cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/4579237
In an emergency directive issued late last week, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced her department’s plan to expand logging and timber production by 25 percent and, in the process, dismantle the half-century-old environmental review system that has blocked the federal government from finalizing major decisions concerning national forest lands without public insight.
Under Rollins’ direction and following an earlier executive order signed by President Donald Trump, the U.S. Forest Service would carry out the plan that designates 67 million acres of national forest lands as high or very high wildfire risk, classifies another 79 million acres as being in a state of declining forest health, and labels 34 million acres as at risk of wildfire, insects, and disease. All told, the declaration encompasses some 59 percent of Forest Service lands.
“Healthy forests require work, and right now we’re facing a national forest emergency. We have an abundance of timber at high risk of wildfires in our national forests,” said Rollins in a press release. “I am proud to follow the bold leadership of President Trump by empowering forest managers to reduce constraints and minimize the risks of fire, insects, and disease so that we can strengthen the American timber industry and further enrich our forests with the resources they need to thrive.”
While it may seem intuitive that cutting down high-risk trees will lead to less organic material that could incinerate, environmentalists say the administration’s plans to increase timber outputs, simplify permitting, and do away with certain environmental review processes are likely to only escalate wildfire risk and contribute more to climate change.
I get that the orange idiot isn't carefully considering anything he puts in place, but his stupid shit aside and going by the headline "logging doesn't prevent wildfires" alone-- why not? I was under the impression that controlled burns reduced fire risk, so is logging the same swaths as those burns would've been not a valid method of wildfire reduction?
The Article mentions that
Seems the main reason they are pushing for this policy is to increase timber production instead to preventing more wild fires
Yeah, I get that the admin is shit, but I'm wondering about a tangent here:
Why are burns prescribed instead of logging in general?
Full size trees are not fire risks, shrubs and small trees are. burns remove the fuel, logging creates the conditions for more
So a few things factor in. First off, old growth forests are more fire resistant than new forests. The lumber industry treats forests like a crop, they harvest it all, and wait for it to grow back. Look at a satellite map to see the patches of forest.
A prescribed burn, is about turning the dead twigs and brush into ash and charcoal, that feeds the forest floor.
I can answer more questions, I took care of a couple forested properties, focusing on low impact practices.