An association of fire ecologists have issued a five page warning:
Currently, we are observing wildland fire conditions previously considered rare, such as extreme wildfire events (e.g. high heat release and severe impact to ecosystems), lengthened wildfire seasons, and large-scale wildfires in fire-sensitive ecosystems (e.g. tropical rain forests and arid deserts).
And here, palm-oil plantation owners and entrepreneurs are being taken to court for setting fire to their forest holdings -- a cheap way to clear land for palm oil plantations to grow food for our cars.
The Indonesian government plans to sue three oil palm plantation firms and one oil palm entrepreneur for allegedly starting fires in their concessions that grew into massive forest fires in Riau province, a newspaper said Saturday.
And to ice the cake, I received a call yesterday warning me that the road to my forest property (located in Dewatto, near a Boy Scout camp) was closed because of a forest fire:
In Western Washington, the Dewatto fire on the Kitsap Peninsula, near Hood Canal, has burned more than 150 acres and prompted the evacuation of a Boy Scout camp and several homes. Helicopters dropped water over the holiday weekend and more than 100 firefighters were working on extinguishing hot spots Monday.
The fire was manmade, as are most. The brush pickers who trample these forests are big on smoking -- not to say it was a brush picker. It could also have been an off-road enthusiast, or any other idiot. I plan to pay a visit later this week to see if there is anything left of Lizard Hill (PDF).
Global warming will eventually touch all of us.
Comments
View as Flat
Backcut Posted 3:50 am
05 Sep 2006
Anyone who wants it now has a clear view of what America's "environmentalists" consider stewardship of our forests. Here in the western states, the view is a picture-perfect rendition of the chants of the '60s radicals who tossed the first match: "Burn, baby, burn!"
Armies of firefighters are camped in key staging locations near several major fires in Oregon, trying to control the fires paths to keep them from destroying homes, schools and businesses.
Many western states with timber resources have been dependent on the revenue generated from selling some of those trees every year to help fund their public education systems. It's a system that made perfect sense. Coupled with modern forestry techniques (often developed at land-grant colleges here in the West), it still does. The land can yield consistent and perpetual timber harvests and provide the funding it was designed to provide for public schools.
But there's one major problem: America's "environmentalists" don't like to see trees cut down and used to build houses. They'd rather see them burn. Thus they disrupt the Forest Service's plans to thin the undergrowth that provides so much fuel for forest fires, and when the fire has done its devastating work they disrupt the sales of charred trees that could still be salvaged from the fire area. It's a win-win, if you like to see the nation's resources go up in smoke every summer.
America's "environmentalists," as the mainline press dubs them, will tell you these Spotted Owl roasts are "natural" fires caused by lightening and should simply be allowed to "burn themselves out."
The view in rural America, where these fires are burning, is rather different. Here the fires are viewed as a waste of precious public resources that the region can ill-afford. These environmentalist-sponsored Spotted Owl roasts drain public school funding, cause high unemployment and devastate the local tax base, pushing communities into state and federal dependency.
Of course, professional "environmentalist" fund-raisers don't live in rural areas. Like Willie Sutton, who when asked why he robbed banks replied, "Because that's where the money is," these fund-raisers live in urban areas. Their livelihood is not dependent upon wise stewardship of natural resources, but on fear mongering to motivate their fund-raising base to dig ever deeper into their pockets, and on a court system that guarantees that even when they lose - they win.
Why? Because when "environmental" fund-raising groups do win in court, they feed off the same pork barrel the ACLU has grown fat at: Attorneys fees are awarded by the court to the winner. So not only does the Forest Service have to pay staff attorneys to defend the case in court, if they lose the case because the assigned government attorney hasn't been around long enough to learn environmental law, the Forest Service has to pay the environmental group's attorneys fees, too. That would be the U.S. Forest Service, as in the U.S. taxpayer.
But even when "environmental" fund-raising groups do lose in court, they most often win anyway. Why? Because through delays, motions and additional studies (which frequently support the Forest Service's position when they are eventually completed), these groups are able to drag out the court action long enough to make the burned trees in fire cleanup area unprofitable for even small logging companies and sawmills. Rot and insect infestation take their toll. All it cost the "environmental" fund-raising group was a staff attorney's time. All it cost rural America is its children's education, its livelihood and its dignity.
