More Bush Admin. Brainlessness

[JoshK]

Brilliance...the bush administration is allowing salvage loggin to be used to "clean up" fire burned national forests. I can't think of anyway to better open up NF for abuses by timer companies that this. Obviously running bulldozers in over everything to chop down the large burned trees is a great idea. I mean who doesn't want to see a recovering forest full of little christmas trees and giant stumps?

 

Anybody who can't see through this concept of using "salvage sales" to help the timer companies is pretty blind.

 

"In 2002 President Bush announced his "Healthy Forests Initiative" to speed up treatment of diseased and overcrowded forests by limiting the process to legally challenge thinning decisions."

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5014243/

[EWolfe]

I am sure there are forestry experts available on each and every site to determine exactly what the proper thinning technique is.

 

[scott_harpell]

Hey Josh... when you spend the last century fighting forest fires and essentially creating the fuel for the large fires we have been experiencing lately, you must do something to combat them. Forest fires happen naturally and when we suppress them, we make it possible for larger ones to take place. The Bush admin. is probably getting a kick, but it is not a black and white issue as your are suggesting (and it rarely is).

[scott_harpell]

...and MisterE... there are environmentally concious logging companies that are under the same umbrella which have inspectors to determine if they are infact using environmentally conscious methods. The main method is using thinning methods as opposed to clear cutting. The reason for the inspectors is to ensure that the higher prices gleaned are in fact warrented. So there is, in fact, a structure which could conceivably take the reigns of this new policy.

[JoshK]

Where did I suggest it was a black and white issue? Our forest fire policy over the last century, as you suggest, has led to the problem, but I hardly think bush's approach to cut down burned trees (which provide future nutrients) to reduce "fuel" is too brainy. After all, the fuel has already burned up. If you don't think his strategy on the national forests is swayed heavily by the timer industry I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd love to sell ya.

[MollyWorld]

Ahhhh, JoshK has a degree in forestry too, I see.

[JoshK]

Ahhhh, JoshK has a degree in forestry too, I see.

 

Martlet, get lost. Here is a question for everybody...a fire burns down a forest, lets use the leavenworth 94 fire for an example. burned trees are left. THe underbrush has all been burnt away so the fire risk on the remaining land is quite low. Would you rather...

 

a.)Have the scenery of burnt trees?

 

b.)Have the scenery of a clear cut?

 

Obviously I have no more knowledge of forest on this site than most people but I do know two things:

 

1.) If you belive Bush's administration is looking out for environmental concerns before timber company concerns you are really an idiot.

 

2.)Environmental groups (the large, mainstream ones) have smart people with degrees in forestry and other environment sciences working for them. I'd be willing to bet they are more informed than us and probably have a pretty good idea of what this is a dumb strategy.

[marylou]

I would rather look at the burnt trees.

 

BTW Scott any discussion about the increased incedence of forest fires in recent history has to include a discussion about the global warming aspect of it. Our fire suppression policies don't tell the whole story.

[MollyWorld]

Ahhhh, JoshK has a degree in forestry too, I see.

 

Martlet, get lost. Here is a question for everybody...a fire burns down a forest, lets use the leavenworth 94 fire for an example. burned trees are left. THe underbrush has all been burnt away so the fire risk on the remaining land is quite low. Would you rather...

 

a.)Have the scenery of burnt trees?

 

b.)Have the scenery of a clear cut?

 

Obviously I have no more knowledge of forest on this site than most people but I do know two things:

 

1.) If you belive Bush's administration is looking out for environmental concerns before timber company concerns you are really an idiot.

 

2.)Environmental groups (the large, mainstream ones) have smart people with degrees in forestry and other environment sciences working for them. I'd be willing to bet they are more informed than us and probably have a pretty good idea of what this is a dumb strategy.

 

WTF is a "Martlet"? Perhaps the insult would be better received if I understood it.

 

You're making many claims about a underlying motive but it's all speculation on your part. I've seen you post in 3 threads, and it's all about "bad guys" hiding under your bed.

 

Grow up.

[JoshK]

[quoteWTF is a "Martlet"? Perhaps the insult would be better received if I understood it.

 

You're making many claims about a underlying motive but it's all speculation on your part. I've seen you post in 3 threads, and it's all about "bad guys" hiding under your bed.

 

Grow up.

 

HAHAHAH. Wow, if this lingustic style doesn't smack of Martlet I dont know what does. You having fun playing dress up as "molly"?

[scott_harpell]

Josh... again you are using pollarized thinking. They are not talkinga bout clear cutting, but selective thinning. The sierra club thinks this selective thinning should be done on smaller trees. The problem with this is that it is not economical. Again, it is a trade-off. Either you can deal with the massive forest fires, or you can do smoething about it; either prescribed burning or selective thinning. Obviously prescribed burning would cost the tax payers directly, but iwht the selective cutting, you allow the forest service, the forest and the tax payers to live as close as possible to a harmonious situation. Another thing to think about Josh is that if there is a fire, all the trees are already dead. No-one is suggesting clear-cutting as you stated. You know, you need not attack every policy that is from Bush. I don't agree with everything he does, but sometimes he is right. Hell... anyone can get lucky sometimes.

[cj001f]

Josh... again you are using pollarized thinking. They are not talkinga bout clear cutting, but selective thinning. The sierra club thinks this selective thinning should be done on smaller trees. The problem with this is that it is not economical. Again, it is a trade-off.

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?

[JoshK]

cj, thanks, that is exactly the point I am trying to make. After a fire rips through a bunch of charred trees aren't your problem, the fire already took care of your problem: the underbrush. Claiming that "thinning" out a bunch of already carbonized logs is going to prevent future fires is like claiming that shaving your receeding hair will make sure you wont get more bald in the future.

 

Another issue is that you now have to construct logging roads to get to those trees, or at the very least leave tracks through the burnt area. Maybe we'll even get lucky and they'll have to cut a logging road through an unburned forest to get to the burned part!

This would be dumb no matter who is in office.

[Skeezix]

And another problem is that climber/nature boys (like me) want a place in the mountains, so we buy a lot in Chumstick or Plain and slap in a cabin and expect protection from the occasional wildfire. My in-laws just bought a place in Colorado ...and I'm looking at the pictures thinking "fuel."

[cj001f]

And another problem is that climber/nature boys (like me) want a place in the mountains, so we buy a lot in Chumstick or Plain and slap in a cabin and expect protection from the occasional wildfire. My in-laws just bought a place in Colorado ...and I'm looking at the pictures thinking "fuel."

I just drove through Santiam Pass this morning - good lordy there are alot of homes in that neck of the woods. All scattered through the dry forest. The burned areas didn't look that bad.

[scott_harpell]

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.

[scott_harpell]

Josh... again you are using pollarized thinking. They are not talkinga bout clear cutting, but selective thinning. The sierra club thinks this selective thinning should be done on smaller trees. The problem with this is that it is not economical. Again, it is a trade-off.

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?

[scott_harpell]

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_harpell]

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

it's an election year" and that "many people feel President Bush is vulnerable on the environment

[cj001f]

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?

Scott-

Thinning of big trees isn't thinning - it's logging. And logging will just perpetuate the problem.

 

Having just driven over Santiam Pass this morning, and looked at the burned areas, it really doesn't look that bad - clearcuts looks much worse, IMHO. Salvage logging would be acceptable - but as part of the regularly scheduled logging quote, not as a bonus.

[scott_harpell]

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.

[JoshK]

There are plenty of fires that burn the underbrush and leave the trees. You'll notice practically any really old tree outside of the lower-wet west slope areas will have burn marks up it's bark. It's cause a fire went through and burned the brush but didn't destroy that tree. If a fire is enough to KILL trees then it took the brush out too. Going in there to further remove the trees seems really pointless. Like I said, a carbonized tree isn't much for fuel.

[AlpineK]

I'm pro forrest fires unless someone wants to pay me to thin.

[scott_harpell]

a carbonized tree isn't much for 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.

[scott_harpell]

There are plenty of fires that burn the underbrush and leave the trees.

 

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.