Oh no...it seems that even up here in Canada our government wants to cut down our forests. We have a piece of land up north bordering a forest, which we found out last year that they want to make roads for heavy machinery and clear cut our forest! Our community has been fighting hard to stop them...but it seems that one of the 'government representatives' involved said that it doesn't matter what we do, they will eventually go in and cut! We've sent them studies on the negative effect it will have on the clean lake below it, and on the land within and surrounding the forest, they don't care! They try to make us believe that it is 'prevention', a way to keep the forest healthy! There is no way that heavy equipment and butchering the land will keep it in any way healthy! It makes me angry and sad and frustrated and rather depressed!
A century of fire prevention has put both countries in an impossible situation regarding the need to mitigate the risks of megafires and the equally important need to preserve biodiversity through forest conservation. I don't know about your situation specifically, but governments are making lots of decisions that too often mean smaller, more damaged forests. Good luck, Jeannine.
Only 19 months have elapsed since Hurricane Helene resulted in landslides, tree loss and flooding.
We are not listening to the forest floor.
The power company took more trees last month. The month before a cable company dug up the road easements. Currently North Carolina Forest Service is using machinators to remove Mountain Laurels and Rhododendrons under the guise of fire protection.
In When the Forest Breathes, Suzanne Simard points out that machines in the forest destroy 61% of the forest floor. That floor likely took 10,000 years to develop.
We can’t see the work beyond the visible world, yet at the very least we can respect this living skin we walk upon.
So sorry to hear it, Katharine. It's hard enough to help folks see the forest; to help them understand the importance and sensitivity of the forest floor is another thing entirely.
It hurts to read this, Jason. My impression is that the folks who write More Than Just Parks are documentary filmmakers who live in New York City. They don't have homes, livestock, pets, beloved backyard trees and forests in harm's way. They don't live in the West where wildfire is increasingly burning down entire towns every year, neighbors' houses gone overnight, fires burning up entire wilderness areas of old-growth trees, burning up endangered species habitat, burning up tribal lands, poisoning air and water on an apocalyptic scale. They and their kids don't have to wake up to 650 ppm air when wildfire is burning millions of acres in their state for months on end. A 10,000-acre categorical exclusion is nothing compared to one wildfire that burns 200,000 acres at a time, spewing smoke all summer, making kids stay inside for recess, day after tortuous day. These guys are bought and paid for by extremists stuck in the "timber wars" days who would rather see forests burn than one penny go to a lumber company that can help a forest heal (and these are the only people with the equipment that can do it). In New York City, they must live in steel houses. But everyone else I know lives in a wooden house and eats and sleeps and sits on wooden furniture.
PS: All the recent science (a review of hundreds of studies) points to thinning and prescribed fire when *combined* are the best ways to restore a forest. It is simply too dangerous to light these forests on fire now without some sort of thinning first. Last I knew, More Than Just Parks was pointing to one study from 2001. Old, bad extremist, cherrypicking.
2024>>>Tamm review: A meta-analysis of thinning, prescribed fire, and wildfire effects on subsequent wildfire severity in conifer dominated forests of the Western US
This is a bipartisan bill supported by tribes and firefighters. When it comes to NEPA, CEQA, ESA, they are all causing more environmental harm than good when it comes to wildfire prevention. Something has to give. The real story here is that some litigious environmental groups are going to go broke because they can no longer perpetually raise money and file lawsuits. Good. This is 2026, not 1980.
This post isn't about the merits of the bill, as I said from the outset, Amanda. It's not about the desperate need to mitigate wildfire risk. Nor is about where its advocates or detractors live. It's about assessing the political realities/weaknesses of the bill (however thoughtfully crafted, however bipartisan in origin) in the hands of the most corrupt, anti-public-lands administration in (at least) modern U.S. history. I may disagree with the bill's detractors who focus on the regulatory tradeoffs in a world filled with catastrophic megafires, but I don't disagree with the political analysis. I am not "advocating for the West to burn down," as you've written elsewhere, and I don't appreciate the sloppy accusation.
The article does not contain the nuance, intelligence, or analysis that I have come to expect from you. All these groups are advocating for the forests to burn down. They have offered no solutions but "let it burn." It's in all their materials, that we should allow nature to take its course and that catastrophic fire is natural. It cannot be ignored that Will Pattiz is an influencer from NYC who has no skin in the game and who has profited from his intense fear-mongering here. Here is the type of writing that could have added something: https://www.breakthroughjournal.org/p/trumps-reorganization-adds-to-perfect
I have carefully curated my inbox to get these voices out, because I know it is so upsetting to me, and I don't want to engage in these fights here. Just keep in mind that you came into my inbox with this, basically republishing someone else's work. It was shocking. If I wanted to read their stuff, I'd subscribe to them. They have no solutions.
You're talking about when was the last time you were in nature? I've lived there for 42 years and you don't see forests, but timber factories and big profits.
I also live in a state forest and have been in the country since 1971. I have seen the abuse our natural world has suffered. I do not call the natural resources - they are natural areas - the word resource diminishes the natural world to commodity.
Thanks for the heads up. I just called my Senators. Capital switchboard is 202-224-3121. Ask for your Senators offices and request NO vote on S 1462
In the hands of this administration, it is both maddening and frightening at the same time.
There's a lot of good that could emerge from this bill in better hands. As with so much else.
Oh no...it seems that even up here in Canada our government wants to cut down our forests. We have a piece of land up north bordering a forest, which we found out last year that they want to make roads for heavy machinery and clear cut our forest! Our community has been fighting hard to stop them...but it seems that one of the 'government representatives' involved said that it doesn't matter what we do, they will eventually go in and cut! We've sent them studies on the negative effect it will have on the clean lake below it, and on the land within and surrounding the forest, they don't care! They try to make us believe that it is 'prevention', a way to keep the forest healthy! There is no way that heavy equipment and butchering the land will keep it in any way healthy! It makes me angry and sad and frustrated and rather depressed!
A century of fire prevention has put both countries in an impossible situation regarding the need to mitigate the risks of megafires and the equally important need to preserve biodiversity through forest conservation. I don't know about your situation specifically, but governments are making lots of decisions that too often mean smaller, more damaged forests. Good luck, Jeannine.
My heart is shattered.
Only 19 months have elapsed since Hurricane Helene resulted in landslides, tree loss and flooding.
We are not listening to the forest floor.
The power company took more trees last month. The month before a cable company dug up the road easements. Currently North Carolina Forest Service is using machinators to remove Mountain Laurels and Rhododendrons under the guise of fire protection.
In When the Forest Breathes, Suzanne Simard points out that machines in the forest destroy 61% of the forest floor. That floor likely took 10,000 years to develop.
We can’t see the work beyond the visible world, yet at the very least we can respect this living skin we walk upon.
So sorry to hear it, Katharine. It's hard enough to help folks see the forest; to help them understand the importance and sensitivity of the forest floor is another thing entirely.
I hope that the species homo magister sapiens stupidus will become extinct by the end of the century!
It hurts to read this, Jason. My impression is that the folks who write More Than Just Parks are documentary filmmakers who live in New York City. They don't have homes, livestock, pets, beloved backyard trees and forests in harm's way. They don't live in the West where wildfire is increasingly burning down entire towns every year, neighbors' houses gone overnight, fires burning up entire wilderness areas of old-growth trees, burning up endangered species habitat, burning up tribal lands, poisoning air and water on an apocalyptic scale. They and their kids don't have to wake up to 650 ppm air when wildfire is burning millions of acres in their state for months on end. A 10,000-acre categorical exclusion is nothing compared to one wildfire that burns 200,000 acres at a time, spewing smoke all summer, making kids stay inside for recess, day after tortuous day. These guys are bought and paid for by extremists stuck in the "timber wars" days who would rather see forests burn than one penny go to a lumber company that can help a forest heal (and these are the only people with the equipment that can do it). In New York City, they must live in steel houses. But everyone else I know lives in a wooden house and eats and sleeps and sits on wooden furniture.
PS: All the recent science (a review of hundreds of studies) points to thinning and prescribed fire when *combined* are the best ways to restore a forest. It is simply too dangerous to light these forests on fire now without some sort of thinning first. Last I knew, More Than Just Parks was pointing to one study from 2001. Old, bad extremist, cherrypicking.
2024>>>Tamm review: A meta-analysis of thinning, prescribed fire, and wildfire effects on subsequent wildfire severity in conifer dominated forests of the Western US
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037811272400197X#
This is a bipartisan bill supported by tribes and firefighters. When it comes to NEPA, CEQA, ESA, they are all causing more environmental harm than good when it comes to wildfire prevention. Something has to give. The real story here is that some litigious environmental groups are going to go broke because they can no longer perpetually raise money and file lawsuits. Good. This is 2026, not 1980.
This post isn't about the merits of the bill, as I said from the outset, Amanda. It's not about the desperate need to mitigate wildfire risk. Nor is about where its advocates or detractors live. It's about assessing the political realities/weaknesses of the bill (however thoughtfully crafted, however bipartisan in origin) in the hands of the most corrupt, anti-public-lands administration in (at least) modern U.S. history. I may disagree with the bill's detractors who focus on the regulatory tradeoffs in a world filled with catastrophic megafires, but I don't disagree with the political analysis. I am not "advocating for the West to burn down," as you've written elsewhere, and I don't appreciate the sloppy accusation.
PS, we can't get a bill like this to pass when Democrats are in charge, and that's a big problem.
Dems need to wake up and get their shit together. It's truly maddening how slow and stupidly they respond to the Regime instead of going on offense.
Speculative, but a valid concern.
The article does not contain the nuance, intelligence, or analysis that I have come to expect from you. All these groups are advocating for the forests to burn down. They have offered no solutions but "let it burn." It's in all their materials, that we should allow nature to take its course and that catastrophic fire is natural. It cannot be ignored that Will Pattiz is an influencer from NYC who has no skin in the game and who has profited from his intense fear-mongering here. Here is the type of writing that could have added something: https://www.breakthroughjournal.org/p/trumps-reorganization-adds-to-perfect
And I'm equally disappointed by your responses, Amanda, particularly the ad hominem attacks.
We're talking past each other, which neither interests me nor serves my readers. I'm moving on and ask that you do the same. Thank you.
I have carefully curated my inbox to get these voices out, because I know it is so upsetting to me, and I don't want to engage in these fights here. Just keep in mind that you came into my inbox with this, basically republishing someone else's work. It was shocking. If I wanted to read their stuff, I'd subscribe to them. They have no solutions.
Thank you. I shared it on my Facebook and I hope others will share it and act on what you suggest. I'm so pleased that you're writing these essays
It's an extremist point of view not grounded in science.
Remember they do not believe in science
You're talking about when was the last time you were in nature? I've lived there for 42 years and you don't see forests, but timber factories and big profits.
I also live in a state forest and have been in the country since 1971. I have seen the abuse our natural world has suffered. I do not call the natural resources - they are natural areas - the word resource diminishes the natural world to commodity.