I think the following essay is essentially correct. If not, please speak
up. The reason for burning slash a year after clear cutting is to destroy
the new growth of alders and other "weeds" that would shade out new fir
seedlings that require full sunlight to grow. It's pretty evident from
looking at any clearcut, of any age, treated this way that biodiversity has
been severely reduced and you do have a monoculture. The forest has become
a tree farm and natural succession no longer occurs. The "new forestry"
presumably leaves a few trees standing in the midst of the clearcut to what
end I don't know. On the other hand, the clear cutting, without subsequent
slash burning, that resulted in the abundance of salal, huckleberries, etc.
was "unnatural". The more likely natural situation is periodic ground fire
that clears out the understory and accumulation of fuel on the ground.
The understory that regenerates is not the same community that occurs after
a clearcut. My conclusion is that forests that are going to be logged and
tree-farmed are not going to support much wildlife unless selective logging
is used. Not burning slash is incompatible with modern tree-farming as it
is currently conducted. This is the best arguement I know for setting
aside wilderness and letting it burn or conducting selective logging and
letting it burn. It is unlikely we'll ever again see clearcuts not
followed by slash burning except in the cases where companies have taken
their cut and abandoned the land. I was fairly optimistic that the "new
forestry" and an ecosystem approach to managing national forests, if not
private land, would finally provide for real multiple use, but we've been
overtaken by events again; this time a new Congress.

Herb Curl

h.curl at hazmat.noaa.gov "You may be only young once but you can be
Hazmat/NOAA, 7600 Sand Pt. Wy., NE immature the rest of your life."
Seattle, WA 98115-0070
(206) 526-6272