Replies

Thanks for the ping. Truthfully, there is more to this then the new emotional hyperbole being blasted at environmentalists.

I live in the Willamete Valley where people have been fighting smoke from field burning for years, killing off the practice.

Fire is going to have to be more heavily reintroduced into the forest, making it a part of how different factors shape it. People are going to hate living with the smoke, but they will have to do it.

Silvaculture is made more expensive and fire could mean less board foot harvested per acre on the short-term with more fire cleaning out small, fast burning fuels.

I have been a wildlands forest firefighter and tree planter for years. I have worked on countless precription burns, (some of which caused massive complaints when the wind changed direction unexpectedly) and while some bile might be owed environmentalists over this as this piece pitches, it is more complicated an issue then this, with more people owning a piece of the blame then many people might be willing to owe up to in this heat of the moment. (No pun intended.

Thanks Glutton for the non-inflamatory comments. It's difficult to sort out the facts when everyone is screaming "enviro-nazis" and other such nonsense.

Before everyone attacks me, let it be made clear that I'm NOT a "tree-hugger". In fact, I've been no more than a disinterested observer of this topic in the past.

But it seems evident to me that the environmentalists are being set up as easy scapegoats. It's the underbrush and smaller trees that are the problem here, not the large trees that the "enviro-wackos" wanted to save, that turned these fires into major disasters.

Has there been a concerted effort in the past to clean up this kindling, and if so, was it stopped, and by whom? I'm not asking retorically, I simply don't know.

Furthermore, the impression I get from the "anti-environmentalists" is that the forests need logging to stay healthy. So how did they get by for thousands of years before we came along? Again, it sounds like nothing short of complete non-intervention is the only true way to maintain a healthy balance. Barring that, clearing out the underbrush and dead wood is the next best option. Cutting down the large growth is NOT a solution, although I suppose that if you cut down enough it becomes a moot point.

Flame me if you want, but I'm not necessarily defending either side at this point. I'm simply trying to get past all the finger-pointing and get to the truth. Any reliable references would be welcome.