LET TERS
of mind, a movement that turns away from
greed and force because greed and force
are ugly in the eyes of childhood and our
better nature. The world needs a peace
movement to becalm its waters and rinse
its skies with cool clean rain. A world that
acquires learning (for its own sake) and
makes peace (for its own sake) removes
rocks from its fields and sows for a
tomorrow that we can give our children as
a gift. Our world needs a peace movement
because tigers love not the lamb, and
bloodshed lays salt upon the land.
Leo Rivers
Cottage Grove
REMEMBER THE BASTILLE
As we all know, Donald Trump’s
campaign promise to “make America great
again” includes a proposal to build a wall
along the U.S./Mexico border — an idea as
arrogant and divisive as it is ludicrous and
impractical.
There is absolutely nothing to gain from
such an offensive display of misguided
thinking. Political history well documents
the failure of similar structures — dismal
and shameful remnants of the failed
policies of exclusion and isolationism.
VIEWPOINT
Consider the infamous legacies of such
walls as Jericho, Berlin and The Bastille.
They represent painful reminders of fear,
oppression and racism — all constructs of
despotism and autocracies. All eventually
came tumbling down, breached and broken
by the forces of revolt and revolution —
conquered by the ideals of true greatness
and freedom.
Under the guise of national or ethnic
security, the foundation for those walls
were cast in oppression and prejudice
— walls of fear, secrecy, retreat and
imprisonment. America was founded by
immigrants, all seeking the opportunities
offered by freedom and the promise of
a better way of life. Walls were not the
answer then, and they are not the answer
now. Let us not leave Trump’s wall as such
an embarrassing legacy. True greatness
knows no bounds.
To paraphrase Jimi Hendrix, “Castles
made of sand, drift into the sea eventually.”
W.C. Crutchfield
Eugene
STOP SUICIDE
Sara Scofield’s letter demonstrates the
activism necessary for democracy to work
in our country [Letters, June 16]. She cites
a problem — suicide — and proposes a
way to begin to solve it. Her letter is part
one. Part two is calling us to action to help
make a difference, telling her story in D.C.
She even provides a phone number. Each
of us can make a difference. Preventing
suicide is an important issue; ending hunger
is as well. In a country where one in five
children are not sure where their next meal
is coming from, Congress is considering
cutting the SNAP program, formerly called
food stamps. Also, the Reach Every Mother
and Child Act, targeting ending millions
of preventable deaths in our world, is
stalled in committee. So make a call about
one of these important issues or send an
email to your representatives. Congress is
depending on us to show them the way to
a better world.
Willie Dickerson
Snohomish, Washington
HEALTH CARE PAYOUT
To the honest people who deserved a
portion of the buyout through their insight
and hard work, and also those ruthless
(could think of worse adjectives) profiteers
who made more than they deserve: May I
suggest a contribution to the new YMCA. It
might help you sleep better.
Niels Hansen
Lowell
ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY
Our Community, Our Rights just
received a big win in court that protects our
right to the initiative process. The majority
of Lane County Commissioners, in conflict
with Judge Carlson’s June 3 ruling, is
seeking to nullify it. This entire initiative
review process is unconstitutional. The
constitutional right of initiative belongs
to the people, not the whims of elected
officials. The “matters of county concern”
argument these commissioners refer to
is a Trojan Horse. It provides an excuse
to attack the substance of any initiative
before the people have spoken. Initiatives
are the people’s business. This action by
the commissioners is an attack on direct
democracy. It’s time to get involved,
Lane County. Join us in protecting our
constitutional right to the ballot box at
communityrightslanecounty.org.
Michelle Holman
Community Rights Lane County
Deadwood
BY GEORGE W UER THNER
Thinning Is Snake Oil
DON’T BUILD HOMES IN THE ‘FIRE PLAIN’
I
n a recent review article about forest thinning and its effectiveness to
reduce wildfire severity and spread in Forest Ecology and Management,
the researchers came to a conclusion with regards to reducing fire risk and
effects that “thinning alone had either less of an effect or none at all, compared
to untreated sites.”
The study did conclude that thinning followed by at least one, (but better two)
prescribed burn treatments is generally effective at reducing fire risk. And if you
can only do one thing, prescribed burning is more cost-effective at reducing fires
than thinning/logging alone. However, both the Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management tend to spend far more money and effort on logging the forest than on
prescribed burning.
There are a host of reasons for this. There is strong pressure from the timber
industry on the federal government to provide more subsidized timber sales on
federal lands. Plus, due to the lack of transparencies on the part of the Forest Service
and other agencies, you seldom hear anyone admitting that thinning/logging has
been proven to be largely ineffective at reducing fire risks.
Plus, most thinning/logging operations have other collateral damage like soil
compaction, disturbance of wildlife, the spread of weeds and road construction, which
fragments forests and causes sedimentation of streams. These are the “externalized
costs” of logging that are seldom counted in the “cost”/benefit of a timber sale.
Even without considering these externalized costs, most federal timber sales lose
money — another fact that the federals are loath to admit or try to justify by claiming
that logging will reduce wildfire risk. But as this and other recent studies conclude,
thinning alone is rarely effective in accomplishing this goal.
The effects of fuel reduction are usually negated in three to 10 years by new
growth of fine fuels — fallen needles, shrubs, small trees and so forth. And while
there’s money for logging/thinning, there’s less available to do the maintenance. So
even if effective immediately after treatment, the effectiveness declines rapidly.
However, even if federal agencies shifted emphasis to more burning than
logging, the other unacknowledged fact is that all fuel treatments, while they may
work occasionally to slow or control blazes under moderate fire weather conditions,
usually won’t stop the large fires burning under severe fire weather that are the real
6
July 7, 2016 • eugeneweekly.com
threat to western communities.
Severe fire weather conditions include drought, high temperatures, low humidity
and, most importantly, high winds. If you have high winds, you cannot effectively
control a blaze.
Ironically, most fires burning under low to moderate fire weather conditions will
self-extinguish or are easily controlled. However, under severe fire weather, nothing
works. Thinning and prescribed burning usually fail to alter the outcome for the
largest fires burning under severe fire weather.
Also, most forests burning at high severity are higher elevation, moister forests
types like lodgepole pine, spruce or fir that have very long fire return intervals, and
it may be decades or even centuries before they burn, making any fuel reductions
useless since trees would grow back before any fire encounters the fuel reductions.
Plus, large high-severity fires are critical to healthy forest ecosystems. Severe
fires provide a major input of woody debris that maintains spawning beds for salmon
and trout. They provide structural components (snags) that are valuable for birds
and mammals for feeding and homes (cavities). Burned forests also store carbon
and nutrients. Ecologically speaking, thinning impoverishes our forest ecosystems,
while large wildfires enrich them.
Of course, no one wants to see a home or community threatened by wildfire, but
we don’t have to destroy our forest ecosystems with logging to protect our homes.
Don’t build any new homes in the “fire plain” on the edge of town.
For those homes already constructed in the wrong places, reducing the
flammability of homes is proven highly effective. Metal roofs, screened roof vents,
removal of flammable materials around the base of the house and building a modest
wall that can keep surface fires from burning to the edge of a home, are only a few
of the proven methods that can save a home from wildfire.
And yes, even some moderate thinning and prescribed burning immediately
adjacent to the home and on the edge of the community can be useful — but only if
these fuel treatments are regularly maintained and strategically done.
The idea that you can preclude large wildfires through forest-wide thinning is
snake oil, very expensive snake oil. And not only does the taxpayer pay for ineffective
fire protection, but we degrade our forest ecosystems in the process.
George Wuerthner is an ecologist who has published 38 books, including two dealing with wildfire ecology.