Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wolf
Forest fires are part of the lifecycle of the forest, however, because of development in or near forest lands, more than just the forest is threatened, and we have to do something about it ... proactively managing the forest lands to try to reduce the likelihood of major forest fires makes more sense. This includes clearing underbrush which provides fuel for the fires as well as cutting down some trees to make firelanes and firebreaks in the event that a major fire does start.
It's not just about getting rid of trees. It's about removing them in the right places and the right ways ... and also replanting to avoid problems caused by soil erosion, runoff, and mudslides.
|
Wolf, you are quite correct in your statements. Forest fires which threaten nearby structures need to be agressively contained (although a Conservative might make a statement to the effect that if people chose to build homes near national forests, they should accept the consequences of any subsequent forest fire and not expect the government to bail them out for their lack of foresight
).
Many species of western trees have evolved with fire as a part of the ecosystem. Jeffrey and yellowbark pines, among others, can withstand a small brush fire on the forest floor and be unharmed. Fire even causes the cones of some pines to open up and allow the new seeds to germinate in the cleared spaces after a fire has been through. Aspen have evolved root systems which lie dormant beneath the forest floor and spring to life once a fire makes an opening for them.
Forest fires have become a major problem only since we started "managing" forests by suppressing fire. Fire suppression has caused the build up of undergrowth and logging companies are notorious for leaving piles of "slash" on the forest floor in the wake of their operations. This all leads to an enormous build up of fuel on the forest floor. When fires went through the forests on a regular basis they burned the small amount of fuel lying on the ground that had accumulated since the last fire and seldom developed into the destructive crown fires which rage through a forest destroying all in their path and killing fire fighters.
Bushes cause fires, not trees. Yet, the current administration's policy is to harvest timber under the guise of fire suppression. Over zealous timber harvesting is a disaster in the Rocky Mountain West. Trees here simply do not regenerate fast enough because our climate is too arid. Take out too many trees and the result is soil erosion, loss of habitat, and permanent loss of hundreds of acres of forest. Seedlings can't survive in clear cuts here. Without the protection of shade from standing trees, the young seedlings dry up and die. It's that simple. If you were to come out here I could show you areas of Colorado that were clear cut a hundred years ago and STILL have not come back.
Bush's policies show a lack of understanding of the basics of forest ecology and shameless pandering to the big lumber companies all in the name of "fire suppression." What a joke!