look what the environmentalists have done to our beautiful state... (Green: sales, lawyers)

[SOPO]

I’m an old school Oregon resident from years back and the fires are eating our beautiful state and timber lands up. The policy of let it burn because it is the natural way is a complete failure, who is responsible?

Black is the new green?

[soarswitheagles]

This has more to do with the neglect in keeping up with the underbrush and fallen limbs. I just saw some proposal to use that material to make products. I would imagine if the big lumber companies can make money from it then it will happen.

[PNW-type-gal]

The policy has been heavy fire suppression - the opposite of "let it burn" - for 40-50 years, which is a strong contributor to the current fire problems.

[karlsch]

Originally Posted by SOPO

I’m an old school Oregon resident from years back and the fires are eating our beautiful state and timber lands up. The policy of let it burn because it is the natural way is a complete failure, who is responsible?

Black is the new green?

You have it backwards.

As PNW-type-gal said, one of the main reasons for the out of control fires we are experiencing now is we didn't let-it-burn in the past.

That's why you now read about prescribed burns - attempts to get rid of the thick underbrush that has accumulated over the decades. https://www.google.com/search?q=oreg...nt=firefox-b-1

They aren't letting the current wildfires burn, they are trying to extinguish them.

[StealthRabbit]

Environmental sensitive / restrictive areas like Columbia Gorge and National Parks are usually left to burn (except protecting structures).

Fire is a natural 'clean-up' process. But the pollution from ONE significant wide fire renders decades of emission controls look pretty insignificant.

[White Native]

I'm a third generation native to the area that includes the Kalmiospsis Wilderness area, an area named for an endangered plant.
I spent many summers horse back packing in the National Forests of SW Oregon, hunting, fishing and generally exploring the region. Horse packed and camped in the Nor cal regions of Trinity, Marble Mts , Scott mts. Salmon Mts. too.

I never thought I'd see a policy that would destroy so much of the country I love.

Using the Endangered Species Act to stop logging the GreenPeople destroyed our rural economies in the name of environmentalism, and now they've burned it into a waste land. Slaughtering the species they vowed to protect. Destroying the watersheds for the threatened species of salmon and steelhead. And yes, destroying the very plant the Kalmiopsis is named for.

The National Forest Service under the guidance of the Sierra Club has destroyed, and continues to destroy hundreds of square miles of the very land they are suppose to be protecting.

Stop believing the patented cliches and face the truth. The environment is being destroyed while the bank accounts of the Sierra Club attorneys are making bank.

My question is simple: Is it better to harvest trees or burn them up?

[texasdiver]

This is a much larger and more complicated problem than some here make out. My family goes back 5 generations in Oregon too. My Dad grew up logging in the Gifford Pinchot and Willamette National Forests back in the 50s. I grew up hunting and hiking in the Cascades.

Decades of fire supression policy have led to enormous build-ups of fuel and when fires happen they tend to be much more extreme as a result.

Drought and disease (possibly linked to climate change) have weakened lots of forests and have also led to build up of dead trees and more fuel for catastrophic fires.

Thinning forests for fire management is an incredibly costly and labor-intensive process that has mostly gone unfunded in recent years. The forest service typically earns money from big traditional timber sales resulting in clear-cuts. But it loses lots of money in thinning operations because they have to actually pay companies to come in and clear out brush and understory trees acre by acre. There is very little of this in the budget and few companies out there to do the work. I watched them do it in the Deschutes around Sun River and it is an incredibly slow and labor intensive proces to thin forests acre by acre. I imagine the costs are astronomical.

Controlled burns are thought to be the superior method of modern fire management. When mechanically thinned forests are compared to controlled burn forests the controlled burn forests end up healthier, as fire is a natural part of the western ecosystem. But controlled burning is also difficult and controversial, especially along the exurban forest interface where scattered populations are living in and near the forests. And air quality regulations make it difficult as well.

What is the answer? Clear cutting whole forests is not going to fly and wouldn't restore many jobs anyway as the old mills are mostly long closed and modern logging is so mechanical that it requires 10x less labor. Actually restoring the health of our western forests in my mind would require a many multi-billion dollar investment in a combination of modern practices such as mechanical thinning and controlled burns and some sustainable logging as appropriate. But I doubt we as a nation will ever make it enough of a priority to do the job right. Republicans are too focused on tax cuts and deregulation to make the hard effort to do things right. Democrats are more focused on urban/suburban rather than rural issues so rural western issues are not really on their radar as much. So my guess is that we'll just continue to muddle along from fire crisis to fire crisis and nothing will change for the next decade or two until something really shifts in the national politics. If the recent giant fires in CA don't do it then I don't know what will.

[White Native]

Clear cutting and road building are critical to forest management. Douglas fir is a species that favors lots of sunlight.

Over grooming the forest floor is bad, that fallen, dead debris, is the fertilizer the soil needs.

I'm perfectly aware on how to grow trees, ( I have a timber farm and I have planted back 30,000 trees on my property). Required by law to maintain stalking 200 trees/acre on private timberland.

The Federal Forest Service does not replant burnt over Wilderness Area. No new trees to replace the ones they allowed to burn. Zero.

As for the fires; they should be put out as soon as they start, like we used to before the GreenPeople took control. Each lightening strike that starts a fire is the size of one tree... that's when it should be put out. And it shouldn't matter if its inside a Wilderness Area or not.

The insane idea that nature will manage the wilderness areas would be simi9lar to removing the tsunami warnings or preparing for a flood, earthquake or viral epidemic. Nature needs managed by man.

We have the best forestry college in the world, Oregon State; but our forests are managed by politicians and lawyers.

[White Native]

If you detect some anger in my post, that's because I'm angry.

[StealthRabbit]

Originally Posted by White Native

I'm a third generation native ...
My question is simple: Is it better to harvest trees or burn them up?

some of each is necessary

Native?
Naive?

It is complicated, but possible to manage forests (except in wilderness / exempt areas...).

Millions of very competent 'foresters' (farmers) in North America