With the recent forest fires that have blazed through California and destroyed 740,000 acres and 3,600 houses and killed 22 people, an issue that had been put on the back-burner (no pun intended) has now resurfaced: the practice of forest thinning.
Forest thinning is a process that clears out underbrush, which fuels forest fires once they are started. Typically, small controlled fires are ignited to burn dead wood and brush.
Thinning is not only a common sense, preventive measure to protect people, homes, and businesses, it is also environmentally friendly. The purpose of thinning is to reduce the severity, damage, and magnitude of a forest fire. However, environmental groups cannot comprehend this.
According to the U.S. Forest Service Web site (www.fs.fed.us), 190 million acres of federal forests and rangelands are at a "high risk of catastrophic fire." The Forest Service attributes this to a prolonged period of accumulation of the brush, as well as other factors (e.g. droughts, insects and disease). Also, the Forest Service credits the increased density of the forests with the elevated risk of wild fires (meaning more trees per acre, not less, for those who think the logging industry is devastating our forests).
President Bush released the "Healthy Forests Initiative" on August 21, 2002. According to the White House Web site, this initiative allows thinning of the forests by logging companies. It also expedites the approval process for thinning and forest restoration (seeding and planting). The House and Senate have passed separate versions and will meet for a conference committee in the near future.
Partial forest thinning was initiated by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 1996, when it had started to design a massive project to revitalize the forest and decrease fuels.
Take notice that the development of this project had started in 1996 -- during the Clinton administration (for those who think it is President Bush's idea to "destroy" the forests with his initiative). Its impetus was the desire of the Department of the Interior to "get regulatory and judicial approval to thin and manage the area to improve habitat and the vitality of trees." However, despite the fact that thinning actually helps prevent mass destruction of the environment when forest fires occur, the practice has been opposed by many environmentalists and environmental groups. Environmental groups see any attempts to provide business for loggers as an atrocious intention. Not only are environmentalists stifling the economy, but also, as the White House points out, the underbrush and small logs cleared can be used "to make wood products or to produce biomass energy, all at tremendous savings to taxpayers."
Naturally, environmentalists also fear the destruction of the environment when trees are cut down. However, this is short-sighted on the part of environmental groups, since the destruction of a forest during a fire is far greater in an untrimmed area than a trimmed area.
Forest management through fuels reduction projects (thinning) does make a significant difference. A case study examined in the "Healthy Forests Initiative" demonstrates this. The Squires Fire, the fire analyzed, was started on July 13, 2002, when part of the forest in Medford, Oregon was struck by lightning. Through the BLM's efforts, some of the forest had been thinned, while other areas had not. The pictures from the Squires Fire comparing the treated and untreated lands included in the study are very telling. The trimmed area shows minimal damage and small, low fires. The area that had not been treated had sky-high flames and was left a barren forest.
The Sierra Club (www.sierraclub.org) claims that it is a myth that "fires cause long-term damage to forest health."
Well, as a result of the Squires Fire, two species, one threatened (the spotted owl) and one endangered (the Gentner's Fritillary, a plant) were displaced; their habitats were destroyed. What was described in the study as "lasting damage to the ecosystem" was left in the aftermath of the fire in the untreated areas.
The Sierra Club claims that the President's "ill-named" "Healthy Forests Initiative" will "do little to protect communities and homes from forest fires."
Through lawsuits, environmental groups attempted to stop the BLM's project, called Appleseed Landscape, which had the same basic principle -- forest management through thinning and restoration -- as President Bush's "Healthy Forests Initiative." In fact, the original project covered 24,000 acres of land own by the BLM. After six years of legal hassles and protests, only 430 acres were allowed to be thinned. At the time of the fire, 80 of these 430 acres hadn't been treated, and since the fire spread so rapidly through this area, 2,800 acres were burned. If environmental groups had been effective in stopping the project, how many more acres would have been destroyed? Perhaps the better question: If the 24,000 acres had all been treated, how many habitats, homes, and acres would have been saved?
Thinning forests is a measure that has proven effective in minimizing the damage to the environment caused by fires. This practice will help to keep the environment thriving and protect it for future generations. If only environmental groups would realize this.
(Whitney Blake's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at wblake@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 7 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
