Is the USFS right to begin clear-cutting in the Tahoe basin, and euthanizing or relocating some wildlife?

Question

I read today that the USFS will begin clear-cutting large tracts of timber in the Tahoe Basin later this year. This will be done to prevent another, even larger wildfire disaster than the one that just occurred. Because approximately 12000-14000 acres of forest would be clear-cut, there will be wildlife such as black bears,deer, pine martens, and raccoons that will not have enough forage to survive. It is proposed that as many as 150 bears, and 1750 deer will be euthanized, or perhaps relocated if sufficient funds are available. The timber would be given to lumber mills in northern California, and Nevada to offset losses to mills and lumber companies resulting from environmental limitations imposed on them in order to protect the Spotted Owl, and Goshawk.

Answer 1

Forests 100 years ago had about 70 trees per acre.  They were big, health trees not starved for sunlight.   Today the average forest in the USA has about 480 trees and in some areas of the Sierra Nevada it hits 1200 trees per acre.   These are not healthy trees.  They are all fighting for space and are all starved for sunlight.   None gets enough water and they are all as dry as they can get and still be called a living tree.   Also,  the entire Tahoe basin was logged out 100 years ago supplying wood for for the Comstock mines.   The natural trees are pretty much gone.  What is growing in its place are "scrub" trees,  trees that grow fast but are very water dependent and fire hazards.    

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) for years has fought every single owner on removing trees.   If you remove a tree without their permission,  there is a $10,000 fine.   And their basic view is that no tree should be cut down.  

As a result of man's first destruction of the basin and the resulting poor quality trees and the TRPA being total myopic on removing trees,  the entire basin is a match box.   There are practically no fire roads or fire breaks and once a fire gets going,  it is pretty hard to stop.   If the winds had come up more with the recent fire,  it would have jumped the fire line again and could have destroyed the entire basin.

The problem is "huggers."  We have tree huggers and bear huggers and every other kind of hugger that only cares about what they hug and people take a back seat.  

They need to thin the forest,  put in fire roads and fire breaks and if it requires removal of some of the bears,   which in themselves are a problem,  then do it.    

Enough hugging.  Time to protect people.

Answer 2

Yes, they are.  Although, some people argue that shooting these animals at point blank with a rifle when they are tied down doesn't count as euthanasia.  Truth be told, the USFS is actually acting quite admirably.  This is something they take very serious.  My friend works for the USFS and in anticipation of the upcoming euthanizing, he has spent months practicing by shooting his neighbor's cats.  The bonus here is that the lumber mills in northern California and Nevada will receive the timber to offset their losses.  All in all, a great plan.

Answer 3

Of course not, the fire was probably sparked by a person, and should continue to be monitored and fought off by the officials. Euthanizing wild animals and clear-cutting is not the answer, better policing and protection of these areas is what's needed.  I saw no plans for this on their information site, located at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ltbmu/news/index... .