[altasnob]

[treeswarper]

Closing the campground is the easy way. You all should know by now the litigation that takes place, and the cost in time and money for that, in order to cut trees in a controversial area. Root rot requires almost a clear cut to take place, depending on the tree species int he campground. Such a thing is abhorrent to many very vocal people and groups who know how to delay or stop such a project. Doesn't matter if the campground is closed to camping to them, they are saving the last of the last of the "ancient" old growth and consider it to be just another "extraction". You, altasnob use that term. It has become a common term used to stop the cutting of trees. Any major project in a popular area, and it would be major for the campground, will be litigated to death. It's like Covid. Everybody with internet access is an expert and foresters are not to be trusted. Just showing the way too common side of things. That is why campgrounds have been closed to camping with nothing done. There are exceptions. The Forest Service has been pretty proactive with what I call hazard treeing campgrounds. Most campgrounds get a walk through before opening in the spring, and any problems are taken care of prior to opening. The Loup Loup campground was a project and commercially logged last year. It is open now. Looks good. Plus the surrounding area was logged with trees thinned out and it also looks good. So, there are exceptions but this example is in a not very heavily used area and has no righteous neighbors. I keep thinking about the TV interview with an older couple objecting to any trees being cut in a state park because they like to walk through it each day. Sigh...

[Ski]

[treeswarper]

The last I heard, an area has to be cut 50 feet beyond the last infected tree. This may have changed. One option in the lower elevations would be to plant our red alder, which grows quickly, and then interplant with ano resistant conifer species. That's how nature would do it--minus the resistant part. Of course, the alder is not long lived so it would have to be dealt with when it begins to decline, and die. Part of the Silverbrook Road, in Randle had to be cut due to root rot weakened trees frequently falling on the road, which is a busy (for Randle) road. It was clearcut, which was necessary, within the distance of a tree hitting the road.

[Ski]

^ Alder and willow are always the first to pioneer newly opened areas, particularly if there's any water handy. Problem there is that if the alder gets established and it's not cut (or otherwise removed) that would delay the introduction of long-lived and more desirable conifer species. Fifty feet is the width of my back yard - hardly enough to contain that root fungus. BK

[Bowregard]

I probably don't pay as much attention to standing trees as I should but I am really careful not to camp near any cottonwood trees in the spring. We had a huge Cottonwood in the front yard of a house we used to live in which would drop limbs in the Spring that were close to 8" diameter. No wind, rain, or warning and the tree looked very healthy but one of the limbs took out part of my front deck and the others made huge indentations in the lawn. Scared us enough that we eventually had the tree taken down. I think the limbs just got too heavy for the attachment strength when the sap started to flow in the Spring. I have spoken with others who had the same experience. Fortunately, these trees grow mainly near lowland rivers where we don't do much camping but I will not camp anywhere close to those trees.

[treeswarper]

[scottk]

I suggest we keep things in perspective. Although I'm all in support of removing hazard trees, it's a highly unlikely way to die. ahttps://www.hellis.biz/advice-centre/trees-and-the-law/risk-of-trees-causing-harm-or-injury/ Please worry about being murdered (annual risk about 1 in 13,000) or an accident in the home (annual risk of 1 in 17,000) before you worry about being killed by a falling tree (annual risk of 1 in 10 million). My concern is that people will stop going outdoors because of unwarranted fears. Fear of bear attacks in Washington State is another unwarranted fear. According to WDFS, there have been 18 bear attacks since 1970, with one fatality. Assuming 6 million people in Washington state, your annual chance of dying from a bear attack in Washington State is 1 in 300 million. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/black-bear-attacks-jogger-on-whatcom-county-trail/

[Ski]

^ I wonder if Mr. Spock ever had an opportunity to compute the odds. Most likely insufficient data, Captain. Perspective: you're more likely to get killed in your car driving to the trailhead. I don't worry in the least about trees falling, and I've been in deep forest lugging a pack when big pieces of wood were coming down out of the canopy. A bit spooky sometimes. Only thing that really scares me is falling. I fell in July and my shin still isn't quite healed up. The advantage to going ahead and simply removing these so-called "hazard" trees is that we assure the future of campground camping opportunities. It should be done sooner, not later. Just my lousy two cents.

[Foist]

Several people on here say that falling trees striking campers is a common occurrence. Is that really true? We have many thousands of people backpacking and camping in Washington every day (in season) around trees, and how often do we hear of this happening? Seems like once in multiple years. Does anyone have actual data on this? Also, I find it funny when non-lawyers make pronouncement about "liability reasons." It is virtually impossible to make a liability case against the federal government for something like this. (although against the state government, maybe a little easier.) Liability has nothing to do with it. It's basic incentives. Government bureaucracies absolutely LOVE closing things for safety reasons (although I'm sure some individual rangers are genuinely sorry about it). It is a win-win. The campgrounds are not money-makers. Closing them means less work for them, less money spent, AND they get to pat themselves on the back for putting "safety first." Even if the improvement to safety is miniscule, and the cost to taxpayers in losing a valuable service is enormous, that cost is meaningless to them.

[treeswarper]

[Foist]

Last week's tragedy didn't happen at a campground. It happened at a backcountry campsite. I suppose one might say, see? No one clears "hazard trees" in the backcountry! But nevertheless, similar tragedies are (seemingly) incredibly rare.

[Chief Joseph]

It's the typical mindset in this country of, We must save everyone from everything!

[Cyclopath]

[Gwen]

I was on a WTA VV a number of years ago. We were camped about half way up Little Giant Pass. One afternoon I had crawled into my tent after work for a nap. Suddenly, I heard the large crack and all I could think was I didn't have time to even try to get out of the tent. Turns out the tree was about 30' away and fell in a separate direction. Have heard many of trees fall, seemingly for no reason. Calm day, no winds, nothing that would be considered an event. Sometimes they just give up the ghost. Spend enough time in the woods an you'll experience it. I can say that, as a hammock camper and a sawyer, I do take note of my environment a lot more if I'm going to be spending any amount of time in a single spot. Situational awareness it one of the greatest tools we xan possess, in any aspect of life.