October 23, 2002 The Washington Times Opinion/Editorial
As Congress bickers, forests burn
Chuck Leavell


Mother Nature is finally doing what Congress was unable to do
this session, putting out wildfires that have burned in all 50 states,
destroying nearly 7 million acres of national forests.
The snowfalls that now are mercifully extinguishing the fires
contrast starkly with the icy chill President Bush's Healthy Forest
Initiative received on Capitol Hill, where it has been stalled for
months by partisan bickering.
And, while Congress squabbled, the forests burned.
When the issue is forests, the debate in Washington has become
all-too-predictable. Each side trots out the same old arguments and
the same old advocates, and the result too often is gridlock. But, as
America's 10 million family forest owners know well — if you
want to keep your forests healthy and growing, doing nothing in the
face of massive threats just isn't an option.
This year seemed to mark a turning point. Mr. Bush introduced a
sensible, scientifically sound plan for preventing the devastation
caused by unchecked wildfires on federal forests. Then, for a hopeful
moment, both sides reached across party lines to find a compromise.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, took
the first risk by inserting language into a spending bill to exempt
federal rules and allow a timber sale to proceed in his home state. He
understood that years of suppressing wildfires had set the stage for
catastrophic fires in the future.
Sen. Larry E. Craig, Idaho Republican, and Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, California Democrat, then worked together to pass similar
reforms in the Senate, while Rep. Scott McInnis, Colorado Republican,
and Rep. George Miller, California Democrat, are still trying to reach
a solution in the House.
Taking the stand that careful harvesting can actually be good
for forest management was an important step for Democrats this year.
Mr. Miller and Rep. Peter DeFazio, Oregon Democrat, made it clear to
green groups during House hearings that they believe it is time to
actively manage forests, and they have negotiated in good faith with
Republicans to find a solution.
But as time runs out, it becomes clear this is a battle that
must be carried over into the 108th session of Congress.
The summer of 2002 was the second-largest fire season in the
last 50 years. More than 67,000 wildfires scorched the earth. But few
of those fires devastated family owned forests. Why? Because, like my
wife Rose Lane and me, most family forest owners know the best
stewards must be part of the environmental equation. We actively
manage our forests by thinning, removing fuel buildup and performing
carefully prescribed burns every few years so we can prevent the kind
of disastrous wildfires we've seen this year on federal forests.
We're very proud of the stewardship at our family forest,
Charlane Plantation. We do a lot of the work ourselves, and over the
years we've made it a much better place, with bountiful wildlife and
healthy watersheds, and we're working hard to make it even better. I
believe our national forests would be far healthier if they were
managed like our family-owned forest.
The great pioneers that established the national forest system,
Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot and others, knew long ago how
important good stewardship is, and that it just doesn't happen —
you have to work at it. Our forests belong to all Americans, and while
trees cannot vote or send in campaign donations, they deserve
protection through intelligent and active management, not by fencing
them off to human activity and watching them burn.
Sadly, this year's congressional session answered the age-old
question: Millions of trees fell in the forests, and Congress did not
hear the sound.

Comment by poster: Common sense.....Who'd a thunk it? G

Fires are part of the natural process blagging ******.



Larry Harrell wrote in message
m...
October 23, 2002 The Washington Times Opinion/Editorial
As Congress bickers, forests burn
Chuck Leavell


Mother Nature is finally doing what Congress was unable to do
this session, putting out wildfires that have burned in all 50 states,
destroying nearly 7 million acres of national forests.
The snowfalls that now are mercifully extinguishing the fires
contrast starkly with the icy chill President Bush's Healthy Forest
Initiative received on Capitol Hill, where it has been stalled for
months by partisan bickering.
And, while Congress squabbled, the forests burned.
When the issue is forests, the debate in Washington has become
all-too-predictable. Each side trots out the same old arguments and
the same old advocates, and the result too often is gridlock. But, as
America's 10 million family forest owners know well — if you
want to keep your forests healthy and growing, doing nothing in the
face of massive threats just isn't an option.
This year seemed to mark a turning point. Mr. Bush introduced a
sensible, scientifically sound plan for preventing the devastation
caused by unchecked wildfires on federal forests. Then, for a hopeful
moment, both sides reached across party lines to find a compromise.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, took
the first risk by inserting language into a spending bill to exempt
federal rules and allow a timber sale to proceed in his home state. He
understood that years of suppressing wildfires had set the stage for
catastrophic fires in the future.
Sen. Larry E. Craig, Idaho Republican, and Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, California Democrat, then worked together to pass similar
reforms in the Senate, while Rep. Scott McInnis, Colorado Republican,
and Rep. George Miller, California Democrat, are still trying to reach
a solution in the House.
Taking the stand that careful harvesting can actually be good
for forest management was an important step for Democrats this year.
Mr. Miller and Rep. Peter DeFazio, Oregon Democrat, made it clear to
green groups during House hearings that they believe it is time to
actively manage forests, and they have negotiated in good faith with
Republicans to find a solution.
But as time runs out, it becomes clear this is a battle that
must be carried over into the 108th session of Congress.
The summer of 2002 was the second-largest fire season in the
last 50 years. More than 67,000 wildfires scorched the earth. But few
of those fires devastated family owned forests. Why? Because, like my
wife Rose Lane and me, most family forest owners know the best
stewards must be part of the environmental equation. We actively
manage our forests by thinning, removing fuel buildup and performing
carefully prescribed burns every few years so we can prevent the kind
of disastrous wildfires we've seen this year on federal forests.
We're very proud of the stewardship at our family forest,
Charlane Plantation. We do a lot of the work ourselves, and over the
years we've made it a much better place, with bountiful wildlife and
healthy watersheds, and we're working hard to make it even better. I
believe our national forests would be far healthier if they were
managed like our family-owned forest.
The great pioneers that established the national forest system,
Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot and others, knew long ago how
important good stewardship is, and that it just doesn't happen —
you have to work at it. Our forests belong to all Americans, and while
trees cannot vote or send in campaign donations, they deserve
protection through intelligent and active management, not by fencing
them off to human activity and watching them burn.
Sadly, this year's congressional session answered the age-old
question: Millions of trees fell in the forests, and Congress did not
hear the sound.

