Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires

Patrick Moore, a co-founder and former president of Greenpeace of all things, writes about how Greens opposition to logging actually harms forests. [Emphasis mine]

The root of the problem is that when we protect our forests from wildfires, over time they become susceptible to disease and to catastrophic wildfires as fuel loads build up. The only way to prevent this is to actively remove dead trees and to thin the forest. The active management of these forests is necessary to protect human life and property, along with air, water and wildlife. This does not prevent us from also maintaining a world-class system of parks and wilderness areas where industrial activity is restricted or banned.

Many activists have a mindset that is simply opposed to forestry. These groups favor policies that involve reducing the use of wood instead of encouraging its use as a renewable resource. We have been led to believe that when we use wood we are causing a bit of forest to be lost. This is not the case. When we buy wood we send a signal into the marketplace to plant more trees, and produce more wood. One of the main reasons there is still about the same area of forested land in the U.S. today as there was 100 years ago is because we use so much wood. Agriculture and urbanization cause forest loss, not forestry.

Trees are just a commodity crop that can be harvested like any other. "Old growth" forests are only more useful than "old growth" corn fields because it appeals to our love of G-d's nature. If the Greens do not want forests logged, they should buy them and do with them what they want. But that would take using their own time and money. They'd rather get the strong arm of the government and use other people's money to do otherwise.