California is conducting wildfire prevention at a record pace. It benefits the climate. It saves homes, lives and ecosystems. Environmentalists should unite on this issue.
Great in-depth report. I agree with you and the need to invest more time and funds into ecological logging. Part of my upbringing was in California and mostly raising myself. At age eight, I learned from neighbors how to water the roof of my home as a wildfire burned dangerously near. As a photojournalist I covered too may fires. Smoke inhalation is not a good thing. Liked the kitty rescue story :)
Indigenous people have recognized the need to burn scrub brush and grasses to prevent fuels from burning larger tracks of resources. The results are less uncontrolled forest fires. New growth and fodder for wild life. Release and germination of dormant plant seeds. A cost effective method of resources and restoration. Your writing has me sold in a method that has been a win-win solution.
thanks for this great read, informed by your deep experience. It's clear that true solutions to our multiple crises are not well-served by dogmatic positions, even well-intentioned ones. You offer well-reasoned arguments supported by deep understanding of the local history and ecosystems, exactly what our world needs more of.
Let us posit that we all hate greed, and that clear cutting is a reflection of human greed. To quote our informative interlocutor, Madam Royal, "nobody wants that."
This is unadulterated, common environmental sense. Why let beautiful trees go up in spoke, when we can make practical use of their wood? Why allow them all to burn, only to contribute to an increasingly-volatile atmosphere and unpredictable global weather patterns?
We need the machinery and manpower to cut and remove small tracts of forest to protect the larger whole. The science is clear. Let us keep our heads screwed on straight, and do what needs to be done for the sake of the larger whole.
Thanks for the in-depth post! We have similar issues in South Africa, and from working on game reserves doing controlled burning and thinning of overgrown areas, I have seen the benefits of this (for the animals, the vegetation, and by extension the tourists that visit us). It does get tricky in urban areas, where residents will complain if you have controlled burn in certain sections every year (or even every 5 or 10 years, depending on the regional climate and vegetation type). But then, when an unplanned fire gets out of hand, those are the first people to call for help. Fire has, and will always be, a part of the ecology of various ecosystems. With urbanization, we have prevented the rise and spread of natural fires, only to pay for those decisions 2 decades later. Keep up the good work!
Amanda, the depth and breadth of your reporting is a wonderful addition to the one-sided “us versus them” verbiage that dominates much of the public airspace. Thanks for highlighting the complexities of the problem and suggesting solutions. On a side note, I recently visited Big Trees State Park. The rangers did a good job explaining the need for thinning via prescribed burns, which will continue to take place at the park. It takes environmental education to shift people’s’ mindset about burned areas in forests- not all burned areas are tragic. Thanks for your hopeful article!
I know that fire and thinning are important tools, but as I understand it, forests recover more quickly when larger logs from thinning operations are left on the ground instead of taken to a mill. Is this being done? I imagine it can’t all be removed anyway without building new roads.
Good question. It definitely depends on the forest. Certainly, not all dead wood is bad. A dead log provides food for bugs and fungi, and habitat for little critters. Oregon juncos, little birds with black heads, nest on the ground under logs and bushes. If a dead tree is still standing, it's also great habitat for all kinds of critters, who find holes to nest and sleep. Unfortunately, in California, we have so many dead trees that the entire understory could be all dead logs and branches, no greenery whatsoever. Fire used to perform the function of quickly turning this into fertilizer for the underbrush and trees. In wetter forests, the decomposition occurs much faster and doesn't require fire. We typically go six months without rain here, so dead wood doesn't rot. A lot of thinning work is combined with prescribed fire because the wood from small trees is not really worthwhile lumber. The wood isn't removed, but is collected into piles that are burned later.
Interesting, thanks. I live in the PNW so conditions are different. Downed Douglas fir logs (nurse logs) are incredibly important to forest regrowth here and there are lots of controversies about salvage logging. Thanks for your insights!
