scott_harpell

Your link did. In fact, it said more about healthy forests than dead ones. Sure, Jim knows more than me, but he hasn't said what he would do. Obviously something has to be done eh?

Just what I thought. All you would have us do is bicker until another 20,000 hectares burns to the ground.

Hey ace... got any suggestions or just the usual... more bitching about what others do and no suggestions for positive change? Sweet.

These are fire suceptable. Perhaps what you mean is that they are not at risk for fires like the Kelowna fire. The only way they will not do this is if you leave them to burn as nature intended. If you keep putting them out, you will still have this problem regardless of the age3 of the trees in it. On that note - it's obvious you haven't the slightest idea regarding forest ecology, the issues, or the process. I will bow out. So you are saying that a large tree cannot catch fire!?! That is certainly what you are inscinuating. Obviously you cannot just cut down large trees because it will make the forest more suceptable. You cannot just take small trees because we don't have the budget for it. We can't do nothing, because you have to have your summer cottages, your romp in the icicle and your RVing trips to Ohanipokosh. What do you suggest we do? Nothing? As usual you will berate any suggestions that come to the table without adding one that is more plausable. You paint it as a black and white issue saying that it is either clear cut or nothing... large trees are not capable of burning etc ad nauseum. Admit that your generalizations are just that and that the issue is more complex than your typical "Bush is the devil" answers you bring. Again, tell me what should we do?

"Logging causes fires. Logging prevents fires. Roads result in more fires. Roads are needed to fight fires and reduce fire threats in the forest. Only small trees need to be thinned. Larger trees need to be thinned. To protect homes, thin around homes and the forest. To protect homes, thin only around homes. Prescribed fire can be used without thinning first. Thinning is needed first before fire can be used. Catastrophic fires are natural. Catastrophic fires are not natural. Politicians point fingers. The Forest Service Chief blames environmentalists. Environmentalists blame the Forest Service. Confused? Well, you ought to be! It's all about context, and context is twisted for the benefit of attaining agendas. There is truth in each of the apparent conflicting statements. Here are some of the more common conflicting statements regarding the causes and solutions of our forest health/wildfire situation. First, let's understand some basic terms. Risk is a relative measure of whether or not a fire will start. Reducing risk is lowering the chance a fire will start. Reducing fire intensity is lowering the amount of heat/flame height a fire will produce, NOT whether a fire will start. Catastrophic, stand replacement, and crown fire are often used interchangeably to mean all trees in a burn area have been killed. The term catastrophic may also mean human life and/or property is being affected. Catastrophic denotes a range of human values, depending on one's view and understanding of the effects of wildfire. Stand replacement and crown fire are merely points of fact, that all trees in the burn area have been killed. Logging is the process by which trees are removed from the forest for the purpose of making wood products. Thinning is a term that simply describes a kind of tree cutting - the reduction of the number of stems in a stand of trees for the purpose of allowing the remainder to grow larger and healthier (much like a gardener thins a row of newly sprouted carrots). Consequently, thinned trees may be logged, and logged trees may be the result of thinning. The confusion arises when the term logging is used to describe the cutting of large trees, and thinning is used to mean the cutting of small trees or brush that has no value as a board or 2x4. Logging Increases/Reduces Fire Intensity. Scientific studies confirm these facts - logging may increase fire intensity IF the term "logging" implies cutting large trees in favor of smaller ones. Logging may also increase fire intensity when logging debris (slash) is left behind untreated. These studies generally reflect conditions from the 1980s, when large trees frequently meant the cutting of old growth trees. IF logging projects retain larger, fire resistant trees, and remove or treat logging debris, than these scientific studies DO NOT APPLY. The last few years have provided dozens of examples of thinned areas followed by slash treatment and/or prescribed fire that have survived approaching crown fires (most recently Squires Peak Fire, Hayman Fire [Colorado], Rodeo-Chediski and Pumpkin Fires [Arizona]. Exceptions (even on the Squires Peak Fire) do occur, and are not all that rare. Generally, though, thinning reduces fire intensity. Context is so important here. Trees of all sizes are killed in crown fire situations, including large, old growth trees. The amount of ground fuel, ladder fuel, and crown spacing along with topography, weather, and fuel moisture conspire to determine a fire's intensity and ability to become a stand-replacing event. Opening the forest canopy has also been shown to increase wind speed and to reduce humidity at the forest floor, thus providing increasing fire intensity. For some species this is a problem, for others, a natural condition. For example, Ponderosa pine stands have adapted with open forest canopies, and are LESS prone to stand replacement fire when the forest canopy is open. But even for species not adapted to drier forest floors, experts (studying the Sierra Nevada Range) say the reduction of dead and live fuels on the forest floor and some reduction of the forest canopy outweigh the negative effects of drying out the forest floor." Obviously this is more complex than the black and white image youare trying to portray.

