R.J. Smith Debates Greenpeace Representative on Forest Thinning
By Robert J. Smith
Created 06/07/2003 - 07:00
FEDRICKA WHITFIELD, HOST: This week, environmental groups accused the Bush Administration of endangering the nation's forests with its plan called the Healthy Forest Initiative. But supporters of the initiative say it's critically needed to control wildfires.
Joining us with some differing views on the subject are R.J. Smith of the Center for Private Conservation and Scott Paul of Greenpeace. Welcome to both of you.
R.J. SMITH, CENTER FOR PRIVATE CONSERVATION: Thank you.
WHITFIELD: R.J., let me begin with you. What's your interpretation of this plan?
SMITH: Well, I certainly don't think this is going to endanger the forests. I think burning the forests down has been what has been a threat and endangerment to the nation's forests, and this is a step in the right direction to recognize that our forest management policies over the last 20 years have been an absolute disaster. I mean, we've been burning down our forests left and right; we've been losing clean air, clean water, destroying wildlife and wildlife habitat, burning down the homes of endangered species, all because people say we should not go in and manage the forests. And now we're finally waking up to the fact that we can't afford to burn down these millions of acres every year or every other year in the national forests…
And I think this is across the board. I mean, Republicans and Democrats alike recognize that we are sitting on a ticking time bomb with our forest management policy, and we must change it and that's what the House voted to do.
WHITFIELD: Well, R.J. let me bring Scott into the picture. Scott, the argument has been that you have to have some sort of managed burning of these forests because they're likely to burn out of control, and there you end up having a problem of a number of the habitats, human or otherwise, that become destroyed in these wildfires. Is this the right approach in which to have some sort of controlled burnings?
SCOTT PAUL, GREENPEACE: The president's plan is not the right approach. First of all, it's very important to remember that fires are a natural part of the forest ecosystem. The president's plan is taking advantage of a very serious problem, it's preying on fears. When you're talking about forest fires, the president's plan mixes apples and oranges. The president is essentially planning to log Idaho to save Malibu. The Forest Service's own statistics say if you want to protect forests in and around homes, then you manage the land within 200 feet of the home itself and you fireproof the home itself. The president is planning on going out to Idaho to log old growth forests to pay back political campaign contributions and his plan does not speak directly to the buffer zone--the 200-foot buffer zone in and around communities.
Historically, last year's fires were not above average in the wilderness. The problem took place in and around urban developments where the homes were not properly defended against outbreak of fire.
WHITFIELD: So, R.J., do you see it this way? Robbing Peter to pay Paul?
SMITH: No, I think last year the forests came out of roadless areas. The missionary fire in Colorado, I mean, we burned down 40,000 acres of roadless areas—that was more than has been cut in those areas in 10 years. The fires that took place in Arizona in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests came out of wild roadless areas where there was no way to get in and fight those areas. And what the president is calling for and what the western governors are calling for, and remember, almost one-fifth of all democrats in the House voted for this "Healthy Forest" management act. They want to go in and to thin out the forests, reduce the deadwood, take out dead and dying trees, diseased trees, insect ridden trees, take out all the...
WHITFIELD: But, is that what happens—this selective approach of looking for the dying or deadened or diseased trees? Or it's just take out a lot, you know, a designated area?
SMITH: We have to take out a lot of this underbrush, a lot of this—all these trees in there, I mean, we used to—yes, fire is natural provided you haven't prevented it for 100 years like we have and in particular since Smoky the Bear came in. We put out every fire, we haven't allowed natural fires to come in, so we don't have natural forests anymore, it's filled with thickets.
WHITFIELD: Scott, how do you respond to that?
PAUL: The fires last year that took place in the wilderness, in the wilderness in the roadless areas, were by no means above average, the national norm. In fact over the last century, they were under half the average of national norm. The Forest Service itself said that these fires were not above average. The issue is fire in and around urban development, fire in and around homes. The president's plan does not speak to this. The president uses scare tactics such as fire outbreak and shows images of fires devastating rural developments. Meanwhile he's directing the Forest Service to go to Idaho, to rural areas that are naturally fire resistant. The president's plan does not speak to protection of fires in and around communities. It directs the Forest Service into old growth ancient forests that are naturally fire resistant, where fire is a natural part of the ecosystem.
WHITFIELD: And, R.J....
SMITH: I just disagree with that, I think it's an effort to thin out and make the forests healthy everywhere in the West and I think it's a cop-out on the part of some of the radical environmental movement…
PAUL: No, this is...
WHITFIELD: Well, R.J., why not...
SMITH: ...to say that all we have to…
WHITFIELD: Let me interject…
SMITH: ...is have a little buffer...
WHITFIELD: Let me interject. R.J., why not let Nature take its course since the majority of wildfires that took place, most recently in Florida, about three years ago, the majority of those wildfires took place and were sparked as a result of lightning strikes?
SMITH: All right, well, what we did, we—with Smoky the Bear, we started a policy of putting out fires everywhere and once you had such a ticking time bomb of fuel, of deadwood, of dead and dying trees, of thickets of brush, and so on that weren't being cleared out, then when a fire comes through it's absolutely devastating. It destroys the whole forest, it destroys the wildlife, the endangered species, the water quality in streams, and so on. And, what this is an effort to is to begin to reduce those fuel loads in the forest, so that we'll have healthy forests and then we can have periodic fires that will go through the forests and clean the forest out and not do any harm. And if you let...
WHITFIELD: Well, Scott, do you...
PAUL: Fredricka, this just plain isn't true, where the fires are taking place at extreme intensity are areas that the Forest Service has already managed, where they went in and logged and mislogged for decades. These are where the significant fires are taking place. These are fires that are coming into the urban wilderness interface and destroying homes. The wilderness areas, these are not unnatural fires, these are part of the ecosystem and these are not causing significant...
WHITFIELD: So Scott, it's your contention it's not the wildlife that is being protected here, but instead, it may be the real estate?
PAUL: Well, who's being protected here, are the political kind of people who are making political campaign contributions. $71 million in campaign contributions came in from the timber and mining industry on our National Forests. These are the people who are being paid back. The president is using claims of excessive red tape and fire scare to give the timber industry access to forests that they've coveted for years.
WHITFIELD: All right, Scott. Well, R.J., you get the last 10 seconds.
SMITH: The people who have access to the forests are all of the people, they're managed for multiple use. So, receptionists can get in there, families can get in there, people who are handicapped can get in the forests. That's what forests—roads in the forest are for. Yes, people go in and log.
PAUL: Logging is for handicapped people?
SMITH: But the logs are used for people, they build homes...
WHITFIELD: OK...
SMITH: ...people like toilet paper, they like Kleenex, they like these things that come out of the forest and it also allows people to bird watch in the forest, to hunt and fish, and recreate in the forest.
WHITFIELD: R.J. Smith of the Center for Private Conservation, and Scott Paul of Greenpeace, thanks very much gentlemen, for joining us.
PAUL: Thank you.
SMITH: It was good to be on, Fredricka.