Management in Wilderness Areas.

[Jim]

The recent "Obama's Justice Dept defends Bush rule on Guns", and too much coffee, made me think of something. I chimed in and gave my 2 cents even though I'm largely indifferent to what happens with concealed guns in parks. So, what do people think about something which I do have strong feelings about: being able to manage "Congressionally Designated Wilderness Areas", such as the Kachina Peaks, Kendrick Mountain, or Red Rocks/ Secret Mountain Wilderness Areas, and many, many other areas.

I feel we should have the ability to manage them beyond what we currently do. I include thinning, but not exclusively commercial logging, and prescribed fire, two things which are largely excluded to my knowledge. The thinning can be commercially viable, but I don't want to see areas become a true timber sale. Its already common practice to exclude fire from the Kachina Peaks using tools which are supposed to be banned from them, ei. chainsaws, so why not do what should be done and attempt to restore these areas to some level of a more natural condition so that when large natural fires occur the wilderness area isn't doomed to become the next Kendrick Mountain area after the Pumpkin Fire? The Kachina Peaks aren't far off from having this happen, and the North side of the Peaks has dozens of areas that were subjected to unnaturally intense fires that became stand replacement fires when they would have been low to moderate intensity fires in the 1800's. The Leroux Fire a fews back made a nice scar which is visible from town, and eventually it is inevitable that there will be conditions such as those that precipitated the Pumpkin Fire, and the Kachina Peaks will have areas that closely resemble Kendrick Mountain. Also, even if a severe and unnatural fire is not incredibly likely in the immediate future, a drought will once again result in a beetle outbreak that could make much of the Peaks look like the top of Kendrick, though Kendrick's appearance is largely the result of an outbreak that occurred after the fire.
Recent thinning work on the sides of Snowbowl Rd has impressed me with the aggressive nature of the thinning being done. If properly managed it is conceivable that the former overly dense areas could be very close to their appearance in 1800. However, as you progress up the road beyond the Wilderness Boundary you encounter what most of the mountain looks like, extremely dense mixed conifer (and some pure ponderosa pine) which will almost certainly be moon-scaped should a large fire occur in it. Not only are there way too many stems, but also 100 years of fire's absence has resulted in a duff buildup that is a foot thick in some places. I think we should be able to thin these areas and rake and burn them to attempt to restore them and produce areas that can accept a natural fire without fear of it being destroyed.
But its, a wilderness area, so.....

[joebartels]

I don't think it matters what we do or don't do. We, human race, are so insignificant in the great scheme of things. Our time on this planet to date is insignificant.

my thoughts exactly

[Jim]

Rodeo-Chediski Fire

Wasn't natural; arsonist and a signal fire that got out of control. It spread so rapidly because the forest also wasn't in a natural state; overgrown, doghair thickets, etc (which is, I know, part of your point).

Quite true, but in 2007 there were at least two fires near Flagstaff and a few on the Rim that were lightning fires. They could have become like the Rodeo-Chediski very easily had resources been thin, or winds been different. Perhaps more appropriately, they could have been like the Biscuit Fire in Oregon. Two of the three big, bad, nasty fires that I can think of off the top of my head which occurred in unnaturally dense Ponderosa Pine during the drought of 2002 were arson caused. The Rodeo-Chediski and Hayman in CO were arson, but the Biscuit in OR was lightning in origin. It was also problematic due to resources already being stretched thin in the area. 2008 was not too bad, and we were able to have a number of Wildland Fire Use's around the area. So far, 2009 is on track too be a good year, ei. no big infernos.

Ok, I'll bite on this one. I'll be the "bomb thrower." I don't think it matters what we do or don't do. We, human race, are so insignificant in the great scheme of things. Our time on this planet to date is insignificant. We have very poor control over matters outside ourselves, and some of us have no to poor control over our personal life. We have used our environment to our ends and molded it to suit us as we are able, and bemoan what we can't control ( tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, drought etc). Then we must "fix" things when we perceive we have screwed up. I happen to think less is more. Don't how much less, or how much we can leave alone. And beauty or natural is in the eye of the beholder, destruction either by man or nature can be horrible or magnificent, it's all perspective. Just my -.02 worth.

Overall, this is true, too. In the end, nothing really matter, and I suppose a super caldera could go off in a week sending us into a global winter making the current economic crisis seem like a day in the park. However, we did create what we currently have in very much the same way we created the mortgage crisis or the credit problems. It matters very much if you are getting steam-rolled over by them. One of the biggest reasons, if not the only reason, the National Forest Reserves were created, was for watershed protection. It really wouldn't matter to anyone outside of this area, but Let's say the entire San Francisco Peaks area burned up tomorrow. There would definetly be damage to the water shed that Flag gets its water from. Snow infiltration might not change that much, but the heavy summer rains that are absorbed so well right now might just run right off the mountain carrying tons of sediment with them. Its a little hard to be existential when you have a mudslide heading for your town via the Rio de Flag. What if a really big fire occurred SW of Flag? That would have impacts on our well-fields down there, and Oak Creek and the other canyons and drains that feed it would have enormous sedimentation problems. How much impact would that have on the water resources of towns like Sedona or Camp Verde? Assuming they take their water from the rivers.
Ecologically over the long term some species benefit and some are severely hurt. Now, I don't know much about endemic wildlife in Ponderosa Pine, but I did my undergrad in the SE and do know a fair amount about threatened and endangered species in longleaf pine. If you are a neo-tropical migrant, the replacement of longleaf pine forests with mixed hardwoods has probably been a boon for you, but if you're a gopher tortoise, a red-cockaded woodpecker, or a Florida Pine Snake, then its demise has meant a severe population decline. Now, without getting into a discussion on genetics or evolution theory, it is usually a belief that allowing species to go extinct as a direct result of human causes is a bad thing. Is ponderosa pine or any of its varieties in any likelihood of going extinct? No, of course not. However, would the gradual replacement of it with juniper, oak, or mountain mahogany be bad? I think most would so yes. It would be bad for any wildlife species that are dependent on it, if there are any. The period of overgrazing that was in full swing about 100 years ago had lasting effects which can still be seen in the intact ground cover of today. Of coarse, a lot of that might be moot should climate change further restrict Ponderosa's range.
What I see as the most important thing about the insignificant argument is this 1.) We still have to live with what happens, and we are the ones who will enjoy or suffer from our decision. A shopping mall is built and 50 acres of habitat is lost. It matters only to humans, essentially, because if you lived in or depended on that habit you are now dead. and 2.)If it doesn't really matter what we do, than if we went into a Wilderness Area and clear-cut the entire thing leaving not one single snag in the vertical, then that too should not matter to someone who holds the belief that our behavior is of no consequence.

A far as the great circle goes, yes erosion is natural, but how likely are you accept a mountain being blown apart for ore to make metal out of? Would you feel the same about that as you would a mountain like Kendrick being what it is today? In the great circle both are really of little consequence.

[RedRoxx44]

The argument is quite eloquent and everyone likes to live their life as they please and have nice surroundings, friends, do good things etc. And this is all quite good. Would I like to see the Galiuro mtns strip mined or burned to the ground. No. Can I stop it. No. Can the laws etc we abide by do it. Maybe.
I still see it all as control. We, as humans, like control. It gives us comfort and order, and if we can make all of our environment fit this then it is good. I have no problem with it. We have a social cultural order we will live in. IMO it's a construct that's artificial but necessary. But, IMO, we have no real control---it's all an illusion ( Monty Python, I forget when and where) ;)

[joebartels]

We, as humans, like control. It gives us comfort and order, and if we can make all of our environment fit this then it is good.

disturbingly true

[Jim]

But, IMO, we have no real control---it's all an illusion ( Monty Python, I forget when and where) ;)

OK, but in the grand scheme of the universe and in our blink of geologic time that we occupy, should that have a substantial impact on the ability to thin and prescribe burn a wilderness area (like the Kachina Peaks W.A.) so that in time the Forest Service can allow a natural lighting caused fire to run its course on the mountain and do as it would if we were never here, yet with few if any impacts on the well being of the local residents, other than smoke?

[Jim]

Would I like to see the Galiuro mtns strip mined or burned to the ground. No. Can I stop it. No. Can the laws etc we abide by do it. Maybe.

Assuming the area is not already being mined, I hope that if it was proposed you and your local resident could stop it. If the Sierra Club has taught me one thing, it is this: the law suit is mightier than everything else but fire!

