The west is burning!

[SlyPokerDog]

Saw the pic on the internets. Amazing!

I needed a spot to sleep while on a recent road trip and found an epic vantage point above Snoqualmie Pass, WA. Multiple wildfires, and Seattle's light pollution made for a very intense scene!

During a recent road trip up north, I spent the night out of Snoqualmie Pass, WA. Epic light pollution from Seattle's suburbs, multiple wild fires, and the 90 interstate winding through the mountains made for some incredible lighting to frame Mt. Ranier and the milky way rising above it.

 

[riverman]

wow..I just came back from Bend and it's like the entire state decided to barbecue at the same time..plastics and all. The moon was blood red two nights ago and Beaver orange last night.

 

[riverman]

Saw the pic on the internets. Amazing!

I needed a spot to sleep while on a recent road trip and found an epic vantage point above Snoqualmie Pass, WA. Multiple wildfires, and Seattle's light pollution made for a very intense scene!

During a recent road trip up north, I spent the night out of Snoqualmie Pass, WA. Epic light pollution from Seattle's suburbs, multiple wild fires, and the 90 interstate winding through the mountains made for some incredible lighting to frame Mt. Ranier and the milky way rising above it.

That almost looks like a Hubble photo of the cosmos..great photo

 

[oldfisherman]

The number of active fires in the PNW is in the hundreds. There are so many fires; most firefighting efforts are going into trying to save homes and property. The firefighters are so overwhelmed that putting the fires out is not an option in most cases.

I have been very closely monitoring the fires in an area of Idaho (for personal reasons). In only two Idaho counties, at least 42 homes and over 75 outbuildings were lost to the fires last week. The fires are still burning.

Also last week there was a public notice. Anyone that completed a one day training session would be hired as a temp firefighter. Out of work loggers (due to the fires) were encouraged to attend.

We can only hope for no more strong winds to spread the fires, and rain to put them out. Man is not going to conquer this fire season. Mother Nature is our only hope.

 

[Denny Crane]

Dump the ocean on it. There's no fish in the ocean to care if you take the water.

 

[HailBlazers]

The end is nigh..

 

[crandc]

And that doesn't count California, which is burning.

 

[Denny Crane]

And that doesn't count California, which is burning.

California has wild fires every year.

 

[crandc]

Of course California has fires - but this year's are not the usual wildfires. Read the stories.

 

[Denny Crane]

Of course California has fires - but this year's are not the usual wildfires. Read the stories.

http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/...a-drought-delta-smelt-survey-tallies-one-fish

The fish exerts such force on the Delta's waters that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulates how and when pumping can be done to protect it and other imperiled endangered species. Since the smelt is protected under the Endangered Species Act, a federal court order can -- and has -- reduced pumping to farmers and cities in Southern California. Yet this protection hasn't been enough for a species that lives in the pipeline of California's critical hydraulic system.

Efforts to stave off the fish's demise have been pointless and magnify the human suffering of the drought, said Chris Scheuring, attorney for the California Farm Bureau Federation.

"A lot of water has been thrown at the problem, to no apparent effect," he said. "Twenty million Californians depend on a water supply kept away from them by one small, little population of fish."

Good riddance, wrote Fresno-based Harry Cline of the Farm Press Blog. Turning off the pumps that serve the state and federal water projects wasted about 800,000 acre-feet of water in 2013 "based on the science of four buckets of minnows. That is enough water to produce crops on 200,000 acres or 10 million tons of tomatoes; 200 million boxes of lettuce; 20 million tons of grapes."

 

[oldfisherman]

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is going to be the ruin of the ecosystem in our country. It over-protects one species to the point of doing great harm to other species.

I can make a case that the large harmful fires we are having today and discussing in this thread, are the direct result of selective science used 25 years ago, to protect the spotted owl that was listed under the ESA.

As a result of the spotted owl lie, 99% of all harvesting of wood products on public lands has stopped. Every year, more fuel is added to our forests. Forest managers understand the danger this has caused. They have often petitioned to do thinning projects that would not only reduce the fire danger by removing some of the fuel; it would also improve the habitat for many birds and animals by supplying them with more food.

Every attempt to improve the health of our forests has been met with a legal filing by some special interest group with an agenda.

