Posted on 10/07/2005 8:39:10 AM PDT by george76
I've have photos of areas in the northern Sierra in the late 1800 to early 1900's that show ridge upon ridge of NO trees. The environmentalists will swear that there are old growth forests growing on these same ridges today.
Most then were logged for the Gold Rush and later city building.
That would be George Gruell's book, Fire in Sierra Nevada Forests.
Yes, that is the one. Wish I had a copy but never seem to get one. I know marsh2 posted a link at one time. I'm sure I have it hanging around.
The tendency of the building industry in California to prefer Douglas Fir over other species also has had an impact as Douglas Fir is easily germinated in open sunny areas and has led to Forest Service policies allowing many areas to be clear cut in order to increase the dominance of this tree.
I have noticed over the years that some folks from other related fields quietly envy the role of a forester, and actively work to undermine the profession by telling the public that we are not qualified to manage wildlife habitat or water quality or archeology or whatever field they are in. The fact is that foresters are generalist and the other diciplines are specialist. We are trained to look at the forest over the long term - that includes real history.
On federal lands, the foresters are still the ones who design projects, and the 'ologists give input. Many just try to kill the project out right. This is backwards. In the Northwest NF's where 80% of the land is set aside for the spotted owl, the biologists should design the projects with input from the foresters. In other words the BIOLOGISTS should be responsible for maintaining habitat.
This will never happen because biologists are content to shoot at the foresters and not take any responsibility for their actions. If the whole thing burns to a crisp, then they say "It's natural". This is why we have gridlock on the National Forests.
Certain places, in stands of lodgepole, the fuels did this. IN other tree types, the fuels did not do this. Fire supression, shifting populations from one type of tree to another, the loss of meadows because of fire suppression and the degeneration of aspen stands all have played serious roles in what's going on.
Lots and lots and lots of research to back this stuff up. I work in a libary dedicated to silvaculture and related things, and I can tell you that the current intermountain west fire situation does not match the historical reality.
The current reality started because a lot of the politicians and some scientists didn't think we should be having fires because it wasted the lumber that the national forest reserves were being created to preserve. With the Big Blowup, the anti-fire people won, and until much later in the 20th century, the goal was to put out every fire before 10 am. And the understory trash grew, the slash piled up and the meadows degenerated. Aspen stands grew fewer. It wasn't just lodgepole that grew doghaired, but other trees grew too close together, allowing for more crowning fires, and making them much more succeptable to bark beetle kills.
And to this the enviromentalists' fight against treating for pests, the fight to not let logging companies take out any trees, the large amounts of deadwood piling up, and your fuel levels allow for fires that will change the landscape, burning hotter than the area is acclimated for.
When you add the fact that more and more people are moving into these wooded areas, you have a greater chance for disaster. And it isn't the way it used to be.
Enviros don't care about the forest. They don't want anyone making a profit.
For some, the science doesn't matter.
Never was a truer statement spoken.
BTTT
And there ya have it!!! Nice, precise summation, foggy one!!! They're Commies thru and thru to the core!!!
They aren't irrelevant but you have to take them with a certain grain of salt, specially with reference to the temporal and spatial scale we're talking about. Fire ecologists like Dickmann and Cleland who challenge the idea of historic regular periodic fires regimes (There are plenty more but those are just few off the top of my head). The problem is that most historic fire studies focus on fires regimes that have evolved since the retreat of the Pleistocene glaciers. The problem is that they (the regimes) have evolved and continue to evolve. This evolution is problematic for fire historians as the fire frequency of a particular regime defined for one historical period will not necessarily apply to those preceding it or following it.
If I quoted all of these studies, would you even read them? I detect a subtle bias in what you are telling me - in which it is O.K. to just let nature take its course - despite the fact that this is a man-made problem...this is a cop-out and is disengenious
I have read them. I suppose there is a bias in that I don't think we can even come close to duplicating what nature is equiped to handle and the research backs up my assertions. In this specific case I do not see how our feeble attempts at managing the landscape at all negate the fact that nature has a problem, and create a solution (hitting the reset button).
