Sometime we win...National Forests and Wildlife Refuge

There is a great Ted Talk by Paul Hessburg about forest management and wildfires.
Why Wildfires have gotten worse—-and what we can do about it.
It’s on YouTube: https://youtu.be/O6Vayv9FCLM

rexlion wrote:

4runnerguy wrote:
Clear cutting is not only unsightly, it has adverse effects on wildlife including game animals like deer and elk and also results in degradation of fisheries.

True, but I can't tell from the linked article whether clear cutting was the intended logging method. Thinning the trees by taking out some of a certain size is another common practice.

Open forests are the only ones that have an understory with shrub, forbs and grasses for forage for wildlife. On the West Side the canopy tends to be closed with little understory except for various species of trees. Ask any elk or deer hunter, where they like to hunt. The answer is always the same, old clearcuts.

This is a stupid ruling. If managed correctly, our National Forests should be logged to prevent fires,benefit wildlife and make money that can be used to pay for upgrades to our National Parks and Forests.

People are confused about how public lands are used. We have megafires now and huge fire suppression budgets because of 110 years of fire suppression and reduced logging. Logging and thinning are the best way to create fire resilience.

Harvest methods vary by region. On the West Side of OR and WA and other wet forest types like coastal Alaksa and BC clear cutting is absolutely the best harvest method because the commercial species are shade intolerant.

IN most of the Intermountain West selection harvesting is used to remove some dead and green trees during harvesting.

Then there is always that problem of having a National Park / Forest that you can't get into, so you can enjoy it. Kind of defeats the purpose.

National forests are managed under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1964. Logging is a typical land use on National Forests whether they are in CO or AK. I had a contract on the Tongass NF in Alaska for 2 years. It is remote and there are no mills left in the State. There is not going to be a big timber rush.

Not finding anything recent that says courts ruled on anything since Trump spoke about having the roadless rule lifted last week.

Given how many new judges are in place in the federal courts (this is one thing the Senate can do without worrying about the House), it's likely that what happened two years ago might not be a good indication of how a different judge would rule.

4runnerguy wrote:
Clear cutting is not only unsightly, it has adverse effects on wildlife including game animals like deer and elk and also results in degradation of fisheries.

True, but I can't tell from the linked article whether clear cutting was the intended logging method. Thinning the trees by taking out some of a certain size is another common practice.

Terryallan wrote:
So in effect. There will be a higher risk of forest fires, due to a lack of Land Management.

Don't know about what they do in that part of Alaska, but here in CO, the forest service sends out crews to remove beetle-killed trees. They also do lots of controlled burns, where the primary thing that burns is the grasses and brush which are usually the first thing to really get going in a forest fire.

Clear cutting is not only unsightly, it has adverse effects on wildlife including game animals like deer and elk and also results in degradation of fisheries.

toedtoes wrote:

ScottG wrote:
It's true; stripping the land bare does have a positive effect on wildfire potential.

That is true. But since the land hasn't been stripped (because the law has already been in effect for years), then no one is suddenly changing the landscape. It remains as it has been - therefore no change to risk. :)

Yes and I'd rather have something that might burn rather than bare dirt that cannot. :B