PDA

View Full Version : National Forest - Bush road building misinformation?


wacki
08-23-2004, 05:05 PM
I saw a massive post on this topic so I am reposting my response in an effort to prevent this information from being drowned out by the sheer volume of angry rants/posts.


CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/20/roadlesslogging.ap/index.html)

This is why I can't stand CNN, they constantly only report one side of the story.

heres a clue:
--------------------------------------
"Those forests are worrisome to farmers such as Woodall, who has enjoyed the rising price of sawtimber pinewood over the last 15 years. Prices now reach almost $40 a ton.
The restrictions doubled our prices, so if you went back it could cut our prices in half," he said. "A 50 percent cut in our paycheck could not be good"
--------------------------------------
They admit the man they are interviewing has a conflict of interest yet they play it off as something deeper more meaningfull when it's not. He claims to care about the forest, but if you look at the current state of our national forests (which isn't reported in this article) you might think otherwise. It doesn't take much brain power to realize that there might be more to the story than what is being reported.



I'm suprised no one has brought up the point that there is 23 million acres of federal land that is currently being described as a "vast, dry tinderbox" that is in major risk of a catastrophic fire. The government has two options. Either spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to cut down trees in 23 million acres of land and let them decompose naturally, or let the loggers in to cut them down for free. The advantage of the loggers is that they build dirt roads so that firefighters as well as people who want to enjoy the great outdoors, such as campers and bicycle riders, so that more people will be able to enjoy the great outdoors. Also, the risk of a catastrophic fire will be all but eliminated (from less trees and dirt road firebreaks), which means the forest will be safer for the trees and animals that live there.

The disadvantage, the forest isn't as prestine and untouched as extreme environmentalists want it to be.

interesting info:
================================================== =======
Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California joined 12 Republican senators in identified 23 million acres of federal land constituting what they described as a "vast, dry tinderbox" that could ignite at the careless drop of a match. California has 7 million of the 23 million acres scattered among the 50 states under federal control.

Feinstein stated "We have to move quickly otherwise we risk losing the majesty of the West."

Wilderness Designations do not allow the type of fire suppression proposed by the senators, which exposes the forests to the same type of catastrophic fires that have devastated not only the Forests in the Western U.S., but also the various species that call the forest home.

Many within the Forest Service and those involved in firefighting, in local cities, counties and the state, have voiced their objections to Boxer's wilderness bill because of the negative effect it would have on fire suppression and firefighting.

Tom Bohigian, Boxer's deputy state director keeps insisting that wilderness designations won't affect fire fighting.

But Jim Wright, deputy director of fire protection for the California Department of Forestry, said it's not that simple. He has seen wilderness fires grow because federal officials would not use a bulldozer to carve out a firebreak.

And while most federal agencies like the Forest Service are willing to negotiate on firefighting tactics - especially when fires threaten state-owned land - Wright has often agreed to tactics less aggressive than he would normally use.

"Once (a fire) is in a wilderness area, it's going to get bigger because of the prohibitions you have," Wright said. "You cannot . . . get right next to the fire line and work it directly with fire engines."

Bohigian's assurances have not persuaded the Regional Council of Rural Counties to drop its opposition to Boxer's plan. The council's 29 members represent half of the state's 58 counties. "I had a fire in my district, and when it went into (federal) wilderness areas, we had to just watch it go up the sides of the mountain," said council Chairwoman Linda Arcularius, who is also chairwoman of the Inyo County Board of Supervisors. "The engines couldn't go in, and a lot of their field crews couldn't go in."

Link 2 lots of Info:
http://www.warriorssociety.org/News/WildernessAlert15.html

My opinion: I am a huge outdoorsman. I cave, mountain climb, camp, scuba dive, fish etc. I am all for having some untouched, mechanized free backcountry, Quetico Park and Boundary Waters is a perfect example. But if there is a risk of a raging wildfire, by all means let the loggers in. Plus I have been camping when a wildfire broke out, let me tell you, nothing looks better than a dirt road or a lake when you can see a forest fire on the horizon. In July 1994, a fire raced through a forest in Colorado at 52 miles per hour! Since American antelope is the world's fastest land animal over distance, and it can run at 35 miles per hour (17 mph less than the colorado fire), and only for four miles, I would think the antelope would be happy too.

