Northwest Forest Fires

[Bruce]

Everyday Forest Fires increase in the northwest.  Over a half a million acres so far in Oregon alone.  

One town of 150 residences in eastern Oregon is relying on 700 fire fighters to save their town.

When will the Forest Service wake up?  There is too much fuel built up in wilderness and roadless areas.

I must sound like an extremist, since my point of view continually addresses the need to prevent Forest Fires through proper forest management.

I hope eco extremist while their putting nails in trees deep in the forest don't find themselves trapped in the middle of a forest fire.

That would be, well, what would that be?  I don't want to see anyone hurt or killed.  How do we protect stupid people from themselves?

August through September has been noted as the fire danger months in the Northwest, Maine and other places throughout America.

I can only pray for the safety of fire fighters, small towns, wildlife and habitat.

If I was not disabled I would be a fire fighter and if I was not a casualty I would video and take pictures of the devastation a forest fire has on the eco system.

I would send these pictures to the congress, post them on my website and show them at county fairs.

I must ask, how much board feet of timber lost, due to forest fires is acceptable?

I listen to KPAM radio show out of Portland Oregon and give input as they invite callers to address concerns.  Several days ago there guest was an environmentalist who doesn't like pesticides in the river from farming or thinning the forest and underbrush.

I guess increased Forest Fires (Global Warming), SMOKE and the waste of natural resources is acceptable by those managing our nations natural resources?

Wastewater treatment plants along the rivers dumping treated water into the river or treating wastewater in order to provide drinking water would be an area I'd like to see environmentalist focus.  

If the present Forest policy prevails, within 5 years the northwest will have limited timber to harvest.

Protect your private forest.  No one is presently protecting state and national forest.

[CHARLIE]

There have always been and there always will be forest fires. Nature has a way of rebuilding afterward. In fact, once the canopy is gone, and smaller plants can now get sun, there is more food for critters. Also, if I remember correctly, it takes a forest fire to crack the casing on a Jack Pine seed so it can germinate.

Looking at it from an economic point of view, it is tragic to see all that good lumber go up in smoke. If only we could know in advance when a forest was going to catch fire, or when a volcano was going to flatten all that surrounds it or when high winds blows down thousands of trees so we could harvest the wood before hand. But we can't...and that's nature.

I do believe that, 1) If you build your home in the woods, you have to accept the fact that someday you may have to contend with a forest fire. 2) If you build your home next to a river, you may have to contend with flooding 3) If you build your home next to the ocean, you may have to contend with a hurricane.  4) If you build your home on a fault line, you may have to contend with an earthquake. 5) Etc.

I admire those people that volunteer their time to fight forest fires. I'm in awe at the shape they have to be in to fight the fires, and the dangers they have to encounter. It takes a special kind of person.

With the thousands and thousands of acres of forest in the U.S., I'm not sure anyone....could do much to prevent a forest from catching fire.  In most cases, I think they do about the best they can do. I'm not a Forester or a Logger, so from my myopic point of view, I really don't like to see clear cutting unless it was a forest planted for harvesting. I prefer to see select cutting....if that makes any sense.....which to me means selecting some larger trees to harvest so the smaller ones can grow. Maybe that's not realistic though. Anyway, I'm not sure what kind of "forest management" would prevent a forest fire.

I certainly understand your frustration though. It's hard to see all that beautiful timber go up in smoke. But that's life and that's nature.

Now for those people that call themselves "environmentalist" who try to disrupt logging operations by acts of violence, they should be, if caught, prosecuted as the criminals that they are. Sometimes I think a good flogging should be reinstated as punishment. And that would do well for those that spike trees and such.

I will now climb down off my soapbox. Just keep in mind, I don't mean to offend anyone. It is just my opinion and we all have one.
       

[Tom]

You forgot one Charlie,

If you build your home in town next to subsidized Govt. housing you should expect paint on the sidewalks, graffiti on buildings and a stranger standing in your bedroom one night.

I guess the same effect could be accomplished by the Govt. building subsidized housing in your neighborhood too.

A good anti-forestfire procedure, believe it or not, is prescribed burning.  Unfortunately fire in general has been given a bad name and agriculture has lost one of the most cost effective and successful tools it possessed.  Who was responsible for the demise of the prescribed burn?  I think the blame could be laid on the same unknowledgeable eco-whackos that spike trees.

The general public gets upset when they see Fire, Clear Cutting, Tree harvesting, even tops left from select harvest or thinning.  They don't understand what is going on and assume that they know best even though they have not been involved with the economics or sciences of agriculture.

