Tancredo blames environmentalists for the Snaking Wildfire
Aozotorp
Tancredo blames environmentalists
By Bill McAllister
Denver Post Washington Bureau Chief
Friday, April 26, 2002 - WASHINGTON - A coalition of eight environmental groups
bears a major responsibility for the Snaking wildfire, Rep. Tom Tancredo,
R-Colo., charged Thursday.
Tancredo accused the groups of blocking fire-suppression efforts that the U.S.
Forest Service proposed 18 months ago in the Pike-San Isabel National Forest, a
project Tancredo said might have prevented the wildfire. The Forest Service
wanted to thin brush and small trees that can fuel wildfires.
Environmentalists called Tancredo's charge "irresponsible," saying the thinning
was planned far from the fire site and that they support thinning under the
right circumstances.
Declaring that the fire could have a "disastrous" impact on water quality,
Tancredo slammed the groups. "It just drives me crazy that these organizations
that pose as friends of the environment are doing things that I think are bad
for the environment," he said.
"There is no one to blame but these environmental groups," if the fire damages
the Denver water supply, Tancredo said.
Environmentalists initially appealed the Forest Service thinning plan. Tancredo
acknowledged that the timber industry filed the last appeal but said it was a
defensive step to ensure the industry had a voice in any settlement with
environmentalists. He is also aware that the fires are distant from the
disputed area, but an aide said he believes some of the thinning would have
begun by now if environmentalists hadn't complained.
A member of the House Subcommittee on Forests, Tancredo pushed for thinning in
an April 2 letter to regional forester Rick Cables. "While I agree that the
current proposal for thinning may leave something to be desired for all of the
interested parties," continued delay "is tantamount to inviting another
catastrophic fire in the region," he wrote.
Suzanne Jones, assistant regional director of the Wilderness Society, countered
that Tancredo's charge was "irresponsible," noting that officials suspect
someone smoking may have caused the fire.
Ted Zukoski, attorney for the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, said the
coalition did not seek to block all thinning. "Our groups support responsible,
scientifically based restoration projects that reduce the risk of fire," he
said.
Daniel B. Wheeler
> http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E23447%257E571761,00.html
>
> Tancredo blames environmentalists
> By Bill McAllister
> Denver Post Washington Bureau Chief
>
> Friday, April 26, 2002 - WASHINGTON - A coalition of eight environmental groups
> bears a major responsibility for the Snaking wildfire, Rep. Tom Tancredo,
> R-Colo., charged Thursday.
> Tancredo accused the groups of blocking fire-suppression efforts that the U.S.
> Forest Service proposed 18 months ago in the Pike-San Isabel National Forest, a
> project Tancredo said might have prevented the wildfire. The Forest Service
> wanted to thin brush and small trees that can fuel wildfires.
>
What an interesting spin doctor is Tancredo. If fires happen on his
watch, it is the fault of someone else! Even though the fires were
attributed to three smokers tossing lit cigarettes, according to at
least some news reports.
But rather than smoke smokers, Tancredo goes after environmentalists.
Using that logic, loggers would also be painted with the same brush
for harvesting larger trees which suppress brush through blocking
sunlight. I wonder how long ago that happened?
Here's a novel idea: maybe the fire was the result of his own
government's legal checks and balances. That way he could blame the
current administration.
Maybe that would be a sort of political suicide for a Republican from
Colorado, wouldn't it? Or just sedition?
Which proves once again that denial is more than just a long river in
Egypt.
For more on the radical right's viewpoints see www.reich-wing.com
Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com
Larry Harrell
news:6dafee1b.02042...@posting.google.com...
> [snip]
> What an interesting spin doctor is Tancredo. If fires happen on his
> watch, it is the fault of someone else! Even though the fires were
> attributed to three smokers tossing lit cigarettes, according to at
> least some news reports.
>
> But rather than smoke smokers, Tancredo goes after environmentalists.
> Using that logic, loggers would also be painted with the same brush
> for harvesting larger trees which suppress brush through blocking
> sunlight. I wonder how long ago that happened?
>
> Here's a novel idea: maybe the fire was the result of his own
> government's legal checks and balances. That way he could blame the
> current administration.
>
And someday, I predict that private landowners, whose land is burned up by
wildfires raging out of control from public lands, will sue the government
for mismanaging forest fuels (including live fuels). Already, the GAO has
deemed 40 million acres of public lands to be at risk of catastrophic fire.
Our collective butts are hanging out on this one and each year the problem
worsens. Will the courts again dictate forest policy on our public lands??
Larry
--
Larry Harrell Fotoware
New version of "Virtual Yosemite"!! Downloadable demo available at
http://www.lhfotoware.com/virtual.htm
Check out my web site at http://www.lhfotoware.com New pages!!!
Daniel B. Wheeler
> Daniel B. Wheeler <dwhe...@ipns.com> wrote in message
> news:6dafee1b.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > [snip]
> > What an interesting spin doctor is Tancredo. If fires happen on his
> > watch, it is the fault of someone else! Even though the fires were
> > attributed to three smokers tossing lit cigarettes, according to at
> > least some news reports.
> >
> > But rather than smoke smokers, Tancredo goes after environmentalists.
> > Using that logic, loggers would also be painted with the same brush
> > for harvesting larger trees which suppress brush through blocking
> > sunlight. I wonder how long ago that happened?
> >
> > Here's a novel idea: maybe the fire was the result of his own
> > government's legal checks and balances. That way he could blame the
> > current administration.
> >
>
> And someday, I predict that private landowners, whose land is burned up by
> wildfires raging out of control from public lands, will sue the government
> for mismanaging forest fuels (including live fuels). Already, the GAO has
> deemed 40 million acres of public lands to be at risk of catastrophic fire.
> Our collective butts are hanging out on this one and each year the problem
> worsens. Will the courts again dictate forest policy on our public lands??
>
The best thing that private property owners can do is minimize the
danger of fuels build-up on their property. Perhaps a fire-line of
mowed vegetatation might be adviseable. But considering the current
care of public-owned forests, don't expect the government to do much
about it: they're cash strapped, probably as a result of all those
tax-breaks, and credits to big business to develop more jobs.
Then again, there is always the possibility of error, and perhaps the
current administration will just put the topic into committee for
another 2 years. Yeah, that should be long enough. ;)
Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com
Donald L Ferrt
> news:6dafee1b.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > [snip]
> > What an interesting spin doctor is Tancredo. If fires happen on his
> > watch, it is the fault of someone else! Even though the fires were
> > attributed to three smokers tossing lit cigarettes, according to at
> > least some news reports.
> >
> > But rather than smoke smokers, Tancredo goes after environmentalists.
> > Using that logic, loggers would also be painted with the same brush
> > for harvesting larger trees which suppress brush through blocking
> > sunlight. I wonder how long ago that happened?
> >
> > Here's a novel idea: maybe the fire was the result of his own
> > government's legal checks and balances. That way he could blame the
> > current administration.
> >
>
> And someday, I predict that private landowners, whose land is burned up by
> wildfires raging out of control from public lands, will sue the government
> for mismanaging forest fuels (including live fuels). Already, the GAO has
> deemed 40 million acres of public lands to be at risk of catastrophic fire.
> Our collective butts are hanging out on this one and each year the problem
> worsens. Will the courts again dictate forest policy on our public lands??
>
> Larry
Really? And exactly where did this fire start and how much of it was
on private land versus public land! Have been to Fort Collins and
back 3 times this year = each year I have seen a grass fire = all on
private land! Another person unaware of the word drought:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/regional_monitoring/palmer.gif
Larry Harrell
>
I don't own any property but, I'd be worried if I did have land adjacent to
the National Forest. There was a similar incident between the Lassen
National Park and the Lassen National Forest, way back when. A fire broke
out in the park and byrned northward, towards National Forest land. The park
wouldn't let fire crews go in to slow it down and when it hit the boundary,
it was a-ragin'.
Would you feel comfortable with acres and acres of Federal land surrounding
you with heavy fuel loading and unhealthy trees??
Also, the GAO is about as close as you can get to an objective study of the
problem. ( I'm also wondering if any roadless areas are included the acreage
the GAO came up with.)
> The best thing that private property owners can do is minimize the
> danger of fuels build-up on their property. Perhaps a fire-line of
> mowed vegetatation might be adviseable. But considering the current
> care of public-owned forests, don't expect the government to do much
> about it: they're cash strapped, probably as a result of all those
> tax-breaks, and credits to big business to develop more jobs.
