Tehachapi News

All > Forum
Litigation threatens communities, forests and wildlife
Topics:
Posted by editor Fri Aug 4, 2006 13:15:45 PDT
Viewed 491 times
1 response 0 comments When 740,000 acres across Southern California burned in catastrophic wildfires in October 2003, groups that literally make a living by obstructing government efforts to manage forests claimed that it wasn’t their fault the forests had become overcrowded.

The other results of those horrific fires weren’t their fault either: endangered wildlife dead, killed in the scorching fire; watersheds for millions of Californians dramatically damaged by ash and erosion; and native plants wiped out.

Now, those same groups — this time led by the so-called Center for Biological Diversity — are taking aim at our four National Forests in Southern California, seeking to prevent the U.S. Forest Service from implementing a balanced plan to manage the land, including efforts to thin forests and brushland to help prevent catastrophic wildfire.

Three years ago, we saw the result of a refusal to properly manage the San Bernardino National Forest— one of California’s worst catastrophic wildfires.

The forests — thanks to policies based on myth instead of science — became wildly overgrown, with hundreds of trees per acre where only 30 or 40 should have been. The result: the trees became weak, unable to get the nutrients and water they needed to survived.

When bark beetles infested the trees, the weakened trees couldn’t fight back and most trees in the forest died — becoming perfect kindling for a catastrophic fire.

Within weeks of those catastrophic fires, Democrats and Republicans in Congress united to overwhelmingly pass the Healthy Forest Restoration Act to better manage
federal forests.

Standing firmly opposed to any real management of forests — then and now — are environmental extremists like the Center for Biological Diversity.

Unfortunately, this is not a unique situation.

In 2004, two major fires hit Amador and El Dorado counties, killing trees on tens of thousands of acres of forestland. Ash from the fire blanketed many areas, including Sacramento, where particulate in the air was 60 times the normal level, forcing people to stay indoors and canceling everything from family outings to football games.

After the fire, registered foresters and a variety of scientists recommended that the Forest Service allow private companies to reduce the future fire risk by removing dead and dying trees — and paying the government for the wood removed.

But rather than permitting the removal of these trees killed by wildfires in 2004 and reducing future fire danger, extremist organizations sued, asking the court to block any removal.

Meanwhile, the dead and dying trees rot further every day, losing their value — and robbing the government and taxpayers of any funds that these private companies might be willing to pay for the wood. Such monies could be used to restore public forestland.

Even plans to reduce fire risks by removing excess growth at the Giant Sequoia National Monument get targeted for obstruction — even though thinning there was agreed to by environmental groups when the Monument was created by President Clinton.

Once again, the groups march into court, beholden to a belief that no tree should ever be cut.

The memory of the 2002 McNally fire apparently is lost on these groups. That fire burned more than 100,000 acres and came dangerously close to some of the Giant Sequoias. The Forest Service’s plan would remove some small trees that act as “ladder fuels” — bringing the fire up to taller trees.

But it is on hold now — leaving the forest at risk even today.

Since common sense hasn’t convinced environmental extremists, it is time for them to at least accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Recently, a coalition of Tuolumne County organizations, represented by Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys, asked a court to require these environmental extremists to post a bond so that if their litigation fails, the government and taxpayers will get the money they would have received from private companies for the dead and dying wood.

If the litigation succeeds, then no payment would be required.

Such a requirement would deliver a consequence to those who file lawsuit after lawsuit against responsible forest management and ensure some payment to the government and taxpayers.

No payment can reverse the devastation caused by catastrophic wildfires, but it is time for those who thwart efforts to reduce risk to accept responsibility for their actions.

Damien M. Schiff is an attorney with the non-profit Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing a group of Tuolumne County organizations in forest management litigation against environmental groups. Pacific Legal Foundation is the oldest and largest public interest legal organization dedicated to property rights, limited government, and a balanced approach to environmental protection.

 

Send to a Friend

Report a Violation