Craige McMillan
This letter originated in Oregon but, it's applicable to most of our western states. Yes, the Forest Service and BLM still sometimes delude themselves that they can, somehow, cut old growth under the old Northwest Forest Plan, a bait-and-switch scheme that was a major victory for "preservationists". However, many of them still refuse to see that they are "hugging their forests to death", literally. Now that the San Bernardino National Forest is finished off (and will soon burn in the next few years), the forests of Colorado, eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, California and interior British Columbia are ready to fall to drought, bark beetles and fire.
It WILL happen! It's just a matter of time, unless we intervene, folks.
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
kmp Posted 4:13 am
05 Sep 2006
Remember that our government has not proven itself trustworthy on many occasions of late. Trusting the Forest Service and the BLM to "do what's best" for our natural resources may be a stretch for many. By all means, argue your case passionately, but back it up with logic, data, ecology, biology.... not vitriol and rhetoric. We get enough of that from the government.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 5:26 am
05 Sep 2006
2006 (1/1/06 - 9/5/06) Fires: 83,919 Acres: 8,220,516
2005 (1/1/05 - 9/5/05) Fires: 46,445 Acres: 7,848,821
2004 (1/1/04 - 9/5/04) Fires: 55,603 Acres: 7,615,561
2003 (1/1/03 - 9/5/03) Fires: 45,959 Acres: 2,856,328
2002 (1/1/02 - 9/5/02) Fires: 63,294 Acres: 6,373,709
2001 (1/1/01 - 9/5/01) Fires: 58,949 Acres: 2,986,200
2000 (1/1/00 - 9/5/00) Fires: 74,755 Acres: 6,583,553
10 MILLION acres isn't out of the question for this year, 20% more than ANY other fire season! Sadly, there are still legions of preservationists who feel that fire is a "natural", "healthy and beneficial" event in our forests.
I often hear the same kind of arrogance and sarcasm from the "preservationist" crowd with the "No Tree Left Behind" campaign and the "Don't Clearcut Our Sequoias" blitz. Obviously, people buy into that stuff and it effects what we, the Forest Service, are allowed to do in our National Forests.
We don't ask you to trust us. All we ask is that you give us a chance to earn that trust.
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:26 am
05 Sep 2006
The envrios are needed to provide a balance of power. They screw up sometimes, but they are also the reason there are guys like you in the service looking out for the forests rather than just selling them off. Like everything else in our culture, opposing sides locked in power struggles manage to keep one side or the other from winning all, which is actually a good thing.
That letter to the editor did not impress me. It also managed to take a swipe at the ACLU. You should have written it. You would have done a better job.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:27 am
05 Sep 2006
Two huge wrongs make for a massive, slow-motion disaster, and that doesn't even include the carbon that WILL be released.
Sooooooooo, are you part of the problem, or part of the solution, in thinking globally and acting locally??
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:26 am
06 Sep 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
kmp Posted 2:28 am
06 Sep 2006
Listing the number of acres burned in any given year just tells me that there are a lot of forest fires - which I already know.
I'm a scientist - I like data. Help me to understand how overgrown underbrush contributes to forest fires and why the Forest Service's thinning plan is the best path forward for protecting our forests.
I'm ready to believe sound research; simply telling me that my tree-hugging ways are killing the forests is 1) insulting and 2) counter-productive.
Kaela
Permalink
Backcut Posted 10:28 pm
06 Sep 2006
Fact number 1: There are too many trees for the amount of water and light available in many parts of the west.
Fact number 2: Fires have been suppressed for so long that brush and understory trees are stealing too much of that scant water from the trees we want to save.
Fact number 3: Species conversions from high-grading have resulted in forests losing the most fire adapted trees, replaced by highly-flammable true firs, cedars and Douglas firs.
Fact number 4: Politics and litigation are stopping us from practicing site-specific sound science. One example being the Giant Sequoia National Monument.
