| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
brineal
Snarky Master
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 151 | TRs | Pics
|
|
brineal
Snarky Master
|
 Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:46 pm |
|
|
| Logbear wrote: | | I think it would be more acceptable to manage the forest with prescribed burns
That's what Mt. Hood and Gifford Pinchot Nat Forests have been doing. They've had 38 prescribed burns since October 2020.
Prescribed burns are also being used in the Eastern Sierra. 15 prescribed burns since Jan 8, 2021
Were there any threats of lawsuits? Yes
Air pollution- Keep the smoke out of our town
Access- We want to drive and snowmobile in the closed burn areas
Cows and sheep- What if the burn doesn't enhance browse for cows and sheep?
Did the threats of lawsuits change the way the USFS wants to manage the forest? No.
Did the USFS take the threat of lawsuits seriously. Not really. They certainly met with people and organizations and listened to their concerns. But in the long run they just focus on doing what is right within the law, and following their own rules and regulations.
There were no threats of lawsuits from any environmental organization. |
Good luck to you getting a prescribed burn or even pile / slash burning in Western WA.
Prescribed burning will not help the risk of crown fires.
Explain to me the route that has taken the Forest Service from being the premier timber producer in the US to basically a non-factor? Choice? Management Model? What's your estimation on why the Feds logging activities as part of forest management is essentially non-existent on massive tracts of land? Not exactly difficult to parse out the Fed.'s blocks on Google Maps, is it.
Prescribed burning is a great option within a full management plan, it is not a management plan in and of itself. Also works best following thinning and stewardship type logging which unfortunately requires some trunks to hit the ground.
Drive on over to the state land tracts on the east side of the state and shockingly you'll see how they've reduced the overall fuel load via thinning and burning. Bethel Ridge area jumps to mind.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
brineal
Snarky Master
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 151 | TRs | Pics
|
|
brineal
Snarky Master
|
Thu Feb 04, 2021 5:00 pm |
|
|
| Tom wrote: | | Well, as has been pointed out EAJA has minimal impact. We can pout all we want about the fraction of a penny it costs us, but it's not really the issue. I'm sure you would have the same issues with environmentalists if they are reimbursed for these fees or not. |
| Tom wrote: | As I understood 2 citizens threatened to sue over inadequate public comment. No, it doesn't bother me that much. If it wasn't a valid complaint it will get tossed. If it was valid they will get their comment. This goes both ways. A group of us sued the FS over a road closure as we did not feel process was followed. We kept the road open (for now). But yeah, I get that you are upset there is a very small chance you might not have a spring bear hunt.  |
| Tom wrote: | | I'm not sure it can really be managed, but yes, it's a hotly debated subject of how to manage as well as the causes. But I don't think those pesky environmentalists (or their lawsuits) are to blame. |
Tom, it should cost me no pennies. We have a critical inability to move past this, we are not going to agree on that. The precedent of the law is for those who would otherwise be unable to pay for legal fees to be able to recoup those costs. These organizations by and large are well able to pay for their own fees. Assessing $ value magnitudes is entirely subjective.
If your premise is that litigation has not influenced Federal land and wildlife management then fine, I completely disagree with you; the two correlate and that is enough to inspire further investigation into the rise of litigation and it's affect on management. How will you provide evidence to the contrary? Tom says so?   I'd be tickled to discuss with the Forest Service to be honest; get it from the horse's mouth because again, maybe I am missing something and they are content with the current state of affairs.
As for spring bear Tom, you should know (or not) it is a special draw in our State. I wish folks like yourself valued the wildlife, which hunters and wildlife advocacy groups have spent over a century fostering through conservation efforts, more but that would be a separate topic.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brineal
Snarky Master
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 151 | TRs | Pics
|
|
brineal
Snarky Master
|
Thu Feb 04, 2021 5:05 pm |
|
|
| catsp wrote: | | Most likely because it's the "$$$$ For Lawsuits" thread. That, and because individuals continue to pretend that the actual dollar amounts are significant. |
| catsp wrote: | | Yes, it was. Either bad faith or incredible ignorance. Literally (and I literally mean that literally) no way to be that far off otherwise. |
| catsp wrote: | | Sounds like a great thread to start: Why environmental litigation is harmful to proper land management.
As for this thread - it should go back to its peaceful slumber with our acknowledgement that the entire original basis for the outrage was just one more big lie. Though maybe we should add “[debunked]” to the title, or maybe change it to “˘˘˘˘ For Lawsuits”. |
Again, you're losing me a bit on the logic that "it's not that much money" and not answering "then why do they choose to go after it?" The necessary answer to the latter being "it's part of their business model."
I interpreted the meaning of the OP to be dollar values of litigation -> litigation impact management but agree it could be a separate post. Not that such a post would get anywhere as experience here is reinforcing.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brineal
Snarky Master
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 151 | TRs | Pics
|
|
brineal
Snarky Master
|
Thu Feb 04, 2021 5:10 pm |
|
|
| coldrain108 wrote: | | and an emotional call to all that oppose the management oversight...funny they have to out and out lie (with a B) to get people outraged. But that is today's way of doing things. Out and out lies to get people worked up - and since the lies are what people want to hear they don't bother to double check the info. Confirmation bias defined.
Filing frivolous, totally unwarranted lawsuits without any supporting evidence has legal repercussions...
If it sounds too "good" to be true - it likely is. I double or triple check anything that sounds too good to be true (doubly so if it hits my confirmation bias sweet spot) - I don't trust anyone who has "$kin in the game" to be fully truthful. We are all being played.
I like this compilation site:
All Sides |
You wouldn't mean lies such as those which would fuel fears and knee-jerk opposition based on the premise (or is it foregone conclusion?) that the Forest Service is at risk of entering into nuclear scale logging sales of old growth timber which would kill off owls, would you?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17851 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Thu Feb 04, 2021 5:37 pm |
|
|
| brineal wrote: | | Tom, it should cost me no pennies. |
Reminds me of customers arguing over a trivial amount at the grocery store out of principle. You'd have the same issues with environmentalists interfering with management whether or not you were overcharged a fraction of a cent, correct?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Thu Feb 04, 2021 5:53 pm |
|
|
| brineal wrote: | | it should cost me no pennies. |
Cool, where is my option for opting out of paying my portion of taxes for projects like the Joint Strike Fighter, The Gerald Ford aircraft carrier, the continued purchasing of M1 Abrams Tanks in excess of what the pentagon even wants, etc, etc.
The federal government isn't a smorgasboard -- it is Prix Fixe and you don't even get to choose whether you are ordering a meal.
You do get to let the chef know what you want the resturant to be preparing. However the forum for this isn't some internet forum or Change.org -- it's sending a message to your congressional represetative and senators.
if you think the EAJA (Equal Access to Justice Act) is misguided legislation -- send them a message stating your case how you think the act should be revised (or eliminatated)
https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17851 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Thu Feb 04, 2021 5:56 pm |
|
|
| brineal wrote: | | If your premise is that litigation has not influenced Federal land and wildlife management then fine, I completely disagree with you; the two correlate |
As far as wildfire management, feel free to post your findings and data in another thread. My background is in statistics, so I'd be happy to opine on how well the data correlates to various factors as wall as your null hypothesis.
Land management? Sure, environmentalists have an impact, otherwise why would we be discussing this topic? I like how you broadened the scope from wildfire managment to "land and wildfire" as some sort of gotcha. 
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brineal
Snarky Master
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 151 | TRs | Pics
|
|
brineal
Snarky Master
|
Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:23 pm |
|
|
| Randito wrote: | | Cool, where is my option for opting out of paying my portion of taxes for projects like the Joint Strike Fighter, The Gerald Ford aircraft carrier, the continued purchasing of M1 Abrams Tanks in excess of what the pentagon even wants, etc, etc.
The federal government isn't a smorgasboard -- it is Prix Fixe and you don't even get to choose whether you are ordering a meal.
You do get to let the chef know what you want the resturant to be preparing. However the forum for this isn't some internet forum or Change.org -- it's sending a message to your congressional represetative and senators.
if you think the EAJA (Equal Access to Justice Act) is misguided legislation -- send them a message stating your case how you think the act should be revised (or eliminatated)
https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm |
I agree with your ending conclusion, although your opening statement is a false equivalency. You dislike paying for an apple, I dislike paying for an orange. The fruit comes from the same stand.
The idea of “writing your legislature” I agree on but would depend on having competent representation in government which Wa. State does not in my estimation but good lord do I not want to delve into that cesspool of a conversation in this medium, so I digress.
Fact is, I am attempting to discuss issues influencing and affecting outcomes for stewardship, within a stewardship forum section. It’s regrettable if that chaps your ass but my prescriptive recommendation would then be to avert your eyes. My own masochistic desire for such discussion is certainly beginning to wane at this point as we discuss matters of all and nothing and arrive at no understanding or consensus. Tom, the lock button already! 😂
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brineal
Snarky Master
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 151 | TRs | Pics
|
|
brineal
Snarky Master
|
Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:29 pm |
|
|
| Tom wrote: | | As far as wildfire management, feel free to post your findings and data in another thread. My background is in statistics, so I'd be happy to opine on how well the data correlates to various factors as wall as your null hypothesis.
Land management? Sure, environmentalists have an impact, otherwise why would we be discussing this topic? I like how you broadened the scope from wildfire managment to "land and wildfire" as some sort of gotcha. |
Wildlife* Tom hows that for a gotcha smarmy Administrator, you. Wildfire certainly falls under the umbrella of lands management. In terms of “anti” groups and litigation, wildlife would be a perfectly reasonable ancillary discussion.
Lock her down, Tom!
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brineal
Snarky Master
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 151 | TRs | Pics
|
|
brineal
Snarky Master
|
Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:31 pm |
|
|
| Tom wrote: | | Reminds me of customers arguing over a trivial amount at the grocery store out of principle. You'd have the same issues with environmentalists interfering with management whether or not you were overcharged a fraction of a cent, correct? |
Tom, I do find it a double slap in the face, yes. Although, I place slightly more weight on the management effects as opposed to the magnitude of litigation dollar value, although the management impacts carry a dollar cost too. Not sure if that value can be looked up online, you tell me.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Logbear
Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 497 | TRs | Pics
Location: Getchell. Wash |
|
Logbear
Member
|
Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:37 pm |
|
|
| brineal wrote: | | Good luck to you getting a prescribed burn or even pile / slash burning in Western WA. |
I thought Gifford Pinchot was in western washington. Gifford Pinchot did at least 8 prescribed burns in Nov 2020.
| brineal wrote: | | Prescribed burning will not help the risk of crown fires. |
Nothing will help prevent the risk of crown fires. | brineal wrote: | | Prescribed burning is a great option within a full management plan, it is not a management plan in and of itself. Also works best following thinning and stewardship type logging which unfortunately requires some trunks to hit the ground. |
I agreed with thinning 8 years ago. Now I've seen the result and I no longer support it. A thinning project was done over a widespread area and it looked pretty good. Now after 8 years a dangerous situation has developed. Before thinning there was sandy soil and forest duff under a canopy that shaded the area. It had been like that for long time. Now the soil has been disturbed, and highly flammable grasses have grown in. But the really alarming thing is the change in fuel moisture and temperature. The thinning allowed more sunlight to hit the ground. Fuel temps went up and fuel moisture went down. Dramatically. So now they have high fuel temps, low fuel moisture, and easily ignitable grasses.
And thinning removes the nutrients that would be released by a fire. Fire actually does good things to the soil. Besides the chemical reactions that occur during extreme heat, there is what I call the "post-fire nursery". About 3 to 6 inches below the surface a waxy like crust develops. This waxy layer keeps moisture up in that 3-6 inch layer. New plant growth thrives in this environment. I have a picture of nice new plant growing during the creek fire in california. Everything looks charred, and there is still smoke in the background, but the plant is thriving.
“There is no such thing as bad weather, only inappropriate clothing.” – Sir Ranulph Fiennes
“There is no such thing as bad weather, only inappropriate clothing.” – Sir Ranulph Fiennes
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Logbear
Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 497 | TRs | Pics
Location: Getchell. Wash |
|
Logbear
Member
|
Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:39 pm |
|
|
| brineal wrote: | | Drive on over to the state land tracts on the east side of the state and shockingly you'll see how they've reduced the overall fuel load via thinning and burning. Bethel Ridge area jumps to mind. |
I've been to Bethel Ridge. There aren't many trees there, so you're right, the fuel loading has been reduced.