>
> Then again, there is always the possibility of error, and perhaps the
> current administration will just put the topic into committee for
> another 2 years. Yeah, that should be long enough. ;)
>
> Daniel B. Wheeler
> www.oregonwhitetruffles.com
>
Daniel, have you been down to that Coos Bay golf course with the "magic"
mushrooms on it again? <G>
kiddingly,
Daniel B. Wheeler
> I don't own any property but, I'd be worried if I did have land adjacent to
> the National Forest. There was a similar incident between the Lassen
> National Park and the Lassen National Forest, way back when. A fire broke
> out in the park and byrned northward, towards National Forest land. The park
> wouldn't let fire crews go in to slow it down and when it hit the boundary,
> it was a-ragin'.
That happens around volcanoes sometimes. <G>
>
> Would you feel comfortable with acres and acres of Federal land surrounding
> you with heavy fuel loading and unhealthy trees??
I wouldn't think a whole lot of it, Larry. I don't live surrounded by
National Forest. <G> It's hard enough to find private forest land
nearby.
> Daniel, have you been down to that Coos Bay golf course with the "magic"
> mushrooms on it again? <G>
No, haven't ever been down there. How did you know about the magic
shrooms?
<not kiddingly>
Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com
Mike Hagen
are overflowing into the hills and 4000 sq.ft "second homes" are common
around the Sound. In places like Sequim, they're retirement homes - usually
with two elderly people, just moved up from California. Where these places
get built in elk range, there are immediate screams to shoot the elk that
eagerly chow down on the ornamentals. As a rule, these people want their
land in the lowest tax bracket and have enough acres for the minimum, so
they file forest management plans. Certain realtors encourage this, and
since the lands are freshly converted from commercial forestry, it's easy
to say they will remain "in" forestry. But I never see any of them do
anything. No brush suppression, seldom even tree planting. Definitely not
putting in pre-emptive firelines. No thinning. The only work done is
cutting vegetation that gets into the view - and leaving the flammable
material behind. Yet the public is going to have to pay to rescue these
folks because they're in local fire protection districts and DNR has mutual
aid agreements with them - as does the FS with the DNR.
"Daniel B. Wheeler" <dwhe...@ipns.com> wrote in message
news:6dafee1b.02042...@posting.google.com...
Daniel B. Wheeler
> Living in the woods is turning into a very expensive proposition. The burbs
> are overflowing into the hills and 4000 sq.ft "second homes" are common
> around the Sound. In places like Sequim, they're retirement homes - usually
> with two elderly people, just moved up from California. Where these places
> get built in elk range, there are immediate screams to shoot the elk that
> eagerly chow down on the ornamentals. As a rule, these people want their
> land in the lowest tax bracket and have enough acres for the minimum, so
> they file forest management plans. Certain realtors encourage this, and
> since the lands are freshly converted from commercial forestry, it's easy
> to say they will remain "in" forestry. But I never see any of them do
> anything. No brush suppression, seldom even tree planting. Definitely not
> putting in pre-emptive firelines. No thinning. The only work done is
> cutting vegetation that gets into the view - and leaving the flammable
> material behind. Yet the public is going to have to pay to rescue these
> folks because they're in local fire protection districts and DNR has mutual
> aid agreements with them - as does the FS with the DNR.
>
to get their forests. Kind of small rain-forest plantations, with land
to subdivide in the future if necessary, eh?
Noticing the same thing down here in the Willamette Valley. A lot of
early farmer families are selling off their farm land to become
subdivisions for the rapidly-expanding suburbs: a good deal for the
farmers, since it changes their property value from around $2500 or so
an acre to around $25,000 or more per acre, just before they sell it
to retire on.
Got to remember that: I know several people who have a few thousand
acres down here still in farmland (but who can say for how long?).
Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com
Mike Hagen
do professional escapees from California who cashed in an average home and
have a decent retirement income. The land price differential makes this
area look like a third world country to anyone from LA. As a rule they vote
against all tax increases, but absorb services out of proportion to their
numbers. The County planners here bent way over for the real estate
industry... but all growth is good, right?
"Daniel B. Wheeler" <dwhe...@ipns.com> wrote in message
news:6dafee1b.02043...@posting.google.com...
Daniel B. Wheeler
> Not too many of these folks are zillionaiers - most of em are just well to
> do professional escapees from California who cashed in an average home and
> have a decent retirement income. The land price differential makes this
> area look like a third world country to anyone from LA. As a rule they vote
> against all tax increases, but absorb services out of proportion to their
> numbers. The County planners here bent way over for the real estate
> industry... but all growth is good, right?