Fact number 5: Funding is also hindering fuels treatments, both commercial and sub-commercial.
Fact number 6: Courts are forcing us to re-invent the wheel, making us do exhaustive new studies to re-prove what we already have studied. They now are forcing us to explain our new science to the public and the courts in terms that the layperson can understand. (What if health care were run this way?)
.
.
.
.
.
At 8 million burned acres per year, how many years can this disaster go on? Of course, it's not just the acres burned, as the distant past has probably seen bigger years. It's the high intensity and destructive crown fires that do the major damage.
So, you can stand by and watch as the flames consume, buying into the lies, rhetoric and angst of the preservationists or, you can educate yourselves and see that some of us truly care and are aghast to see entire ecosystems go up in smoke.
Look at the historical figures here at http://www.nifc.gov/stats/fires_acres.html
This year's totals will move into second place for the all-time record today. We also have another month of fire season left.
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Backcut Posted 10:09 pm
07 Sep 2006
The all-time record WILL be set in a few days, setting new highs for the third time since the turn of the century.
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:19 pm
07 Sep 2006
Do that. Without blaming liberals.
How would you cut down all that brush, how would you pay for it (with your schools soaking up all the cash from timber sales), and would you promise to hire legal workers to do it?
What would you do with the brush after it was cut in order to keep it from burning anyway?
Would you only use salvage logs to fund your schools? (we use property taxes here) Or would you cut thousand year old redwoods to fund your schools?
Would you consider funding your schools from another source?
Take a few days, I'll wait.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
kmp Posted 12:48 am
08 Sep 2006
Sadly, at the moment, the records are beside the point. The best thing you can do, as a forester, on this list anyway, is to convince us that your plans for forest management are sound; are, in fact, the best path forward.
Take Al Gore's global warming presentation as an example - yes, we all know that global warming is an issue, but how absolutely convinced were you (or me, or anyone) that it was driven by CO2 until you saw the movie?
That's what I'm looking for - sound, scientific, peer-reviewed research that clearly demonstrates any of the "facts" you have listed above.
If you were to ask me, for example, if daily aspirin is good for your heart, I could explain the pharmacology in layman's terms, but I would also back up this explanation with published, peer-reviewed literature. Does the same exist for any of your statements above?
Kaela
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:16 am
08 Sep 2006
Sooooooooo, let's hear YOUR solutions and I'll tell YOU if it's at all possible, instead. Put OUR tax dollars where your mouth is!
All I can offer is my observations, from the field, as of today. Anything else I (or any other forester) say won't be accepted and, to many, ALL forest problems stem from global warming, regardless of historical data.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"What good is a man who won't take a stand?
What good is a cynic, without a better plan?
I BELIEVE IN A BETTER WAY!!"....Ben Harper
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Backcut Posted 2:07 pm
08 Sep 2006
Environmental activists' suits damage wildlife in the long term
By Thomas M. Bonnicksen
Environmental groups are unwittingly destroying forests and killing wildlife with lawsuits. Ironically, they are doing so while claiming tosave them.
Activists again are filing lawsuits to stop forest management, and the government pays them to do it. They craft settlements that pay them handsomely with taxpayer money so that they can live well and file the next lawsuit. No wonder they are inflexible.
The latest example is using the California spotted owl and Pacific fisher in arguments supporting a lawsuit to stop restoration thinning in the Giant Sequoia National Monument. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hasn't listed either species as threatened or endangered.
These activists claim that spotted owls nest in dense forests, so no management should be allowed anywhere the owl might one day live. But they neglect to mention that owls also nest and thrive in managed forests. They ignore the fact that owls have to eat, and their prey live mainly in young forests.
Like the owl, the Pacific fisher (a rarely-seen animal related to the marten and otter) prefers patchy forests, where patches of young, middle-aged and old forest spread across the landscape like squares on a checkerboard. In fact, science shows that fishers prosper in managed forests that mimic this patchiness.
Not only that, according to recent data from a researcher at the University of California-Berkeley, there are probably at least 896 fishers in the Sequoia National Monument, which, according to one study, is nearly three times the density needed to maintain the population.
Unfortunately, legal action has blocked common sense thinning to restore forests to their natural diversity and resistance to catastrophic wildfire. Already, many of California's public forests have grown dangerously overcrowded, with 10 to 20 times more trees than is natural. The Giant Sequoia National Monument is near the top of the crowded forest list. It already burned once, and it is certain to burn again.
In 2002, the McNally fire blackened 151,000 acres in and around the Sequoia National Monument, coming within one mile of the Packsaddle Grove of giant sequoias. Without active management, it is only a matter of time before another major wildfire hits, possibly destroying all 38 sequoia groves in the monument.
Rather than protecting forests and wildlife with lawsuits, activists are condemning them to destruction.
Massive wildfires move so fast that flames can overtake animals like deer, bears and fishers before they escape. Streams boil and fish die. Ash fills burrows and suffocates ground dwellers. Smoke inhalation kills most animals before the flames reach them.
In New Mexico's Los Alamos Fire, 90 percent of the Mexican spotted owl'shabitat was lost. Between 1999 and 2002, the U.S. Forest Service identified 11 California spotted owl-nesting sites as lost to wildfire. In 2002, the Biscuit Fire destroyed tens of thousands of acres of spotted owl habitat in Southern Oregon and Northern California, including 49 known nesting sites.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cites wildfire as the primary threat to spotted owls. The Pacific fisher is also at risk because of catastrophic wildfire. The forest thinning that activists have blocked is legal and necessary, and approved by the Clinton administration with environmentalist support.
Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, recently introduced the Giant Sequoia National Monument Transition Act to allow the approved thinning operations to proceed and protect the sequoia groves, nearby communities, and the spotted owl and Pacific fisher from catastrophic wildfire.
Sanity must prevail. We must work together -- the public and private sectors and even professional activists.
Lawsuits are not the answer to our forests' problems. Active forest management is the only way to protect lives and property, and conserve the forests and wildlife we cherish.
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:51 am
09 Sep 2006
We don't believe in climate change from CO 2, we believe liberals are to blame for forest fires.
Once forests are planted in neat rows of monocrop, genetically engineered species and all the wood is exported, forest fires will be under control. The endangered species can be moved to a nice safe zoo.
Did I leave anything out? Oh yeah, all that cash from China for the logs will support our schools. Problem solved!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Backcut Posted 6:18 am
09 Sep 2006
Trust us. Don't bother to interfere, we will take care of forests.
I didn't say that. I'm throwing up my hands and going to leave it to you guys (the eco-lawyers, the preservationist groups and the judges) to decide what to do (and to take the blame when the fiddler plays his fiery tune).
We don't believe in climate change from CO 2, we believe liberals are to blame for forest fires.
Nope, I stated my case and you continuously claim that I'm a global warming cynic. Please desist in the lies, bud!
Once forests are planted in neat rows of monocrop, genetically engineered species and all the wood is exported, forest fires will be under control. The endangered species can be moved to a nice safe zoo.
Ummm, you're drifting away from reality again. Talking about private timberlands?
Did I leave anything out? Oh yeah, all that cash from China for the logs will support our schools. Problem solved!
Ummm, we DO have laws to follow and I've never seen logs going to China, although I have seen private land cull logs bought up by Japanese log buyers at the Port of Sacramento, back in the early 90's.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
C'mon now. Let's hear YOUR solutions. Let it burn policy? No commercial timber cutting, down to 10" dbh? Eliminate the Forest Service altogether? Turn all National Forest into wilderness? Controlled burn overstocked Western forests? (Yep, 10 million acres is within our grasps!)
You tell us!
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:02 am
10 Sep 2006
Second target fires before they grow beyond a manageable size. Use satelite and other government surveilance to spot fires before they exceed campfire size in areas where they should not be, in high fire danger zones, send in emergency teams to put them out. In inaccessible regions use helicopters or planes that drop water.
Third harvest and chip up wood in the understory using the latest hitech machiney and develop robotic electric powered machines to more efficiently complete the job. Sell the chips to chipboard plants.
Compost the chips that are not suitable for sale. Bury the compost under a few inches of soil, where it will help store water, so that it will not dry out and add to the fire hazard.
No more timber sales to companies that use equipment that needs roads, there are better options. Require all companies that do buy timber to either chip up all the slash and sell it or compost it, or pay to have that done by foresters. One chance, if the company screws it up, they pay.
And no more industry self (no) regulation, verify compliance with trained, incorruptible personell.
Prosecute cases involving government foresters who sell forests out to logging interests. Including those retirees who become "consultants" for logging interests after they get their generous taxpayer supported pensions.
Promote whistleblowers on forest management corruption to positions of responsibility within the state and federal forestry agencies.
Support real science, instead of studies commisioned by industry to "prove" their commercially expedient lies.
In order to pay for all of this, stop fighting wars for oily multinational corporate empire.
Last but not least. Stop funding schools from timber sale proceeds.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:28 am
11 Sep 2006
You have repeatedly refused to provide me with any scientific rationale for your claims, saying instead that "[a]nything else I (or any other forester) say won't be accepted".
Anything else? You haven't said anything yet. I can only surmise that scientific data backing up your claims does not exist or else you would have provided it.
The one piece you did provide was a letter from the "forest scientist emeritus" Thomas M. Bonnicksen. Since Dr. Bonnicksen did not reference any published literature to support claims made in his letter, either, I Googled his name to find out a little about him. The first link to come up was this, from ExxonSecrets.org. Apparently Dr. Bonnicksen sits on the Scientific Advisory Board of the National Center for Public Policy Research a group notorious for not "believing" in global warming, and a group that, according to ExxonSecrets.org, has received $280,000 in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998.
So, this is the learned forest scientist who's words I should take as gospel? Forgive me if I am skeptical.
I had truly hoped to learn something about the state of America's forests, to be educated about forestry from someone who is working in the trenches, so to speak. Yet all you have to offer me is anger, frustration, sarcasm and propaganda. All I can say is, I am truly sorry - it is most disappointing.
Kaela
Permalink
Backcut Posted 1:46 am
11 Sep 2006
While we're at it, why should we even spend the time to research and construct plans and treatments when the courts just throw them out? I think it's time that we exercise what was laid out before us in the "Truce Almighty" thread. Anything else will just be throwing money down into a burning stump hole.
DrXtremist has shown the world of HIS folly. Is his recommendations any more believable than mine?!?
In the end, I offer site specific sound science to treat the myriad of forest conditions. Many of you would prefer to have a blanket policy that eliminates the need for experienced personnel (which is decreasing by the month in the Forest Service. As a matter of fact, there's almost a half dozen jobs in my field open in places I'd like to live. I'll be putting in my application in the next week or two).
So, I guess you all can live with elevated fire dangers and intensities while the courts figure out what they'll allow us to do.
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:43 am
11 Sep 2006
The overgrown brush/young tree conditions in Northwestern dry areas ARE more prone to fire. This is a well established fact, kind of like saying aspirin makes most headaches go away. Proving that to you is redundant and unnecessary research for me (if Backcut wants to look it up that's his deal), unless I would have to write an article.
Drx,
Using equipment that does not require roads is impossible, since tractor trailers cannot go on trails, plus the erosion off those trails will be far more deleterious than road construction. If you are suggesting that we use helicopters, then obviously you are not concerned about global warming, as they use much more fossil fuels to extract timber than the trailers.
In my opinion, the best use from a global warming perspective for the wood and the chips is precisely in lines with increased timber production. It increases carbon storage on and off site due to timber extracted and 'permanantly' removed from the atmosphere and faster growth rates of trees.
However, as a person who is concerned with whole landscapes, increased timber production is not the goal everywhere, but it oftentimes may still coincide with ecosystem management ideals.
As for this discussion, there is no need for name-calling and finger-pointing, this is not a shouting match. This is an attempt to get at a reasonable solution for all parties involved. Of course it's not an easy solution, since there are dozens of interests vying for these lands in four main categories (the four w's): wildlife, wood, (w)ec(w)eation (hahahahhahaha ->Elmer voice), and water. You can fit several dozen opinions on the best way to approach these four, but there are relatively few solutions on what will be the outcome if you want all four. It becomes even harder if you throw in 'Carbon sink' into the wood category).
