“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble.
It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so”
Mark Twain
Don Healy
The battle over the proper management of the forested resources in the United States has been going on for over 65 years with no resolution in sight. Our society is now paying the price with increased forest fire activity, increased insect and disease issues and other indicators of the decline in the overall health of our forest resource. It is essential that we come to a consensus as to the appropriate manner in which to actually address this complex issue. To start, we need to mine down to the facts so we can have a solid foundation for a reasonable discussion. One of our fundamental problems is that so much of the public’s perception of the state of this resource is simply not correct. As the quote of Mark Twain’s above states, these misconceptions pose a major hurdle in resolving the issues involved. The following are some points that are of concern:
- The amount of forested area in the U.S. and the trend in the area over recent history. Are we losing or gaining forested area?
- The trend in the volume of timber in the U.S. over recent history.
- How many acres of old growth, mature and younger stands do we have?
- What is the causing the demise of old growth stands?
- The cause and solution to the increasing wildfire problem.
- Addressing insect and disease issues as part of the forest management equation.
- The very real possibility that in the future we will need to rely upon our domestic forested areas to meet the wood products needs of our nation.
Only after we determine and agree upon the basic facts about our forested lands, the inventory, can we work towards a consensus of what, if any actions, should be taken on individual tracts of land. As an example, old growth stands are a very important segment of this equation. Currently, there appears to be no target for what portion of forest lands should ultimately remain or become old growth. Thus, when the BLM or USFS propose silvicultural actions necessary to reduce fire hazards or other issues in mature forests that possibly might become old growth in the future, these actions are countered with lawsuits, and nothing gets accomplished. Reviewing the points above we find that:
- Forested Area: “The U.S. Census Bureau reports the total land area of the continental United States and Hawaii (excluding the Caribbean Islands and U.S. territories) as 2.3 billion acres. Forests and woodlands combined occupy 822.5 million acres of the U.S. land base. Of those, 93 percent (765.5 million acres) meet the international definition of forest, with the remaining 7 percent recognized as woodlands. Thus, forests comprise 34 percent of the American landscape, and forests combined with woodlands comprise 36 percent.”
The perception by most is that our forested acreage has diminished. The reality is that we have gained 44,078,000 acres since 1920, a gain of 6.1%
There are numerous owners and administrators of the forested lands within the United States as shown in the chart below:
- Timber volume trend in the United States: Again, the perception of many is that our timber supply has diminished as well. The chart below shows just the reverse.
With the dramatic reduction in harvesting on federal lands commencing in the late 1970s we have watched the volumes of merchantable timber increase by 60%. On federal lands, we quit harvesting, but the trees kept growing. U.S. wood products needs have been met in large part with Canadian imports which in recent years have reached $40 billion per year. During the past 45 years with very little forest management occurring on federal lands, we have seen an increase in insect and disease issues, stagnation in some stands and the resultant increase in wildfires.
- Inventory of old growth, mature and younger stands: Currently, on federal lands administered by the U.S.F.S. and the BLM we have the acreages in the following forest classifications:
So currently, 63.7% of the forested acreage managed by U.S.F.S. and the BLM is currently old growth or mature stands.
Note: The acreages listed in the above charts vary slightly because they were measured by different agencies at different times, but the differences are not significant for our purposes here.
- Old growth stands and their perils: The obvious need to reduce the fuel load in our nation’s forests to reverse the upward trend in wildfires is met with resistance from the environmental community. The focal point of this concern generally involves old growth forests. In the past 60 years, the definition of old growth has changed considerably. In forestry school in the mid-1960s we were taught that an old growth forest was a mature forest in which the amount of growth was slowing to the point that it was equaled by the amount of mortality. Currently, the old growth label is applied to stands as young as 150 years old. While old growth forests are important for numerous reasons, carbon sequestration is frequently a top consideration as one of their benefits. However, when discussing a fully mature old growth forest, this is not correct. In individual trees, and even-aged forests such as the Douglas-fir common to much of the western United States, the growth pattern follows that of a sigmoid curve. Very slow growth in the early years, followed a sustained period of consistent growth, followed by a decline to a static condition before death. In a typical old growth forest, we see downed timber and a much greater incidence of decay. Obviously, an old growth forest has less utility as a carbon sink than does a vibrant, middle-aged stand.
Again, the perception and the reality vary considerably. “While timber harvesting is recognized as the historical cause for loss of much of the nation’s mature and old-growth forests, current data show that in recent decades the leading cause for losses on forestlands managed by the Forest Service and BLM is from wildfires.” Between 2000 and 2020 losses due to forest fires were 3.2%, insects and diseases were second at 2.3% , while tree cutting was only amounted to 0.3% “ (Source: Mature and Old-Growth Forests:Analysis of Threats on Lands Managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in Fulfillment of Section 2(c) of Executive Order No. 14072)
- The cause and solution to the increasing wildfire problem: The following chart spells out in graphic detail the relative relationships between the two most frequently cited causes of the recent increase in wildfires; fuel load and climate change. The increase in timber volumes mentioned in section 2 above is used as a proxy for fuel load in this chart although it probably understates the issue considerably due to two factors.
- With very little management of federal lands for the past 45 years, the volume of grasses, shrubs, and smaller timber classes, of which we have no measure, have probably grown even more rapidly.
- The CO2 fertilization effect has impacted all vegetation. As an example, the birch tree in my yard is growing 20% more rapidly today than it was in 1960. To see how this effect might be affecting your favorite trees or plants please see: (www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php)
The center, dashed line plots the average annual U.S. Temperature on a rational scale against the highest and lowest temperatures recorded for the United States. This indicator appears as a virtual flat line, while the fuel load and acres burned lines show significant upward trends. Yes, the scientific maxim that “correlation does not prove causation” is true, but science has already proven that fuel load is one the three requirements for fire.
Sources:
https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/wildfires
https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/nfn
www.weather.gov/media/slc/ClimateBook/Annual%20Average%20Temperature%20By%20Year.pdf
- Insect and Disease Issues: While the wildfire problem gets lots of press and is the focus of public concern, the losses caused by insects and disease natural to the forest environment are equally damaging, more insidious and contribute to the wildfire risk. From “Major Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the United States: 2018”: “In 2018, more than 6 million acresof tree mortality was caused by insects and diseases in the United States, which is approximately 2.6 million acres less than reported in 2017. In forests across the western United States, tree mortality by fir engraver accounted for 33 percent of total mortality observed in 2018, causing approximately 1.9 million acres of mortality to white, red, and grand fir. Spruce beetle, emerald ash borer, and sudden oak death were also important sources of tree mortality throughout our Nation’s forests in 2018.” The graph below shows the mortality figures for the prior 10 years. (Forest Insects ConditionsReport_2018.pdf Page 1.)
“In 2022, more than 8.4 million acres with tree mortality caused by insects and diseases was observed in the United States. A total of 462 million acres of forests were surveyed in 2022. The total tree mortality reported in 2021 was 5.8 million acres with 423 million acres of forests surveyed.” (Major-Forest-Conditions-2022.pdf Page 1.)
The author had a personal association with two historic significant insect problems. One being the tussock moth, a defoliator that reappears on a roughly 9-year cycle with outbreaks of varying intensities. “Another regional tussock moth outbreak affected the Umatilla National Forest in the early 1970s. Initial damage was noticed as 2,400 acres of defoliation in the Okanogan Valley of north-central Washington in 1971. In 1972, over 197,000 acres were defoliated in Oregon and Washington. Perhaps some of the worst tussock-moth damage in this early-1970s outbreak occurred on the north end of Umatilla National Forest. By 1974, 44% of defoliated acreage in the entire outbreak area (including state, private, and other federal ownerships) was on the Umatilla National Forest – 353,850 acres out of a total outbreak area of 800,000 acres!” ( tussock moth fseprd7166465.pdf Page 4.)
The mountain pine beetle has been a major problem in the western U.S. and British Columbia for centuries, with extensive infestations continuing over the past 60 years. More recently related beetle species have been wreaking havoc over a broader geographic area. “First, mountain pine beetles devastated lodgepole and ponderosa pine trees across western North America. Then came spruce beetles, which have targeted high-elevation Engelmann spruce, spreading from New Mexico into Colorado and beyond. Altogether, with their advance fueled by climate change, bark beetles have ravaged 85,000 square miles of forest in the western United States — an area the size of Utah — since 2000. Pine beetles also have killed trees across roughly 65,000 square miles of forest in British Columbia, and in the southeastern U.S., they have caused millions of dollars of damage to the timber industry in states such as Alabama and Mississippi.
The beetles are now advancing up the Atlantic coast, reaching New York’s Long Island in 2014 and Connecticut the following year. A new study projects they could begin moving into the twisting pitch pines of New England and the stately red pines of Canada’s Maritime provinces by decade’s end. Warming winters could push the beetles north into Canada’s boreal forest within 60 years, climate scientists say.” (https://e360.yale.edu/features/small-pests-big-problems-the-global-spread-of-bark-beetles)
To put this into perspective, the 85,000 square miles of affected area in the western U.S. equals 54,400,000 acres. In 2024, the area affect by forest fires in the U.S. was just over 8,000,000 acres. So, pine beetles have impacted about 7 times the area affected by wildfire this year.
The overall impact of insect and disease agents is quite stunning. From an AI generated answer to a Google question: “According to research from the US Forest Service, there are hundreds of native and non-native insect and disease species that attack US forests, with one study identifying over 300 different insect and disease agents impacting tree species across the continental United States and Alaska.” The average citizen just doesn’t get a feel for the extent of the issue. Forests are viewed as tranquil, relatively stable environments. The reality is that “it’s a jungle out there” and for most forest land managers the worry isn’t might we be impacted by an insect or disease issue, but how hard will we get hit, by which predator, and how do we respond.
Many insect and disease issues can be controlled or mitigated with proper silvicultural practices. The healthier our forested areas are, the greater the ability of the trees to resist and survive both bark beetle attacks and defoliating insects such as the tussock moth. For 45 years now, thinning and selective harvest operations on federal lands have been severely curtailed. As a result, many areas are over-stocked and/or stagnating creating ideal conditions for massive infestations and at the same time dramatically increasing the forest fire risk.
- The very real possibility is that in the future we will need to rely upon our domestic forested areas to meet the wood products needs of our nation. In the late 1970s, due to the actions of many in the environmental community, our forest products industry was decimated. What we see around us today is but a shadow of what once was a thriving industry and significant part of our economy. However, the contraction of our forest products industry did not in any way reduce our need for lumber, paper, cardboard and a myriad of other products. Our neighbor to the north, Canada, expanded their forest products industry to counter the reduction. British Columbia stepped up their production of wood products. However, recent articles from Canadian sources indicate that to profit from our demand, the Canadians while remaining within the sustained yield limits concentrated their logging efforts in areas with larger trees, commonly the old growth stands. With the easy pickings now eliminated, future logging operations in the smaller size classes have marginal profitability and the timber companies are turning towards greener pastures. The links below are to various news articles addressing the timber supply and forest products industry in British Columbia.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/canada-forests-climate/
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6604830
https://globalnews.ca/news/10831523/canfor-loss-350-million/
https://thetyee.ca/News/2024/10/30/Inside-Fight-Save-Forestry-Jobs
Quote from last article: “Over the last two decades, forestry jobs have fallen roughly by half as mills have closed across the province (BC), dropping from around 79,000 in 2001 to 44,000 in 2023.”
To ensure our domestic needs in the future we will need to increase the harvest levels in our forests. Handled properly, this can be an opportunity to improve the health of our forests and a benefit to our economy. However, we first must rebuild our forest products to modest levels. We don’t need to return to the levels that existed prior to the 1970s, but our current wood products infrastructure is insufficient to fill the gap. This should be viewed as an opportunity, not a problem. We should be constructing newer, more efficient mills and utilizing the many advances available in engineered lumber products. Rather than clear-cutting, we should be using selective cutting and thinning methodologies, using feller bunchers and similar, less intrusive harvesting techniques to treat the land more gently.
Action Plan: Now that we have an inventory of the overall forest resources of the United States, we need to develop a process to determine what our goal is for the future distribution of , and possible uses for these lands such as:
- Timber production
- Recreation
- Old growth
- Rehabilitation
- Wilderness
- Etc.
Of the 238,400,000 acres currently administered by the U.S. Government, 74,300,000 is already under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Park Service, the Department of Defense or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Of the 178,498,091 acres under the management of the USFS and BLM, 113,826,353 acres are classified as mature or old growth. So, the reality is that almost 14% of the total forested acreage of the United States is classified as old growth or mature. Of the forested area managed by the USFS and the BLM, the portion of federal lands that we are attempting to determine the future management direction of, 63.7% is classified as mature or old growth. Additionally, a portion of the lands under the management of the National Park Service, the Department of Defense and the Bureau of Indian Affairs as well as state, county, municipal or corporate ownerships would also qualify as mature or old growth. We just don’t happen to know what those acreages might be and don’t have control over their future disposition.
In reviewing the amount of, and the trend of forested area in the U.S. the situation is very positive. The U.S. has 44,078,000 more acres of forest than it did in 1920. Likewise, the volume of merchantable timber in the U.S. has been increasing quite rapidly in recent decades and is now 60% greater than it was in1953. On BLM and USFS lands mature and old growth stands make up almost 64% of total area. The major problems we are facing involve increasing wildfires and the insect and disease issues that are cyclic, but common and indigenous to the forest environment. Ironically, the greatest risks to old growth and mature timbers stands are fires and insects and diseases.
The time has long since past when we need to come to a consensus on what an acceptable allocation of our federal forested lands to the various uses listed above should be. Once that is decided, we need to then create a management plan that identifies those parcels best suited to be managed, or not managed, to achieve that goal. Since mature and old growth stands seem to draw the most public attention, coming to a consensus on the amount and those specific tracts that should be preserved would be the first order of business. Then if the current amount does not meet with the consensus figure, identify and set aside those areas with management plans to fulfill that objective. All in all, if would appear that we don’t really have a deficit in that classification. Our current levels of these classes seem very reasonable relative to other developed nations, but being public lands, this needs to be decided by a democratic process. In Europe, only 3% of the forested area is mature or old growth. Once this step is taken, then we simply work our way down the list, which we probably require some adjustment of prior allocations along the way.
However, we do need to realize that the public perception that old growth and mature stands are relatively immune to anything other than the chain saw is, like Mark Twain pointed out, is simply not true. Fire and insect and disease issues are much more damaging.
Once we go through the allocation process, we then need to prepare suitable management plans for each classification and then adhere to those decisions unless nature intervenes. The management plans also need to address the reality that forest fires are a serious and growing concern, and that insect and disease issues will arise and need to be addressed and that mature and old growth are no less resistant to these issues than are younger forests.
As pointed out earlier, it is very likely that in the not-too-distant future the United States will very likely have to become more self-reliant upon our own forest resources to meet our lumber, paper and wood products needs. We’ve been relying on the Canadians for many decades, but their wood products industry is already in decline. Our problem is just the opposite. We have a very ample timber supply, but we don’t have the forest products industry to fill our own needs. The rebuilding of a portion of our forest products industry to fill this need will require the guarantee of a stable timber supply. Industry will not invest if the supply is inconsistent and undependable. Additionally, proposed timber sale cannot be dependent upon the whims of environment groups and judges, and the anarchists’ approach to interrupting harvest activities can be tolerated no longer.
We’ve dawdled long enough, the time is now at hand when we need to seriously address this issue and apply sound forest management concepts and practices to this very vital national treasure for the benefit of our citizens and future generations.
Respectfully,
Don Healy
Lynnwood, WA
B.S. Forest Management, Oregon State University, 1968
Old growth forests need to be THINNED as they are a major factor on why the fires and infestation breakouts are worse over time that spills out into mature forests thus becoming difficult to control.
But that’s Druid’s religion.
/sarc
Everyone at WUWT already knows this, but apparently some of our politicians do not- occasional burning in our forests/woodlands replenishes and fertilizes the soil, and our conifers have evolved over time to bear seed cones that naturally open up when exposed to high heat…
Uh….not “everyone at WUWT already knows this…” ; especially not this forester (BS Forest Management, University of Maine 1977; MS Forest Genetics, NC State Univ. 1980).
There are a few species, such as jack pine (Pinus banksiana) with serotinous cones, and lodgepole pine (P. contorta) with semi-serotinous which benefit from the high temperatures of wildland fire for seed release. But, fire most certainly isn’t required for cone opening, even in these species. Slash scattered across a logging unit, sitting in the sun in summer, also reaches temperatures sufficient to open cones.
Most conifers do not require fire for cone opening and seed release.
I’m not saying that they require fire, but it can be a long-term benefit.
Mr. Miller is correct. Ignorance about forests and forestry abounds. Unfortunately, the author of the essay above is also trapped in outdated paradigms.
The truth is that Federal ownership of lands has failed. The USFS, BLM, and NPS, as directed by the US Congress, have trashed and burned public lands to a degree unmatched by any other countries except the Communist ones. Central government land ownership was doomed to fail from the getgo, which is why the Founders of the US Constitution expressly forbade it.
My watershed was carpet-bombed with helicopter-launched aerial incendiaries by the Federal Fire agency (NIFC). Dozens of square miles of green, old-growth, spotted owl forests were holocausted on purpose, without warning, by Fed flunkies armed by Congress with weapons of landscape scale destruction. Tens of millions of acres of heritage forests across the West have been similarly carpet-bombed or otherwise deliberately incinerated.
That’s more than poor stewardship; it’s undeclared warfare. And ongoing. Will Trump put an end to it? He didn’t in his first term. Ignorance can be ugly and destructive, which is why we in the West don’t want outsider tyranny over our lands any more.
Forest fires don’t “replenish” the soil. The giant smoke plumes circling the globe from megafires are the nutrients leaving, going elsewhere. Sometimes fires develop vortex tornados that suck up the soil and blow it away. Only gravel and rocks remain. Some fires burn so hot they vitrify soil — or seal the soil preventing percolation, leading to rill erosion and sediment in stream beds.
