G
George Wuerthner
Guest
- Thread Author
- #1
The Sisters Ranger District is once again degrading the Forest Ecosystem by implementing ecologically damaging commercial logging across more than 3,600 acres of the Akawa Butte fire in the Deschutes National Forest. The 27,429-acre Akawa Butte Fire occurred in July northeast of Sisters, Oregon.
snags after burn on the Deschutes National Forest. Logging removes snags and down wood, harming the forest ecosystem. Photo George Wuerthner
The Forest Service proposes removing “fire-damaged” trees to “reduce” wildfire fuels.
Logging a burnt forest is analogous to raping a burn victim. Snags and down logs are critical elements of a healthy forest ecosystem. So are beetles, disease, and wildfires that create these elements.
Logging removes carbon from the forest ecosystem, the physical presence of down wood, and can lead to the spread of weeds. Photo George Wuerthner
The ecosystem is not “damaged” by wildfire. Forests are adapted to these natural episodic events. They are not adapted to chainsaw medicine or feller bunchers.
The snag forests that result from high-severity burns support more mushrooms, wildflowers, native bees, butterflies, bats, birds, small mammals, and even more fish in the streams where these fires occur than unburned forest patches.
The episodic deposit of logs in rivers is critical for healthy aquatic ecosystems. Wildfire is one of the main sources of logs. Photo by George Wuerthner
The episodic increase in logs in rivers that results from periodic high-severity blazes is critical for healthy aquatic ecosystems.
Some ecologists suggest that these snag forests have the second-highest biodiversity after old-growth stands. Some of these species, like blackbacked woodpeckers, are snag-forest obligates and are seldom found outside high-severity burns.
Beyond the disruption to ecosystem processes caused by snag removal, logging has many other negative impacts on the land. Logging equipment compacts soils. Logging roads are a major source of weed spread. Logging roads provide access to trappers, hunters, and recreationalists who harm, disturb, and displace wildlife. Logging removes carbon (in the form of logs) that is otherwise stored in dead trees for decades or longer. Carbon loss from logging is the biggest source of carbon emissions in Oregon, more than all transportation sources combined.
Here even a clearcut which is the ultimate fuel reduction did not halt fire spread. Photo by George Wuerthner
The other justification for logging, as the Forest Service always recites, is that it will reduce wildfires. Nothing could be further from the truth. For one thing, dead trees, once the needles are dropped, are less flammable than live trees. Live trees have flammable oils that ignite readily under drought conditions.
The needles and small branches on living trees are the fine fuel that burns in wildfires. The actual tree boles seldom burn, which is why you get snags. So logging burnt tree boles does not reduce wildfires.
It is fine fuels like needles and cones that burn in wildfire. The tree boles seldom are consumed, remaining as snags. Snag forests are far less likely to burn. Photo by George Wuerthner
Another problem with the “dead trees” as a wildfire hazard is that no one can predict where a wildfire will occur. The probability that a fire will burn in a recently burned area is typically estimated to be less than 1%. So we get all the negatives, including below-cost timber sales (and all timber sales on the Deschutes NF lose money), associated with logging, without any benefit.
Salvage logging is all about economic subsidies to the timber industry, not about ecosystem health. Photo by George Wuerthner
The words the agency uses to describe the project show logging bias. They say they are going to “savage” log the forest to recover “economic values.” But logging doesn’t salvage the forest; it harms the forest ecosystem. Burnt forests don’t need humans to “recover.” They have lived with wildfire for millions of years. Forests aren’t “damaged” by fires; rather, they rejuvenate the ecosystem.
The Forest Service admits it is racing to log the forest to remove trees while they have some value to the timber industry. Note the emphasis is on the value to the Industrial Forestry complex, not value to the forest ecosystem.
The project is being authorized under a Forest Health and Fuels Emergency Situation Determination and is not subject to normal administrative review. It limited public comment to 7 days. In other words, although these are public lands and public resources, the Forest Service doesn’t believe the public should have any say in how they are managed.
It saddens me to see the Forest Service behaving more or less like a handmaiden to the wood products’ industry. Our national forests deserve better treatment than being treated as little more than a welfare agency for timber companies. Fortunately, the Alliance for Wild Rockies is challenging this project.
Fire in ponderosa pine fores
snags after burn on the Deschutes National Forest. Logging removes snags and down wood, harming the forest ecosystem. Photo George Wuerthner
The Forest Service proposes removing “fire-damaged” trees to “reduce” wildfire fuels.
Logging a burnt forest is analogous to raping a burn victim. Snags and down logs are critical elements of a healthy forest ecosystem. So are beetles, disease, and wildfires that create these elements.
Logging removes carbon from the forest ecosystem, the physical presence of down wood, and can lead to the spread of weeds. Photo George Wuerthner
The ecosystem is not “damaged” by wildfire. Forests are adapted to these natural episodic events. They are not adapted to chainsaw medicine or feller bunchers.
The snag forests that result from high-severity burns support more mushrooms, wildflowers, native bees, butterflies, bats, birds, small mammals, and even more fish in the streams where these fires occur than unburned forest patches.
The episodic deposit of logs in rivers is critical for healthy aquatic ecosystems. Wildfire is one of the main sources of logs. Photo by George Wuerthner
The episodic increase in logs in rivers that results from periodic high-severity blazes is critical for healthy aquatic ecosystems.
Some ecologists suggest that these snag forests have the second-highest biodiversity after old-growth stands. Some of these species, like blackbacked woodpeckers, are snag-forest obligates and are seldom found outside high-severity burns.
Beyond the disruption to ecosystem processes caused by snag removal, logging has many other negative impacts on the land. Logging equipment compacts soils. Logging roads are a major source of weed spread. Logging roads provide access to trappers, hunters, and recreationalists who harm, disturb, and displace wildlife. Logging removes carbon (in the form of logs) that is otherwise stored in dead trees for decades or longer. Carbon loss from logging is the biggest source of carbon emissions in Oregon, more than all transportation sources combined.
Here even a clearcut which is the ultimate fuel reduction did not halt fire spread. Photo by George Wuerthner
The other justification for logging, as the Forest Service always recites, is that it will reduce wildfires. Nothing could be further from the truth. For one thing, dead trees, once the needles are dropped, are less flammable than live trees. Live trees have flammable oils that ignite readily under drought conditions.
The needles and small branches on living trees are the fine fuel that burns in wildfires. The actual tree boles seldom burn, which is why you get snags. So logging burnt tree boles does not reduce wildfires.
It is fine fuels like needles and cones that burn in wildfire. The tree boles seldom are consumed, remaining as snags. Snag forests are far less likely to burn. Photo by George Wuerthner
Another problem with the “dead trees” as a wildfire hazard is that no one can predict where a wildfire will occur. The probability that a fire will burn in a recently burned area is typically estimated to be less than 1%. So we get all the negatives, including below-cost timber sales (and all timber sales on the Deschutes NF lose money), associated with logging, without any benefit.
Salvage logging is all about economic subsidies to the timber industry, not about ecosystem health. Photo by George Wuerthner
The words the agency uses to describe the project show logging bias. They say they are going to “savage” log the forest to recover “economic values.” But logging doesn’t salvage the forest; it harms the forest ecosystem. Burnt forests don’t need humans to “recover.” They have lived with wildfire for millions of years. Forests aren’t “damaged” by fires; rather, they rejuvenate the ecosystem.
The Forest Service admits it is racing to log the forest to remove trees while they have some value to the timber industry. Note the emphasis is on the value to the Industrial Forestry complex, not value to the forest ecosystem.
The project is being authorized under a Forest Health and Fuels Emergency Situation Determination and is not subject to normal administrative review. It limited public comment to 7 days. In other words, although these are public lands and public resources, the Forest Service doesn’t believe the public should have any say in how they are managed.
It saddens me to see the Forest Service behaving more or less like a handmaiden to the wood products’ industry. Our national forests deserve better treatment than being treated as little more than a welfare agency for timber companies. Fortunately, the Alliance for Wild Rockies is challenging this project.
Fire in ponderosa pine fores