Nobody likes species endangerment. But, the fires of the last few years were absolutely horrific, and I believe were exacerbated by the lack of undergrowth clearing and other forest management techniques that were "outlawed" during Clinton years. Most agree that the fire damage was some of the worst recorded, though you'll never get full agreement.

Of course, if this is all for Big Timber and Big Industry, then I hope any damages that occur will be well documented. I trust many groups will be watching intently.

Anyway, the experiment has started.

I might add that you'd think this party, with all the lip-service they give to private enterprise, wouldn't be in such a rush to use up federal assets (federal timber) in competition against us private landowners who manage our lands for timber production.

My only other take on it was that thousands of jobs were created, by the use of active forest management.

And controlled burns are a part of the "old" plan, as reinstated by the Bush administration.

The forestry-WH connection is another issue for me. I DO worry about the unfair practices and laws of this administration, although such things are a part of all administrations (Marc Ritch anyone?). Many things are happening that make me think Big Bro is well on the way. IN this case, what are the bidding practices for federal timber? Are there competitive policies? Or, as I imagine, do a handful of Big Boys call all the shots? (As I imagine.)

Forestry management is a positive to me, but the politics of logging are something totally different.

By contrast, cyclical fires through the forest remove the downed timber and much of the understory, while largely leaving mature trees intact. You end up with a healthier, more productive forest. (While there are fewer trees, the ones that are there grow at a considerbly faster rate due to the lack of competition for nutrients, and because additional nutrients are released through the burning of the understory material.)

We know better than to allow our family timber lands to accumulate such a heavy understory growth. After a timber cut and a replanting, we generally do burns at about the three-year mark, and then again as needed until the planted trees have reached a level that understory plants can't compete. Without those burns (or herbicides or mechanical work), the planted trees would be competing with the weedy growth and would grow much slower if they weren't choked out altogether. (Yes, I admit, much of our land is in monoculture plantations, but we retain about half in mixed forest and leave large areas as wetland buffers untouched, even though we have the right to log them seasonally.)

Controlled burns were not a part of the 1930s policies.

The reason fires have been so dramatic in recent years is partly meteorological (there have been a number of years of below average precipitation) and partly due to the fact that these fires have caught in areas where fires have been prevented for decades, leading to the accumulation of understory materials. Removing these materials through controlled burns in proper weather conditions will greatly reduce the risk of catastrophic crown fires and will improve forest stands.

Contrary to the administration claims, this understory material is not of high value. Pulpwood prices have been severely depressed for more than ten years, and many pulp mills have closed. Timber companies make a considerably higher profit from sawtimber.

There are actually fewer forestry jobs these days, not because of any change in forest management, but because of the decline in pulpwood utilization, and improved technology in harvesting sawtimber.

While I am an owner of private timber lands and have concerns about competing sales from federal timber assets, I don't think the federal bid structure is rigged. However, many timber sales offered by USDA Forest Service these days fail to bring in a single bid. While there has been some rebound this year in timber prices (largely due to rebuilding efforts following the Florida hurricanes), there just aren't as many lumber mills or pulpwood mills or chipper plants operating these days. Prices peaked about 1994, and they've been down about 1/4 from that level for some time now. (Sawtimber has fared better.)

Finally, I don't recall Marc Rich having anything to do with forest policy.

We as a society have been encroaching on the forests. As a result, with many people living in or adjecent to forests, it became a battle to save private property instead of public property. Homeowners expect that the fires will be put out by firefighters, because they are taxpayers. Unfortunately, many (actually most) homeowners don't take the proper precautions such as building firelines etc because they want to have the feeling of "living in the woods".

IMHO, the fires should be allowed to burn themselves out with homeowners towns and municipalities should ensure that they have proper precautions taken. Have the fire departments say to the homeowners, if you don't build a fireline, your house will be at the bottom of the list to save. That way resources can be used to save private property where the owners have taken precautions.

When the fires burn, it clears out the underlying brush and other dead/diseased trees. Healthy trees then have room to grow. Fire also triggers germination of other seeds as well as providing "fertilizer" for existing trees.

That is my take on it. If the BLM and the forestry service can't manage the land, let it manage itself. We would be much better off, and that would be the "true" healthy forest initiative. I trust lumber companies with forests as much as I trust foxes guarding henhouses.

In the end, however, I'm not stupid. We all die. And natural disasters from fires to hurricanes to germs and viruses will always kill millions. The discussion of the balance between intervention/nonintervention, and types of interventions, is why this site is here, I suppose.

PS: I don't pretend to be the most knowledgable here, I just look at facts. And maybe we should hire more people to help manage the forests. People need jobs. And are a HUGE part of the ecology of the planet, not something separate from it. The fact is: 90s were the worst decade in decades for fires. And the government had a "hands off" policy at the time.

Anyway, everybody have a Merry Christmas.

Also, the Clinton administration did not stop forest administration entirely, as you claim. It did set up specific reserve areas, primarily old-growth, where harvest activities would be limited or excluded. Fire suppression was de-emphasized in the budget, in part because people were starting to listen to the scientists who said that suppression was creating a more dangerous situation, and reducing the "health" (diversity and productivity) of the forests.

The "roadless areas" were established - management was still permissible in much of these, but it had to use less-damaging roadless methods. Fire suppression was obviously more difficult in those areas, but by definition fire was not as dangerous to human habitation in those areas.

This article gives some history of the beginnings of the movement.