[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 16383-16384]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS MUST STOP BLOCKING SENSIBLE WILDFIRE PREVENTION 
                                EFFORTS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 9, 2002

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the 
following editorial from the August 3, 2002, Norfolk Daily News. The 
editorial emphasizes the need for proper forest management in order to 
prevent disastrous wildfires. Unfortunately, as the editorial 
indicates, all too often sensible management plans designed to reduce 
wildfire threats have been delayed or defeated by environmental 
activists.

            [From the Norfolk (NE) Daily News, Aug. 3, 2002]

                     Activists Have To Share Blame

       The extreme environmental groups accused of contributing to 
     the wildfires in the West this year are scrambling like mad 
     to say it wasn't their fault. But as a recent report shows, 
     they in fact have a lot to answer for:
       The report comes from the U.S. Forest Service, and as press 
     accounts note, it shows that administrative appeals delayed 
     almost half of 326 projects last year that were aimed at 
     lowering the wildfire threat through the hacking away of 
     underbrush and small trees. Those making the appeals, of 
     course, were more often than not environmental groups.
       In response, the environmental groups maintain that what 
     they're actually doing is trying to save the forests from the 
     awful, dreadful timber industry, as if anytime the timber 
     industry profits, life on this planet has somehow worsened. 
     It's true that removing the biggest and oldest trees does not 
     serve fire-prevention purposes, but that's not what the 
     projects aimed to do. And meanwhile, it's also true that the 
     preferred solution of environmental activists--controlled 
     burns--is often no solution at all.
       The problem with controlled burns, in addition to being 
     extraordinarily expensive, is that the unwise suppression of 
     natural fires over many decades has led to a buildup of what 
     wildfires like to feed on, namely all that underbrush and all 
     those small trees.
       The consequence is that the burns cannot be controlled, as 
     was amply illustrated two years ago when one such attempt 
     destroyed 200 homes in Los Alamos, N.M. That burn was also 
     mismanaged, but there are fewer and fewer stretches of forest 
     where even the best management can be assured of keeping such 
     burns from getting out of hand.
       Thinning the forests mechanically is not only safe and 
     effective and good for the future grandeur of the forests, 
     but not nearly so expensive, because the timber industry 
     helps foot the bill.
       Delays in the process have to stop if we are not to see 
     many repeat performances for this year's destruction.


[[Page 16384]]



                          ____________________