Forest Thinning, not Lumbering

Posted on October 24, 2007 in Conservation Disasters

There have been a lot of people coming to this blog for no other purpose, it seems, than to blame the Sierra Club for the current wildfires. All of them cite nebulous statistics or just make a “It’s got to be so because I don’t like environmentalists” statement of one kind or another. In the absence of facts, one might want to read what the Sierra Club itself has to say. The article shows that the Sierra Club isn’t against forest thinning but against lumbering that is pretending to be forest-thinning. It also proposes that we simply not build in areas prone to wildfire. There’s a big difference, bubbies.

The legacy of industrial logging has left many unhealthy young stands with far too many trees per acre, and nearly a century of fire suppression has left many forests unnaturally dense and prone to catastrophic fires. How can we get these forests back into a more natural condition?

Unfortunately the laws of economics make it difficult to restore the landscape to a more fire-resistant condition with more large trees. To carry out commercial logging, a landowner is required to prepare a Timber Harvest Plan (THP). If the purpose of the logging, however, is just to thin out smaller trees to create a more fire-safe forest, the cost of preparing the plan would far outstrip the value of the timber revenues. We need a new way to encourage the type of thinning that would enhance the condition of the stand and protect the environment.

Check the article for the method.