Mark Rey To Face Contempt Hearing

Montana Judge Calls Out Forest Service Overseer

The west is on fire and some fires are traveling at very fast speeds, but we need to start a study to make sure the impact on fish isn't too severe. That judge must be brain damaged, does he really think fire is the best thing for fish?

Maybe not the fish, but fire is good for the forest

Why did an Oregon-based group file this lawsuit concerning an incident in Oregon in the district court of Montana? I realize that retardant is dropped all across the country and could be construed as a national issue, but this case seems to specifically deal with the one incident. Anyone know?

In a word, judge shopping. Every environmental group knows what judges will give them what they want.
Thomas, fire is not so great for anything when it is so widespread and so devastating. Some ground is left sterile if it burns too hot, rain then causes washing away of top soil, not really good in spite of what you may think. Soot clogging the rivers isn't good. Weeds getting a toe hold in burned over forests create problems. No uncontrolled devastating fires like we have had since the enviros got rid of logging are not good.

Thanks Marion, figured as much, but didn't have anything to back it up with (can't find any of the court documents for this case) - what standing would they have to file here?

Molloy hasn't been as friendly to the enviro groups these days. I've read several decisions where he's called them out on abusing the courty system to their advantage, and he seems to go 50/50 on his judgments. Nice change of pace...

Marion,

I would agree to a point. However, the forest does need fire to regenerate.

The issue we have in South Central Alaska is the spruce bark beetle. I understand it has been a problem in the L48 too. We have huge mountain sides with dead spruce (pine) trees just waiting for a spark or lightening strike to create an inferno. We had two big fires here this year, the Caribou Hills and Trapper Creek fires.

Because of the Environmental Waco Terrorists, we have been placed in a position of a flare in a dynamite room. Back in the 1980s when we first started to see the beetle infestation, it could have been controlled by logging in the infested areas. The problem is these Wacos think Alaska is their exclusive play ground and took the issue to Federal Court in San Francisco, which prevented us from controlling the infestation. Now we have millions of acres of dead forest and we STILL can't go in and cut it down! The infestation continues to spread and every time we (Alaskans) try to take care of it, we end up back in court fighting these L48 "outsiders!"

The power of the Environmental Waco Terrorist needs to be curved. True Environmentalist/Conservationist do NOT hold to the extremist agenda that the Serra Club, Friends of Alaska etc have. It is time for Americans to say enough is enough and to run these activist and their judges out of town.

We need to get back to a common sense approach.

Thomas I agree with you, and the damage already done by the enviros is why the fires are able to cause so much damage. I think we are looking at it pretty much from the same view point.
I never would have thought I'd see the day that a big business (and environmentalism is huge, perhpas the biggest business in this country) would be able to use their money to impose their desires on private individuals and private property with absolutely no accountability. In fact they allow no review of the results of any of these impositions.

Hey -

You're a cozy threesome. Just to clear up a few of your misconceptions, there's always been a couple of million acres of dead forest in North America. Sometimes it has burned, sometimes the dead stuff rots away, providing habitat sites for a wide range of wildlife and becoming the grist from which comes a new forest. In the transition stage the brushy undergrowth is a generous source of food and cover. The intense fires in western Oregon a couple of years ago were expected to have left the ground sterile, but it did not. All the experts are surprised at the quick regrowth, but they shouldn't be. After all, the forests have been burning for as many millions of years as there have been forests.

The Wacko (Waco is a defunct aircraft manufacturer) Extreme Environmental Exploiters (aka logging interests) routinely use excuses like beetle infestation or "salvage" logging to go into sensitive or protected areas and cut both dead and living trees, and of course the damage their road building does to water drainages cause erosion and water quality problems, although it's a boon to ATVer's.

Marion, we're talking about the National Forest here, remember? The National Forest is public land and is owned not by private individuals but by all us Americans together: public land.

The point the judge is making is that Undersecretary Rey had blocked a review. Had this review been accomplished and had it found the use of this particular fire retardant inadvisable, Rey could have used another. It would not have affected the fire-fighting efforts. Putting poison in the streams isn't good, is it, when there are alternatives.

There's more, but I'll leave it to someone else if they're inclined.

We need to get back to an honest approach.

Forests evolved with humans at the end of the last Ice Age. The pre-Columbian forests discovered here soon lost their keepers, the wise fire setters, to introduced disease and genocide, both still ongoing.

