It is true that the timber industry is peddling nonsense about wildfires. If logging reduced wildfires, 100 years of massive clearcutting in the northwest would have solved the wild fire 'problem.' But these two make equally asinine arguments about the issue. After thirty years of activists battling to get the Forest Service to stop cutting old growth, these guys now claim that killing old growth forests with high severity fire is just fine, thank you. They are peddling junk science just like the timber industry and they are doing it for the same reason: money. As logging on public lands has declined, so have grants to fight that logging. Rather than move on to productive employment, these people continue to fight the timber wars. When this argument started, the Forest Service was cutting five billion board feet of old growth per year in Oregon and Washington. Today they a cut about six hundred million board feet, almost entirely out of second growth stands.
The forests of the west face a terrible threat from rising temperatures and drought. We need to stop chasing yesterday's villains and deal with the threat from climate change.
The forests of the west face a terrible threat from rising temperatures and drought. We need to stop chasing yesterday's villains and deal with the threat from climate change.
1
As an economist and a taxpayer I find it infuriating that Republicans are allowed to get away with the scam whereby more is paid in infrastructure costs, which we pay for, than the Treasury receives back in logging rights. As for the "economic stimulus" of logging, nonsense. Today it is a capital intensive business that generates very little employment all of which is short term. Moreover once an area has been clean cut its tourism potential has been permanently destroyed. I would also note that rather than protecting lives clear cutting is hazardous to those who live nearby. In the Pacific Northwest mudslides have frequently occurred next to clear cut areas, killing residents.
2
With our history of plentiful rain and mild summers, we don't have many large fires here in the Oregon Coast range. However, last year the Yellow Point fire was large enough to give us a taste. The interesting thing to me was that the most-burned areas were those that had been recently logged (stumps and slash piles do indeed burn) and the mid-size stands of tree formations awaiting the chain saws. It was a mild surprise to ride over Oxbow Summit, itself the site of a huge fire fifty years ago, and see the charred stumps.
2
The meek shall inherit the earth.*
*But not the timber or mineral rights.
*But not the timber or mineral rights.
1
There it stands ,chainsaw ready. There for the taking.
It's as if a farmer comes upon a field of ripe corn and decides to harvest , no matter that he doesn't own the land ,didn't plant the seed or didn't cultivate .
All that's needed, in both cases, is to somehow get those with the power to do so, the machinations to make it all legal.
It's as if a farmer comes upon a field of ripe corn and decides to harvest , no matter that he doesn't own the land ,didn't plant the seed or didn't cultivate .
All that's needed, in both cases, is to somehow get those with the power to do so, the machinations to make it all legal.
1
Despite the junk science these "advocates" put forward, forests are pretty simple. Fuel builds up in forests until it is removed. It can be removed by logging or it can burn. There are no magic fuel fairies who come take out fuel.
People have forgotten that one of the main reasons the federal government got into fire suppression (and forest management) is because without logging and similar forest management tools, the US used to have massive fires that destroyed hundreds and thousands of square miles at a time.
These activists and their "scientists" are also the ones who fight every attempt at reasonable logging - even things like trying to log out disease/pest outbreaks. Instead, they tie things up in litigation until the outbreaks are beyond control, so we end up with huge tracts of forest full of dead trees - perfect for a hot, huge fire.
As much as city-dwelling "activists" want to believe differently, logging is not evil. Good logging rules require loggers to take care of their slash - which has been the norm for over a hundred years, and in most federal forest timber sales, it isn't the loggers who decide which trees to cut, it is the federal agency (like the forest service or BLM) that goes into the woods to mark which trees will be cut.
So, bottom line is pretty simple: which would you prefer - reasonable logging or huge fires?
People have forgotten that one of the main reasons the federal government got into fire suppression (and forest management) is because without logging and similar forest management tools, the US used to have massive fires that destroyed hundreds and thousands of square miles at a time.
These activists and their "scientists" are also the ones who fight every attempt at reasonable logging - even things like trying to log out disease/pest outbreaks. Instead, they tie things up in litigation until the outbreaks are beyond control, so we end up with huge tracts of forest full of dead trees - perfect for a hot, huge fire.
As much as city-dwelling "activists" want to believe differently, logging is not evil. Good logging rules require loggers to take care of their slash - which has been the norm for over a hundred years, and in most federal forest timber sales, it isn't the loggers who decide which trees to cut, it is the federal agency (like the forest service or BLM) that goes into the woods to mark which trees will be cut.
So, bottom line is pretty simple: which would you prefer - reasonable logging or huge fires?
2
Let me guess, the Republicans are calling their clear cutting proposal, "The healthy forest intuitive." They love to give ecological damaging things the opposite of what they actually are doing.
4
Another attempt by the Republican know-nothings to act in complete ignorance of science - and reality. Let's hope it doesn't even get to President Obama's desk; but if it does, he must veto it.
4
The border, terrorism and the war on drugs all have the ring of perpetual emergency. And now we have forest fires. Unfortunately a lot of private contractors make a lot of money on perpetual wars .. and for that matter real wars. Much of the work done by the federal government on fires is subcontracted ... to companies you will recognise as profiting from he business of war - Haliburton, KBR and Macdonnell Douglas all contract, and profit from our fire policy.
Unfortunately - the USDA Forest Service, National Interagency Fire Center - no longer posts the names of these contractors and instead states "Persons with a need for this information may submit an e-mail request to FS-FS AQM ISB."
I think we all need to know about the business of fire in the american west. As it has long prioritized serving those who profit from fighting the fires.
Unfortunately - the USDA Forest Service, National Interagency Fire Center - no longer posts the names of these contractors and instead states "Persons with a need for this information may submit an e-mail request to FS-FS AQM ISB."
I think we all need to know about the business of fire in the american west. As it has long prioritized serving those who profit from fighting the fires.
In addition to the many excellent points made by Chad Hanson and Dominick Dellasala, protected forests are good for rivers and the aquatic species that live in them. Protected forests keep rivers cool which, in the face of increasingly frequent and more severe droughts resulting from climate change, is critically important to the survival of salmon, trout, and other fish. Protected forests also provide nutrients from decaying vegetation and insects that are critical links in aquatic food webs.
15
Just another push by the GOP for Socialism for the rich. Not based on fact? When has that mattered?
1
Thanks for publishing this defense of our forests, which do not require “thinning” nor will “thinning” reduce fire hazards.
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area thousands of us are trying to prevent the pointless destruction of nearly a half-million trees because they are not native. Native plant advocates haven’t had much success convincing our public policy makers to eradicate all non-native vegetation so they can return the landscape to native grassland and scrub, so they have fabricated a cover-story. They claim that non-native trees are more flammable than native plants. Read about this horrible project here: http://milliontrees.me/2013/05/09/nearly-a-half-million-trees-will-be-de...
This is ridiculous, of course. Native vegetation in California, like all Mediterranean climates, is fire adapted and fire dependent. Winter rains produce copious vegetation, which dries out during the summer and becomes the fuel for our wildfires. During the dry summer months we can see daily grass fires reported on our local TV news.
Yet, the myth of flammable non-native trees persists because FEAR is a powerful motivator of bad public policy. We gave up our personal privacy to a national surveillance policy because we were afraid of terrorists. The public is easily manipulated by fear.
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area thousands of us are trying to prevent the pointless destruction of nearly a half-million trees because they are not native. Native plant advocates haven’t had much success convincing our public policy makers to eradicate all non-native vegetation so they can return the landscape to native grassland and scrub, so they have fabricated a cover-story. They claim that non-native trees are more flammable than native plants. Read about this horrible project here: http://milliontrees.me/2013/05/09/nearly-a-half-million-trees-will-be-de...
This is ridiculous, of course. Native vegetation in California, like all Mediterranean climates, is fire adapted and fire dependent. Winter rains produce copious vegetation, which dries out during the summer and becomes the fuel for our wildfires. During the dry summer months we can see daily grass fires reported on our local TV news.
Yet, the myth of flammable non-native trees persists because FEAR is a powerful motivator of bad public policy. We gave up our personal privacy to a national surveillance policy because we were afraid of terrorists. The public is easily manipulated by fear.
This, along with with the two parties vastly different responses to the challenge of climate change, is reason enough to support democrats.
2
Almost all the editorials this commenter has read support thinning forests to suppress forest fires, but they were all written by lumber industry executives or newspaper columnists. It is refreshing to read an opinion piece written by scientists.
1
The never-discussed issue when fires and forest management topics arise is: how exactly to forest fires start in the first place? Human-caused and lightning are the two categories. Human caused fires almost always means campfires.
The term “ignition prevention” should be in every environmentalist, forester’s and legislator's vocabulary. The US Forest Service could spend MILLIONS more to prevent fires by having more rangers in the woods on the weekends, enforcing the laws in place, and educating the public about the weather conditions that cause fires to become huge. It’s the wind and heat that makes for the small ignitions to get huge.
Or how about disallowing campfires in forests altogether in the summer? Americans feel entitled to a campfire when they camp but it’s abused by the idiots. Tragedy of the commons etc… The people who are at fault are rarely prosecuted because of the antiquated laws—there is no “intent” to cause a fire, just ignorance, (“I thought we put out the campfire”.) thus no arson, thus no big fines or jail time. It’s way past time to prevent fires from igniting in the first place.
The US Forest Service spends millions and millions on suppression costs but a pittance on patrols and prevention—putting out fires is way more sexy and keeps all those rural folks employed. In Australia they close forests when red flag conditions exist. Let’s see the US Forest Service try that in the west. It might save a few trees from burning.
The term “ignition prevention” should be in every environmentalist, forester’s and legislator's vocabulary. The US Forest Service could spend MILLIONS more to prevent fires by having more rangers in the woods on the weekends, enforcing the laws in place, and educating the public about the weather conditions that cause fires to become huge. It’s the wind and heat that makes for the small ignitions to get huge.
Or how about disallowing campfires in forests altogether in the summer? Americans feel entitled to a campfire when they camp but it’s abused by the idiots. Tragedy of the commons etc… The people who are at fault are rarely prosecuted because of the antiquated laws—there is no “intent” to cause a fire, just ignorance, (“I thought we put out the campfire”.) thus no arson, thus no big fines or jail time. It’s way past time to prevent fires from igniting in the first place.
The US Forest Service spends millions and millions on suppression costs but a pittance on patrols and prevention—putting out fires is way more sexy and keeps all those rural folks employed. In Australia they close forests when red flag conditions exist. Let’s see the US Forest Service try that in the west. It might save a few trees from burning.
1
Conservatives don't deserve the name; they never conserve anything.
2
The GOP should be rebranded: the Obtuse Old Party. Members would be known as OOPs. Works for me.
2
Having a cabin with over 2 acres of forest land in the Sierra has given us a first hand perspective of the situation. The bark beetle problem and "hot fire" situation is obviously exacerbated by the recent drought but there are other issues as well.
In our area which is typical of most areas in the Sierra the forest is overgrown. Not with older trees so much but primarily with younger trees and flammable debris on the forest floor. What we have been advised to do and have been doing is decrease the density of the forest on our property by removing primarily the very young trees and the bark-beetle infested larger trees both of which are much more susceptible to fires.
However in the surrounding forests this practice is likely not practical to most commercial loggers as the small trees and dying trees have little or no value to them. Therein lies one of the big problems. Yes many forests need to be thinned out, but not by removing the large fire resistant trees but by removing some of the smaller fire susceptible trees and debris. Again this is not acceptable to the most loggers as it is not practical or profitable enough..
The solution as usual most likely lies in the middle. I would recommend allowing loggers to selectivity harvest large trees (no clear-cutting) which are too close to adjacent large trees and in turn require them to remove many of the smaller trees and debris which are crowding the forests leading to too many of the so called "hot fires".
In our area which is typical of most areas in the Sierra the forest is overgrown. Not with older trees so much but primarily with younger trees and flammable debris on the forest floor. What we have been advised to do and have been doing is decrease the density of the forest on our property by removing primarily the very young trees and the bark-beetle infested larger trees both of which are much more susceptible to fires.
However in the surrounding forests this practice is likely not practical to most commercial loggers as the small trees and dying trees have little or no value to them. Therein lies one of the big problems. Yes many forests need to be thinned out, but not by removing the large fire resistant trees but by removing some of the smaller fire susceptible trees and debris. Again this is not acceptable to the most loggers as it is not practical or profitable enough..
The solution as usual most likely lies in the middle. I would recommend allowing loggers to selectivity harvest large trees (no clear-cutting) which are too close to adjacent large trees and in turn require them to remove many of the smaller trees and debris which are crowding the forests leading to too many of the so called "hot fires".
1
Republican politicians - and unfortunately also a few Democrats in western states - have been trying for decades to give our national forests away to their industrialist campaign contributors; who would then log them, drill them, and mine them to the point of being unrecognizable. It is a lifetime commitment to stop them from doing so, but it is essential work.
The public's national forests, along with forested Bureau of Land Management parcels, are by far the best carbon sequestration sink we have available in this country, and that includes when they burn naturally. They are also our most reliable water sources and the last large swaths of habitat for many native wildlife species. Commercial logging of national forests directly conflicts with these attributes and, given the ecological degradation present virtually everywhere else, is an an archaic and crazy thing to continue doing.
What Congress should be working on is a statute that permanently ends most forms of large-scale commercial extraction of natural resources in our national forests, thus preserving still-wild acreages and providing for the rewilding of the rest.
The public's national forests, along with forested Bureau of Land Management parcels, are by far the best carbon sequestration sink we have available in this country, and that includes when they burn naturally. They are also our most reliable water sources and the last large swaths of habitat for many native wildlife species. Commercial logging of national forests directly conflicts with these attributes and, given the ecological degradation present virtually everywhere else, is an an archaic and crazy thing to continue doing.
What Congress should be working on is a statute that permanently ends most forms of large-scale commercial extraction of natural resources in our national forests, thus preserving still-wild acreages and providing for the rewilding of the rest.
1
I have lived near uncontrolled Canadian clear cuts for years, and seen the pollution (pools of oil, garbage), witnessed the erosion (small canyons where once there were roads), witnessed the token "re-planting" (at the height of summer - all seedlings dead by the end of summer), and seen how thge logging companies treated our local ski and hiking trails (and hopw promised repair never happened).
I have also witnessed logging in Germany and in Washington State, where it is selective, where selected trees are limbed where they fall and snaked out with a cable. In a year or two there is no sign of logging having taken place, smaller trees are coming to maturity and the biosphere functions as normal.
But the GOP wants profits, driven by people like my sister-in-law, who, when I spoke of the horrific devastation of clear-cutting here, said, "It doesn't matter. Jesus will come soon and fix it."
I have also witnessed logging in Germany and in Washington State, where it is selective, where selected trees are limbed where they fall and snaked out with a cable. In a year or two there is no sign of logging having taken place, smaller trees are coming to maturity and the biosphere functions as normal.
But the GOP wants profits, driven by people like my sister-in-law, who, when I spoke of the horrific devastation of clear-cutting here, said, "It doesn't matter. Jesus will come soon and fix it."
3
I applaud healthy skepticism of this bill, but I must push back on your reasons. Talk about cherry-picking facts! Does your assertion that un-logged areas are more fire resistant control for forest type? It's no surprise that forests in the wet Pacific Northwest have lower fire risk than semiarid systems dominated by fire-dependent pine species. You cite a study showing that spotted owls prefer burned areas, but you conveniently left out the study showing that they also prefer edge habitats where logging activity has occurred. What about time scale? The big fires we saw in Yosemite and Yellowstone have happened after predictable succession patterns for this fire-prone ecosystem in addition to decades of fire suppression that allowed smaller ladder fuel stems to occupy space in forests, increasing the risk for catastrophic, large canopy fires. And the logging you've described where large trees are removed & small stems are left is simply not how sustainable forestry is done; that is a high-grade, a cardinal sin in forest management. I am out of character space to write more, but I could.
Long story short, this legislation may not be perfect, but banning public land from any kind of management is not the answer. The Forest Service needs more funding & freedom to do scientifically-rooted, carefully contracted management (logging w/ BMPs, prescribed fire, etc.) on public lands to be proactive instead of dumping its too-small budget only into expensive, reactive fire suppression.
Long story short, this legislation may not be perfect, but banning public land from any kind of management is not the answer. The Forest Service needs more funding & freedom to do scientifically-rooted, carefully contracted management (logging w/ BMPs, prescribed fire, etc.) on public lands to be proactive instead of dumping its too-small budget only into expensive, reactive fire suppression.
6
Why not selectively log, i.e., only trees that are quite large. This prevents erosion. Yes, it is more expensive, and not as profitable. Sigh.
1
Thank you, NYT for publishing this important piece about our national forests. These areas provide environmental, recreational, spiritual, and health benefits for all Americans. As the authors make clear, there is good science to support regulation of logging--regulation that prevents the devastation left by clear-cutting and other poor management practices. It makes me wild that Republican congresspersons cannot seem to ever access the relevant and important science that should inform their legislation on environmentally sensitive issues.
13
Thanks to commenters who have fleshed out the rampant idiocy of crimes in pursuit of excuses in overkilling our most precious resources with lies and cheapening what has great value for us all and our futures.
The devil is in the facts, and Republicans looking for excuses don't like 'em. Though my formerly Republican friends would not recognize this party, the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and (ferludssake) Nixon who created the EPA.
The devil is in the facts, and Republicans looking for excuses don't like 'em. Though my formerly Republican friends would not recognize this party, the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and (ferludssake) Nixon who created the EPA.
7
The money never sleeps. It is as relentless as ocean waves. It just keeps stalking, in a kaleidoscope of disguises, ever probing for undefended meat, until the bones are scattered, bleached, and dry.
4
Why write an opinion piece citing proposed legislation "promoted by three Western Republicans" without including the names or a reference to legislation ?
Here in western Oregon, the forests replanted after years of "Tillamook burns" in the mid-1930's are just reaching harvest-able sizes, but certainly not yet maturity. The Oregon Dept of Forestry has begun permitting massive logging operations, and our hillsides are becoming mowed yards, not a patchwork of forest plots of multi-aged trees ... except for 50-foot strips of trees along highways to hide the clear-cuts from the traveling public.
Any "new" jobs created are only those of a relatively few loggers, because it is whole logs that are being shipped to China, not processed lumber.
There are activists trying to slow this process, but the environmental Rules and Regulations are their only effective tools. The politics of "big timber" and "big exports" are massive.
Here in western Oregon, the forests replanted after years of "Tillamook burns" in the mid-1930's are just reaching harvest-able sizes, but certainly not yet maturity. The Oregon Dept of Forestry has begun permitting massive logging operations, and our hillsides are becoming mowed yards, not a patchwork of forest plots of multi-aged trees ... except for 50-foot strips of trees along highways to hide the clear-cuts from the traveling public.
Any "new" jobs created are only those of a relatively few loggers, because it is whole logs that are being shipped to China, not processed lumber.
There are activists trying to slow this process, but the environmental Rules and Regulations are their only effective tools. The politics of "big timber" and "big exports" are massive.
8
STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES! This attempt shows just how Ignorant and Stupid Too many republicans have grown! If Logging corps were allowed to Log in these areas Many Many More devastating landslides would destroy communities and Lives! Such is a fact of Nature!
Such would also destroy Wildlife Habitats as well. Hence this to me is proof that the GOP doesn't give a damn about Life Our Forests and Wildlife!
Such would also destroy Wildlife Habitats as well. Hence this to me is proof that the GOP doesn't give a damn about Life Our Forests and Wildlife!
3
Every slice of the commons served up to private interests for free or nearly so is a new and dedicated block of voters for the GOP. From the corporate insiders working through ALEC and with their servant politicians to the rank and file line workers so starved for work and decent pay that they now suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, the end is clear: A United States of America stripped and denuded as if some biblical plague of locusts had descended from the heavens and devoured it.
5
Is science the first casualty in this conflict between conservationist and capitalist beliefs? Letting nature run it's course and clear cutting doesn't seem to be working. If fires are unacceptable, and I believe they are, studies must be done to figure out what is best for all. Clear cutting and leaving the forests untouched may work for some areas but not all. There must be other alternatives waiting to be discovered. Most importantly, droughts don't last forever. We should be better prepared for the next one.
Suggest you look it up, if you're on a computer, you can read other better informed comments and use a search engine. Your optimism doesn't mean you have to do your best not to become informed. We need forests, and clearcutting is rampant profiteering and adds to a wide variety of problems, and, as noted, the irreplaceable old forest ends up being shipped abroad, mostly to China. Is that your model, China?
4
Joe,
Letting nature take its course results in massive fires.
Clear cutting national forests hasn't been common in your lifetime except in special situations, like to try to head off a disease or pest outbreak. Managed logging was the norm for decades, but too many "activists" who want zero logging have learned that they can tie up timber sales (how the government allows logging) in court for years at a time, effectively allowing zero logging.
It shouldn't be surprising that someone tried to limit the basis for these delaying lawsuits. It is easy to make this about politics or republican bashing, but it is really about agencies like the forest service trying to do responsible forest management in the face of crazy litigation from "environmental activists" who are mostly funded by urban liberals who have never lived or worked anywhere near a forest.
I have never worked in the logging industry, but I have worked forest fires, as did my father (for 35 years) as did his father. Fires have gotten bigger and more destructive because "activists" are stopping fuel removal from the forest and are enabling large areas of forest to die from disease or pests.
I believe the real issue here is that we have stopped letting the professionals (like forest service and BLM) manage the forests to reduce fires and have made it very political.
Letting nature take its course results in massive fires.
Clear cutting national forests hasn't been common in your lifetime except in special situations, like to try to head off a disease or pest outbreak. Managed logging was the norm for decades, but too many "activists" who want zero logging have learned that they can tie up timber sales (how the government allows logging) in court for years at a time, effectively allowing zero logging.
It shouldn't be surprising that someone tried to limit the basis for these delaying lawsuits. It is easy to make this about politics or republican bashing, but it is really about agencies like the forest service trying to do responsible forest management in the face of crazy litigation from "environmental activists" who are mostly funded by urban liberals who have never lived or worked anywhere near a forest.
I have never worked in the logging industry, but I have worked forest fires, as did my father (for 35 years) as did his father. Fires have gotten bigger and more destructive because "activists" are stopping fuel removal from the forest and are enabling large areas of forest to die from disease or pests.
I believe the real issue here is that we have stopped letting the professionals (like forest service and BLM) manage the forests to reduce fires and have made it very political.
This shows that REpublicans are in favor of destroying nature when ever and however they can. It is like their economic policy; all tax cuts, all the time. There is never a piece of untouched nature they do not want to monetize. One of those 'I see how you are' momments
5
Forest propagate water much further inland than would normally be the case. How you ask. Clear land can heat the air above much faster than shaded forests for starters. Warm air can hold more water vapor than cooler air mass and thus will not release its moisture as rain until it is forced to do so by raising mountain ranges or a cold front. Thus releasing the moisture in deluges. Flash floods, etc. Second. When a light rain hits a forest canopy, much does not even reach the ground for starters. That moist carpet then re-evaporates, cooling the air mass yet again and allowing it to fall again further inland. Thus smoothing the distribution of the moist air mass hither and yon, not bunched up.
2
I dont know what more we can do for the rich. Take our forests, take the oil out of our ground, frack the gas out - make all the profits you want, then complain about having to pay taxes. This congress still has over a year to make dangerous to environment laws, it is a scary thought.
4
The GOP paradigm;
There was a family that was cash strapped and couldn't afford new shoes for the kids, so they cut their feet off to save on the shoe budget! Problem solved!
There was a family that was cash strapped and couldn't afford new shoes for the kids, so they cut their feet off to save on the shoe budget! Problem solved!
5
Good article and true. I wouldn't have mentioned the spotted owl just because it's such a hot-button for some people, and an excuse to scoff. All wildlife deserves habitat, even those not pushed to the brink of extinction.
6
CLEAR CUTTING national forests is no more going to produce more lumber than giving tax cuts to the 1% is going to balance the national debt. All I can say is, Liar, liar, pants on fire!
6
Reduce the forests to bare earth covered only with slash and stands of devil's club and, yes, the problem with forest fires will be eliminated.
The extracting industries have a moral case to make :
Logging, ends trees' experiencing the rigors of winter cold and summer heat.
Extracting coal, relieves it from claustrophobic burial.
Pumping oil, frees it from entrapment.
Arguments, that engage emotions, have an historical record of success.
Logging, ends trees' experiencing the rigors of winter cold and summer heat.
Extracting coal, relieves it from claustrophobic burial.
Pumping oil, frees it from entrapment.
Arguments, that engage emotions, have an historical record of success.
1
One of our biggest problems is that the GDP is measured by money rather than what benefits the people. Having clean air to breath is not part of the GDP because it isn't metered but having clean air is obviously one of the most critical elements in our environment.
Standing trees don't help the GDP but once they're cut and logged they add to the GDP. Growth is it is measured today keeps making everything worse. We are experiencing increases in cancer respiratory illnesses, stress and cardiovascular disorders but none of that show in our measurements. We believe as long as the financial system keeps growing, everything will be good.
Standing trees don't help the GDP but once they're cut and logged they add to the GDP. Growth is it is measured today keeps making everything worse. We are experiencing increases in cancer respiratory illnesses, stress and cardiovascular disorders but none of that show in our measurements. We believe as long as the financial system keeps growing, everything will be good.
3
When the planet is down to the last two trees, the logging industry will demand one of them.
If that sounds exaggerated, consider that 90% of the large fish are gone from our oceans. Yet the fishing industry wants to use more and more extreme methods to get the last 10%.
If that sounds exaggerated, consider that 90% of the large fish are gone from our oceans. Yet the fishing industry wants to use more and more extreme methods to get the last 10%.
8
The correct environmental reasons given are enough to warrant stopping widespread destructive logging, but we should also consider that the economic benefit of logging is now tiny because the same class of bought off politicians (by our 1% elites) have "free trade" moved most of the manufacturing jobs of converting logged trees into usable high profit margin products to China. Presently the people of the USA and many of the rest of the nations of the world essentially destroy their forest birthrights so that China can have more factories and jobs. This "raising millions" out of poverty in China" is not 'our' job or mysteriously some how our moral responsibility. Rather it is the responsibility of the authoritarian leaders of China and without the "oil curse" gift of our resources and intellectual property they steal they would have to democratize in order to survive. However, the current feeding these racist murders our resources helps them maintain "harmony", which is transparent code for enabling this most lethally dangerous authoritarian leaders to stay in power and continue to both threaten all their neighbors, but us as well. When we have WWIII with China in a few decades history will record that we gave them the bombs and technology and wood and iron and food that they will use to kill many 10's of millions of us with.
5
Thanks for this. I would also add that when a forest burns, 80% or more of the site carbon remains. When it's clearcut, only 80% of the site carbon is stored in wood products, and even then these products are replacing lumber that has decayed.
This is the opposite of what intuition tells us, but Congressional timber industry employees prey on people's instincts in order to please their funders.
Thanks to Chad and Dominick, who have been determined fighters for the forests for over two decades. This avocation is not so stylish any more, which has been a disaster for our few remaining intact forests.
This is the opposite of what intuition tells us, but Congressional timber industry employees prey on people's instincts in order to please their funders.
Thanks to Chad and Dominick, who have been determined fighters for the forests for over two decades. This avocation is not so stylish any more, which has been a disaster for our few remaining intact forests.
21
Man, that GOP is at it again.... running errands for corporate interests and worse, undermining sensible environmental protection .
10
Jared Diamond's excellent book "Collapse" chronicles the demise of civilisations.
They all shared one thing. They cut down all the nearby tree's which vastly increases the erosion of top soil, which makes agriculture nearly impossible. The lack of forest cover reduces the moisture in the soil. The migration of the top soil into the streams and rivers kills all the fish eggs.
Thus they created essentially food deserts where crops won't grow and fish don't grow.
Further, growing hemp can replace cutting trees for things like paper and plywood. As we know hemp is a resilient weed than can be grown without petrochemical fertilisers.
They all shared one thing. They cut down all the nearby tree's which vastly increases the erosion of top soil, which makes agriculture nearly impossible. The lack of forest cover reduces the moisture in the soil. The migration of the top soil into the streams and rivers kills all the fish eggs.
Thus they created essentially food deserts where crops won't grow and fish don't grow.
Further, growing hemp can replace cutting trees for things like paper and plywood. As we know hemp is a resilient weed than can be grown without petrochemical fertilisers.
7
I live on the Olympic Peninsula. I agree with the article about tree snags. Birds love to perch on them and rest and hunt. It is shocking to me to see the number of full logging trucks barreling down the roads here. There are mountains of logs piled in Port Angles waiting for the next ship to China. And I worry about the steep hillsides that are being clear cut next to highway 101 and 20 between Port Angeles and Port Townsend. When the mud slides happen and roads are blocked and houses buried the logging profits will be a distant memory. Our tax dollars will be cleaning up the mess. Clear cutters have no regard for the land scape or wild life or precious tree snags. The book The Golden Spruce explains it well. Profiteers have no patience for the web of life. Clean water and forests conflict with the balance sheet and bank statement.
38
The root cause of forest fires is forests. Cut them all and pave over the dirt. No forest, no fires!
4
There is no problem, in the heavens above, nor in the earth beneath, that cannot be solved by making some billionaire richer.
17
The West was once covered with large conifers with thick, fire-resistant bark and a canopy that suppressed growth of brush and saplings. Logging and fire suppression policies have resulted in forests with trees that are less fire resistant and underbrush that serves as ladders to lift flames up to ignite tree crowns.
If these western Senators and logging companies really want to promote forests less likely to have intense burns, they should change their bill to allow only cutting of brush and saplings (no more than 3" in diameter).
Then we'll see how interested logging companies are in protecting us and our forests.
If these western Senators and logging companies really want to promote forests less likely to have intense burns, they should change their bill to allow only cutting of brush and saplings (no more than 3" in diameter).
Then we'll see how interested logging companies are in protecting us and our forests.
28
Yes, but that doesn't put money into politicians' pockets ... they're not going to enact laws that interrupt the flow of cash into their coffers. They know who butters their bread, and it's not the people!
1
I fear "don't let the science get in the way of politics" is going to be operative in this case as in many of the conundrums our legislators must deal with.
6
Of course the Republicans in the Congress approved a bill to increase logging in our national forests, to increase forest fires instead of preventing fires by suspending environmental laws. Just like the "Gray Mountains" that John Grisham wrote about - the coal mining companies that lop off mountain tops in West Virginia and Kentucky and strip mine coal to a fare-thee-well, destroying the lives of inhabitants of those coal-bearing regions. Have the Republican law-makers no decency? No love of their earthly environment? Wildfires will rage, and coal, yet another fossil fuel being dredged out from under our feet, is just another catastrophe in the making. Coal mining, fracking for oil sand tars, logging mature forests to prevent fires, they are all part and parcel of the decimation of our planet - add California's drought and dying rivers, aquifers, and water seeping from the Colorado River and we realize our very earth is slowly disappearing like the mirage of a green and wet oasis in a desert.
8
The politicians we elect are the best that corporate money can buy! What are you complaining about? Don't you know that corporations are people? We live in the United States of Corporate Capitalism ...
The same group of nitwits who claim not to be scientists, and thus won't admit to climate change, feel free to become experts on forest ecology.
The hypocrisy is stomach turning.
The hypocrisy is stomach turning.
39
Shades of 1910 and the original robber barons
9
Living in an area adjacent to the Rim fire ...
The timber companies don't have the capacity for more extensive salvage operations than are already going on. The local mills are running at capacity, and the stockpiles of logs are also very high. Much raw, salvaged timber is being exported as logs to overseas buyers.
Part of the overload is due to the already extensive fuel-reduction campaigns that include private homeowners. This year, we had to make and scrape to dispose of our slash and trash, because the usual outlets (compost and co-generation plants) could not accommodate us.
The timber companies don't have the capacity for more extensive salvage operations than are already going on. The local mills are running at capacity, and the stockpiles of logs are also very high. Much raw, salvaged timber is being exported as logs to overseas buyers.
Part of the overload is due to the already extensive fuel-reduction campaigns that include private homeowners. This year, we had to make and scrape to dispose of our slash and trash, because the usual outlets (compost and co-generation plants) could not accommodate us.
6
This is a culture that has essentially declared war on the planet. Just like in all wars, the first casualty is the truth.
24
I couldn't say it better than Mr. Thomason just did - it is shameful.
4
Let me guess, the masters of Orwellian language labeled this bill, '"The Fire Prevention and Restoration Act". The bottom line is always the bottom line, money. Even a lay person would guess that newly planted small trees and debris left behind by loggers would act as kindling.
17
The politicians bought and paid for by logging companies are counting on the stupidity and/or apathy of the American voter.
1
Small trees really don't make good kindling–they're green and they don't represent a huge amount of fuel. Logging companies are required to burn all slash (the junk left after a piece of land is logged) and remediate other damage to the ecosystem. The logging companies replant. Step back and look at how senseless it would be for the logging companies to not do this? It would be like a chicken farmer killing all his chickens and then wondering why he doesn't have any chickens.
You're right, the bottom line is always money. Only the bottom line here is we have very little money to manage a huge resource spread over a vast area, which means we have to do things that some people don't like. It is difficult for me to accept how necessary clear cutting was for forest conservation. It is an entirely different thing to read an article in the NYTs and to live in a NF. You learn new realities.
You're right, the bottom line is always money. Only the bottom line here is we have very little money to manage a huge resource spread over a vast area, which means we have to do things that some people don't like. It is difficult for me to accept how necessary clear cutting was for forest conservation. It is an entirely different thing to read an article in the NYTs and to live in a NF. You learn new realities.
Teddy Roosevelt said many quotable things about the intrinsic value of wild places and the need to preserve them, but perhaps none so pertinent to this article as this:
"Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us."
TR, like Lincoln before him, belonged to the Republican Party. There are those today who claim to belong to the same Party. They are wrong; the Party of Lincoln and Roosevelt has gone extinct. Those mucking about under the banner of this moribund association are in fact more closely related to the Vandals than the party of Roosevelt and Lincoln. They do not unify; they divide. They do not preserve; they destroy. They do not champion the Enlightenment; they promote ignorance and fear.
Roosevelt lamented: "It is also vandalism wantonly to destroy or to permit the destruction of what is beautiful in nature, whether it be a cliff, a forest, or a species of mammal or bird. Here in the United States we turn our rivers and streams into sewers and dumping-grounds, we pollute the air, we destroy forests, and exterminate fishes, birds and mammals -- not to speak of vulgarizing charming landscapes with hideous advertisements."
And today's "Republicans?" "Drill, baby, drill!"
"Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us."
TR, like Lincoln before him, belonged to the Republican Party. There are those today who claim to belong to the same Party. They are wrong; the Party of Lincoln and Roosevelt has gone extinct. Those mucking about under the banner of this moribund association are in fact more closely related to the Vandals than the party of Roosevelt and Lincoln. They do not unify; they divide. They do not preserve; they destroy. They do not champion the Enlightenment; they promote ignorance and fear.
Roosevelt lamented: "It is also vandalism wantonly to destroy or to permit the destruction of what is beautiful in nature, whether it be a cliff, a forest, or a species of mammal or bird. Here in the United States we turn our rivers and streams into sewers and dumping-grounds, we pollute the air, we destroy forests, and exterminate fishes, birds and mammals -- not to speak of vulgarizing charming landscapes with hideous advertisements."
And today's "Republicans?" "Drill, baby, drill!"
60
Can't argue with the logic of the republicans and their corporate bosses- when you cut all trees down, you make a desert. And there are no forest fires in the desert. Problem solved.
21
Some of this essay contradicts itself:
"In the case of the Rim Fire, our research found that protected forest areas with no history of logging burned least intensely."
"In fact, there is an emerging consensus among ecologists that patches of high-intensity fire, where flames kill most or all of the trees, create one of the ... ecologically important wildlife habitats in Western conifer forests — a snag forest. Large dead trees, called snags, ...are especially important to forest renewal."
We are told that logged areas burn intensely, which is bad. Then, we are told that intense burning is good. This is nonsensical and suggests that the writers will argue logging even if their arguments make no sense.
"In the case of the Rim Fire, our research found that protected forest areas with no history of logging burned least intensely."
"In fact, there is an emerging consensus among ecologists that patches of high-intensity fire, where flames kill most or all of the trees, create one of the ... ecologically important wildlife habitats in Western conifer forests — a snag forest. Large dead trees, called snags, ...are especially important to forest renewal."
We are told that logged areas burn intensely, which is bad. Then, we are told that intense burning is good. This is nonsensical and suggests that the writers will argue logging even if their arguments make no sense.
3
michjas, you're confusing two different scales here. What the authors are saying is that patches of intense fire can be beneficial within the mosaic of a large fire that has patches of low- and moderate-intensity fire within it as well. The variation in intensity is due partly to topography or microclimate, and partly to the variation in tree age, size, and density that you find in a forest that hasn't been logged in the past 100 years. A logged and replanted forest tends to have evenly spaced trees of roughly the same size and age, so they burn uniformly hot. At the scale of a large fire, that has negative consequences for wildlife and plant recovery.
5
Maybe you should re-read the article ... you don't seem to understand what she's saying, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it ... she is contrasting the conditions of logged forests, which are not natural because they're basically turned into monocultures for tree harvesting purposes, and a natural forest, which is designed to burn and has adapted to the kind of burning that comes as part of the natural cycle of fire in the West. If you know how Ponderosa Pines have evolved to survive burning (the healthy trees have thick bark plates that resist fire -- the unhealthy ones will burn out and provide snag habitats) then you'd understand what she's talking about. The point is that a forest that has been heavily logged is more susceptible to catastrophic burning because of the uniformity of available fuels and the relative similar age of the trees, than is a natural forest, whose variety ensures a more natural, ecological burn. Read it again ... maybe with a second look you'll get it.
4
michjas, please re-read this key paragraph:
"In the case of the Rim Fire, our research found that protected forest areas with no history of logging burned least intensely. There was a similar pattern in other large fires in recent years. Logging removes the mature, thick-barked, fire-resistant trees. The small trees planted in their place and the debris left behind by loggers act as kindling; in effect, the logged areas become combustible tree plantations that are poor wildlife habitat."
The Rim fire had different areas burned at different intensities, and even in the high-intensity areas, there were larger trees involved, which allowed creation of the snag habitat.
The clear cut areas would not offer the same benefits after burning.
"In the case of the Rim Fire, our research found that protected forest areas with no history of logging burned least intensely. There was a similar pattern in other large fires in recent years. Logging removes the mature, thick-barked, fire-resistant trees. The small trees planted in their place and the debris left behind by loggers act as kindling; in effect, the logged areas become combustible tree plantations that are poor wildlife habitat."
The Rim fire had different areas burned at different intensities, and even in the high-intensity areas, there were larger trees involved, which allowed creation of the snag habitat.
The clear cut areas would not offer the same benefits after burning.
1
The public lands belong to the American people to be used for the best use & benefit to the American people- not the political whims of Congress & their campaign paymasters.
Most paper & wood products companies own massive tracts of land that they have mismanaged and now feel entitled to clearcut our public lands until not one stand of old growth remains. The fact that many logs are also exported raw & provide few jobs rarely gets mentioned.
Forests serve many purposes- including protection of critical watersheds in the western states now undergoing a historic drought. They also serve as critical wildlife habitat, a primary source of public recreation and a reserve of biodiversity compared to the tree plantations of privately owned tree stands.
According to an out of print book I read, Grace Herndon's Cut & Run: Saying Goodbye to the Last Great Forests in the West (Western Eye Press 1991), the amount of logging is a political decision imposed from Congress - not a scientific decision made by silviculturists from the field. Our forests have been mismanaged for a very long time and the fire issue is an ongoing result of past policy mistakes.
Wildfire risk on public land is overgrowth from a hundred years of fire suppression as periodic small fires are healthy and huge high temperature burns are not. Instead of burning or clearcutting overgrown areas, why not do selective cut logging and clearing to restore health to overgrown stands to reduce fire danger and make jobs?
Most paper & wood products companies own massive tracts of land that they have mismanaged and now feel entitled to clearcut our public lands until not one stand of old growth remains. The fact that many logs are also exported raw & provide few jobs rarely gets mentioned.
Forests serve many purposes- including protection of critical watersheds in the western states now undergoing a historic drought. They also serve as critical wildlife habitat, a primary source of public recreation and a reserve of biodiversity compared to the tree plantations of privately owned tree stands.
According to an out of print book I read, Grace Herndon's Cut & Run: Saying Goodbye to the Last Great Forests in the West (Western Eye Press 1991), the amount of logging is a political decision imposed from Congress - not a scientific decision made by silviculturists from the field. Our forests have been mismanaged for a very long time and the fire issue is an ongoing result of past policy mistakes.
Wildfire risk on public land is overgrowth from a hundred years of fire suppression as periodic small fires are healthy and huge high temperature burns are not. Instead of burning or clearcutting overgrown areas, why not do selective cut logging and clearing to restore health to overgrown stands to reduce fire danger and make jobs?
35
Check out the "The Four Forest Restoration Initiative" (http://www.4fri.org) for a well-planned project to restore our forests in northern Arizona.
1
I think that's what they said they wanted to do–out here it's called 'parking' and it is extremely expensive and very time consuming.
I live in a national forest that covers nearly 1 million acres and abuts ~ 1 million acres of federally protected wilderness. Do you realize how large that is and how many trees, bushes, dead fall, beetle kill that encompasses? It would be decades, under your plan, before you accomplish enough for it to be noticeable. If you tried to practice this type of forest management in the wilderness areas, it would destroy the wilderness and be totally ineffective.
Fire is a necessary part of a ecosystem that is so complex it boggles the mind. It's an ecosystem most people know nothing about. (Ex.: Lodgepole pine don't go to seed unless they get burned.)
"Cut and Run" was published 24 years ago. Forestry and fire science are now light years beyond what they were then.
I don't like clear cutting, but we have to face reality. It's one of the most efficient ways to manage the forest. I assuming you got your information about timber and paper pulping management from this book. It does not reflect my experience. More and more paper companies grow other, quicker growing tree species for pulping.
I live in a national forest that covers nearly 1 million acres and abuts ~ 1 million acres of federally protected wilderness. Do you realize how large that is and how many trees, bushes, dead fall, beetle kill that encompasses? It would be decades, under your plan, before you accomplish enough for it to be noticeable. If you tried to practice this type of forest management in the wilderness areas, it would destroy the wilderness and be totally ineffective.
Fire is a necessary part of a ecosystem that is so complex it boggles the mind. It's an ecosystem most people know nothing about. (Ex.: Lodgepole pine don't go to seed unless they get burned.)
"Cut and Run" was published 24 years ago. Forestry and fire science are now light years beyond what they were then.
I don't like clear cutting, but we have to face reality. It's one of the most efficient ways to manage the forest. I assuming you got your information about timber and paper pulping management from this book. It does not reflect my experience. More and more paper companies grow other, quicker growing tree species for pulping.
Don't you understand? In a logger's eyes, those aren't trees, they're untapped timber resources.
28
One summer we were driving from New Mexico to the Canadian Rockies. As we drove through Wyoming and Montana, there was a raging wildfire along the U.S. Canadian border. The U.S. news stories were: (1) the forests are a tinder box because of environmental laws; (2) environmental laws must be gutted to save the forests and protect us from fire, (3) lack of logging is the cause of fire. Once we drove into Canada, the very same fire that was presently burning in both Montana and Canada had a different cause--global warming and drought. Of course Canada cannot blame a lack of logging for its fires because Canada already logs its forests regularly. Periodic clear cuts are visible from the roads throughout the Rockies. Since Canadians are already logging their forests and still have serious wildfires, they can't blame a lack of logging. Instead, even their little local newspapers contained science based stories about the effect of multi-year drought on the forests and balanced science driven debates about what to do about global warming. Regrettably, many of our politicians prefer drama more than achieving results for the nation. So, instead of debates centered on science and facts we get ideological rants divorced from reality. Drama may be entertaining and it may attract news coverage but it doesn't solve problems.
58
Thankfully, scientists are speaking for the trees. Will we heed them?
29
Not if there's a buck to be made by ignoring them.
1
A logger's answer is always more logging. A cattleman's answer is always more grazing. A stakeholder is someone who has a property or money interest in some action. When it comes to natural systems we must not listen to stakeholders.
116
your definition of stakeholder is too narrow. I applaud your concern, but I as a tax payer and 'owner' of the public lands, am a stakeholder--as are you.
What's at issue is the nature of our 'stakes'. Sustainable management must take all stakeholders into account--not least the stake of future generations. And a forest is not just trees--as the editorial points out.
What's at issue is the nature of our 'stakes'. Sustainable management must take all stakeholders into account--not least the stake of future generations. And a forest is not just trees--as the editorial points out.
Do congressional republicans ever get anything right? It seems to defy the odds that a group of people could be wrong so much, but there it is!
34
Nope, too bad so few notice.
