By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
The Washington Times is also owned by.....guess who?
Mr. Mooney himself. Bush senior speaks at fund raisers for MR. Mooney.
Wednesday, August 30, 2000
Ken Rait - Oregon Live Op/Ed
It's almost a tragic comedy that timber industry officials and their political
lackeys are using this year's fire season to call for increased logging in our
national forests.
It's tragic that lives and homes are being threatened and lost. Comic because
it is precisely the chain-saw therapy that the timber industry promotes as the
fire remedy that caused this level of conflagrations in the first place.
While newspapers are aglow with stories about this year's fires, the acreage
burned is well within the recent range of variability, according to the
National Interagency Fire Center.
The difference this year, however, is the timber industry-induced hysteria
designed to use the fires as the latest excuse to log our forests ("Forest
managers must wake up and smell the smoke," Aug. 17; "Selective logging is the
way to save our forests," Aug. 25).
To keep the federal forest gravy train chugging over the backs of unsuspecting
taxpayers, the timber industry is attempting to politically capitalize on the
fire season for which it is largely responsible. No matter what the ailment,
the industry's prescription is always the same: more logging.
The fires across the northern Rockies have confirmed what fire ecologists have
been saying for years. The most intense fires that are threatening lives and
property were human-caused and in areas that were previously logged and had
roads built across them.
Logging operations routinely clearcut large patches of forest or remove just
the larger, more economically viable trees. The native forests are commonly
replaced by denser stands of smaller trees surrounded by slash and other ground
litter that is a byproduct of the logging operations. These conditions are
exacerbated by a wrong-headed, timber industry-sponsored fire policy to snuff
out all fires. Add to this mix intense heat and no rain, and conditions become
ripe for the types of fires we are witnessing this summer.
Fire intensities have increased as a result of decades of logging and fire
suppression across most of our forested landscape. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture says more than 85 percent of the forests most at risk to fire are
in the previously developed (roaded, logged) sections of our national forests.
The timber industry's alleged concern about the condition or health of our
forests is transparent. When the industry speaks of "selective thinning," it is
talking about removing the saleable, larger trees, which are precisely the ones
that shouldn't be removed if they really are interested in improving forest
health. Alternatively, the timber industry isn't the least bit interested in
the type of understory thinning that may actually alleviate fire threats since
such operations aren't profitable.
The timber industry has even gone so far as to irresponsibly point a finger at
the Clinton administration for causing these fires. It is the industry that has
removed the larger trees from the forest landscape because of their economic
viability. It is the industry that has pushed this administration and others,
Democrat and Republican, dating back more than 50 years to suppress fires. From
their perspective, fire is not part of the ecological cycle, but a demon that
threatens their inventory.
The timber industry's public relations strategy is terribly shortsighted. The
last time the industry played this Chicken Little routine was the early 1990s,
when it predicted doom for the economy of the Pacific Northwest due to reduced
federal timber offerings. With their latest "log to stop the fire" salvo, the
industry only risks losing what little credibility it has left with the public.
The industry and its lackeys ought to realize that if they want to play the
blame game, they are playing with fire and will get burned.
<<A HREF="http://www.oregonlive.com/oped/index.ssf?/oped/00/08/ed_41rait30.frame">http://www.oregonlive.com/oped/index.ssf?/oped/00/08/ed_41rait30.frame>\\
Cspounser-
I also suggest you check out the photos of the Montana fire on this page:
http://wildmontana.org/
Go to bottom of page, click on bitterroot fires, then bittierrot phots of next page.
Notice how the big old growth pines survuve the blaze? THESE are the trees that slow and cause smaler fires. THESE trees need to be in place.
But it's a shame that these are the very tress the timber industry seeks out.
Fires are caused by drought, lightning, and exhaust sparks, not by roadless wilderness.
For example, the Boundary WAters Canoe area wilderness in Minnesota is a 2.6 million acre roadless area(when combined withe the adjacent Quetico wilderness).
Last year, there was a storm that leveled 400,000 acres of trees. It was an epic storm.
But wait....why no fires? Because drought and lightning cause fires, NOT roadless wilderness.
Quit falling for the propganda of companies that have a financial interest in all of this. Geeze man, think for yourself.
