A recent Letter to the Editor in The Sacramento Bee described the forest thinning required in construction of shaded fuel breaks as “a euphemism for logging.” And a “Where I Stand” statement in Plumas News attempted to equate “mechanized thinning” to “industrialized logging.” Questions immediately popped into my head. First, considering the current, and almost perpetual shortage of housing in the state, maybe even nationwide, why would there be any need for a euphemism for logging?
The second question is: what do these people live in? A wood-framed house is obviously dependent on logging; no logging, no 2 by 4’s, that’s the deal. Concrete walls are poured into forms of plywood and 2 by 4’s, and glass is shipped inside MDF. Would all of these people who hold their opposition to logging so deeply in their hearts possibly compromise those values just to have a roof over their heads? Sadly, the supply of caves is insufficient to meet current demand for housing.