 

[Denny Crane]

Clearly the water would have made the central valleys green instead of brown and greatly reduced the risk of wild fires or them getting out of control.

 

[riverman]

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is going to be the ruin of the ecosystem in our country. It over-protects one species to the point of doing great harm to other species.

I can make a case that the large harmful fires we are having today and discussing in this thread, are the direct result of selective science used 25 years ago, to protect the spotted owl that was listed under the ESA.

As a result of the spotted owl lie, 99% of all harvesting of wood products on public lands has stopped. Every year, more fuel is added to our forests. Forest managers understand the danger this has caused. They have often petitioned to do thinning projects that would not only reduce the fire danger by removing some of the fuel; it would also improve the habitat for many birds and animals by supplying them with more food.

Every attempt to improve the health of our forests has been met with a legal filing by some special interest group with an agenda.

My backyard opens up into thousands of acres of BLM land and they've been thinning it for a long time without clear cutting..I'm glad logging practices have gone that route. Not sure about eastern Oregon but way back before the spotted owl issue there were still plenty of forest fires. Manzanita in California is the hottest burning shrub in the forest..once it gets going, it'll burn without mercy so there are plenty of causes..in Tahoe Nat'l Forest, it's cigarettes thrown out the window by tourists on interstate 80 that cause a lot of them. I do think they need to readdress logging parameters in Oregon though.

 

[oldfisherman]

My backyard opens up into thousands of acres of BLM land and they've been thinning it for a long time without clear cutting..I'm glad logging practices have gone that route. Not sure about eastern Oregon but way back before the spotted owl issue there were still plenty of forest fires. Manzanita in California is the hottest burning shrub in the forest..once it gets going, it'll burn without mercy so there are plenty of causes..in Tahoe Nat'l Forest, it's cigarettes thrown out the window by tourists on interstate 80 that cause a lot of them. I do think they need to readdress logging parameters in Oregon though.

The thinning behind your place, which I believe you, is one of the very few tracks of land that have made it through the mine fields in the legal system placed by the special interest groups. Your thinned area is not the norm, not even close.

Yes, there have always been forest fires. The problem is, the fires are getting progressively worse, larger, and more dangerous. Reason, yearly increases in the fuel supply due to lack of thinning. More OR. WA. & Idaho public lands need to be thinned.

The problem is, logging and thinning are similar, and the special interest “save the trees wackos” try to stop every thinning attempt in the PNW.

When public lands are logged, the Federal, State and local governments all receive part of the proceeds from the timber sales. When public lands are thinned, the Governmental agency managing the land pays for the thinning. Thinning spends revenues which are limited by shrinking budgets.


There are many causes of forest fires, some man made, and some natural. The reason we have so many fires today was due to a thunderstorm that passed through the PNW about two weeks ago. Hundreds of fires started at one time from lighting strikes. Unless you have some connection way high up, not sure how to stop fires started by lighting?

 

[stampedehero]

Damn Someone really pissed off God

 

[Denny Crane]

The thinning behind your place, which I believe you, is one of the very few tracks of land that have made it through the mine fields in the legal system placed by the special interest groups. Your thinned area is not the norm, not even close.

Yes, there have always been forest fires. The problem is, the fires are getting progressively worse, larger, and more dangerous. Reason, yearly increases in the fuel supply due to lack of thinning. More OR. WA. & Idaho public lands need to be thinned.

The problem is, logging and thinning are similar, and the special interest “save the trees wackos” try to stop every thinning attempt in the PNW.

When public lands are logged, the Federal, State and local governments all receive part of the proceeds from the timber sales. When public lands are thinned, the Governmental agency managing the land pays for the thinning. Thinning spends revenues which are limited by shrinking budgets.


There are many causes of forest fires, some man made, and some natural. The reason we have so many fires today was due to a thunderstorm that passed through the PNW about two weeks ago. Hundreds of fires started at one time from lighting strikes. Unless you have some connection way high up, not sure how to stop fires started by lighting?

This is true.

I remember during the Clinton administration (1993-2000), the government purposefully set fires and because they hadn't done any thinning efforts (thanks environmental whackos!) the fires grew out of control and even threatened some important government facilities (Los Alamos, for one).

http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/U...&productType=IncludedProducts&page=1&b=f6c888

And

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Grande_Fire

 

[oldfisherman]

Disclaimer, this post is a pure rant, you can delete if you want, but it is all true. Not the selected science we have been hearing for so long.

