I am writing to clarify a statement regarding policy
positions of The Wilderness Society in the debate over fire and
fuels legislation (HCN, 7/7/03: As fires rage, governors counsel
discretion). I believe the statement that we support
“loosening up environmental laws” could be taken wrong
and wish to set the record straight.
The Wilderness
Society supports several principles in fire and fuels legislation.
For example, we support placing emphasis on protecting communities
through active management in the community zone. We also believe
that any legitimate legislation must make additional funding
available, and allow that money to be spent across all ownerships,
not just on federal land. We believe legislation must contain
strong sideboards requiring the protection of old-growth forests
and large trees, and we maintain that legislation must promote
legitimate hazardous-fuels reduction and not indiscriminate logging
in remote areas.
We will also accept provisions that
facilitate more efficient and timely decision-making without
overriding existing law — such as the use of categorical
exclusions for projects in the community zone.
Ultimately,
the West must reintroduce fire to selected landscapes in a socially
acceptable manner. That will only happen if rural communities on
the front lines feel safe, and communities will only feel safe when
the land surrounding them — the community protection zone
— is treated to reduce hazardous fuels through strategic
thinning, brush removal, and prescribed burning. We urge Congress
to pass responsible, solution-oriented legislation — in other
words, not the administration’s bogus Healthy Forests
Initiative.
Jay Thomas Watson
San Francisco,
California
The writer is director of The Wilderness Society’s wildlands fire program.
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline The Wilderness Society’s fire policy, clarified.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
