NY Times Op-ed by Hanson and Brune: ‘”Using Wildfires as an Excuse to Plunder Forests”

An op-ed from the NY Times last week by Chad T. Hanson and Michael Brune, who are against forestry provisions of the Farm Bill, now in Congress: “Using Wildfires as an Excuse to Plunder Forests: Logging won’t end the blazes that are sweeping the West.” Hanson is an ecologist whose research focuses on forest and fire ecology. Brune is the executive director of the Sierra Club.

The authors make at least one point of fact that hasn’t received enough attention:

“Most of the homes that were destroyed by wildfires over the past year, as in the Tubbs fire and Thomas fire last fall in California, were not primarily in forested areas, but in grasslands, shrub lands and oak savannas.”

They are correct that taking measures to help individual homes survive fires is important, but grasslands, shrub lands, and oak savannas will need some form of fuels management if the threat of large fires in these types of ecosystems is to be significantly reduced. Doing nothing means that large fires will remain a threat.

However, Hanson and Brune recycle old falsehoods in an attempt to make their case.

The Farm Bill provisions the object to “would include logging of old-growth forests and clearcutting of ecologically important post-fire habitat, upon which many imperiled wildlife species depend.”

Large-scale Logging of old-growth forests isn’t occurring on federal lands in the western US and isn’t likely to be used where fuels reduction is the goal. And “clearcutting of ecologically important post-fire habitat” typically occurs on very small portions of burned areas, such as the Chetco Bar Fire on the Rogue River Siskiyou National Forest in 2017, which burned 170,321 acres of National Forest System lands. The USFS says it plans to salvage 71 million board feet of burned timber from 4,090 acres, or 2.5% of the Chetco Bar Fire area — 97.5% of the “ecologically important post-fire habitat” will remain.

(Note that the Chetco Bar Fire burned a total of 191,197 acres, a bit less than the area of New York City, 197,760 acres.)

The authors insist that “logging does nothing to curb fires. On the contrary, increased logging can make fires burn more intensely. Logging, including many projects deceptively promoted as forest ‘thinning,’ removes fire-resistant trees, reduces the cooling shade of the forest canopy and leaves behind highly combustible twigs and branches.”

Forest thinning, if applied at the appropriate intensity for a site’s conditions, can lead to a significant decrease in fire severity and extent. See “Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments,” by noted fire ecologist James K. Agee and Carl N. Skinner of the USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station, who report in Forest Ecology and Management that “Applying treatments at an appropriate landscape scale will be critical to the success of fuel reduction treatments in reducing wildfire losses in Western forests.”

 

 

38 thoughts on “NY Times Op-ed by Hanson and Brune: ‘”Using Wildfires as an Excuse to Plunder Forests””

  1. See also, today’s article from the Sacramento Bee, about the House GOP’s effort to undermine bedrock environmental laws, like NEPA, for more public lands logging is likely dead in this session of Congress. Here are the opening few paragraphs:

    For more than a month, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke and Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue have been calling for a rollback of environmental regulations on forest-thinning projects they argue will help reduce the risk of wildfires, including the ones ravaging California.

    “For too long, our forest management efforts have been thwarted by lawsuits from misguided, extreme environmentalists,” Zinke and Perdue wrote in a Sept. 4 op-ed in The Sacramento Bee. “The time has come to act without flinching in the face of threatened litigation.”

    The state’s Republicans in Congress have been pressing the same agenda for years.

    Congress, however, is poised to brush aside their pleas. Multiple sources on Capitol Hill and from advocacy groups affirmed that lawmakers are likely to drop most of the controversial forestry measures from the Farm Bill, the multi-year agriculture and land use law that members of Congress are trying to finalize this month.

    “I see a common-sense, practical policy agenda emerging on wildfire management,” said Peter Nelson, director of federal lands at the Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation group. Indeed, federal and state policymakers are increasingly acknowledging that forests in California and throughout the west have become badly overgrown, and a more proactive policy of controlled burning and forest clearing is necessary. The question is how big a part logging should play in the solution, and how rigorous the review process should be for tree thinning proposals.

