[ringo]

The president proposed Thursday to end the government's "hands-off" policy in national forests and make it easier for timber companies to remove wood from 190 million acres of the most highly fire-prone forests.

"We need to understand if you let kindling build up and there's a lightning strike, you're going get yourself a big fire," Bush said.

from http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._pr_wh/bush_34

Gee, thats brilliant. I suppose we can prevent terrorism by knocking down our skyscrapers in advance too.

[phantomdragonz]

bush is the dumbest presedent yet.... he needs to be taken out of office, at least i will be able to vote for our next presedent....

P.D.

[daimoni]

.

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by phantomdragonz:
bush is the dumbest presedent yet.... he needs to be taken out of office, at least i will be able to vote for our next presedent....

Seems like he'll win the second-term president. He got over $111 millions for campaign.

Bush think Saddam Hussien is cheap

[driven]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Well, I don't think Bush (and the people who're renting his attention in southwestern oregon) are the best thing for our nations forests.

At the same time, there is a small (but ill-informed) minority wearing the environmentalist mantle who oppose any felling of trees or controlled burning whatsoever.

There needs to be a middle ground. And neither side is offering it. The mainstream media is seizing on this... and I doubt we'll ever get the full story.

Old growth forests and what's left of our American Wilderness needs to be saved now... and into perpetuity. For safety reasons, controlled burning (to prevent large-scale out of hand forest fires) needs to happen.

That being said, it is possible to have a sustainable, responsible logging industry.

I wish people could agree on this. But we're too busy bickering and throwing dollars around.

Many TRUE environmental groups (The Soil & Water conservation districts, fish & game groups, US Forestry Service, et al.) all tend to agree that there can be a sustainable responsible logging industry, and in fact it's good for the forest (prevent tree disease, allow new growth, etc.). The only real opposition are those tree-huggers that make the Jainists look like Paul Bunnion.

[ironknee]

bush jr's thinking reminds me of james watts (from the reagan era,,,or error)

[fulmer]

Originally posted by phantomdragonz:
bush is the dumbest presedent yet.... he needs to be taken out of office, at least i will be able to vote for our next presedent....

P.D.

and when you see the option on your ballot, don't be confused when it reads 'president'. :o

[fulmer]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:


Seems like he'll win the second-term president. He got over $111 millions for campaign.

Bush think Saddam Hussien is cheap

slick willie got that much for his library, and raised it on our taxpayer's dime--while in office.

pols are all dirtbags.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by driven:


Many TRUE environmental groups (The Soil & Water conservation districts, fish & game groups, US Forestry Service, et al.) all tend to agree that there can be a sustainable responsible logging industry, and in fact it's good for the forest (prevent tree disease, allow new growth, etc.). The only real opposition are those tree-huggers that make the Jainists look like Paul Bunnion.

Ah, yes - those are the true environmental groups. Forests, after all, have never been able to take care of themselves.

[::maroma::]

I agree that there needs to be (and can be) a middle ground. But what Bush is failing to realize here is that these fires started by lightening are not only perfectly natural, but also extremely essential. Nature's been doing this for billions of years. I know that this quote is a little out of context (not knowing what else he said), but it was really stupid of him to say that.

I understand that sometimes people's lives are in danger when these forests go up in flames, but that's the price you pay for choosing to live where you do. It really makes me chuckle when people who choose to live in known hazardous areas get hit with a natural disaster and then bitch about it. We must learn not to battle nature, but to live with her. There IS a middle ground that can be reached - we just need to put our arrogance and pride (and money) aside, and do what is best for us and our forests.

[daimoni]

.

[fulmer]

so many acres burnt to the ground anyway, and the fires have been going like this for years now.

clearing and thinning some forests would save lives, if indeed thinning and clearing decreased forest fires. every year we have lots of folks get killed fighting these fires, when in retrospect a little cautious forest management might have prevented or reduced the severity of the fires.

[ringo]

Controlled burning would be better...nature's way of fertilizing the ground again and allowing for natural new growth.

This summer has seen an abnormal number of fires...but that's no excuse to relax logging laws...this is just Bush taking advantage of a temporary condition to make changes that would stretch far into the future, again.

He's not dumb. It's obvious who's interests he has at heart.

[Adam Betts]

Honestly, he's so stupid that he tripped over a cordless phone.

[zigzag]

I agree that good, balanced management, including controlled burning and clearing, is appropriate where called for. I just disagree with the notion that the Forestry Service et al. can be trusted or characterized as a true environmental group, much less when overseen by George "I'm an environmentalist" Bush.

[Phanguye]

the worst thing about bush isnt his stupidity... many good leaders can be idiots as long as they can lead people and know they arent authories in everything

i think the dumbest thing bush has done is put the huge tariffs on steel... so much for free trade

phang

[flatcatch]

The best part of that article is where it states Bush also wants to limit "reviews and appeals" of the forest management policies - right after he re-writes the policy, of course. You gotta love being president... you can rewrite the rules, and then impose limitations of contesting those rules.

Anyhow, if he just wants to propose an addendum to the national forest "hands off" policy that deals with forest fire prevention, I'm cool with that (limited logging in high risk spots, clearing, controlled burning, whaterver). However, if he just wants to toss out the policy in its entirety and have no enforcement of what "fire risk prevention" means, that makes about as much sense as burning down an entire house because the front door is missing (rather than fixing the problem in place).

[Phranken9]

While at work today, I found myself listening to Rush Limbaugh (not something I regularly do). I tend to disagree with him on most topics, especially the environment, as seems to believe that the forests and natural preserves aren't quite necessary and the only reason they are still around is because of 'all the environmentalist wackos trying to deprive american loggers out of work so they can be more fully dependent on a Big-Brother style government.'

Granted, I usually only listen to him for about an hour a week, but what I got out of his broadcast this morning was that we should allow unrestricted logging because:

1. It creates jobs
2. Prevents forest fires
3. Keeps a limited government and restricts 'environmentalist-wacko' power

If you listen to the show regularly and can correct me, please do so.

[ringo]

"We have more trees in this country today than when the Declaration of Independence was written.
- Rush Limbaugh "The Way Things Ought To Be"

This is a blatant lie. Rush is no authority on the environment.

[PowerMatt]

I don't think Bush wants us to thing that logging prevents forest fires. (That's Smokey the Bear's job.) I am sure he is fully aware that these fires occur naturally and are good for the environment. Surely, he has a staffer that fills him in on stuff he doesn't know. I think he is simply saying that logging in some restricted areas would lessen the rapid spread of these fires. I am sure he is not promoting cutting down the trees and paving the forests. In the past, it was okay to let nature take care of itself, but now, natural phenomena are destroying billions of dollars of property. When an natural disaster emergency is declared, it is our tax money that goes to pay for the rebuilding, so why not take some preventative measures. And, the logging industry could benefit, and foot the bill, for taking such preventative measures.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Heh heh. Such a predictable reaction.

What's truly funny, is how Bush is actually pulling a fast one on Tom Dashole, who tried to sneak the same thing through for his home state in a bill several months ago, shoring up his reelection campaign. Where was the outcry? Where was the press? All we heard were crickets chirping, except for the Washington Times and a few others. If Tom had had his way, no one would have found out about it.

The Republican strategy all along has been to call him on it, go public with the idea and say "Hey Tom, if it's good for you to exempt your state from Federal restrictions to help you get re-elected, why not the same measures for all the western states whose governors want the same measures?"

So basically, the cat's out of the bag. Dashole would have liked this to go by quietly, the press sure would have let him get away with it (note: funny how the real story is buried in this article safely past 'kneejerk attention-span' level)!

But that argument may have been undercut earlier this year when Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a Democrat from South Dakota and potential challenger to Bush in 2004, attached to an emergency bill a measure allowing a Black Hills National Forest thinning program to bypass federal safeguards � a precedent that Bush took advantage of on Thursday.

"My attitude is, if it's good enough for that part of South Dakota, it's good enough for Oregon," he said to applause from an invited audience at the Jackson County Fairgrounds that included several Western governors who have been pushing for just such changes.

The quote people are kneejerking about from Bush, is basically him echoing Dashole's own words back at him with a wink and a smile. (The exact same excuse he gave sneaking in his own legislation!)

So wassamatta? It's good enough for Montana, but no one else? If Dems want it, they can sneak it in under the table, not expect to be called on it and everything is okay, but if a Republican brings up the same idea, then that's not okay? Too funny!

[PowerMatt]

Originally posted by ringo:
"We have more trees in this country today than when the Declaration of Independence was written.
- Rush Limbaugh "The Way Things Ought To Be"

This is a blatant lie. Rush is no authority on the environment.

This is not a blatant lie. You seem to forget that when the DoI was written, the US was only the eastern seaboard. Now the United states is many times larger, therefore, more trees. Rush was not lying, he was spinning the facts. Playing the game of politics. Don't just read between the lines when dealing with politics. There is much more than meats the eye.

And you are an authority on the environment to tell us that Rush is wrong? Perhaps you do have a degree in some natural science, but I doubt it. So don't go accusing other people of trying to be an authority on something they are not when by doing so you are commiting the same wrong. I don't claim to be an authority on the environment. I just have enough common sense to know that more land=more trees. I can think of many reasons why are why not the US, as we know it today, has more or less trees than it did 226 years ago.

[TNproud2b]

There ARE more trees now because forest fires are extinguished and because there is a financial incentive to GROW TREES.

Rush isn't lying to you nor being misleading.


PS, Daschle is about three times dumber than Dubya.

[Queen of the Universe]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
There ARE more trees now because forest fires are extinguished and because there is a financial incentive to GROW TREES.
Rush isn't lying to you nor being misleading.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

If you believe that than Bush and Daschle have nothing on you my friend...

[bewebste]

Originally posted by ringo:
"We have more trees in this country today than when the Declaration of Independence was written.
- Rush Limbaugh "The Way Things Ought To Be"

This is a blatant lie. Rush is no authority on the environment.

Man is Rush full of sh!t. The only things we have more of today than 200 years ago in this country are white people and concrete. Everything else has been depleted or outright destroyed. And no, the trees "saved" by preventing forest fires hasn't offset the effects of the logging industry, not by a long shot.

[TNproud2b]

There are indeed more trees than when Columbus landed. There isn't as much forestland - but it ain't like we're running out trees. Trees are renewable, anyway.


interesting tidbit..

"Nationwide, we have 70 percent as much forestland as when Columbus landed despite the huge population growth and development that has occurred since then. Each year, Americans plant more than 2.3 billion seedlings, which is more than nine trees for every man, woman and child in the U.S. In addition, millions of new seedlings regenerate naturally. In North Carolina, more than 65 million trees are planted each year on harvested lands, and millions more seedlings regenerate naturally. The forest industry is the nation�s and state�s leading tree planter followed by private landowners."

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Heh heh. Such a predictable reaction.

What's truly funny, is how Bush is actually pulling a fast one on Tom Dashole, who tried to sneak the same thing through for his home state in a bill several months ago, shoring up his reelection campaign. Where was the outcry? Where was the press? All we heard were crickets chirping, except for the Washington Times and a few others. If Tom had had his way, no one would have found out about it.

The Republican strategy all along has been to call him on it, go public with the idea and say "Hey Tom, if it's good for you to exempt your state from Federal restrictions to help you get re-elected, why not the same measures for all the western states whose governors want the same measures?"

So basically, the cat's out of the bag. Dashole would have liked this to go by quietly, the press sure would have let him get away with it (note: funny how the real story is buried in this article safely past 'kneejerk attention-span' level)!

The quote people are kneejerking about from Bush, is basically him echoing Dashole's own words back at him with a wink and a smile. (The exact same excuse he gave sneaking in his own legislation!)

So wassamatta? It's good enough for Montana, but no one else? If Dems want it, they can sneak it in under the table, not expect to be called on it and everything is okay, but if a Republican brings up the same idea, then that's not okay? Too funny!

This proves that Daschle is a snake, which is not news to me. It doesn't prove that what Bush is proposing is necessarily good policy. I don't give him (or Daschle, for that matter) the benefit of the doubt in this case.

Also, not to defend Daschle, but there are 2 distinctions at play: (a) as you say, Daschle didn't go public, which partly explains the difference in press attention, and (b) Daschle doesn't control the entire Forest Service.

[zigzag]

I don't know if there are more trees or not than there were 200 years ago, but as a result of clear-cutting and the like, the forests we have now are not the same as the forests we had then. A natural forest is not the same as a forest managed for efficiency by loggers. Some of us put a higher value on natural, old-growth forests, which the loggers would just as soon cut down.

I'm not opposed to logging per se, just indiscriminate logging.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by zigzag:


This proves that Daschle is a snake, which is not news to me. It doesn't prove that what Bush is proposing is necessarily good policy. I don't give him (or Daschle, for that matter) the benefit of the doubt in this case.

