Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Thursday, October 10,2002
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Editors:
Salena De La Cruz, Pat Payne
Debate heats up over Bush's Healthy Forests Initiative
r orest thinning
not the solution
President George W. Bush’s Healthy Forests Initia
tive has come under fire recently, and rightfully so.
Bush’s plan for “wildfire prevention and
stronger communities” is nothing more than a
logging company’s dream come true, disguised
in language that suggests it might actually pro
tect what’s left of the forests in this country.
The president is using the devastating wildfires
of this summer to fuel his proposal, scapegoat
ing environmentalists the whole way.
It’s no secret that wildfires are destructive—they
wreck habitat, taint water supplies and endanger
houses and communities. And it’s clear that decades
of mismanagement have left the forests with dan
gerous buildup of highly flammable undergrowth,
thanks to a firm policy of fire suppression.
HFI, however, tries to convince us that because
“the forests and rangelands of the West have become
unnaturally dense,” we must thin the trees in an ef
fort to “ensure the sustainable forest management
and appropriate timber production.”
The initiative’s background tells us that in studies
done on wildfires in Oregon, the thinned areas were
unharmed by the fire, while fires in unthinned areas
wreaked havoc on the environment, including “the
habitat of threatened spotted owls.”
Looks like Bush is hoping to win the support of
those “Oregon environmentalists,” who appar
ently are still concerned with nothing but the
plight of the spotted owl — more than a decade
old controversy.
At the same time, of course, he blames the envi
ronmentalists for such disasters, saying their appeals
of logging decisions over the years have kept the
forests densely packed and waiting to bum wildly.
Bush obviously didn’t get the memo on this one
— mature forests, however densely packed, do
not cause raging fires. It’s the buildup of under
growth that burns so fast and so furious. Wildfire
studies have, in fact, shown that mature trees are
quite fire-resistant—when the undergrowth is al
lowed to bum naturally, the trees’ canopy remains
intact and new vegetation is able to grow.
Of course, it is possible that younger, smaller
trees, planted en masse in the past few decades to
revive clear-cut woodlands, may be growing quite
densely — and because they’re not yet mature
and therefore not fire-resistant, they pose a
greater risk. Loggers are more responsible for
these problems than people who try to stop the
logging.
Tree
thinning is
not the an
s w e r .
What’s
needed i
Jessica
Richelderfer
The Merry
Pessimist
Salena
De La Cruz
I come
from small
town Ameri
ca, where
Say it loud *VBI*UUC
knows
everyone else and where cowboys ride the
regulated
bums, which are crucial to
controlling the buildup of dense
undergrowth — fire is part of na
ture, and one that forests are inhei
ently prepared to withstand. Peo
ple who build their houses in the
middle of the forests, on the
other hand, deserve what
they get. Much of the
time and money
spent this summer
on fire control was
in creating fire
lines around peo
ple’s houses.
The single pur
pose of this initia
tive should be to re
duce the threat of
dangerous fires, not
help the logging com
panies make a buck
on the side. It’s
downright decep
tive to propose
legislation under
the auspices of sus
taining “healthy
forests,” all the
while planning to
clear them out.
By “reducing un
necessary regulatory
obstacles that hinder
rodeo at the Buckaroo every year. Even
more well-known are the saw mills that lit
tered the landscape, making my home
town a timber town.
Moving to Eugene was a big shock for
me. In my town, being a logger and
working in the mills was a way of life.
My dad worked there for more than
30 years, until one of the largest
mills shut down and started re
training people. In Eugene, peo
ple are all about conserving our
natural resources and are
opposed to logging.
11 ememuer une year mere
was a big controversy over
the spotted owl. People were
getting laid off and many
good people found them
selves scraping to stay
alive, and it was all be
cause one endangered
animal came in and de
to rest itself on
old-growth trees.
The environ
are
us right
to the spot
ted owl controver
sy by opposing the
Healthy Forests Ini
tiative, which is de
signed to protect woodlands
ment,” as the proposal states, Bush is clearly looking
to let his friends in the big-business logging compa
nies have their go at it—unhindered.
Contact the managing editor
atjessicarichelderfer@dailyemerald.com.
Her views do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
from wildfires by thinning the trees and re
moving the underbrush that pose such a
high fire risk. It’s just another way for them
to try to take claim of the forests and keep
anyone from using them. Endless appeals
of logging decisions by the environmental
ists over the years have prevented the
much-needed tree thinning, creating a
HFI good for
timber harvest
haven for fierce wildfires.
They wish to return our public lands to pre- ■
setdement conditions. I wonder, can that real
ly be done? After thousands of years of strip
ping, ripping and building, I don’t think so.
I may not always agree with the big paper
mills that want to rip every last tree off the
face of this Earth. I look forward to my hikes
in the woods on the outskirts of my town. 1
want a place for my children to thrive, and a
place where future generations can still
breathe and hike in the same woods I did
growing up.
But I have to admit, it’s a way of life for so
many that it’s hard to deny what it brings to
us. You are sitting on a desk made of wood
from a tree. You probably live in a house
made from trees. You are reading this paper,
which is also made from trees.
Environmentalists also wish to remove the
incentive to cut mature, fire-resisting timber.
The more mature the tree, the more incen
tive I see for them to be cut. More mature trees
make better houses and better paper.
I know there are other things that can
be used for paper, such as hemp, which is a
form of cannabis sativa — also known as
the plant marijuana comes from. I know
the Declaration of Independence was writ
ten on it. So some may argue there are al
ternatives, but the only healthy forest is
one used for its resources. That’s why God
put them on this Earth.
At least the government precludes the har
vesting of trees on government land. Of
course, if endangered species are inhabiting
that land, then the trees don’t get cut. That
damn spotted owl just keeps popping up in the
way of itself — or at least as a symbolic ver
sion of itself to help thwart the cutting of trees.
Now that the president is trying to reduce
the risk of wildfires, we should Stand behind
him — and if logging of the forests happens
to bring in extra funds needed to fight fires,
then good.
Contact the editorial editor
atsalenadelacruz@dailyemerald.com.
Her views do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
U.N. past suffers from conflicted interests
Guest commentary
I would like to take issue with the tor
tured logic presented in the editorial
“U.S. must give Iraq time, option to com
ply with U.N. resolutions” (ODE, Oct. 8).
The editorial argues that the United
States should accept the compromise
proffered by France of two new U.N. Se
curity Council resolutions, the first of
which “would demand complete (Iraqi)
disarmament and inspections to force
compliance.”
How is this new? The Security Coun
cil has renewed its demand for the Iraqi
regime to disarm and fully cooperate
with weapons inspectors no less than 12
times to date without results: Twice in
1991 within months of the cease-fire,
once in 1994, twice in 1996, three times
in 1997, three more times in 1998, and
again in 1999.
Not one of these demands from the Se
curity Council has ever included the
threat of swift military action in the event
of non-compliance, and this new French
compromise doesn’t either, it appears.
According to the editorial, that minor bit
of awkwardness is perhaps left to a “sec
ond resolution that would enumerate the
consequences or renewed stonewalling.
This is merely a dodge and amounts to
nothing more than first-degree political
cowardice.
The editorial states that U.S. enforce
ment of U.N. resolutions would (some
how) undermine the U.N.’s authority. Is
n’t- that backwards? Wouldn’t U.S.
enforcement of U.N. resolutions restore
U.N. authority?
The editorial states that if Saddam
Hussein disarms to the satisfaction of the
United Nations, that “everyone would
win — the world could avoid war, Hus
sein’s power would be preserved, and the
sanctions would end.”
How is Saddam remaining in power in
any way even remotely a win for any
body except Saddam? What is it about
the notion of regime-change in Iraq that
is so distasteful to the editorial board?
And what is it about the United Na
tions that makes the editorial board get
misty? The group has no claim to altru
ism. It is utterly wrong to think that the
United Nations is where the nations of
the world come together, put aside their
petty self interests and do what is best for
humanity.
Russia and France are each cravenly
eager to profit from Iraqi oil. And the
United Nations itself is holding some $21
billion in profits from the oil for food pro
gram in U.N.-administered bank ac
counts — a conflict of interest if ever
there was one. No wonder these entities
are eager to preserve the status-quo in
Baghdad.
Meanwhile, Kofi Annan lost his credi
bility long ago. Recall February 1998
when Saddam’s intransigence over
weapons inspections nearly precipitated
an international crisis: Kofi Annan aided
and abetted the Iraqi dictator in thwart
ing UNSCOM inspections when he prom
ised that “U.N. arms inspectors should in
the future be more respectful,” that UN
SCOM would quit “embarrassing the
Iraqi government in front of its own peo
ple,” and arranged for diplomatic baby
sitters for the inspectors.
By what reason in morality or justice
must a government which has pursued
Jeffersonian democracy for over 200
years need a permission slip from the
United Nations to preemptively attack a
murderous tyrant in order to prevent the
brutal slaughter of its own citizens? After
all, nobody elected the United Nations.
Sean Walston is a graduate teaching fellow
in physics.
Letter to the editor
Responsible drinking applies to all students
While I agree with Dan Occhipinti that President Frohn
mayer infringed on individual rights by forcing University fra
ternities to go dry (“Frohnmayer’s dry frat policy is a riot,”
ODE, Oct. 8), I found his claim that the decision directly in
fluenced last month’s riot disconcerting.
Occhipinti argues that fraternity members’ “accountability
forces these men to take personal responsibility” for their par
ties while non-greek parties have “little control and almost no
personal liability.”
The notion that greeks exhibit responsibility beyond the ca
pacity of non-greeks is, I think, insulting to the majority of the
student body. Students from this same greek community ar
gued last spring that frats should stay dry because their mem
bers would inevitably contribute to a rise in DUI when forced
to drink at off-campus residences.
Furthermore, the last two highly publicized, alcohol-related
deaths at major universities in this state both occurred during
greek functions at Oregon State University. These are hall
marks of neither responsibility nor accountability.
If Occhipinti’s notion that former frat partygoers simply flock
to house parties is correct, who’s to say that the same riot would
not have occurred during a greek function? At a wet fraternity,
these same students would still have been loaded with booze, and
I doubt that a fraternity’s president or “risk management officer”
could have prevented them from spilling into the street. There
may not be a bonfire-ready traffic circle outside the Lambda Chi
house, but that’s the only difference I see between drunken pub
lic assembly at greek and non-greek residences.
Zach Mull
junior, journalism