 |
 |
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Hellbender Journal Summer/Fall 2001 Forest Fire: Budgetary Incentive Drives Forest Service to Log, Suppress Fires By Matthew Koehler, Native Forest Network (Missoula, MT) As expected, the timber industry and their political supporters have been using the recent wildfires as an excuse to call for more logging and roadbuilding in our National Forests. In fact, the timber industry and anti-environmental members of Congress have eagerly taken to the airwaves to place the blame for the wildfires squarely on the shoulders of the environmental community. Their rationale that more logging and roadbuilding will "fire proof" our forests has been ironically juxtaposed by the fact that the majority of wildfires in 2000 burned in logged, roaded and otherwise "managed" forests. Meanwhile, early analysis of the 2001 wildfires by Pacific Biodiversity Institute (www.pacificbio.org) has revealed that most of the 2001 wildfires burned in non-forested ecosystems, with less than 17% burning on National Forest lands. Against this tidal wave of "fire hazard hysteria" and self-serving pleas for more taxpayer subsidized logging in our national forests coming from the timber industry, the environmental community has managed to educate the public about wildfires, logging and fire ecology. Through these education efforts the public has learned that wildfires are an essential and natural process as much a part of the landscape as wind, sun, snow and rain. More than ever, people now realize that wildfires do not destroy a forest, but that logging, roadbuilding, grazing and other heavy-handed management activities represent the true source of our nation's forest health problems. The Forest Service has responded to the wildfires in a classic "Jeckell and Hyde" fashion-often talking out of both sides of their mouth. For example, on one hand we have heard Forest Service spokespeople talk about the need to restore forests with wildfire and the ecological consequences of their misguided fire suppression program. However, on the other hand, despite this acknowledgment the fact remains that in 2001 the Forest Service allowed less than 1% of all wildfires burn. Of course, the fact that Forest Service has a virtual blank check courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers to fight wildfires probably has something to do with this. Consider also that on one hand we have heard the Forest Service talk about the negative impacts of commercial logging, roadbuilding and grazing on national forest lands, especially in relationship to the scientific evidence that these activities have greatly contributed to an increase in fire risk and intensity. But again, on the other hand, the Forest Service continues to use nearly every excuse known to humanity to justify their commercial logging program. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth has even stated his intention to "thin" 30 million acres of our National Forests in the next 20 years under the false pretense that such logging will reduce the risk of future wildfires (learn more about this "thinning" project at www.wildrockies.org/wildfire).
Or consider the massive post-fire logging proposal that the Forest Service has planned for the Bitterroot National Forest (BNF) in Montana--site of the nation's largest wildfire in 2000. This October the BNF has released their Final Environmental Impact Statement for their Burned Area Recovery Plan for the BNF, which includes logging of 180 million board feet of timber in the areas burned by the wildfires. This would be enough logs to fill 36,000 log trucks that if lined up end-to-end would stretch for over 300 miles! Similar post-fire logging proposals are being planned for National Forests around the West. Of course, the BNF is choosing to ignore the numerous scientific studies that have found that post-fire salvage logging hinders a forest's natural recovery process and has no ecological benefits. For example, a recent scientific report, "Wildfire and Salvage Logging," states that while "there is little reason to believe that post-fire salvage logging has any positive ecological benefitsÉthere is considerable evidence that persistent, significant adverse environmental impacts are likely to result from salvage logging." Furthermore, even the Forest Service's own science does not support the claim that post-fire logging will reduce the possibility of a reburn. A 2000 Forest Service report found "no studies documenting a reduction in fire intensity in a stand that had previously burned and then been logged." So why is the Forest Service so schizophrenic? The fact of the matter is that while the Forest Service has learned to talk the talk, when it comes to walking the walk the agency is quite content cutting down our forests. As long as the Forest Service's budget is tied directly to logging, fire suppression and other extractive activities they will continue to do anything-and say anything-to favor these activities over true ecosystem protection and restoration. As a solution, hundreds of environmental organizations-including the Allegheny Defense Project-continue to work with businesses and religious groups from around the country to advocate an end to commercial logging and other extractive activities in America's National Forests. As a coalition, we continue to educate the public about the National Forest Protection and Restoration Act (HR 1494), a bill in Congress that would protect all National Forests from commercial logging while investing in scientifically-based ecological restoration projects, worker retraining and non-wood fiber research and development, while also helping to protect communities from wildfires by focusing fuel treatments on private land near homes and businesses. When you look at what is driving the Forest Service's management decisions, you realize that the protection and restoration of our National Forests will be possible only when the Forest Service gets out of the logging, mining, grazing and fire suppression business. To learn more about wildfires visit: www.wildfireinfo.org or www.fire-ecology.org. To learn about HR 1494 visit: thomas.loc.gov or www.forestadvocate.org. |
|
|
|||
|