Forest Fires

I live in Oregon, surrounded by some of the best forests in the Nation. When you live out here, near and in the Western Woods, you gain an appreciation for their health, but, sad to tell, the forests are all being mismanaged and during the next generations, will likely be gone.

Two of the largest forest fires in the modern history of our country are now blazing in the drought-parched Southwest and Rocky Mountains.

These fires are our fault, because we have let the Government, charged with the management of these forested lands, establish a policy of non-management instead.

There is no better example of the destructive nature of radical environmentalism than these fires. The "lock it up and keep everyone out" policy of the radical enviro-whackos has done three things that specifically prohibit fighting these fires on the ground, where all fires must eventually be controlled.

First, a healthy forest has immature trees thinned down to the proper ratio of trees per acreage, and that is easy enough to do. Second, a healthy forest has forest roads cut into it, but the enviro-whackos are anti-road, and where they have sway, the roads are not kept up if there were any, and never built if there weren't any. Sometimes, roads are deliberately removed under these damaging policies. Third, dangerous insect infestations in the trees are combated in a healthy forest, because bugs like bark beetles kill trees, and make perfect tinder to keep a fire going.

Under present policy, the forests that are set aside as "Wilderness" are nothing more than forest conflagrations waiting to happen. When these conflagrations happen, the first impulse of the Government is to not fight them. "Let it burn, it's more natural that way" has become the enviro-whacko cry heard with the start of every fire.

One issue is ALWAYS lied about by the enviros. They say that using the forests as timber supply is "raping" the forests, but the reverse is true: designating wilderness is raping the forests, because they are then doomed to death by fire.

Add in other negative factors such as deliberately letting the worn-out fire-tanker aircraft fleet rot away and not be replaced don't help either. We have the best aviation industry in the world right here, but we can't design and build firefighting aircraft? All of our current fire-bombers are converted from old aircraft which started life (and were worn out) in other service, either military or civilian transport. The Russsians build a superb fire-bomber along the lines of their Beriev BE-200 jet amphibian, and the Canadians build a decent smaller bomber.

We have the knowledge and can afford the equipment to protect our forests, so why do we let them burn?

Comments

[Will]

Turns out some forests require a fire to clean out the brush and regenerate. Doesn't kill mature trees, normally. However, when you have a fire-suppression system that never lets this happen, combined with the environmentalists restricting any use of it, you end up with fires that burn so hot that everything dies. Add in something that kills trees in large numbers, like the fungus(?) that killed the oaks here in CA, and they are virtually unstoppable due to the much greater than typical fuel load.

Turns out the forest isn't as static a place as the "caretakers" thought, and meddling with nature on such a broad basis was based on a flawed picture.
This continent was covered with forests before the colonists arrived. Lightning generated fires were a normal occurrence. What makes us think we know better?

[PawPaw]

We've got lots of trees in this part of Central Louisiana, and just exactly one Wilderness Area. Guess what burns every six or eight years? Yeah, it's perfectly natural for an over-mature forest to catch fire every decade or so and burn to the ground, but what a waste of good raw materials. Our pine plantations support healthy populations of deer, hogs, dozens of species of bird, squirrel, rabbit, all manner of jumping/hopping/ crawling things. Give me managed timber over a wilderness area every time.

[Ragin' Dave]

Look, the environmental movement is essentially a Marxist movement. They really don't give a damn about the forests, except as a way to prevent commerce and stifle the economy that depends on lumber. The reason we're not managing the forests is because the environmental groups understand that actually managing the forests would run counter to their goals.

When square miles of forest turn into an inferno, just remember that is the ACTUAL GOAL of the environmental groups. Because they've successfully prevented that forest from being used in a capitalistic activity.

[Mockingbird]

Very good post. My family raised longleaf and slash pine here in north Florida since the 1840's.
You hit the 3 nails on their heads. Thinning, timber fire lanes, and combatting insects.

[Tom]

I'm a contrary SOB. What if it's like everything else the liberals do. A deliberate action to eliminate any human activity where they don't want it. Might explain the number of fires & the intensity. Anyone can watch the weather & know when there are a dry conditions & wind. Call me suspicious.
Tom