After initially struggling to find a story that interested me, I stumbled upon this story written on Friday by the LA Times' editorial board. Titled "Beware the Clear Cutters", the article is about a new logging law developed by Republicans in response to the massive forest fire that recently blazed through Yosemite National Park and the surrounding areas. The writer(s) go on to criticize the proposed bill, listing various flaws in its' approach to preventing future fires while suggesting their own ideas on how to improve the bill.
The author's first problem with the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act is that it would more double logging quotas without regard as to whether loggers are cutting down trees in national forests or if the cutting process would disrupt natural habits for endangered or threatened animal species. The writer goes on to also dispute the bills' claim that more logging would reduce wildfires by pointing out that the fire in Yosemite was caused by years of fire suppression, which caused a build-up of vegetation that in turn helped to fuel the massive fire. However, while the writer criticizes the bill, they come up with a few suggestions to improve it while also protecting the environment.
One idea the author brings up is for timber companies to log in the areas where trees are being killed off by insects pests instead of logging in healthy forests. Although the trees are dying, the author argues that the wood from them still retains value. The only problem is that rules currently prevent timber companies from being able to log in such areas before the trees lose value. Another suggestion presented is to cut down thinner, less fire resistant trees as opposed to the bigger trees. Having the timber companies clean up the unused tree tops and other parts usually left to dry out on the forest floor is another suggestion for preventing fires.
To me, this article is written by in a very liberal tone and is meant to appeal to environmentalists. While the author cannot by identified as a single person, I feel as though his(hers or their) ideas are supported with enough evidence to suggest that the argument presented is a credible one.