All this "natural" fire policy is bogus, suspect, and mostly an excuse for a policy of arson support as an alternative to man using natural resources. The far left goes to any extent to keep a logger from work. Burn it all down now appears to be the current direction, as witnessed by the WFU Fool Creek fire. Aptly named, too. So descriptive of people, policy and results.

Your public land fire has a predictable course of burning private resources. Now, because Federal law does not prevent mechanical fire line building on private lands, that is where backfires originate, against the private land cat line. Public lands are a poor neighbor. They are wont ruin private land resources at the whim of wind and fire managers, and resource managers with their heads where the sun don't shine.

Mark Rey is a target for liberal sharpshooters, as any pimp for Weyerhaeuser, et al should be, and I can't figure how any conservative can support him, either. Penny wise and pound foolish, a dolt of doctrine, and he has been a piss poor advocate for rural economies. His past at NACASI and congressional committees did not show me anything then, nor has it now. I have to believe in his case, it is the messenger who is really the target, and not the message (fire retardent). It is, after all, closing in on an election year. The timing is just about right to have a favorable ruling come out in the heat of the election. And, this time the Oregon Greenie Weenies don't have a Warner Creek Salvage Sale for the Democrats to buy back from the purchaser as an environmental trophy, a timber scalp, like Clinton did in his re-election year. That he used your money to buy back that sale of fire killed, rotten hemlock and silver fir at five times its purchase price only shows the business acumen of the purchaser who played hard to get, and the larceny of the Clinton/Babbitt regime when it came time to buy good will within the public domain, and with public treasure.

If the Feds do not have to account for any dollar value of public resource destroyed by fire (habitat, timber, critters, lost opportunity, fouled water, fouled air, accelerated erosion, lost trails, the list is endless), and have never felt the need to support an EIS as to WFUs, and other let 'er burn mechanics, you have to know the Greenies are in it up to their eyeballs. And so are the NGO's of note. I will bet money that the Nature Consevancy has an officlal position that supports wholesale fire, and is a big influence on the Feds. Or another single use outfit, the RMEF. By summer's end, it will all be moot anyway. The newly burned will harbor another great bug infestation, and the rest of the green timber will turn red, and be kindling for the next conflagration. Too bad our national scorn for Native American land managment regimes is so deep rooted, and we can't figure out how to burn under the canopy in spring, or how to set the big fires in the dead timber in late fall ahead of certain rain and snow. I guess in 10,000 years, not one Native American had a peer reviewed paper on burning published, and that is the real problem: the academics are not going to support skills other than theirs.

Taz, You stated:

The Wacko (Waco is a defunct aircraft manufacturer) Extreme Environmental Exploiters (aka logging interests) routinely use excuses like beetle infestation or "salvage" logging to go into sensitive or protected areas and cut both dead and living trees, and of course the damage their road building does to water drainages cause erosion and water quality problems, although it's a boon to ATVer's.

There are NO excuses or logging interests to go into "sensitive" areas as you put. If we were allowed to go into the first infested area and removed the infested trees in the first place, then that would have STOPPED the progress and we would not have the tender box we have today. From Anchorage, all the way down the Kenai Peninsula, mountain sides are dead. Chugach National Forest, the second LARGEST forest in the United States (Tongess is the largest in Southeast Alaska) has a major problem now with beetle infestation.

This is no logging interest excuse here, as you put it Taz, it is a KNOWN FACT!

It costs a lot of money to fight these fires in populated areas, my money! If we were allowed to take care of the problem in the first place, we would not have to spend millions of dollars or yours and my money to fight these fires.

Thank your local Serra Club for extorting the money right out of your pockets. The majority of Americans want a healthy, productive forest. The Serra Club, other Environmental Waco Terrorist organizations like them and their members are the MINORITY of Americans. I am one of those American’s that is getting sick and tired of these groups using their crony judges to stop any progress.

Enough is Enough and it is time these types of groups become like the dinosaurs and become extinct!

Comment By Matthew Koehler, 8-23-07

Marion: According to the AP article, the judge stated, "It has been six years since Forest Service staff completed a 'retardant EA' - only to have higher-up officials embargo it." Apparently that "higher up" official was Mark Rey. If you're looking to blame anyone for the fact that this new contempt order is coming out during August's wildfires look no further than Rey's office.

Also, are you really serious that "environmentalism" is the biggest business in this country? Where are your stats to back that up? You should try and convince the Oil and Gas Industry, the Pharmaceutical Industry, the Coal Industry, the Real Estate Industry, the Defense Industry and the Insurance Industry (just to name a few) of that one!

