More logging won't solve fire problem

Eugene Register Guard ^ | 9-1-2002 | Lou gold

[seventhson]

September 1, 2002

Commentary / Lou Gold: More logging won't solve fire problem By LOU GOLD

FROM GROUND ZERO in the current wildfire controversy, it is disturbing to see President Bush and the politicians twist the truth for partisan purposes at a time when both public safety and ecological integrity hang in the balance.

The lightning-caused Biscuit Fire, currently burning in the Siskiyou National Forest of Oregon, has consumed 500,000 acres and more than a hundred million taxpayer dollars. I was on Bald Mountain only 36 hours prior to the start of the Biscuit Fire. And I was there to see a similar lightning strike that started the 100,000-acre Silver Fire in 1987. Now, I'm sad to be witnessing a disastrous replay of 15 year-old events.

Both this summer and in 1987, fire crews were at the site quickly but were pulled out because scarce resources were being directed to fires nearer to people and private property. The delays were costly. By the time adequate air support was available, the smoke layer was too thick to use it and the fires had to be fought indirectly by building distant containment lines and setting fires to burn back toward the main fire.

The area of the start of the Biscuit Fire was easily accessible and full of on-the-ground resources needed for fire fighting. The Bald Mountain road (ironically justified in part to provide fire access) is almost immediately up slope. There are two hiking trails in the vicinity with three water-pumping locations. And the mile-long Pine Flat area is an ideal helicopter landing site next to some deep pools in the Illinois River for filling the giant water buckets. It is located directly down slope, less than a mile air distance from where the early fire was burning. This could have worked, but there was no aerial backup for the crews on the ground.

I personally know how steep and remote this area is, and I also would have retreated if air support weren't available. I do not fault the many courageous firefighters or the supervisory personnel at the Siskiyou National Forest. I do fault the system. The efficiency and centralizing trends of the federal government have downsized many quick-response local crews, and air support now must respond to too large a region.

This raises a very serious problem. We give priority in assigning national fire-fighting resources to the most dangerous fires - those closest to residences and private property. This is appropriate and it is why in this year's national fire season very few residences have been lost. But the price we pay is delaying fighting backcountry fires and, when they grow large, they, too, become threatening to people, residences and private property. Thus the present national fire plan is actually contributing to the likelihood of large backcountry fires.

The problem will not be remedied by building new roads or weakening wilderness laws or environmental regulations or accelerated logging, as suggested by President Bush. And we can no longer be penny wise with public safety. Congress included $700 million in emergency fire suppression money in a Forest Service appropriations bill earlier this summer, only to have the president veto it.

Fire-risk reduction in the areas near people could be achieved for a lot less than we now have to spend putting out big fires, but common sense has been lost in the political ticket of never-ending timber wars. All the interests may not be able to agree about the big trees (so far there isn't even agreement on how to define mature or old growth stands), but everyone already agrees about the need to thin the small-diameter trees.

The problem is that fire risk reduction projects have been coupled with logging big trees to pay the bill. This coupling of public safety and timber harvests is absurd. We do not demand that fire suppression be paid for through timber harvesting. Why should fire risk reduction be chained to big trees?

Finally, the most serious problem isn't even being discussed. After years of struggle and volumes of scientific studies, the Forest Service has been phasing out the old practice of clear-cutting. But now there are millions of acres of planted tree farms (mostly younger than 40 years old) and a lightning strike would turn these tightly packed Christmas trees into explosive fireballs. I've seen it happen, and it's terrifying. This is the legacy of past management. Isn't it fair to expect those who broke the natural cycle to start fixing it?

The good news emerging out of our fire situation is that we are being forced to see that the interests of people and nature work hand in hand. Cool, moist old stands of trees are the best fire protection. We could end the timber wars by understanding that what's good for the public is also what's good for the forest. Let's break through the thicket of small trees and war of words. The sensible solution is the one that nurtures healthy forests for the mutual benefit of people, plants and critters. The first step is to stop mortgaging vital services like clean air and water, species protection, fire risk reduction and public safety to large-scale commercial logging.

Please, let's not use the tragedy of the fire to fuel an equally tragic political response. The present system is failing us and, unless someone knows a quick fix for climate change and years of increased fuel loading due to past fire suppression, weakening the ecological safety net of old trees will make the fires of the future even worse.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

President Bush and the politicians twist the truth for partisan purposes at a time when both public safety and ecological integrity hang in the balance

He seems to forget that dashole is the one who started twisting with his own state GWB just set it straight so all states could throw out liberal bullshat and start cleaning forests up again

[Tailgunner Joe]

Thinning forests will prevent wildfires from spreading.

We could end the timber wars by understanding that what's good for the public is also what's good for the forest.

I agree. The environmentalists should stop attacking the lumber industry.

[AmericaUnited]

I was on Bald Mountain only 36 hours prior to the start of the Biscuit Fire

Very interesting. I would check this guy's pockets for matches.

[nothingnew]

ping

FMCDH

[ZOOKER]

Food for thought, but some glaring errors as well.

He's implying that large, "old-growth" trees don't burn while smaller, younger ones are an unacceptable fire hazard. Now why is it that true?

Also, why is it asinine to let the timber industry help protect the forest? They have the tools and the manpower on site (or they would, if they were allowed to harvest the trees).
It's their livelihood and maybe even their own homes they would be protecting.
They're motivated, competent, and you can bet they wouldn't leave a bunch of dead wood lying around in the forest. It's too valuable to let go up in flames.

[nothingnew]

ping-pong

FMCDH

[Tailgunner Joe]

Scorched Earth Policy - Environmentalists would still rather see forests burn for the trees

[F.J. Mitchell]

One fact that cannot be denied, is that if the trees on those million or so acres and counting, that have burned and poluted the atmosphere, worse than decades and decades of all our internal combustion engines and our power plants, upon which the tree huggers will blame the this polution anyway, had been logged and made into affordable homes, the forests would have had less fuel for lightening to ignite. One beer drinking camper at each fire could have probably doused it all by himself from the beer he had recycled into fire supissant.

The greens would rather see trees burned black, than turned into little white cottages with green shutters, for true blue American families.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Or the rocks in his head could be rolling and throwing sparks out of his ears.

[seventhson]

Large mature Douglas fir trees have very thick bark.Pound for pound it is more fire resistant that asbestos.Smaller trees that have not developed this thicker bark are alot more likely to burn hot.Any boy scout knows that a large log is hard to get going without smaller fuels to help it along.As far as fire supression is concerned,our first priority should be to protect areas near peoples homes and communitys.The BLM is instituting a program to thin trees around people's homes and I'm glad to see that.The timber industry should be able to help protect the forest.Starting with thinning all the tree plantations as this is where the fires really get hot.When an older forest burns and crowns out,it is usually because is has spread over from a plantation that burned really hot.In general,it's the smaller ladder fuels that need to be removed,not the older trees that provide shade and a moist enviornment,which deters fire.

[Granof8]

Is this Lou Gold the tree sitter?

[bybybill]

Two points, 1]I don`t think GWB has vetoed a single bill.

2]Correct me if I`m wrong, trees that are cut and sent to the mill can`t then become fuel for a forest fire?

[seventhson]

That's Lou Gold,also known as the "sage of the Siskiyou's".Also known as an earth firster,general enviornmental zealot who did extensive roadshows around the US to blab about the Siskiyou mountain range.

[farmfriend]

ping

[LostTribe]

seventhson signed up 2002-08-19.

[Lockbox]

He's implying that large, "old-growth" trees don't burn while smaller, younger ones are an unacceptable fire hazard. Now why is it that true?

Old wood does not burn. That's why insurance companies charge less to insure old homes...........

[seventhson]

Vitually everyone I've spoken with about GW's little plan that knows anything about silvaculture and fire ecology has said there is very little merit to it-except for his buddies in big timber.The timber workers would be much better served by a program of plantation thinning,where there is lot's of work and no controversy involved.

[gitmo]

Large mature Douglas fir trees have very thick bark.Pound for pound it is more fire resistant that asbestos.

Can you reference this?

[Granof8]

PING