Three Links of Interest from Ron Roizen’s NWAF


Here are a couple items of interest from Ron Roizen..the links are in his post linked here. (Note, I tried to share it, but only WordPress-hosted blogs came up..) Thanks, Ron

Rep. Ken Ivory “What the BLM does NOT want you to Know!

Here is a link to a YouTube video of Rep. Ivory explaining the origins of federal land ownership in the American West. Linda Yergler was kind enough to forward this item to us.
Forest management: Real, collaborative models should be nurtured

Here’s a link to a Montana publication’s editorial advocating real collaborative efforts (over superficial ones, say?).

More Logging Won’t Stop Wildfires

And, finally, a link to a NEW YORK TIMES op-ed arguing, in effect, that reducing the fuel in a forest does not reduce the burn when it burns. Nick Smith’s invaluable daily was the source of this link.

8 thoughts on “Three Links of Interest from Ron Roizen’s NWAF”

  1. Thanks Sharon. I wonder, in particular, what the brain trust over here on your blog thinks about the NEW YORK TIMES editorial. I’ll be watching with interest! Ron

    • Yep, the article is blasting the 80’s style of logging that included clearcutting, the harvest of the oldest and largest trees in the forest, tractor-piling and herbicide use. Of course, they don’t mention to 20+ year ban on clearcutting and old growth harvest. Yep, let’s punish those dead foresters, for their misdeeds, by all means! Yep, they sure showed everyone that we should not be clearcutting and high-grading (without noticing the “big picture”. I wonder what the author would think if we told them that most of the Rim Fire will NOT be re-planted, due to environmental concerns and the current thoughts on forestry, in general.

  2. I read the NYT editorial and was not impressed. It seems to be political advocacy with a little bit of cherry picked data to back doing nothing as always the best corse of action when it comes to fuels and fire salvage. This is not the answer, although it is likely appropriate for remote areas where other actions aren’t feasible due to cost and designation (wilderness and passive management prescriptions). I have seen the results of many fires over the years here in west central Idaho. Results vary greatly, I’ve seen old growth Ponderosa pine and Douglas fir converted to brush fields after burning 2 and three times and it was never salvaged. I’ve seen the same type of forest under burn in similar terrain in 2006, mainly due to inversions, and effectively fire proof the old growth from the 800,000 acres of fires that burned in central Idaho in 2007. I’ve natural regeneration in fire areas (mainly lodgepole), and seen no natural in regeneration in areas with no seed source due to large stand replacing fires removing the seed sources.

    I have seen areas that were logged (thinnings), and fuels treated that were effectively fire proofed. Warm Lake area on the Boise NF was treated this way around summer homes and provided an island of green with in the fire area burnt in 2007. I have not seen additional devastation on FS fire salvage. Areas are replanted that lack seed sources. Adequate snags are left, loggers and mill workers employed, and the planting payed for, mostly a win win situation.

    There is no one correct answer for fire, fuels, and salvage. Many options depending on the circumstances such as location, terrain, fuels, forest type, proximity to infrastructure, etc…. So when they say doing nothing is always the best course of action, and anything else is blasphemy and an industry plot with the Republicans, it is advocacy and politics.

  3. Aw sheeze…..
    First, the NYT editorial. Dominick and Chad. Chad of the zero-cut wing of the Sierra Club? Two junk science advocates of the first rank. I’d love to see how Larry responds after all his discussion of the Rim Fire on this board.

    Second, the Montana Standard typifies the depth of understanding of the third rate, farm team Montana media. Unlike the editors, I’ve actually read Zinke’s bill, now rolled into Westerman’s, and the bond requirement stuff is pretty narrow, only in WUI with plans, projects suggested by a new kind of RAC, and collaborative groups, all which are defined. Normal stuff like forest plans etc etc would still be under EAJA. But the “mainstreamers” are scared because it might set a functional precedent with unarguable real-world results that are positive.
    The projects would have a yes or no range of alternatives, no more 1 through 10 z iterations. Lawsuits would have to find fault on all counts brought, a reversal of the “one of many, we win” regime we now have. Again, what is bad about that?
    Finally, I don’t have time to mess with Ken Ivory. But the concept of state or otherwise localized management, where those most affected make the calls and reap both the benefits and the consequences, versus the colonial status of today, is one that interests me greatly.

    • See my comment above, Dave. The article shows just how FAR behind the times some writers are! They also want to apply private industry practices to Forest Service projects, blasting them for being product-focused, on private lands. Again, Forest Service salvage projects merely thin out snags. Hanson continues to accuse the Forest Service of “clearcutting” in salvage projects. Yes, they do that along roads but, that, clearly, isn’t the same thing. We NEED to keep pointing out the manufacturing of stories that just aren’t true. They just AREN’T true! Hey, as far as I am concerned, BOTH sides are spinning yarns, for public disinformation. Meanwhile, I woke up to smokey conditions, near the Rim Fire, yet again. Hanson and others do not want to talk about the certainty of damaging re-burns. That taints their entire message(s), in my humble opinion.

    • “Lawsuits would have to find fault on all counts brought, a reversal of the “one of many, we win” regime we now have. Again, what is bad about that?”

      It would be like the guy charged with armed robbery, kidnapping, 4 counts of murder and resisting arrest. Couldn’t prove the last one, so have to let him off. Back to the Forest Service, what kind of incentive does this create? Find some more plaintiffs and file a bunch of single-issue lawsuits. If the law is wrong, change it. Be honest about what you are doing instead of trying to rig the legal system (more than it already is tilted towards the government by judicial deference).

  4. In reading the comments, clearly, America is not “progressive” enough to accept a science-based solution to our forest problems. They prefer the “Whatever Happens” mindset and terrible results, blaming everything on “climate change”.


Leave a Comment