America’s national forests are not unhealthy, don’t need logging to be “restored”

The following guest column was written by Brett Haverstick, the education and outreach director of Friends of the Clearwater, a public lands advocacy group in north-central Idaho. – mk

National forests across the West are facing dire threats from politicians, the timber industry and the U.S. Forest Service. The public is being misled into thinking that our forests are “unhealthy” and that they need to be “restored” due to “beetle infestations” and “insect and disease.” All of this is euphemism to drastically ramp up logging.

America’s national forests are not unhealthy. Some people may want forests to look a certain way, but that desire or perception ignores scientific research, which suggests that fungi, bacteria, insects, disease and wildfire are key components of forest function and resiliency. If you want a healthy forest, these natural processes must be allowed to play out.

Efforts to “thin the threat” and use thinning for “fire hazard reduction” across Western landscapes is largely unsubstantiated in scientific literature. Recent studies suggest forests with stands of “dead trees” are at no more risk of burning — and possibly less — than thinned forests. Dead trees generally burn more slowly because they do not have oil-rich needles or resins. To the contrary, thinning “live trees” places fine fuels like needles and cones on the ground, and opens the forest canopy to greater solar penetration and wind, resulting in overall drier forest conditions and flammability.

The Forest Service is currently identifying “priority areas” on the national forests that need to be treated (read: logged). A provision of the 2014 farm bill gives the agency the ability to expedite logging projects, including in roadless areas, designed to reduce fuels and prevent the chance of “uncontrollable wildfires.” Public involvement is simultaneously being minimized, and robust environmental analysis is being short-changed.

Fire frequency and intensity in the West are predominantly climate- and weather-driven. An overwhelming amount of scientific evidence shows that drought, warm temperatures, low humidity and windy conditions drive wildfire intensity. Tree density and beetle infestation do not drive fire intensity and behavior.

The predominantly mixed-conifer forests of the West have evolved with fire. Wildfires are not “catastrophic,” but rather necessary for nutrient cycling, soil productivity and providing habitat for insects, birds and mammals. Wildfire is a natural disturbance that is critical to forest function and resiliency. A more accurate term for Western landscapes is “fire-scapes.”

Building roads and logging in postfire landscapes is also unnecessary and harmful. “Salvage logging” impedes forest succession, can increase soil erosion, and impairs streams, fish habitat and water quality. Scientists are discovering that “snag forests” are one of the most biologically rich and diverse habitat types, rivaled only by old growth.

Politicians and the timber industry are assaulting America’s national forests. Managed forests are neither healthier nor more resilient to wildfire. The real catastrophe is that the forest service continues to lead its century-old war on wildfire by supporting commercial logging and fire suppression to the detriment of American taxpayers and forest ecosystems.

36 Comments

  1. I think everyone who reads this sight would agree on the past mistakes of fire suppression, and probly some geo engineering damage mixed in, but i’m not sure I understand the rest of it ? It reminds me of the people that yell at you not to eat meat, use leather, fly in an airplane, flush the toilet once a week, ride your bike to work or buy an electric with some solar panels….. should humans use dead trees? should humans use trees at all ? should we not access parts of our national forest with some roads ? What dose this advocacy group hope to accomplish with articles like this ?
    I think the problem you are trying to address is greed. I’m totally against corporate logging, clearcutting, shipping raw logs out of the country and many other ongoing abuses that make a few folks a pile of cash, but we love wood stuff too, houses, tables, chairs, wood burning stoves…so how many BF should we we use as a society ? Should we figure that out and then cut off the “loggers” after we reach that number? Do you think its better to build dwellings and stuff with foam and steel other than use the millions of acres of dead trees in my state ? I can go for miles without seeing a live tree, miles !! Our forests are not “unhealthy” ? I need further explanation on this for sure, clear cutting in 1902 and then growing back with a million trees an acre appears to be an unhealthy forest, no ?
    I would like to know what the answer to the problem is not just complaining, we are where we are today, 70,000,000 people living in this western “fire scape” , fires have been put out for a long time, what now ?

  2. Some lovely preservationist propaganda…. with no site-specific science to back it up, of course. Applying ‘feelings’ to tens of millions of acres is not the way the courts will go. When entire hillsides are dead (and ready for incineration), that surely isn’t ‘natural’ or desirable. Harvesting a mere portion of the dead trees isn’t going to impact snag-loving animals (other than the human snag-huggers *smirk* ).