Petition Link
http://www.petitiononline.com/NOonBOXR/petition.html

cardcounter0
08-23-2004, 05:18 PM
Yes. Yes. A vast, dry tinderbox. We got ya.

Fire. Raging infernos. We must let private interests immediately start chopping down trees on public lands. Terrorist right now could be plotting to set huge forest fires. Stop the terrorists. Cut down the forests before they burn. Fire! Fire! Run and hide. Only Private Lumber Concerns can save you now.

A vote for keeping private interests from using public lands is a vote for commie liberal-leaning terrorists!

cardcounter0
08-23-2004, 05:22 PM
"Either spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to cut down trees in 23 million acres of land ..."

So it is going to cost over $4 million per acre? Not even Halliburton could do it that expensively.

wacki
08-23-2004, 05:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. Yes. A vast, dry tinderbox. We got ya.

Fire. Raging infernos. We must let private interests immediately start chopping down trees on public lands. Terrorist right now could be plotting to set huge forest fires. Stop the terrorists. Cut down the forests before they burn. Fire! Fire! Run and hide. Only Private Lumber Concerns can save you now.

A vote for keeping private interests from using public lands is a vote for commie liberal-leaning terrorists!

[/ QUOTE ]

If this information is wrong, provide some links saying the fire hazard is overstated. If there is no fire hazard, then I say don't let the loggers in. If there is, then let the loggers in. That's all I'm saying. I don't think loggers should be let into Quetico Park or Boundary Waters. Ever! That area is always soaking wet. No motors at all are allowed, and in my opinion that is a good thing for that specific area. Fire is not a problem, and people can still enjoy the back country via canoes. The west is a completely different story.

If you disagree, please provide a logical arguement with links/information instead of mocking me without providing any proof.

wacki
08-23-2004, 05:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"Either spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to cut down trees in 23 million acres of land ..."

So it is going to cost over $4 million per acre? Not even Halliburton could do it that expensively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your math is off by a few million per acre.

$10 per acre x 23 million acres = $230 million.

$4 million per acre x 23 million acres = $92,000,000,000,000
or 92 trillion. So your right not even Halliburton could do it that expensively.


If you could thin out an acre of land for $10, in the back country without aid of roads none the less, you would be the man!

cardcounter0
08-23-2004, 05:33 PM
By definition: a wilderness area is wilderness.

What is there in the wilderness out west to burn, but the wilderness? What would one be saving from burning in the wilderness? The wilderness? So let's build roads and chop down the wilderness to save it from burning?

Father to child: "Yes, on this vast plain used to be a huge forest wilderness, but we chopped it all down so it wouldn't burn and be destroyed."

Fire is nature's way of 'saving' the wilderness. I drove thru Yellowstone National Park when the whole thing was on fire. The park rangers stopped all traffic at one point, wouldn't let cars thru for several hours, and then with instructions of keep driving, don't stop. Park is still there, wilderness has recovered, better than ever.

Let it burn. The forests have been around for a lot longer than lumber compaines. I wondered how they survived before?

cardcounter0
08-23-2004, 05:37 PM
No need to clear out anything. So who do you work for in Bloomington that is so intent on chopping down the western forest? Or is it a mining interest just waiting to strip mine some public land? Drill for oil in Yosemite? Mine copper in Colorado National Forest? Or just make money grazing cattle?

wacki
08-23-2004, 05:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
By definition: a wilderness area is wilderness.

What is there in the wilderness out west to burn, but the wilderness? What would one be saving from burning in the wilderness? The wilderness? So let's build roads and chop down the wilderness to save it from burning?

Father to child: "Yes, on this vast plain used to be a huge forest wilderness, but we chopped it all down so it wouldn't burn and be destroyed."

Fire is nature's way of 'saving' the wilderness. I drove thru Yellowstone National Park when the whole thing was on fire. The park rangers stopped all traffic at one point, wouldn't let cars thru for several hours, and then with instructions of keep driving, don't stop. Park is still there, wilderness has recovered, better than ever.

