HikeArizona.COM

I dedicate this fire to the bunnyhuggers [-X and anti-logging lobbies :yuck: that have pressured politicians :guilty: into allowing the national forests to fuel up with overgrowth over the last 20 to 30 years. How do you think those burrowing owls and other critters you thought you were protecting are doing in their new crispy habitat?

I think you are misreading his hypothesis, it's more that media and government distort and use these events for their own agendas, and that issues are not just cut and dry with a simple fix. There are problems with people building in places, like Summerhaven, who don't want management around them, but overall the forests are not suburban get-a-ways, and the real issue lies not with fire, but with the public's beliefs about it and the continued use of the forest with no regard for reality. In some cases these huge fires are normal, and as such not a real problem despite media reports. I stated in another thread that we are now seeing a more frequent manifestation of the strategies of the last century, and continuing to pursue our current trajectory will only cause more of the same, with ever increasing negative results. We could adjust to reality, and pursue forest policies that fit the ecosystem and the needs of the area, but so far we have shown no sign of this in a real and lasting manner. Thinning is not a silver bullet, but it is one of many tools which need to be applied.

I take away a few key points:
The media distorts and simplifies things for easy reports, and that lends itself to a poor public perception of fire. I agree with that.

The answer is as varied as the forest type, and some forest may burn hot and intense. Lodgepole and spruce are examples of that, and no amount of thinning will prevent an inevitable high-intensity fire.

Thinning is a part of the "fix", but not a magic bullet as proposed and if we only do it one way, and we ignore the things we did that got us to this point in the first place, we aren't doing very much good.

and so on.

I agree with pretty much everything he said, but I question how much of a 500 year drought we are in. I think drought is the norm in the SW, not the aberration, and wet years led us to have a distorted view of this region. We have been dry this winter, but I read 2002 was drier still. It's been dry since the early 2000s, but we've had wet periods and last summer and winter were on the wet side. I'd like to know what he meant when he said 500 year drought, what was the time frame?

One thing he mentions is grazing. Cattle and sheep simply do not belong. We are going to have grazing again on the San Francisco Peaks, but we should barely have any grazing in Arizona. Our grasslands have nearly disappeared from the landscape, but we continue to extract from them. Fire is a part of our forests and we continue to put them out pretending that we can always do so. Even if we only had lightning fires, we should still have far more of them and they would be large. Aside from that, people have been burning forests for as long as they have been here. We really should be burning more often, and in much larger areas. The Coconino prescribed fire program is a joke. They burn in hundreds of acres and hardly touch most places. Ponderosa pine should have a fire return interval of less than 10 years, but the way we have fires and the way they burn, it's more like a 100 year return interval forest-wide.

I haven't seen most of the Wallow burn area on the ground, but from the satellite images, I can see a lot of parks and grasslands that will benefit from the fire, and there are also areas of recent fires that may re-burn. He is probably correct about the forest condition in that area, and the forest being "reset'. I think I actually referred to that in one of my posts or in a conversation with Liz. One thing that would be nice, would be if the Forest Managers would be supported by the politicians they answer to, and actually manage the forests as they say they do. I'm not talking logging, I'm talking burning. If this area is wilderness and is far from towns, they need to start having prescribed burns that aren't hundreds or thousands of acres, but tens of thousands. We need to start routine scheduled forest closures for management, particularly big block prescribed fires. We need to obliterate roads, and allow areas to burn and then burn again. A forest area that burned in 2005, even if a hot stand replacing fire, needs to burn again. How else do you think the fuel load will disappear? We can't put things back by pretending that once is good enough, when it use to happen at least once a decade, and we can't pretend that a forest should be protected and treated like a baby. But more to the point, we need to stop treating fire like an enemy and treat it like a friend.

The biggest problem IS the public. The public needs to have an understanding of forests, forest fires, and accept the practices of management, if they are going to have an important say in forest management. People need to accept that blackened tree trunks are better than blackened tree tops for thousands of acres (except where that is ecologically normal), that fire will burn through, and the public is going to have to learn to deal with large areas being scheduled for management and being closed to public entry. We need to live with more regular smoke on the landscape, and we should phase out grazing over most public lands. Historical cuteness does not equate to ecological compatibility or what should be practiced.

