Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wilderness fire fighting
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore



Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 14152 | TRs | Pics
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
PostSat Nov 13, 2004 11:40 am 
Slug, true that before logging this area was covered with forest; but maybe not as healthy as you're thinking. History books such as JoAnn Roe's "The North Cascadians" tell of repeated massive out-of control fires that raged for days and days, one in particular in the Skagit Valley that raged all summer long, causing pollution and illness. I assume it was a regular occurrance before Man came on the scene, but cannot prove it. Human intervention* and mechanical tasks such as logging, even logging for maintenance, is against the Wilderness Act, which is why fires are mostly not fought in Wilderness areas unless they threaten life or property. One of the largest critiques of the Thirtymile Fire was that they DID attempt to fight it though it was not near enough a large populated area to warrant the fight, and lives were lost. Sure, the Wilderness Act can be re-written to allow maintenance logging or burns. But the Wilderness Act is almost sacred to so many. Multiply the vehement bullheaded arguments by the few who frequent the Devil's Club on this site by millions who support and do not support the Wilderness Act, and that's what changing the Wilderness Act would be like - in other words - it ain't gonna happen. I'm not saying I agree with maintenance logging in Wilderness Areas or that I disagree with it. I'm not saying I agree with fire suppresion in Wilderness Areas or that I disagree. I'm just giving a suggestion as to why logging isn't allowed in Wilderness areas that why fires aren't fought in the Wilderness Areas. *please don't jump down my throat about "so why do they allow trails and hunting if human intervention isn't allowed?" I didn't write the Act and had nothing to do with it whatsoever. All I know is, is that mechanized equipment isn't allowed unless an Act of Congress is decreed to do so. Literally an Act of Congress.

"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate." Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Accraholic
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Nov 2004
Posts: 25 | TRs | Pics
Location: Oregon
Accraholic
Member
PostSat Nov 13, 2004 12:10 pm 
I think we're all happy that the wilderness act is so strong... I have some doubts about "maintenance logging"...even though I make my living working for loggers...there are separate areas for growing trees. I think we mostly agree that having some places unmanaged/touched by human hands is a good thing too...?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Guiran
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 621 | TRs | Pics
Location: University of Washington
Guiran
Member
PostSat Nov 13, 2004 12:41 pm 
As I understand forest fires: Natural burns are usually relatively low intensity, burning out understorey brush. However, the fire usually does not "crown" (reach the tops of the tallest trees) and the ecosystem recovers on its own within a modest time. In areas where forests have been managed and natural burn cycles suppressed there is a lot more understorey material to burn. And often the fire will crown - spreading rapidly (wildfire). Because there is so much more material to burn, the fire burns much hotter and results in scorched earth which can take a very long time to grow back. So if we're just talking about areas outside the wilderness, allowing fires to naturally burn in a forest that has become un-naturally full of fuel is not really such a good idea - due to both economic, social, and environmental concerns. The argument going on now regarding harvesting is the proposed mechanical thinning of forests to make them look more like a forest that's been through normal burn cycles (without actually having a fire). The problem is that the material being taken out in mechanical thinning is generally low diameter trees and brush - which have no/low commercial value. So, unlike commercial logging, thinning can not pay for itself. This gives rise to two schools of thought: 1. The cost of thinning is much less than the cost of fighting wildfires and cleaning up the resulting damage. Since fire suppression and clean-up are paid out of public funds, thinning should be as well. The cost of thinning varies quite a bit depending on the specifics of the land being thinned, but is estimated at somewhere between $300-500/acre (exclusive of pulling thinned timber out of the forest). The cost of allowing wildfire is much higher, on the order of $1200-$2000/acre. 2. Thinning should be done concurrently with commercial logging, so that commercial revenues from merchantable timber can cover the cost of thinning. Thinning is currently practiced on commercial logging lands (e.g. Weyerhauser) but is much more contentious in national forests due to competing land uses. No one really likes to hike in a clear-cut. And a lot of folks are concerned that if logging companies are let in to some lands, rather than just thin, they'll be taking all the merchantable timber out, leaving a rather sickly forest behind. This document gives a quick (though somewhat number heavy) overview: http://www.ruraltech.org/pubs/fact_sheets/fs028/index.asp

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
sailBOI
Access Public Lands



Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 82 | TRs | Pics
Location: over the Rainbow
sailBOI
Access Public Lands
PostSun Nov 14, 2004 12:20 am 
Quark wrote:
Sure, the Wilderness Act can be re-written to allow maintenance logging or burns. But the Wilderness Act is almost sacred to so many.
OK, why is it sacred ??? It was written by fallible humans, after all. We have developed a vast vested interest in not changing (or improving) things like this. The Enviro groups that spew out newsletters condemning human greed, for the purpose of fundraising, are now the "establishment". I was told by a Fisheries professor at UW that in many ways the private timber companies have now got better methods of environmental protection than the NFS. They have moved their roadbeds up away from streams and rivers, they are thinning and preventing fires, they are controlling erosion and replanting harvested areas immediately. The environmental groups have in many ways served their purpose by now, like the unions that broke the grip of unfair industrial practices. Do we need unions at microsoft or intel ?? The point being that the general consciousness has been lifted, from school kids to board rooms. My son and his wife have MS Enviro Engineering degrees from UW. For years now they have been busy fixing enviro problems BEFORE they happen. The Directors of major companies insist that issues be corrected before they become major problems. ( and they are personally liable if they don't ) Environmental leaders, however, have tasted the power and the don't want to give it up. The way to stay in position is the ride the crest of a wave of misguideds who believe in the "sacred" character of "mother nature". Somehow these folks have failed to notice tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic explosions, asteroids etc etc. Somehow they ignore the fact that the Indians cleared and burned sections of "old growth" to draw the wildlife in for hunting. Our NFS professionals ( they have told me ) are afraid of these Greenies, who are geared up with $$ and lawyers. Now, instead of science based management of our scarce forest resources, we have high priests of the ecoreligion extending their grasp far beyond the Wilderness areas that thankfully our Congress protected. Their object is NO CUTTING on Federal lands, remove the roads from these lands...stop the farmers water supply and terminate the grazing leases. We are headed straight into an economic disaster, that is only being papered over by massive debt. We cannot allow this "sacred" hokus pokus to control our future. I don't question the magic of our National Parks and Wilderness areas, but we need to get on down the road toward logical sustainable use of our other resources. doh.gif

I am working on reopening the Dosewallips Road for campers and hikers . Join our effort at : www.brinnonprosperity.org
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore



Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 14152 | TRs | Pics
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
PostSun Nov 14, 2004 1:24 am 
sailBOI wrote:
Quark wrote:
Sure, the Wilderness Act can be re-written to allow maintenance logging or burns. But the Wilderness Act is almost sacred to so many.
OK, why is it sacred ???
Dude, take it easy. You're going to blow a gasket in your head with this access stuff. You're seeing it in every post everyone writes, even posts about trolling posters, for chrissakes - and the more you harangue about it, the less credible and the more crazy you sound. I don't mean to insult your agenda, I'm trying to help you. I said I didn't write the Act - I just said it's almost sacred to so many. "Sacred" is a word about the Wilderness that I picked up on reading various articles concerning the Wilderness. My guess is that folks want to try to preserve a little bit of Nature in North America - sort of a romantic notion of the Last Frontier. Now lets get back to burning it up, ok?

"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate." Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
sailBOI
Access Public Lands



Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 82 | TRs | Pics
Location: over the Rainbow
sailBOI
Access Public Lands
PostSun Nov 14, 2004 2:14 am 
Quark wrote:
sailBOI wrote:
Quark wrote:
Sure, the Wilderness Act can be re-written to allow maintenance logging or burns. But the Wilderness Act is almost sacred to so many.
OK, why is it sacred ???
Dude, take it easy. You're going to blow a gasket in your head with this access stuff.
Did I mention access ?? I was directly addressing the topic of fire! When it comes to fire management policy, I say let our professional foresters handle fighting the fires by prevention as best as they know how. Everytime these poor guys turn around, it's another lawsuit coming from folks who should just butt out. These people are quasi-religious zealots, protecting their sacred turf...except it is not theirs alone dizzy.gif There are myriads of articles like this one, but this one is by a Native American up.gif extreemists fan flames "The worst part is that this obstruction-through-litigation strategy means furthering the goals of radicals. Every dollar that land management agencies are forced to spend litigating is one less dollar spent on proposed action, such as thinning. Environmental extremists acknowledge that our forests are unnaturally dense. Those who strongly oppose thinning the forest except when it immediately surrounds homes say thinning allows the timber industry to ravage our landscapes. They ignore the fact that industry thinning on national forests occurs under National Environmental Policy Act scrutiny. Many environmentalist organizations have effectively paralyzed responsible forest management practices. Seventy million acres of national forest are now at risk for severe wildland fires. In the West, more than half of the rangeland riparian area of the National Forest System does not meet standards for healthy watersheds. U.S. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth recently acknowledged that the Hayman Fire would not have been nearly as severe had forest thinning projects gone forward."