And who will pay the billions needed?

These are fire suceptable. Perhaps what you mean is that they are not at risk for fires like the Kelowna fire. The only way they will not do this is if you leave them to burn as nature intended. If you keep putting them out, you will still have this problem regardless of the age3 of the trees in it.

I am against the "under God" thing merely because it was an addition from the original. Nothing more... nothing less...

The thing is, you poropse that this option is not good enough. Which option, praytell, do you suggest? If you just let things go as they are, you will see more Kelowna fires. If you really want to leave nature be, let the wild fires keep going. But, no, you would not be willing to give up your summer cabins and your recreation during the summer months would you? Obviously this is about compromise. Comprimise between the logging companies, the recreationalists, the forest and the forest service. You cannot simply say "that idea doesn't work" and leave it at that. Propose another more viable solution.

Post fire there should be no brush.

That photo is pretty.... uhm suggestive given that they are SISTERS!!!!!!!!!!

Not anymore. That is the point. If we left fires to burn wildly this would work. We don't... each time we see a fire we squelch it and let the underbrush accumulate. Accumulate enough underbrush and even the biggest trees will be roasted as the entire forest goes up in smoke (Kelowna is an example). Like I said, and (I think) AlpineK implied; In a perfect world, we could justlet em burn. Since we don't, we have to deal with the increased fuel.

Then why would they bother harvesting it?!? It doesn't burn to the core. Burning to just below the bark all the way around a tree will kill it. Ask Alpine K. If you sever this layer all around the tree it will die. This does not mean the wood can't still be used for lumber or paper.

*PINGGGGGGG* Music to my ears.

I don't know where I stand on salvage logging. The only thing I see as a negative is the loss of nutrients, the addition of logging road and the precedence it is setting in the area. I don't really care about the aesthetics. Re: thinning, fine call it logging. If that is what we need to have done to save billions in thinning, so be it. Unless someone is willing to pay the billions it will take, any amount of talking about a resolution will be just that. Again, I acknowledge this isn't the perfect sollution, but it is the best one when all factors are figured. If I had my way, I would say let all the fires burn their natural course, but obviously that is not a realistic option. Nationwide thinning of small diameter trees is not a realsitic option either.

skykomish... just west of index. i found some sweet bouldering potential all around there. if anyone wants some info, PM me.

This quote pretty much sums up what all the fuss is all about

Again, you can say "well take the small ones!" Are you willing to pay for it? Obviously, taking the small ones is a great way to go, but who is going to do it? Instead, we will still be talking about this same issue 20 years from now because no-one has taken the initiative. This is a way to lessen the risk of losing an entire area because of a massive burn. If you are standing to lose the whole thing, why not try to prevent it with selevctive thinning?

Scott- You seem to have missed the basis for the thinning. Underbrush and small trees are a greater fire risk - more likely to catch fire, more likely to burn & kill the tree, shrub, etc. They aren't economical to harvest though. Larger trees are more likely to survive a blaze. And are economical to harvest. If you log the trees more likely to be living after a fire, and keep the kindling, how is this making the forest less likely to catch fire? If you thin, the chances of having a fire in the first place are reduced. If a tree catches on fire, it is pretty much toast. Do you really think that the tree in the picture would have made it?

First of all, you are looking at only 10% of the article... second, did you see the picture? It is MABE 10% burned. Trees like this are already dead. What is the big deal with taking those? The article also deals with the thinning of the underbrush and selective thinning in the forests. I will concede that it does open the possibility of abuse, but it is a necessary step to reducing the risks of large scale wildfires.

I like the 6wt. for the steelies. as long as you have a good strong reel and a pair, you are good to go. Took a 11 lb. hen on that thing in oregon in february. It is also pretty hard to use my 8wt. for flinging dries.

Actually, it's been five rainy forecasts in a row. They're not the same thing. With the exception of Memorial Day weekend, we've had pretty good weather in Squamish all the way through. Not hot and sunny, for sure, but not raining much, either. Werd... this was yesterday during a forecast of rain.

that is because it is a conservative howdy and a liberal 'everyone is out to get me and i ain't fallin' for it'

When I was living in Europe, I smoked and at fat-assed american woman came up to me and said "you know... smoking is very bad for your health." I said back, "Ya know what lady, being fat is bad for ya too." She huffed and walked away and as I translated for the two friends that didn't know english, they started laughing their asses off. At that moment the lady flipped us off and told us to fuck off. Helluva day.