Urban mythology about forests is destroying them. Please allow the locals to tend local lands. No offense, but if you don’t live here, here is none of your business.
Allowing forest management to be controlled by groups who bear no cost for being wrong is folly.
But he who has the most lawyers, especially lawyers funded by the US taxpayer through EAJA, usually wins. This is especially true with the endless frivolous lawsuits that have essentially ended logging on the US National Forests.
Requiring The Sierra Club or whatever other part of The Green Blob to post a bond for prospective damages when they demand a certain wildlands management proposal, usually “leave it alone”, would damp their enthusiasm. It is not as if their supporters do not have the money.
Good luck with that.
Alternatively, sue the Green Blob for damages post facto.
While I don’t disagree, it takes deep pockets. I don’t see any legal foundations rushing to the front.
How do you sue a blob?
The Green Blob is a collective reference to the interrelated Green NGOs, and their overlapping funders, mostly foundations. Rather like a civil version of the Mafia.
Yes, I am clear on who they are, but how do you sue them? On what grounds?
If you’re saying that those who had to defend against frivolous lawsuits could sue the plaintiffs to recover their costs, that is possible I suppose. But the real damage the blob does is to advocate for unreasonable regulations that deny property owners the right to use their property or engage in otherwise legal economic activities.
We can no more sue the blob for getting onerous regulations implemented than we could sue people who voted for a candidate who raised our taxes once in office on the grounds that those voters cost us money in higher taxes. Or what am I missing?
It seems to me that the laws that allow unelected bureaucrats to make rules that have the force of law must all be repealed. This power needs to be clawed back to Congress where it belongs under the Constitution.
Congress must explicitly vote on every law regardless of whether you prefer to call those laws regulations or statutes. This doesn’t mean that you can’t have ‘experts’ drafting the laws. It just means that our representatives need to be accountable for voting for such regulations. They must pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President.
Rather than some vague directive to a faceless bureaucracy to achieve an abstract goal, each regulation should be subject to revision or repeal through the democratic process.
The fault is with the courts granting them standing, when they have a nebulous interest at best. Also, the laws and regulations involved are often “sue-and-settle”, transferring responsibility from the legislators or bureaucrats to a third party by design.
I’m with you to an extent. The courts failed to rule this delegation of authority unconstitutional as they should have long ago. It is an intentional corruption of the Constitution designed to transfer legislative powers to unelected, unaccountable ’experts’ which was the great enthusiasm of the early twentieth century Progressive movement.
The constitution vests all lawmaking authority in the Legislative branch. The role of the Executive is to faithfully execute the laws and to be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
The only practical way to imagine this being resolved would be for the Supreme Court to rule that all laws delegating legislative powers to the Executive branch are unconstitutional and void. Then Congress would likely pass a law codifying (most of) the current regulations, subject to future revision or repeal by Congress. In such a circumstance, the Democrats in the Senate would have to play ball or hand the Republicans the dream of eliminating all regulations.
The same thing could be achieved by passing a law stripping all legislative powers from the Executive branch while freezing current regulations. However, such a change would be extremely unlikely. Republicans would need to flip about ten more seats in the next election, maybe more, given that at least three Republican senators are effectively Democrats (Collins, Murkowski, Romney). Getting a cloture vote with only 53 Republican senators and no more than 50 who could be relied on, would be practically impossible.
An even less likely scenario would be a constitutional amendment barring Congress from delegating any of its authority to the Executive branch or to any other third party. The prospect of any constitutional amendment being ratified is almost non-existent, let alone anything as controversial as this that would negate the last 120 years of Democrat “achievements”.
Somebody is going to ask for a link and I don’t have it.
But I remember a story years ago where one of the big wigs in the Sierra Club had his home in a large, forested area that he owned.
He made a bundle by allowing loggers to come in.
The Biden puppet regime may not have done squat about excessive fuel loads or insect infestation but by God, they took a stand against the vile racism of referring to a pest insect as a ‘gypsy’ moth.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/invasive-moth-gets-a-new-name-spongy-moth-180979680/#:~:text=The%20Lymantria%20dispar%2C%20an%20invasive,%2C%22%20contained%20a%20racist%20term.
Thanks Don, nice post.
Here is a recent article about the forests where I grew up in western Pennsylvania:
Logging Is a Way of Life in Appalachia. It’s Hanging on by a Thread. – WSJ
Now I live on the eastern slopes of the Cascades where the forest meets the shrub-steppe. Kittitas County.
Great article, well researched and the author makes excellent points concerning the need for a more “active” approach to managing the forests.
Perhaps with the shift in political winds that has recently occurred evidence based forestry practices will make a comeback and we will begin to treat the forests of this country as a resource that can’t simply be left to fester in the name of protecting earth mother Gaia.
For this to happen, we need buckets of money and better lawyers. The left certainly won’t be stopping their frivolous lawsuits any time soon. And, there are always science-challenged judges who are easily swayed by some furry, feathered, or finned animal.
Well said too. But this also applies equally to science in general and climate in particular. Evidence based best practice is what we need get back to instead of ideological and emotional thinking as applied by environmentalists and sociologists representing the `green blob’. We need to protect our technological future and increasing cheap energy requirements, plus rural businesses like forestry from the dangerous predications of the inner-city woke elites who are out of touch with reality.
I’ve never understood the claim that old growth forests are “carbon sinks” and the “lungs of the earth”. Almost by definition old growth, which would include tropical rain forest, are in a grow/ rot balance so neither a net reducer or contributor of CO2.
The wood used in my home has been a sequesterer of carbon for its one hundred years and will continue to do so as long as I protect it from rot. And the opening of the forest after the trees were cut stimulated new growth with carbon capture.
Building more houses will save the planet.
https://www.thinkwood.com/mass-timber
On 5: The cause and solution to the increasing wildfire problem
I’d like to see some research on the effect of rising CO2 on the growth of scrub growth on the forest floor, especially in arid areas of California. I suspect that additional fuel load helps feeds small fires and helps ignite crown fires.
I’m not real fond of “The center, dashed line plots the average annual U.S. Temperature on a rational scale against the highest and lowest temperatures recorded for the United States.” I live in New Hampshire, our trees don’t grow well at 32°F and rarely see temperatures above 100°F. The areas where the extremes occurred are in Alaska tundra and California desert, neither area sees many forest fires or harvests and should not be included in this post.
Good points to consider, Ric, but I think he is trying to make the point that the average US temperature has no measurable effect on forest fires. He’s not saying anything about optimum growing conditions for trees, which is what you are talking about. In fact, to make his point more clearly, I think he should set the top of the scale to be the flash point for wood, which is around 400 to 600 F. That would show much more starkly how ridiculous it is to try to relate “global warming” to “forest fires” directly.
The unelected bureaucrats who were paid to manage forests and chose not to should be sent to jail.
Their decisions have led to wildfires that have killed people and destroyed communities. This is murder, or at least criminal negligence.
Lock them up.
It is easy to blame “unelected bureaucrats” for this problem – I sometimes do myself – but the problem really lies with Congress. Back in the “bad old days” when the US National Forests were allegedly being “raped,” it was Congress giving them their marching orders to get out the cut. Then, as wacko-green environmentalism began to take hold, Congress passed a series of laws, many times conflicting, that started to monkey wrench forest management.
These conflicting laws started making a simple timber harvest into a multi-year planning project producing documents hundreds of pages long, which inevitably get challenged in court, and often resulted in stopping logging altogether.
Then, just because we aren’t having enough fun, in 1980 EAJA (Equal Access to Justice Act) rolls around. Originally crafted as a solution for Vietnam War veterans, making it easier for them to sue the federal government over Agent Orange claims, EAJA morphed into a vehicle for wacko-green NGO’s to sue the federal government, at the taxpayers expense.
Congress made this mess. Sadly, only Congress can fix it.
Great article on a much underestimated resource.
Increasing forest productivity should be a tremendous asset as forests get a triple treat. More CO2; more rain and warmer weather in the growing season – all round better growing conditions.
Hoping to use forests for carbon sequestering is a fool’s errand.
The trees we now have are not well adapted to the accelerated growing conditions. Victoria, Australia is now often seeing trees lodged due to their heavy canopy and moist ground. They still lose branches but more are being uprooted. A couple of years ago large stands of mature growth lost through lodging.
Don,
Just throwing some thoughts into this.
-First of all I was born in 1968, Corvallis OR. GO BEAVS! Unfortunately the college has changed for the worst over the last 5+ decades and so has Corvallis. That said I will always support the Beavers through thick and thin especially when they play the Ducks!
-I remember growing up it was all about saving virgin timber (never cut) that morphed into save old growth timber (first cut). Lets keep moving those goal post.
-One log loads. If you’ve never seen one you have missed out on an impressive sight.
-Did you ever make it over to Land of the Giants off north fork of the Siletz river? Awe inspiring in two ways. First is that is some seriously large virgin Douglas Fir, Only trees I’ve seen larger are those in Sequoia National Park. Second impression after the wow factor wore off was just how buggy it was, those trees were at the end of their life span and rotten. With all the hype about saving virgin timber I was sorely disappointed about just what the environmentalist wanted to save exactly why would I want to save rotten trees? Last disappointment was North Fork of the Siletz was fly fishing only and I was a rod fisherman. Seeing all those salmon sitting in there with no idea how to fly fish was horrible!
-Last of all there are only a couple mills left that can handle trees as large as Old growth timber. Today’s mills can only handle smaller logs. Sure if we were allowed to cut old growth more mills would tool up to handle them but as of today we just can’t do it in any quantity.
Excellent article, a little long and a little repetitive. I agree with everything here. Thankfully there was only slight mention of climate change which is a non issue because we don’t control the climate, the best we an do is adapt to what we are given.
I wouldn’t lose to much sleep if we can’t reach a consensus with radical environmentalists. They don’t give a damn about facts and figures they will preach their sermon knowing they are wrong. The primary focus must be the health of our forests. First establish what is a healthy forest. Not all forests are the same we can’t stuff them all in the same box.
Clearly we know there are natural causes for a forest to become unhealthy and man made causes for a forest to become unhealthy. Man made causes would include irresponsible logging, mining, recreation and other forms of development. What can’t be overlooked is intentional neglect especially the kind the radical environmentalists insist on, it is perhaps the most dangerous.
We can all agree that forest fires and disease must be addressed, that is where man comes in. We are capable of determining what we can do to lessen the threat of fires and disease. That means we need to manage the our forests. All forests new forests, juvenile forests, established forests, mature forests and yes even old growth forests must be managed.
My suggestion would be moderation but leaving them to their own fate is unacceptable.
Interesting view on a complex subject. A few items worth looking at that I’ve
noticed over the years living in the Northern Rockies. I my younger days
each forest unit was self sustained as in the financial means to operate
came from timber sales, grazing fees and mineral rights on a local basis.
No money changed hands on a timber sale until the logs were delivered
to the mill. The state and local governments took their cut off the top, the
forest unit got the bid price the mill got the logs and then the logger got
what was left over. This is how towns in the forest financed roads, schools
and such. The Gilford Pinchot style. Now the National Forests are all financed and managed out
of Washington DC. When that change happened the poverty rate in the county I live in
rose over 25%, anyone who could leave did.
When a logger bids a sale the money has to be paid up front which then
goes to DC. On recent a local beetle kill salvage sale the value was estimated to be over $1M
dollars. A local enviro group Alliance for the Wild Rockies filed a legal suit which stopped the sale
for several years. When the federal judge finally allowed the project to go forward the
value fell to less than $50K. It is impossible to manage these forest without the proper
infrastructure and we have very little left in the way of sawmills and workers in this area,
compared to how it was run 20 yrs ago. The pulp mill closed causing a huge hole in the
financial structure. The loggers chipped the slash on the landing and sold it to the pulp
mill which basically covered their fuel bill…I can go on at length…..the forest in my area is
a huge mess.
And in Australia? All timber harvesting banned, just buy imports. FA reduction burns resulting in the obvious!
“All timber harvesting banned”
Not quite yet.
I regularly see timber truck heading towards Newcastle…
… and the odd sight of a mover with its trailing wheelset sitting on top, going the other way.
Can’t wait to see JZ’s take on this. 🙂
Yuh, gotta give it some thought- but I’m not in a great mood. On October 24th, my “domestic partner”, Elizabeth, passed due to Alzheimer’s. From picking her up- as she was falling daily due to brain damage (vascular dementia)- a week after she passed I discovered I have a hernia. So, I’m way to numb as of this moment. After I drink several cups of coffee I may wake up my numb neurons enough to add some comments to this excellent article, focusing on what I know best- forestry in the American Northeast. Thanks for drawing me out. 🙂
My wife died in March 0f 2020. After one gets all the legal and other things taken care of, there is a void. Things change, you move on, and there is that void. Best to you.
condolences on the loss. 🙁
Hope you recover from your hernia.
As we get a bit older we just have to keep pushing through, somehow.
Thanks! I did post a comment elsewhere in this topic. I kept it short- or it would have turned into a book. 🙂
Prayers for you whether you want them or not.
Australia has embraced indigenous ‘fire stick farming’ to manage unwanted fuel loads … despite this ‘farming’ being proved to incur the greatest habitat loss for native species and the ‘training’ provided to the indigenous – not being based on any historical cultural practices, but by state fire authorities.
Of course, this ‘industry’ has only one purpose – to deliver an unwarranted revenue stream to one of the most aggrieved & disgruntled populations on the planet.
