US Interior Secretary Zinke's false claim that solution to fires in the west is to cut down trees.

brianlux

Here are a couple of articles that illustrate how completely out of touch this administration is with global warming, wildfires in the west and some basic ecological principles.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/13/us-interior-secretary-ryan-zinke-climate-change-environmentalists

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ryan-zinke-tells-california-how-to-stop-wildfires-cut-down-trees_us_5b712e75e4b0ae32af996079

Each article talks about US Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke believes the solution to the fires raging here in western North America is it to cut down more trees.  Zinke claims “America is better than letting these radical groups control the dialogue about climate change,”and “Extreme environmentalists have shut down public access. They talk about habitat and yet they are willing to burn it up,” and says “We have to actively manage our forests. The density of our forests is too high, the fuel load is too great.”

He is correct in asserting the fuel load is too great but does not understand (or exaggerates) what conservationists have been fighting for nor does he understand why the fuel load may be a problem.  The problem is human intervention and his solution is further (and misguided) human intervention. 

There are two major reasons the fires out here in the west have gotten worse.  The first is a one hundred years plus habit of suppressing natural fires.  Lightning strikes have created fires in forested areas for eons.  These recurring fires burn off shrubs, weaker seedling and lower growing vegetation, allowing stronger trees to grow, creating a healthy, balanced forest.  In fact, at least a few species in the west (including manazita and giant Sequoia Redwwods) have evolved to rely primarily on fire for propagation.   Fire suppression over the last 100 + years was a mistake.  The proper response is control burning and, when ever possible, allowing natural fires to do their job.  Simply cutting down more trees is not the answer.

The other major reason is global warming.  Hotter weather patterns are contributing to more intense and large, widespread fires.  But Zinke does not believe in anthropogenic climate change despite the fact that 93 percent of published scientists do. 

Zinke is absolutely wrong in his assertion that conservationists are against logging.  That is false.  Conservationist oppose clear cutting, logging of old growth forest, and logging in areas that are harmful to riparian habitat.  Selective cutting has never been an issue.  Zinkes statements are both false and are a thinly veiled attempt, yet again, to support large commercial logging operations that have short sighted economic gain as their goal.  Besides, most of the trees that are logged in the west are shipped off to places like Japan and China where those countries have already decimated their forests.

The fall of both the Roman and Greek empires is largely attributed to the over-consumption of their natural resources, particularly their forests.  It looks like the US is doing its best to follow suit.

unsung

Somehow the fuel has to be managed.

brianlux

unsung said:

Somehow the fuel has to be managed.

Having our forests manged by greedy, unwise logging practices is not the answer.

Spiritual_Chaos

unsung said:

Somehow the fuel has to be managed.

mcgruff10

Brian,
You aren't a believer in controlled burns?  Our fire departments do it a lot in our state (new jersey)  That way it gets rid of most of the "fuel" on the ground.

teskeinc

If your home has ever been threatened by a forest fire, you are going to have a different perspective than the tree hugger crowd. 

mickeyrat

mcgruff10 said:

Brian,
You aren't a believer in controlled burns?  Our fire departments do it a lot in our state (new jersey)  That way it gets rid of most of the "fuel" on the ground.

  SeenPA does too. then again we arent nearly as dry as Calf and other western states are generally here in the eastern half of the country.

brianlux

mcgruff10 said:

Brian,
You aren't a believer in controlled burns?  Our fire departments do it a lot in our state (new jersey)  That way it gets rid of most of the "fuel" on the ground.

I am absolutely a believer in control; burns.  You bet I am. 

brianlux

teskeinc said:

If your home has ever been threatened by a forest fire, you are going to have a different perspective than the tree hugger crowd. 

Because I live in the Sierra foothills, my home is often in at least some threat of a forest fire. 

I don't know about the perspective of the "tree hugger crowds" but I do know how conservationists and environmentalists well versed in the ecological sciences  perceive the threat of forest fires.  We take an educated approach which includes safe clearing around properties, selective cutting and thinning.  We do not support clear cutting, cutting that impacts sensitive riparian habitat, or cutting of old growth trees.  We very much understand the usefulness of control burning and also of allowing naturally occurring fires to do their job whenever safe to do so.

I hope you understand that there is a difference between pop-environmentalism and informed conservation.

Simply stating that cutting more trees down will solve the problem exhibits a serious lack of understanding of fire behavior, ecological balances and nature in general.  People making such statement are NOT the kind of people you want handling these kinds of situations.

Spiritual_Chaos

teskeinc said:

If your home has ever been threatened by a forest fire, you are going to have a different perspective than the tree hugger crowd. 

Do you fight climate change more?