Forest thinning not the solution

Jessica Richelderfer
President George W. Bush’s Healthy Forests Initiative has come under fire recently, and rightfully so.
Bush’s plan for “wildfire prevention and stronger communities” is nothing more than a logging company’s dream come true, disguised in language that suggests it might actually protect what’s left of the forests in this country. The president is using the devastating wildfires of this summer to fuel his proposal, scapegoating environmentalists the whole way.
It’s no secret that wildfires are destructive — they wreck habitat, taint water supplies and endanger houses and communities. And it’s clear that decades of mismanagement have left the forests with dangerous buildup of highly flammable undergrowth, thanks to a firm policy of fire suppression.
HFI, however, tries to convince us that because “the forests and rangelands of the West have become unnaturally dense,” we must thin the trees in an effort to “ensure the sustainable forest management and appropriate timber production.”
The initiative’s background tells us that in studies done on wildfires in Oregon, the thinned areas were unharmed by the fire, while fires in unthinned areas wreaked havoc on the environment, including “the habitat of threatened spotted owls.”
Looks like Bush is hoping to win the support of those “Oregon environmentalists,” who apparently are still concerned with nothing but the plight of the spotted owl — more than a decade-old controversy.
At the same time, of course, he blames the environmentalists for such disasters, saying their appeals of logging decisions over the years have kept the forests densely packed and waiting to burn wildly.
Bush obviously didn’t get the memo on this one — mature forests, however densely packed, do not cause raging fires. It’s the buildup of undergrowth that burns so fast and so furious. Wildfire studies have, in fact, shown that mature trees are quite fire-resistant — when the undergrowth is allowed to burn naturally, the trees’ canopy remains intact and new vegetation is able to grow.
Of course, it is possible that younger, smaller trees, planted en masse in the past few decades to revive clear-cut woodlands, may be growing quite densely — and because they’re not yet mature and therefore not fire-resistant, they pose a greater risk. Loggers are more responsible for these problems than people who try to stop the logging.
Tree thinning is not the answer. What’s needed is regulated burns, which are crucial to controlling the buildup of dense undergrowth — fire is part of nature, and one that forests are inherently prepared to withstand. People who build their houses in the middle of the forests, on the other hand, deserve what they get. Much of the time and money spent this summer on fire control was in creating fire lines around people’s houses.
The single purpose of this initiative should be to reduce the threat of dangerous fires, not help the logging companies make a buck on the side. It’s downright deceptive to propose legislation under the auspices of sustaining “healthy forests,” all the while planning to clear them out.
By “reducing unnecessary regulatory obstacles that hinder active forest management,” as the proposal states, Bush is clearly looking to let his friends in the big-business logging companies have their go at it — unhindered.

HFI good for timber harvest

Salena De La Cruz
I come from small-town America, where everyone knows everyone else and where cowboys ride the rodeo at the Buckaroo every year. Even more well-known are the saw mills that littered the landscape, making my hometown a timber town.
Moving to Eugene was a big shock for me. In my town, being a logger and working in the mills was a way of life. My dad worked there for more than 30 years, until one of the largest mills shut down and started retraining people. In Eugene, people are all about conserving our natural resources and are
opposed to logging.
I remember one year there was a big controversy over the spotted owl. People were getting laid off and many good people found themselves scraping to stay alive, and it was all because one endangered animal came in and decided to rest itself on old-growth trees.
The environmentalists are taking us right back to the spotted owl controversy by opposing the Healthy Forests Initiative, which is designed to protect woodlands from wildfires by thinning the trees and removing the underbrush that pose such a high fire risk. It’s just another way for them to try to take claim of the forests and keep anyone from using them. Endless appeals of logging decisions by the environmentalists over the years have prevented the much-needed tree thinning, creating a haven for fierce wildfires.
They wish to return our public lands to pre-settlement conditions. I wonder, can that really be done? After thousands of years of stripping, ripping and building, I don’t think so.
I may not always agree with the big paper mills that want to rip every last tree off the face of this Earth. I look forward to my hikes in the woods on the outskirts of my town. I want a place for my children to thrive , and a place where future generations can still breathe and hike in the same woods I did growing up.
But I have to admit, it’s a way of life for so many that it’s hard to deny what it brings to us. You are sitting on a desk made of wood from a tree. You probably live in a house made from trees. You are reading this paper, which is also made from trees.
Environmentalists also wish to remove the incentive to cut mature, fire-resisting timber. The more mature the tree, the more incentive I see for them to be cut. More mature trees make better houses and better paper.
I know there are other things that can be used for paper, such as hemp, which is a form of cannabis sativa — also known as the plant marijuana comes from. I know the Declaration of Independence was written on it. So some may argue there are alternatives, but the only healthy forest is one used for its resources. That’s why God put them on this Earth.
At least the government precludes the harvesting of trees on government land. Of course, if endangered species are inhabiting that land, then the trees don’t get cut. That damn spotted owl just keeps popping up in the way of itself — or at least as a symbolic version of itself to help thwart the cutting of trees.
Now that the president is trying to reduce the risk of wildfires, we should stand behind him — and if logging of the forests happens to bring in extra funds needed to fight fires, then good.