“There is no such thing as bad weather, only inappropriate clothing.” – Sir Ranulph Fiennes
“There is no such thing as bad weather, only inappropriate clothing.” – Sir Ranulph Fiennes
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brineal
Snarky Master
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 151 | TRs | Pics
|
|
brineal
Snarky Master
|
Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:44 pm |
|
|
| Logbear wrote: | | I thought Gifford Pinchot was in western washington. Gifford Pinchot did at least 8 prescribed burns in Nov 2020. |
| Logbear wrote: | | Nothing will help prevent the risk of crown fires. |
| Logbear wrote: | | I agreed with thinning 8 years ago. Now I've seen the result and I no longer support it. A thinning project was done over a widespread area and it looked pretty good. Now after 8 years a dangerous situation has developed. Before thinning there was sandy soil and forest duff under a canopy that shaded the area. It had been like that for long time. Now the soil has been disturbed, and highly flammable grasses have grown in. But the really alarming thing is the change in fuel moisture and temperature. The thinning allowed more sunlight to hit the ground. Fuel temps went up and fuel moisture went down. Dramatically. So now they have high fuel temps, low fuel moisture, and easily ignitable grasses.
And thinning removes the nutrients that would be released by a fire. Fire actually does good things to the soil. Besides the chemical reactions that occur during extreme heat, there is what I call the "post-fire nursery". About 3 to 6 inches below the surface a waxy like crust develops. This waxy layer keeps moisture up in that 3-6 inch layer. New plant growth thrives in this environment. I have a picture of nice new plant growing during the creek fire in california. Everything looks charred, and there is still smoke in the background, but the plant is thriving. |
Crown fires can be mitigated, through fewer crowns. But I understand your point.
Do you know where in GP they burned? My experience is that by and large burning is a no no in coastal and west slope WA.
The info about soils is interesting, did your experience with thinning also include prescriptive burning of logging slash and grasses after? I’ve seen that process be used with great utility in N Idaho.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Logbear
Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 497 | TRs | Pics
Location: Getchell. Wash |
|
Logbear
Member
|
Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:57 pm |
|
|
| brineal wrote: | | Crown fires can be mitigated, through fewer crowns. But I understand your point. |
Well I think we can agree that if there are no trees, there will be no tree fires.
| brineal wrote: | | Do you know where in GP they burned? My experience is that by and large burning is a no no in coastal and west slope WA. |
I mapped a few of the coords I found. 12 miles south of Randle, 5 miles north of trout lake. 5 miles west of trout lake. That sort of area.
| brineal wrote: | | The info about soils is interesting, did your experience with thinning also include prescriptive burning of logging slash and grasses after? I’ve seen that process be used with great utility in N Idaho. |
The thinning that occurred was not involved with logging per se., Firewood permits removed most of the down and dead, and the USFS took down more trees to make the firewood people happy. During one of those government shutdowns, USFS crews with "Fire" on the side of their truck were cutting down trees for firewood. Fire crews were exempt from the shutdown. When they were done , they left all the little stuff and it became a tinder box and it got scary. Now they gathered all the little stuff into burn piles, covered them with plastic and wait until the snow comes.
On the other side of the highway they have been actively managing wildfires and it doing very well.
I'm getting carried away discussing wildfire management.
The point I meant to make was that all these management actions took place in the face of all kinds of "pressure". Public concerns, maybe even threats of lawsuits, came from several different directions, mostly air pollution concerns I believe, but there was never any real litigation.
“There is no such thing as bad weather, only inappropriate clothing.” – Sir Ranulph Fiennes
“There is no such thing as bad weather, only inappropriate clothing.” – Sir Ranulph Fiennes
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sky Hiker
Member
Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 1469 | TRs | Pics
Location: outside |
ok we can start a whole new topic on that. Exhausted the $$$$ made by lawsuits of the OP so on to another or start a new thread. Tom your next
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