    Again, NO ONE is looking to salvage each and every dead stick in the forests. However, there are some people who want to ‘protect’ dead trees next to roads, bridges, canals and other human improvements.

    • Hi Larry: Can you please point to evidence of where “some people” have actually fought to “protect dead trees next to roads, bridges, canals and other human improvements.” I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of that.

        • 1. I highly doubt that Dr. Hanson filed a lawsuit to specifically “protect dead trees next to roads, bridges, canals and other human improvements.”

          2. I should’ve know that your answer to almost any question is “Chad Hanson.”

          Whatever, Harrell…..

            • What’s the name of the project Larry? How far from the roads, bridges, canals and other human improvements did they want to log? Was this just one project and one person? When you wrote above, “However, there are some people who want to ‘protect’ dead trees next to roads, bridges, canals and other human improvements” you certainly made it seem like this was a very common occurrence.

              • The USFS specifically separated the salvage and roadside hazard tree projects just to combat the tactics used by Hanson. It didn’t work because Hanson filed suit against ALL projects within the Moonlight Fire on the Plumas NF. Yes, he has also resisted other hazard tree projects within California, using a loophole within the Sierra Nevada Framework, which has nothing to do with wildlife issues or ‘environmental damage’. Roadside hazard tree projects only cut trees which threaten roads.

                Luckily, the courts are not supporting Hanson’s anti-salvage lawsuits any longer. There are other people who want to end all roadside hazard tree projects, too.

                • Well said, Mr. Fotoware! It should also be pointed out that Mr. Hanson derives his living from these lawsuits which is worth noting since those dollars come out of the FS budget that could be used for restoration work. So it appears that Mr. Hanson’s motives are no less self interested than the so called “greedy lumber mills”.

                  • Hi Darren, Could you please provide some links or evidence that “Mr. Hanson derives his living from these lawsuits which is worth noting since those dollars come out of the FS budget that could be used for restoration work.”

                    I’d like to see evidence of both the amount of money that has supposedly gone into Mr. Hanson’s pockets and well as evidence that any of that money has “come out of the FS budget that could be used for restoration work.”

                    Thanks in advance.

  3. Matthew

    Here we go again. You keep posting nonsense like this while I and others repeatedly refute it with well established Hard Physical Science. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don’t respect those of us with the scientific training and experience who have devoted our lives to understanding forestry in order to make this a better world. You don’t seem to want to know the truth. You appear to just want to disseminate delusional enviro propaganda. Unfortunately, this sort of brain washing seems to work on the uniformed public. I don’t know why you prefer delusion to hard science but I do know that I see no sense in repeating all of the refutations made previously on this blog.

    For anyone else who wants to know the truth here are some similar posts and the accompanying rebuttals to some of their faux science:
    1) http://forestpolicypub.com/2017/03/14/still-reading-those-tea-leaves/comment-page-1/#comment-417170
    2) http://forestpolicypub.com/2017/02/01/climatewire-zinke-renews-debate-over-usfs-jurisdiction/comment-page-1/#comment-415949
    3) http://forestpolicypub.com/2017/01/06/no-californias-forests-arent-failing-to-regrow-after-big-wildfires/
    4) http://forestpolicypub.com/2016/12/22/conifer-regeneration-poor-after-high-severity-fire/comment-page-1/#comment-408783
    5) http://forestpolicypub.com/2016/12/15/in-search-of-common-ground/comment-page-1/#comment-404674
    6) … the list of prior comments/posts could go on, ad nauseam, for ad infinitum. 🙂

    The talking heads behind so many of these enviro postings must believe that: ‘Acquiring knowledge and the use of logic consistently is just too difficult. 🙁’

    • Gil

      Here we go again. You keep posting nonsense like this and insulting everyone who doesn’t bow down to the mighty intellect you are so very confident that you posses. And for the record I just visited your #1 to #5 points above. They don’t go to “Hard Physical Science”…They go to previous, long winded opinions you expressed. I didn’t see any actual “Hard Physical Science” provided or cited in any of your comments. Until next time Gil….

        • Hi Phil, Sorry, but I had no idea your long list of questions (which honestly I didn’t even bother reading) was directed at me.

          should humans use dead trees? Sure.

          should humans use trees at all ? Sure.

          should we not access parts of our national forest with some roads ? USFS lands have 380,000+ miles of system roads.

          What dose this advocacy group hope to accomplish with articles like this ? You will have to ask Friends of the Clearwater.

          I think the problem you are trying to address is greed. Perhaps.

          I’m totally against corporate logging, clearcutting, shipping raw logs out of the country and many other ongoing abuses that make a few folks a pile of cash. Great. Me too. What are you doing to stop all these timber industry abuses you cite?

          but we love wood stuff too, houses, tables, chairs, wood burning stoves…so how many BF should we we use as a society ? I have no idea how to accurately calculate how many board feet of trees society (ie is that the entire world?) should use. I’d put forth that perhaps the entire world could do a better job of reducing, reusing and recycling and then take it from there.

          Should we figure that out and then cut off the “loggers” after we reach that number? Once you figure out that number let’s re-evaluate.

          Do you think its better to build dwellings and stuff with foam and steel other than use the millions of acres of dead trees in my state ? Which state are you in? I thought I was told by the timber industry that dead trees don’t make great dimensional lumber. I have used beetle killed ponderosa pine (from someone’s front yard that was milled locally by my friend) to build a desk, put up trim around my windows and also put up railings and wainscoting.

          I can go for miles without seeing a live tree, miles !! Really, have you looked carefully? Not one single live tree for miles?

          Our forests are not “unhealthy” ? I’d say that previously unlogged forests, backcountry forests and Wilderness forests are doing just fine, thank you.

          I need further explanation on this for sure, clear cutting in 1902 and then growing back with a million trees an acre appears to be an unhealthy forest, no ? I have no idea what this is in reference too, but I certainly doubt that you have documentation that a 1902 clearcut now has a million trees per acre. I think that would be impossible.

          Whew, thanks for all those questions. Great stuff Phil. We can play this game all day long if you like. Perhaps you’d be better off spending your time responding to the specifics in Brett’s opinion piece or contacting Friend of the Clearwater directly, rather than assuming I’m the surrogate for all these issues, simple because I post pertinent information on this blog. Cheers!

      • Matthew

        That’s the problem you don’t recognize even the basic principles of plant physiology or the physics of fire or any other related hard physical science. I’d be glad to walk you through those links and show you the “Hard Physical Science”. But, Oh Yea, I’ve already done that so I guess I won’t waste any more time on that.

        Too bad you think that Hanson, Wurthner, Haverstick and others are established science instead of opinion that contradicts long established science as validated by statistically sound experiments and extensive operational implementation over many decades instead of somebody’s ramblings while walking through the woods which is then quoted as scientific proof instead of being acknowledged as supposition (i.e. an unproven theory)

        This isn’t about insults or intellect. This is about education, experience and a commitment to protect our federal forests. Of those three, the only thing that we have in common is the commitment. Do you want to limit all discussions to only that which you condone even though you haven’t the education or experience to fully understand the complexities involved? It shouldn’t insult you that I know things about forestry, statistics and hard biological and physical science that you don’t. It doesn’t hurt my pride and make me feel insulted that you know more about history and the English language than I do because I know that you have a better education, experience and talent in those areas than I do. I recognize where my limits are. This has nothing to do with intellect. It’s about education, experience and talent. Like the bible says, if the body was only ears, it wouldn’t be much of a body.

        Adieu, mon amour

        • Hi Gil. As I’ve pointed out before, and I mean no offense to your pride and intellect, but Dr. Chad Hanson would wipe the floor with you in debate about “Hard Physical Science” related to public lands logging and wildfires. Same goes for lots of the other scientists that you, and others, have mocked on this blog for years now.

          • Matthew

            Yes you have made it quite clear on numerous occasions that ‘Dr. Chad Hanson would wipe the floor with both Larry and I in a debate about “Hard Physical Science” related to public lands logging and wildfires’. But then we don’t have the ability to speak out of both sides of our mouth at the same time. So you have every reason to believe what you do. By the way, isn’t deciding who won a debate a subjective opinion which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder? Seems to me that we’ve seen a lot of debate recently about who won each of the various political debates. So, your implied determination that winning a debate establishes truth/science would seem to be a rather weak argument.

            Proving “Hard Physical Science” takes studies with statistically sound (non-confounding) designs replicated by others over time, place and scale. As a history teacher, you should certainly know that winning or loosing a debate doesn’t prove or disprove anything. See the links below in case you are having a case of temporary amnesia.

            To paraphrase your comments above and turn them on you, I would say that: ‘In your infinitely smug, prideful way, you have insulted everyone who doesn’t bow down to the mighty intellect that you are so very confident that you posses.’ Please have mercy on us poor wretched beings. When you have time, please tell us what we are good for and how we should earn your approbation. Also, please remember that when you throw mud, you get it on yourself. Sorry if some of the mud that you threw on me got back on you while I was brushing it off.

            Scientists who lost the debates of their time but were later proven correct:
            1) http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
            2) http://www.allday.com/these-ridiculed-scientists-were-way-ahead-of-their-time-2180808340.html
            3) https://www.famousscientists.org/7-scientists-whose-ideas-were-rejected-during-their-lifetimes/

            • Um, Gil. It’s quite clear that YOU, my friend, were the first person to “throw mud” in this post. In fact, your very first comment posted at 8:54 am opened with this (emphasis added to highlight all your “mud throwing”):

              “Here we go again. You keep posting nonsense like this while I and others repeatedly refute it with well established Hard Physical Science. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don’t respect those of us with the scientific training and experience who have devoted our lives to understanding forestry in order to make this a better world. You don’t seem to want to know the truth. You appear to just want to disseminate delusional enviro propaganda. Unfortunately, this sort of brain washing seems to work on the uniformed public. I don’t know why you prefer delusion to hard science but I do know that I see no sense in repeating all of the refutations made previously on this blog.”

              So, please, spare me the lecture, Gil.

              • Um, Matt

                Sorry but your opening post kind of torqued me off a bit.

                So please spare us the repeated lectures from your sources. Then I’ll be glad to move on. As long as I’m around and as long as you continue to post the same broken record, I’ll be glad to provide the same truth that contradicts you and yours. At least the people in the audience will hear both sides.

                God demands that we both respect each other so let’s both tone it down.

                • Hi Gil,

                  My father was the president of our Good Shepard Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) Church. Every Sunday he gave our Pastor his communion in front of the Congregation. We were a small church that started meeting in a hotel lobby and then later built a church, which my father painted, stained and varnished on weekends and deep into the night during his “break” from his regular full-time house painting job. In fact, I remember literally helping my dad by hand-sanding old reclaimed pews that we got from an older church. My mother, who has played the organ in a WELS church for the past 60 years (starting with Christmas Eve service at St. Peter’s Lutheran Church in Sturgeon Bay, WI when at the age of 12 she needed to play in front of church for the first time because the regular organist literally went into labor as the service started) served as the organists and choir director of Good Shepard. My mother’s grandma and great-grandma also served as organists in their churches going back to the 19th century. As you can image my family never missed a church service and I bet I spent more time in church between the age of 1 and 18 than 99% of people out there. However, I don’t believe in God and certainly don’t believe that if there was a god that this god would demand anything of us on this blog. Although I will say that the stories of Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses on the door of Catholic Church did light a fire of activism in my belly.

                  I’d also like to just point out for the record that the only words I wrote on the opening post, which you admit “kind of torqued you off a bit” were these: “The following guest column was written by Brett Haverstick, the education and outreach director of Friends of the Clearwater, a public lands advocacy group in north-central Idaho. – mk”

                  Your initial response to me, not to Brett (the author of the piece), was totally uncalled for and full of mud-slinging, while also being par for the course. Thanks.

  4. It’s comforting to hear that the death of millions of trees and the loss of billions of dollars of publicly-owned resources is benefiting humanity and all creatures great and small. . I must spread the glad tidings that forests do not need management and all is well with the our national forests. Also nice to know that green (wet) wood with a high moisture content burns hotter and faster than dead (dry) wood. I’ll admit that I was somewhat surprised to learn that the evapo-transpiration rate from a pine stand with 150 sq. ft of basal area must be the same the same as a pine stand with 50 sq.ft. Why? Because if is a fact that thinning does not make timber stands more drought and fire resistant. I know that this is true because recent studies say that it is so.

    Thank you Mr. Haverstick and Matt for revealing these facts to those of us who have wasted our careers practicing the now-outdated concept that a resource must be husbanded to be fruitful..

  5. http://e360.yale.edu/features/in-the-sierras-new-thinking-on-protecting-forests-under-stress

    “Some resistance and resilience measures have been used by managers for years to reduce the massive fuel loads that have accumulated due to decades of fire suppression, and they are now being redirected toward helping forests withstand rapid climate change. One of the most important is forest thinning, a process in which small trees and brush are removed, either mechanically or through controlled burning. Thinning not only reduces a forest’s potential flammability but also its drought stress by decreasing competition for water and soil nutrients among the trees that remain. However, the need for such efforts is so vast, scientists note, that land managers must perform triage, deciding where in the landscape to ration their limited funds.”

  6. RE: Larry’s comment above, which was “Chad Hanson has filed multiple lawsuits against hazard tree projects, ignoring human safety issues in his quest for ‘Whatever Happens.'”

    Here’s a response from Dr. Chad Hanson, shared with his permission.

    “The commenter’s statement is misinformed and highly misleading. We have filed lawsuits in the past against logging projects that were packaged as hazard tree operations, and are currently commenting on some of these projects, but we have always requested that the Forest Service fell genuine hazard trees to protect public safety of roads, campgrounds, and administrative facilities.

    We ask only that the Forest Service: 1) avoid removing mature hazard trees after they are felled, since large downed logs are very important habitat for many imperiled wildlife species and their prey (once the trees are felled, they are no longer hazard trees); 2) avoid felling hazard trees along high-clearance-vehicle roads that are not maintained for public use anyway, and along dead-end spur roads that do not go anywhere (we request that the Forest Service instead convert these to Level 1 roads, which means temporary/indefinite closure); 3) avoid felling trees that could not possibly hit the road (we have seen many instances of felling and removing of large snags as much as 300 feet from roads when the trees are only 100 to 130 feet tall–including where such trees are down a steep slope below the road); 4) avoid felling and removing healthy, live old trees with only moderate levels of fire scorch; and 5) allow for public notice and comment before doing these logging projects.

    Please feel free to share this response with those on the forest blog. Thanks. Chad”

    • “1) avoid removing mature hazard trees after they are felled, since large downed logs are very important habitat for many imperiled wildlife species and their prey (once the trees are felled, they are no longer hazard trees);”

      In California National Forests, especially during a massive bark beetle bloom, there will be no shortage of non-hazardous future ‘large woody debris’. Besides, a big log next to a road is the perfect invitation for woodcutters. Additionally, the fire folks require 100% clean-up of all activities, including un-merchantable (and merchantable) materials. Are roadsides really great spots (suitable/desirable) for wildlife habitats, anyway?

      “2) avoid felling hazard trees along high-clearance-vehicle roads that are not maintained for public use anyway, and along dead-end spur roads that do not go anywhere (we request that the Forest Service instead convert these to Level 1 roads, which means temporary/indefinite closure);”

      The public uses those roads, anyway. Imposing his ‘beliefs’ upon an entire Government Agency isn’t a likely outcome, regarding Roadside Hazard Tree projects. Forests need thinning and the current roads infrastructure needs maintenance. That is accomplished through thinning projects. It is also economical to bundle a Hazard Tree project within an Insect Salvage project. If the roads serve the ground well, we should keep them maintained.

      “3) avoid felling trees that could not possibly hit the road (we have seen many instances of felling and removing of large snags as much as 300 feet from roads when the trees are only 100 to 130 feet tall–including where such trees are down a steep slope below the road);”

      Well, if this is actually happening, bring it into the courts. BTW, how did you calculate accurate distances? Digital rangefinders are notoriously inaccurate, due to human misuse. I do not doubt that some trees were cut that weren’t true hazard trees. Proving diabolical and greedy intent is quite another issue.

      Edit: Additionally, it is my opinion that the dead trees that lean away from roads should be left in place. Others disagree but, it’s a small sacrifice to eliminate controversy. Same for borderline dying trees. If they don’t meet the guidelines, they probably soon will.

      “4) avoid felling and removing healthy, live old trees with only moderate levels of fire scorch; and”

      For some species, ANY old fire scar likely has significant associated rot involved. Sugar pine and true firs are really bad with those issues. One way to judge a fire scar is to tap it with your hardhat. You can tell by the sound if there is serious rot inside. Be reminded that this mitigation is also for the future safety of the roads. If a tree is likely to fall in the next 10 years, then it should be cut.

      “5) allow for public notice and comment before doing these logging projects.”

      Roads must have their own “buffer zones”, to protect the infrastructure. Culverts, ditches and waterbars are important parts of the road’s drainage system. Collapsing trees along those roads can have serious impacts. It’s a maintenance issue.

  7. “Casting doubt” is a common thing these days – and regardless of who does it, the motive is the same – slow things down or stop them. I find it interesting that people who decry “climate change deniers” also resort to using this tactic. (I’m making the assumption here that Friends of the Clearwater would not like the tactics of climate change deniers, but I may be incorrect on that). Our National Forests all have Land Management Plans – and the question is, how do we go about implementing those Land Management plans? Those plans are usually developed over several years with a lot of public input and collaboration. The plans have to comply with the NFMA and other laws. How does this release from Friends of the Clearwater help implement the land management plan? It seems to be designed to sow doubt, get people to open up their pocketbooks, and prey on those who are inclined to be called to action by this type of writing. The same kind of people who signed Penn and Teller’s petition to ban di-hydrogen oxide (water). And probably the same type of people you could get to sign a petition to ban “lignocellulosic” products (things made of wood). We have to stop playing games and we all need to talk about the future of our forests – and I would argue that even wilderness forests and unlogged forests have an unsecure future – we have exotic diseases killing five-needle pines, we have excluded fire from areas – reducing their resilience to fire, drought, and other disturbances, minimum snow levels are rising, spring is arriving up to 2 weeks earlier and fall is lasting several weeks longer. People set most of the fires in the US, and they set them outside of the time of year that lightning occurs. It’s long past the time to point fingers and use inflammatory rhetoric. It’s time to implement the land management plans and time to monitor them and time to prepare ourselves for an uncertain future – let’s do so in a way that allows us to hedge our bets and that allows us to all learn from the successes and failures. Let’s get landowners in the WUI to accept the full responsibility for living there. Let’s try some types of forest management that will allow us to take advantage of the positive ecological things that occur from fires.

    Jack Ward Thomas had a great article that he wrote for a magazine (and I can no longer find my copy) called something like: Towards the Managed Forest – Going Places that we’ve never been. And he subtitled it something like “Games Natural Resource Professionals Play”. You start to read it as JWT describes all of those things we’ve experienced – the games. You feel a sense of familiarity with the things he writes about and you even “enjoy” some of those games yourself. Then, JWT punches you in the gut and points out how these games aren’t going to help us get anywhere.

    And I think where we are at now it is very important to recognize how playing these types of games with each other might pan out – the Forest Service has to “overplan” to make their environmental analysis “bulletproof”, which means more money to planning and less to implementation, which means greater uncertainty in implementation, which leads companies to not want to invest in businesses that are supported by natural resources, lower funding to counties in lieu of taxes, and on and on. It leads to our elected officials wanting to transfer federal lands to state or private hands. (It happened in New Zealand in the 1970s.)

    Yes, we need people to keep the Forest Service honest – some of the folks that work for the FS are very goal-oriented and may sometimes lose sight of the bigger picture – and I think the same can be said for environmental groups – they are also very goal-oriented and may sometimes lose sight of the bigger picture.

  8. TM- thanks for this thoughtful comment, I really like:

    “It’s long past the time to point fingers and use inflammatory rhetoric. It’s time to implement the land management plans and time to monitor them and time to prepare ourselves for an uncertain future – let’s do so in a way that allows us to hedge our bets and that allows us to all learn from the successes and failures. Let’s get landowners in the WUI to accept the full responsibility for living there. Let’s try some types of forest management that will allow us to take advantage of the positive ecological things that occur from fires. ”

    My only question would be “landowners in the WUI.. full responsibility” what would that look like to you?”

    I’d really like to see the JWT article if anyone has a copy and can scan and send or post..

  9. I have not seen where harvesting trees after a fire has had a adverse effect on the forest. We could harvest a lot more than we do. In my opinion, to limit harvesting to just “hazard” trees is extremely wasteful of one of our most valuable resources.
    Fires kill trees and destroys the forest that was there. We are responsible for our public forests. We should take care of them.

Leave a Reply

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