USA: Logging never mimics wildfires!

Fire alters an ecosystem by chemical processes; logging, by the
mechanical process of tree removal. Fire rapidly recycles nutrients,
kills pathogens, and selectively favors fire-adapted species. Logging
leads to the loss of soil nutrients and organic matter and increases
soil compaction, thereby reducing water infiltration. Fires do not
leave a large road network in place (assuming the blaze was not
suppressed otherwise there may be dozer lines, etc.). Logging creates
roads that fragment habitat and generally increase human access, both
of which affect the use of the land by wildlife. Moreover, roads and
logging equipment can become vectors for the dispersal of weeds.

It is
widely recognized in the scientific community that past commercial
logging, road building, livestock grazing, and aggressive firefighting
are the sources of many “forest health” problems, including
unnaturally severe wildfires. According to the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem
Project’s final report to Congress, a government report that reviewed
the ecosystem health of California’s Sierra Nevada mountains: “Timber
harvest, through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate,
and fuels accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any
other recent human activity.”Though many may perceive there to be no
difference between a tree killed by a fire or a tree killed by a
chainsaw as part of a logging operation, there are vast ecological
differences. Furthermore, logging based upon the presumption that
reduction in fuels will reduce or eliminate large blazes is based upon
flawed premises. We need big fires. Across many landscapes, intensive
timber cutting has replaced fire in ecological significance, but not
in ecological effect. Because of some commonalities between effects of
logging and fire, there is a perception held by many people is that
logging emulates natural disturbances like wildfire. For instance, the
draft legislation for the Beaverhead Deerlodge Partnership, suggests
that logging can mimic wildfires. There are, however, substantial
ecological differences between logging and wildfire. A second
assumption inherent in many assertions made by timber industry
proponents is that logging can reduce large blazes. As a corollary to
this assumption, most proponents of fire control believe suppression
of large blazes is desirable. Such assertions are self-serving and
play upon ecological ignorance and nuances in the ecological
literature to create what appears on first review to be a plausible
argument in favor of logging––an argument, however, that ignores many
ecological realities. Wildfire, whether from natural sources like
lightning or a result of human ignition, has been a major influence on
many ecosystems around the world.

One mapping of presettlement fire
patterns found that more than half of the United States burned on a
fire return interval of between 1 and 12 years. Though much of this
was grasslands as well as forests, particularly in the Southeast, it
nevertheless, demonstrates the ecological importance of fires in many
regions of the country. In the native plant communities of the western
United States, fires have probably played a more critical role in
shaping ecosystems than any other ecological factor. Fire affects both
forest structure and ecosystem processes. How a tree dies and is
ultimately utilized is critically important to the long-term health of
a forest. A tree removed by logging has a different effect on soils,
watersheds, wildlife habitat, and, ultimately, biodiversity than one
killed by fire and left on-site.
http://wuerthner.blogspot.com/2008/12/ecological-differences-between-logging.html

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from Deane’s posterous