because obviously forests can't survive on their own

[Guest guest]

yeah..cuz forests really don't need all those dead trees to fertilize the

ground, er create habitats and nurseries for other plants and animals...and

heaven forfend if those dead trees lie about, they might actually stop runoff...

wot forests really need are to be planted all exactly the same...

idiots....

 

 

House Approves Bill to Speed Logging in Burned Forests

 

May 18, 2006 — By Matthew Daly, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday approved a bill to speed up the logging of

burned forests and planting of new trees after storms and wildfires.

 

The bill, approved 243-182, would order that federal land hit by disasters over

more than 1,000 acres be restored within months, rather than years -- before

insects and rot sets in, diminishing the commercial value of fire-killed timber.

 

" As Americans, we like our wood products, " said Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., the

bill's chief sponsor. " We build homes and furniture from wood. So if you're

going to use wood, doesn't it make sense to first use burned, dead trees, rather

than cut down rain forests " in South America or other places.

 

The measure's co-sponsor, Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., called it a common-sense

plan " that will be good for the environment and the economy as well. "

 

But most Democrats opposed the bill, arguing that cutting large old trees and

planting new ones makes forests more vulnerable to new fires and less valuable

as habitat for fish and wildlife. They say it is better to allow forests to come

back on their own.

 

Forty-one Democrats joined 202 Republicans in supporting the bill.

 

Opponents also criticized the bill's name, the Forest Emergency Recovery and

Research Act.

 

" Here we go again, " said Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash. " We have a clear skies bill,

and we get more pollution, a deficit reduction bill and get more deficits. Now

we have a forest recovery bill with less science and less common sense. "

 

Inslee and other critics said the bill could result in young, densely stocked

" timber plantations " that are prone to sudden " blowups " of extreme fire and in

which treetop fires can spread to nearby old-growth forests.

 

They also said the measure would help large timber companies log in areas where

they are now barred, such as roadless areas in remote forests.

 

Walden and Baird disputed that, saying the bill specifically bars planting trees

in evenly spaced rows, commonly called plantations, and would require that

temporary roads built to accommodate logging be destroyed as soon as the harvest

is completed.

 

Environmentalists remained skeptical, saying it was unlikely that a road would

be destroyed once it is in place. They cited a backlog of road maintenance

projects in national totaling tens of thousands of miles.

 

Walden and Baird proposed the bill last fall, after the Forest Service took two

years to start selling timber killed by the 500,000-acre Biscuit fire in

southern Oregon. The agency still has not sold all the wood that officials

projected, nearly four years after the July 2002 fire.

 

The bill would give public land agencies 30 days after a catastrophe to come up

with a plan, with a 90-day public comment period after that. Court action would

be allowed thereafter.

 

Currently, environmental analyses can take a year or more, followed by lengthy

appeals or court battles. During that time, the commercial value of fire-killed

timber steadily declines.

 

The bill now goes to the Senate, where Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., has proposed a

similar measure.

 

The House bill generated national controversy this spring, after some Oregon

State University faculty who favor so-called salvage logging tried to delay

publication of a study that questioned the value of the practice.

 

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management briefly withheld university funding while the

Bush administration sorted out whether the study by graduate student Daniel

Donato violated a prohibition against lobbying Congress. The funding was

restored after criticism by Democratic lawmakers.

 

Many environmental groups denounced the House action as a windfall for timber

companies that have supported Walden and other lawmakers. But the Society of

American Foresters praised the House vote.

 

" The key is quick recovery, " said Michael Goergen, chief executive of the

forestry group, which represents more than 15,000 forestry professionals.

 

" It's not only cost effective to restore forests immediately after a

catastrophic event, but it also makes sense for the environment, " Goergen said.

 

Source: Associated Press

 

 

 

What's gonna happen when the buses don't run

and what's gonna happen when the, winter comes

what are you gonna do,

what are you gonna do

when the oil runs out?