Ecological Friendly Forestry Practices Prevent Catastrophic Wildfires
I found it interesting that environmentally unfriendly logging practices were contributing to the catastrophic wildfire in the Western United States. A post on this subject created a huge amount of discussion on the Facebook Wildland Firefighters group. I think the reason for this is that logging that simulates natural processes of thinning and forest rejuvenation can not only provide economic benefit but ecological benefit as well. However, logging for economic benefit that involves clear cutting large acreages can be very ecologically unfriendly. It was brought to my attention that large private clear cuts in the West are increasing the wildfire threat by leaving large amounts fuel on the ground.
An article in the Bee that is in part correct and in part incorrect states: "Further, the suggestion by Zinke and Perdue that the large fires in California this year are somehow due to a lack of logging does not even pass the laugh test. The Ferguson, Carr and Mendocino Complex fires, for example, occurred in some of the most heavily logged forests in California." "The most heavily-logged areas burn more intensely, not less, contrary to the claims of the Trump administration."
It would appear to me that catastrophic wildfires could be benefiting these private landowners by clearing out the undergrowth and debris from logging, thus saving money in mechanical site preparation costs prior to replanting. On the other hand these catastrophic wildfires fueled by poor forestry practices are causing great life and property damage outside of the areas logged. I am a property rights advocate as long as what one does on one’s own property does not create damage to property owners elsewhere as in this case.
I am sure there are those who would want to put ecological restrictions on private property, but I would be opposed to that because such restrictions could pose an overall burden on all property owners, those practicing good forestry practices as well as those that don’t. I think it would be much better to change the liability laws to put more liability on those that create wildfire hazards, rather than on those trying to reduce the fire hazard on their property through prescribed fire. Also I think one could create incentives and disincentives for engaging in ecologically unfriendly forestry practices. I am told that property owners in the West are afraid to control burn their cut over properties because of liability. I think it should be the other way around where the property owners would burn their properties for fear of liability.
I think it should be noted that taxpayers pay for fire the suppression costs caused by these environmentally unfriendly forestry practices, and other property owners are having to pay for damage to their property as well. People are being injured and dying because of these catastrophic wildfires to boot. It makes sense to me that property owners that endanger others should be taxed and fined for creating excessive fuel load hazards on their property, same as happens in cities under the fire codes.
Yet another way to approach this problem is by pointing out to private landowners that nature friendly forestry practices such as the Stoddard-Neel Method can build beautiful open park-like forests similar to what the native peoples achieved with cultural burning and provide just as much economic benefit as nature unfriendly practices. This has been proven to be the case in the Southeastern United States by large private plantation owners who use large scale nature friendly forestry practices that were developed by Herb Stoddard and Leon Neel.
Instead of clear cutting large acreages the light fire pine forests are thinned over a 120 year rotation by taking out just enough weakened and diseased trees every five to ten years to allow the best trees to grow well. In five to ten years the forest canopy closes and the cycle of thinning is repeated. At the forest ages and the trees begin to get too far apart small parcels are clear cut over decades and replanted providing cover, ecological diversity and continuous reproduction of the forest.
Too much thinning is just as bad as too little thinning that creates a forest of suppressed growth trees. Opening up the canopy too much encourages brush to build up rather than good ecological ground cover. In times of drought the brush will soak up water and stress the pines causing large scale disease outbreaks as well as shade out the good ecological ground cover needed for wildlife species that are important to these plantation owners.
It turns out the economic benefits of using the Stoddard-Neel Method are similar to those gained by clear cutting but have the added benefit of promoting the wildlife in these hunting plantations a further economic and ecological benefit. The plantation owners also use frequent prescribed fire on an annual basis to not only keep the forest ecologically healthy but keep the wildfire risk low. With little fuel on the ground in times of drought no matter the cause, there is not enough fuel to get into the crowns of the trees to create catastrophic fire and any wildfires are easily put out.
Note - Copy and Distribute Freely - On our Facebook group Association of Fire Management Activists we post on a regular basis articles relating to fire for reading, discussion and sharing. Folks are welcome to join and keep up with the fire news. On this website you can also read this, my fire book, for free starting with the introduction at the top and then to the MORE button for the rest of the chapters and other recent articles. Welcome on board.
An article in the Bee that is in part correct and in part incorrect states: "Further, the suggestion by Zinke and Perdue that the large fires in California this year are somehow due to a lack of logging does not even pass the laugh test. The Ferguson, Carr and Mendocino Complex fires, for example, occurred in some of the most heavily logged forests in California." "The most heavily-logged areas burn more intensely, not less, contrary to the claims of the Trump administration."
It would appear to me that catastrophic wildfires could be benefiting these private landowners by clearing out the undergrowth and debris from logging, thus saving money in mechanical site preparation costs prior to replanting. On the other hand these catastrophic wildfires fueled by poor forestry practices are causing great life and property damage outside of the areas logged. I am a property rights advocate as long as what one does on one’s own property does not create damage to property owners elsewhere as in this case.
I am sure there are those who would want to put ecological restrictions on private property, but I would be opposed to that because such restrictions could pose an overall burden on all property owners, those practicing good forestry practices as well as those that don’t. I think it would be much better to change the liability laws to put more liability on those that create wildfire hazards, rather than on those trying to reduce the fire hazard on their property through prescribed fire. Also I think one could create incentives and disincentives for engaging in ecologically unfriendly forestry practices. I am told that property owners in the West are afraid to control burn their cut over properties because of liability. I think it should be the other way around where the property owners would burn their properties for fear of liability.
I think it should be noted that taxpayers pay for fire the suppression costs caused by these environmentally unfriendly forestry practices, and other property owners are having to pay for damage to their property as well. People are being injured and dying because of these catastrophic wildfires to boot. It makes sense to me that property owners that endanger others should be taxed and fined for creating excessive fuel load hazards on their property, same as happens in cities under the fire codes.
Yet another way to approach this problem is by pointing out to private landowners that nature friendly forestry practices such as the Stoddard-Neel Method can build beautiful open park-like forests similar to what the native peoples achieved with cultural burning and provide just as much economic benefit as nature unfriendly practices. This has been proven to be the case in the Southeastern United States by large private plantation owners who use large scale nature friendly forestry practices that were developed by Herb Stoddard and Leon Neel.
Instead of clear cutting large acreages the light fire pine forests are thinned over a 120 year rotation by taking out just enough weakened and diseased trees every five to ten years to allow the best trees to grow well. In five to ten years the forest canopy closes and the cycle of thinning is repeated. At the forest ages and the trees begin to get too far apart small parcels are clear cut over decades and replanted providing cover, ecological diversity and continuous reproduction of the forest.
Too much thinning is just as bad as too little thinning that creates a forest of suppressed growth trees. Opening up the canopy too much encourages brush to build up rather than good ecological ground cover. In times of drought the brush will soak up water and stress the pines causing large scale disease outbreaks as well as shade out the good ecological ground cover needed for wildlife species that are important to these plantation owners.
It turns out the economic benefits of using the Stoddard-Neel Method are similar to those gained by clear cutting but have the added benefit of promoting the wildlife in these hunting plantations a further economic and ecological benefit. The plantation owners also use frequent prescribed fire on an annual basis to not only keep the forest ecologically healthy but keep the wildfire risk low. With little fuel on the ground in times of drought no matter the cause, there is not enough fuel to get into the crowns of the trees to create catastrophic fire and any wildfires are easily put out.
Note - Copy and Distribute Freely - On our Facebook group Association of Fire Management Activists we post on a regular basis articles relating to fire for reading, discussion and sharing. Folks are welcome to join and keep up with the fire news. On this website you can also read this, my fire book, for free starting with the introduction at the top and then to the MORE button for the rest of the chapters and other recent articles. Welcome on board.