A Herald editorial (May 21, “New Ideas: Wildfire proposal deserves consideration“) said the Southwest Impact Fund warrants a look. I did.
SWIF videos/narratives emphasize revitalizing the timber industry and using thinning and burning. There is no mention that most large, old fire-resistant trees in our ponderosa pine forests had been logged by about 1950, or that the U.S. Forest Service suppressed most fires, both seriously damaging our forests.
Large ponderosas that are gone were much more fire resistant than small trees today, having had tall stems relatively free of flammable low foliage and with thick bark that was resistant to fire damage. Large surviving trees were also key to post-fire resilience, contributing most seed. High-grade logging of large trees continued into the 1980s. Even now, keystone large ponderosas are being removed in forest service logging projects, further damaging forest resistance and resilience.
On the SWIF website, “restore” is a rare word; there is no mention of the need to restore missing large trees, instead more logging, thinning and burning or “active management.”
On the Rocky Mountain Restoration Initiative website, a subcommittee has as its mission: “Research, identify and address barriers in public perception toward active vegetation management, prescribed fire and private landowner forestry treatments.” This is evidence of an industry focus unlikely to restore missing large trees.
If partners desire to bring together multiple interests to restore forests using the SWIF revolving fund, an open, inclusive public process, using science and impartial facilitation, is likely needed. SWIF/RMRI alone appear unlikely to restore our forests.
William Baker
Durango