Comment by poster: Common sense.....Who'd a thunk it? G

(Larry Harrell) wrote in message om...
October 23, 2002 The Washington Times Opinion/Editorial
As Congress bickers, forests burn
Chuck Leavell


Mother Nature is finally doing what Congress was unable to do
this session, putting out wildfires that have burned in all 50 states,
destroying nearly 7 million acres of national forests.
The snowfalls that now are mercifully extinguishing the fires
contrast starkly with the icy chill President Bush's Healthy Forest
Initiative received on Capitol Hill, where it has been stalled for
months by partisan bickering.
And, while Congress squabbled, the forests burned.
When the issue is forests, the debate in Washington has become
all-too-predictable. Each side trots out the same old arguments and
the same old advocates, and the result too often is gridlock. But, as
America's 10 million family forest owners know well — if you
want to keep your forests healthy and growing, doing nothing in the
face of massive threats just isn't an option.
This year seemed to mark a turning point. Mr. Bush introduced a
sensible, scientifically sound plan for preventing the devastation
caused by unchecked wildfires on federal forests. Then, for a hopeful
moment, both sides reached across party lines to find a compromise.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, took
the first risk by inserting language into a spending bill to exempt
federal rules and allow a timber sale to proceed in his home state. He
understood that years of suppressing wildfires had set the stage for
catastrophic fires in the future.
Sen. Larry E. Craig, Idaho Republican, and Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, California Democrat, then worked together to pass similar
reforms in the Senate, while Rep. Scott McInnis, Colorado Republican,
and Rep. George Miller, California Democrat, are still trying to reach
a solution in the House.
Taking the stand that careful harvesting can actually be good
for forest management was an important step for Democrats this year.
Mr. Miller and Rep. Peter DeFazio, Oregon Democrat, made it clear to
green groups during House hearings that they believe it is time to
actively manage forests, and they have negotiated in good faith with
Republicans to find a solution.
But as time runs out, it becomes clear this is a battle that
must be carried over into the 108th session of Congress.
The summer of 2002 was the second-largest fire season in the
last 50 years. More than 67,000 wildfires scorched the earth. But few
of those fires devastated family owned forests. Why? Because, like my
wife Rose Lane and me, most family forest owners know the best
stewards must be part of the environmental equation. We actively
manage our forests by thinning, removing fuel buildup and performing
carefully prescribed burns every few years so we can prevent the kind
of disastrous wildfires we've seen this year on federal forests.
We're very proud of the stewardship at our family forest,
Charlane Plantation. We do a lot of the work ourselves, and over the
years we've made it a much better place, with bountiful wildlife and
healthy watersheds, and we're working hard to make it even better. I
believe our national forests would be far healthier if they were
managed like our family-owned forest.
The great pioneers that established the national forest system,
Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot and others, knew long ago how
important good stewardship is, and that it just doesn't happen —
you have to work at it. Our forests belong to all Americans, and while
trees cannot vote or send in campaign donations, they deserve
protection through intelligent and active management, not by fencing
them off to human activity and watching them burn.
Sadly, this year's congressional session answered the age-old
question: Millions of trees fell in the forests, and Congress did not
hear the sound.

Comment by poster: Common sense.....Who'd a thunk it? G
Not very common sense. Gifford Pinchot later recanted on his policy.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

In article ,
writes:

Fires are part of the natural process blagging ******.

Fools are a part of the natural process too. For some reason, the UK
seems to have more than its fair share. Maybe they should institute a
thinning program of their own.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc