Logger sees his livelihood going up in flames; blames land policies

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Cato Spanish Fork, UT
    July 16, 2012 12:05 p.m.

    From what I have learned from the state hydrologist, it is the gradual change from aspen to conifer forests that result in the depletion of groundwater, since the conifer keeps more snow from reaching the ground. Thinning the old trees leaves the younger ones which are better equipped to fight the beetles. Just like how older humans have a harder time fighting illness. Lets thin it out and profit from it in many ways, rather than letting this resource go up in smoke.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    July 15, 2012 5:58 a.m.

    Still doesn't make sense if all the subterranean water has disappeared as in much of Utah then we might as well cut down all trees instead of figure out where the aquifers water went. Deforestation is not always the right answer, they need to restore water to the trees.

    How much is oil/gas well fracturing of bed rock affecting the trees and forests dieing of thirst? Fracturing (bombs), creating underground earth quake in oil wells destroy aquifers river, a documented fact. Everyone deny's destruction to bed rock and aquifers but if it breaks oil loose it must crack river beds with these mini earthquakes as well.

    People think fracturing done by oil companies is environmentally clean. Just because we can't see the damage does not mean its environmentally friendly. Oil companies have to drill into the aquifers miles from oil to get millions of barrels of water and pump it into the oil wells to make oil float on top.

    So how safe are all our forests if the oil companies are draining/contaminating aquifers feeding tree roots and cities? Beetles are a product of carnage done to mother nature with dead land and forests.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    July 14, 2012 11:27 p.m.

    justamacguy. Thank you for your insightful comments. There is nothing uglier than a forest of dead trees. Forest fires are natures way of cleaning out the dead to make room for new and healthy trees. The forest service needs to work the timber industry, not against them.

  • justamacguy Manti, UT
    July 14, 2012 11:43 a.m.

    @AMPatriot: The problem is that these are overgrown spruce forests. The biological rule of thumb is that a spruce forest lasts about 60 to 80 years naturally. Then either fire or disease will kill or dramatically reduce the stand. The beetle exists naturally with the trees. When a spruce stand is healthy and has enough water the sap will act defensively and push the beetle out of the tree and you don't have that much mortality of trees. When the stand becomes too dense and the trees compete for water and other resource then they stress. Without water they can't produce enough sap for their natural defense mechanism (drought aggravates this too) and the beetle thrives. The solution is to thin the trees (aka. logging) to reduce the stress. The result is a longer lasting, healthier forest with less fuel for fire and a more stable wildlife environment (especially for grouse). But enviro-wacks like the UEC and SUWA want things to be "natural" and natures way is to manage by catastrophe. She doesn't care about what wildlife lives there or if they are endangered. Mother Nature is not a nice lady.

  • AmPatriot Taylorsville, UT
    July 14, 2012 5:00 a.m.

    The first priority is to make sure the beetle infestation does not spread from the infested area and no one has said if the infestation has been contained and stopped. It seems sensible that if the loggers are allowed to cut and drag the infested trees through uninfected forest it would infects any remaining healthy trees.

    The real question is why hasn't the forest service done anything with the beetle problem so they can cut down these trees? Or can the beetles be destroyed and managed so they don't spread?

    This article is telling a biased one side of the story and why hasn't this logging company volunteered any information about the beetle infestation. They kill trees but still live in them. If the DN had journalist instead of fiction writers working for them they might do a better job of truthful full story information to the public.

    It's hard to believe that only the logger is the only who has a complaint when our state forester isn't even there. The BLM is responsible for all the land and forests in Utah and the logger only cares about himself.

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    July 13, 2012 9:25 p.m.

    Highway 14 from Cedar over to 89 is just the same. The beatle infestation was horrible and they just let all the dead trees stand there because they wouldn't let anyone clear them. Something changed in the last year or two, but I kept thinking that if they had a forest fire the whole mountain would be gone. And it still would be if there is a fire there.
    These environmentals, who sit in washington, and make the rules have very little idea about the dangers in the west with the forest fires.
    I'm sorry for all those whose lives have been affected by irrational policies.

  • FreeMan Heber City, UT
    July 13, 2012 7:59 p.m.

    The liberal environmentalist agenda plus the law of unintended consequences equals hundreds of thousands of acres of burned forests. Wow.