***********************************************
WORLDWIDE FOREST/BIODIVERSITY CAMPAIGN NEWS
Commercial logging Causes, Not Prevents, Catastrophic Fires
***********************************************
Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org
http://forests.org/
-- Forest Conservation Archives
http://forests.org/web/
-- Discuss Forest Conservation
05/22/00
OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY
The American timber industry is using the Los Alamos
prescribed burn that got out of control as an excuse to push for more
commercial logging in National Forests, ostensibly to reduce fire risk. This is ecological heresy. The
truth is that timber sales are causing catastrophic wildfires on national
forests, not alleviating them. In many
cases, overly intensive industrial forest management opens up the understory,
changing microclimate, and making conditions more conducive for large
fires. Prescribed burns are an
important tool in forest management.
g.b.
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Title: Commercial Logging Doesn't Prevent Catastrophic Fires, It
Causes Them
Source: Copyright 2000 The New York Times
Company - Opinion
Date: May 19, 2000
Byline: Chad Hanson
Yesterday's release of the National Park
Service plan for a "prescribed burn" in New Mexico -- the fire that
went awry and destroyed homes and businesses in Los Alamos -- has added to
calls for a re-evaluation of the service's fire policies. But some of these exhortations, coming from
the timber industry's supporters in Congress, look more like opportunism than
considered criticism of what went wrong in this fire.
For those who want more commercial logging
of America's national forests, the Los Alamos tragedy plays into a stance that
is already well rehearsed: that more logging can "reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfires." It is an argument that doesn't hold up.
While Senator Larry Craig, an Idaho
Republican, and his allies in the timber industry talk about "thinning
underbrush," the real interest of the industry is in gaining access to the
last remaining mature forests on federal lands.
In April 1999, the General Accounting
Office issued a report that raised serious questions about the use of timber
sales as a tool of fire management. It
noted that "most of the trees that need to be removed to reduce
accumulated fuels are small in diameter" -- the very trees that have
"little or no commercial value."
As it offers timber for sale to loggers,
the Forest Service tends to "focus on areas with high-value commercial
timber rather than on areas with high fire hazards," the report said. Its sales include "more large,
commercially valuable trees" than are necessary to reduce the so-called
accumulated fuels (in other words, the trees that are most likely to burn in a
forest fire).
The Forest Service typically keeps about
90 percent of the revenue from these timber sales. The money has helped finance both the agency's budget and its
preparations for more commercial logging.
Meanwhile, the logging industry gets rich on cheap timber, and
pro-timber members of Congress receive millions in campaign contributions as an
incentive to keep this system going.
Taxpayers take an enormous loss.
The truth is that timber sales are causing
catastrophic wildfires on national forests, not alleviating them. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Report,
issued in 1996 by the federal government, found that "timber harvest,
through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate and fuel
accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other recent human
activity." The reason goes back to the same conflict that the G.A.O.
found: loggers want the big trees, not the little ones that act as fuel in
forest fires.
After a "thinning" timber sale,
a forest has far fewer of the large trees, which are naturally fire-resistant
because of their thick bark; indeed, many of these trees are centuries old and
have already survived many fires.
Without them, there is less shade.
The forest is drier and hotter, making the remaining, smaller trees more
susceptible to burning. After logging,
forests also have accumulations of flammable debris known as "slash
piles" -- unsalable branches and limbs left by logging crews.
In 1994, Jack Ward Thomas, then chief of
the Forest Service, said in
congressional testimony that fires don't
hurt the forest itself. Even fires that
kill many trees "in an area from which you do not expect to extract
timber" might be "perfectly acceptable," he said. He gave the example of Yellowstone National
Park. "It burns up; it burns hot,
and the system that's associated with it comes back," he said.
After several decades of federal
management that suppressed fires -- with timber sales in mind -- some forests
on federal lands have actually become more flammable, since they have been
deprived of fire's important natural role of clearing brush under the big trees
and returning nutrients to the soil.
Controlled burning has been used
successfully for over a decade to reintroduce fire into forest ecosystems. The National Park Service reports that fewer
than 1 percent of controlled burns result in "escapes" -- fires that
cross their predesigned boundaries.
Even then, people and property are almost never hurt.
This does not excuse any carelessness, of
course, that may have led to the New Mexico fire, which clearly did escape, and
tragically so.
But it would be an even bigger tragedy if
we allowed the timber industry's allies in Congress to continue destroying our
national forests under the self-serving guise of fire management. Ultimately, our public forests will be safe
only when Congress passes legislation to end the timber sales within them.
Chad Hanson is executive director of the
John Muir Project and a national director of the Sierra Club.
###RELAYED
TEXT ENDS###
This
document is a PHOTOCOPY for educational, personal and non- commercial use
only. Recipients should seek permission
from the source for reprinting. All
efforts are made to provide accurate, timely pieces; though ultimate
responsibility for verifying all information rests with the reader. Check out our Gaia's Forest
Conservation
Archives & Portal at URL= http://forests.org/
Networked by Forests.org, Inc., gbarry@forests.org