There are instances when these procedures are called for but are curtailed by a majority of unknowledgeable citizens.  It is called "The Tail Wagging The Dog".

How about if Doctors were hung in the town square because they cut somebody's stomach open to remove their infected appendix?

How about if Lawyers were drawn and quartered for............no, that's not a good example.

I don't think a lot of people give much thought as to what was on their property before "their" house was built on it. Nor do they consider where the 2x4 framing or their expensive Oak Bedroom Suite came from either.

Some people aren't Happy unless they are Unhappy.

Some people don't acknowledge that there is another side to the coin.

[CHARLIE]

OK...I have something to say about controlled burning that might be of interest.  SE Minnesota was just plum full of oak groves. The reason, I was told by a Forester, was because the indians used to purposely set fires. I can't remember why, whether it was to clear for crops or what, but because the oaks could withstand the heat better than most the conifers, resulted in groves of oak trees. Pretty interesting, huh?

[Bruce]

Charlie:

Your opinion is welcome.

Fire in the eco system of forest has benifits and natures way is often in contrast to my desire, but surely we should manage the forest in order to preserve both habitat and timber.  

How will we ever know what long term affect acid rain has on the forest if we continue to allow forest to burn or maybe wild fires is natures way of stopping the spread of diease caused by acid rain.

Allowing millions of healthily acres of forest to burn because its nature’s way might have been accepted 100 years ago.

Population in America will continue to grow.

In an effort to provide the resources necessary to sustain human life it seems only prudent to preserve our nations natural resources.

Timber sustains human life and is a resource worth protecting.

We have the ability to reduce fuel build up, thereby reducing the size of fires.
 
Lighting that causes wild fires is out of our control, but we can eliminate excessive fuel build up.

I would support policies that:

Reduce fuel build up;
Selective controlled burns based on scientific facts that a particular forest has disease or insect infestation;
USDA Forest Service should issue reports illustrating which forest are more likely to burn due to fuel build up and allow those willing to correct the problem by extracting underbrush or trees.  

The Biomass industry could benifit from tree limbs, diseased trees or thick underbrush.

For many years in the northwest the USDA Forest Service was warned by many experts that there was too much undergrowth and various areas needed thinned in the forest of the northwest.  

These warnings were not adhered too and 7 million acres went up in smoke.  

This year many of the areas now on fire and others soon to be, have too much fuel built up in the forest.

These are facts and they provide a wild fire it's fuel.

Some say it’s due to slash cutting practices or the loggers who only extract the tress leaving tree limbs behind.

In the last several years, millions of acres burned in the northwest have not been due to loggers.  

These fires were due to lighting, cigarettes or campfires.

In fact, they could have been prevented and loggers were willing to do it but they were not allowed.

In the last ten years there has been record mill closures and over one hundred thousand jobs lost.  Idaho mills are few compared to only 5 years ago.

This morning KPAM Radio addressed the subject of forest fires.  Shelia Hamilton believes we should allow the forest to burn because it’s healthily.  Yet she would also like to see old growth timber for her daughter one day to enjoy.

Without proper forest management, every forest in the U. S. could and one day will burn.

[cointoss]

Anyway you want to look at it, not harvesting the timber is a waste of the resource.  Fires happen and when one is burning at the end of your road sure makes a tree hugger change his ideas fast, especially when you look at the complete destruction.  There are still areas around me that were in a major fire over 100 years ago that sterilized the ground and nothing grows. I still think of the old white pine that I deer hunt out of, that burned way back then, must have been one heck of a tree.

[CHARLIE]

I'm not in favor of just letting forest fires burn. I think it is the right thing to do to try and put those fires out as soon as possible. I just don't think it is realistic to think we can stop them.  

I doubt anyone could clear underbrush from all the forest that we had. That's a heck of a lot of acreage and rough terrain out there. Plus, if someone cleared all the bushes and shrubs and just left the trees, what would the critters eat? Maybe the government could install ladders on the trees so they could climb up to the leaves.  Clear out the underbrush and wher would the critters hide? Dang near everytime humans mess around with the balance of nature, they screw it up. As an example...I don't like mosquitoes. They sting, they make me itch and they carry diseases. But, some animals really depend on mosquitoes for a food source (ie Bats). So if humanoids eradicated the mosquitoes, we may then have to teach bats to eat pizza. Of course I'm sure we can get a government grant to do that.

[RavioliKid]

I'd like to get a job training mosquitoes to eat pizza!