I am working on reopening the Dosewallips Road for campers and hikers . Join our effort at : www.brinnonprosperity.org
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore



Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 14152 | TRs | Pics
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
PostSun Nov 14, 2004 11:11 am 
You keep talking about National Forest. This thread is about Wilderness. They're not the same. Is your stand on the subject the same in Wilderness as in the National Forest? Are these suits about the National Forest, or the Wilderness? Or both? Here's some advocacy advice: Don't resort to name-calling (ie; quasi religious zealots) unless you know for a fact they are urbanites, or quasi-religious zealots by those words being a part of their name on the Plaintiff line on the pleading. Stereotyping, type-casting, labeling, turns potential advocates off. 1) It's not a very objective way to gain recruits, and 2) it certainly isn't a way to fight an argument effectively - like I said, it makes you sound crazy, even if you are not. So: are you talking about NF, or Wilderness?

"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate." Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
sailBOI
Access Public Lands



Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 82 | TRs | Pics
Location: over the Rainbow
sailBOI
Access Public Lands
PostSun Nov 14, 2004 12:06 pm 
Quark wrote:
So: are you talking about NF, or Wilderness?
The litigation goes on and on, Wilderness, NFS, National Parks. The Biscuit fire encompassed far more area than the designated Wilderness. Once a fire is allowed to "naturally" progress, it threatens productive forests on all sides of the "Wilderness". Here are some links of interest, the first one is a wildfire news site circa the Biscuit occurrance. The other an indepth of the Biscuit fire.

I am working on reopening the Dosewallips Road for campers and hikers . Join our effort at : www.brinnonprosperity.org
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Accraholic
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Nov 2004
Posts: 25 | TRs | Pics
Location: Oregon
Accraholic
Member
PostSun Nov 14, 2004 12:10 pm 
I thought fires were fought tooth and nail with every available asset in National Forests, State Forests, B.L.M. lands, and even the private corporations' lands...I thought the only fires that were left to Ma Nature were in the Wilderness Areas. It may be that this is the best alternative when all sides have had their say...?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
sailBOI
Access Public Lands



Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 82 | TRs | Pics
Location: over the Rainbow
sailBOI
Access Public Lands
PostSun Nov 14, 2004 12:49 pm 
Accraholic wrote:
I thought fires were fought tooth and nail with every available asset in National Forests, State Forests, B.L.M. lands, and even the private corporations' lands...I thought the only fires that were left to Ma Nature were in the Wilderness Areas. It may be that this is the best alternative when all sides have had their say...?
Environmentalists have sued to prevent use of Fire Retardands, wonder how many lives and million acres that will cost ?? Of course if it is a "Natural" fire, we shouldn't question the millions of tons of CO2 that go toward "global warming". The argument that the CO2 will be recaptured is hardly relevant, as it will be a very slow process over 100 years or so, for the Biscuit area. The immediate effect of these fires is a huge increase of CO2 coming from the USA. My point is that the people attempting to micromanage our forests through litigation are often making things worse in the bigger picture. CA Fire Commission condemns Enviro Litigation * In Montana, an environmental group is suing to stop the use of fire retardants to fight forest fires. If successful, the lawsuit will critically weaken firefighters' ability to fight fires. * Environmental organizations even have a website dedicated to teach environmental litigators how to use the courts to stop forest health and fire prevention projects on public lands," said Suarez, pointing to the web site of an environmental law firm, Wildlaw. Folks who donate to these groups should track what they do, and voice your opinions to the Directors.

