<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><h1 class="gmail-m_-7532697576202822810gmail-m_-6551522304711344340gmail-m_5426980256515848809gmail-m_-9205941495027150887gmail-headline"><span>Guest opinion: Logging won't stop wildfires
</span></h1><p><span>By CHAD HANSON
and MIKE GARRITY, </span><a href="mailto:wildrockies@gmail.com">wildrockies@gmail.com</a></p><p><a href="http://billingsgazette.com/opinion/columnists/guest-opinion-logging-won-t-stop-wildfires/article_ac9f304b-454f-5f5e-a932-a44587f4aa74.html" target="_blank">http://billingsgazette.com/opi<wbr>nion/columnists/guest-opinion-<wbr>logging-won-t-stop-wildfires/a<wbr>rticle_ac9f304b-454f-5f5e-a932<wbr>-a44587f4aa74.html</a></p><div class="gmail-m_-7532697576202822810gmail-m_-6551522304711344340gmail-m_5426980256515848809gmail-m_-9205941495027150887gmail-asset-content gmail-m_-7532697576202822810gmail-m_-6551522304711344340gmail-m_5426980256515848809gmail-m_-9205941495027150887gmail-p402_premium gmail-m_-7532697576202822810gmail-m_-6551522304711344340gmail-m_5426980256515848809gmail-m_-9205941495027150887gmail-subscriber-premium">
<div class="gmail-m_-7532697576202822810gmail-m_-6551522304711344340gmail-m_5426980256515848809gmail-m_-9205941495027150887gmail-subscriber-preview"><p>A
number of politicians have promised to weaken environmental laws and
increase logging, supposedly to stop forest fires. Here’s what they
aren’t telling you.</p></div><div class="gmail-m_-7532697576202822810gmail-m_-6551522304711344340gmail-m_5426980256515848809gmail-m_-9205941495027150887gmail-subscriber-preview"><p>Fires,
including large fires, are a natural and ecologically necessary part of
forests in the Northern Rockies. Dozens of plant and animal species,
such as the black-backed Woodpecker, depend upon post-fire
habitat—including patches of forest where fire burns hotter and kills
most trees—due to the abundance of standing dead trees, downed logs,
flowering plants, and natural regeneration of trees, which provide both
food and homes for fire-dependent insects and wildlife. In fact, the
“snag forest habitat” created by patches of intense fire is comparable
to old-growth forest in terms of native biodiversity and wildlife
abundance. Fires do not destroy forests, and forests are not “lost” when
fires burn; rather, they are restored and rejuvenated.</p></div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7532697576202822810gmail-m_-6551522304711344340gmail-m_5426980256515848809gmail-m_-9205941495027150887gmail-subscriber-only"><p>This
year is by no means a record fire year in Montana’s forests.
Historically, there was generally more, not less, fire than there is
now. Fire is as natural, essential, and inevitable in Montana’s forests
as rain, snow, wind, and sun. Given this, there is no sound scientific
reason to attempt to further reduce or eliminate fire from these
forests, and logging does not lead to that result anyway.</p></div><div class="gmail-m_-7532697576202822810gmail-m_-6551522304711344340gmail-m_5426980256515848809gmail-m_-9205941495027150887gmail-subscriber-only"><p>Last
year, in the largest analysis of fire intensity and logging ever
conducted in Western U.S. conifer forests, scientists found that, in
every region, including the Northern Rockies, the forests where the most
logging is allowed tended to burn the most intensely, while the most
protected forests had overall lower intensity, but still had an
ecologically healthy mix of fire intensities.</p></div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7532697576202822810gmail-m_-6551522304711344340gmail-m_5426980256515848809gmail-m_-9205941495027150887gmail-subscriber-only"><p>Proponents of logging claim that,
since logging removes trees, it reduces forest density and removes
“fuels” from the forest. Not really. The material that allows fires to
spread in forests is very small — branches, twigs, and pine needles.
Tree trunks are relatively non-combustible. When logging removes trees,
it leaves behind flammable “slash debris”, comprised of tree tops and
branches that are not usable for lumber. This acts like kindling in
forest fires. In addition, by removing much of the forest canopy cover,
logging reduces the cooling shade that it otherwise provides, creating
hotter, drier conditions on the forest floor, which can allow fire to
spread faster.</p></div><div class="gmail-m_-7532697576202822810gmail-m_-6551522304711344340gmail-m_5426980256515848809gmail-m_-9205941495027150887gmail-subscriber-only"><p>We need to allow
more lightning fires to burn, without trying to suppress them, in more
remote forests, while focusing our resources on protecting homes and
communities from fire, including creating defensible space around homes
and making homes themselves more fire safe.</p></div><div class="gmail-m_-7532697576202822810gmail-m_-6551522304711344340gmail-m_5426980256515848809gmail-m_-9205941495027150887gmail-subscriber-only"><p>The
truth is that our forests need fire, and will always have it, and no
amount of logging will change that. Forest ecosystems are not just live,
green mature trees; they are also snags, downed logs, under-story
trees, shrubs, and other flowering plants. This complexity is what
allows forests to be ecologically healthy. Politicians who tell you that
they can stop forest fires with fewer environmental protections and
more logging are simply not being honest.</p></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7532697576202822810gmail-m_-6551522304711344340gmail-m_5426980256515848809gmail-m_-9205941495027150887gmail-asset-tagline gmail-m_-7532697576202822810gmail-m_-6551522304711344340gmail-m_5426980256515848809gmail-m_-9205941495027150887gmail-text-muted"><p>Chad
Hanson, Ph.D. is a research ecologist with the John Muir Project, and
co-editor “The Ecological Importance of Mixed-Severity Fires: Nature’s
Phoenix”. Mike Garrity is executive director of the Alliance for the
Wild Rockies.</p></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</body></html>