Forum Index > Stewardship > Wilderness fire fighting
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Accraholic
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Nov 2004
Posts: 25 | TRs
Location: Oregon
Accraholic
Member
PostMon Nov 08, 2004 11:10 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Is it a rule to just let primitive areas burn unabatted...Kalmiopsis(Biscuit fire 2002)?

If so, is this a good rule?
If not is that a good rule?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
kleet
meat tornado



Joined: 06 Feb 2002
Posts: 5319 | TRs
Location: O no they dih ent
kleet
meat tornado
PostTue Nov 09, 2004 7:44 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy is a good place to start. campfire.gif

If you tear into it, you'll note how the policy has changed in the last few years.

Old policy: 1. Interagency consideration of fire management into Forest land objectives, prescriptions, and practices. When developing fire management direction in the forest plan, identify the foreseeable effects of fire on environmental, social, and economic conditions and outputs. Identify a range of protection levels and fire use alternatives. Estimate the economic and social effects based on analysis that incorporates consideration of commodity, non-commodity, and social values.

New policy: 1. Safety: Firefighter and public safety is the first priority. All Fire Management Plans and activities must reflect this commitment.

The Healthy Forests Act, AKA "No Tree Left Behind!"

--------------
A fuxk, why do I not give one?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Accraholic
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Nov 2004
Posts: 25 | TRs
Location: Oregon
Accraholic
Member
PostFri Nov 12, 2004 7:35 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
What do you guys all think about the way that fires in primitive areas are handled?

I guess that as long as the fire doesn't pose a threat to safety, then we just let nature? take it's course? I think we could use a better plan than that.

I don't know what the better plan would be, but just letting our remaining pristine areas all burn to the point of a moonscape can't be in our best interest.

At the very least this will lead to more human use in the remaining primitive areas, since I don't think the experience of hiking for days through a burn is too appealing...

If it turns out that some burning is a benefit, then we could plan it ahead, and set the fires in ways that we won't get 100,000 acres burned all at once...

The huge fires must kill much more wildlife than several smaller ones, and then the ash, and denuded soil will certainly not help the water resources when an entire drainage is burned instead of say 10%-20% of it...
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
sailBOI
Access Public Lands



Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 82 | TRs
Location: over the Rainbow
sailBOI
Access Public Lands
PostFri Nov 12, 2004 10:02 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Accraholic wrote:

The huge fires must kill much more wildlife than several smaller ones, and then the ash, and denuded soil will certainly not help the water resources when an entire drainage is burned instead of say 10%-20% of it...

The same folks who want to close the roads will ( and do ) argue that burns should not be controlled. In fact, roads are a primary access method to control fires.
You don't hear them talking about the loss of wildlife, or the vast CO2 emission. You don't hear about the lost resources. Two BILLION board feet of prime timber were destroyed in the Bisquit fire. Now these groups, using the same lawyer they are using to keep the Dose Rd closed, are stopping any salvage timber harvest from Bisquit. Another year gone and the timber becomes unusable.
Meanwhile, we are running a 2 $billion/day trade deficit, importing among other things, Canadian lumber. Pleeezee  eek.gif , we have almost 300 million people to house, and we are supposed to let the ecoreligious fanatics manage our resources through litigation ???

We simply cannot afford the luxury of wall to wall untouched forest for the primary benefit of wild animals...we are going broke  dizzy.gif  We need to manage for a sensible sustained yield, and stop the fires when we are able.

--------------
I am working on reopening the Dosewallips Road for campers and hikers . Join our effort at :
www.brinnonprosperity.org
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Accraholic
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Nov 2004
Posts: 25 | TRs
Location: Oregon
Accraholic
Member
PostFri Nov 12, 2004 11:17 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I think that there is enough land in tree farms already to sustain quite a bit of timber production. I work on a 200,000+ acre tree farm in the coast range, and there is more timber volume on this farm now then ever before...It is being managed for sustainable yield, and there's a lot of wood coming out of there every year. Some of the things being implemented in the name of protecting the environment work well, and make sense, but some of the other things we have to do are downright silly...

Meanwhile back at the ranch...sitting on our collective hands while OUR wilderness areas burn up is a crime...Like I said above, some burning could be a great natural tool to keep things in balance, but burning up the whole dang thing is beyond silly. We must remember that these wilderness areas are only so big, and that they are the last of it, let's don't blow it. The last thing I'm saying is to go in and build roads and build dams, and strip mine the thing..........BUT, lets manage the fires a little bit! I would guess that it can be done from the air, water drops, and helicopter in some people and tools...right???
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman
Slower than ever



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 15973 | TRs

Slugman
Slower than ever
PostFri Nov 12, 2004 11:39 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
sailBOI wrote:
Accraholic wrote:

The huge fires must kill much more wildlife than several smaller ones, and then the ash, and denuded soil will certainly not help the water resources when an entire drainage is burned instead of say 10%-20% of it...

The same folks who want to close the roads will ( and do ) argue that burns should not be controlled. In fact, roads are a primary access method to control fires.
You don't hear them talking about the loss of wildlife, or the vast CO2 emission. You don't hear about the lost resources. Two BILLION board feet of prime timber were destroyed in the Bisquit fire. Now these groups, using the same lawyer they are using to keep the Dose Rd closed, are stopping any salvage timber harvest from Bisquit. Another year gone and the timber becomes unusable.
Meanwhile, we are running a 2 $billion/day trade deficit, importing among other things, Canadian lumber. Pleeezee  eek.gif , we have almost 300 million people to house, and we are supposed to let the ecoreligious fanatics manage our resources through litigation ???

We simply cannot afford the luxury of wall to wall untouched forest for the primary benefit of wild animals...we are going broke  dizzy.gif  We need to manage for a sensible sustained yield, and stop the fires when we are able.

Puuhleeze! What a load. I remember not too long ago, when there was a bad fire season, all the anti-environmentalists said that the fires were the result of those evil environmentalists not allowing fires to burn, causing a build-up of fuel in the forests. It seems to me like before we started clear-cutting all the old growth that this whole part of the country was covered in healthy forests, with no intervention AT ALL!  How can one person be so completely wrong all the time, on every subject? Maybe it's being totally agenda-driven, and therfore rejecting any reality that doesn't conform to the agenda.

--------------
Just another tequila sunrise....
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Accraholic
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Nov 2004
Posts: 25 | TRs
Location: Oregon
Accraholic
Member
PostSat Nov 13, 2004 12:20 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman, I do not refute that many moons ago things were different, and I do not really care what the talking head on the T.V. said caused the homes to all burn up.

I would like to discuss the facts reguarding todays remaining intact forests/wilderness' being allowed to continue to burn unabatted after a fire starts. Possibly the way things are being done is optimal, but I haven't realized it yet if that's the case. I am willing to listen intently with an open mind...
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
sailBOI
Access Public Lands



Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 82 | TRs
Location: over the Rainbow
sailBOI
Access Public Lands
PostSat Nov 13, 2004 1:03 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The Biscuit fire was an environmental disaster, condoned by the ecowackos, who have now prevented any salvage logging through litigation.

Biscuit facts

"It further destroyed almost half of the suitable home ranges
of the Spotted Owl while releasing 40 million tons of carbon dioxide
(CO2) in the air.  The quantity of CO2 released was equal to that which
would be emitted by burning three billion gallons of gasoline."

Total size of the destroyed ecosystem = 1/2 the Olympic Natl Park

--------------
I am working on reopening the Dosewallips Road for campers and hikers . Join our effort at :
www.brinnonprosperity.org
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Guiran
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 608 | TRs
Location: University of Washington
Guiran
Member
PostSat Nov 13, 2004 5:07 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
The quantity of CO2 released was equal to that which
would be emitted by burning three billion gallons of gasoline.

But all that CO2 will be taken back up as new growth.  The CO2 released by burning gasoline has no natural sink.

