$ for trails, improvements cut

[azdesertfather]

This is really disappointing...did any of you hear about this, out of the U.S. Forestry Service? How specifically do you think this is going to affect us in Arizona? Anyone know of what's going to be cut?

Forest Service diverts money to pay for wildfires

Tuesday August 26, 2008 1:46 AM

HELENA, Mont. (AP) - The cost of fighting large fires in California and elsewhere is forcing the U.S. Forest Service to divert hundreds of millions of dollars set aside for work including roads, trails, recreational improvements - even fire prevention.

In a memo this month to regional foresters, Forest Service Chief Abigail Kimbell said spending on fires could reach $1.6 billion this year, about half the agency's budget.

``All of you are aware of the serious nature of this year's fire season and the issues faced by the agency in paying for fire suppression costs,'' Kimbell wrote. ``At this time the only option for financing the shortfall is to use the agency's transfer authority.''

The memo makes no mention of layoffs but cautions officials to be ``use prudent cost-saving judgment'' in hiring and in approving non-critical overtime.

The agency started transferring money in the middle of August and expects to take a total of $400 million from other areas through the rest of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. Such transfers have occurred several times since 2000.

Environmentalists predicted fire spending could end up being closer to $2 billion, and transfers could run as high as $700 million. Among those programs seeing cuts are fire prevention and safety.

``We are robbing the Peters to pay the Pauls,'' said Chris Mehl, spokesman for The Wilderness Society's Northern Rockies Office in Bozeman. ``The unfortunate thing is that it is across the board.''

Money will be coming from restoration projects, building maintenance, land acquisition plans, research and other areas. In South Dakota, the Forest Service has closed a visitor center in the Black Hills National Forest early to save money.

Spending on all non-critical items for the rest of the year must be curtailed, Kimbell told foresters.

``I recognize that this direction will have a significant effect on agency operations,'' Kimbell said in the memo. ``However, we must be in a position to protect life and property from wildfire, and do so within the funds available to the agency.''

U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said he was not pleased to hear of the cuts and is pushing for a special account to pay for firefighting costs.

``The fire season in Montana and across the country is far from over. Not to mention we have good-paying jobs to fund and projects around the state that need to be completed,'' said Baucus, D-Mont. ``Funding should not be pulled from our state's resources to help pay for fighting fires in California.''

Forest Service funds allocated to fighting fires have steadily increased, rising about 10 percent from 2006 to 2007, but have not been able to meet the needs of this year's large fires, said Rose Davis, spokeswoman for the agency's northern region.

Mehl, of The Wilderness Society, said he likes the idea of Congress setting up separate budgets - one for fires and one for normal Forest Service operations. The group said fighting fires could surpass 50 percent of the Forest Service budget this year and is quickly dominating work at the agency.

``The costs are high, and they need to suppress these fires to protect people,'' Mehl said. ``But the Forest Service is basically becoming the fire service.''

[chumley]

Mehl, of The Wilderness Society, said he likes the idea of Congress setting up separate budgets - one for fires and one for normal Forest Service operations.

This seems to be the best way to deal with this. The management/operation of the forest should be independent of fire fighting/natural disasters.

While I don't know if firefighting has specifically added to Arizona's budget woes, I know that budget cuts have resulted in the closure of some Forest offices in the past year or so. (Clints Well and Lake Mary).

With the current federal budget deficit, you can't really expect that any new funds will be going to the forests anytime soon. I'm pretty sure you haven't heard the words "forest service" mentioned this week in Denver, and you probably won't hear it next week in St. Paul either. Seems things like education, health care, and social security are likely to get the bulk of any federal dollars coming down the pike.

[azbackpackr]

Yes, I have wondered about that, whether either presidential hopeful is interested in trying to help improve problems in the Forest Service. I have never heard it mentioned, either.

There are key words in the above article I would like to comment on: "we must be in a position to protect life and property from wildfire." Now, I ask you, why do we allow people to build log mansions in the middle of the forest, and then we have to pay out millions of tax dollars to save those log mansions? Why not pass laws that say if you build houses in a fire area it's your responsibility, totally, if they burn to the ground? In the old days, people built little shacky cabins for summer use, and if they burned down, well, no big loss, either to the folks or to the taxpayers or to the insurance companies.

People still don't get it. They don't seem to understand that in the West, if there is forest, there is going to be fire. The forests of the western states are what is called a fire-adapted ecology. They are SUPPOSED to burn. It is not some big tragedy that they burn. Fires are a good thing. They clear out dead brush and allow new, green growth to come up the following spring, providing better feed for wildlife. These forests have always burned. They will always continue to burn. Every acre of every forest in the West will eventually burn at some point in the future. The forest managers and fire-fighters and forest fire administrators and forestry specialists all know this. They have tried to tell the public this, but the public is still stuck on trite and ignorant Bambiesque ideals.

[fairweather8588]

One of the upcoming Backpacker magazines will have an issue about which candidate is better for the wilderness, according to one of their reader surveys that I took last night

[rally_toad]

One of the upcoming Backpacker magazines will have an issue about which candidate is better for the wilderness, according to one of their reader surveys that I took last night

Well Im just guessing that they will choose Obama over McCain just on the drilling issue. But if Obama were anything like Bill Clinton when it came to wilderness issues, he would do a good job, Clinton protected millions of vulnerable acres in the west (or at least tried to, several of the new monuments are threatened still for various reasons), including Grand-Staircase Escalante, Grand Canyon Parashant, Sonoran Desert, and Ironwood National Monuments.

But I haven't heard either one mention NPS, or the forest service, or wilderness preservation system. I think its possibly because all the politicians are now focusing all their attention on global warming (Im not saying this isnt an important issue) and all the other environmental problems have been pushed aside.

[rally_toad]

I do have to correct myself, I was looking at both the candidates websites, Obama has a page on Energy and the Environment, and McCain has one on climate change.
I clicked on Obama's plan and scrolled through 7 pages of global warming and clean energy and air, the 8th page is on "Preserving Our Land". It does mention the NPS and the Forest Service and increasing protections as well as conserving new lands, and that he supports the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. So there is something about wild lands at least on one of their websites.
I didnt find anything about protecting public lands anywhere on John McCains website, but perhaps I didnt look hard enough. I do know that in the past he has claimed to have worked with Bill Clinton to help protect areas in AZ.