Managing Forests vs. Blaming Climate Change

[Stocker Steve]

A lot of buzz about what causes big forest fires on the west coast. Are there going to be any changes in forest management and building practices?

 

[Ebenezer]

I doubt it. Love and politics are blind.

 

[cowgirl8]

I dont like getting into political conversations with liberals, and its even worse if they are global warming cool aid drinkers. Unless these fires spontaneously ignite, a fire is a fire. You can set a fire in the corner of your house and it will burn, but was it because of global warming??/

 

[cowgirl8]

And i think the protesters are doing some of them.. They'd burn a building while someone is in it, why not forest?

 

[callmefence]

Fire is a part of nature. It's always been. Nobody has to start it. The more you suppress it the more combustible the country becomes. Tall grass allows fire to get in the canopy. At least that's how it works here.
Fire gets up in the cedars and runs off when it gets onto properly that isn't grazed down. I would think those vast tracts of government owned land being burned off on a rotation ( idk how often) but when it's safe to do so. And being stocked fairly heavy with cattle during times when the grass is growing would be a logical solution.

 

[kenny thomas]

Fire is a part of nature. It's always been. Nobody has to start it. The more you suppress it the more combustible the country becomes. Tall grass allows fire to get in the canopy. At least that's how it works here.
Fire gets up in the cedars and runs off when it gets onto properly that isn't grazed down. I would think those vast tracts of government owned land being burned off on a rotation ( idk how often) but when it's safe to do so. And being stocked fairly heavy with cattle during times when the grass is growing would be a logical solution.

Good Logic doesn't play into the decisions very often. The environmentalist fussing is the logic used.

 

[Dave]

Fire is a part of nature. It's always been. Nobody has to start it. The more you suppress it the more combustible the country becomes. Tall grass allows fire to get in the canopy. At least that's how it works here.
Fire gets up in the cedars and runs off when it gets onto properly that isn't grazed down. I would think those vast tracts of government owned land being burned off on a rotation ( idk how often) but when it's safe to do so. And being stocked fairly heavy with cattle during times when the grass is growing would be a logical solution.

Good Logic doesn't play into the decisions very often. The environmentalist fussing is the logic used.

You have no idea how many thousands of acres of national forest they have kicked the cows out of. How much logging was halted because of the spotted owl and other critters. I do have two BLM grazing permits. There management leaves a lot to be desired. But there is no way that I would buy a ranch which has a portion of its grazing on a forest service permit. And there is just about no controlled burns on government property. And when the government is your neighbor you get real nervous about burning on private land. Feel free to research the Hammonds in Harney county to see what happens if your controlled burn gets on government land.

Fires are being set. The media is not wanting to report this. But it is in fact happening. There was a guy with Massachusetts plates seen trying to light fires here this week. Luckily he didn't know where or when to light the fires. He picked places that had been well grazed so the fire didn't spread. He was also doing it at night when the temperature was dropping into the 30's so again it didn't spread. The locals caught the fires and got them out before they burnt more than an acre or two. Wish they would have caught him. But maybe they did and he will never be heard from again.

 

[cowgirl8]

I mentioned this on a FB story on global warming and the fires a FB friend posted, she liberal.... i basically got laughed out of her liberal friend group...lol... She posted this..........Although I haven't seen anything telling us the political leanings of the people at the Gender Reveal Party. And i suppose antifa are melting all the icebergs too and Fires erupted beginning Aug. 15 when more than 1,200 lightning strikes hit the baking landscape within 72 hours.Those came "the exact week that we were experiencing some of the hottest temperatures ever recorded in human history, 130-degree temperatures in the southern part of the state," Newsom said. It was "maybe the hottest modern recorded temperature in the history of the world," he said. There is no changing their minds.. so, i dont really bother unless i feel like a argument..lol....

 

[Dave]

I mentioned this on a FB story on global warming and the fires a FB friend posted, she liberal.... i basically got laughed out of her liberal friend group...lol... She posted this..........Although I haven't seen anything telling us the political leanings of the people at the Gender Reveal Party. And i suppose antifa are melting all the icebergs too and Fires erupted beginning Aug. 15 when more than 1,200 lightning strikes hit the baking landscape within 72 hours.Those came "the exact week that we were experiencing some of the hottest temperatures ever recorded in human history, 130-degree temperatures in the southern part of the state," Newsom said. It was "maybe the hottest modern recorded temperature in the history of the world," he said. There is no changing their minds.. so, i dont really bother unless i feel like a argument..lol....

Funny how a lot of those fires broke long after that lightning storm which was nearly a month ago. I remember that lightning storm well. We were sweating it here. Only a couple fires started by it. Most were put out in less than a week. Look at a map of west coast fires. Then look at a map of fires up in British Columbia. Funny global warming seems to stop at the border.

 

[callmefence]

https://youtu.be/rR58heUGkNA

 

[shaz]

Fire is a part of nature. It's always been. Nobody has to start it. The more you suppress it the more combustible the country becomes. Tall grass allows fire to get in the canopy. At least that's how it works here.
Fire gets up in the cedars and runs off when it gets onto properly that isn't grazed down. I would think those vast tracts of government owned land being burned off on a rotation ( idk how often) but when it's safe to do so. And being stocked fairly heavy with cattle during times when the grass is growing would be a logical solution.

I'll bet the fires in Oklahoma a few years ago didn't burn cow pasture either.

 

[76 Bar]

This was posted on a friend's face book page. She & her husband are independent loggers and active in the industry's politics. Author of the article is Bill Imbergamo.

