Interesting article, thanks for posting!. I usually don’t side with the Sierra Club but sadly I feel they have a point here. I have seen first hand how the Forest Service used a much too heavy hand in “mitigation” in multiple areas of the Sierra. In many places they cut 70-85% of all trees & vegetation & it looks nothing like a healthy stand from control burns and / or healthy natural fire. It could easily be classified as “logging” & the Forest Service has a history of being “pro business”. In many areas hit by fire I’ve seen them clear cut areas that had a healthy burn (25-50% of the stand) then dump roundup on the areas (with plenty of streams nearby) to control brush as “restoration”. These areas are the most resistant to future fire & closest to a healthy stand but they clear cut them? And yes I saw the lumber on logging trucks leave the areas so I’ll believe my lying eyes here. Basically this is a complex issue & many studies have shown that the extremely low vapor content of ground fuels is a direct result of too much carbon in the atmosphere (climate change) which “mitigation” actually doesn’t solve, but contributes to. An argument could easily be made that the FS uses the fuel argument as optics to cover their pro business interests. Moreover, The Sierra Club wouldn’t exist without the heavy hand of the Forest Service, they are 2 extremes sides of the same coin & can’t exist in a vacuum. Native Americans used the lightest touch in their land management & controlled burns which is the polar opposite to how the Forest service “manages” so it’s a false equivalency. One of the biggest (if not the biggest) fire in New Mexico was a Forest Service control burn that got out of control. I think most people can get behind the extremely light touch & respect for the land approach Native American’s used but that’s in stark contrast to how both USFS & Sierra Club approach the issue. Respect for the land & living things should come before “resources” but regardless cutting trees that sequester carbon for “fire mitigation” or “logging” depending on your philosophical bias continues the current extreme climate cycle caused by too much carbon in the atmosphere. We need to consider ALL factors but historically Western man’s pro business, resource heavy, grow at all costs mindset has had an outsized negative impact on nature vs the Native American or even (hate to say it) Sierra Club mindset. YMMV.
Excellent coverage and summary of the Forest Service lawsuit!
Interesting article, thanks for posting!. I usually don’t side with the Sierra Club but sadly I feel they have a point here. I have seen first hand how the Forest Service used a much too heavy hand in “mitigation” in multiple areas of the Sierra. In many places they cut 70-85% of all trees & vegetation & it looks nothing like a healthy stand from control burns and / or healthy natural fire. It could easily be classified as “logging” & the Forest Service has a history of being “pro business”. In many areas hit by fire I’ve seen them clear cut areas that had a healthy burn (25-50% of the stand) then dump roundup on the areas (with plenty of streams nearby) to control brush as “restoration”. These areas are the most resistant to future fire & closest to a healthy stand but they clear cut them? And yes I saw the lumber on logging trucks leave the areas so I’ll believe my lying eyes here. Basically this is a complex issue & many studies have shown that the extremely low vapor content of ground fuels is a direct result of too much carbon in the atmosphere (climate change) which “mitigation” actually doesn’t solve, but contributes to. An argument could easily be made that the FS uses the fuel argument as optics to cover their pro business interests. Moreover, The Sierra Club wouldn’t exist without the heavy hand of the Forest Service, they are 2 extremes sides of the same coin & can’t exist in a vacuum. Native Americans used the lightest touch in their land management & controlled burns which is the polar opposite to how the Forest service “manages” so it’s a false equivalency. One of the biggest (if not the biggest) fire in New Mexico was a Forest Service control burn that got out of control. I think most people can get behind the extremely light touch & respect for the land approach Native American’s used but that’s in stark contrast to how both USFS & Sierra Club approach the issue. Respect for the land & living things should come before “resources” but regardless cutting trees that sequester carbon for “fire mitigation” or “logging” depending on your philosophical bias continues the current extreme climate cycle caused by too much carbon in the atmosphere. We need to consider ALL factors but historically Western man’s pro business, resource heavy, grow at all costs mindset has had an outsized negative impact on nature vs the Native American or even (hate to say it) Sierra Club mindset. YMMV.