1. “The funding needed to make critical forest investments is readily available within a conservative and aesthetically pleasing program of active management.”

    I think there would be a lot of agreement with this conclusion, but not so much on what is “conservative.” Which is why the forest plan revision process should be addressing that question now in the southern Sierras with the best available scientific information.

  2. I didn’t see that proposal here, and I don’t know enough about that to have an opinion. To put your question in the context of my last comment, any proposal to act contrary to the Sierra Nevada Framework, as incorporated into national forest plans, would require changing the plans, which would provide an opportunity to get lots of opinions on whether this was too ‘conservative.’ (Note that I was referring to ongoing revision of plans for the Sierra, Sequoia and Inyo, which are different from the forests the author mentioned specifically.)

    I also thought it was interesting that the author discounted the contribution of global warming to current fire risk, but was happy to use “the inevitable stresses of a warming climate” as a reason for logging.

    • Any consideration of significantly reducing harvest levels must assume that the only mill in the area will close, eliminating several fuels management tools that the Sequoia and the Sierra NF’s desperately need. That closure would also impact the other Forests in that part of the state, as well. All for opinions about the definition of “conservative”, eh? By design, the specifications of the SNF are “conservative”, using hard diameter limits and dedicating habitats for wildlife species. No, I don’t think that the wheel needs to be re-invented when the last “model year” was only 14 years ago. The science hasn’t changed significantly, in my humble opinion but, the risks and hazards (of doing less) have, for the worse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *