Western States Fires Altering Plans?

[windymtnman]

The great number of Forest Fires burning all over the Western States is getting a bit more press coverage lately. Here in So. Colorado, we've been fortunate to have abundant rains this Summer, and no fires.
I haven't seen anything in these forums about altered hunting plans though. Anybody have their hunt plan altered by the fires?
On a side note, I believe another reason we should vigorously oppose any plans to transfer ownership of our public lands to the States or private ownership, is the combatting of these massive fires. Who besides the Feds have the resources to fight them? Even their resources fall short of containment.
Last time I was in a burn area from a Forest Fire, I could smell it a full year later. It had such a strong pungent smell, my wife insisted we leave, as it was making her sick.

 

[5Speedjim]

No changes in any of my hunt plans so far

 

[rammac]

The wildfire problem is exactly why we should vigorously OPPOSE the federal government controlling these lands.

The reason the fires are so bad is precisely because the federal government mismanages the forest and its resources, more to the point, they allow huge amounts of easily ignited fuel to lay around (in the form of dead trees) and their current policy is to allow the wildfires to continue unrestrained to help eliminate that problem. So they mismange the resources (dead trees) by not allowing them to be removed in a reasonable harvesting process and then they allow the forests to burn because they've accumulated too much of those same resources.

I know that most of you guys will insult me and tell me how stupid I am but before you embarress yourselves, look up the current National Wildland Fire Management Strategy you'll find that wildfires are considered tools of opportunity that allow the forest managers to clear out dead wood without expending resources, other than what is required to prevent the fire from burning private property.

Managing wildfire for resource objectives. This refers to a specific choice to use unplanned ignitions to achieve resource management objectives. Like prescribed fire, allowing wildfires to burn for the purposes of ecosystem restoration or hazard reduction has inherent risks.

What's even worse is that they admit that there will be an increased risk of private property being destoryed. And lets not forget that smoke causes lung diseases and can induce or worsen asthma, COPD, and other lung problems. So those of us who live around the forests can look forward to our summer and fall being ruined with incesant smoke issues, maybe having our houses burned down, and possibly lung disease - yup, the federal government is doing a bang up job of handling the problem that they have created.

If the states controlled the land then the dead trees and other combustibles would have been harvested and there wouldn't be as great a need for resources to fight the fires, the problem wouldn't exist to begin with.

 

[windymtnman]

Rammac:
You do bring up some valid points about USFS forest management. Far be if from me to defend everything the USFS does. I have a laundry list of issues with them. However, as long as the Federal Govt. has title to our public lands, I think Americans will have access to them. Here in Colorado, a lot of the State owned land isn't even open for hunting to the general public. Where the Feds have transferred public lands to the States, very often the State sells it off to a billionaire to get a one time check to put into use. That land is gone forever behind a No Trespassing sign. It's happening in States like Utah and Idaho as we speak.
Then, as my comment focused on forest fires, what State or billionaire is going to have a fleet of big air tankers, ground crews, and all the other resources the Feds have for fire fighting? With the percentage of Colorado forests dead from beetle kill, it's not a question of if they will burn, but more like when? Yes, the USFS and BLM are huge targets, however I say keep these lands Federally owned!

 

[TheTone]

The wildfire problem is exactly why we should vigorously OPPOSE the federal government controlling these lands.

The reason the fires are so bad is precisely because the federal government mismanages the forest and its resources, more to the point, they allow huge amounts of easily ignited fuel to lay around (in the form of dead trees) and their current policy is to allow the wildfires to continue unrestrained to help eliminate that problem. So they mismange the resources (dead trees) by not allowing them to be removed in a reasonable harvesting process and then they allow the forests to burn because they've accumulated too much of those same resources.


If the states controlled the land then the dead trees and other combustibles would have been harvested and there wouldn't be as great a need for resources to fight the fires, the problem wouldn't exist to begin with.

You posted some serious BS in my opinion. Care to explain why the two most recent fires near me started on private, heavily managed and logged timber company lands? A fresh clear cut with tons and tons of slash laying all over the place sure isn't much fun to walk or hunt through and based upon what I'm seeing sure seems to burn with pretty high intensity.

I'll take federal management for my hunting lands.

 

[tjones]

The wildfire problem is exactly why we should vigorously OPPOSE the federal government controlling these lands.

The reason the fires are so bad is precisely because the federal government mismanages the forest and its resources, more to the point, they allow huge amounts of easily ignited fuel to lay around (in the form of dead trees) and their current policy is to allow the wildfires to continue unrestrained to help eliminate that problem. So they mismange the resources (dead trees) by not allowing them to be removed in a reasonable harvesting process and then they allow the forests to burn because they've accumulated too much of those same resources.

I know that most of you guys will insult me and tell me how stupid I am but before you embarress yourselves, look up the current National Wildland Fire Management Strategy you'll find that wildfires are considered tools of opportunity that allow the forest managers to clear out dead wood without expending resources, other than what is required to prevent the fire from burning private property.

What's even worse is that they admit that there will be an increased risk of private property being destoryed. And lets not forget that smoke causes lung diseases and can induce or worsen asthma, COPD, and other lung problems. So those of us who live around the forests can look forward to our summer and fall being ruined with incesant smoke issues, maybe having our houses burned down, and possibly lung disease - yup, the federal government is doing a bang up job of handling the problem that they have created.

If the states controlled the land then the dead trees and other combustibles would have been harvested and there wouldn't be as great a need for resources to fight the fires, the problem wouldn't exist to begin with.

Who are you going to get to harvest dead trees and downfall?

Who is going to pay for the removal and what value do you put on dead trees and downfall?

 

[Dougfirtree]

So far, the area I'm hunting this year seems to be fire-free. I have been checking nervously, though...

 

[Straight Arrow]

Rammac, if you truly do live SW of Helena, Montana, I encourage you to take a few day trips around western Montana. You will quickly realize that it really doesn't matter if the federal government, the State of Montana, Weyerhaeuser, or the United Nations is responsible for management of the Montana forests, the sheer magnitude of the number of forested acres, the gradients of forested slopes, the costs to access (new roadworks) or helicopter logging, the characteristics of the timber / lumber market, the number of harvest days available annually, and a myriad of other factors all add up to the conclusion that harvesting, thinning, or otherwise removing enough forested areas to have any significant impact on the risk of wildfire is absurd.
There is a growing school of thought that timber extraction has little effect on reducing risk of wildfires, in fact may exacerbate the risk condition due to ladder fuels build-up and other conditions following logging. The extensive logging, yet huge wildfires in British Columbia attests to this theory.

I do agree with you regarding the inadequate forestry management and the shortcomings in completing much needed work on our federal public lands; however, I attribute it to the responsible federal agencies being underfunded, over-politicized, as well as over-litigated, and thus unable to fulfill their missions. The State lands are managed for one goal, to maximize revenue, so the situation is vastly different. Also comparing the management of a relatively small amount of state forest to management for "multiple use" of the vast federal forests is not even helpful in analyzing the issues.

 

[matthausarchery]

Read this post this afternoon and didn't have any input really other than it made me wonder if I could get an up to date map. I got a great map resource from multiple very helpful people. The unit I plan to hunt seems to be ok fingers crossed. However I am hunting on a guided pack string in the Bob the week prior to my self guided hunt with my father, and two very close friends. I took a look at the map and notice a flame on the map close to where I thought we all were going. I didnt give it a second thought because I wasn't 100% sure of where.

I went about my days chores and finalized my packing list and bags. Sure enough I got a call from the outfitter...
The forest service evacuated his camp and he had to go in and remove his supplies today and actually was headed back to get more right after the call. Apparently the fire in unit 280 doubled in size today. Needless to say we wont get to go on the hunt we have all waited 2 years and a boat load of money to do... This just in, so were not sure what our options are. Anyone ever had a similar experience? We may be able to get put into a different unit but not really sure and wont be until wednesday. Flights are supposed to leave Friday.
At least I have 2 weeks planned self guided too while Im out there, the other guys aren't so lucky though.

 

[Sytes]

Have fires effected my hunting plans:
Yes, the fires have directly changed my archery and rifle plans... Sheesh, fire blows me out of Big Hole back with the Rat Creek, etc fires... whenever that was. Then finally getting a couple honey holes dialed in and... we will see how things progress though I would imagine resident herds are getting wound up with those migrating elsewhere... Only time will tell. Still have one area untouched.

The forest as I view it:
I'm opposed to Fed transfer to state. Prime example, of course from my most epic of humble opinions... Fire along a state border - such as the wonderfully well budgeted California. Negligence in their management of wildfires that lead to the fire destroying private lands and houses, death in Oregon... etc.
'nuff said.
On issue with the forest - environmentalists, etc hamstring our judicial system with bull crap. They don't give a rats arse that they live in a 2x4/6 stick built house or use t. paper not made of sea sponge... They have a lack of intelligence prodding themselves on the idea of utilizing renewable resources yet, ignorance or arrogance, avoid the almighty renewable forests! These people are a key value of the Canadian Government. They depend on these tree huggers as they route their NON STOP log and dimensional lumber trucks and train loads to us, the U.S. consumer... driving their Canadian forest wood right through our own forests and jake-brake right by our American unemployed families... The Fed is hamstringed! Pansies not wanting to "upset" the whining viro's... Americans need to start booming their voice over these scumbags.

But... keep these forests so thick in the NW MT area that an elk shooting lane is found next to limited. But I digress... it is what it is.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Matt, unfortunately this archery season in Montana will be tough due to the current wildfires and the weather which doesn't show any sign of significant moisture soon. I feel for you coming here this Friday to hunt in the worst possible smoke and wildfire conditions. 'Hope the outfitter will extend a "rain check" to you for a future hunt during better conditions.

My wife and I spent a week in the Bob a couple of weeks ago and it was nice, but now the state is covered with smoke, haze, and extreme wildfire risks. Realizing it might not fit your schedule, but would encourage you to wait until significant moisture puts a real damper on these fires. I do feel for you and your father and friends. 'Wish it were different.

 

[mtmuley]

The wildfire problem is exactly why we should vigorously OPPOSE the federal government controlling these lands.

The reason the fires are so bad is precisely because the federal government mismanages the forest and its resources, more to the point, they allow huge amounts of easily ignited fuel to lay around (in the form of dead trees) and their current policy is to allow the wildfires to continue unrestrained to help eliminate that problem. So they mismange the resources (dead trees) by not allowing them to be removed in a reasonable harvesting process and then they allow the forests to burn because they've accumulated too much of those same resources.

I know that most of you guys will insult me and tell me how stupid I am but before you embarress yourselves, look up the current National Wildland Fire Management Strategy you'll find that wildfires are considered tools of opportunity that allow the forest managers to clear out dead wood without expending resources, other than what is required to prevent the fire from burning private property.

What's even worse is that they admit that there will be an increased risk of private property being destoryed. And lets not forget that smoke causes lung diseases and can induce or worsen asthma, COPD, and other lung problems. So those of us who live around the forests can look forward to our summer and fall being ruined with incesant smoke issues, maybe having our houses burned down, and possibly lung disease - yup, the federal government is doing a bang up job of handling the problem that they have created.

If the states controlled the land then the dead trees and other combustibles would have been harvested and there wouldn't be as great a need for resources to fight the fires, the problem wouldn't exist to begin with.

And the gate would be locked. mtmuley

 

[tjones]

BThese people are a key value of the Canadian Government. They depend on these tree huggers as they route their NON STOP log and dimensional lumber trucks and train loads to us, the U.S. consumer

This isn't even close to accurate. I don't have the time to type out a reply but please google the US/Canada softwood trade agreement, the countervailing duty and lumber quotas that Canada is tied to.
It's a hell of a lot more complicated and no where near "non-stop"

 

[Elkdog]

Rammac:
You do bring up some valid points about USFS forest management. Far be if from me to defend everything the USFS does. I have a laundry list of issues with them. However, as long as the Federal Govt. has title to our public lands, I think Americans will have access to them. Here in Colorado, a lot of the State owned land isn't even open for hunting to the general public. Where the Feds have transferred public lands to the States, very often the State sells it off to a billionaire to get a one time check to put into use. That land is gone forever behind a No Trespassing sign. It's happening in States like Utah and Idaho as we speak.
Then, as my comment focused on forest fires, what State or billionaire is going to have a fleet of big air tankers, ground crews, and all the other resources the Feds have for fire fighting? With the percentage of Colorado forests dead from beetle kill, it's not a question of if they will burn, but more like when? Yes, the USFS and BLM are huge targets, however I say keep these lands Federally owned![/

This. I absolutely agree lands have been mismanaged. But let them out of federal ownership and eventually the public will not have access. Fire is a natural component of a healthy firest. For decades all fires were suppressed which caused a build up of fuels. The challenge now is to burn down the fuels without loss of life or property.

 

[Sytes]

This isn't even close to accurate. I don't have the time to type out a reply but please google the US/Canada softwood trade agreement, the countervailing duty and lumber quotas that Canada is tied to.
It's a hell of a lot more complicated and no where near "non-stop"

Trumps been in Office all but 8 months. The softwood trade adjustment began but a few months ago...
Also, just to add... The lumber routing into the U.S. has far from slowed down. They simply pay up... now.
There has not been a contract since 2015 and the ongoing issue has been the Canadian subsidies for timber from public land vs U.S. PRIVATE land because it costs too much $$$ to gain timber from OUR land due to all the regulations and injunctions by environmentalists, etc. The U.S. paid premium dollar does not compete fairly with Canada. It has been a multi decade issue...

 

[Western Traveler1]

Here is a website that has information on Western States fires https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/afm/#
The Alice Creek Fire is the big one near us. So intense and smoke so thick that Forest Service is using infrared to determine its boundaries and growth. Difficult to fight on the line because of all the standing dead. Average 100 per acre. They reported that when standing dead ignite fire can jump a half mile ahead so it is fast moving at this point. Winds last night didn't help.
Air quality reports in these parts are coming with severe warnings...

 

[BigHornRam]

Who are you going to get to harvest dead trees and downfall?

Who is going to pay for the removal and what value do you put on dead trees and downfall?

I doubt you will spend time reading this old thread Tony, but others will so here goes.

https://onyourownadventures.com/hun...f-Forestry-Work-Done-Right&highlight=Forestry

 

[tjones]

Trumps been in Office all but 8 months. The softwood trade adjustment began but a few months ago...
Also, just to add... The lumber routing into the U.S. has far from slowed down. They simply pay up... now.
There has not been a contract since 2015 and the ongoing issue has been the Canadian subsidies for timber from public land vs U.S. PRIVATE land because it costs too much $$$ to gain timber from OUR land due to all the regulations and injunctions by environmentalists, etc. The U.S. paid premium dollar does not compete fairly with Canada. It has been a multi decade issue...

No. I buy and sell lumber from US and Caniadian mills every day for almost 30 years. 2006 I believe was when Softwood trade agreement was signed. There was been quotas, anti dumping charges and duties all imposed on the Canada mills over the years. Trumps deal, while he would like everyone to think it was his was nothing more then a continuation of things already in place.

 

[Sytes]

No. I buy and sell lumber from US and Caniadian mills every day for almost 30 years. 2006 I believe was when Softwood trade agreement was signed. There was been quotas, anti dumping charges and duties all imposed on the Canada mills over the years. Trumps deal, while he would like everyone to think it was his was nothing more then a continuation of things already in place.

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill....hting-canada-on-softwood-lumber-and-dairy?amp

We both work within direct fields related to the softwood. I work the border where we have dealt with softwood issues directly. Their brokers had a slight hiccup when Trumps softwood tariff went into play jumping from type 1 to type 3 HTSUS catagory. The Canadian trucks never slowed down... they just pay a closer value to ours.

You buy at the value they, Canada, place. You buy at the value U.S. co.'s place - as negotiated. We have daily countless Canadian softwood trucks run through our locations and drive right through our unemployed towns where logging our lands was their family livelihood.
Now, well as an example, Lincoln County, MT has the highest unemployment of all MT. Mills closed. Logging companies supporting these families could not compete working our land vs private land (Weyerhaeuser, etc) and Canadian values.

The difference is what Canada pays and what U.S. pay to harvest... Canadian Govt actually subsidizes their public land for private companies to thrive making their cost per board drastically different from U.S. companies who have lost financial interest harvesting our public land's *renewable* resource due, as mentioned, to the regulations and court environmentalists legal "dream team" hit squad injunctions, etc.
Thus U.S. companies pay to work harvesting premium $ private land as it is still cheaper than wading through our public land legal challenges.
Edit due to fancy phone posting w/in tiny screen and to add the link for a bit of info.

 

[BigHornRam]

The US government did attempt to subsidize the FS health and fuel load concerns through Obama's stimulus bill, as many millions of dollars were set aside for this work. Very little work was accomplished because..........
https://youtu.be/4p4-vPrcDBo

Missed a golden opportunity to get some critical work done while pissing away money that's in short supply.

Bet the Lolo FS would like a do over on the Lolo Peak fire. Going to be the most expensive in Montana history. I am still in favor of Forest Service management of these lands, but I am also in favor of big changes in how the FS opperates. Changes are coming. Bet on it.