Let it burn. The forests have been around for a lot longer than lumber compaines. I wondered how they survived before?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a bit more complex than that. Redwood trees and other evergreen trees actually require fires to survive. Some species have pine cones are actually fire activated. They open and release the seeds after being exposed to fire. Other trees have fire resistant bark. Not all species of plants, are like that. Some species of plants, trees, and animals actually respond very poorly to fire. I will admit that this is the first valid arguement that has been posted. I just don't agree with it in every area, and neither do the vast majority of wilderness firefighters, national rangers, fellow scientists, that are very liberal I might add, that I work with, etc.

cardcounter0
08-23-2004, 05:47 PM
One 2000lb Daisycutter per acre should do the trick.

SO what vested interest do you work for again?

wacki
08-23-2004, 05:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
No need to clear out anything. So who do you work for in Bloomington that is so intent on chopping down the western forest? Or is it a mining interest just waiting to strip mine some public land? Drill for oil in Yosemite? Mine copper in Colorado National Forest? Or just make money grazing cattle?

[/ QUOTE ]

That location is old. I am currently in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, and my location changes frequently, and will continue to do so for the next couple of years. Who I work for is irrelevant. But if you must ask, I am a computational biologist (Bioinformatician) currently doing research for an academic institution. That is all you need to know.

Look, I'm not saying let the loggers in. All I'm saying is if there is a fire hazard, and the environmental scientists that know the forests the best say the forest needs to be thinned out a little, then why not let the loggers in instead of making me, and you, pay for it via tax dollars? If the scientists, DNR, wilderness firefighers, or the park rangers say it doesn't need to be thinned, then don't let them in.

There is no consipracy, its a simple question. If there is a fire hazard, and the forest needs to be thinned, why not let the loggers in to do it for free instead of wasting taxpayer money.

cardcounter0
08-23-2004, 05:59 PM
Because the methods and trees that loggers want, and the stuff that needs to be thinned and the methods to prevent fires, are two completely different animals.

wacki
08-23-2004, 06:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Because the methods and trees that loggers want, and the stuff that needs to be thinned and the methods to prevent fires, are two completely different animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Where's your proof? Are you actually saying that it's impossible for the Department of Natural Resources and logging companies to come up with a method in which all sides, including the Forest, the Animals, the loggers, and the taxpayers (including you), can't come out ahead? Are you saying there can't be some rules or regulations put in place to regulate what trees/methods are used for logging? Not to mention that nothing like this has ever been done in the past?

If so, then I am wasting my time talking to you.

Good day, I have to get some work done.

cardcounter0
08-23-2004, 06:15 PM
Lumber companies want trees to make lumber. 2x4s. Planks. You know, wood stuff you make houses out of.

Fire hazards are created by brush, bushes, little bitty trees, tangled matted bursh.

You can make all the rules, regulations, cooperations between the Department of Natural Resources and logging companie, the Forest, the Animals, the loggers, and the taxpayers. (I have heard the racoons are particularly bad about bending in their demands).

Pass laws, write decrees, regulate, stipulate, and regurgatate.

The fact remains: Loggers want big trees to make money on lumber. Small brush and bushes is what needs to be cleared for fire protection. Loggers want to cut trees in big patches where they can be profitably and effeciently removed. Fire protections need to be done sparsely here and there.

Good Day!

wacki
08-23-2004, 06:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Lumber companies want trees to make lumber. 2x4s. Planks. You know, wood stuff you make houses out of.

Fire hazards are created by brush, bushes, little bitty trees, tangled matted bursh.

You can make all the rules, regulations, cooperations between the Department of Natural Resources and logging companie, the Forest, the Animals, the loggers, and the taxpayers. (I have heard the racoons are particularly bad about bending in their demands).

Pass laws, write decrees, regulate, stipulate, and regurgatate.

The fact remains: Loggers want big trees to make money on lumber. Small brush and bushes is what needs to be cleared for fire protection. Loggers want to cut trees in big patches where they can be profitably and effeciently removed. Fire protections need to be done sparsely here and there.