Comment By Marion, 8-23-07

First of all, irregardless of how long they have been supposed to find a fire retardent friendly to fish, you can't provide what doesn't exist. Rey is a bureaucrat, not a scientist/researcher. Thanks the the enviro policies we have fires all over the west and we need to fight them....with whatever tools we have.
As for environmental groups being big business, lets start with the billion in the coffers of The Nature Conservancy. As I understand they are the largest landowner in the country and ?the world?.
http://www.wildlifeprotection.net/everything/NatureConservency.html
and:http://charityreports.bbb.org/Public/Report.aspx?CharityID=3716
Sierra club:
http://charityreports.bbb.org/public/Report.aspx?CharityID=1330

DOW:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/3605.htm

Remember these groups do not contriubte to wildlife themselves, they sue to force other people to do so, and these groups are jsut the tip of the iceberg.

Comment By Matthew Koehler, 8-23-07

Marion, Can you provide some evidence and facts that back up your statement: "Thanks the [sic] the enviro policies we have fires all over the west"? Specifically, I'd find it helpful to know exactly which fires are "due to the enviro policies we have." Could you please name which fires this year are due to the enviro policies? Is it every single fire? I would think not given that this year 6.5 million acres have burned but back in 1930 over 52 million acres burned (the most acres burned in the US on record) and during the period between 1923 and 1943 an average of 37 million acres burned every year.

I would think these "enviro policies" you vaguely speak of weren't around during the 1920s and 30s, so clearly they couldn't have caused those fires. So another question would be what do you suppose caused those fires, especially if you didn't have "enviro policies" to scapegoat? Thanks.

Comment By Taz Alago, 8-23-07

Marion –

The largest private landowner in the USA is Plum Creek Timber, a name you must be familiar with. As of 2004, they owned and managed 7.8 million acres in the USA. The Nature Conservancy doesn't very often sue anybody. They mostly buy land and make deals to preserve land from development. They certainly do contribute to wildlife themselves. Rather than sue to force "other people" to conserve wildlife, they buy the land and/or the development rights in order to preserve habitat. That's right, Marion, they buy the land and development rights. Doesn't cost you a cent. Doesn't cost the government a cent. Private property, right? As for big business, The Nature Conservancy has total assets of $3 billion. ExxonMobil had in fiscal 2007 revenues of $347.254 billion, a net income of $39.5 billion. ExxonMobil has 106,100 employees. You can see what a giant The Nature Conservancy is compared to just one of America's major corporations. Add in all the others and the environmental movement is small beer. You can check these figures on wikepedia or any other of dozens of sites.

Thomas –

Nobody denies the horrendous scale of bark infestation in the Kenai. However, the timber industry has a history of using these infestations as an excuse to harvest areas that have been placed off-limits to commercial logging. When doing a "salvage" harvest, they don't just take the dead and infested trees. They take healthy trees and they take other commercially valuable species. The beetle attacks White and Lutz spruce, but the loggers will also take Sitka spruce and hemlock. And no matter what they take, they leave the indelible effects of intensive industrial logging: the roads, the skidways, the erosion, the degraded forests. This damage lasts for decades. You're right that Americans want healthy forests, but an area that's endured a salvage operation is not a healthy forest.

This from the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Article #1688 http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF16/1688.html

"Bark beetles have eaten Alaska spruce for centuries, but the recent outbreak was of a magnitude so large that forest managers at the conference agreed they could do little but watch and salvage dead trees for wood chips or firewood.
Though the bark beetles ravaged the Kenai Peninsula and southcentral Alaska, the forests there are not devoid of spruce trees; the beetles chose larger, older trees, and did not kill younger, pole-sized spruce. Those smaller trees are now benefiting from the lack of competition, and mature spruce forests will someday return, Berg said, as will the spruce bark beetle."

Environmentalists prevented salvage operations in the National Forest to stop the destruction of forests for no purpose. It wouldn't stop the infestation. It would only serve the timber industry. Dead timber in populated areas is a different matter. There thinning should be, and is, done to limit fire danger. Most of the commercially logged timber in the Kenai is on private, state or borough land, and the owners can do what they deem necessary. But those parts of the National Forest which have been closed to logging should remain so, no matter the bark beetle. The forest will survive as it always has.

Comment By Marion, 8-23-07

Here is one article about investigations of TNC:
http://www.freedom21santacruz.net/site/article.php?sid=30

and:
http://www.senate.gov/~finance/press/Gpress/2005/prg060705.pdf
Tax law revisions and updates for non profits, including conservation easements.
http://www.agmconnect.org/pubpol/IRS/archive.aspx

The beetle kill and the fuel loads that have built up since logging was stopped are some of the reasons for the increasingly huge forest fires.
I would like to see yearly evaluations of the results of all environmentalist mandated changes, whether it is an "endangered" species or stopping grazing, logging or changing and area to a wilderness. Locals as well as enviros and officials should have input in these evaluations. Environmental groups who have filed the lawsuits resulting in any damage from these changes must be held accountable, financially and for putting things back to normal.

Comment By Thomas in Alaska, 8-23-07

Taz,

You make some valid points. I believe that there should be SOME forest left untouched, but not all of them and not the entire U.S., unless you want to stop having any wood products.

I will say lumber companies have not done themselves any favors by acting poorly. Nor has the government who does the oversight of these areas. But that is no reason to shut ALL logging down because they build a road or MAY disturb good growth versus cutting down infested trees.

I have seen the damage that the beetle has done and the Environmental Waco Terrorist should not have so much power to destroy people’s lives and jobs.

Bottom line: Save SOME areas, but as with any industry such as oil, gas, mining, do it responsible, have the appropriate level of over sight and if the companies don't follow the rules, shut them done!

Trees, America's renewable resource!

Comment By Taz Alago, 8-23-07

Well Thomas,

Maybe we're not so far apart. I built my house of wood. I don't, nor do mainline environmentalists, suggest stopping all logging on public lands. Do keep in mind we're talking about public lands here. No matter how it may appear to localities, far and away the greatest part of public timberlands in the USA are open to commercial logging. Part of the reason that people like myself are so disturbed about logging is the way it's done. So we defend forests against what we believe to be destructive industrial practices. The lumber industry has proven to be insatiable, and very aggressive in pursuit of publicly owned forest resources. Often, they treat public lands much worse than they do their own forests. In the last couple of decades it's been up to the environmentalists to raise the alarm about what we view as irresponsible plundering of public resources. As you say, lumber companies have not done themselves any favours by acting so poorly, and they have by and large been getting away with it. Since the industry does not oversee itself, and since government oversight has been weak, it has been up to the environmental groups to provide oversight through the courts.

Comment By Thomas in Alaska, 8-24-07

Taz,

The Environmentalists are also not doing themselves any favors. Their EXTREME left position hurts them and America too.

Look this story below, which by the way, is typical. When they start cost good folks their lives to "protect" a wilderness, it is time for thr Enviros to go.

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/rural/story/9242218p-9156732c.html

Not all lumber companies are bad partners. But it takes only a few to screw it up.

Again: Trees are America's renewable resource!

Serra Club can "kiss my axe!"

Comment By Matthew Koehler, 8-25-07

Vancouver (WA) Columbian Editorial
8/23/2007

Rey vs. Judge: Forest Service boss is out of line

Shame on U.S. Forest Service boss Mark Rey for his disregard for environmental laws and the courts. U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy, in Missoula, Mont., is quite justifiably fed up with it.

Last Friday, Rey, an undersecretary in the Department of Agriculture and former timber lobbyist who oversees the Forest Service, was ordered by Molloy to explain in court on Oct. 15 why he should not be held in contempt and face jail time. It'll be interesting to hear what Rey has to say, because on the surface this Bush Administration appointee's actions have been contemptible in two ways.

First, the basic issue is the Forest Service's failure to reveal the effects on fish of the orange retardant dropped from planes onto wildfires. It was back in 2005 that Molloy ruled the agency was violating the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to publicly analyze the retardant's impact.

The Forest Service's groundwork for such an analysis already had been done, as the judge noted: "It has been six years since Forest Service staff completed a 'retardant EA' (environmental assessment) - only to have higher-up officials embargo it."

By February 2006, nothing had come of Judge Molloy's order for public analysis. Still, he was more than accommodating, giving Rey and the Forest Service until Aug. 8 of this year to comply. But, Molloy said if the government wanted even more time than that, it would have to request it well in advance, and not just before the Aug. 8, 2007, deadline.

And the second way Rey acted with contempt? On Aug. 8 he requested another extension.

