FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Why Calls for “Forest Thinning” are Timber Industry Snake Oil

In a recent review article about forest thinning and its effectiveness to reduce wildfire severity and spread in “Forest Ecology and Management,” researchers came to a conclusion with regards to reducing fire risk and effects that “thinning alone had either less of an effect or none at all, compared to untreated sites.”

The study did conclude that thinning followed by at least one (but better two) prescribed burn treatments is generally effective at reducing fire risk. And if you can only do one thing, prescribed burning is more cost-effective at reducing fires than thinning/logging alone.

Ironically, the Forest Service emphasizes logging/thinning over burning. But there are other reasons to question the entire fuels reduction program.

First, logging is not benign. Most thinning/logging operations have other collateral damage like soil compaction, disturbance of wildlife, the spread of weeds, road construction which fragments forests and causes sedimentation of streams. These are the “externalized costs” of logging that are seldom counted in the “cost”/benefit of a timber sale.

Even without considering these externalized costs, most federal timber sales lose money—another fact that the federals are loath to admit or try to justify by claiming that logging will reduce wildfire risk. But as this and other recent studies conclude, thinning alone is rarely effective in accomplishing this goal.

Fuel reduction is usually negated in three to 10 years by new growth of fine fuels—fallen needles, shrubs, small trees and so forth. And while there’s money for logging/thinning, there’s less available to do the maintenance. So even if effective immediately after treatment, that effectiveness declines rapidly.

With the possible exception of the lowest-elevation dry forests, most forest types like lodgepole pine/spruce/fir (which makes up the bulk of the annual acreage of forest burned) have long intervals—often a hundred years or more—between blazes. So the probability that any fire will actually encounter a fuel reduction in the time when it’s effective is exceedingly small.

However, even if federal agencies shifted emphasis to more burning than logging, the other unacknowledged fact is that all fuel treatments, while they may work occasionally to slow or control blazes under moderate fire weather conditions, usually won’t stop the large fires burning under severe fire weather that are the real threat to western communities.

Severe fire weather conditions include drought, high temperatures, low humidity and most importantly, high winds. If you have high winds, you cannot effectively control a blaze.

Ironically, most fires burning under low to moderate fire weather conditions will self-extinguish or are easily controlled. However, under severe fire weather, nothing works. Thinning and prescribed burning usually fail to alter the outcome for the largest fires burning under severe fire weather.

Plus, large high severity fires are critical to healthy forest ecosystems. Severe fires provide a major input of woody debris that maintains spawning beds for salmon and trout. They provide structural components (snags) that are valuable for birds and mammals for feeding and homes (cavities). Burned forests also store carbon and nutrients. Ecologically speaking, thinning impoverishes our forest ecosystems, while large wildfires enrich them.

Of course, no one wants to see a home or community threatened by wildfire, but we don’t have to destroy our forest ecosystems with logging to protect our homes. Don’t build any new homes in the “fire plain” on the edge of town.

For those homes already constructed in the wrong places, reducing the flammability of homes is proven highly effective. Metal roofs, screened roof vents, removal of flammable materials around the base of the house, and building a modest wall that can keep surface fires from burning to the edge of a home are only a few of the proven methods that can save a home from wildfire.

And yes, even some moderate thinning and prescribed burning immediately adjacent to the home and on the edge of the community can be useful—but only if these fuel treatments are regularly maintained and strategically done.

The idea that you can preclude large wildfires through forest-wide thinning is snake oil, very expensive snake oil. And not only does the taxpayer pay for ineffective fire protection, but we degrade our forest ecosystems in the process.

More articles by:

George Wuerthner has published 36 books including Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy. He serves on the board of the Western Watersheds Project.

December 19, 2018
Carl Boggs
Russophobia and the Specter of War
Jonathan Cook
American Public’s Backing for One-State Solution Falls on Deaf Ears
Daniel Warner
1968: The Year That Will Not Go Away
Arshad Khan
Developing Country Issues at COP24 … and a Bit of Good News for Solar Power and Carbon Capture
Kenneth Surin
Trump’s African Pivot: Another Swipe at China
Patrick Bond
South Africa Searches for a Financial Parachute, Now That a $170 Billion Foreign Debt Cliff Looms
Tom Clifford
Trade for Hostages? Trump’s New Approach to China
Binoy Kampmark
May Days in Britain
John Feffer
Globalists Really Are Ruining Your Life
John O'Kane
Drops and the Dropped: Diversity and the Midterm Elections
December 18, 2018
Charles Pierson
Where No Corn Has Grown Before: Better Living Through Climate Change?
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The Waters of American Democracy
Patrick Cockburn
Will Anger in Washington Over the Murder of Khashoggi End the War in Yemen?
George Ochenski
Trump is on the Ropes, But the Pillage of Natural Resources Continues
Farzana Versey
Tribals, Missionaries and Hindutva
Robert Hunziker
Is COP24 One More Big Bust?
David Macaray
The Truth About Nursing Homes
Nino Pagliccia
Have the Russian Military Aircrafts in Venezuela Breached the Door to “America’s Backyard”?
Paul Edwards
Make America Grate Again
David Rosnick
The Impact of OPEC on Climate Change
Binoy Kampmark
The Kosovo Blunder: Moving Towards a Standing Army
Andrew Stewart
Shine a Light for Immigration Rights in Providence
December 17, 2018
Susan Abulhawa
Marc Lamont Hill’s Detractors are the True Anti-Semites
Jake Palmer
Viktor Orban, Trump and the Populist Battle Over Public Space
Martha Rosenberg
Big Pharma Fights Proposal to Keep It From Looting Medicare
David Rosen
December 17th: International Day to End Violence against Sex Workers
Binoy Kampmark
The Case that Dare Not Speak Its Name: the Conviction of Cardinal Pell
Dave Lindorff
Making Trump and Other Climate Criminals Pay
Bill Martin
Seeing Yellow
Julian Vigo
The World Google Controls and Surveillance Capitalism
ANIS SHIVANI
What is Neoliberalism?
James Haught
Evangelicals Vote, “Nones” Falter
Vacy Vlanza
The Australian Prime Minister’s Rapture for Jerusalem
Martin Billheimer
Late Year’s Hits for the Hanging Sock
Weekend Edition
December 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
A Tale of Two Cities
Peter Linebaugh
The Significance of The Common Wind
Bruce E. Levine
The Ketamine Chorus: NYT Trumpets New Anti-Suicide Drug
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fathers and Sons, Bushes and Bin Ladens
Kathy Deacon
Coffee, Social Stratification and the Retail Sector in a Small Maritime Village
Nick Pemberton
Praise For America’s Second Leading Intellectual
Robert Hunziker
The Yellow Vest Insurgency – What’s Next?
Nick Alexandrov
George H. W. Bush: Another Eulogy
Patrick Cockburn
The Yemeni Dead: Six Times Higher Than Previously Reported
Brian Cloughley
Principles and Morality Versus Cash and Profit? No Contest
Michael F. Duggan
Climate Change and the Limits of Reason
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail