Monday News: A Couple of Thoughts
Do you remember a kid by the name of Danny Almonte? Five years ago he was the talk of the sporting world as the dominating little league pitcher with falsified Dominican birth records. It was later uncovered that Danny was unaware of his father’s “fuzzy math.”
I just discovered that Danny is a newlywed. He’s 19, she’s 30. Apparently age ain’t nothing but a number for the Almontes.
And…
The Star Tribune’s resident conservative columnist Katherine Kersten is at it again. Oh, those poor people who live near the boundary waters. Shame on the federal government, and its pesky laws, protecting a great national treasure. All the locals want to do run some bulldozers into one of the most unspoiled natural environments in the country… what’s the big deal? It’s only “salvage logging.” According to Kersten's underlying logic, we should allow clear cutting in the boundary waters because people did it in the past.
I’m no tree-hugger, but STFU. Laws that protect and preserve the natural state of the boundary waters do not create an “unnatural fuel load.” (I realize that most of the quotes are from state Rep. David Dill, DFL-Crane Lake, but it is clear that Kersten is adopting the statements by publishing them.)
Like the people who live near the San Andreas fault-line, Tornado Alley, or downtown Detroit, we all bear the risks associated with the place we live. Allowing loggers into the boundary waters to prevent forest-fires makes about as much sense as building a twenty-foot-high concrete wall along the east coast to protect against hurricanes.
It makes me sick to my stomach whenever I read conservative commentary that bemoans the “sad plight” of somebody who is being denied nothing but a pure economic business opportunity. If we relied on the free market to solve all our problems, the boundary waters would have been bought and sold numerous times by now. Fences would have been put up, and we would no longer be able to enjoy one of the greatest public goods in the country. Yea that sounds like a great idea.
Yet conservative hate-mongers like Ms. Kersten are the first to jump on the backs of welfare recipients. They feel pity for innocent business people, but distain for the working poor of the world. They hate the federal government and its policies reflexively.
The boundary waters is a relatively small piece of America, I don’t think it is asking too much to preserve it in its natural state. Fires are an integral part of the lifecycle of forests. Deal with it.
posted by Gopher-Goof @ 8:20 AM
4 comments
Link To This Post
4 Comments:
First, this is very easy to say when you don't live there. Imagine sinking your whole life savings into a resort only to be told by someone in the cities that we won't stop the fires, your stuff will just have to burn. If they do that, be prepared when you go up there, as after a while nobody will sink their cash into the businesses you need while you are there (gas stations, motels etc..).
Second, the problem is that we've been fighting forest fires in the BWCAW for the past 50 years, thus the fires now are much worse than they should be. This isn' about natural fires NOW... it is analagous to the reasons deer need to be hunted.... generally, we've messed it up, so we have to manage it.
Third, fires that start in the BWCAW spread -- where should they be fought, if at all? A fire doesn't mind a fence. Should people whose homes are not in the BWCA (like most of those along the Gunflint...) tolerate significant financial risks so you can enjoy what you think wilderness should be-- especially when they CANNOT get fire insurance because they are too far from a local fire station?
This isn't nearly as simple as you or Ms. Kersten make it out to be. It is also unfair to connect political conservative wack-jobs with those who actually understand the way the forest in northern Minnesota works.
PS..
Who do you think actually loves the BWCAW more, people who visit for a week once a year or people who have made significant economic and personal sacrifices to live in the area? Their goal isn't to log the whole BWCAW, rather -- if you'd read the entire article, you'd see that the plan is to log a very small portion of it (the blow-down area) with modern equipment so as to prevent fires from starting there and spreading elsewhere.
The blowdown happened about 10 years ago and was a very unusual event. Why not let them clean-up from an unusual event? Would you deny similar clean-up in places ravaged by hurricanes or tornados?
I appreciate your points, and they are well taken.
My main point: keeping the boundary waters natural is a good thing.
The fact that a person CHOSE (or chooses) to live near the boundary waters, it does not give you the right to think only about your personal interests and forsake others who can/do enjoy the natural beauty. Homes near the boundary waters can be sold at a nice premium; there are plenty of people who would live in the area. So if you don’t like the fact that the natural blow-down area cannot be “cleaned-out” with bulldozers, sell your house or resort. Vote with your feet.
Second, I understand the need for firefighting in populated areas. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t fight fires, instead we need to realize that we are fighting a losing battle. Nature will find a way to burn-down forests, that just how it works. By fighting fires for the last 50 years we have screwed it up. So are you arguing that we should continue to screw it up? Reasonable fire fighting methods do not disturb the natural state of a forest. Sending in bulldozers to clear blow-down indelibly changes the landscape. Heavy equipment scars the land, leaving ruts and road beds.
Finally, this is a difficult area to draw lines. I understand the necessity for some “management.” But I will not support any plan that would include heavy equipment in the “clean-up.”
The boundary waters, by law, belongs to all citizens (current and future) of the United States, not to a few locals acting with self-interest.
The article is about people wanting a one-time permit to log in the BWCAW to prevent future fires. The blow-down was a freak event which caused an already overloaded situation to become worse. The clean-up is impossible without some use of heavy equipment. This is a very small part of the BWCAW and their plan is to go in over the winter -- my guess is that by July you wouldn't be able to see the difference.
To be clear -- nearly nobody lives IN the BWCAW, they live on the edges, in the Superior National Forest and other border areas. The problem is that the fire doesn't recognize the map's borders and would endanger the homes in the area. Most of those areas have roads, electricity and phones, it is hardly wilderness.
If it became standard policy not to fight these fires, people won't pay money for the homes in the area. Why should they if they are likely to burn? Further, why should someone choose to move from the cities to run businesses that support BWCAW visitors if it is likely their business isn't going to be protected?
Post a Comment
<< Home