Tweet
Some of you may recall the giant wildfires we had here in Southern California two years ago which were the largest wild fires in the history of the continental USA. The big corporate logging companies started a massive PR campaign claiming the wild fires were a result of improper forest management which caused the forests to be "over grown". These logging companies claimed that if they were allowed to thin the forests then there would be less fuel to burn and there would be fewer fires. The federal, state, and local officials bought it hook line and sinker since, on the face of it, their line makes sense. What is the real truth?
The real truth is that in wild fires the mature trees tend to survive and very, very few of them get burned to the point that they die. Instead small bushes and accumulated leaves are what burns. Of course the logging companies aren't interested in small trees, bushes, or leaves in their "thinning campaigns" instead they only go in and log the mature trees which they then sell for lumber. The end result is the area is no safer from wild fires yet the only trees in the forest which actually would have survived a wild fire get logged. That's bull****.
I bring this up because the extensive national forests surrounding San Diego have been put on the hit list for these corporate fraudsters and the Bush administration has given them the green light. Pictures in the local paper have shown the forest pre and post "thinning" and the result is tons of bushes and built up leaves minus all the oak, pine, and sycamore tree (which the companies want because they can sell the wood). The forests actually end up with more burnable fuel because these thieving bastards cut off all the branches from the trees and leave them on the ground. They only want the central log which is the most marketable part of the trees.
To make matters worse the city has bought into this whole "thinning" campaign and they've decided to cut down 60%-70% of the trees on the hillsides near my home. Locals are obviously upset since these 50-60 year old trees raise property values and look great. Setting periodic control fires would easily remove any accumulated leaves and shrubs however the city has decided that costs to much and the cheapest option is to simply cut down all of the trees. Since the city managers are all using the word "thinning" (which is funny since they're really clear cutting whole areas) I can't help but think they've also bought into the logging companies' PR campaigns.
The real truth is that in wild fires the mature trees tend to survive and very, very few of them get burned to the point that they die. Instead small bushes and accumulated leaves are what burns. Of course the logging companies aren't interested in small trees, bushes, or leaves in their "thinning campaigns" instead they only go in and log the mature trees which they then sell for lumber. The end result is the area is no safer from wild fires yet the only trees in the forest which actually would have survived a wild fire get logged. That's bull****.
I bring this up because the extensive national forests surrounding San Diego have been put on the hit list for these corporate fraudsters and the Bush administration has given them the green light. Pictures in the local paper have shown the forest pre and post "thinning" and the result is tons of bushes and built up leaves minus all the oak, pine, and sycamore tree (which the companies want because they can sell the wood). The forests actually end up with more burnable fuel because these thieving bastards cut off all the branches from the trees and leave them on the ground. They only want the central log which is the most marketable part of the trees.
To make matters worse the city has bought into this whole "thinning" campaign and they've decided to cut down 60%-70% of the trees on the hillsides near my home. Locals are obviously upset since these 50-60 year old trees raise property values and look great. Setting periodic control fires would easily remove any accumulated leaves and shrubs however the city has decided that costs to much and the cheapest option is to simply cut down all of the trees. Since the city managers are all using the word "thinning" (which is funny since they're really clear cutting whole areas) I can't help but think they've also bought into the logging companies' PR campaigns.
dp
Comment