I recently read the March 3 Herald story headlined, “Beetle kill may not aid the forests.” There were many things I do not understand. Why leave all the timber to fall and rot? Why not harvest the timber on flatter ground and along power line rights of way, roads and trails to avoid potential problems with the dangers of falling timber and in effort to keep people safe as they travel roads and hike and bike? Why not leave the steep draws, land at risk of erosion and wilderness areas for birds and animals that thrive in dead timber?

Not only would it remove the fire load by removing the dead timber, it could help pay for new seedlings for a mixed age and species stand of timber. If a mountain has patches of dead and dying timber and young growing trees and open patches and mature trees, wouldn’t that be truly a diverse ecosystem? If nobody wants to do any logging why not at least increase grazing permits for a few years to reduce the understory fuel load in an effort to reduce the massive wildfires?

Another question is why did the Forest Service not try to slow or stop the beetle kill before it entered the wilderness areas? Didn’t the U.S. Congress designate the wilderness so that the Forest Service shall protect and preserve for future generations? How much is tourism affected because of the large tracts of beetle kill? How many fewer people want to come to the area? How many fewer people if there is a large wildfire in the area? Something else I would like see is the Herald go to other areas that have beetle kill and do an in-depth report on what other areas are doing to manage it – such as the Northwest or Idaho. And if they are logging it, how are the logging companies protecting the areas from erosion and for promoting a diverse ecosystem? Maybe by me asking these questions, somebody can answer them.

David Smith

Crystal Falls, Mich.