Dear HCN,
There is another side to
fire as a “natural tool” for achieving forest health. One problem
is that we no longer have natural forests, since for the last 80
years, fire has been suppressed, giving us an unnatural
condition.
I have been monitoring some of the
Forest Service’s controlled burns in Wallowa County from last fall.
The sites were relatively open, mixed-species stands with most
areas overstocked with trees from five to 70 years old. Fuel load
on the ground was not heavy. After the burns were completed, the
ground-fuel load was pretty well gone, but the areas were still
overstocked with trees. The fire killed a lot of young trees in an
indiscriminate manner; in fact, it appeared that many of the small
trees killed were the best trees. They had more limbs and foliage
and were more susceptible to the fire.
Within
four or five years, many of these burned trees will fall down,
creating a fuel load greater than what was there prior to the burn.
These burned trees could be salvaged, but if they are, soil erosion
will be a problem because the fire burned most of the “duff’ –
partially decomposed litter – and plant cover, leaving bare soil.
This protective layer enhances the soil’s ability to take in water
and stay in place. It also insulates it from the summer sun: Fire
basically destroys the forest’s skin.
Surely it
makes more sense to lock carbon up in the form of a board or piece
of paper than to send it off as an atmospheric contaminant. I
cannot believe people are sanctioning the widespread use of fire to
achieve forest health; it is a prehistoric tool in a high-tech
world, and people are being misled if they think it is the most
environmentally friendly way.
Mechanically
removing the excess trees from our forest by responsible people is
a no-lose situation. Properly done, it will create a healthy,
sustainable forest without smoke and loss of organic matter. Plus,
it will provide meaningful, long-term employment for many of our
people.
The answer to forest health without fire
has been achieved by a few land stewards. Every county has these
working models. These models are economically, socially and
environmentally sane. Our challenge is to insist that our public
land be run as well.
Restoring forest health
should also not cost millions of dollars, as some people are
saying. If we use the methods of our best stewards, we can have
healthy, sustainable forests and make huge profits from our public
lands.
Consider the
following:
* Fire reduces the effectiveness of
the “water cycle,” which simply is the land’s ability to absorb the
snow and rain that falls on it;
* Biomass burning
is a major contributor to atmospheric pollution. There is some
scary information in this area if you care to look into it. Biomass
burning is a major source of methyl bromide, for example, and
methyl bromide is said to be 20 to 60 times as damaging to the
ozone layer as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs);
* The
majority of our unhealthy forest stands are beyond the stage of
allowing any “controlled” burning. The fuel loads that have
accumulated and the species mix that has evolved make this
impossible.
Let’s not make or be a part of one of
the biggest environmental mistakes of our time by thinking fire is
the panacea of our forest-health problem.
For all
who take issue with me on this matter, I would welcome a chance to
explain myself on the land. Fire is not the answer to forest health
– responsible, hard-working people
are.
Doug
McDaniel
Lostine,
Oregon
The writer has been
involved with forests and forestry issues for 40
years.
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Burning is not the answer.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
