Crowdog
07-21-2002, 04:31 AM
If you want to send a letter to the editor to appear in our print edition, write to letters@ocregister.com . Letters must be signed and give the writer's name and telephone number (addresses and telephone numbers will not be published). Letters of about 200 words will be given preference.
Jon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ocregister.com/commentary/
Sunday, July 21 2002
Readers React:
Take a shared approach to saving forests
CHRIS VARGAS
Mr. Vargas, who lives in Cypress, is executive director of the Warrior's Society Mountain Bike Club.
In light of recent catastrophic fires, it is time for us to consider the current California Wilderness Bill sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer and a coalition of environmental organizations. There is a need for protection, but the problem with the agenda of Senator Boxer and these mainstream environmental organizations is they try to give the most stringent method of management on areas that really do not need or warrant that protection.
For too long they have used the argument that we should be willing to give up access and sustainable resource recovery to protect the forests. But many of the areas they are pushing for wilderness would be better managed as an alternative designation. I believe that in some areas that meet the criteria for wilderness, i.e., no trails or roads whatsoever and no need for management methods such as tree thinning or sustainable resource recovery, they should be considered for wilderness.
A certain level of access should be provided for recreation and the proper forest management methods needed, including logging and controlled burns, to thin out the forests. Some areas of the forest have 10 times the number of trees they had 100 years ago. This was due to us stopping the normal method of management - fire.
With the proper balance of thinning and controlled burns, we can establish a balanced and sustainable method of managing our forests. It is a fallacy to think the best management policy is to allow overgrowth and only use fire as a method of controlling catastrophic fires.
We can provide habitat and allow growth and harvest the byproducts of growth (trees), and then burn the forests as a controlled occurrence of what happens naturally in nature.
What we should see is balance without forgetting the economics of management, i.e., a healthy economy.
The environmental movement is lacking a detailed economic plan to address the economic effects their policies, if implemented, would bring upon our country. They forget that in order to have a sustainable environment you need a healthy and sustainable economy. If you do not have the former, you will not have the latter.
We are now, with the recent attacks on our country and the burning of our forests, given pause to re-evaluate the possible and real effects the policies of the mainstream environmental organizations will have or have had on our country. We will not be pleased by the outcome.
We must protect and preserve our natural resources, but we must do it without the religion of the environmental movement, much like we would not let the Catholic, Baptist, Jewish or Islamic religions rule our government. We must remain independent in policy with our solutions based on reason, not ideology.
I love the beauty of our country, but I understand the need for practical and sustainable solutions in regard to our economy. We can balance the need to provide the natural resources necessary to sustain our economy until technology provides a safe renewable source of energy. But to achieve this we must not rush to limit the current sources of energy without considering market forces.
To do so would put us at a disadvantage against the economies of China and India who have come to appreciate the advantages of a market economy.
The advantage we have is we encourage the free flow of information and, as of yet, have not put such limits on our markets as to discourage investment. If we ever do so we will progress along the path of poverty.
But a moral sense and an understanding of our infallibility must be ingrained into us. We must appreciate the position we enjoy due to our success and not become so enamored of it that we become corrupt in nature.
Sept. 11 again reminded us in graphic terms the terror we now face. Since Sept. 11 our biggest worries are not juggling our schedules to allow a ride and attend our child's soccer game; they pale in comparison to what we now face.
Jon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ocregister.com/commentary/
Sunday, July 21 2002
Readers React:
Take a shared approach to saving forests
CHRIS VARGAS
Mr. Vargas, who lives in Cypress, is executive director of the Warrior's Society Mountain Bike Club.
In light of recent catastrophic fires, it is time for us to consider the current California Wilderness Bill sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer and a coalition of environmental organizations. There is a need for protection, but the problem with the agenda of Senator Boxer and these mainstream environmental organizations is they try to give the most stringent method of management on areas that really do not need or warrant that protection.
For too long they have used the argument that we should be willing to give up access and sustainable resource recovery to protect the forests. But many of the areas they are pushing for wilderness would be better managed as an alternative designation. I believe that in some areas that meet the criteria for wilderness, i.e., no trails or roads whatsoever and no need for management methods such as tree thinning or sustainable resource recovery, they should be considered for wilderness.
A certain level of access should be provided for recreation and the proper forest management methods needed, including logging and controlled burns, to thin out the forests. Some areas of the forest have 10 times the number of trees they had 100 years ago. This was due to us stopping the normal method of management - fire.
With the proper balance of thinning and controlled burns, we can establish a balanced and sustainable method of managing our forests. It is a fallacy to think the best management policy is to allow overgrowth and only use fire as a method of controlling catastrophic fires.
We can provide habitat and allow growth and harvest the byproducts of growth (trees), and then burn the forests as a controlled occurrence of what happens naturally in nature.
What we should see is balance without forgetting the economics of management, i.e., a healthy economy.
The environmental movement is lacking a detailed economic plan to address the economic effects their policies, if implemented, would bring upon our country. They forget that in order to have a sustainable environment you need a healthy and sustainable economy. If you do not have the former, you will not have the latter.
We are now, with the recent attacks on our country and the burning of our forests, given pause to re-evaluate the possible and real effects the policies of the mainstream environmental organizations will have or have had on our country. We will not be pleased by the outcome.
We must protect and preserve our natural resources, but we must do it without the religion of the environmental movement, much like we would not let the Catholic, Baptist, Jewish or Islamic religions rule our government. We must remain independent in policy with our solutions based on reason, not ideology.
I love the beauty of our country, but I understand the need for practical and sustainable solutions in regard to our economy. We can balance the need to provide the natural resources necessary to sustain our economy until technology provides a safe renewable source of energy. But to achieve this we must not rush to limit the current sources of energy without considering market forces.
To do so would put us at a disadvantage against the economies of China and India who have come to appreciate the advantages of a market economy.
The advantage we have is we encourage the free flow of information and, as of yet, have not put such limits on our markets as to discourage investment. If we ever do so we will progress along the path of poverty.
But a moral sense and an understanding of our infallibility must be ingrained into us. We must appreciate the position we enjoy due to our success and not become so enamored of it that we become corrupt in nature.
Sept. 11 again reminded us in graphic terms the terror we now face. Since Sept. 11 our biggest worries are not juggling our schedules to allow a ride and attend our child's soccer game; they pale in comparison to what we now face.