We've frequently used the phrase "infrastructure collapse" to describe the slow erosion of wood product ...
My friend Craig Thomas sent me another e-mail note the other night. It nearly broke my heart. He is lonely. He misses his wife and kids and being home for the summer in ...
We continue our discussion in rebuttal to the recent Idaho Statesman series of articles [here], and for good measure, in rebuttal to an excruciatingly incompetent series of articles in support of Let Burn published in the Los Angeles Times [here].
Let It Burn is illegal, destructive of a multitude of forest and human values, is not cost-effective, and is the worst idea that ever came down the forest pike. Let me count the ways.
13. Let It Burn Is Politically Motivated
We have shown that Let It Burn fires damage natural resources including flora, fauna, water, air, and soils. They also damage human resources including recreation, scenery, heritage, and land management agency budgets. The damages are not one time, nor ephemeral; they are lasting and they accumulate.
We have cited numerous scientific reports that support those contentions. Indeed, the vast bulk, if not the consensus, of forest scientists are in agreement that catastrophic forest fires cause severe destruction of natural resources and present deadly hazards to people, from firefighters to homeowners.
What then motivates the a-scientific and destructively irrational policy of Let It Burn? It is extreme political leanings, principally neo-socialist and anti-American political gamesmanship.
Click here to read the full article