Taken in it's now post fire state, the Wallow Fire area could be completely re-designated, and management practices out there could be completely altered. We could close many of the roads, we could create 40 to 50,000 acre burn blocks with margins that can be lit-off in the event of a fire and the area could be allowed to burn naturally when a lightning fire occurs, or in a prescribed manner if that was to happen. We could bulldoze tanks, end the subsidized forest grazing, and reseed with native grasses in areas denuded of their grasslands. We could walk away from timber extraction, end the thinning protection of forest trees in that area and allow subsequent fires to burn as they please, within the burn units. We could do a lot of things, but we won't.

If the public was willing to see these things happen, then a lot could change. We have this ridiculous notion that a "wilderness" area is anything we call a wilderness. Most Arizona Wildernesses are a complete misrepresentation of the spirit of the designation and are far from anything resembling true wilderness. Aside from the roads, the centuries of high-grading logging, grazing and over grazing, and fire suppression that occurred in them and adjacent to them, they are often so small as to be little more than an area on a map, suited for an ignorant public to gobble up as a peaceful place to escape their cares and woes of modern urban Arizona life. The Gila is a decent sized wilderness, but it has problems. If nothing else, why was the FS suppressing the 987 acre lightning started "Horse Fire" last June? It started in the wilderness in Pine and should have been managed as a natural fire, but instead "hero" hot shots were airlifted to the site to put out the fire. And this was in a relatively "fire friendly" national forest.

I will now quote the wilderness act:

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

Historical relics and trails aside, fire suppression is far from an "untrammeled"landscape, and some areas are so dense they don't even come close to appearing as a wilderness. It would be one thing if we could set fires as much as we suppress them, but we do not.

If Wilderness Act were to be applied as it should, we would not have many of the joke wildernesses that we do in this state, since the Kendrick Mountain, the Kachina Peaks, the Red Rocks-Secret Canyon and many others, are far from anything that comes close to the wilderness designation language. You can't manage a forest, however poorly or well, for a century and then simply step back and say, "you are now on your own, though we will continue to exclude fire. The inevitable consequence will be a Taylor, Pumpkin, Schultz, or other unnaturally hot fire, but that will be ignored by the public, and we will treat a natural fire as a disaster, despite the historical evidence". This is effectively what we have done. And in addition, in a true wilderness area, we would never dream of ever extinguishing a naturally started fire in a fire maintained ecosystem, as was done in the Gila last spring. Also, if we want to believe a 5,000 or 10,000 acre area can actually be a wilderness, then we should study the landscape and have man caused prescribed fires in the wilderness ares, because a fire that started 5 miles west of Kendrick Peak would have been all over Kendrick Mountain in a day or two, and the fire would not respect the political boundary of a wilderness designation. As such, when we put out the fire on Sitgreaves last June, we should have started a fire at the base of Kendrick to ensure that the mountain re-burned, as nature would have done to the mountain.

Until we really change, and do what fits reality, and stop pretending that a forest is a park with no natural phenomenon that occur as either destructive or creative agents, then we will continue to suffer the consequence to the full extent of our hubris. The period of the last 9 years had shown us that large destructive fires can and will occur, and this will become normal. Just this year alone we've probably had close to 1 million acres burn. That could have been a semi normal thing with positive results for the most part, be that is not how it will probably end up.

I can't read the map well as the print is way too small, but I just looked at the most recent FS Wallow Fire progression map. I can see 1 of several areas that are old burns. The only 1 I can read clearly is the Three Forks from 2004. It looks like it re burnt in the Wallow. I see this as a good thing. Very good.


Most of the Three Forks sits between 8400' and 8800'. It looks like it should be higher elevation mixed conifer forest type; Ponderosa Pine, Douglas Fir, White Fir, Aspen, and also the area appears very grassy. I can't tell how the area looked on May 28, 2011, but with a fire coming through on what appears to have been June 6, 2011, it probably burned in a fast and windy fashion. Still, snags would have been burned down and possibly consumed, old down snags would have been consumed, and the live trees may have been scorched, but with the forest crown open they might have been OK. The grassy open areas were burned again, and that is great news especially if not grazed this summer. In general, this sort of re-burn is just what the forest needs to get back to a natural state. It would be worth going out to for an inspection when the area opens to the public this or next year. Taking US 191 to FR 249 and 249 in to the area and walking some of the burn would be a great way to inspect it.

chumley wrote:

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?

Agree or not, good idea or bad, I think you just proved my point:

I don't see it changing anytime soon, so get used to it.

You say it can't change. I say it can. Popular opinion is with you or people are apathetic. It's a shame.

Jeff I don't say it can't change. It can. But I think we agree that it's not going to change (at least not soon) because huge fires or not, people ARE apathetic, and popular opinion is not even close to a moratorium of the type you suggest. And I guess that was my reaction to the article. None of what was written really matters because things aren't going to change anyway. And they're not going to change primarily because most people don't want them to change. And yes, it's a shame.

This is one of those situations where the informed should be given the right to dictate policy to the vastly uninformed general populace. If you queried 9.9/10 people on the street in Tucson today, they wouldn't be able to tell you that fires are important for healthy forest ecology or why. They would tell you how much it stinks that they can't drive up Catalina Highway to drink booze, smoke crack, or shoot roman candles off Windy Point right now. I don't even blame them for seeing the forest as a place to go have a drunken picnic, the FS practically preordained it by building that abomination of a highway on the mountain and repairing it every time the mountain washes a section of it away. ;)

I like the highway because I can get to the high country quickly and it is very scenic!

@jeffmacewen Totally agreed. except:

jeffmacewen wrote:the FS practically preordained it by building that abomination of a highway on the mountain and repairing it every time the mountain washes a section of it away.

The Forest Service did not build the highway nor does it maintain it. It was originally built by the Postmaster General, of all people (Frank Hitchcock). The Federal Highway Administration built the improvements to it (since 1988) and Pima County maintains it. The Forest Service is a stakeholder and, as such, they are kept informed. How do I know? When I was working at a previous civil engineering firm, we were the designers on the improvements that were completed in 2007. I also have a good friend who is the civil engineering and maintenance manager of the Coronado National Forest. She doesn't have any jurisdiction over that road, only the FS roads.

jeffmacewen wrote:This is one of those situations where the informed should be given the right to dictate policy to the vastly uninformed general populace.

Wait, that's heresy! America is a democracy and we can only be run by the idiots! And all votes count equal! The and uninformed outrank the informed, and the idiots outrank the educated. Advertising and Media run the show because they can swing the easily manipulated majority. And as the population grows, the problem gets worse. Not that this has anything to do with the gradual decline of society, or anything.

Give them their bread and their circuses! Distract them and try to execute an intelligent policy. If we elected competent leaders, instead of having a popularity contest decide our nation's fate, maybe we'd all be better off. I'm not holding my breath.

We've legislated a lot into the public lands, too. It won't change, because we have so much red tape. People complain about government inefficiency. The USFS is about as bad as it gets. There are probably people who work for them that would like to do what I talk about. The problem in those cases is NEPA, and all the paper work they have to do. You don't just show up at the office one day and say, "the weather seems good, maybe I'll check the forecast and if it checks out I'll get clearance and burn that block we've been thinking of". Oh, no. They scope it out half a decade in advance, and if no opposition from the archeology department, or the endangered species people, or the timber people or the blah, blah, blah, then it goes through several more hoops, and if everything checks out, it might be written up as a NEPA plan. You can see this on NF web pages. Then, if you're lucky, someone won't sue, and maybe, if you're lucky, someone might dare to burn. They know if things get out of control their heads roll and a career can be killed, so they don't do much besides play it safe. Little tiny burn blocks. Postage size, useless pieces of safety dance in the forest. Congress made paper work an art form for the FS. It's a wonder anything ever gets done.