I am working on reopening the Dosewallips Road for campers and hikers . Join our effort at : www.brinnonprosperity.org
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
aestivate
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Posts: 199 | TRs | Pics
aestivate
Member
PostSun Nov 14, 2004 10:29 pm 
sailBOI wrote:
The Biscuit fire was an environmental disaster, condoned by the ecowackos, who have now prevented any salvage logging through litigation.
The fire severity image SailBOI has linked to is actually a pretty good argument for letting fires alone in fire-prone forests. A nice patchy burn, with extensive areas of partial survival. The sort of disturbance that builds complexity in ecosystems. SailBOI needs to learn something about forest disturbance regimes. Remember when the lodgepole pine forests of Yellowstone burned, and the media was clacking about how Yellowstone was ruined? Well, it's not.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Accraholic
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Nov 2004
Posts: 25 | TRs | Pics
Location: Oregon
Accraholic
Member
PostSun Nov 14, 2004 11:12 pm 
I am intending to fly over the Kalmiopsis and have a look for myself when my schedule and a nice high pressure ridge coincide, and then take a few days and march through some of it too. I'm hoping it's all wonderful, but I doubt that it's as nice as it was preBiscuit...

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore



Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 14152 | TRs | Pics
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
PostSun Nov 14, 2004 11:14 pm 
Guiran wrote:
As I understand forest fires: READ ABOVE-REFERENCED POST
Sounds like a catch-22 situation - thinning on it's own isn't economical for the timber companies, but thinning would be economical for them if they were allowed to log more merchantable timber. Yet fear of public outcry stops the land managers from allowing merchantable logging, therefore thinning won't take place. Am I reading that correctly? I do agree with thinning in the NF, BLM, etc. lands. But re: fire retardant - it seems as if the chemicals used would be harmful not only for the regrowth of the particular forest, but it seeping into the wetlands, watercourses, ingested by animals used as prey, etc would have far-reaching harmful effects. Regarding Wilderness Areas within the NF - heartbreaking as it is to see it burn, the Wilderness Act does not allow forest management. It is the land without human intervention - these pockets of primitivity (is that a word?) are a treasure that would be lost; they can also be used as a "control" for further studying and understanding how nature is supposed to be. Without Wilderness, we won't ever know the specifics of Nature and how it should be, versus how we made it to be. I know someday I'm gonna hate myself someday for loving the Wilderness Areas - when the area surround Horseshoe Basin (Pasayten) goes - O I hate to think of it! That forest is waist-deep in kindling.

"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate." Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
sailBOI
Access Public Lands



Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 82 | TRs | Pics
Location: over the Rainbow
sailBOI
Access Public Lands
PostSun Nov 14, 2004 11:24 pm 
aestivate wrote:
sailBOI wrote:
The Biscuit fire was an environmental disaster, condoned by the ecowackos, who have now prevented any salvage logging through litigation.
The fire severity image SailBOI has linked to is actually a pretty good argument for letting fires alone in fire-prone forests. A nice patchy burn, with extensive areas of partial survival. The sort of disturbance that builds complexity in ecosystems. SailBOI needs to learn something about forest disturbance regimes. Remember when the lodgepole pine forests of Yellowstone burned, and the media was clacking about how Yellowstone was ruined? Well, it's not.
Perhaps you could explain the benefit of this ?
sailBOI wrote:
The Biscuit fire was an environmental disaster "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."
Perhaps you can elaborate on the benefits to 300 million Americans of "nice patchy burns" that destroy 2 Billion board feet of timber, creating "disturbances" that result in "complex" ecosystems ? Are you in favor of the Wildlands Project ? If so, how will it improve the human condition ?

I am working on reopening the Dosewallips Road for campers and hikers . Join our effort at : www.brinnonprosperity.org
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Guiran
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 621 | TRs | Pics
Location: University of Washington
Guiran
Member
PostSun Nov 14, 2004 11:28 pm 
Quote:
Sounds like a catch-22 situation - thinning on it's own isn't economical for the timber companies, but thinning would be economical for them if they were allowed to log more merchantable timber. Yet fear of public outcry stops the land managers from allowing merchantable logging, therefore thinning won't take place. Am I reading that correctly?
Pretty much. My master's research has been on an engineering/economic assessment of converting thinnings to bio-fuel (e.g. methanol, bio-oil). Unfortunately, the economics don't really "go around". A number of options would cost less than the current practice of burning or land-filling thinned timber, but none of them are even close to covering the cost to thin. I think the best option might be to create new "smallwood" industries near forests in need of thinning that could make use of small-diameter timber.
Quote:
primitivity (is that a word?)
I thought your were the resident grammarian? Or did you resign the position to someone else?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wilderness fire fighting
  Happy Birthday noahk!
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