|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
| ||||||||||
| |||||
|
 |
|
|||
| Federal Fire Sham by Ed Dorsch |
|||||
|
Billions Wasted The $2 billion to $3 billion a year that the Forest Service and other
federal land agencies spend on fires is mostly wasted, says a new report
from the Oregon-based Thoreau Institute. Last year, Congress gave the
Forest Service a $1.4 billion, 38 percent increase in its budget, mostly
for fire, on the promise that spending more money now will reduce future
fires and fire costs. But that's a promise the Forest Service can't keep. Logging and Fire Risk Does logging really decrease fire danger? Overwhelming evidence indicates the opposite. Forests with extensive logging and road building experience greater fire severity than unlogged, unroaded areas, according to both the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. "The removal of large, merchantable trees from forests does not reduce fire risk and may, in fact, increase such risk," says a September 2000 report by both departments. A 2001 audit by the Department of Agriculture also reports that "commercial timber sales do not meet the criteria for forest restoration." And U.S. Forest Service fire specialist Denny Truesdale says, "The majority of the material that we need to take out is not commercial timber. It is up to three and four inches in diameter. We can't sell it." So why is the Forest Service still pressing "fuel reduction" timber sales?
Big trees mean big money.
|
|||||