by Sean Paige
June 26, 2002

SHOW: Fox's Hannity And Colmes

HEADLINE: Are Environmentalists To Blame For Wildfires In Colorado And Arizona?

BYLINE: Sean Hannity, Alam Colmes

BODY:

COLMES: We're back on H&C. Coming up, the bombshell by WorldCom is the latest black eye for corporate America. Is big business getting a bad rap? H&C, is that the end of the show?

HANNITY: What is that?

COLMES: You're H and I'm C.

(LAUGHTER)

COLMES: Some people can't ad lib around here.

(LAUGHTER)

COLMES: First up, people are pointing the finger at environmentalists for the devastating wildfires burning thousands of acres in Colorado and Arizona. They say if the forests had been thinned out -- something environmentalists are opposed to -- these fires could have been prevented. Do they have a point?

Joining us from D.C., Craig Gehrke, Idaho's regional director for the Wilderness Society. Also in D.C., Sean Paige, adjunct fellow with Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Sean, do you guys have to blame the left for everything in America, including forest fires? You want to blame the left wing environmentalists? It's their fault, right?

SEAN PAIGE, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: No, not at all. It's a combination of factors. I mean, the primary factor for the forest fuels crisis that we have is 90 years of fire suppression policies by the U.S. Forest Service, as personified by Smokey the Bear.

The real problem becomes, once we're in a crisis in the last 20 years, our land management agencies have been paralyzed by obstructionist tactics by environmentalists and an administration during the Clinton years that just didn't want to go into forests and do any active management -- not just logging. Logging isn't the only solution.

But the fact of the matter is, we have a forest crisis in the country, not just fire prone forests. We've got 70 million acres of fire prone forests out there. We've got tens of millions of more acres that are being killed by insect and disease infestations. We've got other acreage that's being invaded by invasive species. And we're paralyzed to do anything about it, as Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth indicated last week up on Capitol Hill, because the agencies are paralyzed.

(CROSSTALK)

COLMES: Craig, is that an accurate, is that a fair assessment of where the blame resides?

CRAIG GEHRKE, WILDERNESS SOCIETY: No, I don't think it's a question of blame. I think that certainly the policy of fire suppression that was put in place since the 1900s turned out to be the wrong thing. I think right now we shouldn't be looking for blame, but seeing what we could do to protect these buildings and communities that risk of fire?

COLMES: Just sort of blame the Clinton administration, they want to blame the environmentalists. I mean, it seems to me that there's a lot of finger-pointing going on here.

GEHRKE: I think it's very unproductive. I think that there's an enormous amount of work the U.S. Forest Service could do, where people's houses or communities butt up against national forest lands. They can thin the forests there. They can take away fuel and help protect those communities.

But on a large landscape level, we're not going to fireproof our forests. We wouldn't want to. That wouldn't be possible.

HANNITY: Sean, blame does need to go out here, because for years we should have been thinning these forests for a long time. But the thought of cutting down one single, solitary tree has brought about the wrath of environmental extremists, and has prevented those that are experts in
forestry from doing their job. Isn't that the truth?

PAIGE: I think that is true, especially in the last 20 years. If you look at the amount of litigation that's stocked up against all these agencies, the forest service and so on, it's become counterproductive. That's the irony here. The people that say they love the forest are actually preventing actions being taken that would actually lead to improved forest health.

Last year, for instance, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife had to stop listing endangered species because there are so many lawsuits. So basically the strategy of saturation litigation is not paying off and it's backfiring on the people who supposedly love the land the most.

HANNITY: It is a renewable resource. And, Craig, you know, we're importing wood into this country. And we have somewhere close to, what, 80 million plus acres that we could be using right now -- all prone to wildfires.

But environmentalists won't let us cut down a single tree because if we do they'll be there, they'll be protesting. They make everything difficult. Is that not a factor? Certainly drought is a factor. Is that not at least a factor?

GEHRKE: No, I think there are a couple points I'd like to respond to there. The General Accounting Office looked at how many fire reduction projects had been appealed or litigated. They found that less than 2 percent, since Congress funded this program, had been stopped by appeals and litigation.

HANNITY: Are you against cutting down any trees?

GEHRKE: The idea that the environmentalists are stopping sales is not accurate.

(CROSSTALK)

COLMES: We have to break, unfortunately. I hope we have a chance to address this again. Thank you, Craig and Sean. Thank you, both.

How many acres were burned in wildfires in the U.S. in 2001? That's the question of the day. The answer is coming up in a bit.

Also coming up next, a look at the shocking news from WorldCom. Is corporate America out of control? That's coming up.