While the Oct. 10 Voice Off “Forest thinning not the solution” undoubtedly tugged at many a liberal heartstring, it is surprising to note that the author of the piece presented her case totally devoid of factual information; only emotion-based conjecture.
Reasoned opinion backed by fact is the stuff of stellar commentary. Pure conjecture based on the assumption that Republicans will stop at nothing to pave over everything in the name of progress, lining their pockets along the way, is lazy journalism directed at the unthinking portion of the University population.
Let us address some of the author’s more colorful points.
“Mature forests, however densely packed, do not cause forest fires…”
True, but dead trees do. Overgrowth creates a breeding ground for pestilence and disease, killing trees; dead trees are ripe for fire, therefore; when lightning strikes, it is reasonable to assume that acts of God may spark forest fires, but the inaction of men — more specifically, inept bureaucracy — are responsible for recent fires of biblical proportions. Apparently, the writer didn’t get the memo on this one.
“People who build their houses in the middle of forests … deserve what they get.”
Oh, really, and all of this time I was under the impression that we Republicans were cold, heartless and uncaring of the needs of the citizenry. While people may be at increased risk for fire damage living in a heavily-forested region, there is no reason why homeowners should not be allowed to take proper precautions in order to save their homes. Environmental groups have prevented them from doing just that.
Take, for instance, a 1999 proposal to thin out the dangerously fire-prone Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona. This proposal was appealed and subsequently challenged in court by the Tuscon-based “Center for Biological Diversity”; a final decision was still on hold when the forest — and nearby towns — were engulfed by recent conflagrations in that state.
“By reducing unnecessary regulatory obstacles that hinder active forest management,” as the proposal states, “Bush is clearly looking to let his friends in the big-business logging companies have their go at it — unhindered.”
Care to back that opinion with fact? After scouring through our president’s forest proposal, readily available online, one fails to find any mention of quid pro quo. When will liberals realize that logging companies do not profit from the devastation of forest land? Devoid of trees, timber companies would indeed be out of business, would they not? More trees are lost due to forest fires (1 million acres annually on average) than are lost to harvesting. In addition, companies such as International Paper have been reforesting since 1898, averaging 48 million acres of trees planted per year, five times more than they harvest annually. Can the Sierra Club match that?
Follow this link for additional Healthy Forests Initiative stories.
Scott J. Kane is a pre-journalism major and is a member
of the College Republicans