The save the tree whackos have not saved one tree! NOT ONE!!

Reason, consumption of wood products has steadily increased in the USA, not decreased.

The save the tree whackos are still wiping their butts with toilet paper, hanging from Portland bridges on rope, living in houses, and being comfy on furniture, all made of wood. EXCEPT, much of it is now imported, not manufacture here in the PNW.

25 years ago, the USA had a positive trade balance on wood products. We now have a negative trade balance on wood products that is in the many billions of $$ every year.

The save the tree whackos have hurt the USA $$, taken timber sales revenues from Govts. at all levels, which resulted in higher taxes and reduced public services, while sending 100,000 high paying jobs out of the PNW to other countries.

Now about the spotted owl lie. The spotted owl did not need old growth timber to live, nor was logging hurting the spotted owls population growth. Spotted owls were found living in McDonald signs, which was ignored by then.

We all agree the population of the spotted owl was in danger. However, the true cause was ignored. The decline was due to predators of the spotted owl which include the great horned owl, the red-tailed hawk and the raven. Unlike most animals the spotted owl doesn't always defend its young from predators.

The save the spotted owl people used selective science propaganda to achieve their agenda, which was to stop logging on public lands, and the masses bought into it.

 

[riverman]

Clone the spotted owl and save the McDonalds signs people!

 

[riverman]

A real head scratcher that baffles me is that even though I live a few miles from one of the biggest mills around here, I can't buy lumber there. They drive lumber past my property 20 miles or more into the city and I have to drive the 40 mile round trip to buy a few boards or posts. That's a real eco setup they've got going.

 

[Nikolokolus]

To you people saying that the reason the fires are so bad is because the forest hasn't been logged, you really don't shit about fire ecology. Healthy forests need to burn occasionally; fire kills beetles, clears out under-story (crown fires that take kill the big stuff are the exception not the rule), helps cull out weakened or diseased trees and so forth. Intensive logging (particularly clearcuts) are the kind of disturbance that encourage scrubby, flashy fuels to take over a site, which chokes out the Western Hemlock and Douglas Fir saplings and prevents them from reaching maturity as quickly as they otherwise would in a normal disturbance-succession pattern (which usually means fire in the west).

What's the problem this year? The fire seasons over the past decade have been relatively mild, which means a lot of fuel on the ground combined with a really severe drought and historically high temperatures which means not only are the 100 hour fuels completely cured (small diameter downed timber, scrub, near-surface duff, etc.) but the 1000 hour fuels (downed logs between 3-8 inches and deep duff, etc.) are dried to the point where all it takes is a little bit of lightning and a little bit of wind and away we go. The only real concern is that climate zones appear to be shifting north (and to higher elevations). If that trend holds over the long-term then it's likely we'll see the Doug Fir forests of the PNW replaced with more Ponderosa and Lodgepole pine forests. If it makes that transition, big burns are going to be more and more common as the old forest dies off and gives way to species that are more drought resistant.

For those who think I'm just spouting some hippy-dippy bullshit, then what I'll say is that I do have a little bit of background here. I have an uncle who was a choke setter for 20 years for Weyerhauser before switching to operating a yarder, both my grandfathers drove logging trucks, and most of my family has relied on logging and the forest in one way or another for their livelihood at some point, so I can appreciate the human cost associated with shutting down the woods, but on the other hand I fought wildland fire for three summer for the Oregon Department of Forestry and I got to work for the National Interagency Fire Center as a GIS tech for three years and part of my post-grad dealt with building geophysical models for predicting fire behavior so I've become intimately aware of both sides of the issue.

On the one hand it's awful to see people's homes lost and livelihoods threatened, but on the other we're also reaping the consequences of over-management that persisted all the way into the late nineties, where fire-fighting was treated like a military campaign and fires were never allowed to run their course.

