The summer fires had scarcely begun, and already fingers were pointing. The Forest Service blamed fires on "analysis paralysis" and "environmental obstructionists." This July, Mark Rey (former timber lobbyist and current U.S. Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment) claimed environmental lawsuits were to blame for "catastrophic" fires.

Never mind the fact that just 20 of 1,671 fuels reduction projects had been appealed by outside interests. Or that none of those made it to court, making the total number of these "paralysis" lawsuits zero.

Never mind overwhelming evidence that commercial logging and fire suppression have exacerbated the fire problem. And forget the fact that just 25 percent of the funds allocated by Congress for a National Fire Plan have actually been spent on fire management (or that much of these funds have actually been diverted to commercial logging projects). Forget all this, said logging interests, the Forest Service and the Bush administration: The answer isn't controlled burning, prevention or thinning brush. Commercial logging, including clearcuts, will save us from forest fires.

While this strategy will help Big Timber's bottom line (and justify ballooning federal budgets), it certainly won't help forests, say scientists, who remind us that this summer's "catastrophic" wildfires were actually about average if you look at the last 100 years. The fire fighting budget, however, has increased sixfold since the early 1990s; Today's firefighting methods are more costly, risky and environmentally destructive.

The President has called for more logging-both for fire prevention and as a way to reimburse logging companies for thinning brush. As of our press date, different versions of fire legislation are being debated in Congress.

Before embracing Bush's "Forest Health" plan, though, legislators should ask a few simple questions. Why does is President Bush calling for cutting large trees far from communities, when we need just the opposite: clearing commercially worthless brush near developed areas? Fuels reduction is a legitimate practice in some areas, but why should we pay logging companies to do it when the federal timber program already operates at a loss?

And why aren't homeowners who build fire-prone homes in fire-prone forests shouldering some of the burden? In this edition of Forest Voice, we examine some wildfire science, the cost of suppression, how Yellowstone has recovered from the controversial 1988 fire and the possibility of homeowners taking some responsibility for building near national forests.

More on wildfires
Federal Fire Sham
Wildfire Basics: Q&A with Dr. Tim Ingalsbee
Yellowstone: The Vital Role of Wildfires
Solutions: Fire Prevention
U.S. Wildfire History