Permalink
kmp Posted 6:00 am
11 Sep 2006
Atreyger said,
The overgrown brush/young tree conditions in Northwestern dry areas ARE more prone to fire. This is a well established fact, kind of like saying aspirin makes most headaches go away.
This may be a well-established fact in your world, but not in mine. In fact, this seems logical to me, and I do not disbelieve it, I simply stated, oh-so-long-ago in this thread, that facts and data are more persuavive arguments to me than sarcasm and name-calling. Clearly, I would not bother to ask for facts & figures if I already understood the "well established fact."
It is OK with me if you would rather not expend your time hunting down these references; after all, few of us are paid to contribute to this blog. I was only responding to the "nobody understands us foresters" lament with the request "then help me to understand."
I am not trying to be argumentative but it does not seem that we can have a rationale, productive exchange on this topic.
Kaela
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:52 pm
11 Sep 2006
http://hight3ch.com/post/6-legged-walking-logging-machine...
Do all the felling, hauling, chipping out of roadless areas to where old logging roads stopped. No need for new roads in roadless areas.
And I would be in favor of identifying the most at risk areas for fires and most pristine old growth forests to protect first. Circles around these areas cleared of flamable underbrush, and similar fire breaks cleared of understory across windy zones where fire spreads very quickly and easily.
Then work out from these fire break areas to widen them and increase fire prevention. This wouldn't bring much money to timber companies or provide new ATV and snowmobile trails. Just protect forests, so I am assuming it would never be considered by those who back logging as the only forest managment tool available.
Scandanavian companies have gone even further in hitech, low impact forest machinery. They even have wheeled equipment that doesn't tear up the ground and kill trees.
These newer hitech systems increase productivity and allow profitable operation without clear cutting. Balloon logging is the lower fuel useage alternative to helicopters.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:32 pm
11 Sep 2006
What about our investment in areas that already have existing road systems and adequate skid trails? Of course, we already have high-tech logging machines that can harvest small but commercially-valuable trees with minimal impacts to the soils. How are the "Joe Loggers" of the country going to switch over all their current equipment (which thay haven't even paid off yet), to these non-commercial logging equipment?
Yes, it's great to have another tool to add to the toolbox but, we already have similar machines to do 90% of the needed work in our forests.
Alas, we may never see if active ecosystem management will save our forests. The disaster has been upon us for several years now and we're seeing entire National Forests being decimated by drought, insects and fires. It's up to the lawyers and the judges to decide for us the path we will take into our National Forests. Who am I to think I could change the public's view of the state of our forests?
LurkMode=ON
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:55 pm
11 Sep 2006
Making excuses why no one can change anything isn't going to convince anyone else.
Those Joe loggers have already been layed off for the most part, years ago. One in twenty might still be working in the woods with hitech equipment.
But the days of bulldozing and skidding and cutting trees with chainsaws and getting killed by the saw or the trees is about over here in the US. It doesn't produce good jobs, revenue for the government, or fire prevention.
Joe's sons and daughters might have jobs designing and building the hitech logging equipment now, but manufacturing and inovation have been outsourced to other countries thanks to big tax breaks for multinational corporations.
And complete stonewalling on any new tactics in forest management. The bushwacky want to go back to chainsaws, skidders, bulldozers, and uncomplaining illegal contract workers. Who won't demand healthcare, safety, or have families suing over the loss of loved ones from unsafe logging.
That has a similar future to continuing to manufacture defective gas guzzling vehicles. None.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Backcut Posted 7:36 am
16 Sep 2006
This first picture shows what decades of mismanagement, including the latest problem of "letting Mother Nature take care of our forests." If you look closely, you'll see the massive bark beetle problem associated with drought, overstocking and a lack of fire salvage logging from the big fires. You'll also see the results of poor logging practices in the "jammer clearcuts".
http://rogueimc.org/images/2005/04/4297.jpg
.
.
.
.
Here's a closeup view of what a lack of management does in the Bitterroot and other western forests
http://rogueimc.org/images/2005/04/4298.jpg
.
.
.
.
Here's an example of what a complete lack of forest management did on the San Bernardino National Forest. There wasn't ANY timber cutting for 20 years down there and the forest became overgrown with brush and too many trees for the amount of available water down there. 12 MILLION trees died down there and the majority are still waiting for the next inevitable fire to burn at the highest intensity possible.
http://rogueimc.org/images/2005/04/4299.jpg
.
.
.
.
Here's another example of what preservationism can do to an unnatural forest ecosystem. The Lake Tahoe Basin has experienced massive overstocking, longtime fire suppression and blind preservationism. Past logging practices left the highly-flammable true firs and lodgepole pines to dominate at the higher elevations. Closer to the lake, pines have grown too close together for the amount of precipitation that falls each winter. This picture from back in the early 90's shows the extent of the massive dieback but, you also can't really see the trees that just had their tops killed. Sometime soon, we'll see a huge wildfire that will dump 100-1000 times more sediment into Lake Tahoe than careful "pick and pluck" logging would ever do.
http://rogueimc.org/images/2005/04/4300.jpg
.
.
.
.
Finally, here's an example of the fuels buildup that currently exists in many western forests. This picture from the Eldorado National Forest shows how simply controlled burning a stand cannot remedy the massive fuels waiting for that next bolt of lightning. In fact, it's not clear what would be best for this particular stand of white firs. If this were YOUR land, what would you do with it?!?
http://rogueimc.org/images/2005/04/4301.jpg
.
.
.
.
.
.
All of these areas are in the midst of a current disaster. Within 20 years, these forests will be burned at high intensity, pouring massive amounts of greenhouse gasses and CO2 directly into our atmosphere. You can't place all the blame on "global warming".
Finally, I've placed this all before you and you can choose to continue disregarding 3 new all-time wildfire records in the last 6 years. You can continue to think that today's wildfires are "natural and beneficial". You can also continue to watch our forests become charred moonscapes, clinging to your own dogma and rhetoric. This doesn't make you a bad person though. Most of you are intelligent, thoughtful and care VERY much about our environment. I applaud the sacrifices and integrity that some of you display everyday. I also see that some of you are open-minded enough to consider a more middle-of-the-road philosophy with our environment.
I will leave you with that because I've convinced myself that I don't need to try and prove anything to to anyone but the people who really matter in setting public policies. With all due respect and humanity, and all, it does me no good to present evidence and science to the public. Whether you're a logger, a preservationist or just a voting taxpayer, we all just don't matter anymore. The only people who do matter are the Congressmen, the lawyers and the high court judges.
That being said, I'm now going to stop my 9 year quest to educate people about our forests. If you feel that you can do or say something that will "fix" our forests, go right ahead. I will not be offering any rebuttal or support. I'll just continue to do my work in the Forest Service and hope that the people who really matter will come to their senses and see the big picture, without the partisan politics and greed.
Peace and tranquility be with you.
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:47 am
16 Sep 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:47 pm
16 Sep 2006
Your property and the National Forests have a parallel. Yes, we know it's going to burn but, we CAN help the land to survive those burns well, if only the courts (and budgets) will let us.
...but, I digress. I'll just lurk and hope for the best.
PS Everyday set a new record for acres burned and we currently have a million acres worth of fires burning. Get the marshmallows!
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
christa Posted 6:55 am
20 Sep 2006
And...don't stop believing that it can start with the people.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:29 am
20 Sep 2006
I think that even some sort of rainwater collection drip system for saving forests might be considered. Along with mulching up the flammables.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Backcut Posted 12:55 am
23 Sep 2006
Will people trust his assessment or are his thoughts also tainted by the Bush Administration and the GOP?
.
.
.
.
Just a little update: My salvage project is now blocked from cutting and removing hazard trees on roads not designed for standard sedans. (I wonder how many forest users drive standard sedans in the woods and only use "improved roads".) Apparently, an eco-group has decided that most roads don't need hazard trees cut, and this will result in roads being blocked, culverts plugged, catastrophic erosion and angry citizens.
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink