|
26 Jun 02 - 12:52 AM (#737108) Subject: We save the owls and lose the forests From: DougR Some of the most beautiful forest land in our country is being consumed by fire in northeastern Arizona. Truly, most people think of Arizona as a barren desert, but we DID have some pristine forests in the area that is now being devoured by fire. In addition to the loss of timberland, over three hundred homes and businesses have been lost to the worst fires in Arizona's history. Fingers have been pointed at the "Tree hugger" policies of the Clinton administration. (Can't imagine why). Something is wrong though, if those policies cannot not legitimately pointed to as the reason for the great fires, what is the problem? Forest service personnal in Arizona are on record as stating that as the major reason. The radical environmental group are unanamous in blaming anything other than themselves. The worst drought in our history is largely to blame. No doubt about it. But do federal regulations promoted by radical environmental groups contribute to the terrible fires we are experiencing? I predict that the majority of my Mudcat friends will reply, "No." DougR |
|
26 Jun 02 - 01:03 AM (#737114) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: GUEST,ozmacca WRONG!!!! But then maybe I ain't a friend..... I'd say "yes", just based on similar experiences in Oz where radical environmentalists and extremist conservationists refused to have clearing of undergrowth and the built-up ground litter done, and contributed to losses in major fires. Don't know where you draw the line at "real" conservationism and "extreme" conservationism though...... |
|
26 Jun 02 - 01:11 AM (#737115) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Stilly River Sage Gifford Pinchot and Aldo Leopold are largely to blame for these policies, if you want to name names, and they're WAY before Clinton's time. Though over the years Leopold changed his mind about a lot of things (eradication of predators, for one), he never made the shift over to accept (or at least, do more than hint) that low-scale ground fires were useful to remove excess fuel load on the forest floor. But Leopold moved onto Wisconsin after about 15 years in Arizona and New Mexico, and worked in a research lab for another few years before leaving the Forest Service and concentrating on wildlife and game issues at the U of Wisconsin. Gifford Pinchot, as the first director of the (then brand new) U.S. Forest Service felt that fires deprived loggers of timber, and the policy to put out all fires stayed firmly in place until the early 1970's. By then, even though enough people were beginning to know better to make a difference, they had 50-60 years worth of built up fuel on the ground so did nothing, and it has simply been a case of the firework stand waiting for the lighted match. SRS |
|
26 Jun 02 - 01:25 AM (#737120) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: katlaughing One of last year's "prescribed" burns got away and burnt up a lot of peoples' homes in Las Cruces, NM, wasn't it? Under Bush's watch, Doug, so what do you make of that? Does this have to be a pissing contest debate about presidents or radicals of any ilk? Why not just a disucssion without the bait you included in your first posting? How about what do we do with the ONE MILLION people who built homes in what they classify the "Red Zone" in Colorado, those homes in the forests on the sides of mountains which are taxing every available fire-fighting resource to save, even though most of them are in areas which would normally have been let to burn out? Let's talk solutions.... |
|
26 Jun 02 - 01:34 AM (#737124) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: katlaughing here is a report on one study which found "prescribed" burns do not prevent wildfires, but can ameliorate them: click here. |
|
26 Jun 02 - 01:55 AM (#737133) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: DougR Thanks for the posts, Ozmacca,and SRS, both of which are interesting. kat, so a "prescribed" burn got out of control. Why? Could lack of funding to the Forest Service have had anything to do with it? Failed policies for controlling forests? Surely not, right? It happened during Bush's watch, right, but funds allocated to the Interior Department were allocated by the previous administration, and the policies for managing the forests were established by the same folks. No, it doesn't have to be a pissing contest about presidents or radicals of any ilk (though I don't consider either Clinton or Bush to be radical ...those are your words), but you, and your liberal friends never miss an opportunity to diss Bush, do you? You want to talk solutions? Fine by me. What are yours? DougR |
|
26 Jun 02 - 02:03 AM (#737140) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Genie Doug, you're spouting the same nonsense I keep hearing on the "liberal media" --to wit: • Environmentalists don't want any timber cut • Republicans would, if given the chance, allow "salvage logging" and "thinning" to reduce the danger of forest fires and restore/maintain forest health • The conditions that have fostered the recent disastrous fires are all the fault of recent decisions/policies of Democrats/liberals/environmentalists • Devastating forest fires are more likely to occur in roadless areas than in roaded areas • A forest fire left to burn itself out will level the forest and is very bad for forest health. What you seldom hear on the major media, although a lot of forestry scientists agree on it, is that: If we're going to debate forest management issues, let's at least represent the various sides' viewpoints fairly and accurately. It's probably too much to ask, but I wish the media would do their homework first and then try to bring science and a fair historical account to bear on the problem, instead of trying to make political hay of the situation via blame, distortion, and the creation of straw men. Genie |
|
26 Jun 02 - 02:20 AM (#737145) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Genie Just to clarify, Doug, I'm not saying that you yourself are guilty of all the distortions I listed, just that that's what I keep hearing on talk radio and, for the most part, on all the major broadcast and cable media. Talk radio, in particular, is filled right now with scathing accusations that the "environmental extremists like the Sierra Club" want to keep people totally out of wilderness areas and don't want to allow any logging, and [to quote one young woman panelist I heard on Fox recently] "would rather see the entire forest burn to the ground than allow a single tree to be logged." Solutions? No perfect answer. But, for starters, how about not allowing home building in some areas unless the owners agree in writing not to ask for public firefighters to try to save their buildings from forest fires? How about setting up some sort of oversight for "salvage logging" and "thinning" operations to make sure that large trees that are healthy or likely to survive a fire are not "salvaged" or "thinned?" [Yeah, it's more bureaucracy, but the alternative is to let the fox guard the hen house.] Genie §:- ) |
|
26 Jun 02 - 02:38 AM (#737155) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: DougR Genie: your last paragraph in the posting above makes a lot of sense to me. You appear to have a pretty good handle on the history of the forestry problem and I appreciate your posting your views. I know only what I hear on radio and TV, and what those who live in forest areas say when interviewed. It appears to me, though, that our forests have not been managed well, and I place no blame on any political administration. I simply don't know who is to blame. Someone is though, I think. I must admit that much of my thinking has to do with policies that have been established where I feel those establishing them care more for hooting or spotted owls or various species of fish, than they do people. So many people in the west have been deprived of making a living because of some endangered species. What about endangered unemployed people? But I wander from the subject, and since I started this thread, I apologize for doing that. DougR |
|
26 Jun 02 - 02:41 AM (#737159) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: GUEST,ozmacca Sounds like a good start Genie. If they did something like that here it would be a help, so it would certainly start the ball in the right direction there. But as always, who can we trust to decide? Shame that there will always be somebody who will, and can, put pressure on the designation of "non-build" restricted zones, probably in favour of developers, or industry, or one minority group or another - maybe even Joe Public who wants to visit and have facilities available. Somebody will always have a perfectly valid reason for opening up pristine forest.... Money or lifestyle choice are just two examples. Also we really can't expect emergency services to just stand by if some clown who builds in the wrong place puts his life in jeopardy by refusing to leave their property when it's threatened by fire. What do we do then, shoot them?... Mind you..... No, we know it won't happen. That's why we have these services, and that's why the people in them are there. Will the present fires make all the interested parties, state, federal, logging, home developers, forest services, emergency services, conservationists, get together and consult on future policy? Pig's ear...... Don't matter what party is in power, or who runs the states or the services, or sets policy. Things will only change for the better after a few hundred families die in a massive disaster, and nobody wants that to happen. Until it does, though, I'll bet you'll be stuck with the existing faulty system. |
|
26 Jun 02 - 03:00 AM (#737165) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Genie Doug, at the risk of perpetuating the thread creep, let me say that, with the exception of a few fringe groups [E.L.F., e.g.], I know of no environmentalists that care more for critters than people. [Many of us environmentalists do, however, place the continued existence and welfare of nonhuman species above the whims and pleasure pursuits of snowmobilers, ATVers, and motor boaters--partly for our own sake as humans.] Timber jobs are lost as often because of technological advances [e.g. "fellerbunchers] and because of the short-sightedness of big corporations [who buy and sell mills and logging businesses like they were baseball cards] as because of environmental protection. "Sustainable forestry" is not [Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding] a "buzzword" that really means "hands off, humans!" As with the fire situation, the timber situation itself -- loss of jobs, etc.-- goes back a century or two. Folks may be replanting now, but they didn't used to. And now, there is no way that big 200+year-old redwoods, Douglas firs, cedars, oaks, etc., are going to be replaced when they are cut. The only way to "maintain the cut" is to keep depleting the forests in terms of board feet, because new seedlings weren't planted when the big trees were cut hundreds of years ago. Our "war on drugs," BTW, keeps Americans unwilling to allow hemp to be grown for making paper, housing materials, cloth, etc. Hemp could easily substitute for a lot of our wood product "needs," creating and maintaining a lot of jobs without our needing to log our last remaining wilderness areas or log the commercial forests on such a short rotation cycle. But the timber industries, I think, don't want that competition. [This is a whole nuther story, though.] Genie |
|
26 Jun 02 - 08:23 AM (#737268) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: artbrooks The New Mexico fire two years ago (Los Alamos, not Las Cruces) that began as a planned burn got out of control entirely because a bureaucrat away from the forest itself didn't pay attention to the weather report. It was entirely a matter of "today is the day that we are scheduled to set the fire, so we will set the fire today", without regard to the fact that the weather had changed and the wind had shifted. He doesn't work there any more. |
|
26 Jun 02 - 08:25 AM (#737271) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Grab You still will have pristine forest. Lots of stuff burnt, so the loggers won't get anything out of it short-term, but long-term it takes much more than a fire to kill a forest. The only thing that can kill a forest is ppl logging it unsustainably and not replacing like with like when they cut trees down. Hence the worry about letting the timber companies "thin the underbrush". If the timber companies could be persuaded to act in their own best long-term interests, then it'd be OK. But as with fishermen, they tend to prefer the short-term profit (nice high yields in clear-cutting forests) to long-term survival. Graham. |
|
26 Jun 02 - 10:29 AM (#737326) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: katlaughing Thanks, Genie. Points of clarification: Doug, I said "presidents OR radicals of any ilk." Later on you said,(my emphasis) "It appears to me, though, that our forests have not been managed well, and I place no blame on any political administration." Yet, in your very first post you pointed fingers at Clinton's administration. Anyway, paint me with a liberal brush, if you will, fueled by the soundbites of a "kept" media and you will never know who I am nor who a liberal might be. And, it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. What matters is I am heartsick at the destruction which has the west aflame this summer and everyone needs to lay aside their differences, forget the politicos, and do what they can to keep this from happening year after year. It was only two years ago when Colorado had a couple of other big fires. kat |
|
26 Jun 02 - 01:54 PM (#737523) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: DougR I won't argue the points you make, kat, simply because it is senseless to do so. Genie: thanks for your excellent informative posts. DougR |
|
26 Jun 02 - 02:14 PM (#737544) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: RichM Doug, what are you "comparing" to? The forest of 20, 50, 100, 200, or 500 years ago? Certainly, any comparison between those periods will indicate a massive change in the forest ecologies of this continent. Even Republicans don't want to bequeath a total desert to their grandchildren---or am I wrong? Rich |
|
26 Jun 02 - 02:39 PM (#737558) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: kendall What bugs me about it is the fact that people are bound and determined to live in areas where they dont belong! In the west, they are crowding the mountain lion to the point where they are literally in each others way. In the Mississippi area, they build in the flood plain because of the rich soil, then when mother nature takes that land back with a big flood, they want the rest of the country to bail them out! Did you ever see a woodchuck dig his hole in a flood plain? NO! NEVER, why? because he knows better!One could conclude that a woodchuck is smarter than a farmer. |
|
26 Jun 02 - 03:14 PM (#737582) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Stilly River Sage A few points before I fly out the door to an appointment: There are groups that care more for animals than people. PITA is a classic example. But they aren't an environmental group. There is a difference between "environmentalist" and "ecologist." The first is a political term, the second based more on science. People can live anywhere they want if they can learn to do it without having to make their dwelligs fit a certain mold or up to certain standings. I don't think you'll ever find people signing forms saying they won't ask for fire protection, and I don't think you'll ever find municipalities or government entities that would agree to such a plan because of the lawsuit factor after-the-fact of a fire. The prescribed burn at Las Alamos was started on NPS land; they called the USFS for assistance in the middle of the night, but the mid-level manager who was called wasn't in a position to undrestand the request and foolishly told them to call back after 8 in the morning instead of waking up his/her supervisor and asking for assistance. DougR, that's a lot of political and inflamatory rhetoric that you've posted about fires and endangered species. Catch-phrases, reductive observations. It takes a lot of time to sort out all of that and I don't have it now. Perhaps later this evening I'll find and post a few links to lucid discussions of these topics. Just hold this thought: those endangered species you complain about are the equivalent of the canary in the mine. If they go, we won't be far behind them. SRS |
|
26 Jun 02 - 03:15 PM (#737584) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Stilly River Sage Ooooh, those typos. PETA. . . they're not the bread, they're the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. . . |
|
26 Jun 02 - 04:19 PM (#737648) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Genie Doug and Still, you're right about the unfeasibility of asking people not to ask firefighters to save their homes from forest fires. It's the same argument that undelies seat belt and helmet laws --which I think sometimes are overdrawn. The decision there has generally been that, since no one is going to withold emergency medical care to a driver or cyclist who was injured because of not wearing a belt or helmet, the law will require motorcyclists and car passengers to wear them. This is one of the best arguments I can think of for roadless, undeveloped areas. Those will be the only places where even small fires CAN be allowed to follow their natural course. Genie |
|
26 Jun 02 - 04:59 PM (#737674) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Bill D People want to build homes where it's 'pretty', like ocean front, mountain canyons, and on banks of certain rivers...then when floods & fires arrive, they expect to be rescued,like Kendall says....IT DON'T WORK THAT WAY!.... the Forest Service and the Corps of Engineers have LONG had policies that were not environmentally sound in the long view, and they are only now beginning to get it..They are trying to rescue the Everglades by blowing up old dams and allowing the water its natural coarse, and they are learning that forests MUST be allowed some smaller fires, or eventually the BIG one will get them!....and please understand that every administration made some mistakes...though for different reasons. When there are too many humans, some will find floods and fires 'inconvenient', and want to control nature....well, we are seeing the smoke from those errors!...in a wetter year, it wouldn't have been so bad, but..........*sigh*....can't ANYONE in authority look beyond the end of their nose and see that policy has to deal with more than short term personal/political/economic interests? |
|
26 Jun 02 - 05:37 PM (#737704) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Don Firth There are people here who know the ins and outs of this issue far better than I do. But there are a couple of things that strike me as worth noting. First, it's not just "some clown who builds in the wrong place." Example:— During the past few decades, Western Washington has been going through a population boom (sometimes called the "Californication of the Pacific Northwest"). People come here because of the high-tech jobs and the "lifestyle," which involves forests, mountains, water, mild climate, and outdoor recreational activities. This has made developable real estate extremely valuable. Real estate developers and contractors have been indulging in an orgy of "hack it out, pave it over, build on it, sell it for a wad of money, then go somewhere else and do it again." Once the houses are sold, the developer takes no responsibility for the fact that the whole housing development is built on a flood plain. There are several areas in this part of the state where old-time residents can and do say, "Don't build there!" But the developers do it anyway. By the time the waters rise, the developers and the real estate salesmen are long gone with their bags of money. It's no stretch of the imagination to assume that the same kind of thing goes on in lovely, pristine-looking forest areas that go through periodic burn cycles (which nobody cares to mention). By the time the place goes up in flames, the developer is long gone and forgotten. And how forestry policies in this area are supposed to work, I haven't a clue. It seems that the future—and people—are just not part of the equation. The "bottom line" rules everything. Not too many decades ago, the Olympic Peninsula was covered by lush, thick virgin forest nurtured by rich soil and watered by moisture drifting in off the North Pacific—the habitat of thousands of species and a perfect example of The Forest Primeval. Not just "old growth." This was the essence of the Timeless. Within the past decade I've had a couple of occasions to drive the Olympic Loop Drive. Now, one sees vast stretches—mile after square mile—of tree stumps. Whole mountainsides have been denuded, making this once breathtakingly beautiful forest look as if it has been attacked by some gigantic plague of mange. Unless you actually drive through and see it for yourself, it's impossible to grasp the mind-boggling extent of the defoliation. A friend of ours visiting from Chicago had wanted to see the Olympic rain forest, and to get there from any direction, one has to drive through this landscape. As we drove, feeling a bit stunned at the devastation surrounding us, she said quietly, "It looks like a graveyard, with piles of bones scattered among the tombstones." Now, they want the Olympic Rain Forest itself (take a brief tour and let the forest soothe your soul). It's just about the only patch of old-growth forest left. "They" are not small, local logging companies trying to keep all the forestry workers who live on the Olympic Peninsula employed. "They" are multi-billion dollar companies like Weyerhauser, who clear-cut the forest and ship the logs to Japan! The Japanese who buy the logs saw them up into lumber over there, and then sell them back to us. A by-product of this little fandango is that a few years back the small cities of Aberdeen and Hoquiam, Washington had a depression all their own because they had to close the sawmills due to lack of business. All the logs were going overseas. But I guess I'm too naïve to grasp how this "keeps people working." [And then a little side-benefit of this is that all the clear-cutting is allowing run-off to silt up the rivers and streams where the North Pacific salmon spawn. Between this and overfishing, the salmon are dying off. The timber industry and the fishing industry blame each other for this.] Just about the only laws to protect these few remaining patches of old-growth forest are those to preserve habitat for endangered species. It's creatures like the spotted owl who are saving—or, at least, delaying—the clear-cutting of these few remaining areas (I've often wondered why the Sitka Spruce, the Douglas Fir, and the Western Hemlock don't qualify as "endangered species."). If you raise any objection to allowing the timber companies to come along and log off the little that remains of the national forests, you're dismissed as some kind of "environmental radical" or a "tree hugger." Of course, the war-cry is "Logging is a dying industry and we must do something to preserve it! People need jobs!" The reason logging is a dying industry is that there are damned few trees left to cut! Yet, if they are turned loose, in another decade or two, there won't be any trees left at all! If you were to get a good look at what they've already accomplished on the Olympic Peninsula, you'll see that that's not an exaggeration. Am I an environmental radical tree hugger? No, but I think a few trees are worth preserving just for old times' sake. And I'm just generally opposed to idiocy on such a Cosmic level. Don Firth |
|
26 Jun 02 - 06:08 PM (#737737) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Don Firth By the way, many of the good people of Aberdeen and Hoquiam, Washington were persuaded that the closing of the sawmills was due to "tree huggers." Don Firth |
|
26 Jun 02 - 06:10 PM (#737739) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Bill D beautiful, Don...you make the point as well as I have seen.... but if there is ONE big tree left, some logger will want to cut it, on the grounds that it gives HIM a days work...(ogm that's silly, you say? Remember the Passenger pigeon? There were BILLIONS of them until they were discovered to taste good, and were also viewed as crop eaters. |
|
26 Jun 02 - 06:11 PM (#737740) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: katlaughing Well said, Don! |
|
26 Jun 02 - 06:17 PM (#737745) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Celtic Soul Fire is inevitable. It is a part of the natural order, and much as Smokey would like to have us believe otherwise, animal populations and the environment are not permanently damaged by it. In fact, without it, new growth is impossible. We can only delay, never eradicate fire. And, in the long run, we harm ourselves and the land we supposedly care for by trying. The way to go is controlled fire. Start them, watch them, and prevent them from getting out of hand. |
|
26 Jun 02 - 07:43 PM (#737795) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: artbrooks When you point fingers at the Park Service, Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers (as entities...idiots can exist in any organization) keep in mind that they exist to carry out the laws that Congress has passed (and the non-laws that the presidents have promulgated by Executive Order). If some legislator manages to push through a law that requires that some percentage of forests would be burned each year, then that would happen. If (as is actually the case) the law says that one part of the Forest Service's mission is to support the timber industry, then that's what they'll do. Their web site includes this as part of their overall statement of purpose: "Congress established the Forest Service in 1905 to provide quality water and timber for the Nation's benefit. Over the years, the public has expanded the list of what they want from national forests and grasslands. Congress responded by directing the Forest Service to manage national forests for additional multiple uses and benefits and for the sustained yield of renewable resources such as water, forage, wildlife, wood, and recreation." The Corps straightened out the rivers of the midwest, because their mission was to make them navigable, ruining thousands of miles of wildlife habitat at the same time. Now it is reversing that process, because they have been given a new task. I hate to think that people who build in the woods would be subject to having their houses burn if there was a fire, but I'm reminded of the situation that occurred several years ago along the Oregon coast. Many people were building homes at the edge of cliffs, and it is the nature of cliffs to erode. The state and the feds were spending a fortune to "stabilize" what nature meant to fall. I think it was the State of Oregon that finally passed a "build at your own risk" law. |
|
26 Jun 02 - 07:49 PM (#737799) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: kendall The fishermen here in New England have the same mind set; they wont be happy until the last haddock is flopping on HIS deck. They have over fished for decades, now they blame it on the government. I remember hearing the old timers telling about shovelling "ping pongs" over the side by the tons. Ping pongs are under size haddock. That was just before I joined the National Marine fisheries service, and, conservation became necessary. As I understand it, the loggers have cleared off 90% of the old growth redwoods, and now they clamor for the right to "feed their families" by cutting down the remaining 10%. Call me a tree hugger or any other silly meaningless name, I HATE greed, and, when it is combined with stupidity, what you get is wholesale rape of our resources. Sorry for the rave, but, people piss me off. Especially those who don't know what the hell they are talking about. |
|
26 Jun 02 - 08:34 PM (#737815) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Bobert "Ya see one redwood tree, ya' seen 'em all", Spiro T Agnew. Yep, whoever asked what the Republican response is, I think Spiro said it and I also don't think things have changed much. But then again, the Dems arn'e saints in this thing either. "Developers don't go to Hell, they build it right here on earth". The bumper sticker on the back of my old Volkswagen. Yeah, if there is money involved, nothing else matters. Right? And the right wing pounds that "snail-darter, screech owl" mantra until folks believe it's true. Like there's a million folks in the bread lines because of screech owls. Yeah, right!?! I mean, how moronic? But, hey, the corporate folk, since they own all the micropones, figure they'll just keep poundin' the simplistic lies into everyone's head until one day we all wake up and believe them. Yeah, right. Beam me and my snail dartin' friends up... Bobert |
|
26 Jun 02 - 09:41 PM (#737862) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Don Firth Lightning has been starting forest fires since the planet was relatively young, and the forests have survived quite well in spite of it, and quite probably because of it. Some fires are caused by careless campers or some brainless yo-yo pegging a cigarette out a car window. When the season is on, forest fires do happen around here, more than enough to keep firefighters hopping. And some, like the recent one near Leavenworth, Washington got some residences and threatened the town. But I don't seem to recall much having to do with the area around the Olympic rain forest. "Rain forest" is not just a poetic allusion. You can walk through the trees on a warm, sunny day and not necessarily be too aware of it, but it's pretty moist around there. Kinda muggy. There is a lot of undergrowth and general organic debris on the forest floor (sometimes you're not too sure where the forest floor is), but that doesn't seem to bother the rain forest. It's such a rich ecosystem that it manages very nicely to recycle its own, thank you. It's been doing it for many thousands of years. The only enemy it really has is Man. And unless we manage to obliterate it (which is within our power), it will be here long after we're gone. On one occasion I sat within a few feet of one of these giants in the Hoh rain forest—five-hundred some feet tall, trunk about twelve feet or so in diameter. I have no idea how old it was, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was old when Columbus was a pup. I had been there by that same tree before, and I almost felt like it was an old friend. A very old friend. After sitting there for awhile, I couldn't help but feel that there was a presence there. It was an odd feeling of—what can I call it?—awareness, but a sort of benevolent indifference. It was as if the tree knew I was there and it knew I meant it no harm, but to it, I was hardly less ephemeral than the insects that crawled on its bark, the squirrels that rummaged around it for edibles, or the birds that perched on its branches. In the presence of such an Old Soul, you can get a real feeling of the Eternal. I couldn't help but feel—protective. It's been there so long. And it deserves to be respected and left undisturbed, to go through it's own natural life cycle. I guess that makes me a bonafide, ordained tree hugger. But I can't help but feel that someone who looks at a tree like that and thinks only in terms of how many board-feet he can get out of it has a great big hole where his soul ought to be. Don Firth |
|
