Supporters of the law contend that this will reduce wildfire risk by thinning overstocked stands, clearing away vegetation and trees to create shaded fuel breaks, providing funding and guidance to reduce or eliminate hazardous fuels in National Forests, improving forest fire fighting, and researching new methods to halt destructive insects.
Detractors of the law contend that the bill opens previously protected forest areas to logging, often unnecessarily or under false pretense.
This statement ignores the opposition to HFI by conservation groups such as the Sierra Club,[2] the Natural Resources Defense Council,[3] The Wilderness Society,[4] and the John Muir Project.
[5] Supporters include the Society of American Foresters,[6] local fire protection agencies, and a number of hunting and fishing advocacy groups.
[7] In March 2006, it was reported in the news section of the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology that timber interests created a front group called Project Protect to help pass the Healthy Forests legislation.
American Insurance companies have raised the issue of structural destruction caused by super forest fires is exceeding 2 billion dollars a year.
Some opponents also criticize the blanket prescription of thinning to forests where low intensity fires did not historically play a pivotal role [citation needed].
On December 5, 2007, in Sierra Club v. Bosworth,[9] the Ninth Circuit held that the Forest Service's promulgation of the categorical exclusion "was arbitrary and capricious".