I would rather see either prescribed burns or mechanical thinning than see the volume of fuel build up to the point that wildfire is inevitable.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Accraholic
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Nov 2004
Posts: 25 | TRs
Location: Oregon
Accraholic
Member
PostSat Nov 13, 2004 8:11 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Guiran, Thank you for commenting on this topic.

I am wondering... would it help if we lit a fire in a strategic place right at the end of the fire season...so that mother nature could put it out before it got very big...if we did that strategically, then when a real fire comes it would have some place to slow down, and give us a chance to help mother nature get it stopped. And it would make a more diversified forest, with  areas in different stages of recovery, so there would be more of a mix of vegetation, and more habitat for various wildlife...

I have seen other places where large fires have been left to there own devices, and the recovery back to a recognizable forest is...errr... longer than a human lifespan by several fold... So, with this "natural" destruction of our wilderness's, given that there is a finite amount of acreage...it's in our interest to take care of it wisely.

Wouldn't it be better to burn ?200 acres per year of something the size of the Kalmiopsis(+/- 200,000 acres)...that would touch each acre about every 1000 years, with some variation naturally...?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Hiker Boy
Hinking Fool



Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 1569 | TRs
Location: Northern Polar Icecap
Hiker Boy
Hinking Fool
PostSat Nov 13, 2004 9:56 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Taking advantage of the situation by harvesting timber out of wilderness areas is hardly an answer...that's greed pure and simple.  I agree with controlled burns as a way to manage the forests.  Done correctly and perhaps harvest allowed areas wont  become collateral damage to uncontrolled fires.

I had the opportunity to hike along the Rogue River and in the Siskiyous last summer.  Easy to see why the Biscuit fire grew so big.  A pretty hot and dry area in the summer to be sure.

Forgot to add that while I was down there,  I heard the National Park Service was thinking about a planned burn of the forest around Oregon National Caves.  Apparently years of fire suppression has caused the forest to grow more uninhibited than ever before.  The biomass is adversely effecting the cave's water supply by drawing more water out of the system.

--------------
Honey Badger Don't Care!
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Accraholic
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Nov 2004
Posts: 25 | TRs
Location: Oregon
Accraholic
Member
PostSat Nov 13, 2004 10:06 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Hiker Boy wrote:
Taking advantage of the situation by harvesting timber out of wilderness areas is hardly an answer...that's greed pure and simple. 


I'm not questioning what to do after a major fire, I'm trying to find out if we think we could/should find a satisfactory way to have less wilderness get burned up to begin with.

As an aside, on the question of what to do/not do after a big fire...the GREED thing is subject to some other unorthodox solutions I think. There might be something positive to be done with some of those burned up trees.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Accraholic
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Nov 2004
Posts: 25 | TRs
Location: Oregon
Accraholic
Member
PostSat Nov 13, 2004 10:13 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Almost forgot...I am thinking that there might be some relationship between what happens after a fire, and how much prevention/supression that we see...

I mean if "someone" has to pay the bill to put the fire out-OR- Gets to make money on every acre that gets burned...what do you think they'll do?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Hiker Boy
Hinking Fool



Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 1569 | TRs
Location: Northern Polar Icecap
Hiker Boy
Hinking Fool
PostSat Nov 13, 2004 10:30 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Accraholic wrote:
Hiker Boy wrote:
Taking advantage of the situation by harvesting timber out of wilderness areas is hardly an answer...that's greed pure and simple.

I'm not questioning what to do after a major fire, I'm trying to find out if we think we could/should find a satisfactory way to have less wilderness get burned up to begin with.

Who said anything about "after" ?

--------------
Honey Badger Don't Care!
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Accraholic
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Nov 2004
Posts: 25 | TRs
Location: Oregon
Accraholic
Member
PostSat Nov 13, 2004 11:37 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Well I assumed when there was a mention of harvesting timber from a wilderness area, that it implied salvaging some of the burned trees.....

I may have jumped the gun, but where else could harvesting have come from in this discussion?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Wilderness fire fighting
  Happy Birthday theCougAbides!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy