[who_would_fardels_bear]

My understanding (and I may be very wrong) is that whenever logging is discussed as a way to manage the forests, the loggers demand that it be clearcutting.

The claim is that culling trees selectively is too expensive and even dangerous. They also make claims of how wonderful clearcutting is for the land.

But this is a no go for the average voter so instead nothing gets done.

[Trumpet 1]

Clear cut and replant. The replanted area will serve as a fire brake during the 1st year because the new baby trees will be very small and will not be a usefull fuel source for a wild fire.

[snowtigger]

Clearcutting is a good way to go, as long as the land is replanted with a mix of trees. Putting it back in a single species limits the species of wildlife which will live there. If the timber companies want clearcutting, then they will have to comply with regulations, just like everyone else.

[QBFimi]

>> activist groups have enjoyed a stranglehold over federal environmental policy for the past quarter century ...

I worked the fires several summers as a radio technician. Met a lot of interesting people. One was high up in the management of an unnamed western state out for his annual field work.

“What’s the solution?” I asked. His answer: “For millions of years, nature did just fine on her own. We’ve been screwing this up for well over 100 years. Stand out in front of Home Depot with a semi load of chain saws; give every swinging Dick with a pickup truck one and tell ‘em to go to it”. I thought he was joking; he wasn’t.

Google “the big blow up” - it’s about the Great Fire of 1910 in Montana and Idaho. Fascinating.

[Paladin2]

There are some pretty sophisticated tree cutting and trimming machines these days to allow thinning by taking lumber quality trees.

[Wonder Warthog]

"My understanding (and I may be very wrong) is that whenever logging is discussed as a way to manage the forests, the loggers demand that it be clearcutting.

And fires don't "clearcut"??? The only difference is loggers do it in a controlled way, and "Mother Nature"'s way is uncontrolled.

The big problem the eco-nuts have with logging isn't the clear cutting, it is the access roads that must necessarily be cleared. Once there are roads, even very very rough ones, horror above all horrors,.....PEOPLE might actually intrude into the area.

[Twotone]

Something I learned over the years about clear-cutting... One of the reasons it’s done is that the trees in a forest actually support each other in windy conditions. If you take out some trees, the remaining are prone to falling. It makes sense to just clear the area & then re-plant.

As a former resident of Oregon, I remember the media harping on clear-cutting & how ugly it was. They never explained why. Journalists are pretty useless these days, & have been for a while.

[Parmy]

Clear cutting is the only method of logging in some scenarios. For instance, on steep terrain select cutting doesn't work because tractor types of machinery obviously can't be used.

Perhaps the average voter should inform themselves on the reasons and methods of and for clear cutting.

All of the clear cuts that I worked on 55 years ago are grown up, but need another 50 or so years before they can be harvested again.

[D Rider]

Some clear cutting can be better for the land. Problem now is that bark beetles have left millions of board feet of standing deadwood in our forests. Two things can heal our forests... logging, or humongous forest fires.