That is rich. . .made me laugh tonight. . .
An extremest as defined is:
"A supporter of extreme doctrine or practice."
Extremism is:
"a tendency to go to extremes or an instance of going to the extremes,. . ."
You checked the mirror lately. . .?
8^)
Texas has the worst air pollution in the nation.
HOuston has the worst air quality in the U.S.A.
The rivers in Texas are the nations worst.
Bush Jr. is an extremist because the emission laws in TExas are VOLUNTARY.
Myself, I am for the preservation of our last wild areas, and for a balanced, healthy economy. I am for selective logging on our national forests by local logging companies with vested long term interests in the local area.
This is also the view of most Americans today.
The roadless INitiative SET A RECORD for PUBLIC COMMENTS!
The vast majority supported the roadles initiative. That is hardly extreme.
Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, and was the biggest "land grabber" of all time. If it want for him, we wouldnt have national forests:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/07/12/environment.forest.reut/
Ban on U.S. forest roads draws record public outcry
July 12, 2000
Web posted at: 12:34 p.m. EDT (1634 GMT)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A Clinton administration plan to ban roads for mining, logging and other traffic in many U.S. Forests has sparked a record 500,000 comments from the public, with most either backing the proposal or saying it doesn't go far enough to protect the environment.
The administration announced a plan in May to safeguard 43 million acres of pristine national forests for hiking, bird watching, cross country skiing, horseback riding, hunting, fishing and other nature activities.
The U.S. Forest Service proposal would affect about one-fourth of the total 192 million acres in the national forest system
The proposal, which is expected to be finalized in December, drew an unprecedented number of letters, e-mails and faxes.
"A record number of citizens have participated in the public comment period for the Forest Service's roadless plan, expressing their
overwhelming support for protecting the remaining roadless areas from roads and logging," Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a New York Democrat, told reporters on Tuesday.
The outpouring of letters surpassed other high-profile rulemakings by federal agencies, including U.S. Agriculture Department's plan for organic food labels last year and the Food and Drug Administration's regulation of cigarettes in 1996.
The road ban proposal is drawing criticisms from all sides.
The American Forest & Paper Association, a trade group, contends that roadbuilding is necessary to provide forest access for recreation and fire prevention. Also, some Americans need to reach their privately- owned land using roads.
Lawmakers in western states that are home to large forest areas have also criticized the proposal for failing to seek congressional input.
Meanwhile, some environmental advocates and even religious groups say that it does not go far enough to protect virgin U.S. land.
"The current plan is not acceptable, as it contains loopholes big enough to drive a logging truck through," said Gene Karpinski, executive director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
Hinchey said that while the proposal aims to protect the forests, it is inadequate because it does not protect the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, the nation's largest national forest.
"By excluding the Tongass and allowing continued logging in the roadless areas, the president is passing up an historic opportunity to protect our national treasures," Hinchey said.
The Clinton administration proposal would allow continued logging in roadless areas by helicopters and cable systems. About 300 million board feet of timber sales planned for the next five years would be prevented by the road-building ban, according to the Wilderness
Society.
The public comment period for the proposal ends on Monday.
More than 380,000 miles of roads already exist in American national forests and many of the roads are badly in need of repair, according to the Clinton administration. The proposed ban would apply to large parcels of forest land that do not have roads because of their rugged terrain or environmental sensitivity.
The USFS chieif just finished the Roadless INitiative. It doesn't close roads, it makes sure no more roads are built inot our last tiny bit of wilderness.
A Toyota Tacoma with 33's and a locker will get farther in that mud than that Chevy will.
that there was no relationship between the recent decline in logging on
federal lands and the severity of forest fires.
<<A HREF="http://www.billingsgazette.com/200009breaking/20000901_fx55report.html">http://www.billingsgazette.com/200009breaking/20000901_fx55report.html>
I guess I can see how that article would lead someone to beleive it's a ban on existing roads. Thats bad wording on their part eh?
Here's the link to the Forest Service's Roadless Website explaning it.
MORE DEATHS
The announcement comes one day after the
government said 26 more U.S. traffic deaths - for a
total of 88 - are under investigation in
connection with recalled Firestone tires.
