Deprogramming the Religion of Thinning or Follow the Money

In response to the Tahoe National Forest Supervisor's March 9 article on "thinning" (Forests: A growing human responsibility
http://www.theunion.com/article/20070309/OPINION/103090180), it now appears our major resource agencies (U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Resource Conservation Districts) are still touting what can only be called, their new religion--clearing for "fire safety." This religion is funded by your tax dollars. Agency religious fervor and public money can be a dangerous combination and is leading to poor decision making and poor resource management that may not make you "fire safe". The concept of mass "thinning" and "clearing" is not based on sound science but in fact classic Orwellian doublespeak of President Bush's "Healthy Forest Initiative" of which the "Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003" was a part. This was a quick political response to the 2003 firestorms in California, not a scientific one. The idea is simpleminded--we will go into our wildlands and "thin" or convert natural forests into plantations and this will save us from the next catastrophic fire. This "thinning" will mimic fire. The feedback loop between fire and the environment is based on an entirely different set of cues than that of the masticator and the chainsaw (or in some cases, the bulldozer, backhoe, and the front end loader). The cues from fire have developed over thousands of years. Thinning does not and cannot mimic the ecological effects of fire and it is disingenous of agency personnel to state this to the general public. This idea is not only simpleminded and politically motivated; it is a destructive practice to what little is left of our natural biodiversity. It is also destructive to humans because impacts from poor natural resource management practices affect the quality of the ecosystem services we receive in the form of naturally filtered water, cleaner air, protection from erosion and the spread of noxious weeds and shrubs, oxygen production (we obtain the oxygen we need to live from plants), and mitigation of climate change by plants consumption of carbon dioxide. Mass clearing programs contribute to the climate change by not only removing carbon sinks from the environment but then, as in the case of the Tahoe Rim Trail, huge "slash" (formerly habitat) piles will be burned all in the name of making you "fire safe."

The bottom line is these program are funded by millions of your tax dollars and it's a cheap shot for politicians because then they can claim they are "making you fire safe" sound science or not. You have every right to ask questions. It's your money.

The science questioning these practices is now easily available from the ecological scientific literature. (See below for website and suggested papers). I say "ecologically" based science--not forestry, not range management or agriculture but ecologically based science with no profit incentive. Ecological science is the study of organisms in the environment and their relationship to one another and how they affect the environment. It is not based on the extraction of any natural resource to solely benefit human beings and therefore, profit incentives do not contaminate its findings.

Mr. Eubanks failed to mention that the USFS is under investigation for shipping in thousands of illegal mostly Mexican workers to "thin" our forests. The author of the story that exposed this, Tom Knudson of the Sacramento Bee won a Pulitzer Prize for his series (see reference below). It is the tragic story of men from foreign countries who cannot even speak English being shipped in to "thin" our national forests. The resource agencies hire "forestry contractors" who then hire these untrained workers. This is dangerous work and many have lost their eyesight, limbs, and ability to even walk because they are not trained properly or given the proper tools for the job. Another part of "thinning" Mr. Eubanks failed to mention is these crews use pesticides and receive no training for their proper use. The pesticides end up on the ground or even worse, dumped down a hole or into the nearest creek. The forestry contractors (paid with your tax dollars) make alot of money because they can grossly underpay these illegal workers and when the workers are maimed or hurt, the workers have no recourse. The resource damage from this can be serious. Areas not previously overrun by weeds may be invaded by weeds eliminating native shrub cover for wildlife. Wildlife need cover---they need cover to hide their young within and they need native shrubs for forage. This is just a fact and the abrupt removal of cover and forage can have serious effects on wildlife populations.

For an example of the deleterious effects of "thinning" and "brushing", drive Tyler Foote Road on North San Juan Ridge and note the massive stands of scotch broom now rapidly taking over on the ridge. Scotch broom is killing our landscape and like the dead zones now being mapped in the oceans, Scotch broom forms biological dead zones within our landscapes. Scotch broom was introduced from Europe, has no ecological value for wildlife, and is nearly impossible to kill. It is also more flammable than manzanita. The shrubs removed (manzanita, buck brush, and deerbrush (Ceanothus spp.)) are those our wildlife need for high protein forage and cover. Deciding that we can all be fire safe by eliminating a few species of native shrubs demonstrates the total lack of understanding about the complexity of ecosystems. Landowners are told to remove the native shrubs but the weeds and scotch broom go totally untouched. This is an alarming level of ignorance demonstrated by our resource agencies. Our native manzanita is now bearing the brunt of this ignorance. Vast stands of a shrub once revered by the Maidu and needed by bees and other pollinators are being wiped out again based on simpleminded concepts and total lack of understanding about ecosystem management. But as I said before, if it comes with money, people will do it. Before you grab the funding, think about what you are doing to your land. You do not take your car to a dentist for repairs. Your land and ecosystems are even more complex than the engine of your car but people do not realize this when taking care of their property. Many people giving advice about fuels clearing are not qualified to do so. Ask them about their credentials. Do your own research. Ask questions. This person should be trained in plant ecology or botany. They should be able to properly identify plants on your property and understand the dynamics of these plants (how they respond to disturbance?). What plants on your property are important to wildlife? If they cannot answer these questions, they may not be giving you the best advice. In general, the most important thing you can do if you are going to clear, is learn what plants grow on your property then clear off the nonnative noxious plants before you do anything else because all that is holding them back from spreading is the native flora still standing on your property. Once you remove what you have left of the native shrubs on your property, nonnative plants can take over resulting in perhaps loss of property values for you, loss of habitat values and the nonnative plants can be even more fire prone. Keep your shrub layer! Wildlife need it! Trim off dead branches on native shrubs and pines but you don't have to remove them! Also realize that fallen dead trunks and trees are extremely important to wildlife and rebuild your soil.

