More Bush Admin. Brainlessness

[JoshK]

OK, I'm not sure where the communication breakdown is here...but, they do these to forests that have ALREADY burnt. Yes, they may have tried to supress it, but the end result is that part of the forest burnt. You are now left with an empty forest, largely devoid of fuel. You have two options:

 

1.)rip down a bunch of trees and leave stumps

 

2.)leave the stumps and largely fueless forest to regrow naturally

 

In the future you can worry about no longer supressing fires like that, but nature just took care of that section for you, there is no reason to go build a road and rip trees out of it.

[MollyWorld]

Maybe you should start a wood boycott!

[AlpineK]

Depending on the situation you don't have to build roads. Most of Icicle canyon was logged after the burn in the 90's with helicoptors.

 

You are right Josh that logging companies end up taking big healthy trees so they can make money. If they were truely thinning the forest they would only cut trees that have little to no economic value.

 

I don't know if there is a good way out of the situation. It would cost a lot for a true thinning opperation and because of the overgrowth letting some forests burn would mean all the trees in those forests would burn.

[Jim]

As an ecologist with current experience in writing land management plans, including fire ecology issues here's my two cents.

 

There is some logic to conducting some thinning of forests around centers of human habitation. A lot can be done on a small scale by having proper buffers around dwellings, code enforecment for fire standards, blah, blah.

 

The reason many of our forests are choked with doghair growth susceptible to fire is - past forestry practices, current ones are a bit better. And fire supression. The problem is that you are never, and I mean never, going to solve the problem through the 'Healthy Forests Initiative". It's a joke really. We don't have anywhere near the amount of money that would be needed to even clear forests around towns in the west. All fire ecologists just roll their eyes at this political theater. Small scalle efforts are going have to be mixed with large scale, ecologically based management.

 

A good example of the misuse of this law is on the Biscuit Fire in Oregon. While there were opportunities to take out some fire-damaged trees quickly in a limited timber sale the Bushies pushed for a wider-take, with new road building (instead of selective helicopter logging in less accessible areas) against the wishes of all the scientists and most of the land managers, including the local Forest Service folks. So what the opponents of this practice are worried about, apparantly with good reason, is that the Bushies will use this foot in the door for logging in more roadless areas.

 

In contrast to this there have been some good collobrative efforts in Colorado where all the stakeholders get together and hammmer out a forestry plan that considers fire ecology, sustainable harvest, market needs, and fish and wildlife. So it can be done with local input.

 

While touting local input the Bushies have continually squashed cooperative plans. Another example is the plan that was put together over 10 years of talks for the management of Federal forests in the Sierra Nevada. The Bushies can in and said it was null and void. And thanks for all your hard work.

 

Vunerable on the environment? I think that would be an understatement.

[Winter]

I've litiagated at least 6 or 7 post-fire salvage sales, and I basically agree with Jim. A lot of people don't recognize that burned forests have a pretty important role to play in the ecosystem. Cavity nesting species like woodpeckers thrive and rely on burned areas for forage and nesting habitat. We have been logging the hell out of these areas, and it can cause an imbalance in the ecosystem. Burned forsts aren't useless - they're actually pretty dam important.

 

The argument that you log a burned forest to prevent future fires is called the "reburn theory" and its bs. The FS claims fires burn longer if there is a lot of large woody debris, but its the slash and small fuels left behind after a salvage operation that really poses the fire risk.

[scott_harpell]

Post fire there should be no brush.

[scott_harpell]

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.

[Dru]

in flat ground - like oregon - its better to build roads than heli and even better to hoe-chuck with no road just overlanding on slash and brush

[Winter]

Post fire there should be no brush.

 

Well that comment right there shows you don't know a whole lot about a burned landscape.

[Jim]

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.

 

1) Eliminate all logging in publicly owned-old growth forests. These forests are no fire-susceptible, are not near human habitation and the road-building and logging that occurs only increases fire hazard in later years.

