East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current, November 06, 2021, WEEKEND EDITION, Page 4, Image 4

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    ANDREW CUTLER
Publisher/Editor
KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
ERICK PETERSON
Hermiston Editor/Senior Reporter
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2021
A4
Founded October 16, 1875
OUR VIEW
Research
shows value
of forest work
he benefi ts of thinning crowded
forests and igniting prescribed
fi res to get rid of the combustible
debris that’s left hardly qualify as newly
discovered truths.
But recent research led by scientists
from the College of Forestry at Oregon
State University, besides adding to the
evidence that such work helps protect
forests from catastrophic wildfi res by
reducing the fuel load, also shows that in
some cases thinning alone can yield tangi-
ble advantages even before the managed
fl ames are kindled.
James Johnston, a research associate at
OSU, and his colleagues published their
fi ndings in Forest Ecology and Manage-
ment. The study, which looked at years of
data from areas in ponderosa pine forests
in Northeastern Oregon, “shows that
mechanical thinning can moderate fi re
behavior even in the absence of prescribed
fi re,” Johnston said.
Johnston and the other researchers,
including Julia Olszewski, Becky Miller
and Micah Schmidt from the College
of Forestry, Lisa Ellsworth from OSU’s
College of Agricultural Sciences, and
Michael Vernon of Blue Mountains Forest
Partners, used computer modeling to
predict how fi re would behave in areas that
were thinned, as well as forest parcels that
weren’t.
Their research showed that although fuel
on the ground increases for a year or two
after thinning, the amount declines there-
after, as does the amount of litter and duff
on the forest fl oor.
The researchers’ fi ndings are important
not because they diminish the importance
of prescribed fi re.
Indeed, Johnston notes prescribed burn-
ing “is still a key tool for meeting fuel
reduction and fi re management objectives
in the ponderosa pine forests of the south-
ern Blue Mountains and elsewhere.”
But Johnston also points out that
prescribed burning, for a variety of
reasons, can take longer to be approved
compared with thinning.
“Less than one-fi fth of the area treated
with mechanical thinning in the southern
Blues has also been treated with prescribed
fi re,” he said. “Prescribed fi re has been
signifi cantly slowed by budget constraints,
local opposition to fi re use, and restric-
tions imposed by COVID-19 response
measures.”
Weather can be an impediment, too.
Prescribed burning usually is done during
spring and fall, but in some seasons it’s
either too wet for eff ective fi res, or too dry
to light them without the risk of fl ames
getting out of control.
Congress has over the past decade or so
allocated more money for projects, includ-
ing thinning and prescribed burning, in
Eastern Oregon and elsewhere. An exam-
ple is the East Face project, which includes
about 48,000 acres of public land from
the Anthony Lakes Highway north to the
Ladd Canyon area. The East Face proj-
ect includes thinning — some of which
involves trees large enough to be sold to
mills — and prescribed burning. Much
of the work is along roads and ridge-
lines and is designed to create fuelbreaks,
places where fi refi ghters would have a
better chance of stopping a wildfi re. In all,
Congress has spent more than $17 million
between 2012 and 2020 to thin about
215,000 acres in the southern Blues.
The research from Johnston and his
colleagues shows this public money is
being well-spent, and lawmakers should
seek to accelerate the eff ort.
With climate change leading to longer
and often more severe fi re seasons, thin-
ning and prescribed burning are more vital
than ever.
It’s gratifying to see scientifi c proof that
thinning by itself helps protect forests.
T
YOUR VIEWS
Treating each other with
respect and understanding
We live together on our beautiful
Mother Earth, but we are recklessly
destroying both it and our society.
Relationships are becoming ever more
polarized and chaotic as we adopt parti-
san sets of opposing facts about real-
ity, increasingly resist coming together
to solve our most basic problems, and
continue to allow big money to control
things.
Today, we face two overarching
threats: Widespread poverty and global
warming. The fallout from our thoughts
and actions — or inaction — is becom-
ing ever more stark and ominous. It’s
past time for deep and meaningful
change, well beyond what’s left of the
Build Back Better bill.
Poverty is closest to home. Many, if
not most, Americans are deeply anxious
and depressed about their economic
condition, based largely on our 45-year
history of lost jobs and stagnant, low
wages due to computer automation and
off -shoring.
Quiet desperation can provoke
blind trust and misplaced loyalty. We
may well be headed toward a loss of
social norms and toward the accep-
tance of a right-wing, totalitarian
society. The Jan. 6 “Save America”
insurrection at the U.S. Capitol offers
a preview.
Big and bold innovation and open-
minded collaboration are urgently
needed. For example, a Universal Basic
Income of, say, $1,000 per citizen per
month would benefi t everyone, as shown
by the numerous UBI pilot projects.
Similarly, a refundable carbon tax
would shift consumer demand away
from fossil fuels, while carbon tax
monies would be recycled to consum-
ers (say, $2,000 per family annually) to
prevent economic hardship. Top econo-
mists support it.
Workable answers lie within reach.
Can we develop the community spirit to
adopt and implement them?
Do we have the political will to heav-
ily tax the income and wealth handed to
the very few who profi t from our low,
stagnant wages? Can we surmount our
knee-jerk aversion to new taxes, even if
they are refundable?
Let us avoid disaster on this small,
blue planet, and transform ourselves and
our society by treating each other with
respect and understanding.
Let us fi rmly reject chaos, sit down
together, vigorously engage, and allow
our heartfelt, mutual desires and long-
ings to be fully realized.
Marshall McComb
Baker City
Applause for Wyden,
River Democracy Act
I am writing to give voice to those
who have none — our nonhuman rela-
tives and many other members of our
community who support the protections
that would be provided by Sen. Ron
Wyden’s River Democracy Act. As a
resident of Halfway — Nimiipuu Lands
— I am happy to be joined by many
friends, neighbors, and importantly, the
Nez Perce and Umatilla tribes.
Clean, cold waters sustain rich
aquatic habitats that produce fi sh and
wildlife in diversity and abundance.
That so many rural voices have nomi-
nated not just big, iconic rivers, but
also smaller tributaries for protection,
bespeaks a collective wisdom in seeing
our water cycle in a holistic manner.
Opposition to including these is not
unlike treating a cardiovascular prob-
lem by solely focusing on the arteries
— a questionable practice with a likely
sorry outcome.
I invite readers to consider a case
study I observed in the mid-2000s,
working on salmon recovery with the
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation in Pendleton.
Studies of the Umatilla River by their
natural resources staff demonstrated
how railroads and highways blocked
the fl ow of surface and ground water
into the main channel. This disconnect
prevented the mixing of cooler waters
with the warming main stream and
degraded the aquatic habitat for cold
water fi sh species.
The tribe’s salmon-restoration strat-
egy aimed to reconnect these hyporheic
fl ows by protecting their headwaters
and breaching barriers across the fl ood
plain.
Thermal pollution is a leading factor
impairing the quality of our surface
waters. This is a problem for humans
and nonhumans alike. If we genuinely
care about protecting the values of our
waterways, it would be irresponsible of
us to exclude tributaries, intermittent
streams and wetlands from the protec-
tions of the River Democracy Act.
I applaud Wyden and his river nomi-
nations for their vision.
Mike Beaty
Halfway
EDITORIALS
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian
editorial board. Other columns, letters and cartoons on this
page express the opinions of the authors and not necessarily
that of the East Oregonian.
individual services and products or letters that infringe on
the rights of private citizens. Letters must be signed by the
author and include the city of residence and a daytime phone
number. The phone number will not be published. Unsigned
letters will not be published.
LETTERS
The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words
or less on public issues and public policies for publication in
the newspaper and on our website. The newspaper reserves
the right to withhold letters that address concerns about
SEND LETTERS TO:
editor@eastoregonian.com,
or via mail to Andrew Cutler,
211 S.E. Byers Ave., Pendleton, OR 97801