house Bill H.R. 3715
Should Reforestation & Salvage Projects in National Scenic Areas be Expedited After Catastrophic Events Like Wildfires?
Argument in favor
Salvage logging is a healthy and beneficial part of the reforestation process, and this bill would let that process move more quickly in national scenic areas decimated by wildfire.
09/16/2017
Absolutely. Lowering the regulatory burdens on salvage logging means lowering the cost of the logging industry, which translates to lower market prices for all wood products. I understand the negative aspects of salvage logging, but in this case, I see more value in providing lower costs and quicker times for logging than preserving desolated forests.
···
09/16/2017
If we don't use the opportunity to replant and reforest burned areas judiciously, water will be polluted, soil will be lost and desertification, particularly in the western part of the country will rapidly increase. We need to fight the environmental destruction and this is a way to do so!
···
09/16/2017
If fires are part of the ecosystem then we should allow the system to work. If we prevent the system to work naturally then the fires are hotter and more destructive. As for logging afterward I think it should be done on case by case basis determined by how destructive it would be on the habitat. However i think reseeding with natural plant could help.
Argument opposed
Salvage logging can be very destructive to the environment and shouldn’t be permitted in national scenic areas following wildfires.
···
09/16/2017
While some wildfires are human caused, wildfires are a natural part of the ecosystem, and the ecosystem should build itself up naturally after disasters such as these. The life cycle of nature doesn't need our help all the time; this is one of those times.
09/16/2017
After reading the details of this bill it seems like another shady attempt to allow logging in protected areas and justify it by using natural disasters as an excuse.
09/16/2017
Less than 10% of the fires in our national fires are started by humans, forest fires are a natural part of the life cycle of a forest and so is the debris left behind after the fire occurs. The fire removes underbrush, dead trees and promulgates new growth. Some plants only release seeds as result of fire. Carbon resulting from the fire enriches the soil. Fire makes the forest in many ways healthier. Cleaning up the forest after a fire may be a way that some see as making the forested lands static and unchanging but forest do change over time. The suggestion of cleaning up after a fire also smacks of this Administrations way of opening our national parks to logging and I've seen that. Industrial logging is decimation on a level that fires don't approach. Fire is a renewable event and occurs in nature without humans. Logging is a scar that we leave behind that take a decade or more for the land to recover. If we want quick recovery leave the forest alone they'll fix themselves without the erosion and human destruction.
Absolutely. Lowering the regulatory burdens on salvage logging means lowering the cost of the logging industry, which translates to lower market prices for all wood products. I understand the negative aspects of salvage logging, but in this case, I see more value in providing lower costs and quicker times for logging than preserving desolated forests.
While some wildfires are human caused, wildfires are a natural part of the ecosystem, and the ecosystem should build itself up naturally after disasters such as these. The life cycle of nature doesn't need our help all the time; this is one of those times.
After reading the details of this bill it seems like another shady attempt to allow logging in protected areas and justify it by using natural disasters as an excuse.
Less than 10% of the fires in our national fires are started by humans, forest fires are a natural part of the life cycle of a forest and so is the debris left behind after the fire occurs. The fire removes underbrush, dead trees and promulgates new growth. Some plants only release seeds as result of fire. Carbon resulting from the fire enriches the soil. Fire makes the forest in many ways healthier. Cleaning up the forest after a fire may be a way that some see as making the forested lands static and unchanging but forest do change over time. The suggestion of cleaning up after a fire also smacks of this Administrations way of opening our national parks to logging and I've seen that. Industrial logging is decimation on a level that fires don't approach. Fire is a renewable event and occurs in nature without humans. Logging is a scar that we leave behind that take a decade or more for the land to recover. If we want quick recovery leave the forest alone they'll fix themselves without the erosion and human destruction.
The forests survived for thousands of years without human intervention. It will take care of itself. Salvage logging can be very destructive to the environment and shouldn’t be permitted in national scenic areas following wildfires.
This seems dangerous, and overbroad. From what I've read, the main concern the proposer of this bill has is that they won't be able to make any money off the fallen trees (which he calls simply "timber"), and so won't have the money they might have had to throw into financing the reforestation. I think the bill has the possible consequence of giving destructive logging in these areas the cover of legality. I think it might be a better move for the EPA, in this particular case of Eagle Creek, if warranted, to give a temporary pass to the salvage loggers, instead of passing a law that could ultimately be abused, to do an end-run around the EPA. Also, better, more secure funding for cleanup that doesn't rely on timber profits would probably do a lot to expedite reforestation efforts. Why not increase EPA funding?
Not as written. Yes, quick recovery and expedited timelines are needed before value is lost, but making all catastrophic events regardless of cause eligible provides too much incentive for human causes.
This bill should actually accurately be named another land grab for logging profit. Since forest fires are part of the natural cycle and healthy forests depend on the natural cycle of burn/regrowth/burn has worked since mother earth began. Do not give away more rights and more land to the wealthy few. No.
Forest fires are natures way of clearing the old to promote healthy new growth and while they may be unsightly it's part of the forest life cycle. Certain plants/trees will only release seeds when there is a fire. Any salvage logging can be very destructive to the environment and shouldn’t be permitted in national scenic areas following wildfires.
On the surface, this appears a great idea- to assure reforestation. However, underneath is a back door to benefit the logging industry. Sorry, but, it's been clearly evinced that "business" is always more important than the environment to Trump and the GOP Majority. The next generation needs protection from such a priority!
Salvage logging can be very destructive to the environment and shouldn’t be permitted in national scenic areas following wildfires.
Sounds like an opportunity for greedy logging companies to have their way. Nay
Not as written. Another "spin" on title language to allow corporate profits on areas that are supposed to be for all through the Public Trust Doctrine. Please vote, No.
Although allowing fires to remain in the ecosystem is important, i am concerned that the timber industry would become greedy.
This has special interests written all over it and is clearly a false flag that pretends to be helping when it fact it's obvious on the face of it that it would actually harm more than help; why do congressional republicans never fail to try to make money off the misfortunes of others and to manipulate national disasters? Shame
Don't you love bills that imply one thing with the title but mean the exact opposite? Logging the forest when the decomposition of the burnt parts feed new growth, means there will be less new growth. Stop trying to make rich industries richer at the expense of the environment!
Nope. Just one more way for lumber companies to get in and make a profit. Wildfires are part of nature and are necessary for the healthy growth and renewal of forests. In some instances the dead wood is all that's standing between the snowmelt and rain and massive flooding and mudslides. Don't support this bill.
Another attempt to provide more logging rights to protected areas. These are all shams of legislation, why not ask the public whether we want our parks removed.
Let the forest heal on its own. It will grow back healthier than it was before. Fires are natural.