Just this past week, Congress authorized legislation that would thin out federal forest lands in an effort to prevent catastrophic wildfires, such as occurred a month or so ago in California and earlier in the year in Arizona. These runaway fires caused billions of dollars in damage and much of this destruction could have been prevented by proper management techniques. President Bush's Healthy Forests Initiative got a boost from this legislation, and he is expected to quickly sign the bill into law.
This bill is not perfect, but it does address the thinning of small, sick trees and out of control underbrush that trigger wildfire potential. It was reported had that underbrush been eliminated, the devastation of the fires would have been minimal in many areas of California.
I can't help but reflect on our own backyard and wonder how this legislation will affect the future of the Boundary Waters Canoe Areas of northern Minnesota. The BWCA, as many of you remember, was heavily damaged a few years back when a storm swept through the area, toppling giant trees in its wake. Those trees remain in place today, rotting away simply because environmentalists created a fuss, preventing loggers from entering the area and cutting away those damaged trees. Today, filled with rot and insect infestations, those damaged trees are a tragedy waiting to happen, and should an electrical storm hit the area, who knows what the consequences would be?
Obviously, there are few survivors today who can recall first hand the experience and horror of the 1918 fires that devastated this area, including neighborhoods in and around Duluth. Could it happen again? Who also can unequivocally deny such an event would happen?
I continue to wonder why the timber industry is automatically considered the bad guys in this scenario? From trees come baby cribs, park benches, homes and buildings of all shapes and sizes, and all these accomplishments generate jobs and opportunities for our citizens. And yet, rant the environmentalists, the timber people, if given half a chance, would destroy the ecology of our lands without recourse. I also wonder how many trees it will now take to replace the homes that were destroyed by the fires in our southwestern communities? Who can answer that question?
ADVERTISEMENT
Robert Vandermark of the National Environmental Trust was quoted as saying: "This bill provides a false sense of security for the American people. Congress has let politics and scare tactics drive a wildfire policy that only serves the needs of the timber industry while ignoring the needs of the community."
I wonder out loud if Vandemark is willing to state his case before the hundreds of homeowners who recently lost their homes because of excess brush that fueled those devastating fires?
There is another side to this issue that needs to be revealed. It is called politics. The clear-the-forest initiative was part of a George Bush plan. Down in Arizona, all Republicans supported the bill and the two House Democrats opposed it. The question to follow is obvious, what does party politics have to do with the safety of our citizens? That's a question that can trigger a wild brush fire of its own.
Dick Palmer is the former editor and publisher of the Budgeteer News. He may be reached by telephone at 729-6470 or by
e-mail at rpalmer@duluth.com .
