Opinion Editorial

Making the Rim fire damage worse

The Stanislaus National Forest was a thickly forested wonderland of streams, wildlife and campgrounds until last summer's Rim fire — started by a hunter's illegal campfire — scorched more than 250,000 acres of it and the adjacent Yosemite National Park. To many people, it's a tragic sight now. What was once dense greenery is now scarred, gray and empty looking.

But nature takes the long view. From its perspective, fire is about rejuvenation. It reinvigorates the soil and stimulates the growth of a greater variety of healthy new plants. Fire, even intense and far-reaching fire, is a part of the natural process dating back thousands of years.

From the point of view of loggers, the fire was good for another reason: It opened an opportunity to pull out lots of lumber. And at first glance, the public might agree. Why not make use of a bunch of dead trees? But that would be a serious mistake.

YEAR IN REVIEW: The good, the bad and the hopeful in wilderness news

Loggers have an ally in Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Elk Grove), whose irresponsible bill would allow almost unfettered timber operations throughout the burn area, heedlessly crushing the forest's recovery and undermining a history of science-based environmental review that is supposed to govern logging in national forests. Forest science? What forest science?

Heavy machinery would roam the hills, chewing up fragile new growth and pulling out fire-damaged trees before foresters can determine whether they're alive. And even dead trees have immense value to the recovering forest, stabilizing the bare ground and providing habitat for vast populations of bugs, birds and other creatures.

Logging operations would destabilize the soil and remove plant life that is essential to prevent mud flows and erosion. That's not just bad for forest recovery but potentially devastating to the watershed of the Merced and Tuolumne rivers. McClintock's bill calls for replanting the forest, an unnecessary and environmentally dicey proposal.

There is one grain of sense to McClintock's absurd giveaway to the logging industry. There might be good, damaged but salvageable lumber that can be taken with little if any environmental damage — mainly relatively young trees along existing roads.

But there's a solution that makes more sense. Congress should appropriate funds for a timely and independent study of Stanislaus recovery, resulting in a plan that allows for limited logging, where appropriate. Replanting might be called for in areas adjacent to inhabited towns to avoid mudslides. But according to forest scientists, most burn areas are best left to regenerate themselves, even those as unimaginably large as the Stanislaus.

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • L.A.'s freeway-adjacent residents need more protection from pollution
    L.A.'s freeway-adjacent residents need more protection from pollution

    A growing body of research shows that living next to a freeway can significantly increase the risk of asthma, heart disease, pre-term births, reduced lung function in children and premature death. Yet Los Angeles continues to approve residential developments next to freeways without imposing...

  • Alaska mine would be a Bristol Bay disaster waiting to happen
    Alaska mine would be a Bristol Bay disaster waiting to happen

    President Obama's decision to permanently protect Alaska's Bristol Bay and adjacent lands from oil and gas drilling is so clearly the correct decision that the only objections will come from those whose sole interest is the welfare of those two energy industries.

  • Learning to love paying 10 cents more per gallon
    Learning to love paying 10 cents more per gallon

    California drivers have been delighted to see gasoline prices dropping lately, down more than a dollar a gallon since early summer. It's no mystery what's causing it: Crude oil prices have fallen steeply, lowering the cost for refiners that process crude into gasoline. In the competitive...

  • Flood, drought risks must be managed, with or without climate change
    Flood, drought risks must be managed, with or without climate change

    In one case a major metropolis was flooded within hours, leaving thousands homeless, millions without power, transportation and businesses shut down, and a mass human crisis. In the other case, three years of sunshine and blue skies have left water supplies at record lows, crops shriveled...

  • Amid climate change, what's more important: Protecting money or people?
    Amid climate change, what's more important: Protecting money or people?

    At the latest round of international climate talks this month in Lima, Peru, melting glaciers in the Andes and recent droughts provided a fitting backdrop for the negotiators' recognition that it is too late to prevent climate change, no matter how fast we ultimately act to limit it. They now...

  • Putting a lid on methane from cattle
    Putting a lid on methane from cattle

    The $1.1-trillion omnibus spending bill signed by President Obama contains many giveaways to Wall Street, casinos and the coal industry. But the ones that might do the most severe damage long-term have to do with, of all things, the digestive systems of cattle.

Comments
Loading