Montana DNRC Gets It

[Straight Arrow]

The. US has over 188 million acres of National Forest. Idaho alone has over 38 percent of its acres in N F ownership. Educate your self.

Valid numbers, not to be disputed. But does citing numbers then cause you to conclude that the 188 million acres or the "38 percent of its acres" are to be roaded, thinned or otherwise proactively managed? Educate yourself in deriving logical conclusions from factual information.

Interesting read.

Sytes, that is an interesting read, and like the Montana DNRC Lolo project, a worthwhile, even necessary, long term huge project. It is warranted due to the several safety, cost saving, and other important reasons. Even though it involves one critical long term project treating thousands of acres, that does not equate to feasibility of thinning millions of acres of National Forest.

But obviously I am uneducated and have a silly philosophy about nature continuing to effect the health of wild forests through centuries of forest health cycles versus man manipulation, roading and "gardening" of our National Forests.

 

[BigHornRam]

Straight Arrow. You said my claim that 10s of millions of acres of N F lands have already been roaded, logged and in second and even third growth forests was an exaggeration and bullshit. I will help you understand the scale of Forest land we are talking about. Assuming the ABSURDLY low percent of N F lands that has already been logged, or man handled for profit is only 10%, that would amount to over 18 million acres. The true percent is much higher. Think about it rationally.

So we have already logged and roaded 10s of millions of acres. Add to that over 100 years of fire suppression. Throw in global warming if you like as well. Now you want to stop managing these acres and turn them back over to mother nature to manage. I call that abandonment of our public lands and utterly absurd.

 

[BuzzH]

Its funny Sytes referenced that Bill Williams project, I just spent 10 or so days (last December) camped right near where the photo in the article was taken.

The one thing that everybody forgets, in particular BHR and Sytes, in their rush to point out the "great" forest practices when they reference articles like this: We $#^#ed ourselves as an opening move 100 years ago.

For 100 years, we've suppressed fire for, largely, social reasons rather than anything to do with science or proper management. That has come at a gigantic cost to the taxpayer, both in direct funding to support a massive fire suppression industry, and now to reverse the impacts of what fire suppression causes.

This area near Bill Williams mountain is a classic example...you look at historic photos of the forests in that part of the world, and they don't look a thing like they do now. In Ponderosa dominated forest types, like those found in the Flagstaff/Williams area, tree densities historically were probably less than 40 trees per acre. I bet fire frequencies were once every 8-10 years for low intensity understory burning...if not more often than that.

Now, enter fire suppression...fire frequencies are totally out of whack, and again, from actually being on the ground there, fire suppression has caused unnatural tree densities. Tree densities (exceeding 500-1000+ stems an acre) that perpetuate crown fires with intensities never seen on the land-scape in that area.

Now we defend "fixing" this by trying to replicate, at a huge cost to the taxpayers, what we could have done for nothing if we hadn't "done the right thing and suppressed fire"...

Paying, and paying big on both ends of a colossal cluster-shag via a complete and total misunderstanding of forests, forest health, and letting public opinion, rather than science, influence forest/land management.

Of course, the other thing that isn't discussed in the article, is the private property around there that IS NOT being treated. That property is mostly located in the bottoms of the watershed that feed the reservoir for the town water supply. Nobody can compel a landowner to "treat" their private land, and they largely aren't. I can totally see, even with treating the surrounding public lands, a low intensity grass/brush fire crowning when it hits the untreated surrounding private.

Could have saved a lot of money, time, and effort by just not doing anything...classic case of "having to do something", being the absolute worse thing to do.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Assuming the ABSURDLY low percent of N F lands that has already been logged, or man handled for profit is only 10%, that would amount to over 18 million acres.

If that assumption is correct, then your conclusion is that the other 90% needs to be roaded, logged, and man handled ... or that is "abandonment" of our public lands. I wholehearted agree to disagree. Our educational paths have obviously diverged with respect to logical reasoning, but I respect and adamantly will defend your right to form your own opinions, as I wish you would with respect to mine.

Isn't it great that we can consider the same information but reach different conclusions, primarily due to different philosophies about wildlands. Freedom of choice is not to be taken lightly.

 

[Sytes]

...Isn't it great that we can consider the same information but reach different conclusions, primarily due to different philosophies about wildlands. Freedom of choice is not to be taken lightly.

Agree. A common denominator of any contested issue. Politics, Criminal/Civil cases, etc.
Yet we continue to debate our opposing *philosophies. I believe the greater reason you, myself and everyone that joins these conversations is done more for those who read than to bring one *philosophical / evidence supported position poster's side over to the other. Star Wars... Haha! The force is strong...

Respect everyone's opinions shared. We back up our positions - same as politics. We may gain small interesting values though typically those speaking already hold firm beliefs.

 

[BigHornRam]

If that assumption is correct, then your conclusion is that the other 90% needs to be roaded, logged, and man handled ... or that is "abandonment" of our public lands. I wholehearted agree to disagree. Our educational paths have obviously diverged with respect to logical reasoning, but I respect and adamantly will defend your right to form your own opinions, as I wish you would with respect to mine.

Isn't it great that we can consider the same information but reach different conclusions, primarily due to different philosophies about wildlands. Freedom of choice is not to be taken lightly.

Not at all what I am saying. I am saying manage the acerage that has already been logged and roaded. The wilderness acres and national park's that have not been manipulated by man to date, leave alone. I've been very clear on this all along.

 

[BigHornRam]

Its funny Sytes referenced that Bill Williams project, I just spent 10 or so days (last December) camped right near where the photo in the article was taken.

The one thing that everybody forgets, in particular BHR and Sytes, in their rush to point out the "great" forest practices when they reference articles like this: We $#^#ed ourselves as an opening move 100 years ago.

For 100 years, we've suppressed fire for, largely, social reasons rather than anything to do with science or proper management. That has come at a gigantic cost to the taxpayer, both in direct funding to support a massive fire suppression industry, and now to reverse the impacts of what fire suppression causes.

This area near Bill Williams mountain is a classic example...you look at historic photos of the forests in that part of the world, and they don't look a thing like they do now. In Ponderosa dominated forest types, like those found in the Flagstaff/Williams area, tree densities historically were probably less than 40 trees per acre. I bet fire frequencies were once every 8-10 years for low intensity understory burning...if not more often than that.

Now, enter fire suppression...fire frequencies are totally out of whack, and again, from actually being on the ground there, fire suppression has caused unnatural tree densities. Tree densities (exceeding 500-1000+ stems an acre) that perpetuate crown fires with intensities never seen on the land-scape in that area.

Now we defend "fixing" this by trying to replicate, at a huge cost to the taxpayers, what we could have done for nothing if we hadn't "done the right thing and suppressed fire"...

Paying, and paying big on both ends of a colossal cluster-shag via a complete and total misunderstanding of forests, forest health, and letting public opinion, rather than science, influence forest/land management.

Of course, the other thing that isn't discussed in the article, is the private property around there that IS NOT being treated. That property is mostly located in the bottoms of the watershed that feed the reservoir for the town water supply. Nobody can compel a landowner to "treat" their private land, and they largely aren't. I can totally see, even with treating the surrounding public lands, a low intensity grass/brush fire crowing when it hits the untreated surrounding private.

Could have saved a lot of money, time, and effort by just not doing anything...classic case of "having to do something", being the absolute worse thing to do.

I mentioned 100 plus years of fire suppression in the post right before you posted this Buzz. Can't speak for what is being done in Arizona, but here in Western Montana, overall the private lands adjacent to national forest are much better treated for fuel reduction and overall forest health. The still plenty of work to be done on both lands however.

 

[Nameless Range]

For 100 years, we've suppressed fire for, largely, social reasons rather than anything to do with science or proper management. That has come at a gigantic cost to the taxpayer, both in direct funding to support a massive fire suppression industry, and now to reverse the impacts of what fire suppression causes.


Could have saved a lot of money, time, and effort by just not doing anything...classic case of "having to do something", being the absolute worse thing to do.

Elers Koch, in the Journal of Forestry in 1935 wrote a great essay titled The Passing of the Lolo Trail. I'm sure you've read it, but your post reminds me of one of the paragraphs within it.

The Forest Service sounded the note of progress. It opened up the wilderness with roads and telephone lines, and airplane landing fields. It capped the mountain peaks with white-painted lookout houses, laced the ridges and streams with a network of trails and telephone lines, and poured in thousands of firefighters year after year in a vain attempt to control forest fires.Has all this effort and expenditure of millions of dollars added anything to human good? Is it possible that it was all a ghastly mistake like plowing up the good buffalo grass sod of the dry prairies?

 

[BigHornRam]

And Buzz, I've only link this video about a half dozen times on this site. Appearently neither you or Straight Arrow have watched it yet. It gives historical context about how we got here, where we are at, and what can do to correct our mistakes from the past. Worth watching IMO. Let me know what you think.

https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_hess...ten_worse_and_what_we_can_do_about_it/up-next

 

[Straight Arrow]

The statement to which I expressed opposition was "that and ALL our Nat'l forests need a good thinning".