Read the book. The university I am most familiar with near me accepts funding from the forest industry. Their research tends to support industry talking points. In contrast research coming out of a university in the next state over tends to support the points Chad Hanson makes. I don’t have time to argue points. Read the Chad Hanson book, which is full of other references you can read, and figure out who funded the research you are referring to. Help us unravel this.
Your article is wrong, and/ or misleading on many points. Out of ignorance or purposdeful deflection, I don't know. I live a block from where they are "thinning" the forest, and have traversed almost all areas in the basin. There is definitely a need for proper thinning, but what they are doing is a travesty. A forest ranger told me that the government does not have the money to do this work, so they bid it out, and the companies have to make a profit. So much that they can open a saw mill, and in the last year buy huge tractors that saw and haul trees in minutes. Maybe you, and certainly they, don't know that there are mycelium under the forest floor that connect sall the tree roots making for an integral cohesive forest ecosystem. These tractors leave massive tracks in the forest floor destroying this ecosystem and leaving us with a severely damaged forest that will take a generation to heal. Also..... what they have left us is nothing but a tree farm. Almost all one species, of one age, and uniformly spaced. This is not a healthy forest at all. It's true that our forests are diminished from the clearcutting 100 years ago, but there should be several species of fir and pine, cedar, etc, and some smaller trees to replace the remaining trees. Another uninformed statement is that the Sierra Club is against thinning in old growth forests. The sierra club bases their positions on science and our best knowledge of forest health. Go walk in the old growth coast redwoods and you will see that there is no need or place for "thinning". However in the giganteum forests there is a need, because they have evolved from fire that has been supressed for decades. So it is not that simple. Also, to claim that removing trees helps sequester corbon is of course rediculous. The more trees, the more carbon eating. Now if you factor in, the carbon produced by forest fires, and the loss of corbon eating trees from these fires, then you have a valid point, but you did not make this point, and it is based on possibilities not the specific actions you espouse. So.... I dont hate what you have printed, but it is very flawed and thus lacking credibility.
Hi Greg, thanks for the note. Except for the first sentence, I actually agree with almost everything you say. There is agony and misery to watching all the thinning, the rough machinery, our messy efforts to fix our messy past mistakes. I'm not sure there's evidence that thinning trees eliminates mycelium webs? However, if a forest is completely destroyed in a wildfire, those fungi networks have nothing to feed on and will die. I'm sure I'm ignorant of a lot of things but did not purposefully deflect. It was already too long, so I couldn't go into every single side topic in huge detail. Of course, not all forests need the same thinning/prescribe dfire that California forests need. There's a lot more clear cutting going on in Oregon and Washington than in California, all very noticeable to the public, and understandably upsetting. But, most people live in houses made of wood and use furniture made of wood. Do you not? The Sierra Club is currently fighting a national policy to oppose thinning in old-growth forests. They've issued several opinion pieces. I'm not going to link to them here. My opinion of them is formed through more than a decade of working and interacting with them through an environmental group I once worked for. Of all the environmental groups involved in this topic, they are the most old-school and don't appear up-to-date on the science, in my opinion. But, like I say in the footnotes, I appreciate that advocacy groups create tension and hold the bigwigs at the Forest Service accountable. The Sierra Club's efforts will likely produce some rule about diameter that will benefit old-growth forests, but it may delay wildfire prevention for so long as to be counter-productive. I'm curious which "basin" you are referring to? Tahoe? Also, I'm curious how you believe we should conduct wildfire prevention?