 

2) Develop local plans with the local stakeholders taking charge - not the timberheads in D.C. Concentrate on thinning stands where it is needed around towns or infrastructure.

 

3) It's ludicrious to say you're going to "clean up the forests" in wildlands. There is not enough money to even do a good job around major metropolitan areas. Concentrate on what is known as the urban-wildland fringe.

 

4) Stop trying to use the current iniative to build roads into roadless areas under the premise of reducing fire hazard. There is no scientific basis for this. There are options for selective cutting in millions of acres of forest that are currently accessible via roads. Helicopter selective cuts in salvage areas can be done where it is absoulutely necessary.

 

5) No road building in areas under consideration for roadless under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule which was recently validated in court, yet the Bushies keep trying the end-around admistrative tactics.

 

6) The above is not new. This is how it was done before the Bushies ham-fisted tactics.

[scott_harpell]

1) Eliminate all logging in publicly owned-old growth forests. These forests are no fire-susceptible, are not near human habitation and the road-building and logging that occurs only increases fire hazard in later years.

 

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.

[scott_harpell]

2) Develop local plans with the local stakeholders taking charge - not the timberheads in D.C. Concentrate on thinning stands where it is needed around towns or infrastructure.

 

And who will pay the billions needed?

[Jim]

1) Eliminate all logging in publicly owned-old growth forests. These forests are no fire-susceptible, are not near human habitation and the road-building and logging that occurs only increases fire hazard in later years.

 

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.

[scott_harpell]

premise of reducing fire hazard. There is no scientific basis for this.

 

"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.

[scott_harpell]

1) Eliminate all logging in publicly owned-old growth forests. These forests are no fire-susceptible, are not near human habitation and the road-building and logging that occurs only increases fire hazard in later years.

 

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?

[iain]

If sir michael atiyah started a thread on string theory, harpell would be in there trying to act like an expert.

 

I am particularly entertained by this new "voice of reason" angle he's working now.

[scott_harpell]

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

[scott_harpell]

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

[Dru]

If sir michael atiyah started a thread on string theory, harpell would be in there trying to act like an expert.

 

I am particularly entertained by this new "voice of reason" angle he's working now.

 

[JoshK]

As an ecologist with current experience in writing land management plans, including fire ecology issues here's my two cents.

 

Scott, I think this is enough right here to demonstration that you are in over your head with Jim.

 

Nobody (myself included) has argued that the past policy worked well and that it doesn't need to be changed going forward. All I said was that cutting out already burnt (and mostly fuelless) tress from an ALREADY burnt landscape is a smokescreen to drop a favor to timber companies. I didn't say a damn thing about healthy forests. This is where the discussion on prescribed burns, thinning, etc. comes in. This is just about the already burnt forests, and it's a stupid policy.

[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?

[scott_harpell]

All I said was that cutting out already burnt (and mostly fuelless) tress from an ALREADY burnt landscape is a smokescreen to drop a favor to timber companies.

 

This... is a fallatious statment. If the trees were fueless, why would they harvest them? The growing carbon market?

[JoshK]

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?

 

He listed like 5 or 6 things to do above. You missed that?

 

This conversation is obviously a waste of time. I think even you know that it's a timber-friendly policy but for some reason you seem to have the need to defend a bush policy for whatever reason.

[scott_harpell]

Yeah... I saw it. It is not economically feasable and requires either prescribed burning or the hands-off policy for firefighting in the wilderness. No logging of public land means 1) less timber for consumers and 2) less money for not only the logging companies, but also the NFS. Ignoring logging companies is NOT a practical solution. I know they are the "baddies" but they are a necessary facet of the lifestyles we live.

[scott_harpell]

You state it is a "timber friendly policy" as if working with the timber companies is tantamount to treason. I don't think that utilizing private man power and resources to attempt a balance. As I have stated before, you can't fix the problem without them without using a 100% hands-off policy for fire suppression and harvesting. This is just ridiculous.