The wilderness acres and national park's that have not been manipulated by man to date, leave alone.

If that is the other "90%" or so, then you and I are in agreement.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Thanks for the link BHR; that is great historical context and recommendations for fire risk mitigation and response to wildfires. Prescribed burns and risk mitigation treatments around urban areas, as he described, are proactive viable measures. Hessburg also advocated for allowing fires to restore the power of nature's patchwork patterns.

Not once did he advocate for roading, logging, thinning of millions of acres of National Forest. 'Not sure what you concluded, but I think his perspective is one which should be pursued.

 

[BigHornRam]

Thanks for the link BHR; that is great historical context and recommendations for fire risk mitigation and response to wildfires. Prescribed burns and risk mitigation treatments around urban areas, as he described, are proactive viable measures. Hessburg also advocated for allowing fires to restore the power of nature's patchwork patterns.

Not once did he advocate for roading, logging, thinning of millions of acres of National Forest. 'Not sure what you concluded, but I think his perspective is one which should be pursued.

Watch it again Straight Arrow. He didn't advocate road building but he did advocate thinning and capturing the commercial value to help offset costs "where appropriate to do so". I am in favor of Hessburg's recommendations, and am actively advocating for them. I've been told numerous times that this kind of thinking is "absurd" on this forum.

 

[Straight Arrow]

... thinning and capturing the commercial value to help offset costs "where appropriate to do so"

Powerful phrasing, with latitude to interpret "appropriate" to fit your perspective, but not necessarily of others.
"Where appropriate" apparently to some is all National Forest; to others, it means limited to specific areas and sizes, after proper analysis and vetting.

Again, I also favor Hessburg's recommendations ... but assert that he did not advocate for thinning and capturing commercial value from millions of National Forest acres, and certainly not "ALL".

 

[BigHornRam]

Powerful phrasing, with latitude to interpret "appropriate" to fit your perspective, but not necessarily of others.
"Where appropriate" apparently to some is all National Forest; to others, it means limited to specific areas and sizes, after proper analysis and vetting.

Again, I also favor Hessburg's recommendations ... but assert that he did not advocate for thinning and capturing commercial value from millions of National Forest acres, and certainly not "ALL".

The forest scene that he referred to as the current "epidemic of trees" is second growth and was roaded. The are 10s of millions of acres of national forest lands just like it. That is were thinning and capturing the commercial value IS APPROPRIATE.

 

[BigHornRam]

Here is an in depth interview of Paul Hessburg. May help you understand better exactly where he is coming from.

https://www.evergreenmagazine.com/p...ons-forests-east-cascades-fighting-wtih-fire/

 

[Sytes]

The statement to which I expressed opposition was "that and ALL our Nat'l forests need a good thinning".

If that is the other "90%" or so, then you and I are in agreement.

My comment revolved around proper thinning as shared with the understanding based by the "Science of Thinning" shared via USDA and the collection of science beginning to develop a supportive direction for just that.
American families employment.
One of the greatest renewable resources.
Increased value to flora and fauna.

If "Proper" thinning, as I stated, are an advantage as scientific research further finds... Yes, that is my "philosophical opinion" as you share.

So far science is showing this as a win/win for all.
Oops... Dang it, I used that word all within context. May confuse some... "All", excluding anti's that sleep in wood framed houses, use wood based products, etc. So much for the word, All...

 

[Sytes]

Quality measures taken as described within studies that compare $'s to damage are one of the few that actually reduce fire suppression costs and the residual adverse effects of the extreme fires we are experiencing.

https://nau.edu/eri/resources/for-policymakers/effects-of-thinning/

These observational studies are consistent with the outcomes of modeling exercises conducted following restoration treatments in two areas in northern Arizona (Fulé et al. 2001a and 2001b). In those studies, thinning of smaller trees followed by prescribed fire resulted in fire behavior characterized by less canopy consumption, shorter flame lengths, and a slower rate of spread than in untreated areas; in addition, it was shown that a much stronger wind would be needed to sustain a crown fire in treated areas than in untreated areas.

https://asunow.asu.edu/content/asu-study-reveals-economic-benefits-forest-thinning

Arizona State University’s Sustainability Solutions Services (S3) and The Nature Conservancy have published a report indicating forest thinning could return Arizona’s forests to a healthy condition, making them more resistant to environmental extremes, and at the same time, strengthening rural economies.

Opinions backed by studies...

 

[BigHornRam]

"One of the greatest renewable resources."

Total agreement here Sytes!