Bush Plan Provides Plenty of Smoke

Bush Plan Provides Plenty of Smoke
by Nathan Poole, Columnist

August 29, 2002

Contributor Nathan Poole President Bush announced his new forestry plan last Thursday atop a charred mountain peak in Oregon. Bush proposed to end the U.S. government's policy of letting local officials deal with the problem of forest fires and of letting fires on federal land burn themselves out. The new plan calls on the timber industry to clear out certain areas in a forest in the hopes of preventing a fire that may spread out of control.

"We need to understand that if you let kindling build up and there's a lightning strike, you're going to get yourself a big fire," Bush said. "We are trying to bring a little common sense to forest policy. Had we properly managed our forests, the devastation caused would not have been nearly as severe as it has been, and it's a crying shame." Very eloquently said, Mr. President.

Critics, of course, are seeing smoke. "Come stand where I stand," the president challenged environmentalists and others who would be quick to criticize his new stance. "The point is that we can prevent fire by good sound practice."

Fine. Let's take a closer look at Bush's so-called "good sound practice." First of all, I agree with the president that thinning is a smart step to take in preventing disastrous forest fires. Fires are a naturally occurring part of life in the forests, and nobody should attempt to stop all fires. However, given the situation that we currently find ourselves in, we must take steps to prevent larger fires by starting controlled fires. The practice of thinning will help to control the fires that must be started and to help slow the fires started accidentally.

Does the president's plan truly call for thinning, though? Of course not. Thinning-as a practice of preventing forest fires-is the removal and clearing of undergrowth and debris found on the surface of the forest. What the president is calling for is the removal of healthy trees. Sure, this plan will thin the forests, but it definitely will not serve to stop the spread of a fire.

And where, exactly, will this thinning take place? Around homes, where it is needed most and will do the greatest amount of good? Of course not. It will take place up to twenty miles away from the nearest communities, where the so-called practice of thinning will protect absolutely nobody. You see, removing the true kindling-the undergrowth and debris-costs money and will not benefit the logging industry. Removing trees near homes is also quite expensive, and those trees are just not the ones that the logging industry lusts after.

President Bush has trumped-up a phony environmental policy in order to cater to the logging industry. Not only does his plan not help the forests or the people who reside in them, but it is also dishonest and wrong. I am not against the logging industry; there is a definite need for their product, and it is good for the local economies. Must we, however, invent environmental policy to help them? ***

A native of San Antonio, Texas and a veteran of the United States Air Force, Nathan Poole is employed by the United States Postal Service. He lives in Irwindale, California with his wife and family.

Photo of the author courtesy of staff files