Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Please Support CounterPunch’s Annual Fund Drive
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We only ask you once a year, but when we ask we mean it. So, please, help as much as you can. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. All contributions are tax-deductible.
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.

October 16, 2018
Gregory Elich
Diplomatic Deadlock: Can U.S.-North Korea Diplomacy Survive Maximum Pressure?
Rob Seimetz
Talking About Death While In Decadence
Kent Paterson
Fifty Years of Mexican October
Robert Fantina
Trump, Iran and Sanctions
Greg Macdougall
Indigenous Suicide in Canada
Kenneth Surin
On Reading the Diaries of Tony Benn, Britain’s Greatest Labour Politician
Andrew Bacevich
Unsolicited Advice for an Undeclared Presidential Candidate: a Letter to Elizabeth Warren
Thomas Knapp
Facebook Meddles in the 2018 Midterm Elections
Muhammad Othman
Khashoggi and Demetracopoulos
Gerry Brown
Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics: How the US Weaponizes Them to Accuse  China of Debt Trap Diplomacy
Christian Ingo Lenz Dunker – Peter Lehman
The Brazilian Presidential Elections and “The Rules of The Game”
Robert Fisk
What a Forgotten Shipwreck in the Irish Sea Can Tell Us About Brexit
Martin Billheimer
Here Cochise Everywhere
David Swanson
Humanitarian Bombs
Dean Baker
The Federal Reserve is Not a Church
October 15, 2018
Rob Urie
Climate Crisis is Upon Us
Conn Hallinan
Syria’s Chessboard
Patrick Cockburn
The Saudi Atrocities in Yemen are a Worse Story Than the Disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi
Sheldon Richman
Trump’s Middle East Delusions Persist
Justin T. McPhee
Uberrima Fides? Witness K, East Timor and the Economy of Espionage
Tom Gill
Spain’s Left Turn?
Jeff Cohen
Few Democrats Offer Alternatives to War-Weary Voters
Dean Baker
Corporate Debt Scares
Gary Leupp
The Khashoggi Affair and and the Anti-Iran Axis
Russell Mokhiber
Sarah Chayes Calls on West Virginians to Write In No More Manchins
Clark T. Scott
Acclimated Behaviorisms
Kary Love
Evolution of Religion
Colin Todhunter
From GM Potatoes to Glyphosate: Regulatory Delinquency and Toxic Agriculture
Binoy Kampmark
Evacuating Nauru: Médecins Sans Frontières and Australia’s Refugee Dilemma
Marvin Kitman
The Kitman Plan for Peace in the Middle East: Two Proposals
Weekend Edition
October 12, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Becky Grant
My History with Alexander Cockburn and The Financial Future of CounterPunch
Paul Street
For Popular Sovereignty, Beyond Absurdity
Nick Pemberton
The Colonial Pantsuit: What We Didn’t Want to Know About Africa
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Summer of No Return
Jeff Halper
Choices Made: From Zionist Settler Colonialism to Decolonization
Gary Leupp
The Khashoggi Incident: Trump’s Special Relationship With the Saudi Monarchy
Andrew Levine
Democrats: Boost, Knock, Enthuse
Barbara Kantz
The Deportation Crisis: Report From Long Island
Doug Johnson
Nate Silver and 538’s Measurable 3.5% Democratic Bias and the 2018 House Race
Gwen Carr
This Stops Today: Seeking Justice for My Son Eric Garner
Robert Hunziker
Peak Carbon Emissions By 2020, or Else!
Arshad Khan
Is There Hope on a World Warming at 1.5 Degrees Celsius?
David Rosen
Packing the Supreme Court in the 21stCentury
Brian Cloughley
Trump’s Threats of Death and Destruction
Joel A. Harrison
The Case for a Non-Profit Single-Payer Healthcare System
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail