Only loggers can prevent forest fires

The BBQ Pit
41

Watching my local news today, here in Colorado, Leanne Gregg (who is with NBC, formerly with 9News of Denver) reported on this exact issue and since it’s so close to home, I was very interested in it.

Basically (and I have no cite) a forest service scientist stated that proper thinning of the forest in one particular location within the Hayman fire was exactly what stopped it in it’s tracks in a particular area.

Homeowners that followed forest service and local agency recommendations to place a 30 foot barrier of most vegetation away from the home and also clear out the forest areas of dried vegetation, cutting down trees to thin it out and cut limbs off trees about 10 feet of the ground were the ones that still have homes today.

Now, according to forest officials, despite our efforts to lay grass and seed the Hayman burn area will not completely recoup it’s self for 100 years. Counter that to what I heard the environmentalists say that if we allow thinning of the forests the forest will not recoup it self for another 100 years. Who knows the truth here?

So, we thin the forests that are closest to our humanity, not trim them down like a cheap web cam showing a girl shaving her hoohoo for the horny teenage boy, but allow thinning, commercially so that everyone wins. Exactly how the fuck is that a problem?

Let it burn is not suitable either. Doing controlled burns, I think is the way seeing as we certainly are much farther along as humans in our science than 100 years ago.

As one that has lived in Colorado all her life, I personally don’t see where the environmentalists see that leaving it be is anymore productive than letting forest fires explode to the magitude they have this summer. It’s a charred nothing, ugly and barren, worse than a moon scape because there were beautiful trees there because of the hands-off policy from the those that speak out for what they don’t know.

Hey all you “tree huggers” please spout your crap to the residents and those that live and work in and around our forests of why it’s better to leave the trees be as they are…hell from what I know, they can’t even clear out dead trees that have died because of the pine beetle and just stand there waiting for one little spark to set off another huge forest fire.

Grrrrrrr. While I am not a big fan of Bush, this is probably the mos important domestic issue that I agree with on his position.

42

Oh and for some of you “environmentalists” here are a few examples of why thinning out forests and controlled burns is a good thing:

From my yard, I call fire poo. Chunks of ash that ended up at my house approximately 20 miles as the crow flies:

http://fff.fathom.org/pages/techchick68/charcoal2.jpg

I had partially burned pine needles. It looked like nuclear winter there for a while, ash was raining down and even a few were still warm to the touch.

The stench from the smoke sure made for pretty skies but was very difficult for everyone (even healthy people) to breathe:

http://fff.fathom.org/pages/techchick68/redsun.jpg

Here are some photos from the Coal Seam fire outside of Glenwood, incredibly close to a very wonderful town that could have lost every home and business:

http://fff.fathom.org/pages/techchick68/glenwood1.jpg
http://fff.fathom.org/pages/techchick68/glenwood2.jpg

If anyone wants, I will drive up to the Hayman burn area and take some more pictures so our environmentalists can see the destruction. I only live about a 40 minute drive or so…

43

I need to clarify something there.

During the news cast, they did talk to a lot of the locals that survived the Hayman fire, all of which agreed with Bush. Since they are the ones that live and love the forest the most (as I would if I lived in those areas) I sure as heck would want my area to remain a beautiful forest and if that means that thinning out forests helps save that so my “potential” grand children could enjoy them, I would sure as heck would support the efforts provided it wasn’t chopping them down completely. I don’t honestly think that Bush and his administration is out to clear forests of all vegetation but to take a managed approach to help curb such destructive and such intense forest fires from happening.

44

Tim, see fizgig’s spot-on analysis of why natural burning is better than cutting. He’s also correct that the underbrush-type stuff is of little or no economic value to anybody. Make no mistake, this is about cutting down mature, economically valuable timber, not getting rid of the crap that actually fuels these gigantic fires.

Good catch, DMC. Yep, it looks like this is just another corporate giveaway. I have no problem with properly-managed logging. Hell, it’s essential to everything from newspapers to buildings to high school shop classes. But when my grandmother used to sell some of the timber on her property in Idaho, she got a big fat check at the end of the day. If the government is getting nothing in return for giving away for free, that’s just stupid.

techchick, note my qualifier above that letting 'em burn should not apply to inhabited areas. I have no problem with thinning the forests manually near homes and communities.

45

Actually, it was the prolonged, atypical, drought. The underbrush here grows back in months anyway, and the trees (pine) are quite fire resistant. Carry on.

Oh, lumber companies do knock down a lot of undergrowth just in the process of logging. The smaller trees quickly take advantage of the larger ones being taken. The larger ones tend to get sick anyway. Logging roads are firebreaks, yadda, yadda. I wish my professional forester was on the internet. He could answer a lot of these concerns.

