Yeti GOBOX Collection

What Makes A Fire More Beneficial Than Destructive?

Here are a couple of photos taken this summer in the high severity (red areas on the imagery) of this map. 12 years post fire. Lots of aspen regeneration, lots of forage, and lots of elk. An absolute PITA to walk through. Even the high severity burns recover, sometimes it's just not on the time scale we want.

I really appreciate you sharing these pictures. Sure looks like a healthy aspen stand coming back in. I couldn't agree more with your comment on time scale. It seems we often tend to define things within our typical human lifespan and forget the timescale at which natural processes take place.
 
Well its good if you dont have total dipshits like what it happening in Oregon right now. Burned all my points to hunt a unit ( 20 years worth). USFS started a control burn to "help with future fires". Suppose to burn 300 acres. They lit it an lost control that evening and now have a forest fire. Part of the trophy unit next to it is now shut down. They claim they picked a date with perfect burning conditions only to have the conditions not be perfect that night.

Control burns should be in spring not fall when we have tinderbox and winds are very unpredictable.
 
I was asking myself this same question earlier today! Glad to see it here.
 
Fires are good for the forest and the wildlife. They are only bad for humans.

"Redwood trees & many other species need fire to survive and propagate. They need fire to release seeds from their cones, to expose bare mineral soil in which seedlings can take root, to recycle nutrients into the soil, and to open holes in the forest canopy through which sunlight can reach young seedlings."

I've hunted elk in burns a month old where the elk were feasting on the new green shoots.

If you think large fires are bad, look up the impact of the wallow fire in AZ. Sucked up a lot of the elk out of neighboring NM units and pulled them into the burn. ;) The elk population exploded in 1 and 27 after.
 
Back
Top