GARBERVILLE, CA - Today, 103 conservation groups from around the nation, including the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), sent a letter every member of the U.S. House of Representatives asking them to oppose Congressman Scott McInnis' "Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003" (HR 1904) because it fails to protect homes and communities from wildfires, while limiting citizen participation and increasing logging on America's National Forests. McInnis' controversial bill will be reviewed by the House Agriculture Committee today and is expected to come to a vote by the full House next week.

"This bill does not include any specific measures to protect homes or communities. It is also inconsistent with the Western Governors' Association 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, which does not call for any changes in existing laws," the 103 conservation groups state in the letter. "The only proven method to protect homes and communities is to reduce flammable materials in the immediate vicinity of structures, yet the sham definitions in H.R. 1904 would not require any activities to be near homes.

"Instead, the bill seeks to further subsidize the timber industry and eliminate obstacles to logging large, fire-resistant trees miles away from the nearest home. The country's top forest scientists, including the Forest Service's own scientists, have found that this kind of logging can actually increase fire risk and make fires larger and more intense.

"We urge you to oppose this bill, which does not offer more protection to communities at risk from wildfire, but rather seeks to undermine our environmental laws and the judicial process when it comes to logging on our public lands, potentially including national parks and wildlife refuges."

Anthony Ambrose, EPIC's National Forest conservation director said, "The most important step that Congress can take to protect lives and property from wildfire is to focus limited resources within the Community Protection Zone - an area directly adjacent to homes and communities. McInnis' fire bill completely fails to address this critical need, and instead will open the door to unrestricted logging of old-growth forests, roadless areas, and key salmon watersheds. The impacts to National Forests here in northern California could be devastating, with the Forest Service calling every old-growth timber sale a `fuels reduction' project. We call on Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA) and other members of Congress to oppose this ill-conceived legislation and work to develop meaningful legislation that protects communities from fire while maintaining citizens' rights and environmental laws."

Mike Petersen, executive director of The Lands Council, a Spokane, Washington conservation group that has helped hundreds of rural homeowners craft individual home protection plans, said, "Forest Service research shows that removing brush and saplings within a few hundred feet of a home will greatly reduce fire risk to homeowners. It's critical to help rural homeowners live with wildfire, rather than squandering scarce resources increasing logging in our National Forests, as the McInnis bill would do."

Andrew George, campaign coordinator with the National Forest Protection Alliance - a national network of over 100 grassroots conservation groups - explained, "Make no mistake, the McInnis bill does nothing to protect homes and communities from wildfire or promote badly needed ecological restoration projects. Instead, the McInnis bill focuses on limiting citizen participation and undermining our nation's environmental laws in order to increase logging on America's National Forests. It's that simple."

Lisa Dix, campaign coordinator with the American Lands Alliance stated, "Limiting citizen participation and interfering with America's judicial system in order to cut down large, fire resistant trees miles away from communities will do nothing to protect a community from wildfire, yet this is the exact approach promoted in the McInnis bill and the Bush Administration's `Healthy Forest Initiative.' The results would likely be similar to the infamous 1995 Salvage Rider: more public distrust of the Forest Service, heightened opposition to fuel reduction projects, degraded forest health, and increased fire risk."