[Bruce]

Charlie:

I like you.  I like bats two.  Since we cut two 100' pine trees down on our farm we have fewer bats but more mosquito's.  I begged my father not to cut them down.  He didn't want them to fall on our buildings and homes.  I hate Mosquito's.  

In December I intend to buy The Mosquito Magnet - operates 24 hours a day in order to capture day-biting, as well as night-biting blood-seeking insects. Biting insects such as the Asian Tiger Mosquito, Aedes aegypti (carrier of Dengue Fever), Aedes Japonicus (carrier of the West Nile Virus), salt marsh mosquitoes, no-see-ums, midges, and sand flies are all active biters during the daylight hours.

The Mosquito Magnet™ is environmentally friendly, uses no pesticides, and releases no harmful substances.

http://www.innovativetechsolutions.com/MosquitoMagnet.htm

A properly designed cable system, Teams of Horses and oxen could clear underbrush in rough terrain.

Every year we pay fire fighters to fight fires.  

Do they like this type of occupation?  

Would they work clearing the forest of excessive underbrush and trees to close together?

I would leave some, just enough food for those critters to live and my favorites like deer, elk, moose, rabbits and the like in the forest would be well provided for.  

In fact, in some cases we might feed the critters dependant upon the case but I don't favor feeding wolves cattle.

One thing for sure, not having access to 50 million acres of the national forest and in a few years 59 million acres, proper forest management is out of reach of everyone and up to nature.

Therefore, I agree with you, forest fires are here to stay just like pizza.  

I think I like pizza better.

[CHARLIE]

Hey Rav! If you need advice on training skeeters to eat pizza let me know. I got a guv'ment grant a long time ago to teach houseflys to eat pizza. I think I did to good a job 'cause they moved on to other foods too. Anyway, I have the training system down to a nats...Uhhhhh.

[Jeff]

The first critter that lays it's mits on my pizza is askin for it.

Now, this is an important topic people. Lets keep this thread on it! (Northwest fires not pizza)

[Tom]

I put a thread on  a critter  onc't....glued it to that sucker and took him(?) for walks.

Northwest fires are depressing.   There is so much open country up there and natural underbrush etc. that I don't see how anybody could clear it all out and still say it was  a natural forest.

I've never been in Mont. or Wash. or seen a lot of that territory except from a commercial jet at 35000 ft.  but to look at a map and see the towns with populations of 200-500 souls and how spread apart they are, I would guess that the rest was unattended, wild forest.

If the forest were managed for wood or recreation then man would manicure it.  If left to its own devices,  we are probably looking at the natural evolution of a forest, underbrush and all.

Folks complain about plantations of single species but a natural forest will many times favor one species which will take over in pure stands.

Since Fire is a natural phenomena, why would we be managing fire in an unmanaged forest?  Wouldn't that equate to managing the forest?  Can we have our cake and eat it too?

[Ron Wenrich]

I'll add my 2 cents to this topic, but I have very little experience with fires.  We pretty well did away with them in the East when we converted over to hardwoods and did away with steam locomotives.

The problems I have read about involve the managed stands.  What happens is you have various heights of trees in managed areas.  This is prevalent in edges of clearcuts, especially where you get branches forming along the boles.

A fire starts as a ground fire, then starts stepping itself up higher into the canopy via shorter trees to taller trees.  It is called a ladder effect.  It can also occur in natural openings, if they're large enough..

I saw this explained last year by a professor at Oregon State.  He said that old growth timber was not as prone to damaging fires since there was less understory and less chance for fires to ladder up to the overstory.

They also explained that logging was neither the cause or the cure for fires.  In other words, fire happens.  The cause for the fires is because it's dry.  Cure that and you'll cure fires.

Fire is a natural occuring event in many forests.  Some tree species depend on the cycle - Jack pine for example.  Older trees have heavier bark and are less effected by ground fires.

Pure natural stands come from all trees being of the same age and at the same point in the successional forest.  Pioneer species tend to be the fastest growing, and climax species tend to be slower growing.  Climax species are always shade tolerant.

To have large areas of a pure stand would point to past disturbances that lend to stand distruction.  That could be fire, insect or disease.  

I'm not sure I'm convinced that thinning stands will decrease fires.  It will decrease fire loads on the forest floor somewhat.  But, it will also thin out the canopy allowing more understory to grow.  Or so it seems to me.

[RavioliKid]

Okay, Jeff, I'll try to stick to the topic.

Forest fires are tremendously frightening. I've never been in one. I drove past a controlled burn, once, while it was burning.

