Sunday,
August 11, 2002 - Several times each
hour, Phoenix radio stations are playing
an old song with new words. "We
Didn't Start the Fire" is now the
chorus to a roundhouse blast at the
conservation community. The lyricist
believes that environmentalists, led by
the Center for Biological Diversity in
Tucson and the Sierra Club nationally, are
directly responsible for the destruction
wrought by the great Rodeo-Chedeski fires
in Arizona. And try as they might, the
leaders of those groups can't seem to
shake the label.
Of course they didn't start the fires. A
seasonal firefighter for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs started the Rodeo fire and
a young woman who lost her way and set a
bush on fire to signal a TV helicopter
started the Chedeski fire. The two fires
burned together and destroyed the economy
of the White Mountain Apaches along with
almost a half-million acres of thick pine
trees, including much of what was thought
to be the preferred old-growth habitat for
the Mexican Spotted Owl.
The human cost in lives forever
changed, homes burned to ashes, fear, job
losses, anger and disquiet have not been
neatly calculated on the Interagency
Incident Summary Report form 209,
electronically sent to Washington, D.C.,
by senior firefighters at the end of each
12-hour working shift. In fact, much of
the long-term impact of these fires is not
known and will not be known for many
years.
And that's the crux of why radio
station owners in Phoenix and in Arizona
in general, the editorial board of the
Arizona Republic, the Wall Street Journal
and so many others in media and public
life are so annoyed. It turns out that the
Sierra Club and its allies never mentioned
the widespread destruction that could
occur as a result of their actions over
the past two decades to stop the Forest
Service and other federal agencies from
doing anything to change worsening forest
conditions in western forests.
In their defense, they didn't know.
After all, no one has established
scientifically what the long-term impacts
are from uncharacteristically huge, lethal
fires to sensitive and threatened plant
and animal species and their dwindling
habitats. What Arizonans and Coloradans do
know is that a hell of a lot of habitat
burned down and a lot of critters with it,
not to mention neighborhoods, and there's
more to come.
Until just about one month ago,
websites for most conservation groups
proclaimed that most forest management was
bad and fires were good. These groups
fought long and protracted battles, very
successfully, to stop timber sales aimed
at thinning overgrown forests, or thinning
and prescribed fires that officials hoped
would change the new wilderness of trees
growing in numbers never seen before in
the West. The groups often went to court,
claiming that allowing human management
would destroy critical Mexican Spotted Owl
habitat along the Mogollon Rim. Human
management, they argued, would be far
worse than any fire could ever be. Loggers
were the enemy.
It turns out that none of their
arguments were based on science. For the
record, we now know the damage done by
dams, water diversions, logging, mining
and livestock grazing. What no one has
bothered to study so far - so sure are we
of our philosophical and ideological
purity - is whether the impacts of human
management are worse than the impacts of
these outrageous fires.
Mike Dombeck, the first politically
appointed chief of the Forest Service in
100 years and a man the Wall Street
Journal all but called an environmentalist
in uniform, wrote in 2000 that as a result
of contemporary fires, "habitats,
soils and watersheds are burned beyond
their adaptive limits. The severity of
these fires poses threats to species
persistence and watershed integrity. The
damage from these fires is often
long-lasting and may be irretrievable. The
extent and severity of these fires could
eventually push declining populations
beyond recovery, especially in the
West."
We know that if we increase our efforts
to log and thin these forests we also
increase the risk of harming streams for
native fish and old-growth habitat for
sensitive birds. But what is equally and
increasingly clear is that a point has
probably been reached where the negative
impacts of the fires outweighs the
negative impacts of proposed timber
management.
Yes, we need more study and more
evaluation, but in the meantime, national
groups such as the Sierra Club should
abandon their anti-logging stance and help
in the search for honest answers. The fate
of our forests depends on it.
Frank Carroll is a former Forest
Service firefighter and logging-company
spokesman who now lives in Minnesota. He
is a contributor to Writers on the Range,
a service of High Country News in Paonia.
|