Thanks Alice this is an important conversation as the current debate is getting more heated and risks putting at risk important wildfire mitigations. My experience is that some pro forestry stakeholders are oversimplifying the message and are actively saying that logging is the solution to the wildfire crisis. More environmentally focussed stakeholders then react with equally over simplified narratives that logging makes wildfire worse (which it sometimes does!). The evidence based forest management community should emphasize your point that logging is not the same as fuel management, and then go further by articulating how existing forest practices could change to promote wildfire resilience. A good place to start is to improve post harvest hazard abatement in B.C. that allows elevated fine fuels to remain and are leaving clear cuts very vulnerable to wildfire. Broadcast burning is one way to reduce those surface fuels but there are other less risky methods. Lead with these necessary changes! Second, the forest management community should articulate models of how we can conserve old forests in a way that is compatible with wildfire resilience. It’s not an “either/or” question. New models like situating conservation values in wildfire refugia and having dynamic reserves should be front and centre in the conversation.
Thanks, Kevin. Like you said in your first sentence, the heated debate puts important wildfire mitigation activities at risk. That is a shame, because both sides actually agree on most things.
The issue that really gets under my skin is that I often read media articles quoting conservation types saying "lots of people are saying logging is the solution" but I've only actually heard one industry person say anything remotely like that. So who are all these phantom pro-logging people? Do they actually work for industry, or are they right-wing politicians? Can we as an industry talk among ourselves and get our story straight?
Thanks Alice this is an important conversation as the current debate is getting more heated and risks putting at risk important wildfire mitigations. My experience is that some pro forestry stakeholders are oversimplifying the message and are actively saying that logging is the solution to the wildfire crisis. More environmentally focussed stakeholders then react with equally over simplified narratives that logging makes wildfire worse (which it sometimes does!). The evidence based forest management community should emphasize your point that logging is not the same as fuel management, and then go further by articulating how existing forest practices could change to promote wildfire resilience. A good place to start is to improve post harvest hazard abatement in B.C. that allows elevated fine fuels to remain and are leaving clear cuts very vulnerable to wildfire. Broadcast burning is one way to reduce those surface fuels but there are other less risky methods. Lead with these necessary changes! Second, the forest management community should articulate models of how we can conserve old forests in a way that is compatible with wildfire resilience. It’s not an “either/or” question. New models like situating conservation values in wildfire refugia and having dynamic reserves should be front and centre in the conversation.
Thanks, Kevin. Like you said in your first sentence, the heated debate puts important wildfire mitigation activities at risk. That is a shame, because both sides actually agree on most things.
The issue that really gets under my skin is that I often read media articles quoting conservation types saying "lots of people are saying logging is the solution" but I've only actually heard one industry person say anything remotely like that. So who are all these phantom pro-logging people? Do they actually work for industry, or are they right-wing politicians? Can we as an industry talk among ourselves and get our story straight?