26 Jun 02 - 11:27 PM (#737901) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: GUEST,Sonja Well said, Don F.! You, too, Bobert, Kendall, Art. And Don F. again! Another aspect of the problem is that those who want to "harvest" the forests want these two things: • trees that are less than 150 or 200 years old shouldn't be considered "old growth" and thus shouldn't be protected. • trees are considered of "harvest age" when they are about 60 years old; no timber companies that I know of have a 200-year "crop rotation" cycle, or anything close to it. Folks who want to blame environmentalists for fires, loss of jobs, etc., like to say saving the spotted owl is not really what the environmentalists are after--that they have a hidden agenda. Well, they're right--except for the "hidden" part. Unfortunately, the endangered species act does not allow whole forest ecosystems to be classified as "endangered," and thus protected. That is the real--and explicit--agenda. And those ecosystems need protecting, in part, because of their importance in maintaining the quality of life that we humans desire. Even if the spotted owl and the marbled murrelet (sp?) could live in Seattle and hatchery salmon could live in our dammed rivers, and even if we were not losing board-feet of "timber" every year, when complex forest ecosystems are replaced with near-monoculture tree farms, we're flirting with disaster. We like to pull at the threads of the tapestry without knowing how they're connected. How long can we pull before the whole thing comes unravelled? Sonja |
|
26 Jun 02 - 11:46 PM (#737907) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: toadfrog The view I think Doug is citing is the view that says the best remedy for forest fires is to clear-cut the forests. Which is mistaken, even if one is not a tree hugger, because people who clear cut cannot be relied upon to clean up the slash. I think sympathy for people who build out in the woods can also be overstated. Of course, you can't let them just die if a fire comes. So the moral is, they really shouldn't be permitted to build out there. People are not permitted to go rock-climbing in the city, because the city should not be required to pay the cost of rescuing them, or scraping them off the sidewalks. The same applies here. If people are that insistent on their "self reliance" and their "property rights," they should genuninely be self-reliant. Which they just aren't. |
|
26 Jun 02 - 11:49 PM (#737910) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: toadfrog Since we have songs for every occasion, I propose one that begins: Save the Owls and lose the forests! Fa la la, la la, la la, la la! Take it from here folks! |
|
27 Jun 02 - 01:39 AM (#737956) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Genie toad, FWIW, no one ever suggested letting folks who build houses in the forest die. Letting property burn is a different matter. How many fire fighters have died trying to save the buildings that people built in heavily forested areas, when if it weren't for those buildings the forest service would have let the fires burn themselves out? |
|
27 Jun 02 - 10:26 AM (#738142) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: katlaughing In the interest of a few Mudcatter whom I know live in the forests, there are those who are responsible and do all they can to make their homes safe, by clearing underbrush, keeping trees away from their homes, etc. I've heard other measures include replacing wooden shingles on roofs with tin. These are things which are being implemented now in a more universal way and, imo, should be mandatory. |
|
27 Jun 02 - 10:56 AM (#738177) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Genie Good point, Kat. Still, we need to slow down the urban spread into the forests and stop it completely in some areas that are now roadless. |
|
27 Jun 02 - 01:41 PM (#738335) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Stilly River Sage There are those who would say that we need to reduce the density of cities and spread people out more. City folks have the infrastructure of electricity, water, sewer, cable, paved streets, and services. (They also contribute mightily to foul air--here in Fort Worth we've had Ozone days for the pastweek.) People who live out in the county in many areas want the infrastructure without the crowding. That demand causes more impact on the place they choose to move to as water lines are dug, phone lines run, etc.--but I find it troubling that we would state that people shouldn't be permitted to build in these places. If it is "private property," are you wanting to require that landowners keep it wild so you can look at it? It doesn't work that way. People who own wild land and who decide to sub-divide are trying to profit from their foresight--and I'm not defending or objecting to that here, just acknowledging it. What sellers and buyers of this land should be required to do is to meet rigorous standards so that living out there is more self-sustained than those in urban areas. The biggest strain on county budgets is to come in along after these folks build their houses and put them onto a grid. And the biggest problem with counties having these in place ahead of time is that people don't need to think about their impact on the special place they've chosen to live. A friend of mine lives in the Sonoran Desert, about 15 miles west of Tucson. She is a former park naturalist, and is involved with the AZ-Sonoran Desert Museum. When she designed her straw bale house she built in a water collection system from the roof that stores water in a cistern under the back patio. Her yard is composed of adobe structures, native plants, native gravel, and a small 5' by 10' patch of bermuda for her little dog that is now blind and deaf. When the dog dies the grass will probably go away. The grass and the rest of the garden are watered from the cistern. Because the straw bales insulate so well, she has very low heating and cooling bills. The toilets and shower are set to use very little water, and what she wishes is that before allowing anyone to build anywhere in the county (not just in the countryside) is that they be required to show an attempt to conserve water and power. If one is building in a forest and wants the forest nearby the dwelling, then the dwelling should be one that won't burn. Make it an earthen house of some sort, or adobe over a tire and dirt, etc. Concrete, strawbales and adobe, lots of non-traditional materials are available. Put it partly underground. There are lots of inovative solutions. Meanwhile, as an urban dweller, I've just done a major retrofit of a house built about 25 years ago. The long-term tenants (this was rented for the last 15 years before I bought it) paid astronomical electric bills because they had an outdated heat and AC system and little insulation. Add to that lots of incandescent lights and your bill goes high. I put in an efficient heat pump, put in insulation, and converted most of the fixtures to flourescent. If TXU ever gets around to sending out a power bill (they've not sent on in months, due to deregulation, they say) I'll get an idea if there is any savings involved. I think I will be paying less than half of what the former residents paid. This doesn't benefit just me, it means generators aren't cranking so hard somewhere else, polluting so I can burn a bunch of lightbulbs. How can we dictate to others how they should live in places we consider sacred because they are more "natural" than where we live in the cities? Why don't we treat our cities as sacred places also, and live in a way that impacts others less and makes our cities more beautiful? Surely these measures will be felt more in the city. Okay, I'll get off of my soap box. SRS |
|
27 Jun 02 - 01:50 PM (#738344) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Stilly River Sage I would note that my monologue is not about public lands, true remote roadless areas, or wilderness areas. It is, however, about preserving some "wildness" even in areas where people live. It's what makes those places more livable. I've found a house in the city where there are lots of wild things living in and around the yard. We're next to a creek. It makes living in the city tolerable. SRS |
|
27 Jun 02 - 02:01 PM (#738353) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: katlaughing SRS, good, good points! You friend should be a model to all who want to live in more "out of the way" places! As well, you should be a model for those who live in urban areas. Some cities, such as Portland, Oregon, do try and have a much more "humane" way of life to offer than most. I've heard the same is true of Canberra, Australia. We just bought an old house in a small neighbourhood. One thing we are going to do is add-on a sunroom, across the western side, with solar collector's etc., harvesting that Colorado sun, for our own energy-saving heat, etc. I would love to revamp the whole system and add in an "on-demand" hot water heater, but they are still so expensive. I know it's a catch twenty-two...the more of them we buy, the lower the prices, hopefully... sorry for the drift...kat |