.
It has naught to do with forest management or environmental concerns.
.
Don’t we all feel better?
Absolute balderdash Sir! Greenies like you are the reason we have nearly lost all of our productive forestry timber business and are subject to poor management practices resulting in overgrown dangerous forest conditions ripe for total plant and animal destruction like the catastrophic fires of 2020-21 in Eastern Australia.
Your thinking will not save our forests which have already given us Net Zero capacity, on the contrary your attitude is what will cause ultimate destruction of our bush land. But as long as there is no more `development’ you will have achieved your demented goal. You people make me sick!
Bob, AHLD’s comment was a little vague, but I took it the other way, as sarcasm. He said,
(it was) “proved to incur the greatest habitat loss for native species” and also, “It has naught to do with forest management or environmental concerns.”
Maybe he should have used the sarc tag, or my sarc meter needs recalibration.
That’s an excellent article. Thank you.
Thank you for an excellent summary of the maladministration and possible malfeasance currently afflicting forestry management both in the USA and other so called civilised countries. Hopefully, one day soon, articles such as this might be written in true ecological terms without reference to elemental carbon.
I know that it is important to be published to throw in the gratuitous religious shibboleths but exactly how is this amorphous “climate change” fueling the advance of bark beetles?
Is the mere assertion the receipt?
A 1969 visit to Grand Teton National Park showed dead or dying forests from age and insects. No mention of climate then.
Good article but what’s not mentioned is a major reason why so many enviros want to shrink the forest products industries: because they claim that forests hold carbon so cutting trees releases that carbon. This myth that we can help save the planet by not cutting trees is called “proforestation”. The leader of this movement is a former editor/whatever of the IPCC decades ago named William Moomaw, a retired professor at Tuffs. His PhD is in physical chemistry- but, the considers himself a climate scientist and he proclaims to know a great deal about forestry. He may know a great deal about physical chemistry but he’s no climate scientist and he knows almost nothing about forestry- but I do since I practiced forestry for exactly 50 years. Here in Wokeachusetts, he and his cronies have convinced the state to cut even less timber than they had previously, which was already way below growth. Now what they do is merely a token effort. They are also trying to make cutting on private land more difficult with excessive regulation. The state recently put together a committee with minimal knowledge of real world forestry (academics, bureaucrats, enviros)- who after several months came up with a plan for “climate smart forestry”- which they said means cut much lighter and much less often. It’s extraordinarily ignorant. Not only does society need wood products- so we should cut more not less- but when done right, as a side effect, there will be MORE carbon in the forests because intelligent silviculture will produce superior forests with many large, high value trees, which happen to hold a lot of carbon.
Mr. Layman here.
For fear of “changing” anything lots of logging has been forbidden in the US. Even going in and cutting and harvesting dead trees.
That’s nuts!
I don’t know if the company is still in business, but they would go in and harvest dead Colorado Blue Spruce. They then built luxurious log cabins from them. That was 40 or more years ago.
Canada comprises 3.855 million sq mi. Of that, 45%, almost half, is covered by forest, totaling around 1.735 million sq mi. Over 90% of Canada’s forests are owned by the public. About half of the forests are allocated for logging. The industry may be declining in the short term but the forests are not. At some point the industry will rebound.
I don’t know much about Canadian forestry- but I bet those forests could handle a far higher cut level. I bet the cut level is lower than possible because that’s what the government has decided- just like here in America. If they allow a higher cut level- the industry will respond rapidly. It’s always been this way with wood products industries- feast or famine.
Insects do infest.
One of the Maritime provinces of eastern Canada used to spray against worms killing spruce trees.
Fire breaks are a very good idea some tribal groups in BC put out the effort to create them, with bonus of stacks of firewood for their homes.
Eco-bleeps get [……], the federal government of Canada blocked dealing with dead forests around Jasper AB – result was part of the town burned up last summer.
And control freaks of the federal and local governments blocked a convoy of privately arranged fire trucks from coming to help.
Building owners can help themselves by keeping property clean – except some local government eco-bleeps object to removal of shrubbery, keeping eavestroughs clear of pine needles, and using metal roofs.
Well known in BC but people are slack, I saw Barriere BC several weeks after the 2003 fire – some buildings burned, some didn’t. Methods were proven in the Kelowna BC area in 2003 – even keeping eavestroughs free of pine needles which burn well when an ember lands in them, setting asphalt shingles on fire.
Embers are a problem, big hot fires create their own weather that sends embers ahead – big air tankers are needed to quench, but bureaucrats of the government of BC were cheap and politicked thus the proven Martin Mars water bombers are going to museums.