I think that there has to be more harvesting of trees and the understory if we don't want to have the forest fires. If we persist in building and living there, we've got to keep the vegetation cut back.

Otherwise, we'll have forest fires to balance things out.

Now, I think I'll go get some pizza.

[Bruce]

You folks have valuable information on various topics?

That makes you number one in my book of bests.

I've read member input from old growth (lots of good information here) to that Waco who loaded his car with to much building materials (I think he was headed to the mountains);

and stories on critters really impress me.

I could very easily assemble together Questions and answers from information made available from well-informed members of the Forest Network.

In fact, a book could be written just by copying member input but the completed works of authorships would be long to the members of the forest Network.

How could anyone sign their name to the experiences and knowledge of others?

That fellow with insight that boldly spoke on the radio today I wish would chat on the Forest Network.

He was listened to because he was fighting those fires.  

He was in charge and associates with that community of enlightened few.

He said "We need to eliminate fuel build up and get the forest back to a natural eco system, natural fires, not fires that engulf an entire region."

It seems to me forest policies are not effectively addressing on a local level factors that involve:

The local economy;
Recreation;
Logging;
Allowable Acceptable Board Timber lost due to wildfires and man-made fires;
Watershed protection;
Habitat protection from disease, insects and fire;
Biomass resources and industry incentives;
Timber Industry Incentives;
Federal Timber Exchange Program;
Market oriented solutions for ESA;

Secondly, it seems to me we might be able to limit natural fires to say 100,000 acres by thinning and reducing underbrush in designated areas.  These areas would be harvested and replanted.  They would also be managed for underbrush removal for Biomass energy.

Smaller forests in areas we know are prone to dry lighting fires or man made due to recreation could be managed.  It seems reasonable to eliminate the chance of allowing 25,000 acres to burn by thinning designated areas in order to reduce the total allowable burnable area in any particular forest regardless of the size.

In short:

How many acres burned in any particular forest is acceptable?

Once this is decided on a local level for federal, state, county, and private forest, we can determine which forest will be managed.

Presently, there is no policy establishing what is acceptable.

If I owned five thousand acres or more of forestland regardless of where it might be, I would want access and be allowed to thin the forest or manage it in a way to preserve my investment.  

I may decide to clear cut sections and leave other sections standing.  My forest might look like a puzzle with missing pieces but a fire would not take out all my trees at once.

[Tom]

Well Bruce,

You've kinda hit all around the sticker in this "Wild Forest" arguement.  

Some folks want their front yard to be perfectly manicured with only certain plants in certain places and nothing where it "doesn't belong".

Other folks like natural settings and local plants.  They may have a front yard of rocks and cacti.

Some folks don't want to be bothered with mananging anything and let grow what will grow.

Some folks have put corn in the front yard.

None of this is bad when you consider the individual, it only becomes bad when you judge one persons values with another persons criteria.

Not that I would ever live in one, but that's what makes gated communities so popular.  everybody has to live in the same kind of house on the same size lot with the same kind of yard.

It's hard to complain that the other person is doing it wrong when you are doing it too.

Now for safeties sake there might be an argument that the person that wants no management of their front yard may be hazardous to other humans sharing the neighboring lots. Democracy would allow that he be run out. It still wouldn't make him wrong on an individual level.

What are we expecting of our forests.  What is a "wild forest' supposed to be.  What criteria is used to manage a forest.  

Your criteria for a forest may be different from mine and ours from another's.  Clear cuts are a form of management I have no problem with but I am a tree farmer.  Tree farmers are interested in the economic value of the trees in relation to lumber or pulp.

Clear cuts are devastating to someone whose goal is walking beneath big trees and whose criteria for a forest has nothing to do with their economic value on the pulp market.

I don't think our society has come up with a viable premise to argue the management of Forests with because everybody has different goals.

[Bruce]

Well put Tom:

I guess I can only wish one day everyone will want to preserve timber.  

50 years from now when there is 60 million more Americans who may need timber related products, lumber, etc., thinning the forest may become a reality.

Averaging a million or more acres burned each year since 1988 (If you add up the total forestland burned and divide it by 13 years) how much old growth or 20 to 30 year old trees in the forest would be left 50 years from now averaging a million acres a year?

Without some sort of management, even younger trees have, can and will burn?

[Tom]

    Yep !

[Ron Scott]

They are real short on qualified crew bosses and the closer you are to Oregon the better. I received a "reaching out" message today, but I'm "over the hill" for that mountain work and no longer red carded.

[Tom]

Ron,  I understand the "over-the-hill" part and am making assumptions about"red card".  How about enlightening me?