4
Another sign of Cannibalist Capitalism. Like falling down on a public street with a heart attack and being stripped by thugs to their crys of loosen his clothing, give him air.
19
U.S. President George W. Bush tried to have the same type of measure passed.
Simple Republican logic; when the trees are gone forest fires will cease.
Simple Republican logic; when the trees are gone forest fires will cease.
22
But the fires will not cease. Lightening will still strike and start brush and grass fires.
1
More corporate profits at the expense of the public.
Privatize profits, Socialize costs.
The thing is, this is ALL the GOPers do. In the last 40 years they have NEVER put the average citizen ahead of corporate profits.
In 40 years, Not even ONCE.
Privatize profits, Socialize costs.
The thing is, this is ALL the GOPers do. In the last 40 years they have NEVER put the average citizen ahead of corporate profits.
In 40 years, Not even ONCE.
54
Saw the area of the McKnight Fire in the Aldo Leopold Wilderness 5 years after the fire. Only a few huge trees were left standing, but with the lowest branches 50 feet of the ground and tough thick bark, they were untouched by fire. They provided shade for a rich new growth of diverse understory that was establishing. They provide perches for hawks and eagles and homes for squirrels. Birds and mammals everywhere. The newly growing forest felt healthy, looked healthy and beautiful. It was amazing.
Saw the Pecos fire area. That forest had been logged and replanted with a monoculture of small pines spaced only a few feet apart, like a cornfield. Those pines were only 15 to 20 feet feet tall when the fire hit. What was left was a forest of standing black matchsticks and a ground of scorched rock and soil with a few patches of grass here and there. Quiet. No understory, no birds, no animals. Unhealthy, ugly, depressing.
That is the difference between a healthy climax forest, and a tree farm. These "laws" promoted by the logging industry and pushed by the anti-healthy-environment Republican party just want to turn our forests into tree farms. And tree farms are not healthy habitat. They are ecologic disasters. Stop them.
Saw the Pecos fire area. That forest had been logged and replanted with a monoculture of small pines spaced only a few feet apart, like a cornfield. Those pines were only 15 to 20 feet feet tall when the fire hit. What was left was a forest of standing black matchsticks and a ground of scorched rock and soil with a few patches of grass here and there. Quiet. No understory, no birds, no animals. Unhealthy, ugly, depressing.
That is the difference between a healthy climax forest, and a tree farm. These "laws" promoted by the logging industry and pushed by the anti-healthy-environment Republican party just want to turn our forests into tree farms. And tree farms are not healthy habitat. They are ecologic disasters. Stop them.
137
The Republicans I grew up with had graduate degrees, were ardent conservationists, and supported scientific research regardless of where it led. Time to face up to it: the Neo-Republican Party is the servant of Mammon and Moloch, not of any Abrahamic God. It has no redeeming virtues, and must be eradicated from our civilization before it takes us back into the dark ages en route to corporate-initiated Armageddon.
66
Ditto. The "conserve" has gone out of "conservative" - unless you mean conserving the wealth of the folks who own the GOP.
1
Why not print an article from the anti-logging and claim it has anything to do with forest fires. When you discuss the "northern" spotted owl in the same breath with untouched forests not being any more likely to burn, the average reader doesn't understand that the species is in northern California coast and southern Oregon where the night and morning fog irrigates the trees and keeps the forest more easily defended from fire.
Thinning the forest, will open up the canopy to make a more robust ecosystem. Most agree that large clear cuts don't accomplish the same results.
Thinning the forest, will open up the canopy to make a more robust ecosystem. Most agree that large clear cuts don't accomplish the same results.
4
The same Republican lies about the "benefits" of logging and especially clearcutting. They come as regularly as the tides, and, as Mark Thomason says, it's exhausting to argue, but it must be done, because they won't stop, and if they are not opposed they will prevail. We must be the lorax, and speak for the trees. Have the Republicans started saying that trees cause pollution yet?
27
I would like the author's analysis - or readers' - of proposals by certain eastern environmental groups to log eastern forests as a means of "stewardship" -
There recently was a big legislative battle over "Stewardship" logging of NJ's last hardwood forests, with some "conservation" groups supporting logging as a means of creating certain habitat and mixed emergent forest.
This included private "certification" by the Forest Stewardship Council as the means of oversight, not State regulators or state regulations.
There recently was a big legislative battle over "Stewardship" logging of NJ's last hardwood forests, with some "conservation" groups supporting logging as a means of creating certain habitat and mixed emergent forest.
This included private "certification" by the Forest Stewardship Council as the means of oversight, not State regulators or state regulations.
1
Heard much about out-of-control wildfires in New Jersey lately?
2
They are not "giving away." When you see the bargain-basement prices you have to remember to add on the campaign contributions that have been paid and that will be paid (greatly increased) in the future.
23
"The legislation is rooted in falsehoods and misconceptions."
An accurate description of most Republican proposals.
Sigh.
An accurate description of most Republican proposals.
Sigh.
43
The debris left behind is called slash. Dead, splintered, and on the ground, it is well known to be tinder for great, intense wildfires. Any scheme for thinning or logging needs to include effective removal of slash and prevention of any sort of second growth, including weeds, which is highly flammable.
7
Republicans have no shame. Trees in national forests belong to me and all our citizens. Hands off!
45
Remember Ronald Reagan's famous statement "If you've seen one tree, you've seen them all."
2
Any excuse to do what they want to do for other reasons. This is just one more example. It is exhausting to argue it.
The real problem isn't the excuse this time. It is them.
The real problem isn't the excuse this time. It is them.
110
Exactly!
Republicans always have a semi-plausible reason for actions such as these, when the real reason is always to give public goods to greedy private interests. Private interests who just coincidentally contribute financially to their re-election.
Republicans always have a semi-plausible reason for actions such as these, when the real reason is always to give public goods to greedy private interests. Private interests who just coincidentally contribute financially to their re-election.
5
Leave it to a Republican Senate and Congress to give away PUBLIC Forest Land to any highest bidder. The Repub's spin of "fire prevention and restoration" is so hollow, and a complete lie.
When one looks at the obvious damage Global Warming is doing to our Planet Earth, healthy forests are the ONE place where clean air and clean water are created. National Forest, and BLM Forest is vital in protecting these two rescources. Science and "progress" can brag all they like, but they cannot create clean water or clean air. Without those two, we are all dead.
We have known, without a doubt, since the 1960's, that burning fossil fuels
was killing the Planet, and thus, ourselves. Now, fat, non-caring Politicians want to rob us of the one thing that can save the Planet; a healthy forest eco-system.
And the Republican Senate and Congress say that their actions are "Green".
Its not "Green". Its "Greed".