If the public wanted well managed forests, for any given thing, we could do it. We just need to mandate it, but you might remember how stuff gets politicized in the government.

It's funny, too, becuase you know what doesn't care about the junk we write up and plan around? Fire. It doesn't care who sues, or who doens't want what nesting area disturbed between April and August, or what old homestead is out there, or what special sub-species of spotted salamander is under what rock. It It hasn't for 500 million years, and it hasn't since 1900. It all burns the same to fire.

Legislating our way to a failed future:

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA analyses are completed on all activities that could have a physical or biological effect on National Forest lands. There are varying levels of analysis depending on the complexity or type of proposal.

The objectives of NEPA analyses are to:

fully consider the impacts of Forest Service proposed actions on the physical, biological, and economic aspects of the human environment;
involve interested and affected agencies, State and local governments, organizations, and individuals in planning and decision making; and
conduct and document environmental analyses and subsequent decisions appropriately, efficiently and cost effectively.

NEPA requires Federal agencies to use a systematic interdisciplinary approach in planning and decision making. The interdisciplinary approach ensures that:

environmental impacts of proposed actions are identified and considered;
alternatives to the proposed action are considered;
enhancement of long term productivity is considered; and
irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented are identified.

cindyl wrote:@jeffmacewen Totally agreed. except:

jeffmacewen wrote:the FS practically preordained it by building that abomination of a highway on the mountain and repairing it every time the mountain washes a section of it away.

The Forest Service did not build the highway nor does it maintain it. It was originally built by the Postmaster General, of all people (Frank Hitchcock). The Federal Highway Administration built the improvements to it (since 1988) and Pima County maintains it. The Forest Service is a stakeholder and, as such, they are kept informed. How do I know? When I was working at a previous civil engineering firm, we were the designers on the improvements that were completed in 2007. I also have a good friend who is the civil engineering and maintenance manager of the Coronado National Forest. She doesn't have any jurisdiction over that road, only the FS roads.

You're absolutely right; I was speaking in hyperbole, of course.

@nonot: I couldn't have said it better!

What JimH wrote is pretty profound. I think a possible solution would be to empower the relevant government employees to make decisions. This requires having good people in the right places, and that requires money. Talented managers don't come cheap, and the demand for such people is still high. What I'm referring to is the idea that the management of the Forest Service, for example, is allowed to do what they think is best for the lands they administer without legislative interference.

This will unfortunately never happen because of how politicized the situation has become. George W. Bush gets elected, and the Forest Service (and other agencies that manage outdoor resources) becomes oriented towards resource extraction, ATV use, and doing away with policies that protect the environment. This harms the environment according to some people. A Democrat gets elected, and the agencies become oriented towards environmental protection and formulating policies to further that end. This reduces the profits of private enterprise, and restricts certain people's enjoyment to others. This paragraph is the common narrative.

I'm not a big fan of the myriad rules that govern our lands, but all serve a purpose. When people of any mindset are in control they make rules to suit their ends, and that's only natural. The system is designed to make changing policy very difficult because neither side wants to give up what it's gained. That's why we have so many lawsuits and controversy over certain hot-button issues. The political atmosphere in Washington is poisonous right now so I'm not expecting either side to give one inch on this subject, much less give it a second thought.

Jim - your central thesis is one I've heard at Sierra Club meetings and other venus for years. I have and would continue to argue that it is flawed, from my perspective. Others are free to disagree and I would remind all who read that I am an active off-roader, myself. When I hike in an area, two or three days later no one would ever be able to tell I was there. When ATVs come through an area, the landscape is NEVER the same; even if the individuals are very contentious. When I'm out hiking, others enjoying the area will never know I passed by them if they were a meter or more away. When ATV riders are around, they ruin the experience for everyone within a few kilometers (or more, depending) of their position. Not to mention the fact that I'm not cruising along belching out smoke and potentially spilling oil. ;)

This is PURELY anecdotal but it stands up in my experience: One thing you tend to see with ATVs that you do not tend to see with the traditional four-wheeler community is a lot more alcohol and firearms-related incidents. I can't put numbers to this or even explain the phenomenon, but I can assure all doubters that it is real (At least down here it is.)

jeffmacewen wrote: One thing you tend to see with ATVs that you do not tend to see with the traditional four-wheeler community is a lot more alcohol and firearms-related incidents.