 

[Nikolokolus]

This is a good resource for the curious.
http://gacc.nifc.gov/nwcc/information/firemap.aspx

 

[riverman]

To you people saying that the reason the fires are so bad is because the forest hasn't been logged, you really don't shit about fire ecology. Healthy forests need to burn occasionally; fire kills beetles, clears out under-story (crown fires that take kill the big stuff are the exception not the rule), helps cull out weakened or diseased trees and so forth. Intensive logging (particularly clearcuts) are the kind of disturbance that encourage scrubby, flashy fuels to take over a site, which chokes out the Western Hemlock and Douglas Fir saplings and prevents them from reaching maturity as quickly as they otherwise would in a normal disturbance-succession pattern (which usually means fire in the west).

What's the problem this year? The fire seasons over the past decade have been relatively mild, which means a lot of fuel on the ground combined with a really severe drought and historically high temperatures which means not only are the 100 hour fuels completely cured (small diameter downed timber, scrub, near-surface duff, etc.) but the 1000 hour fuels (downed logs between 3-8 inches and deep duff, etc.) are dried to the point where all it takes is a little bit of lightning and a little bit of wind and away we go. The only real concern is that climate zones appear to be shifting north (and to higher elevations). If that trend holds over the long-term then it's likely we'll see the Doug Fir forests of the PNW replaced with more Ponderosa and Lodgepole pine forests. If it makes that transition, big burns are going to be more and more common as the old forest dies off and gives way to species that are more drought resistant.

For those who think I'm just spouting some hippy-dippy bullshit, then what I'll say is that I do have a little bit of background here. I have an uncle who was a choke setter for 20 years for Weyerhauser before switching to operating a yarder, both my grandfathers drove logging trucks, and most of my family has relied on logging and the forest in one way or another for their livelihood at some point, so I can appreciate the human cost associated with shutting down the woods, but on the other hand I fought wildland fire for three summer for the Oregon Department of Forestry and I got to work for the National Interagency Fire Center as a GIS tech for three years and part of my post-grad dealt with building geophysical models for predicting fire behavior so I've become intimately aware of both sides of the issue.

On the one hand it's awful to see people's homes lost and livelihoods threatened, but on the other we're also reaping the consequences of over-management that persisted all the way into the late nineties, where fire-fighting was treated like a military campaign and fires were never allowed to run their course.

I completely agree with this. Question..why aren't those giant firs that were scorched a few seasons ago around places like Bend harvested? Seems to me it'd be a wasted of material to leave it all standing like they do

 

[oldfisherman]

To you people saying that the reason the fires are so bad is because the forest hasn't been logged, you really don't shit about fire ecology. Healthy forests need to burn occasionally; fire kills beetles, clears out under-story (crown fires that take kill the big stuff are the exception not the rule), helps cull out weakened or diseased trees and so forth. Intensive logging (particularly clearcuts) are the kind of disturbance that encourage scrubby, flashy fuels to take over a site, which chokes out the Western Hemlock and Douglas Fir saplings and prevents them from reaching maturity as quickly as they otherwise would in a normal disturbance-succession pattern (which usually means fire in the west).

What's the problem this year? The fire seasons over the past decade have been relatively mild, which means a lot of fuel on the ground combined with a really severe drought and historically high temperatures which means not only are the 100 hour fuels completely cured (small diameter downed timber, scrub, near-surface duff, etc.) but the 1000 hour fuels (downed logs between 3-8 inches and deep duff, etc.) are dried to the point where all it takes is a little bit of lightning and a little bit of wind and away we go. The only real concern is that climate zones appear to be shifting north (and to higher elevations). If that trend holds over the long-term then it's likely we'll see the Doug Fir forests of the PNW replaced with more Ponderosa and Lodgepole pine forests. If it makes that transition, big burns are going to be more and more common as the old forest dies off and gives way to species that are more drought resistant.

For those who think I'm just spouting some hippy-dippy bullshit, then what I'll say is that I do have a little bit of background here. I have an uncle who was a choke setter for 20 years for Weyerhauser before switching to operating a yarder, both my grandfathers drove logging trucks, and most of my family has relied on logging and the forest in one way or another for their livelihood at some point, so I can appreciate the human cost associated with shutting down the woods, but on the other hand I fought wildland fire for three summer for the Oregon Department of Forestry and I got to work for the National Interagency Fire Center as a GIS tech for three years and part of my post-grad dealt with building geophysical models for predicting fire behavior so I've become intimately aware of both sides of the issue.

