Controlled Forest Burning

* The conservation community strongly supports the use of controlled burning on our public lands as discussed in your Sept. 23 editorial. However, your jab at the Clinton administration for supposedly failing to support laws allowing loggers to “remove combustible materials from forests and rural areas” was misguided.

Current law already allows dense concentrations of brush and trees to be thinned if they pose a fire threat. In addition, the reason why the Clinton administration opposes the measures you refer to is that they would undermine our nation’s environmental laws and open up previously protected areas to large-scale logging. The worst example of this is the notorious “logging rider” which was passed by Congress last year. This law was supposed to expedite the removal of dead, dying and diseased trees, but it actually authorizes the logging of perfectly healthy forests and shields such logging from environmental law.

While we can all support controlled burning, there is no scientific evidence showing that the irresponsible logging practices authorized by the logging rider or similar laws reduce fire danger. In fact, recent studies conducted by UC Davis demonstrate that these logging projects make wildfires worse, not better.

RYAN HENSON

Conservation Associate

California Wilderness Coalition

Davis