Forest Service Exhausts Firefighting Funds (Repugs just cut funds)

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Forest Service has exhausted its firefighting budget at a time that more than two dozen large wildfires are raging in the West. ---

Monday's announcement comes less than a week after Congress rejected President Bush's request for $289 million in emergency spending to fight wildfires. Bush had requested the money — which would supplement $578 million already allocated for firefighting by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (news - web sites) — as part of an emergency spending bill for natural disasters.

Pressured by record federal deficits and eager to leave town, the House Republican leadership cut out the wildfire money before leaving on summer recess July 25.

The Senate had initially approved the firefighting money in its version of the emergency bill. But senators removed the funding last week to align their bill with the House and send it to Bush for his signature.

The omission of the firefighting money left many Western senators seething. "I have as conservative a voting record as anybody, but I don't try to be crazy about it," said Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah. "If there's something that's a legitimate role of government, even conservatives understand you fund it."

Ride Don’t Drive It’s Global Cool

:eyes:

It's only August. And we're still burning, guys!

:grr:

homes or those of their big contributors.

Allow the fires to burn, make the state's suffer a bit and then blame it on the environmentalists who won't let them build roads or properly manage the forests. Of course, when they convince everyone that the current policy is at fault, they will revise restrictions and before you know it, the roads will go in and the loggers soon will follow.

Actually, their plan will work: No trees, no fires.

all those pesky trees - just causing litter anyways.

The Republican plan isn't working well, IMO.

You hit the nail...squarely on the head, my friend. I shall write a letter to my local redneck news papers editor of this one.

RC

and we get lots of lightning fires.

Sometimes you wonder if those repube Congresspeople are two year olds."It's mine...GIMME!!"

Seems to me I remember that all eastcoasters and westerners were howling that there was not enough money IN THE BUDGET for the twin natural disasters of hurricanes and forest fires. So we gotta have a "supplemental" for natural disasters that happen every year.SHEESH.

...we have to destroy it." In other words, if people are going to resist "improving" the forests by "thinning" them, then let them all burn to hell. Hey, it's Mother Nature's fault, after all! :grr:

Just thought I'd ask. Hey, the people don't want any of them there stinkin' taxes, so let them join together and do a gang piss on the fires. It's too bad morons have to learn the hard way..........

The 'sagebrush rebellion' states of Montana, Utah, Idaho, and Colorado all have forest fires.

LOL!!!

Last year they couldn't do any true winter thinning because they had to borrow that money to pay for last year's firefighting. They just got funding to cover some of that within the last month or two, which will undoubtedly be used to pay for this year's fire season. So any thinning that could have been done over the winter to save acreage, didn't get done making the whole thing even worse. And it looks like we're just going to recycle it again. And I'm talking true forest service funded thinning programs, not logger thinning.

This man is just a monster.

wasn't. There doesn't seem to be any pretense about callign it "borrowing" this time around.

What this means is that the budgets of the non-fire projects in the Forest Service...nationwide...will be frozen. Ongoing projects such as wildlife & fish habitat monitoring, legitimate forest thinnings, whatever, are all affected or stopped because everybody has to stop spending and any "extra" goes to the firefighting effort, the costs of which are extremely high (that's another story...)
So the firefighting won't stop, but a lot of the other resource work will, until October 1, and maybe even after that. This is what happened last year, and it was pretty devastating.

Kills dying and diseased trees. Burns dead trees, thus releasing nutrients to the soil. Burns understory and deadwood sparking new growth which is good for plants and animals, as well opening canopy for sunlight penetration. Firefighting funds and efforts should be reserved for protecting towns and public buildings. If private landowners fail to build properly in fire prone ares, tough shit! (Firebreak, fireproof roof -no cedar shingles-, sealed eaves, shutters, etc....) Forest fires are good for the forest!

not trying to criticize, I know some forest fires are good, but how about this one?

Poor training. Bad decision-making. Shoulda notta been there.

But it was hellacious...Perhaps you're thinking of the Prineville Hotshots who died in Colorado...That was a tragedy.

And the fact that you'd even say that proves you either don't know what you're talking about or you haven't been completely listening to environmentalists on fires. Fires that completely blacken a forest are generally not good for the forest.

And in drought years, the idea that you can protect towns and buildings from 100,000 acre fires is assinine.

And as for firefighters not being on fires, you won't say that when they're saving your ass should you decide to park it up in a tree.

Plenty of education and experience. My home never burned and I had fire lapping at the firebreak my father had the foresight to construct each summer. My town never burned. Some outbuildings and isolated ranches burned, but once again proper construction and preventative measures eliminate mearly all fire danger. As for forests burned black... 100 years of over aggressive fire-suppression and unregulated logging are the prime reason you get scorched earth fires. Forests will grow back, in a generation or two. Firebreaks may be unsightly, but they work. Controlled burns and selected thinning do wonders... As for backcountry fires in roadless areas, let them burn. Why put folks at risk!

Controlled burns and thinning does wonders, I agree. But these fires are not normal fires and it would seem you ought to know that. Why in the world would you just want to let forests burn in a way that is not natural to them? They can't grown back naturally, even in a generation or two, if the fire didn't burn through them in a natural way in the first place.

Why not let backcountry fires burn? Because it's not healthy for those forests as I alread said, and the fires don't stay in the backcountry. Apparently you just haven't been paying attention to the communities that have been threatened and the people who have lost their homes and businesses. And certainly in alot of instances, the care of the property can make a difference, but these fires are so hot and the flames so high that they're burning everything in their path no matter what's done to prevent it. Some of these fires are within 15 miles of major populations, and you say let it burn. Geesh.

And firefighters do tend to let fires within the fire line burn, as long as it's not a fire that is doing more harm to the natural environment than good. These days they're actually alot more environmentally sensitive than in the 'good old days'.

Seriously, it makes no sense to let old growth just burn up completely when fire retardent and helicopter drops can keep the fire cool enough to allow the fire to burn somewhat normally while being kept away from communities and watersheds. And those are the main goals of firefighting today.

... at least, not on the ground. They can send air crews over, but due to the tighter border laws they aren't allowed to actually come onto US soil to help fight the fires. This was reported on CBC a couple of days ago.