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.

June 19, 2018
Ann Robertson - Bill Leumer
We Can Thank Top Union Officials for Trump
Lawrence Davidson
The Republican Party Falls Apart, the Democrats Get Stuck
Sheldon Richman
Trump, North Korea, and Iran
Richard Rubenstein
Trump the (Shakespearean) Fool: a New Look at the Dynamics of Trumpism
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
Protect Immigrant Rights; End the Crises That Drive Migration
Gary Leupp
Norway: Just Withdraw From NATO
Kristine Mattis
Nerd Culture, Adultolescence, and the Abdication of Social Priorities
Mike Garrity
The Forest Service Should Not be Above the Law
Colin Todhunter
Pro-GMO Activism And Smears Masquerade As Journalism: From Seralini To Jairam Ramesh, Aruna Rodrigues Puts The Record Straight
Doug Rawlings
Does the Burns/Novick Vietnam Documentary Deserve an Emmy?
Kenneth Surin
2018 Electioneering in Appalachian Virginia
Nino Pagliccia
Chrystia Freeland Fails to See the Emerging Multipolar World
John Forte
Stuart Hall and Us
June 18, 2018
Paul Street
Denuclearize the United States? An Unthinkable Thought
John Pilger
Bring Julian Assange Home
Conn Hallinan
The Spanish Labyrinth
Patrick Cockburn
Attacking Hodeidah is a Deliberate Act of Cruelty by the Trump Administration
Gary Leupp
Trump Gives Bibi Whatever He Wants
Thomas Knapp
Child Abductions: A Conversation It’s Hard to Believe We’re Even Having
Robert Fisk
I Spoke to Palestinians Who Still Hold the Keys to Homes They Fled Decades Ago – Many are Still Determined to Return
Steve Early
Requiem for a Steelworker: Mon Valley Memories of Oil Can Eddie
Jim Scheff
Protect Our National Forests From an Increase in Logging
Adam Parsons
Reclaiming the UN’s Radical Vision of Global Economic Justice
Dean Baker
Manufacturing Production Falls in May and No One Notices
Laura Flanders
Bottom-Up Wins in Virginia’s Primaries
Binoy Kampmark
The Anguish for Lost Buildings: Embers and Death at the Victoria Park Hotel
Weekend Edition
June 15, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Dan Kovalik
The US & Nicaragua: a Case Study in Historical Amnesia & Blindness
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Yellow Journalism and the New Cold War
Charles Pierson
The Day the US Became an Empire
Jonathan Cook
How the Corporate Media Enslave Us to a World of Illusions
Ajamu Baraka
North Korea Issue is Not De-nuclearization But De-Colonization
Andrew Levine
Midterms Coming: Antinomy Ahead
Louisa Willcox
New Information on 2017 Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Deaths Should Nix Trophy Hunting in Core Habitat
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Singapore Fling
Ron Jacobs
What’s So Bad About Peace, Man?
Robert Hunziker
State of the Climate – It’s Alarming!
L. Michael Hager
Acts and Omissions: The NYT’s Flawed Coverage of the Gaza Protest
Dave Lindorff
However Tenuous and Whatever His Motives, Trump’s Summit Agreement with Kim is Praiseworthy
Robert Fantina
Palestine, the United Nations and the Right of Return
Brian Cloughley
Sabre-Rattling With Russia
Chris Wright
To Be or Not to Be? That’s the Question
David Rosen
Why Do Establishment Feminists Hate Sex Workers?
Victor Grossman
A Key Congress in Leipzig
John Eskow
“It’s All Kinderspiel!” Trump, MSNBC, and the 24/7 Horseshit Roundelay
Paul Buhle
The Russians are Coming!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail