Are fires caused by environmentalists

If this sounds like a transparent troll, its because it is. But I know alot
of you folks are located in the western states that seem to be catching on
fire frequently. The debate as to the best way to manage forests is raging
harder than ever right now. Several of you have voiced strong opinions on
this subject and I was wondering if you are aware of some sound science to
back up the views. Google has produced some real nuggets of interest, but
mostly I can only find radicals from both (or all) sides of this argument.

Chris

"Chris Holliday" wrote:

If this sounds like a transparent troll, its because it is. But I know alot
of you folks are located in the western states that seem to be catching on
fire frequently. The debate as to the best way to manage forests is raging
harder than ever right now. Several of you have voiced strong opinions on
this subject and I was wondering if you are aware of some sound science to
back up the views. Google has produced some real nuggets of interest, but
mostly I can only find radicals from both (or all) sides of this argument.

The fires aren't "caused" by the obfuscation caused by the
environmentalists - but the fact the forests can't be thinned due to
legal blocking actions by the environmentalists means that there's no
chance to stop the fires without tremendous damage being done.

It's more complicated than that of course - the underlying issue is
that decades of careful fire prevention has allowed an unprecedented
amount of undergrowth to build up, fueling much hotter, more
destructive fires. That's not going to change immediately no matter
what.

But the general consensus among those who have the most to lose (those
with homes or cabins in the area north of Phoenix, Arizona for
example) is that thinning the forests would make the fires more
controllable and prevent much of the worst damage.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Chris Holliday wrote:
If this sounds like a transparent troll, its because it is. But I
know alot of you folks are located in the western states that seem to
be catching on fire frequently. The debate as to the best way to
manage forests is raging harder than ever right now. Several of you
have voiced strong opinions on this subject and I was wondering if
you are aware of some sound science to back up the views. Google has
produced some real nuggets of interest, but mostly I can only find
radicals from both (or all) sides of this argument.

Chris

beside trolling, the point of the post is *what* now?

~ a western resident breathing smoke

Chris Holliday wrote:
If this sounds like a transparent troll, its because it is. But I
know alot of you folks are located in the western states that seem to
be catching on fire frequently. The debate as to the best way to
manage forests is raging harder than ever right now. Several of you
have voiced strong opinions on this subject and I was wondering if
you are aware of some sound science to back up the views. Google has
produced some real nuggets of interest, but mostly I can only find
radicals from both (or all) sides of this argument.

Chris

OK, sure I'll bite, even tho I'm pretty sure that it's a topic at
rec.backcountry, not here I live on the Idaho/Washington border, and have
been breathing smoke from Cascade for two weeks. Lots of forest, fire, and
timber companies trying to hang in there around here.
Here's a number of reasons fires have started in the last few years:
drought, lightning strikes, campfires and arson.

The reason they are burning is 100+ years of no burning in areas that
either burned naturally before the advent of whiteman's fire control, or by
Native American controlled burning, combined with drought. (too much dry,
unhealthy growth) Examples, in our area, historically there were 20-40 big
trees per acre with grass and understory that supported browsing by elk,
etc. With the advent of fire suppression, there are now an average of 200+
skinny unhealthy trees per acre, with no room for undergrowth; what is
called "doghair" forest. Historically these forests burned either natually
from lightning or with controlled burns every 20-50 years, keeping them
open.

Most of the logging companies are not clear cutting anymore around here (
not so in the Cascades) but the challenge is to get them to take all the
little stick trees and to leave the bigger healthy ones to grow in a manner
closer to historical forest. There are ethical companies, that have an
interest in recreating healthy forest, and then there are profit minded
companies that just want to make a buck or three. Typically the companies
working with private landowners are doing a much nicer job of appropriate
thinning than those working on public lands.

http://forestfire.nau.edu/problem.htm This link explains the science of it
pretty well.

Spokane had a huge "fire storm"' in 1991, caused by a combination of high
winds, downed power lines, and exacerbated by unthinned forests, and poor
timber practices.
http://www.washington.historylink.or...m?file_id=5490

Penny

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
"Chris Holliday" wrote:

If this sounds like a transparent troll, its because it is. But I know
alot
of you folks are located in the western states that seem to be catching
on
fire frequently. The debate as to the best way to manage forests is
raging
harder than ever right now. Several of you have voiced strong opinions on
this subject and I was wondering if you are aware of some sound science
to
back up the views. Google has produced some real nuggets of interest, but
mostly I can only find radicals from both (or all) sides of this
argument.

The fires aren't "caused" by the obfuscation caused by the
environmentalists - but the fact the forests can't be thinned due to
legal blocking actions by the environmentalists means that there's no
chance to stop the fires without tremendous damage being done.

It's more complicated than that of course - the underlying issue is
that decades of careful fire prevention has allowed an unprecedented
amount of undergrowth to build up, fueling much hotter, more
destructive fires. That's not going to change immediately no matter
what.

But the general consensus among those who have the most to lose (those
with homes or cabins in the area north of Phoenix, Arizona for
example) is that thinning the forests would make the fires more
controllable and prevent much of the worst damage.

Thanks Mark. Solid POV.

C.

"pas" wrote in message
...
Chris Holliday wrote:
If this sounds like a transparent troll, its because it is. But I
know alot of you folks are located in the western states that seem to
be catching on fire frequently. The debate as to the best way to
manage forests is raging harder than ever right now. Several of you
have voiced strong opinions on this subject and I was wondering if
you are aware of some sound science to back up the views. Google has
produced some real nuggets of interest, but mostly I can only find
radicals from both (or all) sides of this argument.

Chris

OK, sure I'll bite, even tho I'm pretty sure that it's a topic at
rec.backcountry, not here I live on the Idaho/Washington border, and have
been breathing smoke from Cascade for two weeks. Lots of forest, fire,
and
timber companies trying to hang in there around here.
Here's a number of reasons fires have started in the last few years:
drought, lightning strikes, campfires and arson.

The reason they are burning is 100+ years of no burning in areas that
either burned naturally before the advent of whiteman's fire control, or
by
Native American controlled burning, combined with drought. (too much dry,
unhealthy growth) Examples, in our area, historically there were 20-40
big
trees per acre with grass and understory that supported browsing by elk,
etc. With the advent of fire suppression, there are now an average of
200+
skinny unhealthy trees per acre, with no room for undergrowth; what is
called "doghair" forest. Historically these forests burned either
natually
from lightning or with controlled burns every 20-50 years, keeping them
open.

Most of the logging companies are not clear cutting anymore around here (
not so in the Cascades) but the challenge is to get them to take all the
little stick trees and to leave the bigger healthy ones to grow in a
manner
closer to historical forest. There are ethical companies, that have an
interest in recreating healthy forest, and then there are profit minded
companies that just want to make a buck or three. Typically the companies
working with private landowners are doing a much nicer job of appropriate
thinning than those working on public lands.

http://forestfire.nau.edu/problem.htm This link explains the science of
it
pretty well.

Spokane had a huge "fire storm"' in 1991, caused by a combination of high
winds, downed power lines, and exacerbated by unthinned forests, and poor
timber practices.
http://www.washington.historylink.or...m?file_id=5490


Thanks for taking the time . Mine is actually an honest post seeking
different points of view. I figured if I called it a troll, I could save the
troll-police from having to restate the obvious.

Honestly, you present a view that would be very difficult to fall upon. No
group biasing either way and that is what I was hoping for. This topic seems
to be segregated heavily by political affiliation. Good links too.

C.

Chris Holliday wrote:
"pas" wrote in message

Thanks for taking the time . Mine is actually an honest post seeking
different points of view. I figured if I called it a troll, I could
save the troll-police from having to restate the obvious.

Honestly, you present a view that would be very difficult to fall
upon. No group biasing either way and that is what I was hoping for.
This topic seems to be segregated heavily by political affiliation.
Good links too.

C.

I think it's easier not to spout propaganda when you live it, see it, hike
in it, drive in it, and ride your bike in it as matter of course and regular
day tripping. Someone who lives in a city and has never *seen** has an easy
time spouting off when their favorite organization espouses a certain course
of action, and it's not in their experience, just philosophy.

Aren't your curious about my political affiliations anyway? ;-)

I wish I could have found better links about the firestorm, it was really
scary when it happened. I wasn't near any of the area that burned, but the
smoke and everything else made it seem like Armageddon.

"pas" wrote in message
...
Chris Holliday wrote:
"pas" wrote in message

Aren't your curious about my political affiliations anyway? ;-)

I am completely fed up with politics right now. I would rather speculate
about the possibilities of teleportation.... while riding my bike.

C.

"pas" wrote in message
...
Chris Holliday wrote:
"pas" wrote in message

Aren't your curious about my political affiliations anyway? ;-)

I am completely fed up with politics right now. I would rather speculate
about the possibilities of teleportation.... while riding my bike.

C.

"pas" wrote in message ...
Chris Holliday wrote:
If this sounds like a transparent troll, its because it is. But I
know alot of you folks are located in the western states that seem to
be catching on fire frequently.

There is a link between frequency and severity, this link is dynamic
and not often understood.

snip

http://forestfire.nau.edu/problem.htm This link explains the science of it
pretty well.

The problem with the work of Covington and Moore et al, is that it is
often applied broadly when the studies themselves are bounded both
geographically and temporally. The majority of the NAU studies are in
the PiPo on the rim. Yet, the studies are cited for fires such as Los
Alamos (Cerro Grande) and the Yellowstone complex fires. The map in
the article is a good example of this kind of broad brush approach.
"pre-settlement" fire regime studies have not been done in all of
these forest stands, yet a single fire regime is being offered up
since the forests have similar structure based on species.

The temporal problems are directly related to the collection of dendro
data. To develop a "pre-settlement fire regime" model based on
dendrochronology, you need stumps and trees with fire scares. The
longevity of of the species limits the temporal span of the data
collected.

Other studies using broader temporal data (such as sedimentology)
suggest that catastrophic fires may be a "normal" part of the
pre-settlement fire regime in many forests, including some PiPo.

http://epswww.unm.edu/facstaff/gmeyer/ynp/firedfs.htm
http://epswww.unm.edu/facstaff/gmeye...teresearch.htm

No one wants to here that catastrophic fire may be normal, but there
is enough evidence to at least suggest that they may be.


Then again, I never did get along well with Wally and Margaret.

snip

As for "Are fires caused by environmentalists'" the answer to that is
a simple "no." The majority of fires in the Western United States are
caused by lightning.

R

Graduate (2000) Northern Arizona University, School of Ecosystems
Science and Management (R.I.P).