Also, not to defend Daschle, but there are 2 distinctions at play: (a) as you say, Daschle didn't go public, which partly explains the difference in press attention, and (b) Daschle doesn't control the entire Forest Service.

The point is Daschle exploited his position as the most powerful member of congress to push through his own sneaky run-around on the same laws he wants for everyone else in the affected region. It *was* reported in the media, just not the -asleep at the wheel, look the other way when it�s not a Republican- media.

As for the validity of the idea itself, there�s a lot that isn�t proved or disproved in that article. Mainly because it�s so lacking of any real depth on the subject.

Whenever issues like this are brought up, a certain element (I hope the fringe) isn't even willing to discuss the topic rationally, rather resorts to the usual "We're all going to die!!!!!! All the trees are gone!!! EEEKKK!!!" type stuff. Fine, let the whole damn forests go up in flame rather than do any thinning, but for Pete�s sake, whatever we do, don't listen to anyone who is rational and knows what they are talking about on the subject.

Living in Cali- a state ravaged by forest fires on a regular basis- it's pretty hard not to notice that two distinct groups exist on either side of the issues of our states forests and environmental concerns in general. There are those who actually LIVE in the affected areas, fight the fires every year, live in and manage the forests, plant and take care of trees, etc. etc. saying one thing (usually very rational). And then there are the types who live mostly in cities, drive around with 'save the planet' stickers on their cars, think the extent of 'conservation' is using paper cups rather than styrofoam and passing an endless string of laws-who have a totally different spin.

I dunno- I tend to favor letting those who actually deal with the issue on the ground at the front lines be heard more often on what to do to manage the problems.

Case in point, in that article, I guess balance on the subject is served by quoting one firefighter who actually deals with the real problem- and -surprise, surprise- gives his endorsement.

But who are the people that were responsible for the thinning at Squires Peak that kept it from burning up? What was the first such site Bush mentions visiting? Who were the people that Bush was addressing and who applauded the idea? Who knows? All we get is that they are 'an invited audience' and 'fairground audience'. We don't even get the names of which 'western governors' were present and from which states. (A major detail to omit.) But by all means, don't get interviews with those people, with anyone who might agree with and talk rationally about the subject�no, go talk to some DNC spokesperson about Bill Simon! That's MUCH more on topic!

Total side note: Talk about media bias, notice how that article veers off into a total smear campaign against Cali Gov. candidate Bill Simon! Has absolutly *NOTHING* to do with the main story, but the writer obviously has some axe to grind against Simon and goes off on a tanget weaving Simon into the story in order to level attacks, not once but TWICE!

Why do I get the feeling, that as our state elections approach, this kind of 'sneak in digs at who we don't like into ANY story likely to provoke strong reactions' will be happening on a more and more frequent basis until November? Humm....

[ink]

Originally posted by ringo:
"We have more trees in this country today than when the Declaration of Independence was written.
- Rush Limbaugh "The Way Things Ought To Be"

This is a blatant lie. Rush is no authority on the environment.

Hmmm. I've lived in several western cities that used to be deserts, but with irrigation have become virtual forests. I wonder if that is what they use to base their statistic on?

There were also more fires in ancient times than we have now. If you read Lewis & Clark's impressions of the Sierra Nevadas, they talk about not being able to see for all the fires that were raging at the time. There is also a paper that uses tree rings to show the frequency of major fires (I'll look it up if you're interested) and it went from an every-other-year occurance then down to a once-in-a-decade occurance now. So, our "prevent forest fires" campaign actually creates more severe and larger fires less frequently.

[ink]

Originally posted by bewebste:
The only things we have more of today than 200 years ago in this country are white people and concrete. Everything else has been depleted or outright destroyed. And no, the trees "saved" by preventing forest fires hasn't offset the effects of the logging industry, not by a long shot.

Wow. Another insightful piece of bigotry sans evidence.

http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/sngc/studies/pfcd.htm

There are probably more trees today than there were 5,000 years ago in the Sierra Nevadas, at least. There were more fires between 1000AD and 1300AD than today (it seems to be a climate problem more than anything). But don't let science get in your way...

I still don't think agressive logging is the answer, but it could play a role of creating containment bariers. Forests need to burn occasionally, though.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
There ARE more trees now because forest fires are extinguished and because there is a financial incentive to GROW TREES.

Rush isn't lying to you nor being misleading.


PS, Daschle is about three times dumber than Dubya.