|
27 Jun 02 - 09:29 PM (#738592) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: GUEST,mg I am a native of timber country in sw Washington and grew up in a major lumber town...I honestly don't think patches of clear cuts look bad..I guess I don't see stumps but blackberries and other stuff. Clear cutting of douglas fir used to be taught as good forest practice in universities..I don't know if it still is...douglas fir apparently likes to start over from scratch. I am for laws that would require homes to be built with non-flammable stuff, except in certain areas where earthquake risk is higher than fire risk (like here). France won't allow buildings to be made out of wood any more...I am also for forbidding flammable roofing materials..no more cedar roofs...also I believe in growing hemp for paper and other stuff...makes beetter paper and saves the trees. I would encourage higher density of homes and make it easier for people to rent out parts of their homes..I sold real estate in Seattle and all these widows sitting in big houses that could have had mother in law apartments.... a couple things I do not get.....why we bury garbage...is that not a prescription for a plague somewhere down the road? and why we flush toilets rather than use some sort of inceneration..and then we drink the water...it astounds me.. and about wind energy..I am all for it..living on the banks of the Pacific Ocean. My boss said that they don't do it here because of birds...can't they put screens around the blades, like fans have? mg mg |
|
28 Jun 02 - 10:34 PM (#739219) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Genie Stilly, I'm glad you clarified that your discourse was not about public lands and roadless areas. Of course people who own land want to be able to use it as they wish, but there are many circumstances under which we can't. Zoning ordinances can change, building codes change, freeways are built, and sometimes an area is declared unsuitable for certain kinds of buildings. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't "live in places we consider sacred" (though I would hope that some places that are now public recreation and wilderness areas stay such). I'm echoing the concerns of a lot of people and public agencies that people not keep building homes in extremely dangerous places (flood plains, hurricane paths, dense forests) and then expect the public's emergency services to save their homes when Mother Nature does what we know darn well she's gonna do. A lot of your suggestions for homebuilding are great. (Why can't we use dry composting toilets of the sort used in Scandinavia?) Can you make a house--and its contents--safe from extreme fire temperatures, though? Even if the house doesn't burn, don't some forest fires get hot enough to melt metal, plastic, etc.? Genie |
|
28 Jun 02 - 10:50 PM (#739225) Subject: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Genie mg, You asked "why we flush toilets rather than use some sort of inceneration..and then we drink the water..." You might be interested in the way <a href="http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/construc/arcata/11intro.html">Arcata, CA</a> addressed the problem of water treatment. I don't have the latest info on how their ecologically sustainable system is doing ten + years since they started it, but I like their approach. Talk about "win-win!" Genie |
|
28 Jun 02 - 11:44 PM (#739249) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Genie OK, I'm looking at the HTML code for that website and, where I can usually see my error, I don't see any this time. Why didn't it blickify? Gonna try cutting and pasting the whole thing to see if it works this time. <a href="http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/construc/arcata/11intro.html">Arcata, CA</a> |
|
28 Jun 02 - 11:47 PM (#739253) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Genie Click here |
|
28 Jun 02 - 11:52 PM (#739255) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Genie I know WHAT the problem was (something to do with copying from the "Source" view in Netscape Composer) instead of copying from this page, but danged if I know WHY! Anyway the clicky above will take you to the story of Arcata's water treatment facility. |
|
29 Jun 02 - 12:49 AM (#739273) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Stilly River Sage Genie, I wasn't speaking of all land in private hands, but was visualizing the kind of land that is on fire right now. Logic dictates that if you don't want your house to burn, you keep the fuel away from it and you don't make it look like fuel to the advancing fire. Even with alternative building materials, some common sense is required. I oppose building in flood plains the way so many have, and then the continual rebuilding after these places flood so destructively year after year. This is particularly a problem in many prime agricultural areas. I saw a lot of flooding in the Skagit Valley in Washington, but the houses down in there were built on very tall foundations to avoid the problems of flooding. They probably don't build that way any more, just cross their fingers that the levees will hold. I should note that I live in a flood zone, and pay for flood insurance, but I'm in that marginal area that will probably never actually flood. It got this status when a road and bridge were built in such a way (badly) to cause the creek to backup and at one time it did used to tickle the foundations of a couple of the houses on my end of the block. But they rebuilt the bridge and the street and that has ceased to be a problem. I calculated the risk, I had a survey done, I interviewed neighbors and officials and hounded the insurance company for any statistics they could draw upon before making this choice. There are lots of accounts of people buying "marginal" lands (wetlands, in particular) who cheat and fill them in when no one official is looking and THEN file for permits to build. It happened down the road from my Dad's house, and annoyed the neighbors no end, that the guy who bought the land pulled that fast one. I guess it didn't occur to anyone to report it at the time it was happening. A few years ago I almost bought a house on 3/4 acre in the Manzano Mountains, east of Albuquerque. My ex's divorce attorney messed up that purchase, and I'm still mighty sorry that one got away from me. But I knew that every year I'd be out doing my own fire patrol and be ready to set up fire hose or dig a line on little notice. And fall the trees nearest the house. (I used to fight fire with the U.S. Forest Service, so I've had lots of practice.) I had plans to put in a cistern, and to use gray water on the garden. That house would have been a lot riskier proposition than my house on the creek, and it was on land that many consider special, beautifully timbered and in a nice climate. But I'd have taken that risk, because I felt that I could reasonably protect the house should fire threaten. Maggie
|
|
29 Jun 02 - 04:27 AM (#739320) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Genie Sounds reasonable to me, SRS. Wish every home owner were as responsible as you, Kat, and others obviously are. Genie |
|
29 Jun 02 - 09:26 PM (#739593) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Bobert GUEST,mg: I couldn't agree with you more about wind power. We can produce every bit of electricity the US needs from wind, and when you throw the hydrogen powered cars into the mix, we can put GWB, JR. & Co. "out of business". Now, as for the toilets. A lot of nitrogen and other organic properties are being recovered and reused in the form of fertilizers. Malorganite is a fertilizer that is made from human waste. Works great and if you have a deer problem, it will keep them away. Bobert |
|
30 Jun 02 - 01:27 PM (#739821) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Stilly River Sage In India there is an "appropriate technology" (think Schumacher's Small Is Beautiful) where the waste from the toilet moves into a domed tank that allows methane to collect and be piped back into the house for cooking. It would make a lot of sense for anyone who has a septic system to capture gases and save on buying LP, because chances are if you're in the country and have to use a septic system, you also have an LP tank out in the yard. I have friends in West Texas who have adopted a technology found in a lot of backcountry areas in state parks, the composting toilet. It uses a solar panel on top to operate some of the mechanism. There's also one that burns waste, I'm not sure what it's called, or if it is simply an advance on the composter. I've enjoyed getting back to yard work (I was in an apartment for a couple of years) and am starting up the compost heap in the back yard. I may have to augment this with an under-the-sink earthworm system, because we have so many small animals around here I could end up with the compost being an attractive nuisance. So far they're not intrigued by garden clippings and leaves. But once the rinds from canteloup, egg shells, banana peels, and other household foodstuff discards go out, that might change. I'd love to put up a windmill, but I am at the bottom of a hill and don't think I'd be in the most productive position. Solar is a possibility, though, up on the roof. SRS
|
|
30 Jun 02 - 02:34 PM (#739850) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Liz the Squeak Why do we need to cut down more trees, when there is more than enough paper waiting to be pulped and recycled already? And what about the good old Earth Closet? Surely that was the most environmentally sound ways of disposing of human waste ever developed? Why are we not listening to our ancestors? They managed to keep the planet fairly healthy until about 150 years ago.... planned or controlled burning was part of that cycle, some plants grow better on burnt soil (fire weed or rosebay willowherb was the commonest plant in London in the early 1940's....) and it can be beneficial for the soil, plant and animals alike, killing pests and culling the weak and feeble. I sympathise with those who's houses are threatened by fire, it's something I've never had to deal with, but I have seen, in the last couple of years, an increase in the depth to which our cellar floods (started life as a damp patch when we moved in 5 years ago, now can get as deep as 4-6 inches), so know it's only a matter of time before we have to move all the gas and electricity meters.... LTS |
|
30 Jun 02 - 03:35 PM (#739882) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Genie LTS, By "earth closet," do you mean "outhouse?" If so, the problem it causes -- at least, if it's the really old fashioned kind -- is that it leaks too much nitrogen (and other things in fecal matter) into the ground water. Same problem we now have from folks using too much fertilizer on their lawns and gardens and farms, even if the fertilizer is organic (e.g., manure). Seems like the waste would need to be properly composted first and, even then, used judiciously. BTW, among the species that depend on fire for perpetuating themselves are the giant redwoods and certain pines (ponderosa, I think). PBS very recently had a 2-hour special on the history of forest fire policy in the US, dealing with the origins of the no-burn policy, then the let-it-burn policy, backfire setting, catastrophic fires, etc. Very informative. Genie |
|
30 Jun 02 - 04:40 PM (#739898) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: raredance lNew York Times/ Op-Ed June 30, 2002 Scorched-Earth Politics third dry summer in a row has brought another wave of forest fires to the American West. With two million acres already gone and summer just begun, it would seem logical for everyone to set differences aside and pursue the sound firefighting strategy devised by the Clinton administration and ratified by President Bush last year. Yet as Pat Williams, a former Montana congressman, observed, "The only thing that burns hotter than a wildfire in the West is the demagoguery of some politicians trying to take advantage of it." This demagoguery comes largely from the right, which is always looking for ways to make environmentalists look bad. The leaders of the pack this year are Jane Dee Hull and Judy Martz, the governors of Arizona and Montana.Their mantra, minus the subteties, is this: Log the trees, and they won't burn. The man generally blamed for the present crisis is Bill Clinton. To his critics, he is a political naïf who was suckered by radical "ecosystem management" notions that reduced the commercial timber harvest and left the woods vulnerable to fire. That is, of course, a preposterous reading of nature and history, not to mention of Mr. Clinton. Ecosystem management — managing the forests to protect watersheds and the wildlife and humans who depend on them, rather than commercial interests alone — took root in the first Bush administration. That is also when logging began to decline, largely as a result of Judge William Dwyer's landmark decision to protect huge swaths of spotted owl habitat in the Pacific Northwest from clear-cutting. The notion that environmental lawsuits have hindered fire-prevention projects is equally absurd. According to a federal study last summer, fewer than 1 percent of 1,671 fire-prevention projects had been appealed. A greater obstacle to fire prevention may have been the governors themselves, some of whom have resisted the Forest Service's proven strategy of preventing larger fires with smaller, controlled burns. Fortunately, reasonable people on both sides, including cooler heads in the current Bush administration, agree on what the problem is and how to approach it. The basic cause of the problem is a now-discredited Forest Service strategy of suppressing all fires as quickly as possible. The policy took hold after the aptly named Big Burn in Idaho and Montana in 1910 and by 1947 had a popular mascot, Smokey Bear. By disrupting the natural cycle of fires, however, this strategy left the forests choked with dry fuel — small trees and bushes — that turned modest fires into roaring infernos. Excessive logging had the same effect because it removed the biggest and most fire-resistant trees and left behind a tinderbox of "slash" and young trees. The Smokey line of thinking gradually fell from favor. In 2000, in the midst of roaring fires that eventually consumed 8.4 million acres, the Clinton administration and six Western governors agreed on a fresh approach. It consisted essentially of controlled burns plus an aggressive program to thin the underbrush, especially in vulnerable areas known as the "wildland/urban interface," where an increasing number of people have built homes near the forests. Congress liked the plan and opened its pocketbook: $1.7 billion in new money in 2001 and $1.2 billion for the present fiscal year. Some legislators have complained that the money is not flowing fast enough to underwrite the local thinning programs at the heart of the strategy. The administration has pledged to step things up. Others want the administration to require local communities to change their building codes as a condition of future government help. In Colorado, despite a statewide campaign to get everyone to take precautionary steps, only 33 of the state's 64 counties have voluntarily developed fire plans, which in most cases require the use of fire-retardant building materials. Meanwhile, a truce is required in the ideological wars. The environmentalists must not erect unreasonable legal barriers to fire-suppression projects adjacent to populated areas. For its part, the administration must not use "thinning" as a cover for commercial logging or as an excuse to invade remote roadless areas of the national forests, which are not particularly prone to fires anyway. This is no time for partisan sniping.
