The Commentary by Pat Neal (PDN, Sept. 16) presents an interesting history of wildfire on the North Olympic Peninsula (NOP), but then appears to me to go off the rails.
Our writer states that “Building the forest roads caused erosion, but taking them out caused still more erosion.” No peer reviewed study, or any study, is cited to substantiate this claim.
Also stated “…but erosion and collateral damage from forest fires is worse (than road erosion).”
Same problems as above.
This statement is so all encompassing that it likely couldn’t be substantiated by any study.
It certainly depends on many factors that include but are not limited to: amount of road erosion, intensity and location of the fire, etc.
Also stated “….these roads (the one’s decommissioned) would have been a valuable asset to firefighters.” Maybe, but the roads might lead to access that causes a fire.
Also it will depend on whether the road is maintained for access, costs of which might be better spent on forest fire suppression management..
Finally stated “With forest access road eliminated, we have one less tool to fight forest fires” again it depends on many other factors.
This statement might also lead one to conclude that all forest access roads have been eliminated, which is certainly not the case on the NOP.
I have no problem with someone having biases, but I believe that one needs to be clear that statements are based on opinion not something poorly disguised as unsupported facts.
Robert Vreeland
Port Angeles