Meantime, Venezuelan authorities have
recommended criminal prosecution of Ford Motor Co.
and Bridgestone/Firestone for deaths there.
Firestone tires are standard equipment on Explorers
and other Ford vehicles.
Congress prepared for hearings featuring
testimony from the heads of both companies, while
Firestone was trying to avoid a strike by 8,000
workers.
Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater said
Friday the Clinton administration will confer with
Congress to determine whether manufacturers should
be required to notify the U.S. government when
they recall products abroad, as Ford did with
Firestone tires a year ago.
“As relates to the international recall, we
were a bit concerned to learn that we found out
about that much later,” Slater said on NBC’s
“Today.” “It would have been good to have that
information earlier. It could have prompted us to
take action a bit earlier.”
Advertisement
Quick Gifts Swimwear Books Music & Video
Computing Electronics Toys & Games More . . .
NHTSA has received more than 1,400
complaints about the Firestone tires, including
reports of 88 deaths and more than 250 injuries
that reportedly were the result of blowouts, tread
separation and other tire defects.
NHTSA is examining all 47 million
Wilderness AT, ATX and ATX II tires.
Congress is holding a hearing on the matter
next week, and Ford chief executive Jac Nasser
announced Thursday that he would testify, reversing
his earlier decision not to attend.
Bridgestone/Firestone chief executive Masatoshi Ono
also will appear at the Wednesday hearing before
two House Commerce subcommittees.
Venezuela to investigate Ford, Firestone
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Venezuela's Congress on Friday moved to launch an investigation into fatal road accidents allegedly caused by faulty Bridgestone/Firestone tires mounted on Ford Explorers.
The action follows up on a report by Venezuela's consumer protection agency that holds both companies responsible for at least 46 deaths.
The congressional investigation, spearheaded by members of President Hugo's leftist political party, parallels a criminal probe by the country's attorney general's office that could result in felony charges against executives of the Venezuelan branches of Ford Motor Co. and Bridgestone/Firestone Inc.
The legal maneuverings in Venezuela also coincide with growing action against the two companies in the United States. On Friday, the Clinton administration issued a consumer warning saying about 1.4 million Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. tires are susceptible to tread separation problems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a statement saying the decision to put out the ''consumer advisory'' came after Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. refused to expand its voluntary 3-week-old recall beyond 6.5 million tires.
Meanwhile, a lawyer and victim of a 1998 accident in a Ford Explorer said Friday he will seek an order from Venezuela's Supreme Court requiring both companies to alert the public about alleged defects in both Explorers and Firestone's Wilderness tires.
Legislator Ibrahim Velasquez, a member of Chavez's Fifth Republic Movement, said he would motion for Congress to appoint a special committee to investigate the consumer protection agency's allegations that Ford and Bridgestone/Firestone engaged in a cover-up when they became aware of the tire problems. Chavez's party controls 60% of Congress.
''There is a shared responsibility in the sense that both companies knew about the situation,'' Velasquez said on Friday after meeting with the president of the consumer protection agency, known as Indecu.
The Indecu report also said the design of the suspension on Ford Explorers contributed to the fatal accidents and accused Ford of recommending a pressure too low for the Wilderness tires.
Ford and Bridgestone/Firestone face a congressional probe in the United States, where government safety engineers suspect that the tire defects could have been responsible for 88 deaths and more than 250 injuries. Ford began replacing Bridgestone/Firestone tires for free in Venezuela in May.
Ford officials denied Indecu leader Samuel Ruh's allegation that they misled customers in Venezuela, insisting they addressed the problem appropriately and on time.
''I just want to emphasize that the accusation from the Venezuelan government official that Ford Venezuela lied is completely unfounded,'' Ford chief executive Jac Nasser said Thursday.
Franklin Hoetz, a Venezuelan victim of a Ford Explorer crash, said he would file a motion by Monday asking the Venezuelan Supreme Court to order both the car maker and tire company to warn the Venezuelan public about the suspected defects in both Explorers and Bridgestone/Firestone tires. On Friday, the Venezelan government's National Ombudsman said it would participate in soliciting the Supreme Court's action.
''It's a matter of preventing more deaths and new tragedies,'' Hoetz said on Friday.
Hoetz, a corporate lawyer who until months ago worked for Ford, was on his way to his ranch in 1998 when a tire blew out on his Explorer, causing the vehicle to turn over three times. Both his daughter and son-in-law were badly injured and their 20-year-old nanny died.
Hoetz at first attributed the accident to bad luck until he read about Ford's recall of Firestone tires on their Explorers in May. He has since dropped the car maker as a client and has filed a lawsuit against Ford and Bridgestone/Firestone in a Miami court on behalf of his family and the nanny's relatives.
The Indecu report says that Ford and Bridgestone/Firestone secretly agreed in 1999 to add a protective nylon layer to Wilderness tires after accidents in Venezuela related to those tires became more frequent. Meanwhile, unsuspecting costumers continued to drive with tires missing the layer.
http://usatoday.com/news/world/nwsfri03.htm
88 deaths linked to recalled tires
Venezuelan agency wants criminal charges
By Earle Eldridge and David Kiley, USA TODAY
Federal investigators said Thursday that they now have reports of 88 deaths linked to the failure of Firestone tires.
Also Thursday, Venezuela's consumer protection agency said defects in Firestone tires on Ford Motor vehicles are linked to at least 46 deaths in that country.
In the USA, complaints about the tires filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) almost doubled to 1,400 from 750 on Aug. 15. Injuries tied to the tires climbed to 250 from 100. When NHTSA began its investigation in early May, it had reports of four deaths.
On Aug. 9, Firestone recalled 6.5 million ATX, ATX II and Wilderness AT tires, most on Ford Explorers, because of problems with tread separation.
The NHTSA data include at least 58 complaints of problems and five injuries that occurred since the recall. Separately, police have reported at least three deaths since the recall.
"We take every accident and every injury very, very seriously," says Bridgestone/Firestone Executive Vice President John Lampe. But he added that some of the accidents likely involve road hazards or other factors not connected to tread separation.
Ford CEO Jacques Nasser said, "I'd like you to know we're sorry that these tires are on our vehicles, and I'm depressed about the resulting anxiety, injuries and deaths."
In Caracas, officials with Indecu, Venezuela's consumer protection agency, recommended that the country's attorney general file criminal charges against both Bridgestone/Firestone and Ford in connection with the tire problems on Explorers.
The agency also said Bridgestone should recall all the Wilderness AT tires in Venezuela, not just those on Explorers.
Ford, which also has said Bridgestone should recall all the tires, has replaced the Firestones on about 60% of the 30,000 Explorers in Venezuela.
The agency also recommended that Ford improve the suspension system on Explorers sold there since 1996.
Nasser said Ford will cooperate with the Venezuelan authorities, but it's "a tire issue, without question. It is not a vehicle issue."
Bridgestone said it, too, will cooperate, but it isn't planning a recall at this point.
Nasser also defended Ford's decision to replace tires abroad before taking action in the USA.
He said actions in the Middle East, Asia and South America were done before Ford fully understood the extent of the problem and based on information from Firestone that tires were not defective.
Contributing: Wire reports
Please, Please, stop the long posts and the cutting and pasting, links are much, much more friendly.
The Explorer will have a slight downturn in sales but it won't hamper its number one standing for long. The 2002 looks very potent with its new all aluminum v8, new suspension, drivetrain and interior also. By the way, I saw two NEW Explorers on my way home tonight...
"It has already been proven over and over
the Explorer is not at fault, there are no design
flaws."
Could you post any links to this fact? I think the Venezuelan government would also be interested. In fact, even Ford since it would get them off the hook with Indecu.
Front Porch Philosopher (meredith) Sun 03 Sep '00 (08:06 AM)
Posts are DELETED for VIOLATING the Participant's
Agreement....
You may NOT post copyrighted material in this
forum. Even if it is attributed and you use
"quotations," you MAY be violating the "Fair Use"
doctrine - which would subject you to legal
liability - an issue which we would prefer NOT to
be involved in. I may NOT be as paranoid in
enforcing this as I should, but it IS Edmunds
policy. You may post crosslinks to other material,
but it is inappropriate, and possibly illegal for
you to copy material and repost it here.
Edmunds does not care to find itself in the censor
role generally speaking, but we will do what we
must in self defense. Edmunds does not, and has
not deleted material because a manufacturer found
it objectionable. If we did THAT we have to delete
half our topics!.... "Let's be careful out there!"
Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
In your analysis, you stated that thousands upon thousands of Explorers without the Firestones have not had any problems. This is true. Also, we can look at it another way...there are thousands and thousands of Yukons, Tahoes, Expeditions, Excursions, Landcruisers, and Jimmys out there with Firestones and they have not had any problems. Doesn't that make you a little bit curious as to why? Maybe, just maybe, it has to do with the 26 psi that Ford recommends with the Explorers that have the Firestones as that combination was prone to rollovers with 30 psi in the tires....
Any statements that we make should be supported by facts to lend any credibility. What I have mentioned above is common knowledge that anyone following the Firestone/Ford issue would know about. Regardless of this, I'm sure Congress and the Venezuelan goverment will pursue it to hopefully everyones satisfaction.
spoog- why would a tacoma with 33" tires fair better? those big tires would make an already underpowered truck even more sluggish.
Clay, I can tell you all about clay. Clay builds up, does not fly off like normal mud. After a while your tires turn into just mud slicks. And if you don't watch it it will build up enough in your fender wells to actually stop tires from rotating. I have seen it on even full size 4x4's with V8's. There are places that 4x4's just aren't meant to go. I haven't done this with my Ranger, but have had to get out in mud and scrap the clay out of the tread, not fun....
By the way, how about we transfer the Firestone/Explorer debate to the Explorer room?
guitardude
My statement that there are thousands of suv's out there with Firestones is a mute point. Regardless of how many there are...ask the next question...how many suvs other than the explorer have rolled over with thread seperation from their Firestones. I'm sure with the exposure the explorer is getting someone with an suv must have had thread seperation with the Firestones but I guess they just don't have the time to report it....or it wasn't a big deal since the suv didn't roll...
vince8
good luck on your quest to find a link that states the explorer is not at fault. In your post #519 you stated,
"It has already been proven over and over the Explorer is not at fault, there are no design flaws."
Your statement was the only reason that I posted in this topic. I just couldn't believe someone would make a statement and therefore had to question it. Obviously you have nothing to support it...so I'll accept that and move on...
BTW, are you related to dodgeram7?
I understand being brand loyal....but blindly loyal? Now would be a good time to buy Ford stocks...well maybe not. They will hit an all time low when congress and Venezuela finish their investigations... just my opinion...
"Ford paid off victims families to keep quit (I saw some of the lawyers on TV)"
I am quite sure "HUSH" clauses are standard in all legal contracts in which ANY product fails. For a hush clause to be used the case would have to be settled out of court. Ford Pays them a sum of money, and what ford gets for this money in NO bad publicity. With what is being said now (that it is a tire issue not a explorer issue) it is more than likely that ford would win any case brought against it. But they Settle OUT of court so there is absolutely NO publicity at all....
Any and all companies use "Hush" clauses in ANY liability settlement.. its common sense.
Someone mentioned earlier that no one else used Firestone tires on their SUV's. Toyota does however, they use a larger tire (Wilderness AT -P265). That could also be an issue. Is the P235 tire a marginal size for that size of vehicle adding to the problem since we don't see the same problem on the Toyota? I'm sure lots more will come out as the investigation continues. Personally, Ford's attitude bothers me and that, added to my Mustang poor design and quality experiences, makes Ford off my list in the future.
A good case of guilt by ownership. Sort of like MB buying Chrysler. The what if about Toyota is exactly that...no rollovers with the Firestones. Only ford explorers. Could it be coincidence? Don't think so...
As I've said before, even though i'm a ford fan, I think they probably are to blame for not doing something sooner. -and if so, I hope they are penalized. BUT, the reality is that ford will probably come away from all of this relatively unscathed. due to their constant TV ads with Jac Nasser and newspaper updates they are trying to keep a good PR with the public. firestone on the other hand hasn't done squat. I think stuff like that ends up making a difference in how these situations play out. oh well, just my observations.
But, geez, I thought I was going to get to read comparisons between TRUCKS!
What's the title of this topic again?