The Forest Conservation Council, long known for taking environmental
obstructionism to statospheric heights, is doing it again by appealing
a decision they lost in a case that common sense says should never
have been brought before the bench to begin with. Notable is the fact
that they weren't joined in the original case by other radical greens.
The greens often cite the Beschta Report as one scientific reason to
oppose salvage logging (Go to this link to read the report:
http://www.saveamericasforests.org/c...hta-report.htm

The problem with the report is that its applicability has little
validity for dry forest types and less for the Ponderosa forests of
the Southwest. The Southwest Ponderosa forests do not regenerate
naturally after a stand replacing
fire. Brush and shrubs grow rapidly after such a fire, creating new
excessive fuel loads and any new fire will use the burnt and dead
trees as additional fuel resulting in a conflagration. Additionally,
the burned tress which have fallen to the ground make it almost
impossible to use controlled burns in the original fire area.

The forest Conservation Councils position is to let the forest burn
rather than using any form, no mater how benign, of logging.


From today's 8/15/03 "Flagstaff Arizona Daily Sun"

Environmental group appeals judge's ruling on Arizona timber cutting
08/15/2003
MESA (AP) -- An environmental group asked an appellate court for an
injunction blocking salvage timber cutting authorized by the U.S.
Forest Service in areas burned last year by the largest wildfire in
Arizona history.
The Forest Conservation Council requested the order this week from the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as the group appealed a judge's
order allowing the salvage operation.
The trees targeted by the proposed operation were killed by last
summer's 469,000-acre Rodeo-Chediski fire, which devastated large
sections of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and the adjacent
Fort Apache Indian Reservation.
A lawsuit originally filed in January by the environmental group
targets only the Forest Service land, which accounts for about 177,000
acres. Timber has been harvested on Indian land since shortly after
the fire.
If the appeals court issues an injunction, it would block all
harvesting in the forests, said Jimmy Hibbetts, team leader for the
Forest Service's Rodeo-Chediski salvage and rehabilitation team.

Hibbetts said time is critical because trees killed in wildfires
typically develop a fungus that renders them commercially worthless
within about 18 months.
Judge Frederick Martone ruled last month that the Forest Service
legitimately used "categorical exclusions," which bypass normal
environmental documentation and public hearing requirements in the
law, on about 18,000 acres targeted for salvage.
Martone found that the agency's attempt to use a similar exclusion for
an additional 19,364 acres adjacent to private land was inappropriate.
Though he said the agency would need to conduct an environmental
assessment on that land, he allowed the Forest Service to proceed with
timber cutting near private property as long as it simultaneously
conducted an environmental assessment.
In his order, Martone noted the danger of a new wildfire hitting the
Apache-Sitgreaves as litigation dragged on.
John Talberth, president of the Forest Conservation Council, told the
East Valley Tribune that allowing timber cutting near developed areas,
even though the plan didn't meet the agency's own requirements for a
categorical exclusion, violates the law.
The National Environmental Policy Act sets specific requirements for
projects of the size and scope proposed by the Forest Service,
Talberth said.
Talberth also disputed the idea that the timber will be worthless
unless it is harvested soon.
The Forest Service has had successful timber sales in other areas more
than two years after a wildfire, he said.