Wow, it's like we could've saved a shit ton of money by simply continuing the clearing that was stopped likely by some dumbass getting kickbacks from the logging industry.
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
46 points (100.0% liked)
Tree Huggers
615 readers
2 users here now
A community to discuss, appreciate, and advocate for trees and forests. Please follow the SLRPNK instance rules, found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Huh? What clearing that was stopped? Do you mean the logging industry? Clearcutting does not reduce fire risk over the long term.
I suppose I should be more specific. Logging companies used to be legally required to do clearing of underbrush and general removal of non environmentally necessary fuels for fire while they cut trees down. It's was meant to be a self sustaining measure while logging occurred. The clearing (read not profitable) part was lobbied out, and that's when the crazy ass wildfires began.
I'm not familiar with this program--I know that early clearcutting in the western US led to massive conflagrations similar to what we're experiencing today. But is there somewhere I can read more about this?
The issue with logging as a solution to forest management is that the most effective fire suppression is by the removal of smaller trees, shrubs, and other low vegetation, while logging is usually interested in the harvest of the largest, oldest trees. The large old trees actually suppress the growth of smaller, more flammable fuels, so once they're gone, the fire danger increases rapidly in subsequent years. Even if they did remove underbrush, if there's nothing to prevent its regrowth, it won't reduce fuels for long.