What Makes A Fire More Beneficial Than Destructive?

[RunNGunSC]

Prescribed fire comes up a ton where I live. Most think a low intensity fire really helps natural browse but it can eliminate cover. Wildfires out west seem very intense and too large to provide the same benefit. Large land managers rotate burns, but burning 10,000 acres seems like it would totally displace animals for several years. I’m curious to get the perspective of those that see wildfires annually and see the Elk/mule deer response. What seems to make a fire beneficial verses more destructive? How long does it take for animal use to return to or exceed pre-fire use? I know I killed turkeys 3-4 weeks after a prescribed fire on public land this spring. Are small fires good and big fires destructive?

 

[Caseknife]

It is all dependent on the intensity of the wildfire. Most wildfires create a mosaic of habitat in an otherwise stagnant forest. I love to hunt burns anywhere from 2 to 10 years after because the animals have so much more feed, but they still have the cover for escape and thermal protection. As long as the fire is not hot enough to completely burn all the organic matter, everything turns to ash, the landscape will recover quite quickly. Granted lots of undesirable weeds can take over and if it was primarily lodgepole pine, then in 15 years it will be a totally impenetrable thicket.

 

[Gr8bawana]

I can only speak to my own experience. In some places in NV the pinion and Juniper forests are so dense that almost nothing grows underneath. Yes I know they are used for cover but after fires there is much more browse to be had. But it takes a very long time for recovery. There are now small pinions growing that are about 2 feet tall so it took almost 40 years for them to start regrowing.
We are still hunting the same area after all these years.
There are a few places we hunt where a fire burned in the late 70's and when we started hunting there in the early 80's the browse was very abundant and the deer absolutely used the area.
In AZ the Wallow fire burned a lot of Ponderosa forest in 2011 and also made for much better elk habitat. The aspen groves were about 10-12 feet tall in 2016 and the grazing was also excellent.
The hills in the background of the pic are covered where they didn't burn are covered very heavily in Pinion and Juniper.

 

[Moserkr]

Living and hunting through some of CA's huge destructive fires really got me thinking. The stories of how the forest looked before the white man settled here intrigued me. My opinions of the Western cedar/pine forests...

Fire is good for the forest, IF the forest is healthy. A healthy forest has old growth trees, spaced out with few limbs down low, and a lush understory. The understory is replenished by wildfires burning the low brush and youngest trees, but leaving the tall old growth trees alive. Its the best of all worlds for plants, animals, and trees. Efficient to log? Wish they could figure that out in a sustainable way.

Current forests that were logged and then not managed are chock full of younger trees/debris. Few plants survive in the understory, the animals cant eat the trees which dominate the landscape. When a fire starts, the massive amounts of young trees and overgrown brush creates devastating fires. They can make the habitat a moonscape - like the Caldor fire near me did years back now. In some places it has regrown with thick brush that is a buffet for animals. A lot of it is just dust.

I just hunted a section of the burn which didnt go completely scorched earth. Saw very little sign, 1 deer, and it was in the best looking habitat Ive seen anywhere Ive hunted in the lower 48. Deer numbers are so low here they cant even fill the void when food is unlimited. Im hoping the fires give the herds a big bump over the next 5-10 years, which I am starting to see.

The benefits to fire seem to be immediate though as the deer like the ash to keep bugs away. The food it creates is the good even in year one, but better for years to come.

A story of the old growth in MT when I lived there... an old mining area was logged/mined, and prior to that people would drive their model T's between all the huge towering cedars, over grass that was growing as if it were in a beautiful park. When I was there you couldnt walk through the tangled mess of undergrowth. We need old growth forests and natural fires that cleanse the understory.

 

[Bc1992]

@Caseknife pretty much hit the nail on the head with western fire.
In the south eastern United States prescribed fire plays a vital role in maintaining herbaceous plant communities. Timing, intensity, and sunlight on the ground are deciding factors in the plants that come back.
If fire is in a heavily timbered area with a high basil area without much sunlight hitting the ground it can be detrimental as far as removing cover for game because it takes longer for plants to grow back.
In an area with lots of sunlight plant communities flourish shortly after a fire. IMO fall burns create the best plant community’s for wildlife.

Turkeys are irresistibly attracted to recently burned areas. The bare ground, umbrella cover, and bugs that come when everything greens back up is excellent brood cover for turkeys and bobwhite quail.

Small low intensity burns in checker boarded patterns are excellent for wildlife in providing both food and escape cover and 2 years post fire provide excellent nesting cover if the ground is getting proper sunlight.

 

[brymoore]

My experience is wildfires don’t displace animals in the west. One of my honey holes burnt several years ago. I went into during elk season the same year as the fire. Elk were still there. The fire burnt patchy. Some areas were moon dust, some had light fire damage and other areas were not burnt.

This weekend I drove past an area which had burnt earlier this summer. Green grass was growing in the burnt areas after a rain. The animals will have grass to eat.

 

[Schaaf]

I killed an elk in 2017 that was hanging out in the biggest burn in the state that summer. It only displaces animals a few weeks in my opinion.

Fire is the best thing to happen as long as it doesn’t go scorched earth and sterilize everything across the landscape.

 

[sapperJ24]

There's been some solid responses so far. My first thought is beneficial for what? Big game forage? Big game habitat? Ecosystems and landscapes? Future timber harvest? And across what time scale?

Generally, it seems that increased heterogeneity across a landscape is beneficial. This would include areas of low intensity where refuge and thermal cover is maintained, but also areas of higher intensity to open up the canopy and induce the post-disturbance response which may increase forage or browse opportunities. Locally, we recently burned a small area with moderate to high intensity to improve winter range for big game so we will see how that receptive that area is this winter. There were elk tracks in the black within a week of ignition.

As this is a hunting forum and your question is most likely applies to game, I think we can skip the larger forest and landscape considerations.