On the one hand it's awful to see people's homes lost and livelihoods threatened, but on the other we're also reaping the consequences of over-management that persisted all the way into the late nineties, where fire-fighting was treated like a military campaign and fires were never allowed to run their course.

I agree, the forest should burn occasionally, and agree with most of what you said. However, I strongly disagree with your conclusion because you totally ignore the conditions that have developed over the last 25 years, and ignore the serious need for thinning.

History teaches us that the Native American Indians managed the forests for thousands of years. Every couple of years they would set fire to the forests and clearings to burn the undergrowth, for several reasons.

First you mentioned tree crown fires, which are the most destructive type of forest fires. Keeping the undergrowth low reduced the chance for crown fires. The problem we have today is. 25 years ago, all types of forest management stopped, not just logging and thinning. The special interest groups also file legal papers against setting fires used to thin undergrowth.

The Native American Indians also set regular fires because it promoted new growth at a height beneficial to the animals. Today, most new growth the animals prefer for food is too high for them to reach. Unless they evolve into giraffe type animals, they must move to more open locations that promote shorter undergrowth, such as clear cuts and along roadways.

As far as the weather conditions, they cycle. I agree the conditions this season are horrible. The weather conditions this year have been very similar to those that caused the great fire of 1910. However, in 1910 they did not have bulldozers, satellite images of the fires to know where and how big the fires where, air fighting resources, or even roads to get to most of the fires. The fire of 1910 was fought from pack mule trains. Yet they put that fire out. We can not stop our fires with all of our high tech new equipment because of the huge amount of fuel that has accumulated over the last 25 years due to lack of forest management.

I respect your information, don’t understand your need to try to belittle, unless it has to do with your guilt of posting a faulty conclusion.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I agree, the forest should burn occasionally, and agree with most of what you said. However, I strongly disagree with your conclusion because you totally ignore the conditions that have developed over the last 25 years, and ignore the serious need for thinning.

History teaches us that the Native American Indians managed the forests for thousands of years. Every couple of years they would set fire to the forests and clearings to burn the undergrowth, for several reasons.

You're thinking about the Willamette Valley proper where soft woods were burned and hardwoods took their place. This never happened in the high cascades.

First you mentioned tree crown fires, which are the most destructive type of forest fires. Keeping the undergrowth low reduced the chance for crown fires. The problem we have today is. 25 years ago, all types of forest management stopped, not just logging and thinning. The special interest groups also file legal papers against fires used to thin undergrowth.

In the near term you can expect to see an uptick in the number and intensity of fires (particularly during a drought) but over time that will abate. The forest eventually a steady-state if left alone (after all it did just fine without human help in the previous 10,000 years of the Holocene).

The Native American Indians also set regular fires because it promoted new growth at a height beneficial to the animals. Today, most new growth the animals prefer for food is too high for them to reach. Unless they evolve into giraffe type animals, they must move to more open locations that promote smaller undergrowth, such as clear cuts and along roadways.

This is absolutely not how a healthy forest functions. Look at a fully unmanaged area like a wilderness area; the understory still exists but it's usually a lot more spartan than what you find in a managed/replanted parcel. The trouble with replanting and clearcuts is that you usually end up with either a monoculture of trees or a monoculture of scrubby flora that turns out not be that great as either forage or habitat for most species.

As far as the weather conditions, they cycle. I agree the conditions this season are horrible. The weather conditions this year have been very similar to those that caused the great fire of 1910. However, in 1910 they did not have bulldozers, satellite images of the fires to know where and how big the fires where, air fighting resources, or even roads to get to most of the fires. The fire of 1910 was fought from pack mule trains. Yet they put that fire out. We can not stop our fires with all of our high tech new equipment because of the huge amount of fuel that has accumulated over the last 25 years.

There's been an accumulation of understory fuel for generations, not just the last 25 years and it's still there because fires don't burn everything, everywhere and it can take decades for the landscape to reach a normal steady-state when finally left alone. Part of what we're seeing with the increase in the number of very large fires is a cumulative effect of a lot of factors, including decades of harvest mismanagement, overly aggressive fire-fighting tactics and the gradual change from a fir dominated forest to a pinyon forest (in some areas).

I respect your information, don’t understand your need to try to belittle, unless it has to do with your guilt of posting a faulty conclusion.

