeping the number of trees per acre at an optimal level helps regrowth and biodiversity by allowing sunlight to reach the forest floor. Overcrowding also increases the likelihood and severity of fires. According to Forest Service figures, 60 percent of national forest land is unhealthy and faces an abnormal fire hazard. And of the more than 90 million acres at high risk for catastrophic fires, 14 million acres are designated roadless areas, where access is limited.

Bureaucratic paralysis often infects federal forest management efforts. For example, after a forest fire in California burned both public and private land:

* The Forest Service removed dead trees and other fuels from only 1,206 acres and replanted 230 acres in the 27,000-acre Lassen National Forest.
* Only 181 acres of the more than 28,000 acres in the Plumas National Forest were reforested.

By contrast:

* Private foresters reduced the chance of a future catastrophic wildfire by removing 30,633 tons of dry material, enough to fuel 3,600 homes for a year.
* They harvested enough larger dead trees to build 4,300 homes.
* And they spent millions of dollars to reforest the burned land, planting nearly one million seedlings of seven different tree species.

Private organizations have also successfully managed forested land for multiple uses. For example, North Maine Woods, Inc., a land management trust, owns almost 3.5 million acres and allows both logging and recreation:

* The trust maintains 17 access checkpoints on roadways where visitors register, pay a small fee and obtain permits for campsites.
* The fees, comparable to those at local government parks, along with profits from logging operations, are used to maintain roadways, improve campsites and clean up litter.

Ocean Fisheries. There has been a rapid and unprecedented decline in American and world fisheries under government regulation. In the 1960s, the government began subsidizing fishing through grants, tax breaks and below-market loans that resulted in more fishers chasing fewer fish.

* In the past 50 years, populations of large fish species ? including tuna, swordfish, cod, halibut and flounder ? have decreased 90 percent worldwide.
* The National Marine Fisheries Service lists 98 species as overfished.
* Due to overfishing, half of all U.S. fisheries, and a quarter of the major fish stocks worldwide, are in jeopardy of an abrupt, severe, irreversible decline.

While government-operated fisheries are declining, privately owned fisheries have prospered. For example, of the 133 million tons harvested from inland and ocean fisheries in 2003, 40 million came from aquaculture, or private fish farms and hatcheries. The four U.S. ocean fisheries that have been privatized now have smaller fishing fleets, higher incomes for fishermen, and larger, healthier fish stocks.

Ownership in Action. The concept of ownership can be extended to public lands and ocean fisheries. For example, some federal lands could be sold or auctioned off to private parties (individuals, companies or nonprofit organizations). Or management could be transferred to congressionally-approved boards or to states or counties that have demonstrated superior economic and environmental performance.

As for fisheries, financial incentives to overharvest marine resources should be eliminated and replaced with property-based solutions that create incentives for conservation. A system of tradable rights, called individual transferable quotas (ITQs), could be implemented, entitling fishermen to a certain portion of the catch.

Where strict private property rights cannot be established, new markets can be created or economic incentives can be brought to bear on the management of the resources in question in order to improve the environment.