Mike Tercek wrote on May 06, 2008 10:02 PM: This editorial is factually inaccurate. The government (NPS in the Yellowstone example and USFS in some areas) does not fight all fires. First, there has been a let burn policy in place for many years if conditions are suitable. Second, the statement about fires historically not burning mature trees is only true in certain forest types, and definitely not in Yellowstone. Third, the beetle outbreak is in some cases due to warm conditions, possibly climate change and not due to the non-existent policy that suppresses all fires. Fourth, dead and dying trees are useful to forests as habitat and as a way to recycle nutrients. Logging to remove these trees destroys or disrupts most of the forest and cannot be a substitute for natural processes.

This editorial: Bad facts. Poor logic.

John F wrote on May 06, 2008 05:35 PM: Actually, Tim, that's pretty much what I am saying, at least as the fires are concerned. Letting them burn naturally would minimize both short and long term damage to forests. And I'm talking about national parks and forests, not privately held land. It's not my place to tell someone else how to use his/her own land.

tim wrote on May 06, 2008 04:37 PM: john, you say logging is not part of the natural system.well duh.but either is fighting forest fires.so by your logic we should stop fighting fires and stop logging,yes?then we could all live in caves and mud huts,or we can rape the land to dig up the minerals to make aluminum 2by4s.oh yeah we already do that too.hmmm.what to do?

Erik wrote on May 06, 2008 02:54 PM: "Again, logging is not necessary to minimize the intensity of forest fires. Clearing out the dried underbrush is. It's when we don't let that underbrush clear out naturally that it becomes necessary for us to do it ourselves. But as the editorial rightly points out, not letting the underbrush burn regularly has consequences of its own. In this case it was a beetle infestation. It was the lack of fire that caused the infestation. How would selective logging of that forest kept the beetles out?"

Healthy trees are not good breeding ground for beatles. By removing dying or dead trees you are removing prime breeding sites for these bark beetles. In addition agressive cutting early on in areas of identified infestation will also mimimize the impact on the forest as a whole from a beetle infestation.

Oh, TimeRanger...My Grandfather did the clearing once a year in the early spring. During the rest of the year most of the land was allowed to regrow and it would thrive. What it would not do was over grow. If a tree died my grandfather would cut it down and drag it out. For the next couple of years he would watch the site of the old tree and see what grew. He would trim back all but the largest saplings which reduced competition and increased growth on the remaining trees. So usually for every old growth tree that died we would end up with 3-4 smaller trees that took its spot. Oh, we also had plenty of grassland (probably about 5 acres)to support the wildlife.

Mr. Pink wrote on May 06, 2008 02:11 PM: Yeah, this politics is all noice and whatnot, but aren't you curious if Britney is gonna get her babies back?

timinator wrote on May 06, 2008 01:29 PM: The unfortunate thing here is that we have politicized the entire problem by allowing the federal government to unconstitutionally own or control vast tracts of land throughout the nation, especially in the west. The founders never meant for the feds to control 50% of all the land in the nation, including over 80% in some states.

If these lands were were under private or local/state government control, we would be more likely to have thoughtful stewardship, not just one-size-fits-all solutions.

TimeRanger wrote on May 06, 2008 10:44 AM: 1st - the BEST defense against the bark beetle is moisture - If the trees have enough water, they can produce enough sap to drown-out most of the beetles. 2nd - Erik...The biggest problem with clearing/cleaning the forest as your grandfather did is that the land will no longer support wildlife. No cover, no food etc. Those saplings feed vast numbers of critters. By removing all of the deadfall, you also remove a key element - nutrients. That dead and fallen wood decays and actually feeds the forest, and new growth, which by the way is essential for the health of the forest. Without new growth, what is to take the place of the over-mature trees when they die off?

John F wrote on May 06, 2008 10:42 AM: Erik,

Excellent point. Now what do we do about the beetles?

John F wrote on May 06, 2008 10:39 AM: Lane,

Be careful how you use words, people may think they apply to you. I don't often respond to people whose best response to an argument is to call someone an idiot, but your misreading of my earlier post is so egreious I figure I ought to at least try and clarify it for you. If you will read my post, you will see I wrote that "it's the accumulation of dried brush that causes the high-intensity forest fires we've experienced lately. Further, you note, correctly, that the regular forest fires of the past don't kill healthy, mature trees."

So how is it that you think I need to learn that lesson? If I follow your logic correctly, the best way to do away with forest fires would be to do away with forests.

Perhaps you missed the day they taught reading comprehension in middle school.

Again, logging is not necessary to minimize the intensity of forest fires. Clearing out the dried underbrush is. It's when we don't let that underbrush clear out naturally that it becomes necessary for us to do it ourselves. But as the editorial rightly points out, not letting the underbrush burn regularly has consequences of its own. In this case it was a beetle infestation. It was the lack of fire that caused the infestation. How would selective logging of that forest kept the beetles out?

Erik wrote on May 06, 2008 10:31 AM: John F,

You said:
"Anyway, you made my point for me. Your grandfather didn't cut down any trees that would have been of interest to a logger, did he?"

Actually once again your knowledge of the logging industry is myopic. The type of brush that my grandfather removed is exactly what logging companies that provide pulp for paper and cardboard would be interested in. It helps the forest it was removed from and decreases the need to use real trees for the supply of those products.

Erik

Read All Comments