After
a big burn in 1910, the U.S. Forest Service began managing its forests scientifically.
Foresters designated surplus trees, and loggers who’d won at auctions removed them.
This
didn’t suit the environmentalists. To reduce man’s influence and let nature
take its course, I presume, they pressured Congress in the 1970s to slow down the
culling of trees. Timber harvesting declined sharply, and forest fires
increased.
Environmentalists
blamed global warming for the fires. But it is primarily the forests owned by the
government that burn, not the ones privately owned and scientifically managed. U.S.
Representative Tom McClintock, of California, wrote, “It’s clever of the climate
to decimate only the lands hamstrung by environmental laws.”
Forest
fires flood the atmosphere with CO2. Good forest management, in contrast, confines
the carbon inside living trees or in the lumber from harvested trees.
Know-it-all
Congress, in its arrogance, directs the Forest Service how many trees it should
cull each year. Too many, and the Service clear-cuts, as it has done
in the past. Too few, as the Service is doing now, the danger of fire grows.
A typical acre in the Sierra can support about 80 mature trees. The current density is over 300 trees. Nature will eventually take its course. Fire disasters loom.
A typical acre in the Sierra can support about 80 mature trees. The current density is over 300 trees. Nature will eventually take its course. Fire disasters loom.