[PaleoRob]

This essentially (I think) boils down to the old argument that I had with roommates back in college, and am sure people have been having since we stopped running from Saber Tooth Cats and realized we were something new. The crux (as I see it) is this: are we, as humans, natural and therefore what we do is natural and part of how the world works, or have we evolved ourselves out of natural selection, thereby rendering our actions as humans "special" and outside of the natural realm? And coupled to that is the second question; if the latter is true, then do we have an obligation to mitigate our "unnatural" actions to leave as little impact as possible, or not?
My friend put it this way to me one time: "What is the ecological difference between a termite mound and a city, except scale?"

[Jim]

Ah, but let us consider the works of Mike Judge and his treatise on evolution and its impact on human history. I believe it was "Idiocracy".

[PaleoRob]

Ah Mike Judge...

[Jim]

Ah Mike Judge...

truly one of history's greatest philosophers. Tao, Buddha, Socrates, Judge, they are all of equal caliber. I think THAT is a universal truth.

[PaleoRob]

I'll drink to that!

[Jeffshadows]

I think a lot of this centers around the fact that we are the only species on the planet that has evolved a desire for individual happiness. Most other species are happy to find water or something to eat that day...

[writelots]

I'm pretty happy to find water and eat something everyday... unfortunately, that water is pumped from 200' below ground using pumps run on electricity powered by generators that burn fossil fuels whose mining destroys vast areas of habitat. And my food. Man. We think mining and forestry are bad. The rape of the environment that is the modern food production industry (farms, ranches etc) actually makes the other forms of devestation seem miniscule by comparison. It's just for some reason, we find it more insulting to blast away a mountain and create a 1000 acres of waste from a mine than to render millions and millions of acres of desert and grassland utterly sterile to natural life by growing genetically engineered, pestiside protected, nutritionally comprimised corn and soybeans on it...And don't even get me started on irrigation and what it's done to our rivers and underground water reservoirs...

oops. got carried away!

W

[Jeffshadows]

And then growing that corn for the sole purpose of motor fuel production and having the audacity to call it "green" fuel with a straight face...

[JimmyLyding]

Don't forget all of the fertilizer for that corn, much of which is made using petroleum, flows downstream into the oceans to help create algae blooms which kill off fish and crabs....

There are interesting arguments on both sides of this argument. My biggest concern if we were to "manage" fuel loads in federal wilderness would be opening that door. What if exemptions were made to allow thinning, brush-clearing, etc. in wilderness areas opened the door to other types of "management?"
Look at how our previous President treated the environment? He put lobbyists for- and executives from resource extractive industry into management positions. Do we want to open the door for fuel-load management considering that we could also be opening the door into "managing" minerals? Or potential roadways? We're not always going to have a President who cares about the environment.

[Strand]

I still don't understand why they waste all those forest thinnings by burning them in the open air. You know, you can burn wood (or anything organic) to make power...

I agree that fire is part of the natural cycle. That it does serve a natural purpose, to replenish nutrients to the soil and to prevent even larger fires. But if we are dead set on preventing large fires by gathering up the loose/choking wood and debris, then why waste it???

[chumley]

then why waste it???

One word: cost.

Its the same reason that other alternative fuel technologies have not made their way to the forefront of common usage. Even at $100/barrel, the energy produced from burning oil is still the most efficient and cost-effective thing going.

[joebartels]

The energy used to move product to a processing plant factors in, you can't pipe trees like you can oil. The most abundant (not to mention clean) sources are probably solar and wind. It's all about abundance and harnessing efficiently.

[PaleoRob]

Wind is probably the best alternative energy source (at least here in Az). Solar is still something like $0.12 to $0.15 per kW, while wind is about $0.09 to $0.10 per kW. For comparison, we up here in Page are paying about $0.08 per kW. Plus a large-scale commercial wind project can be designed, built, and installed in about a year, while large-scale solar takes quite a bit longer.

[Strand]

Cost...

I fully understand that building and operating a boiler and generator cost money. But we managed to pull it off up here in Snowflake, and now have all the free fuel we need in the form of forest thinnings (and there is still a massive excess of fuel), and we manage to sell 25 megawatts of continous "green" power to the grid. 1MW of continuous energy powers approx. 750 homes...

Wind and solar are great alternatives when they are productive (meaning daylight hours or when it's windy). You still need something as a base line, which at the moment is coal and natural gas.

Food for thought.