That's been my observation experiences as well. It's almost as if the beer-drinkin', gun-totin', good ol' boys just found a new wealth of places to destroy when they bought their first ATV. Doubters can take a drive out to the eastern Supes around Elephant Arch (http://hikearizona.com/photoset.php?ID=13215) to witness this for themselves. The day we were there it sounded like a war zone. And in almost every group we saw, if they weren't holding a gun they had beer in their hands. If spent cartridges and shells were valuable I'd spend days out there becoming wealthy.

nonot wrote:

jeffmacewen wrote:This is one of those situations where the informed should be given the right to dictate policy to the vastly uninformed general populace.

Wait, that's heresy! America is a democracy and we can only be run by the idiots! And all votes count equal! The and uninformed outrank the informed, and the idiots outrank the educated. Advertising and Media run the show because they can swing the easily manipulated majority. And as the population grows, the problem gets worse. Not that this has anything to do with the gradual decline of society, or anything.

Give them their bread and their circuses! Distract them and try to execute an intelligent policy. If we elected competent leaders, instead of having a popularity contest decide our nation's fate, maybe we'd all be better off. I'm not holding my breath.

I've often thought that totalitarianism is really the only political system that I would be fully satisfied with. Of course it would only work if the "dear leader" was ME. Sure would solve all of the problems created by idiots having an opinion though.

chumley wrote:

nonot wrote:

jeffmacewen wrote:This is one of those situations where the informed should be given the right to dictate policy to the vastly uninformed general populace.

Wait, that's heresy! America is a democracy and we can only be run by the idiots! And all votes count equal! The and uninformed outrank the informed, and the idiots outrank the educated. Advertising and Media run the show because they can swing the easily manipulated majority. And as the population grows, the problem gets worse. Not that this has anything to do with the gradual decline of society, or anything.

Give them their bread and their circuses! Distract them and try to execute an intelligent policy. If we elected competent leaders, instead of having a popularity contest decide our nation's fate, maybe we'd all be better off. I'm not holding my breath.

I've often thought that totalitarianism is really the only political system that I would be fully satisfied with. Of course it would only work if the "dear leader" was ME. Sure would solve all of the problems created by idiots having an opinion though.

Hear, hear!

Well, the USFS is the sort of agency that manages based on lots of different people saying, "do this" to a given area of land. All of them pointing in opposite directions, and most having conflicting views and some rabidly hating each other. So we get the management of doing next to nothing which is fine until you understand that things actually do need to happen, and if they haven't and we have a fire, then it can be a disaster. Only in disaster mode does the agency work well, and then it is almost only because it's modeled on the military. However, that only takes you so far, and the suppression attack techniques that are used are nearly as destructive as an actual army entering a landscape and doing what it does to hold off an enemy.

Jim_H wrote:Well, the USFS is the sort of agency that manages based on lots of different people saying, "do this" to a given area of land. All of them pointing in opposite directions, and most having conflicting views and some rabidly hating each other. So we get the management of doing next to nothing which is fine until you understand that things actually do need to happen, and if they haven't and we have a fire, then it can be a disaster. Only in disaster mode does the agency work well, and then it is almost only because it's modeled on the military. However, that only takes you so far, and the suppression attack techniques that are used are nearly as destructive as an actual army entering a landscape and doing what it does to hold off an enemy.

While we are on the topic...the Border Patrol is no friend to wilderness areas, either!!

Wilderness is only in the eyes of the person who is bewildered.

Jim_H wrote:Wilderness is only in the eyes of the person who is bewildered.

Yea, that may be true. Call me an idealist!

Size of Arizona's fires blamed on environmentalists http://azstarnet.com/news/science/envir ... 8b2e5.html

I'd like to see copies of these so-called lawsuits and who filed them.