As these fires burn in California and Oregon (and elsewhere, but boy, these two states are putting on a show right now), I thought I'd share some information about the conditions on California's National Forests provided by one of my board members, mostly based on Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis and research done by FS researchers. Caveats: Not all the fires burning are FOREST fires, some of them are brush, grass, and chaparral, all highly flammable landscapes that are a whole other issue when it comes to land management. But the fact is the Forest Service grounds in CA are badly overstocked, the result of over a century of fire suppression and several decades of little management. This isn't about "raking" (ahem), nor is it only about climate change (although there is no doubt that climate change is playing a significant role here). Anyway, it's background knowledge like this that led me to pen that op-ed I shared yesterday. So now you can know what I know:

National Forests in California Forest Service Inventory & Analysis (FIA): In 2010 – average of 295 live trees/acre and 17 dead trees/acre for a total of 302 conifer trees/acre; 2015 data shows 302 live conifer trees/acre and 18 conifer dead trees/acre for a total of 320 conifer trees/acre.

Very recently, Dr. Malcolm North, Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, found that in the 1860's, California's forests had on average 64 trees/acre; average diameter of 26 inches; 32% canopy cover, while in the 2010's – on average, there are 320 trees/acre; average diameter of 14" inches, and; 65% canopy cover ("Creating a Resilient Landscape Using Recent Research on Reference Conditions. Reforestation, and Owl Habitat" (February 2020).

In other words, on average, National Forest acres have 5 times the number of trees they have historically supported, these trees are 46 percent smaller, and the canopy (where the tops of trees touch) is twice as dense as it was historically. You subject a forest in that condition to climate change, this week's fire weather, and years of on again, off again drought, and you've got a real problem.

"We have a Forest Health problem. There simply is not sufficient water throughout any given year to sustain tree density on average 5 times greater than historic stands that were resistant to wildfire, insect, and disease."

 

[callmefence]

Fire is a part of nature. It's always been. Nobody has to start it. The more you suppress it the more combustible the country becomes. Tall grass allows fire to get in the canopy. At least that's how it works here.
Fire gets up in the cedars and runs off when it gets onto properly that isn't grazed down. I would think those vast tracts of government owned land being burned off on a rotation ( idk how often) but when it's safe to do so. And being stocked fairly heavy with cattle during times when the grass is growing would be a logical solution.

I'll bet the fires in Oklahoma a few years ago didn't burn cow pasture either.

IDK what your talking about. But I'm going to respond with I didn't say cow pasture won't burn....

 

[shaz]

Fire is a part of nature. It's always been. Nobody has to start it. The more you suppress it the more combustible the country becomes. Tall grass allows fire to get in the canopy. At least that's how it works here.
Fire gets up in the cedars and runs off when it gets onto properly that isn't grazed down. I would think those vast tracts of government owned land being burned off on a rotation ( idk how often) but when it's safe to do so. And being stocked fairly heavy with cattle during times when the grass is growing would be a logical solution.

I'll bet the fires in Oklahoma a few years ago didn't burn cow pasture either.

IDK what your talking about. But I'm going to respond with I didn't say cow pasture won't burn....

I'm saying the same thing you are. Had that land been grazed the problem would not have been so bad.

 

[Son of Butch]

The El Dorado California fire last weekend that burned 7,000 acres and killed a fire fighter was started at a gender reveal party that used a fireworks powder smoke cannon for the reveal.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

This was posted on a friend's face book page. She & her husband are independent loggers and active in the industry's politics. Author of the article is Bill Imbergamo.

As these fires burn in California and Oregon (and elsewhere, but boy, these two states are putting on a show right now), I thought I'd share some information about the conditions on California's National Forests provided by one of my board members, mostly based on Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis and research done by FS researchers. Caveats: Not all the fires burning are FOREST fires, some of them are brush, grass, and chaparral, all highly flammable landscapes that are a whole other issue when it comes to land management. But the fact is the Forest Service grounds in CA are badly overstocked, the result of over a century of fire suppression and several decades of little management. This isn't about "raking" (ahem), nor is it only about climate change (although there is no doubt that climate change is playing a significant role here). Anyway, it's background knowledge like this that led me to pen that op-ed I shared yesterday. So now you can know what I know:

National Forests in California Forest Service Inventory & Analysis (FIA): In 2010 – average of 295 live trees/acre and 17 dead trees/acre for a total of 302 conifer trees/acre; 2015 data shows 302 live conifer trees/acre and 18 conifer dead trees/acre for a total of 320 conifer trees/acre.

Very recently, Dr. Malcolm North, Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, found that in the 1860's, California's forests had on average 64 trees/acre; average diameter of 26 inches; 32% canopy cover, while in the 2010's – on average, there are 320 trees/acre; average diameter of 14" inches, and; 65% canopy cover ("Creating a Resilient Landscape Using Recent Research on Reference Conditions. Reforestation, and Owl Habitat" (February 2020).

In other words, on average, National Forest acres have 5 times the number of trees they have historically supported, these trees are 46 percent smaller, and the canopy (where the tops of trees touch) is twice as dense as it was historically. You subject a forest in that condition to climate change, this week's fire weather, and years of on again, off again drought, and you've got a real problem.

"We have a Forest Health problem. There simply is not sufficient water throughout any given year to sustain tree density on average 5 times greater than historic stands that were resistant to wildfire, insect, and disease."

Very informative and logical. Facebook will ban it in short order no doubt.

Thank you for sharing.

 

[Ebenezer]

Forestry management is based on science. Why exclude science from such an important discussion?