What we need to save are the stronger and healthier trees. In doing that, we need a nice age curve of individual trees - that is, individual trees representative of every age group, from sapling to mature mature trees - becase big trees are old trees, and trees, just like every other living thing, die.
The environmentalists who are telling us to save just the old growth trees are wrong about what constitutes a healthy forest...and they're also the ones insisting we close the fire roads, let brush go unchecked and leave stands of trees killed by fire, disease and pests untouched.
Unlike the old saying about people who can't see the forest for the trees, the environmentalists we're fighting ...we need a different term for us, maybe, to distinguish the forest managers from the tree hugging wackos...anyhow, the environazis can't see the trees for the forest...and a forest is COMPOSED of individual trees. That's socialist collectivism. It doesn't work in forestry, it doesn't work in wildlife management, and it doesn't work for the citizenry.
But most of today's vocal environmentalists haven't been saying that of late. They have been preaching to ignore the forests completely. You may have noticed that even the largest trees in the more recent fires have also been destroyed.
Also, since most of todays forests aren't really old growth in this country, there still needs to be a thinning process not only among smaller brush and "ladder" growth, but among larger trees as well. What needs to happen is that forests need to be maintained for longevity. Ignoring them won't necessarily serve that purpose. Granted, over a period of hundreds of years, there may be a strong, fire-resistant surviving forest. But we can create that much faster by using our heads.
As well, we can take advantage of the most renewable resource available - wood. Wood is the most easily replaceable resource we have. And its use as a resource can provide a good portion of the money necessary to keep our forests in good shape. Without clear-cutting. And, with proper, logical, intelligent thinning that is necessary with younger forests.
If that is what we had done these fires would have not been an issue at all.
I can't agree. If all our forests were those evolved from several hundred years of growth, I might agree. But the vast majority of our forests aren't all that old. We're past that point and have been for a century. Again, today's forests are mid growth and need trimming and care if they are to become fire-resistant healthy forests like they were only a decade or two ago.
If environmantalists are responsible for fighting fires in the past and cutting down the biggest trees that can withstand fires better then they would be responsible for this. So where is the evidence that this is the case ?
There's environmentalists and there's environmentalists. One consists of a group of people that are willing to work out a way to utilize the renewable resource that our forests present while preserving the longevity of the forest. The other consists of a group that seems to have the religious belief that all things human are to be considered wrong. The former group are what used to be the make-up of the forest service - people that loved the forest, but recognized that like pennicillin, man had ways of helping nature do its job better. The latter are often the unwitting tools of those who wish to enrich themselves.
Is it environmentalists that have pushed for fighting fires in the past ? I've never heared them advocate that. Quite the oposite
It is environmental extremists that refuse to accept co-existance between humans and the forest, that have created the vast forests full of kindling wood waiting to be made into a fire. Forests need cleaning and thinning at times. I am certainly not trying to equate people who truly care about the environment with the extremists; I'm simply pointing out that the extremists have hijacked the movement, and they often have a profit motive of their own (think trial lawyers). As such, they are motivated, and not necessarily in the right direction.
I have to say that 10+ years ago, forest fires, while a problem, were not nearly as prevalent or as devastating as they are now. The reason is obvious if you ask someone who has been around forests for 20 years or so; they aren't being cared for like they used to be. Its that simple.