The most important forest legislation in a year: "salvage logging" passes House.
The term "salvage logging" basically refers to the practice of logging in areas that have recently come under damage from fire or storms. This incredibly value loaded term (we need Frameshop on the case) implies that by harvesting the "dead" trees in these fire zones, we can "salvage" the lumber and make something of it.
How much timber are we talking about here? According to the National Climactic Data Center, over 8 million acres of land were burned last year. The idea of opening up this land is now very close to becoming a reality, after the House passed legislation, on a 243-182 vote, to open up damaged areas to "salvage logging." 41 Democrats defected, including its cosponsor Washington's Brian Baird. According to the bill's sponsors, salvaging this wood puts it to "use" and lessens the need to cut down "living" forests.
These frames are hideously unscientific. Fire-damaged forests do put these burned trees to use, and these forests are anything but dead. This organic material, left alone, does what any dead organic material does: fuels the creation of new organic material. Or in the case of a forest, it fuels the creation of a new one. There are no dead trees, and there are no dead forests. By removing this lumber we artificially intrude into the natural cycle of the ecosystem. Furthermore:
Critics cite a landmark 1995 report in which a team of leading Northwest scientists, headed by Oregon State University professor Robert Beschta, an expert on watersheds and hydrology, declared there was no ecological reason to salvage burned timber. Logging burned landscapes increases soil compaction and soil erosion, and it clogs streams with sediment, burying salmon spawning grounds, they warned.
Republicans and logging lobbyists don't like this science stuff very much. To quote:
"People use wood -- to build homes, to make paper -- and that wood needs to come from somewhere," Baird added in a statement. "We can use wood from trees that are dead or dying, or from trees that are alive and healthy. Furthermore, we can responsibly harvest wood here at home ... or we can get our wood from clear cuts in equatorial rain forests where the environment is far more fragile and environmental laws are far weaker or even nonexistent."
Ahh look at that majestic, banana-peel lined slope. Because everyone knows, if we don't harvest wood from burned forests that means we simply
have to get it from the world's rainforests!
Of course, no one wants to talk about the how part of these operations, as in how they are carried out. Naturally, logging companies can't just helicopter in their machinery and 'copter out that wood, they must build roads to gain access to the timber stands. This bill, if passed in the Senate, would prove to be another blow to roadless areas. Bush last year opened up millions of acres set aside by President Clinton for the construction of roads in order to provide access into forests to "fight fires". In effect, Bush gave the key to these roadless areas to local officials (under the "states rights" jingo). And this new legistlation would further tempt local leaders into allowing road construction. These leaders, such as Washington state Congressman Baird, are already under heavy stress from lobbyists and constitutents to relieve the economic depression that many logging communities have faced in the last decade. This legislation essentially gives them the green light, science and conscious be damned.
This must not be allowed to fly under the radar. It represents the most important forest legislation to pass the House since last years road rule, and the UnHealthy Forest Initiative. The 8 million acre figure is simply the tally from last year, the effect of this legislation would obviously be cumulative and add up to a huge tract of our national heritage.