Thanks for the reply. sorry if my comments are harsh. I am in the forest nearly every day, it is like my church. Yes Tahoe. I recommend "THE OVERSTORY by Richard Powers. He advocates sustainable harvesting, but with humans and even horses to keep the forest healthy. Yes that is extreme and unlikely, but it comes from an understanding of what and how what we are currently doing is so harmful and devestating to the forest..... Mycelium are mostly 3-4 inches down..... https://www.oneearth.org/mapping-the-fungi-network-that-lives-beneath-the-soil/ ................. Walk behing Montgomery estates and see the deep tracks left by the machines that have destroyed the entire forest floor in this area..... They (forest service and logging companies ) have no idea about this. They see the forest as a tree farm and it is tragic that we have to endure such a resource and gift being so diminished. And... the idea that thinning will unequivocably prevent fire is not accurate and even used as a propaganda point to rationalize what they are doing. Yes... less trees means a less intense fire etc (removing all trees will insure no fire), but with winds and fluying embers, there is no stopping these fires. Plus, less trees means hotter dryer overall environment and will exacerbate the likelyhood and spread of fire........ It is complicated...... BUT.... my advice is to concentrate on immediate suppression when they start. It will require a massive investment, but we need to look at it like a city fire department and put in place helicopters and strike teams all over the state to respond to a breakout within minutes and have the latest technology to put the fire out before it grows more that couple of acres. This can be done, and is a much more sure way to prevent the loss of forests, the loss of carbon sequstration. and the elimination of toxic smoke filled skies. So... to me your article reads like a promotion piece for the logging companies.... sorry.....
No need to apologize. Thanks for joining the conversation. Yes, I've read "Overstory" as well as "Finding the Mother Tree," which tells the story of the fungi networks connecting the whole forest. I believe some Europeans have invented a spider-like thinning machine that leaves hardly any footprint. That's what we need, instead of those ruts. Let's find the money to get the USFS using them!
Great in-depth report. I agree with you and the need to invest more time and funds into ecological logging. Part of my upbringing was in California and mostly raising myself. At age eight, I learned from neighbors how to water the roof of my home as a wildfire burned dangerously near. As a photojournalist I covered too may fires. Smoke inhalation is not a good thing. Liked the kitty rescue story :)
Thanks Rena. It's great to learn more about you and know that we have this shared experience. I had to save the cat. I'm so glad he cooperated.
Indigenous people have recognized the need to burn scrub brush and grasses to prevent fuels from burning larger tracks of resources. The results are less uncontrolled forest fires. New growth and fodder for wild life. Release and germination of dormant plant seeds. A cost effective method of resources and restoration. Your writing has me sold in a method that has been a win-win solution.
Yes, this grew too long so I didn't get to mention that. "1491" by Charles Mann covers the topic well.
Exactly
thanks for this great read, informed by your deep experience. It's clear that true solutions to our multiple crises are not well-served by dogmatic positions, even well-intentioned ones. You offer well-reasoned arguments supported by deep understanding of the local history and ecosystems, exactly what our world needs more of.
Yes! I'm so glad to share company with people here who appreciate this. What a relief!
Let us posit that we all hate greed, and that clear cutting is a reflection of human greed. To quote our informative interlocutor, Madam Royal, "nobody wants that." This is unadulterated, common environmental sense. Why let beautiful trees go up in spoke, when we can make practical use of their wood? Why allow them all to burn, only to contribute to an increasingly-volatile atmosphere and unpredictable global weather patterns? We need the machinery and manpower to cut and remove small tracts of forest to protect the larger whole. The science is clear. Let us keep our heads screwed on straight, and do what needs to be done for the sake of the larger whole.
Ditto
Haircuts are good things.
Exactly!
Thanks for the in-depth post! We have similar issues in South Africa, and from working on game reserves doing controlled burning and thinning of overgrown areas, I have seen the benefits of this (for the animals, the vegetation, and by extension the tourists that visit us). It does get tricky in urban areas, where residents will complain if you have controlled burn in certain sections every year (or even every 5 or 10 years, depending on the regional climate and vegetation type). But then, when an unplanned fire gets out of hand, those are the first people to call for help. Fire has, and will always be, a part of the ecology of various ecosystems. With urbanization, we have prevented the rise and spread of natural fires, only to pay for those decisions 2 decades later. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for this comment. I've learned something new about South Africa.👍🏻
You're welcome!
Amanda, the depth and breadth of your reporting is a wonderful addition to the one-sided “us versus them” verbiage that dominates much of the public airspace. Thanks for highlighting the complexities of the problem and suggesting solutions. On a side note, I recently visited Big Trees State Park. The rangers did a good job explaining the need for thinning via prescribed burns, which will continue to take place at the park. It takes environmental education to shift people’s’ mindset about burned areas in forests- not all burned areas are tragic. Thanks for your hopeful article!
I know that fire and thinning are important tools, but as I understand it, forests recover more quickly when larger logs from thinning operations are left on the ground instead of taken to a mill. Is this being done? I imagine it can’t all be removed anyway without building new roads.
Good question. It definitely depends on the forest. Certainly, not all dead wood is bad. A dead log provides food for bugs and fungi, and habitat for little critters. Oregon juncos, little birds with black heads, nest on the ground under logs and bushes. If a dead tree is still standing, it's also great habitat for all kinds of critters, who find holes to nest and sleep. Unfortunately, in California, we have so many dead trees that the entire understory could be all dead logs and branches, no greenery whatsoever. Fire used to perform the function of quickly turning this into fertilizer for the underbrush and trees. In wetter forests, the decomposition occurs much faster and doesn't require fire. We typically go six months without rain here, so dead wood doesn't rot. A lot of thinning work is combined with prescribed fire because the wood from small trees is not really worthwhile lumber. The wood isn't removed, but is collected into piles that are burned later.
Interesting, thanks. I live in the PNW so conditions are different. Downed Douglas fir logs (nurse logs) are incredibly important to forest regrowth here and there are lots of controversies about salvage logging. Thanks for your insights!
You should be nervous. This is inaccurate. Please read Chad Hanson’s book Smokescreen for an introduction.
What specifically is inaccurate? I believe 99 percent of fire ecologists disagree with Chad Hanson's research. Here is a paper with clear science and data refuting his claims: https://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s42408-023-00241-z
"While reducing stand
density can lead to greater surface fuel drying (Kane
2021; Whitehead et al. 2006) and higher surface wind
speeds (Bigelow & North 2012; Russell et al. 2018), our
data provide clear evidence that the suppressing effect
of crown fuel reduction far outweighed any enhancing effect of increased drying or higher windspeeds on fire behavior."
Read the book. The university I am most familiar with near me accepts funding from the forest industry. Their research tends to support industry talking points. In contrast research coming out of a university in the next state over tends to support the points Chad Hanson makes. I don’t have time to argue points. Read the Chad Hanson book, which is full of other references you can read, and figure out who funded the research you are referring to. Help us unravel this.
Your article is wrong, and/ or misleading on many points. Out of ignorance or purposdeful deflection, I don't know. I live a block from where they are "thinning" the forest, and have traversed almost all areas in the basin. There is definitely a need for proper thinning, but what they are doing is a travesty. A forest ranger told me that the government does not have the money to do this work, so they bid it out, and the companies have to make a profit. So much that they can open a saw mill, and in the last year buy huge tractors that saw and haul trees in minutes. Maybe you, and certainly they, don't know that there are mycelium under the forest floor that connect sall the tree roots making for an integral cohesive forest ecosystem. These tractors leave massive tracks in the forest floor destroying this ecosystem and leaving us with a severely damaged forest that will take a generation to heal. Also..... what they have left us is nothing but a tree farm. Almost all one species, of one age, and uniformly spaced. This is not a healthy forest at all. It's true that our forests are diminished from the clearcutting 100 years ago, but there should be several species of fir and pine, cedar, etc, and some smaller trees to replace the remaining trees. Another uninformed statement is that the Sierra Club is against thinning in old growth forests. The sierra club bases their positions on science and our best knowledge of forest health. Go walk in the old growth coast redwoods and you will see that there is no need or place for "thinning". However in the giganteum forests there is a need, because they have evolved from fire that has been supressed for decades. So it is not that simple. Also, to claim that removing trees helps sequester corbon is of course rediculous. The more trees, the more carbon eating. Now if you factor in, the carbon produced by forest fires, and the loss of corbon eating trees from these fires, then you have a valid point, but you did not make this point, and it is based on possibilities not the specific actions you espouse. So.... I dont hate what you have printed, but it is very flawed and thus lacking credibility.
