Federal forest policy and fires
Individual Number One is now threatening to withhold aid to California as it's woolands burn. He is telling the Governor to "get it together" on forest policy.
May I remind folks that the vast majority of public forests are managed by the FEDERAL Department of Agriculture. Forest priorities have changed since the 1980s when maximum timber cutting was the priority. In the past decades, other values such as habitat and water quality jave become better understood.
The timber industry lost it's tight grip on forest policy. The Forest Service became much more careful in timber sales. Logging revenues from harvests plumetted. Congress never fully back-filled the revenues needed for fire management, recreation, and habitat restoration.
The call for "raking the forest floor" is a red herring. The true agenda is to open the National Forests to clear-cutting at levels not seen for 40 years. Forest practices that clear the understory and ladder fuels is expensive, and does not produce marketable wood products.
Harvesting practices that thin timberland rather clear-cutting is not as profitable as legacy logging practices.
Much of the cut timber is used for paper pulp. New studies show that hemp can replace much of that fiber demand as a more efficient practice.
Stringent zoning and fire prevention strategies in the urban-forest interface is a must. We can no longer justify the expense and risk to firefighters to support unsustainable exurbs in the woods.
To blame California fires on state forest practices is ridiculous. This image shows just how much of California is managed by the US Forest Service:
https://images.app.goo.gl/5dWUTkncuSRDES1j8
= new reply since forum marked as read