Again, half a story. A good half of these "forest" trees are less than 25 years old, which makes a huge difference. Old growth is a very small fraction of today's forests and that has an impact.
Sapling. Rush weould say, "look a tree!" And like the old Microsoft joke, TECHNICALLY, that is correct. But it does no one any good for quite some time. Also, while I applaud logging industry for replacing trees, they are replacing the ones they cut with fast growth non indigenous trees which effect the entire surrounding ecosystem. Of course, they are also trees which are terrific lumber producers. Yep, they replace them with trees they can harvest later on.
Take the White Mountain National Forest. Love the place. Go there as often as humanly possible. At the turn of the century, the WMNF was bald. Millions of acres. Bald. Today, you have to SEARCH to find any trees older than 30 years. Search hard to find any older than 50. 75 or older are virtually non existant. Here's a little common sense. Old growth means wide and deep root depth. Erosion and all that.
So. On to Bush and his little doo-wa-ditty. I would not have any issue with it if he were willing to set EXTREMELY strict guidelines on where they can go, how much they can take, how they can take it, how much impact they are allowed to have on the land, what they will replace and where, etc. My pointy is he seems willing to make suggestions to industries and then trust them to "do the right thing". His words.
Well, when we are talking about make more money or spend it "doing the right thing", what do you think 95% of these companies will do?
As Bob Dole said to a group of Minnesota loggers while on his campaign trail (and this is a direct quote), "Economy must come before environment".
"Gotta stand where I'm standing". Really. The "ulterior motive" of environmentalist groups is to make sure there's a planet for our grandkids to live on. What is the ulterior motive of logging companies? And do we really think they won't look for loopholes in whatever is set up for them? They do now. Why should today be any different from any other day? Look. I'd LOVE to be wrong. It's just that, historically, I got no reason to think any differently.
Like it was said- there's got to be a medium.

[ringo]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
There are indeed more trees than when Columbus landed. There isn't as much forestland - but it ain't like we're running out trees. Trees are renewable, anyway.


interesting tidbit..

"Nationwide, we have 70 percent as much forestland as when Columbus landed despite the huge population growth and development that has occurred since then. Each year, Americans plant more than 2.3 billion seedlings, which is more than nine trees for every man, woman and child in the U.S. In addition, millions of new seedlings regenerate naturally. In North Carolina, more than 65 million trees are planted each year on harvested lands, and millions more seedlings regenerate naturally. The forest industry is the nation�s and state�s leading tree planter followed by private landowners."

Sorry, but 70% as much is less, not more.

RE: Daschele...Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because a democrat screwed up in one state doesn't make it ok for a republican to screw up for the whole country.

re: responsible logging...yes, there is room for a responsible logging industry that works in concert with ecologists, but let's look at how the industry handles this kind of responsibility.

From a USA Today article criticizing the way that the 2000 National Fire Plan has been executed. Full story here: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...atoday/4382377

Here in the Bitterroot National Forest, the fire plan is showing results on hillsides charred in 2000. Loggers are cutting down huge blackened trees and using helicopters to haul them away. The goal: removing enough dead and dying trees that when the next fire comes through, it won't have enough fuel to become a monster.

But the work in the Bitterroot is also emblematic of the controversy dogging the fire plan. The logging here is 10 miles from the nearest community at risk from wildfire. And the burned trees being salvaged are the largest, most commercially valuable ones, not the smaller ones that would likely ignite most easily in another fire.

The problem isn't that there aren't plans to protect the forests, but that the existing plan isn't being followed

But two years into an effort that so far has cost more than $6 billion, a USA TODAY analysis shows that implementation has been slow and has strayed from the original plan:

* Less than 40% of woodlands thinned of excess vegetation have been in areas where homes meet the woods, what is known in the lexicon of fire policy as the ''wildland-urban interface.'' Much of the work has been done in remote forests, activity that ''may be inefficient and ineffective,'' Jack Cohen, a U.S. Forest Service research scientist, writes in a technical report for the agency.

* Only 82 of more than 59,000 fires have been left to burn this year, despite the plan's declaration that many wildfires in remote areas far from houses are a natural and beneficial part of Western forests and should be allowed to keep burning.

* Much of the work has been done in the South instead of the West, where fire danger is far more extreme. Most fires that federal agencies have set deliberately to thin overgrown forests have been in the South. Federal agencies also have made little progress identifying communities most at risk from wildfires. In one limited effort by the Interior Department, more than half the towns labeled ''highest risk'' were in Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee, states ''not prone to severe wildland fires,'' according to the General Accounting Office ( news - web sites), the investigative arm of Congress.

* Less than 1% of the money spent has been used to educate homeowners about measures that they should take to reduce their vulnerability. The Forest Service's research argues that the most effective defenses against wildfire are simple actions such as clearing brush near homes and installing fire-resistant roofs.

But Bush isn't interested in seeing that the existing responsible plan is adhered to or administered more wisely.

Bush will seek congressional approval for streamlining environmental reviews of timber-cutting projects by limiting or blocking the public's ability to file administrative appeals.

[g. olson]

Bush's proposed solutions to problems have an eerie consistency, don't you think?:

Problem: Forest Fires
Solution: Logging

Problem: Gas Prices, (Too High or Too Low)
Solution: Arctic Drilling

Problem: War
Solution: Lower taxes, more consumer spending, enjoy yourself

Problem: Business corruption
Solution: Retroactive tax breaks for corporations

Problem: Alcohol & drug problems in family
Solution: More helicopters to South America

(Okay, I'm being overly simplistic and exaggerating a bit - it's called "attempted humor.")

[maxelson]

Nice job Ringo. Thank you.
And here is the crux of my deepest running issues with Bush: "Bush will seek congressional approval for streamlining environmental reviews of timber-cutting projects by limiting or blocking the public's ability to file administrative appeals."
I'm sorry. Circumventing the accountability to the public? How is that "American" in any way shape or form? Sounds a little totalitarian to me. "Jeez, you know, I could rule this country so nice if it were not for those pesky people..."

[Timo]

Originally posted by daimoni:

That being said, it is possible to have a sustainable, responsible logging industry.

Exactly.

[maxelson]

Whooooo's a double post boy? Whooooo's a double post boy?!?
I am! I am!

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Timo:


Exactly.

It is indeed. More than possible. I just don't see it as likely. Mixing sustainability with low enviro impact and ethical behavior, I mean.

[Timo]

Cut one, plant two.

[maxelson]

Cut one, plant two. Of the correct species for the area. Not the fastest growing most immediately harvestable variety. And use low impact equipment. And if you must create roads, plan them well so as to no bisect forests or run pell mell through environmentally sensitive areas like breeding grounds or high erosion zones. And where this is not possible, either figure out a non disturbing way of getting it done, or don't do it. And stop looking for frigging loopholes.
Oh, jeez. When I am emperor, some sh!t's gonna change.

[daimoni]

.

[daimoni]

.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
The point is Daschle exploited his position as the most powerful member of congress to push through his own sneaky run-around on the same laws he wants for everyone else in the affected region. It *was* reported in the media, just not the -asleep at the wheel, look the other way when it�s not a Republican- media.

I'll grant you this just to avoid another "liberal media" debate.

As for the validity of the idea itself, there�s a lot that isn�t proved or disproved in that article. Mainly because it�s so lacking of any real depth on the subject.

True - it's not an in-depth piece and probably isn't intended to be.

Whenever issues like this are brought up, a certain element (I hope the fringe) isn't even willing to discuss the topic rationally, rather resorts to the usual "We're all going to die!!!!!! All the trees are gone!!! EEEKKK!!!" type stuff. Fine, let the whole damn forests go up in flame rather than do any thinning, but for Pete�s sake, whatever we do, don't listen to anyone who is rational and knows what they are talking about on the subject.

Living in Cali- a state ravaged by forest fires on a regular basis- it's pretty hard not to notice that two distinct groups exist on either side of the issues of our states forests and environmental concerns in general. There are those who actually LIVE in the affected areas, fight the fires every year, live in and manage the forests, plant and take care of trees, etc. etc. saying one thing (usually very rational). And then there are the types who live mostly in cities, drive around with 'save the planet' stickers on their cars, think the extent of 'conservation' is using paper cups rather than styrofoam and passing an endless string of laws-who have a totally different spin.

I dunno- I tend to favor letting those who actually deal with the issue on the ground at the front lines be heard more often on what to do to manage the problems.

No argument there. But one has to consider the vested interests of anyone involved in the debate. I don't trust loggers to "do the right thing", no more than I would trust Al Sharpton to run the Treasury.

Case in point, in that article, I guess balance on the subject is served by quoting one firefighter who actually deals with the real problem- and -surprise, surprise- gives his endorsement.