46

An editorial on this topic. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1030062849135270515,00.html?mod=opinion

47

Oh, the drought was certainly a necessary factor, Beagle. But back before air conditioning brought the masses to Florida, small wildfires thinned out that brush on a regular basis. And while some of the underbrush grows back quickly, it’s the buildup of decades that fueled the massive fires of the last couple summers.

My dad’s side of the family has lived in Florida for 60 years. They’ve seen it all.

48

I’m not going to argue with you, minty. Both the undergrowth and the lack of water factored in. But the reason the fires became so severe that they EVACUATED FLAGLER !!!COUNTY!!!:eek: was a lack of water. This was the only county evacuation in Florida history that I can remember not involving a hurricane.

The drought (for us) actually lasted until about a year ago. Things sure have changed since then. We’re soaked.

The experts seem to cut both ways on this one. Sorry. I just know that timbering is neither evil nor good. There are too many different ways of approaching it for me to judge what is planned by GWB. The devil is in the details, as usual.

49

Minty green did you even read fizgig’s post? He said the fires that we are experiencing have such a high fuel source and intensity that they are causing incredible damage to the soil. If we had let nature take it’s course years ago and not gone for complete suppression natural fires would be the way to go, but now they are dangerous to the environment as well.

For an example on the benefits of thinning here’s an excerpt from today’s Washington Post:

Contrast that with what fizgig said about the soil becoming hydrophobic which inhibits the growth of new vegetation.

Also scientists are concerned that the size of the forest fires we are experiencing could be promoting global warming. I know Bush doesn’t buy into global warming but that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy an unexpected benefit from his proposal to thin the forests.

You seem incredibly positive that Bush just wants to let the logging companies chop down healthy trees and ignore the brush and honestly I have a fear of potential damage to healthy trees as well, but until you can provide a cite that says this is exactly what Bush is planning you can’t go making that claim with such a high degree of alleged certainty. It would be idiotic to allow the logging companies to come in, clear out trees and leave the underbrush which is the primary cause of the fires and everyone knows that including Bush.

I do think that we should watch closely what is done if Bush’s proposal goes through, but I sincerely doubt that the logging companies will neglect the underbrush because environmentalists would jump all over that and it would be a political nightmare for Bush and anyone who supported his proposal. To be on the safe side I am opposed to the part of Bush’s proposal that would make it more difficult for environmental groups to appeal, or at least as difficult (i.e. impossible) as Bush probably would like to make it for them.

50

No one can prevent forest fires.
And in other news, Dubya has been taking lessons from James Watt.

51

Unless they’ve changed the scoring system since Gore and Bush took them (which is entirely possible) SAT scores are (currently) always multiples of 10, which should make 1206 and 1355 impossible.

Again, things might have been different back then, but today a 1208 (or anything in the 1200s) won’t get you any consideration Yale.

In any case, even if Bush had gotten a 1600, I’d still call him an idiot simply because he has consistently demonstrated NO knowledge of his chosen field, or in many areas that are, for most people, common sense. The man’s a fool.

52

Yeah, that must be why Yellowstone is a barren wasteland after the gigantic fires of 1988. Oh wait, Yellowstone has recovered better than everybody (except me, apparently) expected. Never mind.

Of course, they’re not going to leave the underbrush behind. But they’re not going in there for the purpose of getting rid of the economically worthless underbrush–they’re there to get the valuavle mature trees, and if that means they have to clear out some of the crap too, they’ll be more than happy to oblige.

53

You sound like Ronald Reagan when he was Governor of California. In answer to environmentalists who wanted to save California’s ancient redwoods, he said, “A tree is a tree. How many do you need to look at?” (That quote is from memory. If it isn’t worded exactly, at least that’s the gist of it.) I should say here that the comparison of you to Reagan was by no means a compliment, as far as I am concerned.

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that there aren’t enough trees to keep loggers alive without destroying old growth forests. That isn’t true. What is true is that logging corporations would like to be able to clear-cut vast areas of hitherto protected lands because they can make more money transporting a whole forest at once than they can if they have to select dying or diseased trees and drag them through the healthy forest one by one. If they really would just “thin out” the national forests, there would be less hue and cry against them. But they are only interested in the most economical way of harvesting trees. Judicious, careful “thinning” is not it.

Incidentally, if that “I don’t give a hoot” line is a sly reference to the spotted owl controversy, it isn’t especially funny. The loss of habitat affects far more species than the spotted owl.

It’s true that replanting is possible – and happening where it is mandated by law. But for trees to reach a size where they are useful for anything but paper takes at least fifty years. How many corporations want to defer profits for fifty years when they can get immediate profits by cutting virgin forest now?

54

If it weren’t for the “Save The Trees at All Costs” environmentalists, these fires wouldn’t be nearly as intense as they are now.

