Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, November 14, 1995                   TAG: 9511140042
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-7   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: R. NEIL SAMPSON
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

FIRE POLICY

The fundamental question is how to ensure that losses of this magnitude do not continue. There is no simple solution. Any practical hope of reducing the disastrous impact of large fires rests on preventative measures to treat fire-prone forests.

This will cost money, and take time. About 20 to 30 million acres of public forests in the Western states alone are at high risk from intense wildfire, and forests elsewhere in the country are threatened.

In that respect, the Clinton administration's decision to allow salvage logging - the cutting of dead, dying and diseased trees - is a good first step, if done with environmental sensitivity. But salvage logging alone cannot solve our problems.

The emphasis should be on restoring healthy forest conditions, which must be done with live trees, not dead ones. Professional foresters must reduce erosion from roadsides, thin crowded forest stands, restore watersheds damaged by logging in the past, and reintroduce fire under conditions where it can burn the dead wood, needles and underbrush without undue damage to live trees or soil.

First, there needs to be an acknowledgement that past policies have convinced most Americans that all forest fires are bad. While the Forest Service's Smokey the Bear helped educate people about the need to prevent accidental fires, he did not explain that fires set by lightning, and by Native Americans, have been a frequent occurrence in forests, and that they play a crucial role in restoring and maintaining forest ecosystems.

One paradox of our policy of excluding all fires from the forest is that the longer we succeed in keeping fire out, the more dead twigs, branches and wood build up in the forest, and the hotter and more destructive the eventual fire will be. In dry weather, any fire that starts in these tinderboxes can literally explode. Therefore, foresters must remove this debris and re-introduce fire where appropriate.

Thinning dense forests and woodlands also improves forest health. It prevents an overabundance of trees from depriving the soil of moisture and nutrients. And it helps stop the spread of disease and insects, such as the current pine beetle epidemic that's devouring Southern woodlands.

Yet there are those who insist that "nature knows best." They believe that forests will return to "natural" conditions if left alone.

This is hard to understand, considering that forest management is our best hope for protecting soil quality, preventing major watershed damage, and providing a diverse landscape for wildlife habitat and biological diversity. For there is growing scientific evidence that a combination of thinning and careful use of fire helps protect forests while improving environmental conditions. To do nothing would present the greatest environmental risk to millions of acres of forest.

The public interest will best be served by legislation that ensures an adequate and effective program to manage the nation's forests, especially high-risk areas, for at least the next decade. Over time, with intelligent restoration, we can expect a major improvement in forest health and vitality, accompanied by a significant drop in the cost of firefighting and the loss of burned-out forest. Clearly, that goal cannot be attained through benign neglect.

R. Neil Sampson is senior vice president of American Forests, the nation's oldest citizens conservation organization.