Large wildfires in Great Basin; will there be enough seed to rehab them all?

[1_pointer]

Seems like the Great Basin is having a 'banner' year for fires. One in UT blackened more than 380,000ac and another complex on the NV, UT, ID border is well over 200,000ac not to mention the other large and small fires throughout the region. There is starting to be some talk that there won't be enough seed to properly rehab all of them. Especially with the policy that native species have to be used where possible and available.

What are your thoughts of this? Do you propose they priortize them on size or other values? What about costs? Is there a price point where rehab should be halted per project? Or per state?

 

[ELKCHSR]

Leave it alone, it will replant itself

I'm thinking let the fires get a little bigger also and burn up all this trashy, overgrown forests that covers the land

 

[elk_hunter]

My thoughts are let the firefighters continue to do the best job they can. At least the fires get nitrogen back in the ground and thin things out a bit. In an ideal world, taxpayer money would go toward planting seedlings (native or not) to jump start the forests growing again.

 

[cjcj]

Let them burn "natural cycle" Akumma Mattada or something like thatl

 

[1_pointer]

Leave it alone, it will replant itself

You're not worried about the expansion of cheatgrass into these newly burned areas? Cheatgrass has already altered the fire cycles on millions of acres, with a bunch of it being within the Great Basin.

I do agree that the pinyon/juniper woodlands (I'm not sure I'd call them forests) that are being burnt need it as most of them are occupying areas that were historically shrub dominated. But, areas with thick PJ have very little understory and thus a very depleted seed bank, making natural regeneration a lengthy process. Then when on considers the invasive exotic species...

 

[ELKCHSR]

If you haven't noticed Tyler

Cheatgrass is pretty good about spreading itself with or with out the aid of man

As it goes with your second paragraph, your correct, except for the fact that nature is nature and we as humans can't have the fast fix no matter what our feelings on the subject

Plus, fire cycles have been stomped out so bad in every region of the Unites States that we will have to live with the consequences of hotter than normal fires, then a rebound of re-growth, less hot fires, less regrowth and probably one more to put things back in balance

Will you see it in your life time... More than likely not, I would surmise your great grandchildren may start seeing the benefits

Thats the problem between nature and man

Nature is some thing that just keeps moving forward in a timeless progression regardless of what we do

Man can only see five years or so in advance with not much regard for any thing past that time line

All I can say to what you would like to see and what is reality....

Sorry...

 

[1_pointer]

Elkchsr- If cheatgrass becomes the dominate species, fire return intervals can be as short as 2-5 years, which usually eliminates most all the native and/or perennial species as well as reducing the productivity of the soil. Thus, nature can't take it's 'natural' course. Reams of research have shown that in many areas of the Great Basin are susceptible to cheatgrass becoming the dominate species after a large disturbance event like a wildfire. Once that occurs...

hotter than normal fires, then a rebound of re-growth, less hot fires, less regrowth and probably one more to put things back in balance

...will never happen. Until federal agencies are allowed to control cheatgrass using some of the new herbicides, the only way of combating the increased dominance of this invasive exotic species is to try to reinstate the function of a perennial species. Many times and many places this is more successfully accomplished using non-native species like crested wheatgrass and forage kochia and their cultivars. Some folks have a problem with this, do you?

Or do you have any thoughts on the subject other than it will become what it's to become regardless of what we do? Is it worth the $$ to chain the burnt trees (mostly PJ) to prepare the area for drill seeding or is broadcast seeding a better option?

Nature is some thing that just keeps moving forward in a timeless progression regardless of what we do

I can't agree with this for so many different reasons that it's silly...

elk hunter-

At least the fires get nitrogen back in the ground and thin things out a bit.

While this is true initially, if an area becomes dominated by cheatgrass the repeated burning can and does cause a depletion in both organic matter and nitrogen. In the long term this can reduce the productivity of the soil to the point that it can no longer grow the plants that grew there historically.

 

[ELKCHSR]

As it goes with the first part of your last post, we are on the same exact page

But...

We both have different methods for control

I say let it be because there isn't enough money any where to remove all the cheat grass

You would like to spend the Gross National Economy of the United States to give it the good ol' collage try to get it back in control

This is a scenario that will not and can never happen

I do have a question that is an honest one, I posed this to ol' Butz years ago and he couldn't answer it, just blustered and blew hard, but never an answer

We know the different exotics in this country are a bad thing

We know the different exotics are nigh to impossible to do much about but keep it out of our personal yards (sort of)

So, the question

What is the answer to your plight of effectively removing these noxious culprits from the landscape?

The best we could hope for on the rosiest of forecasts is keeping it in check utilizing some sort of pathogen for control if one can be found which obviously doesn't happen very often

Some thing that also helps is to have plants which grow taller than said weeds to help choke out the evil ones, but every bare spot will still have said bad plants

So where back to the initial question

 

[1_pointer]

we are on the same exact page

I'm not sure what part we are in agreement on?

You're right cheatgrass will never be eradicated. But, time and time again it has been shown that it can be kept from becoming the dominant species and allow natural systems to remain intact and viable. Big difference from eradication...

Height of growth of competing species has very little to do with 'choking' out cheatgrass. It's nearly always the shortest, or one of the shortest, grasses around. We're not talking trees here...

Another thing to keep in mind is that many of the fires in the Great Basin are impacting one of the, if not the, most threatened ecosystem type in the country; salt desert shrub ecosystem.

 

[ELKCHSR]

And now we are back to "at what cost"...

And again, what is the answer?

 

[1_pointer]

The cost is already decided, Congress does that for us. The real question is if there isn't enough money to go around, where do you spend it? Hence this series of questions I asked in the first post:

Do you propose they priortize them on size or other values? What about costs? Is there a price point where rehab should be halted per project? Or per state?

 

[BuzzH]

1 pointer,

I give you credit for trying...but Cheese just doesnt get it.

Your question is a good one, and I dont think many people know the answer.

What I would do is try to do the most with what money is available, I honestly dont know how you'd prioritize it though. Depends on your objectives. I'd try to prioritize based on risk assessment maybe??? Areas with high potential for erosion, increased chance of weed infestations, rehab areas where T&E species inhabit the area etc. etc.

I also agree with you on eradicating weeds and non-natives, wont happen. But, you can control them enough to allow most natives to remain viable parts of the ecosystem in most cases.

 

[ELKCHSR]

The real problem in lies the fact that there just isn't enough money to go around to do it right

Matter of fact, there could never be enough money to do it right

You're getting a taste of just how vast the problem is and what it would take to fix it proper

Am I incorrect in this judgment?

If I am wrong, why aren’t all the ill wills and issues to our natural resources in regards to invasive species fixed already?

It will never be fixed, heck, one can't even totally eliminate for good dandelions from their yard, let alone the millions of square miles this country has to offer no matter how much money are tossed at it

Yep, Butz you’re correct to a point

What happens if we (man) quit trying to fix "all" of the issues or more to the point, pretend as if we are doing some thing grand and let nature take it's course

What ever that may be, sooner or later it will stabilize, more than likely not what you would like to see, but stabilize non the least

Whats going to happen when we finally quit trying to fight back the inevitable because the cost is found to out weigh the end result?

I was wondering how long it would take you to try jumping in and saving the day, even though as usual, there is no saving to be had....

Well done stating the obvious... Well done indeed...

 

[shoots-straight]

We've had terrible problems with knapweed in Ravalli Co. records show that it was first interduced here for the bee keepers, makes great honey. Anyway the ag. research center brought some beatles from Europe in and were raising them to see what effect they had on the knapweed. (They lay their larva in the roots and the larvie kills the knapweed by infesting the roots.) The little buggers escaped in Corvallis and moved out from there. People even started harvesting the beatle and selling them throughout the state....The little guys have definitely had a major impact on this one weed.

the bad side note to this is where the knapweed was, we now have cheatgrass.

 

[1_pointer]

But, you can control them enough to allow most natives to remain viable parts of the ecosystem in most cases.

Are natives a real big deal in your opinion? If they work I'm not against them, but I draw the line at the function of a species. In areas with cheatgrass, the most important that I think is to re-establish a species that functions the same as the native perennial grasses. Many of non-natives are pretty good at theat, since the evolved in the same part of the world as cheatgrass. Also to note, many of the 'native' species in stabilization/rehab seed mixes are cultivars of that species. So that begs the question whether or not it is a native?

SS- Interesting about cheatgrass that far north. I know medusahead gets up that way, but didn't figure cheatgrass would be that big of a problem. Is it becoming quite prevelant on sites? Or is it pretty much present, but is still being outcompeted by the native species? BTW, I have no idea where that county is...?

Elkchsr- Management is much different than 'fixing' a problem. Once you think about that for a while and understand you'll be better able to discuss such topic.

 

[ELKCHSR]

LOL 1Pointer...

You’re a funny guy some times, try hard as you do, there are still a number of things lacking, it's not your fault, and things will change over the years as you gain more knowledge into your chosen subject of life

I've "thought" about this topic very hard for many years; when I press for a little info on this board, names start to be bandied about and the threads go to shit... go figure...

I fully understand both sides of this issue, maybe not all plant and animal species involved to make it work but the lack of understanding.... I think not....

Here's a scenario on management some won't get it because they can't see the big picture and the topic gets clouded or lost out of hatred for me, their loss not mine):

Old people are taking care of their yard, working hard year in and year out to keep it the most beautiful yard in the neighbor hood, weed free and just the right mix of every thing to keep it a fairly healthy ecosystem

Problem with what’s been created, not all the species cultivated or left to their own devices are compatible to what nature has intended for the microclimates or spaces that have been created

Plus all the surrounding areas off the property are overgrown and unkempt

One spouse gets sick or dies and the other looses interest for a few years, the yard goes to hell in a hand basket and now the work to get it back is far to much for the one person to ever get back into a "managed" state

These people don't have the money or energy to put it back the way it was, and control what they have so now have to pay to manage it and that is just barely enough to keep things in check

The surrounding yards and spaces continually are at battle with this yard which is kept in check and control or "Managed" as you will and eventually close in and take over the yard unless huge efforts are kept at management

Remember, and I sure hope your keeping up, this is only a small amount of ground and these people really love and cherish this area, working their whole lives to "manage"

Another word for manage by the way is "CONTROL"

Nothing in nature can be fully controlled (maybe a small portion at a given time frame but in the big picture and long haul, it will want to revert to what it is programmed to do)

Now bring this into a larger picture that is sitting at the same level of "Management" only larger, let’s say a million acres

We spend a ton of money, time, and materials to keep our chosen areas under control

The neighboring lands may not have any controls, state, private, federal......

Lets say some thing happens to the money that is used for management and funds get cut, it will take almost an act of congress as the saying goes to get refunded and retooled to the point to start taking that space back and placed under control again, at what cost, it will run more in time and material the second time than it did the first (not always but typically it does)

What happens to an area that has been managed at great expense with great effort if it's left to its own devices for a number of years and allowed to revert?

I'm not advocating just "letting it go", nor to stop management practices all together

I am saying there are better approaches that help cohabitate all species (native and non) to live in an environment together

Maybe not 100% peacefully, but nothing in nature is sitting at 100%

A person would have to be deranged to think it's possible for all species to live in perfect harmony

Now comes management

I've seen good and bad management on my cross country forays

The people who have been given the "power" to implement their own brand of management upon the landscape and now have put their lives and reputation on the line to bring these ideas to life will fight tooth and nail to preserve their ideas no matter how wrong or convoluted they may be and are usually in a position to keep the status quo so in the end create a larger problem than if they had just left it alone

Now comes Mother Nature

This is the one part of the equation I see these people want to control and not work with

If for example (as I've alluded to for years) as Shoots strait pointed out about the beetle and knap weed

I've researched this little critter, it can do more good/harm than all the people out there trying to control knap weed and it doesn't cost near as much once established as it will reproduce and work tirelessly to eat up it’s food source

Will their be repercussions by removing all or most of the knap weed, more than likely, some thing else has to fill in the space

Does it take longer, well... depends on how you look at it seeing as there has never been an effective control measure shy of pulling every thing up, and even that fails miserably as soon as the affected area is left alone for a short time

One possible "fix" to the cheat grass issue, not a cure, just a fix

This region used to have tall grasses covering it (part of the reason such large animal herds of every sort before it was settled and the landscape changed with new plant species)

Getting a taller variety of grass to grow will choke out the smaller under story (if you opened your eyes and looked at a bigger picture, you would know there are other things that grow taller than cheat grass that aren’t trees)

Will their be problems, of course, you can't introduce/re-introduce some thing back into a landscape just because it used to be there with out some issues, it is now the invading species

When measuring assets and liabilities one must take into account if it’s more productive for the environment in the end than a hindrance?

Who can tell until the "great experiment" takes place

I could keep rambling like this for hour’s because it’s such a large topic and if you had been reading what I've been posting for YEARS, you would understand how shallow and uninformed this statement is

Management is much different than 'fixing' a problem. Once you think about that for a while and understand you'll be better able to discuss such topic.

People like ol' Butz here in the past have made huge mistakes (notice I mentioned the word “like”), but because they have devoted their whole lives to the cause no matter how right, wrong or noble, will fight tooth and nail to keep every thing they have set into place as "the way it should be", no matter what new ideas or techniques come along (example would be controlling fires to the extent which took place over the last 70 or so years and creating a large pile of fire wood that covers vast amounts of area, far to much fuels to actively control or “manage” at the moment)

If any one shows dissention in the ranks, this or a few individuals will denounce any one with opposing views on a topic and because of the respect these individuals have garnered as the "professional" of their trade or simply time in trade, others will follow blindly, never challenging issues that are just plain wrong out of fear of retribution or ignorance

Is Butz good at what he does?

I have no doubt he is...

Is his approach wrong?

Yep...

You can learn some thing from every person you come in contact with if you’re willing to look for it and not go thru life closed minded, blinded and in a box to new possibilities as I tried to explain to you over dinner many years ago

Any one who says they are "it" when it comes to any topics concerning nature should be looked at with a jaded eye

They always tend to not look at an issue objectively or to the possibility there are better ways to fix a problem or at least better manage it

There is no room for ego in this case if you want to do it right

 

[1_pointer]

About the only thing that made sense in that 'foray' was the first analogy. Still, each management entity has to do what is best by their plans/rules first before they worry about what the neighbor is doing. A good example is state school trust lands. The purpose for these is to generate money. Sometimes that is best accomplished by doing things that don't quite jive with the neighbors (ie BLM, USFS, NPS, etc), but has to be done so that those lands are 'managed' properly.


The rest proves you don't know a whole lot about some of the processes/ecosystems that you are trying to discuss. Of which this is a good example:

This region used to have tall grasses covering it (part of the reason such large animal herds of every sort before it was settled and the landscape changed with new plant species)

Getting a taller variety of grass to grow will choke out the smaller under story (if you opened your eyes and looked at a bigger picture, you would know there are other things that grow taller than cheat grass that aren’t trees)