The Idaho Forest Products Commission has started a bumper sticker campaign to encourage the U. S. Forest Service to accelerate the pace of thinning the national forests in their state. The Commission, a state organization comprised of members appointed by the Governor, has distributed information stating that “part of the reason for wildfires burning in Idaho this year is because the state’s national forests are overstocked with dead and dying trees, and timber harvest levels are nearly at an all-time low.”
The bumper sticker, as you can see above, says “Thin The Threat!” over a background of what appears to be a forest fire behind some trees.
The bumper stickers are available at no charge from the Idaho Forest Products Commission. They can be ordered by email, ifpc@idahoforests.org or phone at 208-334-3292.
The agencies don’t even need lawsuits to stop fuels reduction projects – sometimes it’s as simple as money.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/01/us-usa-fire-yosemite-brush-idUSBRE98006X20130901
.
Timber harvesting can, at the very least, help pay for the majority of the fuel remediation work which is needed. Jobs can be created, communities can come alive again. I’m sure there are studies out there which support the use of timber harvesting to help prevent catastrophic fires. We need our forests to be as healthy as possible. Let’s work together…we can do it.
.
Which of the fires would we have avoided if we had been logging more? I’m all for building shaded fuel breaks and prescribed fire. Logging in and of itself does not reduce the risk or intensity of fire without a lot of rehabilitation work afterwards.
Thinning is all well and good, but it does nothing if prescribed fire or managed wildfires are not used. Fire suppression IS the problem!
We’ve overgrazed plenty and logged plenty, but we haven’t burned enough.
There was an article about fire mitigation in the most recent Nature Conservancy magazine, including a discussion about loggers (sorry, don’t recall where) who have learned how to and are, in fact, thinning properly without clear-cutting. It’s encouraging.
No one ever mentions where the problem came from in the first place: Man! We have been controlling fires for the last century. Those fires prevented the overcrowding naturally by burning through quickly and leaving most older trees alive. Now, instead of having old-growth trees surrounded by groundcover and a few saplings, the trees are crowded together in every stage of growth, acting as stepping stones to get the fire into the crowns. We CREATED the problem, and now we have to fix it. Clearcutting very small sections MAY actually be the best way to bring the forest back to stability, but any way we do it, the money for the program will have to come from the sale of the harvested lumber. In order to save the forest, we’ll have to “make a deal with the devil” and let the lumber industry in on the solution.
I’m a volunteer with a rural fire department in Oregon. I would be happy to display this bumper sticker if it proposes genuine thinning, which is crucial. But if it’s been paid for by a “forest products” group it’s probably just another front for clearcuts and it isn’t going anywhere near my truck.
Maybe the State of ID should take a good long hard look at the Special Interest Groups preventing the Forest Service from doing projects like thinning out forest land before pointing the finger at one particular agency for all of their fire activity!
EXACTLY! The forest service spends weeks prepping burn units to burn at exactly the right time ( weather, fuels, location, heat) and then an ignorant environmental group files a petition and the project is halted- wasting money & time and a endangering our forest resources.
Special interest groups made up of mostly lawyers and media relations people know how to use environmental protection laws to block prescription burns on federal lands and personally profit from the process.
There is bound to be some endangered critter that calls the lands in question part of its home range. Birds (eg black back woodpecker) are a good choice because bird forage ranges are much larger than say small rodents or crawling insects.
It just takes a small biologist team to dredge something up. The cuter the better because an emotional appeal to the public can be made to bring in donations and sell merchandise on top of the inflated lawyer fee reimbursement.
Successful litigation means attorney fees ($350-$450/hr range) are compensated by the feds. Sometimes out of court settlements are reached. Each victory provides precedent for future victories.
Equal Access to Justice Act means the losing federal agency pays out of its own budget. So a planned prescription burn on federal lands to mitigate fire risk in a community turns into a lawyer path to profits and a corresponding reduction in fire protection budget or other mitigation projects. – double whammie
Mother Nature eventually will send a dry lightning storm during red flags conditions, ignites a fire that burns out the disputed overgrown lands, plus surrounding lands and takes out the nearby community as well.
Oh well, too bad… so sad and the special interest group awaits for the next federal misstep and payday.
http://idahofarmbureau.blogspot.ca/2009/10/equal-access-to-justice-act.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/science/earth/forest-survey-questions-effect-of-prescribed-burns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Mr. Van Allen: when you use the term “Federal misstep” what you are really saying is ” the next time a Federal Agency breaks and/or ignores an existing law.” The Fed Agencies with land management responsibilities (USFS, BLM. NPS, FWS and BIA) didn’t write and pass these laws, our Congress-folks did. But, as Fed employees, they are obligated to follow those laws. So please don’t fault those who hold them accountable, anymore than you blame the NRA for protecting the 2nd Amendment or social groups for defending Roe vs. Wade: they are the law of the land, and must be followed – – or changed, but not ignored! Yeah, it sometimes puts a crimp in our way of doing business, but sometimes it improves our work, and even protects the resources as the laws intend. As for blaming high-salaried lawyers, I know a few of the legal beagles who work on these lawsuits, and they are making far less than you allege, usually less than they would make in a small town private practice. Their motivation is the same as those of us that studied Wildlife Biology and Forestry = a commitment to protect the Land and its resources. Managing forests today is a complex undertaking, given the global markets, WUI, and the wide range of environmental laws that have passed since the 1960s. But as a Forester with more than 40 years in the profession, I believe that we are better off now, and the land is better cared for, than in the “Clear Cut and Burn: days of the 1960s.
Thank-you Emmett for your valuable feedback and confirming the tactics used by lawyers who specialize in litigating federal agencies for personal gain.
Laws that have the unintended consequences of endangering the public and property, while at the same time impeding the renewal of a fire adapted eco-system for the overall benefit of the environment are flawed. I recognize that it will have to be up to Congress to correct these flaws and that likely won’t be happening anytime soon.
If I was a lawyer advising a federal land agency on a preliminary plan for a presciption burn on federal lands…I would advise them that it is simply not worth proceeding given the current legal environment.