Hi Greg, thanks for the note. Except for the first sentence, I actually agree with almost everything you say. There is agony and misery to watching all the thinning, the rough machinery, our messy efforts to fix our messy past mistakes. I'm not sure there's evidence that thinning trees eliminates mycelium webs? However, if a forest is completely destroyed in a wildfire, those fungi networks have nothing to feed on and will die. I'm sure I'm ignorant of a lot of things but did not purposefully deflect. It was already too long, so I couldn't go into every single side topic in huge detail. Of course, not all forests need the same thinning/prescribe dfire that California forests need. There's a lot more clear cutting going on in Oregon and Washington than in California, all very noticeable to the public, and understandably upsetting. But, most people live in houses made of wood and use furniture made of wood. Do you not? The Sierra Club is currently fighting a national policy to oppose thinning in old-growth forests. They've issued several opinion pieces. I'm not going to link to them here. My opinion of them is formed through more than a decade of working and interacting with them through an environmental group I once worked for. Of all the environmental groups involved in this topic, they are the most old-school and don't appear up-to-date on the science, in my opinion. But, like I say in the footnotes, I appreciate that advocacy groups create tension and hold the bigwigs at the Forest Service accountable. The Sierra Club's efforts will likely produce some rule about diameter that will benefit old-growth forests, but it may delay wildfire prevention for so long as to be counter-productive. I'm curious which "basin" you are referring to? Tahoe? Also, I'm curious how you believe we should conduct wildfire prevention?
Thanks for the reply. sorry if my comments are harsh. I am in the forest nearly every day, it is like my church. Yes Tahoe. I recommend "THE OVERSTORY by Richard Powers. He advocates sustainable harvesting, but with humans and even horses to keep the forest healthy. Yes that is extreme and unlikely, but it comes from an understanding of what and how what we are currently doing is so harmful and devestating to the forest..... Mycelium are mostly 3-4 inches down..... https://www.oneearth.org/mapping-the-fungi-network-that-lives-beneath-the-soil/ ................. Walk behing Montgomery estates and see the deep tracks left by the machines that have destroyed the entire forest floor in this area..... They (forest service and logging companies ) have no idea about this. They see the forest as a tree farm and it is tragic that we have to endure such a resource and gift being so diminished. And... the idea that thinning will unequivocably prevent fire is not accurate and even used as a propaganda point to rationalize what they are doing. Yes... less trees means a less intense fire etc (removing all trees will insure no fire), but with winds and fluying embers, there is no stopping these fires. Plus, less trees means hotter dryer overall environment and will exacerbate the likelyhood and spread of fire........ It is complicated...... BUT.... my advice is to concentrate on immediate suppression when they start. It will require a massive investment, but we need to look at it like a city fire department and put in place helicopters and strike teams all over the state to respond to a breakout within minutes and have the latest technology to put the fire out before it grows more that couple of acres. This can be done, and is a much more sure way to prevent the loss of forests, the loss of carbon sequstration. and the elimination of toxic smoke filled skies. So... to me your article reads like a promotion piece for the logging companies.... sorry.....
No need to apologize. Thanks for joining the conversation. Yes, I've read "Overstory" as well as "Finding the Mother Tree," which tells the story of the fungi networks connecting the whole forest. I believe some Europeans have invented a spider-like thinning machine that leaves hardly any footprint. That's what we need, instead of those ruts. Let's find the money to get the USFS using them!