East Valley resident Linda Turley-Hansen
(email@example.com) is a syndicated columnist and former
Phoenix veteran TV anchor.
Current users sign in here.
You miss the point. An illustration might be the fact that the Presidio at Tubac was built in sight of the mission at Tumacacori. Now thick growth prevents even a glimpse of Tubac from the old mission. Why? Agricultural runoff and total mismanagement of water resources. The forests of the nineteenth century were naturally thinner, as they had been for centuries. The fires and their devastation are a symptom, not the disease, and putting a bandaid on the symptom is hardly a cure.
Linda Turley-Hansen is using her column as an advertisement for the logging industry. She has a long family history in Show Low and surrounding area. What may have appeared to work 100 years ago, Linda, does not mean it is sustainable today. That is what the logging industry really wants – sustainability. That means unfettered access to build new roads in to pristine forest to clear cut large trees to feed the saw machines. That is what the timber harvest industry wants.
Linda said, “private citizens to wisely harvest”. If private citizens were so wise, greed would not be a deadly sin. It was your ancestors, friends and neighbors who helped create the sick condition the forests are in, Linda. It would be nice if we tax-payers could get our money back from you and demand that you fix it; but like Pearce, who will never repay the Fiesta Bowl, the logging industry will never own its responsibility.
Linda's logic appears to run down the same lines as, " X% of marijuana users were breast fed, therefore, breast feeding causes drug use."
The body of evidence (credible, scientific research) indicates Linda's perspective is based on ideology and personal opinion...and factual wrong.
Root Cause ... Ya think ..... Maybe?
Go Here and then say hind sight isn't 20-20....
Hmmm.....Crickets......I guess Mr. Wavering was right in stating, that tree huggers would be conspicuously absent in their defenses.....[yawn]...
You are "spot on" Linda. The ideologies & phylosophical bable of the latter two commentors, prior to mine, only prove that their adgenda's are hit & run. These types of environmentalists have been running an experiment based on theory's by individuals & organizations that rallied for political gain & 15 minutes worth of fame 25 years ago! Who are they? Who cares! Obviously the fruit from their effort has borne nothing but excessive smoke, ashes, loss of economical preservation and hog tying the USFS due to laws misrepresented by scientific theory (now disproven, obviously) from 30 years ago! Around the country, silence is the begining of wisdom for these people. And I think they are waiting for someone like yourself to get them literally out of the fire....With all due respect......You go Girl!!
Dear Cousin Linda [by marriage and second cousins if I count correctly]
I have yet to hear from any of my third cousins once removed in Kaibab Industries that they are [were] chomping at the bit to be turned loose on any thining projects. I suspect your research is wrong.
Where you state "To replace what commercial loggers did, the feds have developed forest-thinning programs, enough to prove thinning works in keeping fires cooler, but their budgets never go far enough, as the Wallow fire proved." you are correct. The Mexican Spotted Owl had nothing to do with this problem. But then you continue by saying "One must ask, why use our tax dollars to pay for work private industry is begging for?" I have heard no begging from Kaibab.
Blankcheck! What are your sources?
D. W. ... The litigation and legislative actions at many points in time (at least since 1970 and 1892 with greenpeace) ... have involved every environmental NGO and is nothing new. Superficial, bias & brief information can be found here in this link:: http://knowyourthreat.com/resources/Ecoterrorism+in+the+US.Online.pdf and potential solutions, from a few years back, are included in this one: http://www.nwenvironmentalforum.org/documents/forumreportc.pdf
Or just “google” anything to do with the theory on deforestation / forest thinning / overlogging /etc., as it relates to Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Earth First!, Earth Liberation Front (ELF,) etc., etc., etc.. …..Bone-up & get back.
I did as you suggested and this is what I found.http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/papers/r-c_report.pdfThe report looked at documents from the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest that described forest conditions and management decisions made by the Southwest Region Forest Service. From the report: “ Sitgreaves national forest is one of the most heavily logged, grazed and roaded forests in the Southwest Region of the U.S. Forest Service (Arizona and New Mexico). It has less old growth, fewer roadless areas, and fewer wilderness areas than the other eleven forests. Virtually every acre within the Rodeo-Chediski fire area was intensively logged, grazed, and roaded. In the past 13 years alone, the Forest Service conducted ten timber sales within its portion of the fire area. Forest Service employees and the Arizona Game and Fish Department repeatedly warned that the logging levels on the Apache-Sitgreaves were unsustainable and Game and Fish even appealed the Forest Plan. Numerous Forest Service studies in the 1990’s warned that overgrazing by livestock within the fire area was causingdangerous fuel loads by allowing large numbers of small pine trees to take root."
C'mon CERULEAN tell me something I don't know .... all you had to do was just post the link....and maybe its mission....? (don't worry, I took a page out of liberal necessity when trying to prove a point....used your hit & run, i.e. cut & paste tactic. Now how about a little logical interpretation beyond your last post.
The mission of "biologicaldiversity.org"
"At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive." "We want those who come after us to inherit a world where the wild is still alive." GOOD LUCK WITH THAT! !!
I guess the only thing that strikes me as a little concerning is that they "do so through" ... among other things ... "creative media, ..." But, I guess that's no surprise.
I have just one question. Who thinned the forests before civilization set in? I can only speculate that nature took care of things. If there was a fire, it burned until it reached the point where there was no fuel or the weather took care of things. I have no doubt that some forest management is necessary but if it involves clear cutting, I say no way.
There are no 'natural' spaces left. Man has significantly changed the environment in too many ways for even the most secluded areas to be 'wild'. Leaving things alone is as irresponsible as clear cutting. It takes some research, and some common sense. For example reintroducing wolves into an eco-structure where coyotes have become the predominant predator is brain damaged. Most so-called 'ecology is thinking with emotions rather than logic, and that usually leads to tragedy, as we are seeing. Recognize that over 400 million people in North America, just living changes the environment radically, and every square foot requires maintenance without which you court disaster, time and time again.
what is the difference between having your wilderness experience ruined by a controlled burn or having your wilderness experience ruined by a fire that might have prevented by a controlled burn?
Seeing that few apparently know the answer to samkat's question, allow me. None of my Kaibab counsins are chiming in.
"Who thinned the forests before civilization set in?" The more proper question would be "How was the forest thinned before my counsins at Kaibab Forest Products and others stepped in and clear cut? And how did clear cutting cause today's problems?
Old Growth are trees rather spread out from each other and large, branches high up and trunks well beyond the diameter at risk to ground based brush fires. It was not uncommon for this mixed age forest to sustain a brush fire spreading from west to east about every five years or so but never getting high enough to crown and burn the old growth's high up branches or chare its trunks. With natural fires, the forest thinned itself.
Now we have next to no old growth. The growth we do have is entirely too uniform and not sufficiently high up to avoid early crowning. So man has to artifically "thin" new growth, selecting what trees are to remain, taking out what is not, until we have old growth once again. How long does new growth have to grow until it becomes old growth and will not easily crown? The age of old growth is at least 60 years, more typically 100 years. And the Mexican spotted owl lives in old growth.
Much of our old growth was logged off by my cousins between 1930 and 1960 to build Los Angeles. There was a saying. If land in Northern Arizona is not owned by the federal or state government, then it's owned by either the Babits or my counsins.
Samkat, you stated things pretty well. What cousin Linda fails to understand is that 60 years of thinning trees mostly too small to be usefull as timber is not something my other counsins are willing to do for free.
More from Columnists
East Valley Tribune
Phone number: 480-TRIBUNE
Address: 1620 W. Fountainhead Parkway, Ste. 219
Tempe, AZ 85282
More Contact Information...
Please be brief (no more than 250 words) and submit your contact information for verification purposes. Comments may be edited for clarity and length.
A Division of 10/13 Communications