I subscribe to a lot of different newswires, hoping to find bits and pieces that you will not find in mainstream media. This one always has some provoking ideas, even if I don't always agree with them.
Whether you subscribe to the notion of climate change, or not, the core of this article is the Forest Service's new approach to fight all fires, even in wilderness areas, under the premise that stopping them early will save fire fighting budgets. They know it is short-sighted, but budgets are one year cycles, not the generational cycles of forest management.
Knowing we have 25 years of fuel accumulation I doubt we can ever get rid of these high fuel levels via logging, or other man made procedures. There is only one way those fuels are going to be reduced - fire.
Yet, due to budget constraints, fire is not going to be allowed as a tool to reduce fuels. Suppressing fires now does nothing other than increase the fire intensities each and every year.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/...-every-fire-this-year-but-at-what-cost-14774/
I know some agency folks lurk and post on this board. Am I missing the boat on this one, or does this seem like a bad idea?
To me, the use of fire to reduce the fuel accumulations on our public lands needs to be accelerated, not suppressed. Suppressing fire on this scale is foolish use of money and a ridiculous idea from a wildlife/range management standpoint.
I come from a logging family and I am all about logging when and where practical. One would have to be in dreamland to think their is enough logging infrastructure in the west to keep us even with fuel accumulation, let alone reduce it. Logging just ain't gonna cut it on this one, pun intended.
If you live in the fire zone, the time has come to take responsibility for your own property protection. I know that might sound harsh for some who have suffered damage and loss from fires this summer. But, people continue building in areas that they shouldn't, making it very hard for firefighters to save their structures. We spend hundreds of millions trying to save property of those who have made decisions, mostly from lack of understanding, that put themselves at risk. Those hundreds of millions would be way better used using fire as a tool.
If we had been actively using fire as a tool, a lot of what we saw this summer would have been less. I am sure that comes as no consolation or comfort to those impacted by those fires. If homeowners understood what risks they take/create by building right in the fire zone, I suspect they would want more fuel management.
Looking out my front steps, I see the Gallatin Face. It has had fire suppression for the 20+ years I have lived here. Controlled burns are hardly ever allowed, as some close to the forest complain about air quality or aesthetics. Many refuse to clear their areas of large trees, as they came to Montana to live in the forest.
Now, we are sitting on a powder keg that some day will burn black as the ace of spades. We will spend millions protecting the private structures of those who built right in the forest canopy. They will demand someone come to their rescue, even though they are often the ones who have cried the loudest when controlled burns were proposed or when it was suggested that smaller fires be allowed to burn naturally. Heaven forbid that any mechanical thinning be allowed near their little pieces of paradise.
Some like to make these fires the poster child as examples of climate change. That is disingenuous. These increasingly larger and more damaging fires are not tied to climate change as much as they are to ignorance, transferring risk/costs of those who build in risky areas, and political pressure placed on agencies.
Maybe some of the guys who have a lot of experience in this stuff will chime in. To me, it seems very short-sighted, bad for wildlife, and in the long run, bad for all who live near forests.
Whether you subscribe to the notion of climate change, or not, the core of this article is the Forest Service's new approach to fight all fires, even in wilderness areas, under the premise that stopping them early will save fire fighting budgets. They know it is short-sighted, but budgets are one year cycles, not the generational cycles of forest management.
Knowing we have 25 years of fuel accumulation I doubt we can ever get rid of these high fuel levels via logging, or other man made procedures. There is only one way those fuels are going to be reduced - fire.
Yet, due to budget constraints, fire is not going to be allowed as a tool to reduce fuels. Suppressing fires now does nothing other than increase the fire intensities each and every year.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/...-every-fire-this-year-but-at-what-cost-14774/
I know some agency folks lurk and post on this board. Am I missing the boat on this one, or does this seem like a bad idea?
To me, the use of fire to reduce the fuel accumulations on our public lands needs to be accelerated, not suppressed. Suppressing fire on this scale is foolish use of money and a ridiculous idea from a wildlife/range management standpoint.
I come from a logging family and I am all about logging when and where practical. One would have to be in dreamland to think their is enough logging infrastructure in the west to keep us even with fuel accumulation, let alone reduce it. Logging just ain't gonna cut it on this one, pun intended.
If you live in the fire zone, the time has come to take responsibility for your own property protection. I know that might sound harsh for some who have suffered damage and loss from fires this summer. But, people continue building in areas that they shouldn't, making it very hard for firefighters to save their structures. We spend hundreds of millions trying to save property of those who have made decisions, mostly from lack of understanding, that put themselves at risk. Those hundreds of millions would be way better used using fire as a tool.
If we had been actively using fire as a tool, a lot of what we saw this summer would have been less. I am sure that comes as no consolation or comfort to those impacted by those fires. If homeowners understood what risks they take/create by building right in the fire zone, I suspect they would want more fuel management.
Looking out my front steps, I see the Gallatin Face. It has had fire suppression for the 20+ years I have lived here. Controlled burns are hardly ever allowed, as some close to the forest complain about air quality or aesthetics. Many refuse to clear their areas of large trees, as they came to Montana to live in the forest.
Now, we are sitting on a powder keg that some day will burn black as the ace of spades. We will spend millions protecting the private structures of those who built right in the forest canopy. They will demand someone come to their rescue, even though they are often the ones who have cried the loudest when controlled burns were proposed or when it was suggested that smaller fires be allowed to burn naturally. Heaven forbid that any mechanical thinning be allowed near their little pieces of paradise.
Some like to make these fires the poster child as examples of climate change. That is disingenuous. These increasingly larger and more damaging fires are not tied to climate change as much as they are to ignorance, transferring risk/costs of those who build in risky areas, and political pressure placed on agencies.
Maybe some of the guys who have a lot of experience in this stuff will chime in. To me, it seems very short-sighted, bad for wildlife, and in the long run, bad for all who live near forests.
