I disagree with Mark Pearson’s assessment that the Fix Our Forests Act removes the public from forest management (Herald, Feb. 16).
The bill doesn’t create a new categorical exclusion for fire mitigation treatment of high-risk areas, it proposes expanding the existing 3,000-acre maximum footprint to 10,000 acres, in response to changing fire conditions caused by climate change.
That adjustment was requested by the U.S. Forest Service, the government agency tasked with managing our national forests and fighting our megafires.
The bill passed the House of Representatives with a strong bipartisan margin last month during the Los Angeles fires, but it also passed the House last year with a strong bipartisan margin.
Fix Our Forests is designed to encourage active forest management and support community resiliency to wildfires by expediting environmental analyses, reducing frivolous lawsuits, and increasing the pace and scale of forest restoration projects.
I understand why some environmental organizations oppose changes to the existing legal structures that they effectively use to pursue their mission of preserving public lands.
The Fix Our Forests Act has a broad base of support from other organizations that value public lands and public safety, including: The National Congress of American Indians; Grassroots Wildland Firefighters; the Western Fire Chiefs Association; the American Property Casualty Insurance Association; the National Association of Counties; the Federation of American Scientists; Citizens’ Climate Lobby; the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; America’s Wildlife Conservation Partners; and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
Contact Sen. John Hickenlooper.
Mark Fackler
Durango