Well, for one I am not a herpetologist. I am an ecologist and I have done more research on fire ecology than any other topic (including a few studies on the implications of both historic and current fire management on herpetofauna.) Second, I have no problem with foresters whatsoever. In fact I have learned a ton from them and continue to work with them on numerous studies
I've been around on this one with GF before, and his spin on his own words demonstrated his urgent need to fall in line with the Wilderness Society prescription, an infatuation with a cheap "solution."
I'd rather be the one "spinning" my words than you (which you seem to love to do). As soon as I mention a differing take on the situation, I'm all of the sudden I'm disingenuous, dishonest, or flatout wrong according to you guys.
It may be one thing to blow out a stand of white fir with a catastrophic event, but applying that method to most ponderosa pine forests (for example) while in their current condition would be enormously destructive, particularly where weeds abound.
Sure, there would be weeds abound but eventually a regenerated ecosystem would develop. When the system is broke the bandaid approach never works long-term (a complete waste of time and resources). Sometimes, a fresh start is a better option.
Nature doesn't come with a reset button.
That's funny nature has reset itself several thousand times before we human ever even came along!
I really think you guys have misinterpreted what I have been saying. I would never contend that a forest burning to a crisp is a desired outcome. What I was trying to say that if a forest is in an unhealthy state (no matter if its natural or from human mismanagement; beetle infestation), a catastrophic fires is not the end of the world. I was never justifying this type of fire as "Nature take its course"- only say that a catastrophic fire may be the most efficient method of recovery.
Further, catastrophic fires HAVE occurred historically without human influence. It's gonna happen every once in a while. A catastrophic fire certainly has a plethora of negative effects but there are also some positives as well (e.g. that beetle infestation isn't likely to be a problem there after a fire of that magnitude). I know you guys love attacking me and all but all I am doing is contributing a little balance to the discussion. I guess my question would be what is your suggestion? Harvest the beetle infested timber and further spread it?
Some local ranchers, 5th to 7th genereation, have photos going back into the 1800's showing the mountains in their area....lots of open land, sparce trees, nothing like today, and this was before the loggers came in..
I agree wholeheartedly. I like to think of all ecosystems as continuums. In the fire example, you have some areas that were prone to catastrophic fires, some areas with somewhat periodic fires, and some that never/rarely burned. Historically, most natural areas probably fell under the period fire category. Today, the shift is going toward the extremes of the spectrum. This is certainly a problem but that does not negate that the extremes exist and existed before. It would be foolish to manage all forests in the same manner with the same fire plans. There is a need for forest at all different stages along the successional gradient.
Not according to the test forest. Should we discount that study?
I have read your reply and am having a hard time figuring out what you are trying to tell me.
I have read them. I suppose there is a bias in that I don't think we can even come close to duplicating what nature is equiped to handle and the research backs up my assertions. In this specific case I do not see how our feeble attempts at managing the landscape at all negate the fact that nature has a problem, and create a solution (hitting the reset button).
As for the above comments, consider what the founder of the Wilderness Society stated in a letter to the Superintendent of Glacier National Park:
"I must confess that it seams to me academic to talk about maintaining the balance of nature. The balance of nature in any strict sense has been upset long ago, and there is no such thing to maintain. The only option we have is to create a new balance objectively determined upon for each area in accordance with the intended use of that area."
Aldo Leopold 1927
You cannot, and they do not, try to manage all forests the same...for safety reasons, fuel reduction is very important where people are living, but different species of forest need different things. Most of the intermountain west forests are adapted to moderate amounts of fire, not big crowning fires, which do things for the trees like keep beetles in check, allow for aspen to grow healthy, create meadows which are essential for a variety of wildlife. Lodgepole areas, though, are designed to burn hot and heavy. The very first visitors to the Yellowstone area noted the down and burned lodgepole pines. Trying to stop this too much ends up hurting the ecosystem.
We came in and changed the balance because of attitude that refused to see the role fire played in the ecology. But because of that, we have areas that don't do what the veg is adapted to. It's planted too thickly, burns too hot, and you screw up the soils. Your environment crashes, becoming poorer for all species involved. It's not really the natural succession of environmental evolution at play...it's bad gardening.
Aren't there easier ways to get your fireplace going?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.