Page 1 of 1 pages
This story is another example of the disconnect between the administration’s stated goals and the real thrust of its policy. The cynical use of environmental rhetoric to justify environmental destruction is especially galling because of the number of Americans still willing to actually believe the president. Mr. Shaw has done a good job of old fashioned muckraking; I hope larger media outlets will now pick up this issue.
Posted by Nathan Hobbs on Oct 15, 2003 at 12:29 PM
Is it really true that there is MORE forest acreage today than there ever has been in North America? Even at the founding of this nation there was substantially less forest?
We need to go back to what Mother Nature intended. We also need a certain amount of wood to build homes, schools, and millions of other products. Obviously we need to harvest intelligently.
So why don’t you write about a solution? Why do all the articles in this magazine just complain and “muckrake” (per Nathan)? There is nothing here but jabs at Bush. We need to SUPPORT something- not bitch about everything.
Posted by Ty on Oct 15, 2003 at 3:21 PM
Just had to respond to this ty-
Don’t know what you’ve been smoking but appatenlty you haven’t heard of urban sprawl, strip malls, ski resorts, Mc Mansions, etc.?! Do you understand that millions and millions of people have been moving here in the past century? Cars and people pollute. Trees turn CO2 into oxygen. Stop cutting down trees for Starbucks/highways/cheap paper and keep the trees that make oxygen (remember, that’s the good gas you live on) in our cities.
Sorry but GO YANKS!
(my one sin is baseball- please support Greenpeace and PETA!)
Posted by Pretty Doe on Oct 15, 2003 at 10:24 PM
Just had to respond to this ty-
Don’t know what you’ve been smoking but appatenlty you haven’t heard of urban sprawl, strip malls, ski resorts, Mc Mansions, etc.?! Do you understand that millions and millions of people have been moving here in the past century? Cars and people pollute. Trees turn CO2 into oxygen. Stop cutting down trees for Starbucks/highways/cheap paper and keep the trees that make oxygen (remember, that’s the good gas you live on) in our cities.
Sorry but GO YANKS!
(my one sin is baseball- please support Greenpeace and PETA!)
Posted by Pretty Doe on Oct 15, 2003 at 10:24 PM
Yes, Pretty Doe,
Go Yanks! Fish did it but now I have to root for the AL, even if Boston pulls it off.
No, there’s less forest acreage today. Logging companies know they have to protect and preserve their industry or it won’t exist. They have come a long long way and I hate to think all that progess would be wasted for the $$ I think Bush is only interested in.
Posted by neil on Oct 16, 2003 at 2:04 AM
There is more forest today in North America than there ever has been. How stupid is this? Check with any environmental group.
“strip malls..” all of this is so stupid. Take the time to look something up “Pretty Doe”.
Posted by Ty on Oct 16, 2003 at 8:16 AM
First: no, it’s not true that there is more forest acreage in North America today than ever. Rush Limbaugh famously said this a few years back, but it was pretty quickly debunked. Here’s a link:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html#sec2.2 and scroll down.
Second: even if that was true, it wouldn’t matter. Much of the “forest” included in those statistics is just private tree farms, bred to be cut. Almost none of it is old growth, which a) preserves biodiversity that younger forest doesn’t, and b) is more resistant to fire. Take the Coast Range, which has less than 10 percent of its old growth left. “Check with any environmental group” and they’ll tell you that old growth is what matters most. Big difference between a 400-year-old Western Red Cedar and a 20-year-old pine.
Third: there are solutions in the article. As Laughlin says, authentic fuel reduction isn’t a bad idea: the regulations just have to make sure that dead trees and underbrush (which cause fires) get cleared out instead of old growth (which prevents them).
Posted by Jeff on Oct 16, 2003 at 4:43 PM
Thanks for this great article. My family has owned forest acerage in eastern Fresno County (CA) since 1900. I have witnessed and been involved in lumber operations ever since I can remember. I have seen the devastation of clear-cuts and the erosion and thick brush growth that result from clear-cutting.
My 160 acres, which we have managed toward the goal of a healty diverse forest, is surrounded by millions of acres of poorly managed second-growth forest on federal land. It is economically feasible for the government to bargain with loggers to cut some larger trees in trade for clearing the deadfall and undergrowth which fuel devastating fires.