But who are the people that were responsible for the thinning at Squires Peak that kept it from burning up? What was the first such site Bush mentions visiting? Who were the people that Bush was addressing and who applauded the idea? Who knows? All we get is that they are 'an invited audience' and 'fairground audience'. We don't even get the names of which 'western governors' were present and from which states. (A major detail to omit.) But by all means, don't get interviews with those people, with anyone who might agree with and talk rationally about the subject�no, go talk to some DNC spokesperson about Bill Simon! That's MUCH more on topic!

Total side note: Talk about media bias, notice how that article veers off into a total smear campaign against Cali Gov. candidate Bill Simon! Has absolutly *NOTHING* to do with the main story, but the writer obviously has some axe to grind against Simon and goes off on a tanget weaving Simon into the story in order to level attacks, not once but TWICE!

Why do I get the feeling, that as our state elections approach, this kind of 'sneak in digs at who we don't like into ANY story likely to provoke strong reactions' will be happening on a more and more frequent basis until November? Humm....

It appears to be a piece by someone who was assigned the task of reporting on Bush's trip west, not just the logging issue. According to the article, Bush was asked about his relationship with Simon. This would seem to be newsworthy in light of the fact that (a) Bush has been on the stump about corporate ethics, (b) Simon is campaigning for Governor of California, (c) Simon just got hit for a huge fraud judgment, and (d) the main purpose of Bush's trip is to raise money for Republican candidates like Simon. She presents Bush's case on both the logging issue and the Simon controversy, she cites the Daschle incident, and she gives the opposition some air time. A rather unremarkable bit of political reporting if you ask me. But if you don't think the Simon controversy is newsworthy, so be it. It seems newsworthy to me.

The opposition would no doubt say "Jeez - the reporter presents Bush's speech as if it were God's truth! He gets most of the print! And she only quotes one person from the opposition! Does she even bother to mention all of the damage that loggers have done to the environment? NO! Why no photos of clear-cut forests? Where's the balance? And when Bush says he takes Simon "at his word", the reporter doesn't even challenge him! Where's the hard-hitting analysis? It just goes to show you that most reporters are tools of the establishment and don't really want to rock the boat!"

[Timo]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Cut one, plant two. Of the correct species for the area. Not the fastest growing most immediately harvestable variety. And use low impact equipment. And if you must create roads, plan them well so as to no bisect forests or run pell mell through environmentally sensitive areas like breeding grounds or high erosion zones. And where this is not possible, either figure out a non disturbing way of getting it done, or don't do it. And stop looking for frigging loopholes.
Oh, jeez. When I am emperor, some sh!t's gonna change.

::eyes glaze over in a dreamy reverie::
Hmm...sustainable, sound planting...knowledge of our ecosystems...stewardship...mmmmm...

You think you could include, while we're talking here, something about responsible building on the land too? Seems related to me.

mmm...forests not x-mas tree farms...more muir woods....bigger sur...mmmm....

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by zigzag:


It appears to be a piece by someone who was assigned the task of reporting on Bush's trip west, not just the logging issue. According to the article, Bush was asked about his relationship with Simon. This would seem to be newsworthy in light of the fact that (a) Bush has been on the stump about corporate ethics, (b) Simon is campaigning for Governor of California, (c) Simon just got hit for a huge fraud judgment, and (d) the main purpose of Bush's trip is to raise money for Republican candidates like Simon. She presents Bush's case on both the logging issue and the Simon controversy, she cites the Daschle incident, and she gives the opposition some air time. A rather unremarkable bit of political reporting if you ask me. But if you don't think the Simon controversy is newsworthy, so be it. It seems newsworthy to me.

The opposition would no doubt say "Jeez - the reporter presents Bush's speech as if it were God's truth! He gets most of the print! And she only quotes one person from the opposition! Does she even bother to mention all of the damage that loggers have done to the environment? NO! Why no photos of clear-cut forests? Where's the balance? And when Bush says he takes Simon "at his word", the reporter doesn't even challenge him! Where's the hard-hitting analysis? It just goes to show you that most reporters are tools of the establishment and don't really want to rock the boat!"

It's all a matter of focus. The story purports to be about Bush introducing a 'Wildfire Plan'. He was no doubt asked all kinds of questions about other things as well. The writer can choose to focus on the relevant, or go off on someone asking what Bush had for lunch, or whatever.

