If you purport to be a “Truth” ometer, shouldn’t you check your facts?
Here’s the link.
OK, we know that this question (separating all these factors that have occurred together to make wildfires more troublesome than in the past) is very complicated… still.. “SAF, a trade association for the people who harvest timber”, really?
Now what would it have taken to look that up..oh, one click away from the SAF main screen, we can find here the mission statement.
The Society of American Foresters (SAF) is the national scientific and educational organization representing the forestry profession in the United States. Founded in 1900 by Gifford Pinchot, it is the largest professional society for foresters in the world.
OK, I get it, it’s hard to look things up. But hey, they found “consensus” about this tough question.
Where we found broad consensus is that decades of aggressively putting out every fire as quickly as possible, and the use of land for grazing, created circumstances where the forests are brimming with fuel. That in conjunction with extended dry periods have turned them into tinderboxes.
It seems to me that putting out fires means fuels won’t burn up in these fires and hence continue on the landscape, for later burning or removal, while “not removing fuels” also would lead to more fuels on the landscape. And I am curious about how cows eating grass might lead to more forest fuel. So, logic would tell us that “not removing fuels” and “not letting fuels burn” would both lead to “more fuels.”
Anyway, at least they interviewed Ann Camp who has experience in this area, so I guess that’s good.