rich r |
|
01 Jul 02 - 10:06 AM (#740094) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: kendall A wise native American once said to a government official, "When the last tree has been cut down, the last river is polluted and the last fish is caught, only then will you realize, YOU CAN'T EAT MONEY". (It may have been Chief Seattle) Bottom line, the whole problem is: There are too many people.
|
|
01 Jul 02 - 01:08 PM (#740154) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Stilly River Sage So, Kendall, are you going to cull the excess people? (Don't go there) Very little that Chief Sealth said is actually in print, but that isn't part of it. That long speech attributed to him was actually written by Ted Perry from the University of Texas (Austin) as a script for a southern religious organization's environmental video. An entirely forgettable (and very low production values) film, but that darned speech, that had nothing to do with the Washington State tribal leader, has a life of its own. There was an intermediate fellow, in the 1880's, who kind of summed up what he'd heard Sealth say at a ceremony in 1854. He was your typical unreliable reporter, who included a lot of Victorian values and information that was totally nonsensical. Poetic license to the nth degree. Sealth, as a resident of the Puget Sound area, for example, would have never seen a bison (called buffalo by many) that is referred to, along with a lot of other errors of the sort that locals SHOULD HAVE recognized before they jumped on it as the best thing since sliced bread and emblazoned it on t-shirts and bumperstickers and posters and even at the Washington State pavilion at the Expo in Spokane in the late 1970's. Here's a citation for anyone interested in following up on the subject--by Rudolf Kaiser, and first published in 1985. "A whole religious concept"? : Chief Seattle's speech(es) : American origins and European reception : almost a detective story." It has been reprinted in a few places. SRS
|
|
01 Jul 02 - 01:10 PM (#740156) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Stilly River Sage Make that Spokane expo, a sort of down-sized world fair, in the early 1970's. That was a place where the thing first had a big appearance, etched on a glass that was on display in the Washington pavilion. SRS |
|
01 Jul 02 - 01:59 PM (#740183) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: katlaughing Here is a link with a Version I, which was published in 1887...quite a bit different than the later one: Version One. At the bottom of that page are links about the controversy over the alleged speech. |
|
01 Jul 02 - 06:54 PM (#740348) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: kendall I may have been wrong about the source, but, the truth of it stands by itself. |
|
01 Jul 02 - 07:15 PM (#740364) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Bill D "cull the excess people?" no...not exactly. But since most of them refuse to limit their breeding habits, someone has to do it for them. The alternative is....(well, have you ever seen too many rats in a lab cage?) How to do it?...Not easy of course....the sanest, fairest way would be implantable contraception in allgirls under 12, with some implants being placebos, the 'right' number to be determined mathematically. Thus, no one would know for sure whether they would have kids, and never be sure whether it was them or the implant. This would preserve, mostly, the same balance of class and race...etc. How's that for a plan? Do I think it would have chance in Hades of being adopted? HA!....well, maybe when the population is 14 billion instead of 6 billion. (That's in the next 50 years, folks!....I remember when it was 2 1/2 billion) |
|
01 Jul 02 - 10:52 PM (#740468) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Stilly River Sage Yes, that's it. Dr. Henry Smith created that out of whole cloth himself, and Perry modernized it. The record actually shows a couple of brief remarks made by Sealth, nothing so grandiose and typically Victorian. The truth of the words is that they're a collection of tropes, many of them paternalistic, and while they sound good to Euramerican ears, they upset a lot of Indians. And scholars (Indian and non-) who would like to know what the Indians really had to say. There are arguments raging in academia about how "ecological" pre-columbian Indians were (and modern Indians are); some would have them making nary a mark on the continent, others would have them killing everything they got near and causing mass extinctions. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, and to bring this discussion full circle, it happens that an Apache from the White Mountain Apache Reservation has admittied to starting the fire that errupted into the largest fire in Arizona's recorded history. Ironic, isn't it? If fires had been allowed to burn the low levels of fuel for the last 100 years, and those fires were often started by the Indians who lived on the land, this fire probably wouldn't have been possible. A complex set of feelings goes along with the irony noted above. I used to fight fires--and we all knew of people who wanted to work more who just might have started a fire somewhere if they thought they could get away with it. There's a lot of cultural damage on the White Mountain reservation, and though I suspect that it will resolve itself sooner than they imagine, and in ways more interesting than desolate, right now it's hard to fathom how one individual could do so much damage. Yet I wouldn't send him to prison. He learned his lesson, and his community is going to make sure he never forgets it. How's that for reweaving the creeping thread? SRS
|
|
02 Jul 02 - 12:04 AM (#740506) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Genie Thanks for that excellent NY Times editorial, rich! An excellent synopsis of the key facts of the situation. (Now, if we can only get the partisan opportunists on both sides to read it.) Genie |
|
02 Jul 02 - 11:43 PM (#741139) Subject: RE: BS: We save the owls and lose the forests From: Deckman |