Supporters of postfires logging argue that it is part of a suite of restoration techniques, and that removal of timber means reduction of fuels for future fires (the "reburn" effect). Opponents argue that it causes damage to burned sites, particularly to soils, that it increases sediment transport, and that it removes large dead trees that have important ecological functions.

Considerable debate about the merits of postfire logging has been carried on withouth benefit of much scientific information. A recent review drew together the available scientific literature on postfire logging. At the same time, an experimental study in eastern Oregon was designed to test the "reburn" hypothesis and to examine soil and sediment transport in a major postfire logging operation.

• We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
• This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.