A recent editorial advocating more logging as a panacea for large wildfires by Morrie Stevens of the Boone and Crockett Club is full of misinformation and flawed assumptions. As someone who has written several books on the topic, I believe it’s important to correct the misinformation.

Furthermore, most of Montana’s forests are not “overgrown” as suggested by Mr. Stevens. Forests of lodgepole pine and other species grow for hundreds of years and then are rejuvenated by large wildfires. The large fires we are experiencing are completely within the historic norms if you understand basic forest ecology.

Second, large wildfires are driven by climate/weather, not fuels. There is abundant research – and I could list numerous papers – that have concluded that under severe fire weather conditions of high temperatures, low humidity, drought, and high winds – no fuel reductions work. That is because winds blow embers well beyond any fire line or fuel reductions.

Next the vast sums of money which Mr. Stevens notes are being spent on firefighting are a consequence of rural sprawl – which is under the control of county commissioners and state legislatures. Montana’s elected officials are directly responsible for the growing cost of fire fighting by allowing more home construction in what is essentially a “fire plain” – no different than the flood plain of a river.

The only proven way to safeguard homes is to reduce the flammability in the home ignition zone – no more than 200 feet surrounding a home. Thus most “fuel reductions” that are done beyond this zone in fact do not provide any additional benefits – but bring with them many additional costs.

These costs include the spread of weeds on logging roads, loss of security cover for elk and other wildlife, the compaction of soil under logging roads, the flow of sedimentation into streams affecting fish like bull trout, the loss of carbon storage (research has shown that even burnt trees store more carbon than logged trees) and many other unaccounted costs that the Forest Service typically ignores or underestimates.

Beyond these issues, large severe wildfires are extremely critical to healthy forest ecosystems. To suggest that millions of acres are “at risk” of beetles, fire, and disease demonstrates a timber company bias, and ecological ignorance. Recent research that finds that the second highest biodiversity found in our forests occurs with the many dead trees that result after severe forest fires and bark beetle outbreaks.

Some 45 percent of all bird species depend on dead trees at some point in their lives and up to two-thirds of all species utilize dead trees. More than 50 percent of the fish habitat in our streams is the result of dead trees that fall into the water. More than 4,000 native species of bees which are critical pollinators in our forests depend on dead trees for their habitat.

I could go on and on listing the ecological value of dead trees and large wildfires. Our present forest policy based on flawed assumptions that attempts to preclude these large fires doesn’t work, and furthermore degrades our forest ecosystems.

If one cares about healthy forests, one recognizes that natural ecological processes like wildfire and beetles are critical to maintaining our forest ecosystems. I dare say that many wildlife and plant species live in mortal fear of green trees and forests.

One hopes that as Mr. Stevens learns more about healthy forest ecosystems he’ll appreciate the threat posed by current bad legislation like the H.R. 2647, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015, supported by Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke.

George Wuerthner

Livingston