[Craig Jacobson]

ninas wrote:

>...but aren't forest fires beneficial and
>part of the natural cycle of forest ecosystems?? it was my understanding
>that forests need to burn every so often so it can replenish and provide the
>ground with nutrients...
>
Forest fires are part of the natural cycle, but the natural cycle has 
been  so screwed up by humans (environmental change, building homes 
where they don't belong, global warming, etc.) that it's hard to 
consider today's forest environmental "natural" in one sense.

I don't know nearly enough about forest management to determine whether 
Bush is right or wrong here.  But I do know that the conditions of the 
forests now is a result of 8 years of Clinton with a pro-environment 
interior czar (Bruce Babbitt), and the result so far this year is 20 
deaths and hundreds of homes destroyed.  Even if two fires were set by 
humans, the fact that one person can so easily cause so much damage 
indicates that the present system is wrong.

So, I'm not sure that either side has a clue as to how to manage forests 
given the current environmental situation.

- Craig