I found it disturbing that a Forest Service official stated that about 75 percent of the North Umpqua fires were “good” and just cleaned out the underbrush. Whoa! Was it planned that way, or were we just lucky? I suspect the latter.

What about the 2,000 acres where it burned hot? Are those places where resource managers would have chosen for stand replacement? Probably not. The torched trees. Are those the ones managers would have liked to remove? Probably not. Would there have been a stand replacement fire had it been thinned? Possibly not. If there had been more east winds, would those stand replacement fires been just 2,000 acres, or 4,000 acres, or 20,000? Not very professional.

Containing these fires costs million of dollars. I’m sure had areas been thinned, the taxpayers would have gotten a break from the timber sold, plus the fire would have been easier to contain — which would have saved money, and smoke wouldn’t have filled the air for weeks, even if thinning slash were burned, because managers can choose days when winds are favorable.

It seems to me if the Forest Service had an aggressive commercial thinning program 10,000 to 20,000 acres a year — yes, even cutting some big old trees, where managers decided when, where, what and how trees were removed — that the vital resources, soils, water and air would be better protected than if left to the whim of a lightning bolt. It would also give resource managers fuel breaks throughout the forest so there would be more points of containment and ensure that what fires we have remain “good.”

If the Forest Service is going to leave managing our forest to all the professionalism given a lightning bolt, do we need a Forest Service? No.

Don Wilson


React to this story:


(1) comment


***Wilson. As with most federal agencies, they get their rules and policies from DC. We also know that DC is usually wrong. I bet that the most upper BLM/USFS directors in DC, cannot tell the difference from a fir, pine, cedar or redwood by photo or in person. Their jobs are paper driven. DC could send a new policy to all BLM/USFS national forests, with an attachment that says this is a bad policy and every supervisor would follow it. Then the supervisors tell every general employee it is bad policy, but every employee will say, "Yes boss. We will do as told even though it is a bad policy." I did federal contract law enforcement for 15 years and saw it first hand. For them, it is a job, secure benefits, steady income. Even when policies kill hundreds of thousands of public jobs, it does not affect them. Remember this: As Douglas County lost over 2,000 timber related jobs, did BLM/USFS lose the same percentage of positions? NO. In fact I believe they added more just to go hoo hoo hunting. That is adding more technicians to look for that spotted owl. Yep, saw it first hand.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.