8/29/2002 03:07:01 PM|||Amy|||Principles of forest management aside, Bush isn't trying to create buffer zones. He wants to "thin" (his word) the forests out. He is completely right in that if there is only one tree every quarter of a mile, then fire will only be able to spread via dry grass or other matter between each tree. Meanwhile, the market is glutted with timber which destroys an already struggling timber industry with too much wood, as opposed to not enough wood. Species who have a natural habitat in those forests will be forced to migrate or be destroyed. That Bush has said, "For too long, America's fire prevention strategy has been shortsighted" and also said that he doesn't want any legal measures to prevent his plan from being initiated signifies his own shortsighted, pac fueled motives. Yes, there is merit to his plan in that the clearing of brush and smaller trees which fuel massive fires should help this problem, but it seems to me that he's advocating giving logging companies carte blanche to the forests. The questions that have to be answered are how much is enough, and at what point should the "thinning" process be stopped? Clearing the brush and the smaller trees won't stop fire from spreading through the canopies or the tops of the bigger trees, so will the National Forestry Service go through and mark which trees should be cut and which ones shouldn't - if they do this, will they be able to balance out the ecological needs of the forest with the thinning measures? And what happens when for whatever reason (budget, et al) the NFS can't control the cuts? The loggers will either be stalled (bad) or given the go ahead without a managed blueprint to control the process (also bad). Something does need to happen. It's just too bad that all the morons in this world can't be restricted from having access to fire.|||80884377|||