http://www.nandotimes.com/politics/story/508332p-4041334c.htmlI can just imagine the sequence of events that lead to this:Bush - \”Hrrm, wildfires are a problem right now. Wildfires need trees to burn. We need to get rid of the trees\”Logging lobbyist - \”Hey, thats our job! We can do that!\”I agree that excessive deadwood and underbrush do increase the chances of wildfires. What I don’t follow is how having the logging companies coming in and knocking down trees will affect the deadwood and underbrush. I mean honestly, how? Currently, there already exists programs that help remove these risk factors in national forests. Seriously, what justfies such a change in policy?Oh, and by the way, increased logging in national forests was a part of Bush/Cheney’s wonderful Energy Policy that was released almost a year ago. You know, the one that had lots of nice closed door meetings with various interests, including the logging industry.
No tag for this post.{ 2002 08 22 }
