The recent Public Forum letter criticizing the Fix Our Forests Act (FOFA) raises legitimate concerns about protecting forests and addressing climate change. But portraying the bipartisan legislation primarily as an effort to expedite logging misses much of what the bill is intended to accomplish.
Climate change is making wildfires more dangerous, while decades of fire suppression and accumulated fuels have also left many Western forests unusually vulnerable to catastrophic fire. We need to address both problems.
That distinction matters. Responsible forest management is not simply another name for logging. The research suggests that thinning alone provides limited protection unless surface fuels are also addressed. Prescribed fire was a critical part of the treatment.
Utah’s national forests have already been expanding the use of prescribed burns and other treatments to improve forest health and resilience. And after this summer’s destructive Utah fires, state leaders have again called for more active forest management and congressional action on the Fix Our Forests Act.
None of this diminishes the need to address climate change, nor should forest treatment become a blank check for commercial logging. Environmental safeguards and public involvement remain important.
But leaving every forest untouched is not necessarily the environmentally protective choice. Carefully reducing excess fuels and restoring beneficial fire can greatly improve some forests’ chances of surviving a megafire.
Climate action and science base forest management are not competing solutions. We need both.
Karen Jackson, Salt Lake City