Biscuit Forest Fire Logging Study Flawed?

The latest issue of Science (try and find Science web site, even Google cannot since the journal name Science and its web site is badly structured and cannot be found easily at all, and not ONE "college" publication that talks about it ever lists the web site!) has a published study about the "Biscuit" fire which concludes that the forest would re-grow better if salvage logging was not done.

 

Like any study, you have to look at the goal, ground rules used, methods used, how measured and other parameters for the STUDY to be valid. The conclusions are always based on the initial parameters and methods used.

 

Since no one ever seems to link to the Journal Of Science, and I cannot find their web site at all, I would bet that the study only started after the logging operation started - which means that for TWO years no logging could occur at all. Which also means that seedlings sprout during that time - since they counted the seedlings destroyed by trucks running over them.

 

Now - to be truly valid and have a comparison - you would have to allow the logging companies to start salvage logging THE DAY the fire is declared over, let them get into the woods, cut the trees down, burn the debris that is left there, THEN see which method is better.

 

As it is now the study is perfectly valid and totally worthless.