A clever argument. Chop the trees down, and they won't burn in place. Very good. Ironclad, as they say. Or saw 'em down. Clear 'em out, they're a hazard.

Now, while you're trotting around waving your feathers and whooping it up, this article displays it's own bit of hypocricy. Look at the facts it reports.

First, the Sierra Club responded to information from the GAO "in the form of a General Accounting Office report".

Next, after the Sierra Club response, the Forest Service came out with additional information, "correct numbers", if you will.

"Barry Hill, the director of natural resources and the environment at the GAO, set the record straight." "His letter just happens to coincide with a new Forest Service report with the correct numbers."

So, now the Forest Service jiggers the numbers and gives them to the GAO. The Sierra Club response to the original numbers may, only may, not be correct. Now. Based on new information. Issued after the original response. Later. Subsequent to the information used for the original report.

I don't know what happened, but the information contained in your citation doesn't warrant the kind of grandstanding the author of the article is doing.

And, "thinning" is logging. It isn't protecting houses built in the forests, it's not building firebreaks, it's not limiting building in forests. It's not stopping Forest Service employees from starting fires, it's not preventing firefighters from creating for work. It is chopping down trees so they can't burn. Clever.

Arf