re: #162 wrenchwench

Not all logging projects are about taking old growth trees. Not all thinning projects are about logging. Not all thinning projects are commercial. Commercial loggers don’t want to restore forests, they want to make a buck. That’s not what I’m talking about.
.

I’m only talking about the commercial logging projects. It’s all I’ve ever been talking about.

I don’t disagree with anything in the article you posted. I’m not saying we need more logging. But I do disagree with your middle paragraph where you say, “we need to remove fuel— but that’s almost all the deadfall, the brush, and very little of the actual trees.” There are a ton of trees involved. I’m talking about the southwest. We don’t have that much undergrowth. We have grass under the trees. We have to keep the fire down in the grass. To do that, we need to thin the trees, or burn ‘em

Then that sounds like a regional difference. Sorry, my bad. I’m used to NorCal and the Pacific Northwest.

But still, my point was that the problem is not environmentalists— who, even if every single one of their objections was idiotic, only objected to one out of a hundred hazardous fuel removal projects. Blaming forest fires on environmentalists is not only foolish, it’s an active smear campaign and it gets my dander right up.