Is this really a "burning" question? In today's WSJ ,wsj.com, an article on forest management displayed for all the question of thinning to prevent destructive fires. No doubt prompted by he season's high incidence of fire, most recently in Lake and Sonoma counties where over 450 structures were burned in the Valley Fire and 20,000 residents were forced to evacuate.
Environmentalists contend that thinning is unnecessary and causes loss of habitat for wildlife, and that it removes filters for runoff that can damage water quality in lakes and rivers. Since the fire in South Lake in 2007, thinning has been an ongoing effort throughout the Tahoe Basin. Evidence is seen around the lake in the form of "burn piles" left by crews to dry before controlled burns during the winter months when there is little risk if spread.
Other forest managers believe their efforts will support healthy forests and reduce chances of intense fires that can wipe out all vegetation in a burn area. Always two sides to the issue, but the thinned areas look a lot like parks that are cared for and they look like wildlife would easily move about securely without hindrance by under growth and debris.
About 55,000 residents call Tahoe home and it seems that residents would like a measure of safety afforded by thinning.
No comments:
Post a Comment