Here we go again...or still.

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Wow that was one sided... and no one from the FS was quoted, just this spivack guy... Last I checked salvaging a burn helps pay for replanting, and clears all the left over fuels so you don't get a bigger badder fire in about 5 years, but what do I know...
 
Last I checked salvaging a burn helps pay for replanting, and clears all the left over fuels so you don't get a bigger badder fire in about 5 years, but what do I know...

You are correct 100%. Snags for wildlife are all well and good, but a whole dead stand is a far greater fire risk than wildlife benefit, at least in the short term... and who paid for the fire suppression efforts, anyway? Why should the FS not be allowed to recoup some of its expenses through salvage? Also, the invasive species problem is far easier to deal with in a stand that has already been cleared for planting. In all, forbidding salvage in the name of "the environment" is short-sighted and expensive.
 
Dammit, I keep telling you guys that applying logic, common sense, and best practices to this kind of situation will just leave you frustrated and mumbling in your beer. :laugh:

Sure it's FS ground but you gotta remember...this is California. For every good idea involving timber harvest...especially burn salvage... there are hordes of self appointed experts who'll do everything they can to gum up the process. They're good at it, too. Plus, they have the spare time for their shenanigans and an apparently unlimited budget.

I've seen what can happen on private ground as far as responsible and timely burn salvage. I've seen how fast, efficient, and beneficial it can be. It's not anything magical, just good people with good skills using common sense.
The FS and the preservationists could learn something by watching...but I'm not holding my breath.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top