There seems no purpose, however in bringing up details about Bill Simon specifically, because he's is in no way a focus of the larger news story. Even reporting the matter of Bush being on the stump, there's no call for specifics of one candidate, unless that person were tied to other issues of the article. An unbiased account would just mention that Bush was there to fund raise for Bill Simon in California, for whoever in Oregon and for whoever in New Mexico.(That's the unarguable truth, and a completly unbiased retelling of the facts).

But there's no call what so ever to veer off against Simon in particular in this story, with anywhere near as much focus as the writer adds. Heck, quoting someone all the way in DC is *not* reporting without bias what's going on with Bush out in the west. If that's not seeking out an opinion outside of the news story itself with the express purpose of coloring the issues, I don't know what is.


Is Simon newsworthy? Sure. So how about leaving the details of that whole seperate story to someone who is 'acutally' *covering* that story- and presumably giving both sides?


And then, (I guess in the name of balance) we're supposed to justify failing to leave out the names of 'several?' western govenors who support Bush on the idea? No problem there I guess. Unless any of them said something accusing some Republican of being a corporate criminal, there's nothing newsworthy about several governors of large western states all in the same place and supporting the President's plan. Nope. Leave them all unquoted and unnamed... even uncounted! No problem with any balance there, right?

It's funny how you make the case that the opposition would make a case that the writer presents Bush's own words "as if it were God's truth.." Well, heaven forbid a story *about* Bush, would actually quote the man himself!

Quick! Go to back to D.C. and get a DNC spokesperson's counter- argument!

Back in Washington, Democratic National Committee ( news - web sites) spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said Bush shows "galling hypocrisy" to be raising money for Simon while also championing corporate responsibility.

Bush nonetheless forged ahead on both fronts, telling his fairgrounds audience, "We're going to find those who cheat and we're going to prosecute them and they're going to find out that instead of easy money, they've got hard time ahead of them."

How dare him! Doesn't Bush know, when some DNC mouthpeice 'Back in Washington' levels a charge against Simon in California, how dare he 'nonetheless forge ahead' with a speech he's making... in Oregon! The nerve of it all!

[BRussell]

Originally posted by bewebste:
The only things we have more of today than 200 years ago in this country are white people and concrete.

LOL
Oh man, that made my day.

[bewebste]

Originally posted by ink:


Wow. Another insightful piece of bigotry sans evidence.

http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/sngc/studies/pfcd.htm

There are probably more trees today than there were 5,000 years ago in the Sierra Nevadas, at least. There were more fires between 1000AD and 1300AD than today (it seems to be a climate problem more than anything). But don't let science get in your way...

I still don't think agressive logging is the answer, but it could play a role of creating containment bariers. Forests need to burn occasionally, though.

I never said that there were fewer fires in the pre-Columbian era. In addition to lighting and other natural causes, many native American tribes lit fires on a regular basis, but they knew what they were doing, and lit them so that they would burn out the more easily combustible underbrush, leaving the larger trees that required a higher temperature to burn unscathed. There is a detailed description of this in a book called "Native Roots", by J. McIver Weatherford.

I guess one problem with the whole "number of trees" thing is that not all trees are created equal. Does a 50 year old tree really count the same as a redwood that's been around for centuries? Methinks not.

The USA today article someone linked to mentioned that the companies hired to clear dead trees were opting to take the larger, more profitable trees and leave behind smaller ones that were more likely to pose a fire hazard. That's what really gets my goat, is that serious problems like this are being controlled by profit rather than actually being aimed at fixing the problem.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
Honestly, he's so stupid that he tripped over a cordless phone.

That's a good one

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
It's all a matter of focus. The story purports to be about Bush introducing a 'Wildfire Plan'. He was no doubt asked all kinds of questions about other things as well . . .

Fair enough - I accept the argument that, from a certain perspective, the article could be interpreted as biased against Bush. I think it has more to do with what's hot than with outright bias. With Clinton, you couldn't turn around without hearing about Monica Lewinsky. The Simon story is presently the hot story de jour, so it doesn't surprise me that a reporter covering the President's trip would consider it newsworthy. It's the nature of the beast, IMO.

I think this is where some of the difference in perception lies - I see it as general reporting about the President's trip, while you think the story should be limited to the forestry issue. fair enough.

[schep]

Originally posted by ringo:

from [url]Gee, thats brilliant. I suppose we can prevent terrorism by knocking down our skyscrapers in advance too.

Damn skippy