Document text
0 of 3 Premium Clicks used this month SUBSCRIBE Print + Online Subscriber Activation | Register x Forgot Password | Need an Account? e-edition | subscribe | newsletter | deals Classifieds Jobs Autos Real Estate FEATURED » NEWS NOW In the heat of the night ... Grass fire snuffed in east Medford ... Yahoo Sports reports Kyle Singler to sign $25 million NBA contract ... In the heat of the night ... Grass fire snuffed in east Medford ... Yahoo Sports reports Kyle Singler to sign $25 million NBA contract ... GUEST OPINION Guest Opinion: 'Natural' not necessarily better for forest management Comment By Jim Horner MailTribune.com By Jim Horner Posted Nov. 23, 2014 at 12:01 AM By Jim Horner Posted Nov. 23, 2014 at 12:01 AM » Social News Mark Freeman’s excellent summary of Professor Odion’s co-authored study illustrates a dangerous assumption made by many in the ecology community: natural is good. “Natural” (i.e. “not made or caused by people”) is used in many ecological discussions to support a hands-off strategy. While in some cases hands-off may be best, the justification, “because it is natural,” utilizes flawed reasoning. “Natural” can be good or bad, but the history of humankind is replete with examples of humans altering what is natural to better themselves. The smallpox virus (a natural organism) has killed humans for thousands of years, yet few mourn its eradication. This could be said of almost any disease which has been brought under control (e.g. polio, mumps, measles, etc.). Few would argue against the value of attempting to eradicate still very dangerous natural diseases such as AIDS, Ebola or cancer. And childbirth, a major killer of women for thousands of years, is now very much safer thanks to “unnatural” medications and procedures. Entire civilizations have altered “what is natural” to achieve their objectives. Certainly the Romans thrived in part because of an incredible aqueduct system altering their natural access to water. It is doubtful the Dutch would be willing to destroy their dike system and return reclaimed land to the “natural, inevitable” sea. And “If man had been meant to fly he would have been born with wings” was the cry just a century ago made by those clinging to the natural argument. The list can go on and on. But we appear ready to endure great hardships in deference to “natural.” This summer, lightning strikes started a natural event, the Happy Camp fires. After a couple weeks of gradual (natural?) expansion, they grew beyond control and over the following month eventually burned around 140,000 acres at a cost of almost $90 million. One wonders if the policy to let some fires burn within their “natural" role belies humanity’s need for health, safety, economic value, etc. The $90 million could have been put to better use in, for example, public safety or education. So, while we annually suffer through weeks of choking smoke, the loss of thousands of acres of valuable timber, the loss of lives of many animals and the fear that with a wind change entire communities might be incinerated, we should not accept fire as “inevitable, like earthquakes.” Certainly the practical fire safety advice in the article is valuable, but the fundamental assumption that we should simply live with fire because it is natural is wrong. Fires will be started from natural and unnatural causes, but with advanced technology, we can find them and immediately put most of them out before they go out of control. Some might argue this more aggressive strategy would change the natural ecology of the region, but would this be good or bad? Was it good or bad to unnaturally transform the Midwest prairies into farm land? When evaluating our forest management strategies we should balance the costs of allowing the annual conflagrations vs. the costs of eliminating them. It is OK to imagine Southern Oregon free of massive wildfires. But most importantly, when deliberating, we should ban from our justifying lexicon the phrase “because it is natural”.  Jim Horner is a retired high-tech engineer and executive and a 30-year Oregon resident. He lives near Ruch on property that abuts Bureau of Land Management timber land. By Jim Horner MailTribune.com By Jim Horner Posted Nov. 23, 2014 at 12:01 AM » Comment or view comments Reader Reaction » STAY INFORMED Email NewsLetter Sign Up Today Sign up for our newsletter and have the top headlines from your community delivered right to your inbox. Southern Oregon Directory Featured Businesses Loading... Business Name address Location, ST | website.com Find Southern Oregon Attractions Bars Restaurants Beauty Salons Entertainment Doctors Medical Specialists Contractors Education Lawn Services Lawyers Shopping Travel Tanning Used Cars Wedding Services ▼ Add your business here + Events Calendar Connect with MailTribune.com Facebook Twitter RSS Back to top Reader Services Reader Services Home Subscriptions Subscriber controls Contact us Submissions Photos Events Letters to the editor Corrections Announcements Obituaries Story ideas Since you asked Alerts Email Alerts RSS Feeds Text Alerts Advertise Media Kit Home Products and services Ad rates Advertising contacts Propel Marketing Mail Tribune Daily Tidings The Nickel Shop Our Valley Blogs Mobile Site Stay Informed Email newsletter Sign Up Today Sign up for our newsletter and have the top headlines from your community delivered right to your inbox. Your privacy is important, read our privacy policy. © Copyright 2015 Local Media Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Local Media Group Publications Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted. MailTribune.com | P.O. Box 1108, Medford, OR 97501