Because the bill directly references the 1993 QLG agreement, language is needed that expressly precludes endorsement for stewardship contracting, working circle, and sustained yield unit. If not, some could argue that Congress had in fact, authorized them in the QLG bill. I acknowledge the change by the addition of a range from 40,000 - 60,000 acres. However the fuel zone concept is experimental. No field data exist demonstrating that a fuel zone will bring a crown fire to the ground.
Anecdotal information is mixed at best.
But, we are not opposed to a carefully constructed experiment on a much more limited basis, like one Ranger District. In addition, the 1993 QLG proposal is silent on the fuel zone idea. One discredulous environmentalist once described these zones as suspiciously similar to the forests' green sale program. Language is needed that describes a process by which the public can participate in the design of the fuel break system. Without such language, the public is being asked to trust a general, shifting, vague concept without any input, and the land could be subjected to the program proposed in the Technical Fuels Report.