Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, July 2, 2012

Washington Ain't Fiddling While Colorado Burns

Posted by on Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 5:52 PM

As a 28-square-mile wildfire continues to burn in Colorado, consuming nearly 350 homes over the weekend, Washington State Commissioner of Public Lands Peter Goldmark isn't standing idly by. "We're fortunate here that we don't have the same drought conditions as Colorado," Goldmark explained by phone today, "but we're grown up enough to know that drought will eventually come here as well." In preparation for that eventuality Goldmark today issued a “forest health hazard warning” for eastern Okanogan and western Ferry counties, with plans to expand to parts of Klickitat and Yakima counties.

Utilizing $4.3 million appropriated by the state legislature under the recent jobs bill, the Department of Natural Resources will initiate efforts to thin dead and dying trees in stands on state, federal, and private lands that are under the heaviest pressure from a spruce budworm infestation. Forest restoration work will begin soon on some the worst affected stands, focusing on those closest to communities. The goal is to restore the health of the forests and to reduce the fuel available to feed a fire like that currently raging in Colorado.

Goldmark says the the thinning project will create "hundreds of jobs" over the next two seasons, but will only restore about five percent of the 200,000 acres in Washington state that are currently under pressure from spruce budworm, pine bark beetles, and other environmental threats. He's appreciative of the resources legislators have given him—"it couldn't be more timely," Goldmark says—but estimates it would cost "tens of millions" of dollars a year to fully address the problem.

As for environmental concerns over such forest management practices, which have proven controversial in the past, Goldmark insists that only dead and dying trees will be cut and removed. "The Bush administration created a bad taste in everybody's mouth by going in and taking out big trees as well," says Goldmark, "but as long as they're healthy and survivable, where not gonna touch 'em."

 

Comments (7) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Will in Seattle 1
Forest fires restart certain species and make salmonid's happy.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on July 2, 2012 at 7:19 PM
wingedkat 2
I'm sure all those people living outside the cities in their scenic forested lots will be happy to pay some extra taxes to help prevent forest fires, right?
Posted by wingedkat on July 2, 2012 at 9:12 PM
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 3

Bush...Bush...didn't he appoint Justice Roberts as Chief of the Supreme Court.

.....
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com on July 2, 2012 at 9:28 PM
tainte 4
oh fuck, what a dumbass to bring bush into this. look, genius, people were highgrading forests (going after the big trees) long before dubya, or his grandfather for that matter, were even born.
Posted by tainte on July 3, 2012 at 5:25 AM
5
Forest fires aren't necessarily a bad thing. They provide a process to cleanup and restart a forest when it gets too old to survive. It also seems especially stupid to try to stop forest fires in a diseased forest. Fire prevention often only increases the fuel load and increases the overall size of the fires. If it saves human life, fine. Otherwise we need to get used to allowing our forests to burn.
Posted by delirian on July 3, 2012 at 6:53 AM
lukeiscool 6
There's a difference between your run-of-the-mill forest fires that clear out brush and fertilize the soil and what you are possibly dealing with during pine-beatle epidemics. When you have large portions of forest with dead, dry timber it burns so hot that it removes all usable nutrients, essentially scorching the earth of all new growth for decades. Thinning up dead trees and underbrush helps to do what forest fires do naturally without the risk of total destruction.
Posted by lukeiscool on July 3, 2012 at 8:09 AM
7
Ugh, always the same public trend with the environment, if somethings good, taking it to the extreme is obviously the best. In the 20th century it was "No fire at all" and apparently in the 21st the average person has gotten it through their head that fire can be good, so it's "Fire in all situations, even if it's so intense it tops the crowns of the trees and kills them". Get the same thing with California brushland all the time. You have to repeatedly explain why entire mountainsides being reduced to an ashen wasteland is actually a bad thing even if occasional fire is good.
Posted by Hanging in C.C on July 3, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy