Which do you think is more destructive? Forest fires or logging?

Question

Since environmentalist began protesting logging and forest management in our national forests, it seems massive forest fires are becoming more of an issue and common place in regards to managing our timberlands and wildlife here in the U.S.... What are your views about our national forests?

Some logging sites usually require slash burning to renew the soil, and also soil scarification to aide in the process of tree renewal. Most timber companies always replant logged sites. Many of the (let it burn) areas I've witnessed have nothing but brush growing back, especially on southern slopes, even after 30 years of regrowth. Some of the logging areas I have visited already have timber growing that is atleast 15-25 ft. tall within 10-15 years time.

Answer 1

Forest fires are far more damaging.

Yes, massive, devastating forest fires are becoming far more common.

The reason for that is the Forest Service no longer permits selective logging and thinning of our Nation's fprests.

This produces and enormous fuel load in the forest that when it burn destroys everything. All of the trees are killed.

There is nothing left to slow the runoff during the winter. You get massive mudslides and silt washed into streams.


If the forest is selectively logged and thinned, if there is a fire it is much smaller and does not kill the big trees.

Yes the new practices of the forest Service are very damaging to our forests.


(edit) To the people who think that controlled fires are beneficial. That is only true if you have a relatively small fuel load to begin with so the fire stays small and does not get up in the canopy of the forest. Only under those circumstances will a fire clear out the brush without killing the trees.

When the forest is not thinned you get a very large fuel load and a very large fires that kills all of the trees as if you had clear cut them.

Also note: Redwood seeds sprout without fire. I grow redwood trees from seed. I never use fire to sprout the seeds.

Also note: the forest service does not have to permit clear cutting on forest service land. If the forest service were to permit selective logging we could get the fuel loads of these areas reduced and we would not have the massive devastation in forest fires similar to what happened in Yellowstone Park.

Answer 2

Wild fires can be beneficial to the forest and the environment. It has been proven that certain trees (redwoods for one) will not sprout and grow with out fire. Well managed forests and logging can thrive quite well together when the forest is replanted with as many, even more trees than were cut down. It becomes a renewable resource. Weyerhauser is one company that does this. They have web pages that explain the process they use. In proper perspective neither has to be destructive. But fires and logging can both be destructive if allowed to run rampant.

Answer 3

The question really is what type of forest fires are you talking about? Forest fires that are caused by lightening are natural and are not very frequent. They replenish the forest, and make the soil richer, they also promote new growth after the fire has ceased.

The fires that have been plaguing our forests lately are due to campers who do not thoroughly put out their fires, fireworks, smokers and other irresponsible people. These fires are very harmful, perhaps even more so than the logging industry.

Loggers however are very destructive. They clear-cut forests without a thought to make room for city growth, agriculture etc. (funny that forests are being slashed so that we can grow more corn to produce ethanol and be "green".)

I think the most destructive force to forests is industries in general, especially oil companies that decimate forests by cutting or their faulty oil pipes that leak into the forest and kill everything.

Answer 4

Years ago the forest service had controlled burns. These were needed to clear undergrowth to help trees grow. It also helped release the seeds of some plants that are only released by heat(ie:fire).
Logging is destructive. There is no method to the madness when loggers clear cut land. This allows for run-off and loss of nutrients in the soil. Loggers do nothing to rebuild the land.
At least with fire, new nutrients are released and the land is rebuilt naturally.

Answer 5

I think logging is far more destructive than a forest fire. For starters, it eliminates tree and other beneficial plants. It can also lead to soil runoff, contamination, and creating a higher fuel load. A controlled fire is very beneficial to a forest environment. Certain trees need the heat from fires to spread their seeds. It also eliminates dense undergrowth eliminating high fuel loads which can lead to very destructive fires if done properly. It allows food sources for various wildland creatures to grow or to be more easily found. It also enriches the soil as the ash becomes nutrient filled dirt over time. It is also a natural process.

Answer 6

Personally, I think we should be doing more controlled burns. They actually prevent these huge forest fires we are seeing now. As to the first part of your question they are both destructive and I believe we must do a better job controlling both. Here in California things are getting rather crowded, if you know what I mean (more houses needed; more cars on the road add infinities).

Answer 7

Forest fires!

At least in logging, the tree will still grow but in forest fires..zip! Nada! even its roots are burned.

Answer 8

Even the Forest Service's statistics show that forest fires are more destructive. Oh, I forgot ... we don't care about statistics here ... we just care about opinions.

Answer 9

logging for sure! Forest fires are natural, at least most of the time, and clear out underbrush, which is important every once in a while to maintain a healthy ecosystem.

Answer 10

Gee, that's a tough one. Generally speaking, logging does not destroy peoples homes , all their belongs, and sometimes their pets. Did you graduate from Stanford?