Forest management is full of counter-intuitive reasoning. I'm glad we're finally getting around to the of long term studies to see how different forest management plans have worked and we can quote some science.
> Oregon Wild forest program manager Lauren Anderson called the proposal a good first step.
Perfection is the enemy of progress. I too applaud the plan.
> For some forests, logging small-diameter trees ahead of prescribed burns is necessary, a consensus reached by many tribes and scientists.
> “Letting those forests continue to age and get older and more decadent,” Brown said. “That’s what the wildlife need them to do.”
#2 doesn't seem possible without #1 in most forests and species it would seem. You can either artificially thin and avoid fires, protecting old-growth, or you can let wildfires regularly take place and keep firewood thin. What we want to avoid is logging damage to old growth, or not taking care of the forests allowing massive fires to destroy everything.
How much is likely something we can do with computer simulations, and verify them with experiments. We need to thin the forests to avoid fire, but occasionally allow young trees to make it past the young generation. If any giant company with super computing resources wants to use that "AI" for something that would actually benefit the world, this would be a worthy use of time and energy.
On the issue of BLM lands: If we have strategically important, or exceptionally rare forests on BLM land, it's probably time to declare some new national forests and get them under management. I don't really see BLM being equipped to handle forest management. Maybe a temporary 12 year protection of old growth trees in BLM land would be a good compromise, giving time for study and congress time to act.
> Oregon Wild forest program manager Lauren Anderson called the proposal a good first step.
Perfection is the enemy of progress. I too applaud the plan.
> For some forests, logging small-diameter trees ahead of prescribed burns is necessary, a consensus reached by many tribes and scientists.
> “Letting those forests continue to age and get older and more decadent,” Brown said. “That’s what the wildlife need them to do.”
#2 doesn't seem possible without #1 in most forests and species it would seem. You can either artificially thin and avoid fires, protecting old-growth, or you can let wildfires regularly take place and keep firewood thin. What we want to avoid is logging damage to old growth, or not taking care of the forests allowing massive fires to destroy everything.
How much is likely something we can do with computer simulations, and verify them with experiments. We need to thin the forests to avoid fire, but occasionally allow young trees to make it past the young generation. If any giant company with super computing resources wants to use that "AI" for something that would actually benefit the world, this would be a worthy use of time and energy.
On the issue of BLM lands: If we have strategically important, or exceptionally rare forests on BLM land, it's probably time to declare some new national forests and get them under management. I don't really see BLM being equipped to handle forest management. Maybe a temporary 12 year protection of old growth trees in BLM land would be a good compromise, giving time for study and congress time to act.