HikeArizona.COM

Especially when you see something like this: We went to Crown King to escape the heat, it was the first time I'd been there since the "Tiger" fire of 2006.

They are part of the forest's natural (Read: Healthy) lifecycle, though!

I realize fire is healthy for a forest, but to see acres and acres and acres that are almost sterile due to the intensity of the destruction is what's sad. Mis-management? Natural? (I don't believe man caused fires are "natural"), the debate could rage on many facets of forest fires. But when you experience parts of this state: west end of the Rim by Strawberry - Twin Peaks (pictured here) in the Bradshaws - the once thick forests around Heber (R-C fire) - and now the Shultz Pass area, it's painful to see the sheer volume and verocity of destruction. When you visit areas of successful prescribed burns, and even lightning caused fires in areas where good forest management pactices have been in place, it's not nearly as ugly as miles and miles of burnt trees and little or no vegetation.

paulhubbard wrote:When you visit areas of successful prescribed burns, and even lightning caused fires in areas where good forest management pactices have been in place, it's not nearly as ugly as miles and miles of burnt trees and little or no vegetation.

How much of this was due to decades of man-prevented fires though.

I wasn't trying to get a philosophical discussion going; just stating fact.

We all know as a former forester I could write endlessly on the subject of fire and the management history of our National Forests, so I will...no, maybe not. Fire is natural, but decades and a century without fire are not, not when the fires that occurred naturally were put out, and not with no change in climate to naturally exclude fires. What is also unnatural is a sudden return to fire. Even if a fire isn't all that hot, if the duff layer around the base of trees is thick, that can kill them. Next time you are around an old growth ponderosa, dig around it's base and see how deep that duff layer is. I've dug more than a foot of duff away from some old yellow bellies around here. Try it, you might be surprised. Thats all.

The destruction of fire can be disconcerting at first, but give all those areas a little time and you'll be hiking in new growth. I love hiking through those areas that are coming back to life-- I think its really exciting and I love seeing bleached and charred wood surrounded by bright green. Call me sick if you'd like!

http://hikearizona.com/photo.php?ZIP=138849

Since that's solid New Mexico Locust I'm gonna with sick

jeffmacewen wrote:I wasn't trying to get a philosophical discussion going;

Me neither... Just saying it's sad to remember the lush forests we tromped around in, and now seeing them as [almost] barren wastelands. Yeah, they'll recover, but probably not in our lifetime.

In some places they may not recover at all. The soil is burned, the climate has become droughty, so instead of regrowth back into pines, they may regrow more into junipers, brush and grass. Look at Mt. Elden, it never did regrow.

Things change. Just because there used to be ponderosa somewhere doesn't mean that there will always be ponderosa there. History tells us that much of Arizona used to be a shallow ocean. I suppose you could say its sad that there's no tuna here anymore. But its the way things work.

Some people look back at their own life with some sadness, wishing back to a different time. Are there good things about being 20? You bet. Are there good things about shady pine trees? Yeah. But things change. Its part of the cycle of life. If you get sad about it you're looking the wrong direction.

IDK, guess you could apply that theory to virtually anything. Not this cowboy. While I'm not losing sleep over forest fires, I think they're sad. Guess I won't be getting my mancard stamped today

joe bartels wrote: Guess I won't be getting my mancard stamped today

Ya haveta have one before you can get it stamped ;)

Upon further reflection, its ok to be sad at a loss. Take death. It's a certainty, but its still ok to be sad when it happens to a loved one. Its a more dramatic metaphor than losing trees to fire, but I concede the point.

I did think it was kinda cool that amidst all that destruction the trail sign, albeit scorched, is still standing and readable. Almost like, "You can burn, but we'll still hike!"

paulhubbard wrote:I did think it was kinda cool that amidst all that destruction the trail sign, albeit scorched, is still standing and readable. Almost like, "You can burn, but we'll still hike!"

I agree!

chumley wrote: I suppose you could say its sad that there's no tuna here anymore. But its the way things work.

Not a day goes by that I don't lament the loss of the Sonoran Tuna. Whoa to the tuna.

Woe indeed. I finally gave all my dive equipment away...

azbackpackr wrote:I finally gave all my dive equipment away...

Well, that reduces your odds of being dumped on a forest fire by a big scoop.

Hey, that is an urban legend, about the scuba diver who got sucked up by the helicopter and dumped with the ocean water onto a fire. It was reported as truth by Outside Magazine some years ago, regarding the Sikorsky Skycrane helicopter, getting water from the ocean to dump onto the Santa Barbara fire. Apparently they were not savvy enough to realize it was a myth.