I was, in fact, recently dealing with a logger to perform just such a harvest on my land. But along came Bush and his phony “Healthy Forest Plan,” and my deal dissipated. The logger sold his equipment which was specially designed to harvest smaller trees with the least possible impact on the forest floor and bought conventional logging equipment. He dropped our deal and removed his operation to a location where he could take advantage of the old-growth cutting allowed by the Bush Administration.
Millions of acres of second-growth forest, badly in need of harvest of smaller trees and fuel reduction, will now become time bombs waiting for the cigarette butts that will spark massive fires like the ones we have seen in Colorado, New Mexico, and Oregon in the last few years.
Bush’s forest policy is just the opposite of what it claims to be. It should be called the “Forest Rape Policy.” Just like everything else Bush does, just like the war on terror, this is all about making his rich cronies richer at any cost.
Posted by Charles M. Ashley on Oct 16, 2003 at 8:54 PM
Do younger growing trees (so called “new growth forests”) absorb more CO2 than old growths? Or is it the other way around? Is the amount significant? What did Duke University forestry program show regarding this?
Old growth forests are wonderful things. But there is always a balance that has to be made.
And Charles- your use of the word “Rape” is pathetic, demeaning, and stupid. That awful, horrific, and unforgivable act should never be equated to forestry programs. You cheapen the word and lessen its sting (like saying the “F” word all the time). Disagree fine but don’t cross boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed.
Posted by Ty on Oct 17, 2003 at 7:59 AM
Ty sorry you have issue with the word rape, but Charles did use Rape correctly. Look it up in any online dictionary. I think Bush is a rapist of many things and people in America. You will be able to see the scars this administration will leave on America and our childern.
Posted by brad on Oct 17, 2003 at 1:46 PM
First, two things:
Regardless of the CO2 issue, preserving old growth forest is most desirable. Old growth sustains biodiversity that new growth doesn’t (species like the vole, the murrelet and the spotted owl ONLY live in old growth.) Old growth stops catastrophic wildfires that new growth feeds.
Next, even if new growth is the best thing ever, that’s an argument for planting more of it—not an argument for cutting down more old growth.
Now, as regards CO2 proper: It’s wrong to say new growth is better for absorbing CO2 than old growth for at least six reasons.
First, yeah, some types of younger trees absorb slightly more CO2 for a while as they mature—but the types that do this don’t live as long, meaning old growth takes much more CO2 out of the atmosphere in the long run.
Second, I’ll assume you’re honestly asking what the Duke study showed, because it sure doesn’t show that new growth is good. In fact, it shows that after an initial spike, young trees might not help absorb CO2 AT ALL. Here, read for yourself:
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/news/dialogue_newsrelease.asp?p=all&id=2502&catid=46
Third, it isn’t just CO2 being processed by the leaves that’s the issue. Sure, growing trees metabolize CO2 faster—but big, old trees store CO2 inside their trunks, roots, etc. This means two things: they’re huge, so they store LOTS of this stuff; and when you cut them down, you release CO2 into the atmosphere.
Fourth, even when the ancient trees are done growing, “ancient old-growth forests are much more dependable carbon sinks than plantations, and even when fully mature continue to sequester additional large amounts of carbon in their soils for long periods of time.”
http://forests.org/archive/general/engrcirt.htm
Fifth, there’s less than 10 percent of our original old growth remaining. There’s lots of 20-year-old pine trees. If we want a “balance,” we’ll
Sixth, the preceding are a few reasons that no real scientist makes this argument. Dixy Lee Ray made this argument, and even she didn’t think it meant we should cut down old growth.
BTW: Charles, thanks for the great story. That example really illustrates the problems with the new legislation.
Posted by Jeff on Oct 17, 2003 at 3:11 PM
Jeff-
I, um, well, I, I, damn….looks like I just got shot down hard core. And you even had web links for facts?! Crap.
In all seriousness, thank you for the diligent work and stepping up to my pathetic challenges. I’m one of those annoying quasi-conservatives that reads this mag. Normally I don’t agree with what is written here but that was pretty damn spot on work.
As just a suggestion from a hack like me- what do you think about carbon sequestration proposals (underground or oceanic)? And how concerned should we be with China and India (couple billion people together) moving into cars and buring coal?
oh- and is there any cure or coming cure for dutch elm? We’ve been cutting down trees in Chicago (and for Asian beetle) like crazy. You obviously know a lot about this stuff. thought i’d ask.
Posted by Ty on Oct 18, 2003 at 7:46 AM
Brad-
Charles did NOT “use rape correctly”. I’m sorry to get pissed at this - well no, I’m not- but for those of us that have had to deal with people close to us that have had to go through this, well, you just have no f-ing clue.
I have no respect for hacks like you two and I can guarentee there’s an unjustly large community of us out there (victims and loved ones) that don’t either.
But I guess writing cheap crap is more important to you.
Posted by Ty on Oct 18, 2003 at 7:55 AM
Sorry, Ty, that the word “rape” pushes one of your emotional buttons. I have had my life intruded upon also by people who wanted to demonstrate their power over me and can, therefore, at least claim some understanding of your reaction.
However, I would argue that my use of “rape” does not trivialize your experience. It in fact recognizes it as an act demonstrating one’s raw power over another. My use of “rape” as a metaphor for the Bush administration’s many acts of raw power against other nations, against the American people, against the environment, against reason itself, in fact recognizes and emphasizes the act of rape against a single human being as the terribly serious crime it is. And I would say, furthermore, that the “rape” of an entire ecosystem comes damn close to moral (immoral) equivalence to the rape of a human being. Both are terrible, horrible, beastly acts. Besides, your personal notions about the meaning of “rape” notwithstanding, the term is often used metaphorically to refer to “abusive, or improper treatment, violation, profanation.” See The American Heritage Distionary. I can supply other documentation.
Posted by Charles on Oct 18, 2003 at 12:14 PM
Also, Ty, you seem to believe that I am demeaning human beings by equating them with forests. You’ve got it backwards. I am raising forests, up, to equivalence with humans. Both are sacred, holy beings. My living in the woods most of my life and my interest in the biological sciences are probably the reason I assume this equivalence. Walking in the woods, feeling twigs crack under my boots, sinking my hands in the duff, watching trout dart in a clear pool—such experiences and a million more make one realize that all things in this cosmos are part of the same thing. The destruction of any part diminishes the whole.
Posted by Charles on Oct 18, 2003 at 12:38 PM
WOW Bush and company are screwing up the forest with policies mostly hidden from the public??
Come on, I find that hard to believe.
If this article is correct, then that means that all of the old growth left is being cut down while we’re here arguing over the correct use of a fucking word. I mean really, here we have 12 postings and 8 of them are devoted to the use of the word rape. Who fucking cares! Ty is using the tactic of hogging this forum so that no real discussion (yes I know my post is no better) can occur. I’ve seen this guys postings all over the place and its always the same crap. Look around , recognize this tactic and ignore it.
Gee-wizz no wonder why its been so easy for Bush to steam-roll us.
p.s. Ty…..please go back to fox news or Rush pill-head and leave us alone.
Posted by Shawn P. Murphy on Oct 21, 2003 at 8:32 PM
Rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape…..
oh, sorry, forgot we’re talking about that anymore.
Posted by neil on Oct 30, 2003 at 1:37 AM
dont waste intellectual arguments on Ty. He doesn’t have the brain to understand them!
Posted by Jug on Oct 31, 2003 at 10:59 AM
Jeff Shaw’s needed journalistic attention to Bush forest policies moots itself with its lack of balance.
Shaw’s failure to address any credible perspective other than the NW Old-Growth Campaign and the Cascadia Wildlands Project makes it too easy for anyone outside the “choir” to dismiss the article as biased.
One must not quote the timber industry to achieve balance. Two leading forest and fire ecologists, Drs. Franklin and Agee of Univ. of Washington, write in Issues in Science and Technology (http://www.nap.edu/issues/20.1/20.1preview.html) that qualifies Shaw’s statement that fuel reduction can benefit “some kinds of forests, but never ... old growth.”
Specifically, Franklin and Agee (2003) argue that effects of fire suppression are MORE pronounced in white fir forests that historically burned less frequently and more severely than ponderosa pine types because the former feature greater productivity and thus greater potential to develop flammable structure over time. This productivity of relatively moist forests at middle elevations renders them more prone to uncharacteristically severe fires, in part, because “large” trees (>21 inches in diameter) emerged in the absence of fire and now move fire from ground surface into tree canopy, with detrimental implications for ecological process, they claim.
I do not defend Franklin and Agee (2003). Their assumptions about fire suppression effectiveness are debatable based on locally-specific research in relatively moist, middle elevation forests which they say are vulnerable to uncharacteristic fire. In the Klamath region of Oregon and California, for example, contemporary fire events display similar severity patterns to those of historical events (see www.worldwildlife.org/forests/ attachments/fire_report.pdf).
The point remains, however, that widely regarded scientific opinion would qualify Shaw’s “never for old growth” statement by noting that certain “old growth” forests are vulnerable to “uncharacteristic” fire effects, thus justifying intensive fuel reduction efforts.
The subject is so gray, and “never” black and white, that any writer must qualify her claims with research, local context, and a measure of humility.
Posted by Jay Lininger on Nov 2, 2003 at 7:13 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
This story is another example of the disconnect between the administration’s stated goals and the real thrust of its policy. The cynical use of environmental rhetoric to justify environmental destruction is especially galling because of the number of Americans still willing to actually believe the president. Mr. Shaw has done a good job of old fashioned muckraking; I hope larger media outlets will now pick up this issue.
Is it really true that there is MORE forest acreage today than there ever has been in North America? Even at the founding of this nation there was substantially less forest?
We need to go back to what Mother Nature intended. We also need a certain amount of wood to build homes, schools, and millions of other products. Obviously we need to harvest intelligently.
So why don’t you write about a solution? Why do all the articles in this magazine just complain and “muckrake” (per Nathan)? There is nothing here but jabs at Bush. We need to SUPPORT something- not bitch about everything.
Just had to respond to this ty-
Don’t know what you’ve been smoking but appatenlty you haven’t heard of urban sprawl, strip malls, ski resorts, Mc Mansions, etc.?! Do you understand that millions and millions of people have been moving here in the past century? Cars and people pollute. Trees turn CO2 into oxygen. Stop cutting down trees for Starbucks/highways/cheap paper and keep the trees that make oxygen (remember, that’s the good gas you live on) in our cities.
Sorry but GO YANKS!
(my one sin is baseball- please support Greenpeace and PETA!)
Just had to respond to this ty-
Don’t know what you’ve been smoking but appatenlty you haven’t heard of urban sprawl, strip malls, ski resorts, Mc Mansions, etc.?! Do you understand that millions and millions of people have been moving here in the past century? Cars and people pollute. Trees turn CO2 into oxygen. Stop cutting down trees for Starbucks/highways/cheap paper and keep the trees that make oxygen (remember, that’s the good gas you live on) in our cities.
Sorry but GO YANKS!
(my one sin is baseball- please support Greenpeace and PETA!)
Yes, Pretty Doe,
Go Yanks! Fish did it but now I have to root for the AL, even if Boston pulls it off.
No, there’s less forest acreage today. Logging companies know they have to protect and preserve their industry or it won’t exist. They have come a long long way and I hate to think all that progess would be wasted for the $$ I think Bush is only interested in.
There is more forest today in North America than there ever has been. How stupid is this? Check with any environmental group.
“strip malls..” all of this is so stupid. Take the time to look something up “Pretty Doe”.
First: no, it’s not true that there is more forest acreage in North America today than ever. Rush Limbaugh famously said this a few years back, but it was pretty quickly debunked. Here’s a link:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html#sec2.2 and scroll down.
Second: even if that was true, it wouldn’t matter. Much of the “forest” included in those statistics is just private tree farms, bred to be cut. Almost none of it is old growth, which a) preserves biodiversity that younger forest doesn’t, and b) is more resistant to fire. Take the Coast Range, which has less than 10 percent of its old growth left. “Check with any environmental group” and they’ll tell you that old growth is what matters most. Big difference between a 400-year-old Western Red Cedar and a 20-year-old pine.
Third: there are solutions in the article. As Laughlin says, authentic fuel reduction isn’t a bad idea: the regulations just have to make sure that dead trees and underbrush (which cause fires) get cleared out instead of old growth (which prevents them).
Thanks for this great article. My family has owned forest acerage in eastern Fresno County (CA) since 1900. I have witnessed and been involved in lumber operations ever since I can remember. I have seen the devastation of clear-cuts and the erosion and thick brush growth that result from clear-cutting.
My 160 acres, which we have managed toward the goal of a healty diverse forest, is surrounded by millions of acres of poorly managed second-growth forest on federal land. It is economically feasible for the government to bargain with loggers to cut some larger trees in trade for clearing the deadfall and undergrowth which fuel devastating fires.
I was, in fact, recently dealing with a logger to perform just such a harvest on my land. But along came Bush and his phony “Healthy Forest Plan,” and my deal dissipated. The logger sold his equipment which was specially designed to harvest smaller trees with the least possible impact on the forest floor and bought conventional logging equipment. He dropped our deal and removed his operation to a location where he could take advantage of the old-growth cutting allowed by the Bush Administration.
Millions of acres of second-growth forest, badly in need of harvest of smaller trees and fuel reduction, will now become time bombs waiting for the cigarette butts that will spark massive fires like the ones we have seen in Colorado, New Mexico, and Oregon in the last few years.
Bush’s forest policy is just the opposite of what it claims to be. It should be called the “Forest Rape Policy.” Just like everything else Bush does, just like the war on terror, this is all about making his rich cronies richer at any cost.
Do younger growing trees (so called “new growth forests”) absorb more CO2 than old growths? Or is it the other way around? Is the amount significant? What did Duke University forestry program show regarding this?
Old growth forests are wonderful things. But there is always a balance that has to be made.
And Charles- your use of the word “Rape” is pathetic, demeaning, and stupid. That awful, horrific, and unforgivable act should never be equated to forestry programs. You cheapen the word and lessen its sting (like saying the “F” word all the time). Disagree fine but don’t cross boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed.
Ty sorry you have issue with the word rape, but Charles did use Rape correctly. Look it up in any online dictionary. I think Bush is a rapist of many things and people in America. You will be able to see the scars this administration will leave on America and our childern.
First, two things:
Regardless of the CO2 issue, preserving old growth forest is most desirable. Old growth sustains biodiversity that new growth doesn’t (species like the vole, the murrelet and the spotted owl ONLY live in old growth.) Old growth stops catastrophic wildfires that new growth feeds.
Next, even if new growth is the best thing ever, that’s an argument for planting more of it—not an argument for cutting down more old growth.
Now, as regards CO2 proper: It’s wrong to say new growth is better for absorbing CO2 than old growth for at least six reasons.
First, yeah, some types of younger trees absorb slightly more CO2 for a while as they mature—but the types that do this don’t live as long, meaning old growth takes much more CO2 out of the atmosphere in the long run.
Second, I’ll assume you’re honestly asking what the Duke study showed, because it sure doesn’t show that new growth is good. In fact, it shows that after an initial spike, young trees might not help absorb CO2 AT ALL. Here, read for yourself:
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/news/dialogue_newsrelease.asp?p=all&id=2502&catid=46
Third, it isn’t just CO2 being processed by the leaves that’s the issue. Sure, growing trees metabolize CO2 faster—but big, old trees store CO2 inside their trunks, roots, etc. This means two things: they’re huge, so they store LOTS of this stuff; and when you cut them down, you release CO2 into the atmosphere.
Fourth, even when the ancient trees are done growing, “ancient old-growth forests are much more dependable carbon sinks than plantations, and even when fully mature continue to sequester additional large amounts of carbon in their soils for long periods of time.”
http://forests.org/archive/general/engrcirt.htm
Fifth, there’s less than 10 percent of our original old growth remaining. There’s lots of 20-year-old pine trees. If we want a “balance,” we’ll
Sixth, the preceding are a few reasons that no real scientist makes this argument. Dixy Lee Ray made this argument, and even she didn’t think it meant we should cut down old growth.
BTW: Charles, thanks for the great story. That example really illustrates the problems with the new legislation.
Jeff-
I, um, well, I, I, damn….looks like I just got shot down hard core. And you even had web links for facts?! Crap.
In all seriousness, thank you for the diligent work and stepping up to my pathetic challenges. I’m one of those annoying quasi-conservatives that reads this mag. Normally I don’t agree with what is written here but that was pretty damn spot on work.
As just a suggestion from a hack like me- what do you think about carbon sequestration proposals (underground or oceanic)? And how concerned should we be with China and India (couple billion people together) moving into cars and buring coal?
oh- and is there any cure or coming cure for dutch elm? We’ve been cutting down trees in Chicago (and for Asian beetle) like crazy. You obviously know a lot about this stuff. thought i’d ask.
Brad-
Charles did NOT “use rape correctly”. I’m sorry to get pissed at this - well no, I’m not- but for those of us that have had to deal with people close to us that have had to go through this, well, you just have no f-ing clue.
I have no respect for hacks like you two and I can guarentee there’s an unjustly large community of us out there (victims and loved ones) that don’t either.
But I guess writing cheap crap is more important to you.
Sorry, Ty, that the word “rape” pushes one of your emotional buttons. I have had my life intruded upon also by people who wanted to demonstrate their power over me and can, therefore, at least claim some understanding of your reaction.
However, I would argue that my use of “rape” does not trivialize your experience. It in fact recognizes it as an act demonstrating one’s raw power over another. My use of “rape” as a metaphor for the Bush administration’s many acts of raw power against other nations, against the American people, against the environment, against reason itself, in fact recognizes and emphasizes the act of rape against a single human being as the terribly serious crime it is. And I would say, furthermore, that the “rape” of an entire ecosystem comes damn close to moral (immoral) equivalence to the rape of a human being. Both are terrible, horrible, beastly acts. Besides, your personal notions about the meaning of “rape” notwithstanding, the term is often used metaphorically to refer to “abusive, or improper treatment, violation, profanation.” See The American Heritage Distionary. I can supply other documentation.
Also, Ty, you seem to believe that I am demeaning human beings by equating them with forests. You’ve got it backwards. I am raising forests, up, to equivalence with humans. Both are sacred, holy beings. My living in the woods most of my life and my interest in the biological sciences are probably the reason I assume this equivalence. Walking in the woods, feeling twigs crack under my boots, sinking my hands in the duff, watching trout dart in a clear pool—such experiences and a million more make one realize that all things in this cosmos are part of the same thing. The destruction of any part diminishes the whole.
WOW Bush and company are screwing up the forest with policies mostly hidden from the public??
Come on, I find that hard to believe.
If this article is correct, then that means that all of the old growth left is being cut down while we’re here arguing over the correct use of a fucking word. I mean really, here we have 12 postings and 8 of them are devoted to the use of the word rape. Who fucking cares! Ty is using the tactic of hogging this forum so that no real discussion (yes I know my post is no better) can occur. I’ve seen this guys postings all over the place and its always the same crap. Look around , recognize this tactic and ignore it.
Gee-wizz no wonder why its been so easy for Bush to steam-roll us.
p.s. Ty…..please go back to fox news or Rush pill-head and leave us alone.
Rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape…..
oh, sorry, forgot we’re talking about that anymore.
dont waste intellectual arguments on Ty. He doesn’t have the brain to understand them!
Jeff Shaw’s needed journalistic attention to Bush forest policies moots itself with its lack of balance.
Shaw’s failure to address any credible perspective other than the NW Old-Growth Campaign and the Cascadia Wildlands Project makes it too easy for anyone outside the “choir” to dismiss the article as biased.
One must not quote the timber industry to achieve balance. Two leading forest and fire ecologists, Drs. Franklin and Agee of Univ. of Washington, write in Issues in Science and Technology (http://www.nap.edu/issues/20.1/20.1preview.html) that qualifies Shaw’s statement that fuel reduction can benefit “some kinds of forests, but never ... old growth.”
Specifically, Franklin and Agee (2003) argue that effects of fire suppression are MORE pronounced in white fir forests that historically burned less frequently and more severely than ponderosa pine types because the former feature greater productivity and thus greater potential to develop flammable structure over time. This productivity of relatively moist forests at middle elevations renders them more prone to uncharacteristically severe fires, in part, because “large” trees (>21 inches in diameter) emerged in the absence of fire and now move fire from ground surface into tree canopy, with detrimental implications for ecological process, they claim.
I do not defend Franklin and Agee (2003). Their assumptions about fire suppression effectiveness are debatable based on locally-specific research in relatively moist, middle elevation forests which they say are vulnerable to uncharacteristic fire. In the Klamath region of Oregon and California, for example, contemporary fire events display similar severity patterns to those of historical events (see www.worldwildlife.org/forests/ attachments/fire_report.pdf).
The point remains, however, that widely regarded scientific opinion would qualify Shaw’s “never for old growth” statement by noting that certain “old growth” forests are vulnerable to “uncharacteristic” fire effects, thus justifying intensive fuel reduction efforts.
The subject is so gray, and “never” black and white, that any writer must qualify her claims with research, local context, and a measure of humility.
register a new account »Posting Security