Skip to comments.Forest Service considers thinning near Estes Park ( reduce destructive wildfire potential )
Posted on 09/09/2007 7:21:56 PM PDT by george76
U.S. Forest Service officials have released a plan to reduce destructive wildfire potential on about 8,100 acres of forest land east of Estes Park.
The goal of the Thompson River Fuel Reduction Project is to reduce the spread and intensity of wildfires that could affect private property and municipal water supplies in and around the Big and Little Thompson rivers and to protect the forests ecosystem.
Historically, small fires thinned forest undergrowth and kept the chances for a large wildfire to a minimum.
But through much of the 20th century, people suppressed those fires. That left a more dense undergrowth, increasing the chance for a severe fire.
For the past year, officials have collected public input while developing the plan. The project includes three alternatives in reducing wildfire fuels on Forest Service land ...
(Excerpt) Read more at timescall.com ...
It wouldnât surprise me if the socialists(aka environmentalists) will protest this under the pretense it will somehow harm the environment.
This is lumber for the homeless democrat voters who want to
walk their children to the new schools that this lumber will
We are having some success calling this ‘removing bio-mass’ instead of logging.
The eco-nuts seem happier ?
It’s only a coincidence that a plan is announced after Udall starts running for Allard’s seat. What the hell has that puke been doing for nearly nine years.
Ecological fire prevention?
When such regular burning was outlawed (via Smokey the Bear et al.), we were gifted with the huge wildfires which we now take for granted.
Smokey the Bear should be taken out and ritually executed. Then perhaps we could return to a rational management practice.
About time managers will be allowed to manage some forest land rather than just let it burn up.
It’s hard to believe the enviro wackos go along no matter what they call it but if this works more power to them. There must be a few sane enviros in Colorado.
Thanks for the ping.
One small victory for us ?
The Sierra Club lawyers would normally jump on this, but with Udall running for the Senate...silence ?
Even you can prevent wildfires; remove bio-mass regularly!
Alternative 1 no action: Current management plans would continue in the area. The Forest Service would not complete fuel-reduction plans to complement fuel-reduction efforts on private land.
Alternative 2 proposed action: Treat about 8,100 acres of Forest Service land in the project area. Treatments would include thinning small conifer trees and burning, chipping or scattering the cut material.
Existing downed and dead material also could be treated. Cutting down smaller trees makes it harder for fires to climb to the tops of trees where they can spread faster and become more intense, officials say.
Private contractors or Forest Service employees would do the work. In some areas, such as the Hell Canyon Roadless Area, only hand crews would be allowed to treat the area.
Alternative 3: Minimize the number of acres treated within the Hell Canyon Roadless Area. Dyce Gayton, project leader, said he has received comments from people who say the roadless area should be left in its natural state and should not have human intrusion, such as fuel reduction treatment, on the landscape. But the area is close to private property and needs to be treated to help prevent destruction of private property, he said.
I have no problem with reducing the fire danger around here but I don't see any logging in any of these solutions. I sure wouldn't mind taking some trees out for firewood, as would a lot of residents here, but that isn't in this plan and hasn't been allowed around here for a long time.
Using science for a solution ?
No science is needed, just common sense. This was learned after the 1988 fires in Yellowstone.
Hey, as long as these felled trees are wasted and not used for someone to make an honest living, they’ll be happy with this. Thanks george.
The proposed treatments would primarily include cutting smaller diameter conifer trees and piling and burning or chipping the cut material.
The project is a total economic loser. Wait for the cry of “We just didn’t have enough funding.”
I bet the drive by media will never ask the question, ‘Gee, If they would cut some of the bigger trees, wouldn’t that have generated enough money to treat most of the affected area? Last I heard, there were no sawmills left in Colorado...don’t see how anyone would build one given the current USFS policy.....
After the saw mill was done cutting their lumber we used to get slabs for home firewood. There was a large pile off to the side, we collected whatever we wanted , and paid per truck load.
Cheap heat for us, some extra cash for the family operation...until the liberals moved in. The USFS was forced to end the historical use.
These trees likely will be small and end up as landscape mulch...?
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.