Letters To The Editor

BEETLE BATTLE

USFS had better be honest, effective

I believe the Panhandle National Forest does have a problem with the bark beetle infestation.

Perhaps a bigger problem is the credibility of the Forest Service. The environmental community has been burned so many times those in it tend to be skeptical when the Forest Service comes to them with a real problem. This makes objective analysis of such proposals as the harvesting of beetle-killed timber difficult, with some environmentalists being quite closed-minded.

The fuel-loading claim is valid where it occurs in urban interface areas. The consequences of a stand-replacement fire encroaching into a large group of high-cost structures is not worth the risk of not cutting.

A major concern is the real possibility no watershed restoration money will ever hit the ground on this one. The Panhandle has a horrible track record of below-cost timber sales. Who in their right mind would suggest that, in spite of this history, bark beetle sales will produce several million dollars for restoration work?

Stumpage prices are very low. Yet Forest Supervisor David Wright insists this time things will be different. He had better be right, because if the watershed suffers because of additional canopy opening, the environmental folks will never again believe him.

I feel it’s imperative the Forest Service be very careful and not appear to be dealing bad cards again. We waste a lot of time coming to conclusions because of this distrust; it is not productive. John E. Bentley Post Falls

An objective study is called for

Has anyone suggested having an objective study conducted by some neutral body to determine whether bark beetles are in fact present in the areas concerned and, if so, which particular tree stands are affected? Only after such an examination would either side to this dispute be sufficiently informed to make an intelligent argument for or against the removal of trees.

It seems obvious that if in truth certain living trees have been infested with the beetles, the trees should be removed, and the sooner the better, along with the surrounding slash which also is infested - in order to stem further spread. Unaffected trees should be allowed to remain. Simple!

The clearcutting threat is an environmentalist scare term or else overkill by the Forest Service unless the infestation is so severe that there’s no other practical way to control it. Let’s handle the problem with some sort of objective analysis by impartial parties, instead of turning it into an extremist tug of war. Paul Wilson Hayden Lake

Root of all evil figures in this, too

The bark beetle infestation is just another example of how some people view and use our land as a means for making money.

If thought had been given years ago to the potential effects of planting one species dominant tree, in this case, Douglas fir, we wouldn’t have this problem. Also, I am sure the financial rewards for this proposed massive cut will benefit the few at the expense of the many. What are the short and long term results going to be for the many living species currently dependent on this land? Norm Noggle Newport, Wash.

Cut out infested trees quickly

The bark beetle is a very real threat to North Idaho forests. The Forest Service has not changed its policy toward logging in the Northwest, it is reacting aggressively to this threat.

This should be done quickly to prevent many more acres from being infested. Trees that will have to be removed that are in a high-visibility area will look better logged than would dead standing timber that is a fire threat and breeding ground for more beetles. Far better to remove the dead and dying trees and replant with trees that historically grew here and that are more disease resistant and bug resistant. Kim M. Schwanz St. Maries

Before cutting, show proof

Sadly, I have learned to mistrust the Forest Service. Officials do not always tell the truth about their practices and policies or the environmental effects and economic effects of their choosing to cut - all too often, clearcut - our trees on our lands. Officials have long served only the interests of the big industry logging companies. So I say, “prove it” to their beetle infestation claims. Susan K. Smith Coeur d’Alene

Dying trees are no treat for the eyes

We have watched different areas in the woods around here slowly dying - and the color of dead evergreens is not a pretty sight! Those who are worried about the trees being cut close to their towns are soon going to be looking at big, orangish, dead trees if nothing else is done.

Trees are a renewable resource - how obvious can it get? We can take some action or sit and watch our forests die and then it all goes to waste. Jeanne Phay Post Falls

Never-cut extremists should back off

In a recent series of newspaper articles on the Douglas fir bark beetle outbreak, I was disappointed to read that the Public Lands Council was not in favor of the harvest operations proposed by the U.S. Forest Service. The group’s Forest Watch director stated, “None of us as individuals will have the expertise to go through this and find all of the flaws in the science.” What an arrogant statement, to assume that the science is automatically flawed.

I am tired of environmental organizations accusing the Forest Service of using “scare tactics” and appealing every proposed harvest. This agency is comprised of many competent, professional individuals who are trained in forest management and who care about the land and the resources. These professionals were hired to do a job that includes harvesting of timber, but a flood of appeals in recent years has prevented them from implementing such harvesting. The result has been a decline in forest health.

It’s time for organizations such as the Public Lands Council to accept partial responsibility for the declining health in our forests. Furthermore, it’s time for the American public to demand that these organizations minimize their appeals and allow the Forest Service to practice multiple-use management. Management which, since its creation in the early 1900s, was intended to include timber harvesting. Failure to allow such harvesting will result in further decline of our national forests. Is this the forest you want your children and grandchildren to inherit? Amy Gillette Coeur d’Alene

Beetles must be dealt with

I think the bark beetle should be controlled. I don’t have an answer, though. I do not believe in clearcuts. I wish we could use pesticides or some other means of control. If the logging could be thinning, that might help. Norman H. Schroder Moscow, Idaho

Problem real and obvious - fix it

Environmentalists find more bogeymen in the forest because they can’t see the trees. I sat in on a well-prepared lecture on these Douglas fir bark beetles and it’s very serious. The damage is horrendous. For every tree that shows signs of the beetle, there are four or five nearby that are infested, too.

Saying it’s a ruse to cut more timber proves there are unthinking people in denial out there who expect the problem to just go away. If this was an animal epidemic or crop failure (which it is in a way) all hands would be out cleaning it up.

Man is the intelligent animal on this Earth. Simple reasoning says the problem must be dealt with now. It’s a simple case of protecting the environment. Let the Forest Service do it! R. R. Seward Coeur d’Alene

OTHER TOPICS

Coaches can be much less than fair

Re: the Feb. 3 editorial, “Coaches really know the score,” and “Rocky Relationship,” Feb. 2.

I’ve coached before and know how some parents can be. I was not a complainer and did not have an inflated view of my daughter’s ability. But I bit my tongue when she was a high school junior and her softball coach pulled her from a varsity game because of a physical error. The coach’s philosophy was, “That can’t happen in my program.” However, when others committed a serious physical or mental error, they weren’t pulled.

I winced when, last year, after four days of practice, the same coach selected the team and told my daughter she would have no expectation of playing unless someone got hurt. She was welcome to sit on the bench and cheer. She wanted to know if that meant she couldn’t compete for a position and was told she was being selfish and was not a team player. She chose not to play.

I know some fine coaches do affect young people positively. Coaching requires judgment. It’s easy to play the best nine players. The skill is in using the bench to foster team unity. The message to my daughter was clear: she wasn’t good enough to play and selfish for asking to compete for a position. Is that really what we want from high school sports? Larry J. Kuznetz Spokane