Posted on 08/29/2011 3:57:54 PM PDT by SandRat
t may have taken the largest wildfire in Arizona history, but for the first time in decades, environmentalists and government officials agree on a key element of future forest management.
The U.S. Forest Service said in a report this month that intense thinning treatments can ease future wildfires, by removing trees between six and 18 inches in diameter to allow for additional space between trees.
Everyone agrees that a lot of the dry forest types need to be treated in terms of removing the vegetation, said Morris Johnson, a research ecologist with the Forest Service and co-author of the report.
Intense thinning, according to the report, is reducing stands to leave 50 to 100 trees per acre. The study provides scientific grounds for continuing the practice of thinning heavily forested areas, showing that the model and the reality match, said Shaula Hedwall of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(Excerpt) Read more at svherald.com ...
In fact, as we have every Summer, a huge fire was raging in the mountains for two months. They had to let it burn because they was no way to reach it to fight it. The houses you see on the news are of course near heavily developed areas. I am a firm believer in cleaning up the underbrush and removing too many trees as a forest management tool, but fire is really the only way to do it here.
So we have remote wilderness because we do allow vehicles into these areas. We also do not allow the use of airplanes in some places—even to rescue firefighters. Probably due to envirowachos.
Yo Inyo-Mono, you can try to spin the story any way you deem necessary. But you choose to ignore my seminal point: Because of the existence of some bonafide wilderness area, you believe we are far better off having no forest management at all.
It is not a sustainable premise.
Rather than having lumber companies PAY the government for the trees. What happens to the trees?
"Do they have millions of acres of forest in inacessable wilderness in Germany."
Then in my second post I said:
"I am a firm believer in cleaning up the underbrush and removing too many trees as a forest management tool, but fire is really the only way to do it here."
How you came to think that I believe we should have no forest management at all is beyond me.
It’s called forest management.
Hire someone to do it. But, in your case, I would single out the healthiest trees to leave stand and then cut. Space the leave trees out to about 50 to 60 feet apart. So if you draw a square, you’d have a tree on each corner about 60 feet apart. Thats called a seed tree cut and works well with spruce, fir and some pines. The leave trees will most likely get blown down-thats not the point. The point is to hope they stay up long enough to drop their seeds to create a healthier forest in the future. Those that are now healthy might be more resistant.
The Aspen should be clearcut. Oh you can leave those under 4 inches in Diameter alright, but cut the rest.
Problem is...I understand there isnt much of a market out there. So as to that point..its kind of futile.
Thanks. I’ll save this one.
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.