    Defenders of Wildlife and other environmental advocates are vociferously opposed to weakening environmental review standards for large-scale forest thinning projects, as the House-passed Farm Bill proposes. Those provisions were not included in the Senate version of the legislation.

    The House bill is ”very aggressive in terms of its logging provisions, it’s extremely controversial,” Nelson said.

    P.S. Peter Nelson has a M.S. in Forestry from the University of Washington.

    Reply
    • If they are “large-scale forest thinning projects”, why should they be opposed? Changing anything in Sierra Nevada National Forests might take years to go through the process. Litigation will happen, because it can. Personally, I just don’t think there needs to be any policy changes regarding forest management in those forests. It just needs more funding and more expertise. Sadly, Congress is unwilling to provide more expertise.

      Frankly, precious time will be wasted if the more extreme measures are mandated by Republicans. There are many things that would have to go right to result in dropping cornerstone laws. As time goes by, our options continue to dwindle, and the slow-motion disaster marches on.

      Reply
    • We said that all along here… the House version would never fly.

      It would be nice if the Bee reported what is actually in the bill instead of what DOW thinks of it . They probably used the same rhetoric about the last Farm Bill CE.

      Reply
      • Indeed. Remember when McClintock proposed salvage logging in Yosemite National Park, with no environmental rules? How far did that get? (Not very far, although a few other Representatives publicly backed it)

        The Republican House thrives on creating crazy proposals that would never pass, just to show their constituents that they are ‘doing something’ but blocked by liberals.

        Again, I think we need blanket CE’s for salvage, thinning and roadside hazard tree projects, as long as they meet ‘certain guidelines’, which are site-specific. Other types of projects, like “Overstory Removal” should still have to jump through the regulatory hoops that currently exist.

        Also, we should not assume that the Forest Service will willingly go along with old growth liquidation, if that is what the Agency will actually be mandated to do. If we are going to argue, we should be arguing about likely outcomes, and not conspiracy theories of what the Forest Service MIGHT do. I just don’t believe that Congress can write a bill that will work. They do not understand all the impacts and issues, so any bill they craft will be hopelessly inadequate. That is my prediction. Yes, they will send money but that won’t provide many solutions. Just band-aids.

        I think the Forest Service has to go public and explain what they need to do the job, for all Americans. The muzzle seems very secure, though. Additionally, the situation seems extremely ripe for Agency activism. I can think of many ways for certain employees to drag their feet in doing tasks. Those tactics could become a rebellion throughout the Agency, if you think about it.

        Reply
  2. No post-fire logging happened after this fire, which burned in 1990. And again in 2008. It used to be a protected ancient old growth pine forest, carefully tended by expert humans for centuries. Now, it’s a protected weed patch, where even the brush is having difficulty growing there. No humus left in those dry granitic soils.

    Edit: This is within Yosemite National Park

    Reply
  3. What gets me about this blog, is that the “opposition” to forest health by man, has no response to the kind of examples that Larry is demonstrating. There has been countless examples, then: Just silence. Next, it’s Lets move on to the next attempt at proving “our point”. Its just back to the old, ecologists are the experts argument, so we should just accept their so called data. They love data. Gives them a job.. Imagine getting paid to carry out your own personal vendetta… We all know what is going on here… Ok, let me have it.

    Reply
  4. Larry: “No post-fire logging happened after this fire, which burned in 1990. And again in 2008. It used to be a protected ancient old growth pine forest, carefully tended by expert humans for centuries. Now, it’s a protected weed patch, where even the brush is having difficulty growing there. No humus left in those dry granitic soils.”
    ===
    Yup and even more research has come out showing the low intensity burn fires and prescribed burn strategy done during more cooler wetter winter months might not be all that beneficial for soils as well. The problem now as compared to the past is that nature has become so dismantled and reverse engineered where major components are missing, you can’t leave it along to itself for a healing. some sort of human intervention is definitely needed. But having said that, I doubt planting trees to help nature would have made a difference in your photo either. Ecosystems need rain and rain like took place in 2017 winter doesn’t count when the majority of it comes all at once and runs off. Yeah, it filled reservoirs, produced wildflowers where every nature group out there took photos and reassured all their donating followers that all is well as nature is so resilient and *cough-cough* “life finds a way.” Not sure what thinning would have done after fire, perhaps better before, maybe less damage, but fire is going to come anyway. Regeneration is simly not going to happen like it did decades ago when nobody including myself ever worried about it not.

    The 2003 Combs Peak, Lost Valley and Bucksnort Mountains wildfire fire never did regenerate trees from what I ever found or even years later from other hikers photos out there. When I first moved there you could see all the ridgelines and north slopes with sme dense woodlands. That’s all gone now. Only some oaks did resprout, but even they are still small now.

    https://www.dri.edu/newsroom/news-releases/5690-low-severity-wildfires-impact-soils-more-than-previously-believed

    Reply
    • That article is very good reading. It does move the needle, in my opinion but, we just don’t know how much. Is it enough to change tactics and fire policy? Probably not but, it IS worth considering. Pine regenerating ‘naturally’ is unreliable over the short term. Good cone crops don’t happen every year, and I am sure that ‘climate change’ is reducing those amounts, as well. Pine seeds are relatively heavy, and just do not fly very far from a seed source. It may take 100 years before pines can reclaim their former lands. Of course, that doesn’t include human-caused wildfires, too. We need to invest in forests, instead of letting ‘Whatever Happens’, happen.

      Reply
    • Coulter pine — the tree species burned on Combs Peak — is one of my favs. Like lodgepole pine, it is serotinous. Low/moderate intensity fire aids its regeneration. The fire ecology challenge Coulter pine faces today is too much fire suppression, not too little. A century of putting out yesteryear’s ignitions has allowed the chaparral to grow massive creating a tinderbox that burns so hot now that it cooks the pine’s cones and seeds.

      Solutions? No easy ones, for sure. However, we could dump less annual ryegrass across the landscape after a fire. Dumping grass seed is a common treatment to establish plant cover. But, doing so inhibits Coulter pine reestablishment as the grass sucks up the little available water.

      Reply
      • Andy Stahl: “Solutions? No easy ones, for sure. However, we could dump less annual ryegrass across the landscape after a fire. Dumping grass seed is a common treatment to establish plant cover. But, doing so inhibits Coulter pine reestablishment”
        =====

        I lived there for 20+ years with Combs Peak one of my backyard views to the south. I lived on Table Mountain at the very top on Burnt Valley Rd. Back then the way I established Coulter and Jeffrey Pines were to plant them particularly close to Redshank or Ribbonwood Chaparral (Adenostoma sparifolium). Or Scrub Oak. Most of the forestry literature recommended obliteration of chaparral, maybe light tilling and tree planting bareroot trees. Those instructions came from both Forestry and L.A. Moran Nursery up around Davis. Not one piece of literature mentioned thinning chaparral and utilizing the biggest healthiest old growth chaparral as nurse trees for seedlings. (I’m talking back in early 1980s) Neither did they ever recommend inoculating at time of planting with the correct species of ectomycorrhizal fungi. I did both and my trees surpassed those of forest service plantings at even higher elevations. I admit it took a decade of finding the right chaparral species, but it worked. Greasewood or Chamise (Adenostoma fasticulatum) is also good, but mainly during wet winters when an epigenetic switch will express the shrub to become ecto-mycorrhizal friendly. This helps the pioneering pines like Parry Pinyon and Coulter to appaer within areas of Chamise monculture where ScrubJays have planted the seeds.

        Here are two photos of Coulter and Jeffrey establishment in a remote location in the foothills below Combs Peak and the Bucksnort Mountains. We left large Redshank intact along with Sugarbush and Hollyleaf Cherry and Hollyleaf Redberry. All Scrub Oak were left. All have incredibly deep rootsystems which are structured like deep wisdom teeth and go many meters into the ground which priveds excellent hydraulic lift and redistribution in the warmer summer months until monsoon rains provide relief. Pisolithus tinctorius Mycorrhizal fungi can tap into the water brought up to the surface layers and released by these deep rooted shrubs. At this planting below, three other neighbours with acreage purchase the same trees from L.A. Moran and followed their instructions to the letter and ignored what worked for me. All those properties the trees died.

        http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7288/8745000722_9fde21be99_z.jpg

        http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7282/8745026840_cf6fddfbc0_z.jpg

        Trees were plantd in 1984 and these phots are from 2013. The other important thing we did was gather pine straw from Idyllwild to the north and cover the ground with a heavily layer. Soil temp is important because of how the plant will use it’s water.

        At 140 degrees, soil bacteria and other beneficial microbes die
        130 degrees, 100% moisture lost through evaporation and transpiration
        100 degrees, 15% moisture is used for growth, 85% moisture lost through evaporation and transpiration
        At 70 degrees, 100% moisture used for growth

        Seriously, do a soil temperature evalustion comparison with uncovered soil and deep mulch later soil. It has worked for me every time. I’ve made experimental comparisons every year on my table mountain property and bare ground trees exposed did not perform well and grow as high as trees with covered soil.

        Cahuilla Mountain is another pure Coulter Pine habitat when it comes to conifers. In 1996 some ideot arsonist lit a fire in Diego Flats area at the foot of the mountain on the north side. The fire consumed most of that mounts. It had beautiful old growth Engelmann Oak and Black Oak along with giant Coulters. Most was lost, no roads up to the top, only trail. They said it would be an ideal setting to what how pure Coulter Pine habitat regenerated naturally. Never followed up nor have I seen literature on their observations.

        Reply
        • No surprise that the conditions favoring planted trees are different from those favoring seeds. Planted trees often like mulch; germinating seeds often prefer mineral soil. Fire-adapted tree species, in order to be fire-adapted (?), have to germinate under recently-burned conditions, i.e., mineral soil with little organic material. As the tree seedling matures the herbaceous vegetation is concurrently re-sprouting and organic layer of the soil being rebuilt. The problem with seeding with annual grasses is that the grass competes for water immediately with the germinating tree seedlings rather than waiting the several years it takes for the native herbaceous vegetation to grow.

          Reply
          • On my property on Table Mountain I planted 2 two foot high Coulter Pines by my house. I rescued them from a landslide in a road cut on Hwy 74 south of Idyllwild. Back in the 1980s we had incredibly wet years, both winter and and summer monsoons and one of the trees closest to the porch grew faster than the other. I mean it just got huge and around 1994 had numerous giant cones on it for which the ScrubJays were continually scevenging seeds. Several Coulter seedlings were emerging all over the property at the base of Redshank. Most of them now are huge, but sadly the people who purchased my place removed most of the chaparral (Redshank, Manzanita, etc. I was in shock when I first saw it. The trees which had previous grown 10 foot tall after that balloon out instead of up, but are all still there. Some are Jeffrey fro another trees, but mainly coulter. Even more sad are the newer owners who purchased the place a few years ago and now further stripped the land and built huge greenhouses for marijuana farms. The owners are some sort of Asian syndicate for this type of Biz and they have completely fenced off all the acreage with chainlink and dark shade house plastic mesh to block the view. There is a caretaker there now and his pack of Dobermans who run loose. But the relationship with Coulter and Chaparral was always beautiful to me.

            Here is a pic of the original trees. One large Coulter and smaller one besides it. And one struggling Aleppo Pine that the previous owner planted in the late 1970s, so I felt sorry and left it, did wonderful for years, even providing nest sites for Bushtits every years. Also brought back some New Mexico Locust from Ruidoso back in 1986. Spread through the Redshank and looks pretty in the photo. But the place was prettier with the chaparral left intack.

            http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-38tZk0vhbuc/T3rw9jDFfBI/AAAAAAAAADs/35ic6KZg_lI/s1600/IMGP0588.JPG

            Reply
          • Andy Stahl: “Planted trees often like mulch; germinating seeds often prefer mineral soil. Fire-adapted tree species, in order to be fire-adapted (?), have to germinate under recently-burned conditions, i.e., mineral soil with little organic material. ”
            ===

            Well down where I lived, Coulters, Torrey Pines & Pinyons all required a ScubJay to dig a hole and bury the nut in the soil. While I understand there is a failsssafe emergency mechnism which causes all cone bearing trees to release and play the numbers game, this is only in emergency ecosystem repair & restore scenarios. Everytime I’ve come across one of those fire ecology rules being laid out, I’ve realized they never jived with my past experience of daily observing things on the ground. Many of these trees I mentioned pioneer into chaparral not because of fire, but because of Jays. They have cones which open every year and seed is readily available. 100s of trees are planted this way and When not finding a seedling which became a successful sapling, I’d find 100s in the bush which grew only 6″ or so and died.