Fire is a reality and this mania about "clearing" ($$$$) will never stop a fire. It as if you lived in the desert and made the observation that sand is abrading your car, is bad for your lungs, and it gets in your eyes therefore, sand should be removed from the desert. We are trying to remove sand from the desert. It's not going to work and is an unworkable strategy. The attitude resource agencies are promoting about "fire safety" is the same thing. We can never sanitize ourselves out of the possibility of a fire. Never. This is the impression the agencies are giving you and it is disingenuous while they ignore more realistic and effective things you can do related to the structures on your property. Ask these agencies for grant funding for a steel or cement shingle roof for your house, sprinkler systems or water tanks especially along one-way roads. Ask them why the emphasis on widening roads and clearing vegetation when based on science, these measures may NOT PROTECT YOUR HOME. San Diego Contractors Association has held educational forums for the public regarding how to build and design fire-safe homes (and not use wood), fire-safe roofs and other structure-related measures. The hypocrisy of permitting subdivisions in high fire-prone areas needs to be fully recognized. Why did Nevada County relax its steep slope ordinance if fire is such a concern? Counties are integrating natural fuel breaks into
subdivision designs in the form of open space and park areas. Nevada County does not have a county open space or parks program even though our general plan calls for this. Open space areas are natural buffer zones in the event of a fire. Let's look at the whole picture here, not just those 15 manzanita bushes in front of your house.

It would be ridiculous for me to blame the loss of my home in 2003 in the San Diego County firestorms on the vegetation that was on my property. I moved into a high fire prone ecosystem and I knew the risks I was taking. I blame myself for this decision, not native shrubs which I cleared out to the minimum required at the time. My home burned down from flying embers long before the fire ever reached my property. What if I had had a steel roof? What if my home had not been made out of wood? I never thought about these things until my house burned. Why aren't the agencies?

As Dr. Jon Keeley and many other scientists have pointed out, weather drives fires, especially wind and this cannot be managed for and the effectiveness of fuel management is now being questioned regarding the incredible costs to taxpayers and our natural biodiversity. We must accept the risks of CHOOSING to live in a fire-prone ecosystem and create a new paradigm to deal with it. I encourage all readers to read the book by George Wuerthner, 2006. Wildfire. A Century of Failed Forest Policy. Island Press and also the scientific paper, "Lessons from the October 2003 Wildfires in Southern California" from Journal of Forestry, October/November 2004 pp 26-31 to gain a realistic and scientific perspective on fire safety. Your tax dollars and human lives may depend on it. I end with two quotes from the paper cited above:

"Future developments need to plan for these natural fire events much the same way we currently incorporate engineering solutions to earthquakes and other natural catastrophes."

"Fuel manipulations...need to be carefully considered if they are to be effective and provide benefits equal to or exceeding their cost."

Recommended Papers which are FREE and produced by the U.S. Geological Survey. You can request these papers at the website (http://www.werc.usgs.gov/seki/keeley.asp).

Keeley, Jon, M. Baer-Keeley, C.J. Fotheringham. 2005. Alien plant dynamics following fire in Mediterranean-climate California shrublands. Ecological Applications. 15 (6) pp. 2109-2125.

Keeley, Jon, D. Lubin, C.J. Fotheringham. 2003. Fire and grazing impacts on plant diversity and alien plant invasions in the southern Sierra Nevada. Ecological Applications. 13 (5) pp. 1355-1374.

Keeley, Jon, A.H. Pfaff, H. Safford. 2005. Fire suppression impacts on postfire recovery of Sierra Nevada chaparral shrublands. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 14: 255-265.

Keeley, Jon. 2004. Fire management impacts on invasive species at the wildland/urban interface in California. Proceedings of the California Invasive Plant Council. October 2004.

Knudson, T. 2006. The Pineros: Forest workers caught in web of exploitation. The Sacramento Bee. March 2006. (http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/pineros)

Moran, V.S. 1994. “A different perspective on sustainability”. Ecological Monographs 4(3) pp. 405-6.

Virginia Moran lost her home in the 2003 firestorms in San Diego County. She has been a professional field biologist for over 20 years and is the owner of her own business, Ecological Outreach Services (www.ecooutreach.com).