Lawsuit after lawsuit has prevented the thinning of the forests until they were just waaaaaaaay too dense, and once the fires started, it was done. There was no going back.

I’d rather give up a few trees here and a few there, instead of the whole West. That’s all Bush is trying to do here. If he’s wrong, at least he’s trying to do the right thing, unlike the environmentalists, who through litigation and delay, caused this mess.

And as far as the logging companies go, did you ever hear of getting the right guy for the right job, World Eater?

Also, nowhere have I heard or read that Bush is advocating the destruction of forests, so you might want to go do a doctor for that knee jerk you had.

55

Right you are. I was there about a year after the big fire. It was strange to hike through all the burned, dead trees, most of which were still standing. Still, one could already see signs of returning life

Presumably they’d have to agree to remove the underbrush, and, as you say, their incentive would be permission to also take a certain number of healthy trees.

This may be a good quid pro quo, as long as they don’t take too many trees. The potential profit could encourage a large amount of clearing of underbrush, leading to a win-win solution. The key may be to make sure that they don’t do too much logging. I don’t know what kind of controls exist for this purpose.

56

This is where my beef lies. The article never said what you are presuming. The only thing I was able to get out of that article is they are going to be more lax in allowing future projects. I read nothing about thinning forests or removing underbrush, nor did I see anything in that article that would preclude companies from simply clear-cutting their way through forest after forest.

Can you (or anyone) give me a cite that actually details their plans, or are we to make up our own assumptions?

57

<<Can you (or anyone) give me a cite that actually details their plans, or are we to make up our own assumptions?>>

I have not seen a written plan. I do not even know if one has been released yet.

58

Don’t blame the envioronmentalists for the mindset that didn’t allow burning. It goes back to the origin of Smokey the Bear. Only You can Prevent Forest Fires!… in the 50’s. Which was government sponsored. Long before the greens appeared.

59

Gee, looks like someone wasn’t hugging these trees enough. That’s a photo of Lake Menaloose Ancient Forest Reserve - Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon.

Here’s a photo showing clearcuts in the Cascade Range, also in the Lake Menaloose Ancient Forest Reserve. It would be such a pretty forest, if only it had some trees!

I could post more photos of clearcuts, Oregon is rife with them. From the air, it looks like a bad haircut. That is what happens when Big Timber is allowed to operate without the checks and balances that environmentalists provide. I believe in moderation in all things. And that includes logging. It’s difficult for me to trust corporations that leave messes portrayed in the above photos to commensense forest management.

I freaked when I heard Bush’s speech yesterday. I heard him say that he wants to open logging in national forests, without stating any policy about making the timber companies clean up their messes. Will he force the “loggers” to replant, clear underbrush, and make sure that the logging roads will not negatively impact the environment or watersheds? None of us know excactly what his plan is. So I am a bit nervous at this point.

Unfortunately, I was not able to attend his meeting yesterday to ask him in person. Not one single person from any environmental group was given a ticket to his “invitation only” public meeting at the Expo Center yesterday. To Bush’s credit, a few token Demos were invited and given tickets.

60

Hehe, I have seen one person to clarify his/her position but not one has taken me to task over what I said about actually thinning forests provided that it’s not a buzz cut.

Granted said person is okay with it if there is human life involved…but much of our forest land is somehow inhabited by regular activities and does affect those that live near and around those areas. We’ve had many small businesses that have had to close up near the Hayman burn area because everyone is afraid to go up there and not be able to hike in a nice forested area and fish for beautiful and tasty trout.

I also see that no one has taken me to task to drive up to the burn area and do a photo essay of what is not left…kind of amazes me, people sit back and play arm-chair environmentalist but when some one is willing to show the destruction, not only of homes but of the forest looking like it belongs on some desert seen with fake and burned trees.

I have no problem to go up there, where I can, to take pics.

Granted this whole idea of the government owning forest land goes against my political beliefs but it’s reality and if this is reality then why aren’t more tree huggers taking me up on the challenge to show the public the reality of what the past, dealing with poor management of forest land, and NOT thinning out the the areas we so treasure? Where are you tree huggers now? You don’t want John Q. Public to see what could be avoided had limited logging and such could have prevented in our forests.

Again, I agree with controlled burning but those fires did more in a few days to destroy forests than a logging operation could do in a life time because a life time and then some is what it will take to create what was once there.

It’s the bad policies that helped with this issue and I for one support Little Bush on this issue. Clean up the forests, do controlled burns when necessary and ensure that the few resources we have actually remain beautiful.

Yeah, some see it as tampering with nature but we do it on so many levels, like artifical insemination, controlling depression, controlling pain, controlling…if it can be done safely within the confines of our human body then by golly it can be done in the few forest areas left in this world.