Although the preservationist/environmental movement seeks to portray the Healthy Forests Initiative as "yet another Bush assault against the environment," that is far from the truth. Everyone has opinions - but what do the facts indicate as being at risk? Natural resource / fish & wildlife / forestry management science are sciences - no less than medicine or mechanical engineering. There are professional standards and extensive independent peer reviews for research before it is recognized as valid.

The anti-use preservationists/environmentalists are frequently guilty of presenting bogus science, research and surveys on fish and wildlife issues that meet their needs - but which fail to measure up against accepted scientific standards or even simple integrity. The preservationist/environmental positions all sound very logical to the public - and the majority of the press lacks the necessary background to even recognize let alone challenge bogus science.

As we have stated before, the wilderness advocates seem to see any forest management policy that would stop the push for wilderness areas as a threat. Since the fuel treatment methods require "mechanical methods," they pose a threat to the push for wilderness designations, which bans anything mechanized. Even in areas that have diseased or beetle infested forests, preservationists/environmentalists have opposed logging and thinning programs validated by sound science, and in some areas, such as the pine forests of Eastern Oregon, you can find hundreds of acres of dead trees, waiting to ignite.

The federal lands in California being proposed for wilderness are presently protected from development, abuse, etc. under law and policy. The Healthy Forests Initiative management methods will not remove those protections.

There is no hard evidence that would indicate that sweeping new wilderness areas are warranted. We have heard a lot of emotional "The sky is falling" rhetoric from the preservationist/environmental movement, but I have yet to see any evidence of legitimate threats to wild lands that cannot be dealt with effectively under existing environmental laws, such as the NEPA process.

The push for Wilderness areas and the opposition to the Healthy Forests Initiative has more to do with restricting legitimate historical recreational access and sustainable commercial activities on public lands. The policies of the preservationist/environmental movement and the Wildlands Project (in which they are based - see the informational links at the end of this update) have more to do with the goal of limiting all access to the forests, save for the "enlightened few", rather than on sound science. We have lost millions and millions of acres of forests, as well as the species that inhabit these forests, to catastrophic fires which would have been prevented with proper management. The Wilderness and Wildlands Project advocates have no problem continuing to achieve their agenda and unscientific ideology through the lack of forest management.

The core management policies in the Healthy Forests Initiative are supported by Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, in his book Green Spirit - Trees Are The Answer. Dr. Moore became disillusioned with Greenpeace and the environmental movement when they turned from science based solutions to an agenda and ideology that has nothing to do with science. For more information see his web site. Dr. Moore is featured in an episode of Bob Vila's Home improvement show touring a sustainable forestry operation

Improving the health of our forests to reduce the risk of insects, diseases and catastrophic wildfires is a top priority for President Bush. His proposals will modernize regulations clearing the way for responsible management that focuses on protecting forests, watersheds, wildlife and communities. Your comment letters, as well as your employees', that express support for the changes President Bush is proposing are critically important.

Please take the time to act and let your support be known to policy makers using the automated system provided by the link below. It will ensure we do have forests to enjoy.

http://capwiz.com/landsense/issues/alert/?alertid=1157026&type=CU

Below is a story taken from the Arizona Game & Fish Department Wildlife News which shows the benefits of management policies similar to those proposed by the Healthy Forests Initiative. Following the story is a link that will give you the opportunity to not only protect our forests using sound policies based on science, but protect your access to the forest as well.

Arizona Game & Fish Department WILDLIFE NEWS - Jan. 6, 2003 - Vol. 51 No. 01

Study Shows Fire Severity Less On Treated Portions of the Forest

A recent U.S. Forest Service study shows that the Rodeo-Chediski Fire typically burned with less severity in areas that had undergone management treatments such as controlled burns or thinning.

The "Rodeo-Chediski Fire Effects Summary Report, August 2002" written by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests demonstrates that forest treatments are beneficial even when there is an extreme fire-behavior event during a record-breaking drought.

Lloyd Wilmes, the assistant fire management officer on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, says it is clear from the report that forest management treatments reducing tree crown densities, raising canopy heights and reducing ground surface fuels can result in more low intensity fires that provide sustainable wildlife habitat.

Such fires provide openings in tree canopies, reduce choked, brushy under-story and help regenerate vegetation and forage that is necessary for a wildlife population to be healthy and thrive, Wilmes says.

To compile the report, the Forest Service took all vegetative, fuel and prescribed fire treatments within the Rodeo-Chediski Fire area for the past 15 years and overlaid them on a burn severity map. The resulting overlay map shows the level of burning within each particular management treatment area.

