Poor excuse
During
the Vietnam War, the U.S. government became famous for arguing that in
some cases a village had to be destroyed in order to save it.
The
argument is being offered up again on behalf of the nation’s national
forests.
A century
of active fire suppression left Western forests with unprecedented fuel
loads. Extreme drought conditions this year produced monster forest
fires that forced evacuation of communities and destroyed homes.
Arizona, Colorado and Oregon were hit hard.
U.S.
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management budgets have been battered
by fire-fighting costs.
What to
do?
A
Clinton-era fire-prevention plan called for thinning underbrush, dead
trees and thick stands while leaving the largest most fire-resistant and
productive trees. Western governors and conservationists supported the
plan.
But
President George Bush and Idaho Sen. Larry Craig have a better idea:
Blame fires on environmentalists, knock down environmental protections
and let logging begin unhampered by protests or delays.
Translation:
We have to destroy the forest in order to save it.
The
rationale was ludicrous 30 years ago and is ludicrous now. It’s a poor
excuse to re-open what’s left of Western forests to indiscriminate
destruction.