Guilt? Hardly. If I come across as an overly acerbic asshole that's because I am. Mainly I saw a lot of misinformation being tossed around that I felt needed to be addressed. If you think I was specifically calling out a single individual then all apologies.

 

[Denny Crane]

Nik, I don't think people are saying the forests need to be logged, just thinned. The fires are so destructive because there is too much fuel for the fires that they're too easy to lose control. Setting fires for the purpose of a controlled burn is fine, but not if the whole place is a tinderbox and can't be controlled.

This article confirms this.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/politics-government/article25912591.html

While dry weather and repeated lightning strikes were part of what made the 2014 fire season so severe, the condition of the state’s forests also was to blame, Everett said.

“Our first line of defense is the condition of the forests,” Everett said. “Right now, our forests are stressed out.”

State officials estimate that about 30 percent of forests in Eastern Washington — about 2.7 million acres — need restoration treatments, such as thinning trees or planting fire- and insect-resistant ones. Government agencies, private landowners and timber companies only complete treatments on about 140,000 acres statewide per year, Everett said.

That has left many Washington forests crowded, filled with small trees and wood debris that fuel fires and make them burn hotter.

The densely packed trees also are forced to compete for light, water and nutrients, making them more susceptible to insect infestation and fire damage, Everett said.

Historically, small fires served to clear some of the trees naturally, but in the past century fire crews have extinguished many of those fires to protect nearby homes and businesses. That has left many forests overgrown and more susceptible to major fires, Everett said.

“The problem is we’ve taken fire out of the forest system in the past century,” said Peter Moulton, the state’s bioenergy policy coordinator. “If you’re going to suppress fire, you have to figure out some way to mimic its role in forest health.”

That’s where thinning and controlled burning comes in. During thinning, crews will typically remove small saplings and brush while leaving larger trees that are more fire-resistant.

A 2012 assessment from Oregon’s Federal Forest Advisory Committee found that every $1 spent on forest treatments such as thinning potentially avoids $1.45 in fire suppression costs.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I completely agree with this. Question..why aren't those giant firs that were scorched a few seasons ago around places like Bend harvested? Seems to me it'd be a wasted of material to leave it all standing like they do

You'll have to refresh my memory, but it depends. In some cases the fire completely burns out the understory and leaves the big trees alone (this is the norm in a regular fire regime) so those big trees end up being the "seedstock" for the next generation of trees, as well as providing a buffer against erosion and improving slope stability ... so there can be a lot of reasons to leave them behind beyond simple economic concerns. If the the big trees were mostly consumed, then it's not really commercially viable a lot of times (depends heavily on road access, density, terrain, ownership, etc.)

 

[oldfisherman]

You're thinking about the Willamette Valley proper where soft woods were burned and hardwoods took their place. This never happened in the high cascades.


In the near term you can expect to see an uptick in the number and intensity of fires (particularly during a drought) but over time that will abate. The forest eventually a steady-state if left alone (after all it did just fine without human help in the previous 10,000 years of the Holocene).


This is absolutely not how a healthy forest functions. Look at a fully unmanaged area like a wilderness area; the understory still exists but it's usually a lot more spartan than what you find in a managed/replanted parcel. The trouble with replanting and clearcuts is that you usually end up with either a monoculture of trees or a monoculture of scrubby flora that turns out not be that great as either forage or habitat for most species.



There's been an accumulation of understory fuel for generations, not just the last 25 years and it's still there because fires don't burn everything, everywhere and it can take decades for the landscape to reach a normal steady-state when finally left alone. Part of what we're seeing with the increase in the number of very large fires is a cumulative effect of a lot of factors, including decades of harvest mismanagement, overly aggressive fire-fighting tactics and the gradual change from a fir dominated forest to a pinyon forest (in some areas).


Guilt? Hardly. If I come across as an overly acerbic asshole that's I am. Mainly I saw a lot of misinformation being tossed around that I felt needed to be addressed. If you think I was specifically calling out a single individual then all apologies.

Ok, now you are posting many flat out lies and misinformation on just about every topic.

HOWEVER, I now know your agenda.

You believe that the forest should not be managed at all. The leave everything natural agenda, and then you hope for successful boom bust cycles.

YOUR AGENEA IS NOT WORKING, AND WILL NEVER WORK, WAKE UP!!!! THE PROFESSORS THAT TAUGHT YOU THIS WERE WRONG!!!

We manage our own bodies to stay healthy, or do you? We must manage our forests for them to stay healthy. We no longer live in a natural world. WAKE UP!!

 

[Nikolokolus]

Ok, now you are posting many flat out lies and misinformation on just about every topic.

HOWEVER, I now know your agenda.

You believe that the forest should not be managed at all. The leave everything natural agenda, and then you hope for successful boom bust cycles.

YOUR AGENEA IS NOT WORKING, AND WILL NEVER WORK, WAKE UP!!!! THE PROFESSORS THAT TAUGHT YOU THIS WERE WRONG!!!

We manage our own bodies to stay healthy, or do you? We must manage our forests for them to stay healthy. We no longer live in a natural world. WAKE UP!!

My agenda? I completely believe that forests have to be managed in settled areas. So no, you really don't know what I'm talking about and that's clear from your reaction.

As for what I was taught in school. I've lived it and worked it, this isn't some hypothetical academic problem to me

 

[Nikolokolus]

Nik, I don't think people are saying the forests need to be logged, just thinned. The fires are so destructive because there is too much fuel for the fires that they're too easy to lose control. Setting fires for the purpose of a controlled burn is fine, but not if the whole place is a tinderbox and can't be controlled.

This article confirms this.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/politics-government/article25912591.html

While dry weather and repeated lightning strikes were part of what made the 2014 fire season so severe, the condition of the state’s forests also was to blame, Everett said.

“Our first line of defense is the condition of the forests,” Everett said. “Right now, our forests are stressed out.”

State officials estimate that about 30 percent of forests in Eastern Washington — about 2.7 million acres — need restoration treatments, such as thinning trees or planting fire- and insect-resistant ones. Government agencies, private landowners and timber companies only complete treatments on about 140,000 acres statewide per year, Everett said.

That has left many Washington forests crowded, filled with small trees and wood debris that fuel fires and make them burn hotter.

The densely packed trees also are forced to compete for light, water and nutrients, making them more susceptible to insect infestation and fire damage, Everett said.

Historically, small fires served to clear some of the trees naturally, but in the past century fire crews have extinguished many of those fires to protect nearby homes and businesses. That has left many forests overgrown and more susceptible to major fires, Everett said.

“The problem is we’ve taken fire out of the forest system in the past century,” said Peter Moulton, the state’s bioenergy policy coordinator. “If you’re going to suppress fire, you have to figure out some way to mimic its role in forest health.”

That’s where thinning and controlled burning comes in. During thinning, crews will typically remove small saplings and brush while leaving larger trees that are more fire-resistant.

A 2012 assessment from Oregon’s Federal Forest Advisory Committee found that every $1 spent on forest treatments such as thinning potentially avoids $1.45 in fire suppression costs.

Part of the problem with using human intervention to thin is cost. There are far fewer logging operations now than 20-30 years ago and the margins on a selective cut are a lot tighter than a clearcut, so it can be tough to incentivize companies to bother with it - economies of scale are a big reason there are lot fewer small logging companies anymore in the Pacific Northwest. The other problem is the sheer scale in terms of millions of acres that would have to be treated for there to be a meaningful impact. And that assumes you could even come up with a plan that would satisfy the litigious environmental groups.

I don't know what the solution is, it's a real problem.

 

[oldfisherman]

My agenda? I completely believe that forests have to be managed in settled areas. So no, you really don't know what I'm talking about and that's clear from your reaction.

As for what I was taught in school. I've lived it and worked it, this isn't some hypothetical academic problem to me

Managed only in settled areas? Now you’re trying to misdirect us from your true agenda.

We now call un-managed forest areas dead zones, not wilderness areas. I can show you many very large dead zones created in un-managed forests.

Reason for the large dead zones; very few plants can survive in un-managed areas. This also means there is little to no food to eat for the animals and birds, so they leave.

What has happened in the un-managed forest/wilderness areas is the crown cover has grown so thick and tall, it does not allow any sunlight to filter to the forest floor. Without sunlight, photosynthesis will not take place for the undergrowth or younger trees, so they die.

Your natural wildness area agenda loves the forest to death, literally.