            Found this very common with Tecate Cypress which have been religiously insisted upon to only regenerate after fire. If fire doesn’t happen cones won’t open. Not true, there are numerous scenarios under which those cones will open. My best area for reference is Guatay Mountain, long before Europeans came to San Diego County, the native Kumeyaay had a saying about it as the mountain that never burns and sure eenough in all recorded history no wildfire is on record. Fires have come close, but no cigar. In fact here is a quote in an article from the San Diego Reader who interviewed David Hogan (Chaparral Lands Conservancy) Who said this:

            “This is Guatay Mountain,” he says. “It’s an area that’s never burned in the recorded history of European settlement of San Diego County.”

            Sure enough, but then he continues:

            “Thick, green foliage ten feet high covers the mountainside from road to the mist-shrouded peak. Four or five stands of 25-foot conifers dot the mountain, about a dozen trees per stand. “That’s a really unique and endangered conifer called the Tecate cypress,” Hogan explains. “It’s even rarer than the Torrey pine. It only grows in San Diego County, and only in two spots: here on Guatay Mountain and in one place on Otay Mountain.”

            Now this was just inaccurate for many reasons. First, I’ve personally bushwhacked up in to a few of those Tecate Cypress stands and there is way more than a dozen trees within and outside of each stand. Yes, it’s old growth Chaparral and very very high, but you can slowly make your way through the understory. Everywhere I looked on the ground I found Tecate Cypress seedlings, with 90% of them dead. But it’s a yearly event. Where does the seed come from if there’s never any Fire ??? I found numerous small chaparral birds everywhere pecking at the comes. I also saw broken branches from wind storms which shut off sap flow and allowed cones to open. I saw evidence of the twig tip weavel boring activity which cause a foot of branch tip to break and any cones open up this releasing seed. I also found numerous Tecate Cypress of all sizes struggling through the tall chaparral, but not at all noticeable if you were far away and the dull green of many trees blended in with the chaparral unless you were right up on it. There is far more than a dozen trees per stand.

            Also these trees are also in Baja and Riverside county and no they are not rarer than Torrey Pine. Believe it or not they are literally everywhere, just not large trees. People of the Lawson Valley area southwest of there had a small cypress they insisted was native, but turns out they were just stunted Tecate Cypress no more than 8′ or 19′ tall. Same on the West Side of Cuyyamaca Peak close to Wildcat Spring near Boulder Creek Road. Small stand of large Tecate Cypress and they were spreading everywhere outward from the parents in the Chaparral. 2003 Cedar Fire destroyed them all, but still there they were spreading and no fire needed. Same further down southwest of Cuyamaca near Alpine in Peutz Valley where in the 1970s, ew residents came in and planted young Tecate Cypress. A decade later and they were spreading into the Chaparral.

            My point is there are always exceptions to every rule the experts insist are etched in stone fact and yes most of it is site specific which is why the RULE doesn’t apply. You just cannot make broadbrush rules and apply it everywhere across the board. And seeding germination has often taken place in non-mineral sterile environments with dense mulches. But there is one other thing that is different now in SoCal where I was. Every year in almost all Highway roadcuts and slopes which were pure mineral (decomposed granite), there always use to be 100s of pine seedlings of all kinds. I started noticing a slow down in 2000 and now there are almost none.

            Reply
  5. As someone has said – “One picture….”

    Thanks, Larry and Kevin, for the photos of Combs peak. Letting nature take its course may have tragic consequences.

    Reply
    • Thanks, the whole history of this area is interesting as it is wild and beautiful. Extremely rugged and tough for things to thrive, bu they can. One thing I like which is rare to find are all the weeds which plague other regions are disaster. Here is a website which follows the history of Lost Valley (Boy Scout Camp from Orange County owns this land) and the various fires which have blown through here during the 201th century.

      https://www.ssrlv.org/fires-and-fire-department

      Reply
  6. Thanks to Andy Stahl for providing some important context about Coulter pine — the tree species burned on Combs Peak.