Comment By Marion, 8-25-07

Once more, the fires have to be fought!!!!! So what difference does it make whether the retardent can be proven to be fish safe enough to suit the enviros? It simply has to be used. What is the purpose of the whole thing, except to waste tons of tax payer dollars and try to turn a little more control of people's lives over to the unelected, unaccountable environmental lobby buying power? Why aren't the environmental groups that stopped the logging having to do studies to show the actual effect of the policies they have forced on the American people?
If environmental groups have information that what is used is bad and they have an alternative that is safer, why aren't they presenting it instead of wasting all of this time and money? Politics and control of the American people is why.

Comment By Matthew Koehler, 8-26-07

Marion,

I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence and facts that answer the questions I posed earlier. You seem to be good casting blame in general terms, but the going gets a little tougher when evidence and facts are required, eh? In addition to the questions below I also would like to ask you if "enviro policies" are to blame for the deadly (arson-started) wildfires in Greece?

Previous questions you failed to answer:

Marion, Can you provide some evidence and facts that back up your statement: "Thanks the [sic] the enviro policies we have fires all over the west"? Specifically, I'd find it helpful to know exactly which fires are "due to the enviro policies we have." Could you please name which fires this year are due to the enviro policies? Is it every single fire? I would think not given that this year 6.5 million acres have burned but back in 1930 over 52 million acres burned (the most acres burned in the US on record) and during the period between 1923 and 1943 an average of 37 million acres burned every year.

I would think these "enviro policies" you vaguely speak of weren't around during the 1920s and 30s, so clearly they couldn't have caused those fires. So another question would be what do you suppose caused those fires, especially if you didn't have "enviro policies" to scapegoat? Thanks.

Comment By bearbait, 8-26-07

Matthew: How many acres of industrial land have burned and how many of public lands? Knowing that a majority of forest land in Oregon is public (17 million acres Federal, 1 million state and county, 10 million private) and knowing that Montana must have numbers like that, whose land is burning and why? The checkerboard lands have adverse environmental results on private and fire issues on public. So is it just ducky that public fires, evidently a "good" thing, burn across private lands where it is not felt that fire is a "good" thing? Is fire making private lands more environmentally friendly? Better habitat? Improving water quality and watershed health?

In town, if your neighbor has a junk yard dog and a piss poor fence, that is a threat. No damage occurs until the dog gets free. In the forest land issue, it is the public land fire threat that goes unabated, a threat, because of piss poor management and the damage occurs when the "good" fire burns private lands. I think there is a large segment ofr the population that has given up on responsible public land management, and just wants the Feds to keep the fires on their land. If that means they have to build fire lines or fuel free belts along private lands, then that is the answer. It is not the private land owners responsibility alone, to have a fuel free zone around structures, and other personal property, and not have the Feds taking any responsibility to act accordingly.

The issue with the retardent is that it is a valuable tool, right now, and to lose it for the rest of this season is unacceptable. Congflagration will not be fish friendly. The loss of riparian vegetation, alone, if you believe the anti-logging argument, will surely kill all the fish anyway by raising stream temps. The loss of the watershed vegetation, if you believe the anti-logging arguments, will result in accelerated erosion, a ph change in stream water, all detrimental to fish. The chemicals go away in a short time. The fire damage takes decades to heal to prior conditions. The argument at this time is specious, has all the appearance of an internal power play by the ranting rank and file to challenge leadership, and is not in the best interests of the work at hand. This winter is a fine time to have that discussion, to go to court, and those USFS and other Govt employees who are the members of Stahl's Quislings should damned well better have an approved, proven alternative in place. A chain saw, even fighting fire, still kills trees. Fire, unabated, kills fish. The issue becomes whether you want the fish poached or poisoned.

The issue is, has been, and will be: FUELS BURN. TOO MUCH FUEL BURNS TOO HOT, BURNS TOO MANY OTHER RESOURCES, AND DOES NOT RESPECT PROPERTY BOUNDARIES!!!! Arguing about how to put out the fire is disingenuous, and removes the spotlight from the real problems. Too many trees result in too little water for every tree, which causes stress, lack of vigor, which allows insects to invade, which kills the trees, their becoming dry fuels, which burn too hot, across too much landscape. Fuel reduction would do more to solve fire problems, but the Andy Stahl Quisling USFS ranting rank and file don't want to reduce fuels, either. Like little kids in pre school, they want what they want right now, and will tattle, make up stories, and tug at the teachers apron strings all day long. Help me, Judge! Help me, Judge! If those folks were on the ball, they would be leadership and not followers. If their ideas and interests are so good, then their supervisory persons would be stealing the ideas for political gain.

Comment By Marion, 8-26-07

I can't possibly say it as well as bearbait does. You may consider miles of dead trees a monument to the power of the environmental movement, and so do I, but while you may like it, I do not. They are pine beetle breeding grounds, and the death keeps spreading, simply because environmentalists will not allow any timbering to take place, and get things under control.
A few years ago thee was a blow down in northern Colorado, a small lumber mill in Saratoga got the contract to go in and clean it out....which is a means of disease protection, then the problems begain. Lawsuit after lawsuit was filed, one even insisting on solar powered chainsaws to be used, and no, the fact they didn't exist didn't change the demand.
It took nearly 3 years to finally get in and get it, most of the wood was rotten and of course not only was that wounded wood infected with beetles, so was the surrounding timber, which has now spread.
That mill is no longer in operation.
I don't know how accurate your figues for the 30s are, but I can say you can't even begin to compare fire fighting methods and effectiveness.
I don't really think you care one iota about the forest, only about the power and control you are able to take, otherwise you'd be willing to take a look at the policies that have been forced through by environmental groups and see if they need to be changed. Something is clearly wrong with management of our resources by enviros who have nothing whatsoever at stake., only a lot of lawyers.

Comment By Matthew Koehler, 8-27-07

BearBait: Many of the most significant fires threatening homes and communities are burning through heavily logged and roaded landscapes and even grasslands without any trees. The Jocko Lakes Fire near Seeley Lake has ripped through Plum Creek Timber Company lands that are among the most heavily logged and roaded in western Montana. Likewise for Montana's largest wildfire, the Chippy Creek Fire north of Plains, burning on lands managed by Plum Creek, Forest Service, Montana DNRC and the Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Same thing on the Black Cat fire north of Frenchtown burning its way through the heavily logged Mill Creek area. I spoke with a Forest Service employee over the weekend who was stationed on that fire and he said it ripped through the heavily logged/roaded landscape, including burning hot through the recently finished Fournier "healthy forest" timber sale on the Lolo National Forest.

Furthermore, much of the total acreage burned isn't even forested, such as the 653,000 acre Murphy Complex that earlier this year raced through southwestern Idaho's sagebrush and grassland country with nary a tree in sight or the 362,000 acre Milford Flat Fire, the largest in Utah's history. Clearly more logging would have had zero impact on these wildfires that rate as the nation's two largest fires of 2007 and currently account for over 15% of all fire acres nationally. The same can be said for the nearly one million acres that have burned through the swamps of Florida and Georgia this year.

Marion: I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence and facts that answer the questions I posed earlier (twice now). Like I stated, you seem to be good casting blame in general terms, but struggle when evidence, facts and specifics are required. As you'll recall you stated, ""Thanks the [sic] the enviro policies we have fires all over the west"?

Specifically, I'd find it helpful to know exactly which fires are "due to the enviro policies we have." Is every single fire in the west the result of "enviro policies?" If not, please provide the names of fires that are, in your opinion, the result of "enviro policies." That way my organization can evaluate the evidence you provide and figure out if your accusation is correct. I'd also like to know if "enviro policies" are responsible for wildfires in Greece, Canada, Australia, Portugal, Russia, et al or just in the US?

You also state, "I don't know how accurate your figues [sic] for the 30s are."

Unfortunately, fire acreage burned stats dating back to 1900 were purged from the NIFC website shortly after the Bush Administration took office. Maybe that was by design. I was able to obtain the following Forest Service spreadsheet, which only goes back to 1917 but may be useful: http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/global/pubs/books/fslulc2/fireburn.xls .

The fact of the matter is that the record year for acres burned in the US is 1930 when over 52 million acres burned. Also from the period between 1923 and 1943 an average of 37 million acres burned every year. That's a pretty amazing stat if you think about it, especially considering that as of today under 7 million acres have burned nationally but some are calling it the "worst" fire season on record. Why do you suppose some people would be doing that?

Comment By Marion, 8-27-07

Of course Matthew, you are correct, I cannot pinpoint exactly which forests had logging stopped and the speed with which beetles might have come in. That is because instead of monitoring the forests when policies are changed to accommodate the lawsuits by green groups, the FS is then fighting more lawsuits over timbering, mice, owls, gootchie wootchies, etc. and have no money left for management.
Would you agree that we need annual reports on the condition of the forests where logging has been stopped for monitoring? Or do you feel that whatever you want should be above any accountability at all?
Can you tell me exactly which areas have had logging stopped in the last 20 years and what the health of those forests is?

This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/main/article/montana_judge_calls_out_forest_service_overseer/