>
>
days of Gov. Tom McCall?
Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com
Mike Hagen
now. Enforced Critical Areas rules are still a new thing. However, it only
seems to limit what the smallest landowners are doing. You'll have to move
heaven and earth to put a mother in law shack on your own five acres but
"very large timber companies" do forestland to residential conversions with
minimal hassle. Most have their own real estate divisions. If you want to
buy a clear cut with a view, come to WA!
"Daniel B. Wheeler" <dwhe...@ipns.com> wrote in message
news:6dafee1b.02050...@posting.google.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 4/19/2002
Daniel B. Wheeler
> Could be. Washington has had a strict Growth Management Act for a decade
> now. Enforced Critical Areas rules are still a new thing. However, it only
> seems to limit what the smallest landowners are doing. You'll have to move
> heaven and earth to put a mother in law shack on your own five acres but
> "very large timber companies" do forestland to residential conversions with
> minimal hassle. Most have their own real estate divisions. If you want to
> buy a clear cut with a view, come to WA!
>
steep locations, and somewhat prone to landslides, like the ones near
Kelso, WA.
Too bad new McMansion owners don't realize how unstable some of their
property is once it has been clearcut and "terraced" for new home
construction.
Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com
Aozotorp
Headline:
Timber could be used for ethanol, wafer board
How to use deadwood is academic's question
By Deborah Frazier, News Staff Writer
May 6, 2002
Thinning forests costs money -- although not as much as losing a home to a
forest fire -- and researchers want to find a way to make the practice pay off.
In theory, the millions of tons of trees, limbs and wood debris removed from
privately owned and government forests could make money if sold for rustic log
furniture, landscape timber, mulch and chips to replace coal.
Dennis Lynch, a professor emeritus in forestry at Colorado State University, is
looking into ways to make forest-trimming a money-making proposition.
"We've been working on finding markets for those small-diameter trees," Lynch
said.
The market is good for logs and scrap wood in southwest and southern Colorado,
where mills produce excelsior packing, garden bed trim and furniture.
But along Colorado's Front Range, where mills have closed, only a few buyers
exist.
"At this point the homeowner should be prepared to pay for the costs of
removing trees and branches," Lynch said. "Right now, the products are not
paying for the cutting or transportation."
Lynch said the cost of removing fire fuel from an acre runs $500 to $2,000,
depending on terrain, transportation costs and access to the property. The
costs drop to $225 to $500 an acre if the wood is mulched and left.
His project, funded by several agencies, is looking at everything from horse
bedding to small log cabins to mixing wood chips with sludge and animal waste
to make compost.
Colorado imports 90 percent to 95 percent of all wood products used in the
state, Lynch said.
"The best thing is to make a product from the forest trimming," said Gary Jones
of the Colorado Timber Industry Association. "And you don't need to take all of
the trees out of the forest."
Jones said the timber also could be used to make ethanol, wafer board and other
commercial products.
"Wafer board is more profitable than raw logs," Jones said.
There's a catch, however. To build an excelsior factory or waferboard mill,
investors would want a guaranteed long-term supply -- 10 to 50 years, Jones and
Lynch said. But enthusiasm for fuel reduction rarely lasts more than a few
years after a catastrophic fire, which makes a long-term supply of wood
impossible.
On the other hand, replacing a home lost to a fire costs far more than thinning
and landscaping for protection.
"Look at the costs for the Buffalo Creek Fire," Jones said, citing the 1996
fire that cost $17 million in firefighting and lost property. "Less money could
have been spent to get rid of the fuel."
-------------------
Colorado Wildfie link:
Daniel B. Wheeler
> http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_1129452,00.html
>
> Headline:
>
> Timber could be used for ethanol, wafer board
> How to use deadwood is academic's question
>
> By Deborah Frazier, News Staff Writer
> May 6, 2002
>
> Thinning forests costs money -- although not as much as losing a home to a
> forest fire -- and researchers want to find a way to make the practice pay off.
>
Even just chipping a portion of the vast amount of biomass build-up
would dramatically reduce the erosion from steeper slopes, add biomass
to produce soils, and produce saprophytic fungal food for potential
mushroom crops. The closer and smaller the diameter of chips, the more
rapidly they degrade and the cooler they burn.
Logically the US government should start aggressively managing its
forested lands to reduce fire danger.
But, as many people are already away, progress is the opposite of
Congress...
Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com