Forest Service personnel currently use one or more of five methods to treat forest habitats.

1) Fuel treatments consisting of thinning, chipping and pile burning to reduce flammable materials.
2) Prescribed fire treatments utilizing broadcast burning to reduce fuel loads and regenerate grasses and shrubs.
3) Pre-commercial treatments consisting of thinning, chipping and/or lopping small trees.
4) Commercial treatments including large-diameter tree removal, seed cutting, regeneration, and thinning.
5) Salvage treatments involving removing salvageable trees and accumulated fuels after a wildfire.

The report states that with one exception, pre-commercial thinning, each treatment type showed a significantly smaller percentage of its area in the high severity burn classification than those areas that were not treated.

Additionally, the moderate and high severity percentages together were significantly smaller than the low and unburned classifications in similar treatment types. This observation is also substantiated by data gathered from monitoring plots established within treated and untreated areas.

The report shows that prescribed fires were an effective tool in protecting some forested areas within the Rodeo-Chediski Fire because they reduced fuels that contributed to the spread and intensity of fire. This type of treatment was more effective where it had occurred in the past 10 years.

The report further states that the overall effectiveness of a prescribed fire is related to the year the burn was done, the size of the area treated, its ability to reduce live and dead fuels within the area treated and the general stand condition. Those stands that had significant brush species regenerating in the understory burned with higher intensities than those more recently treated with prescribed fire.

Experts point out that properly administered, consistent treatments on forest habitats reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire events. Using treatment activities as a forest management tool is good for the forest, good for wildlife and also good for users of the forest, including recreationists and people who depend on it for their livelihood, Wilmes says.

The Forest Service report also shows that forested areas with brushy understories occurred on more than half of the area burned, and contributed to some of the highest burn severities during the fire.

Because of these findings, Forest Service personnel are recommending that prescribed fires be implemented with high enough intensities and with a frequency interval necessary to keep fuel loads in check.

The fire severity map graphically depicts low severity burn areas that correlate with past fuel and timber management activities. Although the extent of survival rates for existing tree stands will not be determined for three years or more, their probability for survival is enhanced, given their current condition. This contrasts the stark mortality shown in the majority of untreated stands.

The study demonstrates that past management practices also influenced the fire's behavior at many intervals during its progression. Previously accomplished work lowered the intensities of the fire, diminished the rate spread and altered the direction of the prominent spread significantly.

For instance, the report shows that the eastern flank of the fire that threatened Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside was controlled because of fuel reduction treatments that had occurred previously in the area.

Fires did spread through previously burned areas, but they flanked around the treated areas first, giving firefighters additional time to enact protection measures that saved many houses and other structures.

The report points out additional benefits such as lowering rehabilitation costs in treated areas while also reducing costly erosion.

INFORMATION LINKS ON THE WILDLANDS PROJECT:

The Wildlands Project

The California Wilderness Campaign touts its support of the Wildlands Project on its web site

This site provides information on the Wildlands Project using the words of the founders of the movement, including Dave Forman, one of the founders of Earth First.

Wilderness bills as well as the movement to remove Dams and Reservoir's, is just a part of the agenda to bring the Wildlands Project to fruition. Earth First described this campaign on their web site.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Healthy Forest Proposal Guidance Documents.


BOB VILA AND PATRICK MOORE TOUR SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY OPERATION.

Bob Vila tours the Hancock Land Company's sustainable forestry operation in Casco, Maine, with noted environmentalist Patrick Moore and learns how they balance their harvesting operation in order to keep the forests healthy.

TITLE: Wood Floor Finishing
Project: Modern Colonial
Episode: 21 (Show 1321)
Air date: January 20-26, 2003 (View TV Schedule)
Buy Episode Video

EPISODE SUMMARY: Flooring specialist Howard Brickman joins Bob in this episode to sand the old growth white oak floors in the project house. Brickman demonstrates his techniques, with a focus on being thorough in order to achieve a smooth, even finish. He uses a variety of sanders and buffers, before finally applying several coats of tongue oil. At the sister project, Brickman tackles the pine floor in the master bedroom.

Offsite, Bob tours the Hancock Land Company's sustainable forestry operation in Casco, Maine, with noted environmentalist Patrick Moore and learns how they balance their harvesting operation in order to keep the forests healthy.

Copyright© The Warrior's Society® countingcoup@warriorssociety.org