Save the roadless rule

Mr. van Ulden,

Thank you for reading my LTE and taking the time to comment. I take no issue with controlled cultural burns used thoughtfully in areas that have experienced a paucity of low-intensity fire, which is what cultural burns are. They can prevent high-intensity burns and alter natural fire behavior so that it is mixed-intensity (what Dominick Della Sala and Chad Hanson, noted forest ecologists, call "Nature's Phoenix", the type of forest that needs and thrives with. But the type of forests that need this the least are mature, old-growth forests protected by the Roadless Rule. They are among the least flammable of woodlands, as compared to those that have been previously logged. The most destructive forest fires of recent decades have involved previously logged (and roaded) areas, for example, the Camp and Dixie Fires. The LA Fires started in shrublands and only secondarily involved a small swath of the Los Padres Forest. Building roads in previously protected areas is about timber industry profit, make no mistake. These forests should never be logged. They are too precious.

Nothing about the Roadless Rule is outdated. We need it more now than ever.

I will check out the UC Berkeley California Spring piece, thanks for the reference!

Terence,

I appreciate your comments; however, I want to point out to you that the LA Fires had nothing to do with forests. They started in dry chaparral and were driven by winds. A small section of the Los Padres Forest was involved secondarily, and it did not impact the devastation much if, at all. Most of the worst wildfires of the past few years have been primarily in grass and shrubland, rather than forests. So, why keep beating the drum for more logging as the answer? It is a phenomenon driven by climate (heat, drought, and wind), not fuel. Secondly, logging can increase wildfire risk by exposing the canopy to sunlight and removing windbreaks that reduce the impacts of wind during a wildfire. The most flammable "forests" (I put this in parentheses because they are no longer true forests) are those that have been previously logged. Among the most fire-resistant forests are mature and old-growth forests. Also quite fire-resistant are, interestingly, snag forests, post-event forests that have a high percentage of dead trees. The most flammable are agricultural tree farms. They played a key role in, for example, the Camp and Dixie fires.

Yes, we need wood for wood products, but logging should be done thoughtfully, carefully, and selectively. Also, it shouldn't be used to supply wood for processing into wood pellets for burning in biomass incinerators to create dirty electricity. Make no mistake, this is a huge reason why more logging is being pushed. Logging projects undertaken under the guise of "wildfire risk reduction" are often conducted carelessly and excessively, as they are carried out without any environmental impact assessment or regulatory oversight. A friend of mine has photographed these efforts, some of which were accomplished by clear-cutting. We also need alternatives to wood to reduce the demand on forests. We need them for their ecosystem benefits. Natural, untouched forests, after all, provide numerous ecosystem services; they trap carbon more effectively, they create some of the oxygen we need to survive, filter streams and help ensure clean drinking water, offer richer habitats than previously logged forests, and provide unparalleled recreational opportunities, to name a few. If you want to learn more about the uniqueness and specialness of old-growth forests, read Joan Maloof's book Nature's Temple: A Natural History of Old-Growth Forests. She is a forest ecologist who has spent her life studying them. Once gone, they cannot be replaced.

Forest fires have always occurred, and forests need them. Old-growth survives them. We are the problem, not the forests. We have put ourselves in harm's way by encroaching on them, and by building homes and communities near them, and within them. We have altered them by overlogging them. We have altered fire behavior by modifying our climate conditions and implementing misguided policies, such as the fire suppression policy, and disallowing cultural burns. Forests thrive best with periodic mixed-intensity fires (what Dominick DellaSala and Chad Hanson, two notable forest ecologists, call "Nature's Phoenix"), and we need to reintroduce controlled low-intensity cultural burns because too many acres for forests have had a deficit of them and the right amount of low intensity fire prevents super high-intensity fires. But we don't need more logging.

Sorry for my long-winded answer. I appreciate that you read my LTE and took the time to put down your thoughts.