    So, what type of “post fire logging” should’ve taken place in that Coulter pine forest, Larry?

    The wood of the Coulter pine is weak and soft, so that tree species is little used for anything other than for firewood.

    Also, for whatever it’s worth, Combs Peak is located in the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. Just how much precipitation falls in a typical year within Anza-Borrego Desert State Park?

    According to this 2015 article:

    The Coyote Fire struck this area in 2003, incinerating the scattered Coulter pines that grew among the ribbonwood and chamise-dominated chaparral….Since the 2003 fire, the chaparral shrubs have made a comeback, particularly on the lower and east-facing slopes. In addition to a few ribbonwood sub-trees nearing 15 feet in height, there is holly leaf redberry, several species of ceanothus, Mexican manzanita, sugar bush, scrub oak and mountain mahogany. Numerous seedling Coulter pines make an appearance near the saddle, but there are no mature pines until the peak, where a single, relatively large pine managed to avoid death by wildfire.

    Here’s a photo of Combs Peak that accompanies that 2015 article. Sure, “one picture.” Perhaps a “Desert” park with basically zero commercial timber of any kind isn’t the best place for your “more logging” types to hang your hat on.

    Also, this post at Modern Hiker has many recent photos of the Combs Peak area, including the photo below which was taken in the same exact spot as the photo Kevin provided above. See the rock on the lower left to confirm this is the same exact vantage point. Kevin claimed his photo was of “Combs Peak today,” but that’s clearly not true.

    Reply
    • Of course, I made no mention of the Combs Peak situation, Matt. With me, it is always about site specifics. So typical of the one-size-fits-all way of thinking, insisting on ‘Us versus Them’. Both sides fail at betting it all on that strategy.

      Reply
  7. Matt “See the rock on the lower left to confirm this is the same exact vantage point. Kevin claimed his photo was of “Combs Peak today,” but that’s clearly not true.”
    ===

    What in the world are you talking about Matt, that is to Combs Peak at the top with the pyramid shape. Nobody was talking about thinning any trees there. Only how degraded the area has become and how regeneration has not occurred as in years past. So yes, that is Combs Peak, I know because I lived there and hiked there for decades with friends on both sides. Up in the saddle on the other side some trees have come back but they are few as compared to previously. Again, no one was talking about thinning in such an environment. Even a child would get that. The thinning we were speaking about was NOT Combs Peak, but the photo Larry gave somewhere up in the Sierra Nevadas. I merely referenced a similar photo of an area which turned dramatically different from what it once was and with not so much regeneration as far as tree cover.

    http://www.peakbagging.com/SanDiegoPhotos/CombsPk.html

    Here’s a video from hikers who took the same route.

    Reply
    • Howdy Larry and Kevin,

      It appears as if I mistakenly thought the photo Larry posted, and his comment that “No post-fire logging happened after this fire,” was related to the Combs Peak area. I’m sorry for my confusion, but if anyone also reads through this thread it is a little confusing. And perhaps, Kevin, even a “child” would be confused? Anyway….

      What’s less confusing is that Kevin clearly claimed his photo of Combs Peak was “Combs Peak today.” As I mentioned, that’s totally not true, as the subsequent photo I posted from Modern Hiker (of a more “modern” view of Combs Peak) proves.

      Also, the video you just posted of the Combs Peak area was interesting, but it was also from at least 9 years ago (again, you can see the same rock and vantage point). So again, since the video is at least 9 years old, it’s not a view of “Combs Peak today.”

      Finally, given that “even a child would get that” nobody is talking about “thinning” in an environment such as found around Combs Peak…what’s the purpose of posting photos of Combs Peak here on this thread? Do we all agree that no type of logging, burning or fuel reduction would have much of any impact in those types of environments?

      P.S. I have enjoy reading your accounts of living in that area Kevin and of some of the things you tried to do to get certain tree species re-established.

      Reply
      • Matt Koehler: “What’s less confusing is that Kevin clearly claimed his photo of Combs Peak was “Combs Peak today.” As I mentioned, that’s totally not true, as the subsequent photo I posted from Modern Hiker (of a more “modern” view of Combs Peak) proves.”
        ===

        It’s still degraded from what it once was. Under former circumstances the ecosystem would have generated far more trees and they would in the same amount of time been triple the size of the two in your photo. That was the whole point and that was the photo I had on hand. Your photo still shows lack of cover from what it once was but you wouldn’t know that because you never lived in the area and hiked it regularly the way I have. I went they regulatly since the 1970s. Even prior to the fire in 2003 trees were dying in mass qualities, especialy around 1990. We all noticed it there.

        Matt Koehler: – “Also, the video you just posted of the Combs Peak area was interesting, but it was also from at least 9 years ago (again, you can see the same rock and vantage point). So again, since the video is at least 9 years old, it’s not a view of “Combs Peak today.”
        ====

        Again, you totally missed the point because you were looking for flaws.

        Matt Koehler: – “Finally, given that “even a child would get that” nobody is talking about “thinning” in an environment such as found around Combs Peak…what’s the purpose of posting photos of Combs Peak here on this thread? Do we all agree that no type of logging, burning or fuel reduction would have much of any impact in those types of environments?”
        ====

        Did you even read what I stated about that ? Here it is again, it’s above your comment.

        “The thinning we were speaking about was NOT Combs Peak, but the photo Larry gave somewhere up in the Sierra Nevadas. I merely referenced a similar photo of an area which turned dramatically different from what it once was and with not so much regeneration as far as tree cover.”

        Again I was NOT speaking of thinning ANYTHING on Combs Peak, I was referencing how ecosystems have gone so far down hill that they no longer are regenerating the way they once did. Combs Peak is not the picture of health in either photo as it once was. Here is the problem Matt, you are so busy scrutinizing foor perceived flaws in a person’s writing, it creates a tunnel vision void which causes you to be incapable of actually knowing what we were talking about and I stand by my point, the area is radically degraded and I could care less how much vegetation it appears to have now. Things simply are not responding as they once. This is the problem now with almost every thread and it appears everyone else is noticing this incessant need of yours for combativeness. Why ???

        Reply
  8. Again, I challenge Hanson to SHOW us actual project documents mandating clearcuts in salvage efforts, here in Region 5. If they aren’t in the project documents, it DID NOT HAPPEN! It is fake news. It’s called ‘lying’ for fun and profit. If he did have evidence, he surely would have brought it to the courts. He did not bring that accusation into court. Hmmm, I wonder if we could hit him with perjury, if he says that in court. Lying in court should have some penalties. Lying in the public eye should also have some penalties, too.

    Reply
  9. “Lying in the public eye should also have some penalties, too.”
    You’d think people might start not believing what you say. But that’s so 2015 …

    Reply
  10. Could someone supply me with a page number in the Farm Bill where it talks about clearcutting being allowed? I went through most of the forestry part and did not find anything about clearcuts, either in green timber or in salvage projects. I did see many statements talking about meeting existing Forest Plan direction.

    Reply
    • To be honest, the only references I can find on google are the same repeated short paragraph from both the Joun Muir Project and Center for Biological Diversity websites which provide a reference to clearcutting which states this exactly word for word:

      “Section 8107: Doubles the allowed acreage for “categorical exclusions” under the National Environmental Policy Act from 3,000 to 6,000 acres per project, allowing the Forest Service to approve clearcuts under the guise of controlling insects and disease outbreaks in national forests.”

      The John Muir Project take goes further in description:

      Section 8107 would permanently authorize and amend the 2014 Farm Bill Insect and Disease Categorical Exclusion which was set to expire on September 30, 2018, and would double the number of acres allowed to be logged (including clearcut) to 6,000 acres (an area 6 times larger than Golden Gate Park). The underpinnings of this CE are not supported by the scientific evidence. Logging does not stop native beetle activity or disease, nor does it prevent wildland fire, and areas which have an abundance of dead trees (“snags”) do not burn more intensely than green forest. In fact, the only areas that actually burn more intensely are areas that are the most heavily logged. Finally, snags are essential to the health of a forest and natural selection due to drought, fire or insects, is what keeps our forests resilient. In such circumstances the strongest trees with the best genetics, adapted to specific site conditions, survive and perpetuate the forest ecosystem, while snags improve heterogeneity and biodiversity. To date this CE has been used to log (including clearcut) mature and old trees, within California Spotted Owl, Grizzly and Lynx habitat.

      Then these text are then parroted on a myriad of other sites like these

      http://www.kyheartwood.org/forest-blog

      I also found the same paragraph requoted on one other site called, “The School of Evolutionary Astrology” whatever that is and various other environmentalist blogs. But I would start with that reference to “Section 8107” and go from there. Since from their own words this is where you find it, although they place the term, “including clearcuts” in parenthesis ( ). Mainly the whole entire thing looks to be one big mess to be interpreted any way anybody wishes. It appears of you can create a consensus of same group thinkers it becomes an established truth if only in the specific herd or groups minds. But ultimately I have no idea, except this constant bickering will go on and on and donations will be demanded of followers or you apparently hate nature if you don’t contribute for the good fight.

      Reply
      • Again, it seems that lies are running rampant across the forestry ‘landscape’. So, snags make forests resilient and healthy?!?!? Again there are no clearcuts in Forest Service projects in the Sierra Nevada. ZERO. ZILCH, NADA! SHOW US THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS!!!!

        Reply
      • I did go to the actual text of the proposed Farm Bill, and went through that whole section, looking for the word “clearcut”. Of course, I did not find it in the applicable sections. Yes, the new Forestry provisions in the bill give the Forest Service more ‘discretion’ but, it does not allow anything outside of the Forest Plans. The reference to clearcuts is fear-mongering over what the Forest Service ‘might do’. Currently, the acreage limit is 3000 acres. Just HOW MANY 3000 acre clearcuts have been proposed in the last, oh, 15 years? Of course, that answer is none, as well.

        I guess we have to remember that this Op-Ed is merely an opinion piece, unsupported by the facts. It’s the face of a new desperation in the preservationist community.

        Reply
        • “Yes, the new Forestry provisions in the bill give the Forest Service more ‘discretion’ but, it does not allow anything outside of the Forest Plans. The reference to clearcuts is fear-mongering over what the Forest Service ‘might do’.”

          I think this is a good summary of where we are today. The Forest Service would like to think that they have earned back the confidence of the public to use their discretion. Even it that were true, the fact is that the Forest Service answers to the President and his administration, and the current one is the best argument I’ve seen for why forest plans need non-discretionary standards (like the Sierra plans apparently have against clearcutting). And it’s not unreasonable to fear that plans might be amended to bypass the standards.

          Reply
          • Remember, it took FOUR full years to amend the Sierra Nevada Framework Plan, returning diameter limits back to the 30 inch diameter size. It would be completely ridiculous to pretend that a return to clearcutting spotted owl habitat could ever occur. That’s going into ‘conspiracy theory’ territory.

            Additionally, the President cannot tell the Forest Service to ignore current rules, laws and policies. No one can.

            It really does appear that some people want to preserve the controversy, over and above all. Hanson and Brune’s piece reflects that goal, through their personal opinions.

            Reply
  11. I had the pleasure of being up the Chetco river in Southwestern Oregon last week. I notice as you look out across what was once sea of trees, I now see many barren hills of brush. Nothing like” introducing fire back on the landscape”. Especially nice to see such diverse ancient forests reduced to rocks.

    Reply
  12. One surprising I saw were sprouting old growth redwood trees. The FS had managed to fire kill the most northern stand of old growth redwoods in last year’s Chetco Bar fire. This year the trees have sprouts all up and down them. I will be interested to see what happens.

    Reply
    • Larry makes some good points, but in this case “anonymous” was me. It’s what happened when I didn’t put my name in the box. That’s another new quirk. I never had to do that until recently (it automatically provided my name), then it wouldn’t let me post without doing it, and now when I don’t include my name it posts anonymously. So I’ll try to remember, but as Matt might say, “whatever” (focus on the content).

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Kevin Franck Cancel reply