Bush's forest-fire prevention plan: deforestation

Great Debates
1

I tried to make this a GQ, but couldn’t quite do it. According to this article, Bush has unveiled a new plan to combat the the likelihood of future forest fire: more logging. Both sides of the issue in a nutshell:

My immediate reaction is to side with the environmentalists, who (I think rightly) claim that this latest proposal is just another way to go about making it easier to log and harder to prevent logging projects.

But I’m very interested in the underlying logic being publicly touted. Does logging really address the causes of forest fires? From what I’ve seen, old-growth and healthy, established younger forests don’t have much in the way of undergrowth, though deadfall is an issue. Why would logging make forests less prone to fires? How are fires most likely to start, and what initially feeds them? Again, from what I’ve seen, areas that have been logged have a an enormous amount of wood left behind (stumps, sawdust, branches, what-have-you), and the cleared areas are usually quickly overgrown with lots of very young trees, grasses, etc. All of which strike me as quite burnable.

What’s the scoop, and where do you stand on Bush’s proposal?

2

Most of my vacations are spent hiking in forests, but I am no expert. Here are my $.02 worth.[ul][]The uncleared undergrowth was a big factor in this year’s horrendous forest fires, the threat of more terrible fires remains. Environmentalists sound silly talking about, “safeguards that have protected forests for decades,” at a time when these safeguards have become a part of the problem. []Environmentalists generally oppose letting loggers make a profit by clearing brush, for fear that they’ll cut down too many trees. OTOH wihtout a profit potential, nobody will clear the undergrowth, and massive forest fires will continue to destroy our forests.Legal delay is the worst of all worlds. If a logging plan goes to the appropriate agency for approval, there’s at least a chance that the right thing will be done to balance various needs. If attempts to take action are indefinitely bottled up in court, that amounts to a default decision to leave the unddergrowth undisturbed – a recipe for continuing disaster.[/ul]So, I favor speeding up the court process, while maintaining safeguards that the clearing out of undergrowth doesn’t turn into clear-cut logging (assuming that these are simultaneously possible.)

3

The real fact of the matter is that forests burn periodically. Maybe not as often when state and federal employees are deliberately lighting the fires, but still…

4

BTW some environmenatal groups are opposing Bush’s plan even before it has been announced. http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2002/0822/local/stories/02local.htm

5

Can you blame them? I mean, there’s a case to be made that in environmental situations, Bush is known for making policy decisions not even for special interest service: but out of just plain spite (Artic drilling comes to mind).

6

It’s funny how the Bush administration is spoon-feeding us the idea that forest fires are this unnatural, easily preventable phenomena, that threaten “communities and the environment.”

Yet, they’re not willing to concede that global warming exists, much less that it is a much bigger threat to “communities and the environment.”

-TGD

7

<<Can you blame them?>>

That’s a simpler question than what to do to about the forest fires.

Can I blame the environmental groups? Hell, yes.

I blame them for preventing the clearing of underbrush and, in some cases, preventing fire roads from being built.

I blame them for failing to admit responsibility for their errors for failing to apologize.

I blame them for making some policy decisions based their* own personal special interest* – promoting controversy in order to keep donations rolling in.

I blame them for opposing a new law before it’s even written, making themselves look unreliable.

However, they may turn out to be right to oppose Bush’s proposal. We’ll have to see what it actually says.

8

—That’s a simpler question than what to do to about the forest fires. —

As you hopefully know, I meant: who can blame the groups for being suspicious of Bush’s plan, even before seeing it. What reason has he given them to think that it will be anything other than thumbing his nose at them?

9

December, not to gripe, and I don’t want to start an argument, but all of reasons you just posted can be applied to just about any policial organization, or any politician, in any number of contexts (Kyoto Protocol, Oil Drilling, Labeling of GMO foods, etc.)

Apply what you just said to Mr. Bush.

"Can I blame Mr. Bush? Hell, yes.

I blame him for preventing the (insert environmental bill here) from being passed.

I blame him for failing to admit responsibility for his errors for failing to apologize.

I blame him for making some policy decisions based his own personal and financial interests – promoting big businesses in order to keep donations rolling in.

I blame him for passing new laws, desipte listening to public opinion, making himself look unreliable.

However, he may turn out to be right to oppose environmentalist’s concerns. We’ll have to see what actually happens."

As far as environmental damage, eveyone is to blame. But, as far the drastic lack of legal measures to lessen our impact on the environment, mostly right-wing lawmakers, politicians, and big businesses are to blame.

-TGD

10

Here’s a comment from Gale Norton. It sounds good, but the devil is in the detals. We still need to see what the actual bill says.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20020821/cm_usatoday/4378073

11

I’m going to have to more or less side with december on this one. Although Bush might have poor credentials when it comes to environmentalism our decades old practice of complete fire suppression is what has caused the current situation of massive uncontainable forest fires.

Even though Bush might not actually have environmental concerns actually as his primary motivating factor for his proposal doesn’t mean that we should reject the proposal out of hand, but we should decide the issue on its own merits.

The only think I don’t about this is that it would make appeals by environmental groups more difficult and as I said in another thread I would like some oversight from a group outside of the government and logging interests.

12

I would definitely support a plan to expediate the clearing of underbrush in order to prevent forest fires, and if profit can be made while doing this, even better. Certainly, I share december’s opinion that we should let it turn into Clearcut-a-palooza, but I think that shouldn’t be hard to monitor.

I think I’m particularly sensitive to this issue, as I live in California, and grew up near the massive sequoia forests here, which almost burnt down as a result of excessive undergrowth. It was estimated that if the fires hit a certain point, every tree in the forest would have burnt down, save for General Sherman and a few others, and all because the people in charge of maintaining the forests couldn’t get permits to clear out undergrowth because of overly zealous environmental regulations.
Jeff

13

I worked for the Forest Service for a year, including time on a fire crew. You know what the fire crew spends most of its time doing when it is not fighting fires? Fire patrol. Okay, after that? Forest thinning and other maintenance activities.

Decades of fire supression in this country has done a lot of damage to natural ecological systems. Many of which are fire-dependent. Keep fire out for decades and you’ve got a conflagration waiting to happen. Why? Because natural fuels (underbrush, dead & down, and just plain too many trees) build up to the point where one spark or lightning strike sets off a crown fire. You don’t want a crown fire under these conditions.

That is why the Forest Service (and Park Service, too) try to help matters through prescribed burns (formerly known as “controlled” burns) in order to thin the undergrowth and overgrowth. This can be very dangerous and risky. Fire is quite the unpredictable creature.

To help matters, it makes perfect sense to thin areas that need it. Bush’s plan does not seem different from what forest ecologists have been recommending for years now.

(And I also take issue that Arctic drilling is proposed “out of just plain spite,” but that’s another issue)

14

I would much prefer to have loggers take down selected trees (and make them available as lumber and such) than to have fire destroy them entirely. At least with loggers, we can control when and where they take trees. Sure, fires are natural, but they are also very dangerous and put enormous amounts of pollutants into the air.

Fires are a problem, and a significant problem. If this plan can legitimately reduce that risk, and provide work for loggers, then go for it. I do not know the specifics of how this all works, but I have heard more than once that responsible cutting can reduce the risk of forest fires.

Sitting on the status quo will do NOTHING to reduce forest fires. I would ask the environmentalists out there who oppose this bill, what do you propose to do to lessen the risk? Or should we just accept that our forests will burn every single year?

15

ElJeffe also brings up a very good point. The amount of red tape one has to go through for maintenance thinning/burning is prohibitive to effective forest management.

Our Forest was planning a prescribed burn. I was responsible for the wildlife, vegetation, and endangered species analysis for the entire year I was working on the Forest. As you may know, the seasonal time window for setting a burn is pretty narrow–especially in southern Arizona. A one month delay can set you back a year while you wait for the next available window.

I ended up getting a better job and moving on with my career, but last I heard, the fire was finally set after about three years of planning and at a greatly reduced scope. Hopefully, it did some good…

The other involved proposed mechanical thinning. Hand crews, ATV’s, trucks. No “clear-cutting” or the like. The big delay was the consultation over the Mexican spotted owl. Several known nesting pairs were in the area. They are tracked, and we had them mapped precisely. Well, to make a long story short, the thinning never got done. It was determined by another agency (Fish and Wildlife Service) that the noise from thinning could disturb the birds, even out of nesting season. (The same birds, I might add, that would often come and perch on a operating generator from a claim mining operation.)

The FWS stated outright that they knew a forest fire in the area would cause much greater harm to the birds (burn down their entire local habitat) versus noise disturbance. But, their reasoning was fire was an “Act of God” while thinning was an act of government.

Well, the Forest did have a fire (again, after I left). I don’t know for sure, but it is likely some owls suffered because of it.

So, red tape and agency bickering stalls what should have been a simple thinning.

Anything Bush can do to prevent fiascos like this is a good thing, IMO.

16

—(And I also take issue that Arctic drilling is proposed “out of just plain spite,” but that’s another issue)—

True, it is another issue. But my position here is that the expected MO of the Bush administration is not to change policy in response to new events: but rather to see new events are simply ways to sell already decided upon policy.
No one wants forest fires, and no one wants to avoid mechanical thinning and controlled fires. But people are rightfully wary about giving free rein to companies that advocate clear-cutting, especially since this was the administration’s position long before “fire” ever became a selling point. People are quite right to expect that fire prevention is simply a ruse to advance logging claims, which have little to do with fire prevention. Congress has ALREADY put new millions into mechanical thinning, safer controlled burns, and expidited hearings on areas in danger.

And, as I noted, it would be nice if government employees would stop starting fires on their own.

17

If we really want to prevent fires from threatening communities, sprawl is the place to look. We will never chop down enough trees to protect all these new developments encroaching out further and further into forests.

I have some land in northern Virginia covered with trees, mostly Poplar. In the last ten years, dozens of houses have been built adjoining my property. Yes, these suburban explorers ‘got away’ from DC, but now they have a new set of problems they are unaware of and unable to handle. First, they will get mad when I log (thin professionally and legally according to VA law) my land in two months. To them, my land is scenery for their enjoyment. Or, if they stop me, they will get mad when my trees and undergrowth catch fire. I’m in a can’t win situation.

I have a forestry plan and have hired professionals who do good work. Somehow suburban enviro-dillettantes and their homespun ideas about forestry do not inspire confidence in me. Loggers want to grow trees after they chop some down, that is how they make money. Good forest management, including logging, creates a healthy forest. Healthy forests are very profitable. Unhealthy forests are not.

Logging roads are ready made firebreaks. They give firefighters easy access to forest fires. Moreover, thinning reduces the severity of the fires.

If giant fires due to mismanagement didn’t change any minds, I give up. Furniture and paper are not all bad either.

18

I saw a statistic yesterday to the effect that approximately 1% of planned brush-thinning operations were objected to by environmentalists. In other words, suggesting that these fire-control efforts were blocked by green-oriented groups is a wholly fictitious straw man. I’m off in search of a cite.

In my opinion, Bush’s plan has a lot more to do with castrating environmental groups in general and paying back the huge campaign contributions from forest-industry organizations than any serious fire-suppression effort. As usual.

19

<<In my opinion, Bush’s plan has a lot more to do with castrating… >>

Right, Bush is in favor of thinning under growths. :smiley:

20

“We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”