They ought to be here. They ought to be here with their sleeves rolled up. If they truly care about the resources, why aren't they out here trying to fight the fire?
That guys is funny.They ought to be here. They ought to be here with their sleeves rolled up. If they truly care about the resources, why aren't they out here trying to fight the fire?
Not a lot of rolled up sleeves on fires.
Jim_H wrote:Ironically, before we got out here, probably every acre of ponderosa pine dominated forest and mixed conifer forest, as well as the grasslands, and a lot of the oak savannas, pinyon juniper savanna, the chaparral, and so on, that all burned, and with a frequency much greater than one time in 20 years for a lot of it. Once upon a time, fire was like rain, it came when it the conditions were right, which was really often. It's only been since the about the 1920s that it became seen as bad. We're in a fire drought and we need it bad.
There have been a few lower intensity fires in the area you mention, both lightning in the summer and prescribed in the fall and spring. If thinning is too expensive to allocate funds for, since we have virtually no industry and the small pines have zero to little value, I say let them burn. Sure, there has been talk of an OSB plant somewhere in the area since at least 2005, but as yet there has been nothing more than talk. I favor road obliteration and a let burn policy for larger areas. Remove the cattle, the sheep, bulldoze the tanks, let the elk and mule deer fend for themselves, and return the forest to a more natural state. Too many want a forest for themselves, though, hiker included. You could say I'm selfish, but I want a forest with less access, less exploitation, and larger areas accessible only by non-road means. This would be with larger compartments for burns, more use fires, and ultimately more fires but virtually none like the Wallow Fire.
Arizona Wildfire Blamed on 'Too Many Trees'
Remy Melina, LiveScience Staff Writer
Date: 10 June 2011
The Wallow Fire in eastern Arizona is now the second-largest fire in Arizona history, engulfing nearly 400,000 acres in flames. Some forest experts warn that an overly dense, unnatural forest structure is fueling the fire and putting millions more acres of trees at risk.
"Decades of scientific research reveal that the West is suffocating under too many trees," Wally Covington, a professor of forest ecology at Northern Arizona University and executive director of NAU's Ecological Restoration Institute, said in a statement. "Where we once had 10 to 25 trees per acre, we now have...
http://www.livescience.com/14542-wildfi ... trees.html
azbackpackr wrote:Funny to me, since once again I do know the rancher (also know all the other ones they interviewed in other articles: Wink Crigler, Roxanne Knight, etc.) I have worked for both Gary Kiehne and Roxanne Knight.
These are some pretty nice folks, especially the Knights, but I think they need to look at the broader history, and the science. Pointing fingers is not helpful, especially when their statements are not really accurate.
Jim_H wrote:Basal area is a better indicator than TPA, but who knows what that is, or could put in some plots on FS land and get an esitmate of it? I think I've read a BA of 40 to 60 was common in presettlement pondorosa, but today it approaches 200 in some places. It's the difference between nice, and hideous, basically.
jeffmacewen wrote:Jim_H wrote:Basal area is a better indicator than TPA, but who knows what that is, or could put in some plots on FS land and get an esitmate of it? I think I've read a BA of 40 to 60 was common in presettlement pondorosa, but today it approaches 200 in some places. It's the difference between nice, and hideous, basically.
Is it really that thick on most of the forest service land right now?
chumley wrote:Is that the best solution? Probably not. But I don't see it changing anytime soon, so get used to it.
Agree or not, good idea or bad, I think you just proved my point:jeffmacewen wrote:How about a moratorium on what is usually wholly-unnecessary and wanton construction in areas that are prone to large-scale fire? Does anyone *really* need to live right next to the national forest in non-urban areas?
I don't see it changing anytime soon, so get used to it.
Moderator: HAZ - Moderators
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
|Q: Wanna browse with less Ads?
A: Simply login
37,000 members since 1996...