Good Day!

[/ QUOTE ]


Again do you have any clue what you are talking about?

“Flames are 90 feet tall instead of 3 feet tall," according to the University of Idaho forestry expert Dr. Leon Neuenschwander.

90 foot flames, from little itty bitty trees?

Do you think it's economically feasable to clear out little itty bitty trees? How do you think firefighters stop forest fires? With Bulldozers and chainsaws! Read my link. They could dig ditches, but when flames get 90 feet high, no ditch is going to work. They have to cut down big trees and create fire blocks to contain fire, or thin the forest out by cutting down big trees. Small shrubs ignite little trees. Little trees ignite medium.... before you know it you have 90 foot flames traveling 52 mph. This is only possible by big trees igniting other big trees that are too close to the burning big tree.

Do a little research on modern fire control methods. Use something called google.

Again you claim no deal can be made in which all sides can come to a happy conlusion. I don't know your motivation for your preconceptions and stubborness, but I have to stop this.

If you want to complain about something productive that will help the environment complain about the lack of funding for FIRE or ITER.

Boris
08-23-2004, 06:43 PM
Wilderness areas do not increase the probability of catastrophic wildfire. The major contributing factor to the increased fire activity we have seen over the past 10 years is that the TIMBER industry promoted a policy of fire supression. Remember that is wasn't too long ago that our national forests were managed to maximize timber production. The simple fact is that no matter what you do, the biomass will accumulate and it will burn. There is no doubt about that. The only question is whether or not you want to have a bunch of little camp fires or a few raging bon fires. The timber interests chose the latter and now we are all paying the price. Let me also add that that unsubsidized logging right now is economically not a viable option in places other than Pacific coastal ranges (Nor. Cal, Oregon, Washington) and the southeast. Logging the Pacific coast forests would mean chopping down the Redwoods of California and the Rainforests of Washington. It ain't gonna happen. In the South-East they have extensive tree farms and can grow a saw log producing tree in about 30 years. Tree farming makes economic sense down there and they do it. No problem.

For the interior of the US including the Rocky Mountain ranges widespread commercial logging only makes sense if you let the loggers go in and clear cut or selectively harvest the biggest trees, and then not even in all cases. I'll bet you didn't know that much of the logging that took place on Forest Service land would not have occured were it not for gov't road building subsidies.

Simply stated, increased logging activity is not a viable long term solution to fire suppression. In fact there is no long term solution to fire suppression. Trying to stop fires in the forest is like trying to keep the rain from falling. You can not do it for an extended period of time.

wacki
08-23-2004, 07:26 PM
Boris,

I am listening, and I'm glad you posted. Please forgive me as I am not a forestry expert. My understanding is that not all fires can be stopped of course, but with the aid of dirt roads the largest trees surrounding the roads can be cut. This prevents the fire from leaping across the road and spreading into another area. If a few thousand acres burn, with this method, that is the price you pay.

Without dirt road barriers, tens of thousands of acres burn can burn, or the fire gets out of control due to the lack of acces via dirt road, then massive damage can be done to wildlife and the forest. Not to mention homes. 13 major fires in Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties in California covering 800,000 acres (3237 kmē), killing 24, displacing 120,000 and destroying 3,600 homes in October 2003. Damage estimated at 2 billion USD. I have a hard time thinking this may not of happened if some sort of fire prevention took place.



Thinning forests via logging companies doesn't have to be completely profitable. It's just too expensive to hire firemen to do it by themselves. Logging profits can, at the minimum reduce the cost of thinning forests, for the massively underfunded national park service. Is this not correct?

cardcounter0
08-23-2004, 07:45 PM
Hold a match to a big tree. It won't burn. In fact, hold a hundred matches to a big tree. No fire.

Now hold a match to a bunch of brush. Fire. Pretty soon, small trees catch fire. Later big trees, and the 90 ft. flames you are so fixated upon.

To stop the 90 ft. flames, get rid of the brush. Then the source of the fires are eliminated.

Cut down the big trees without clearing brush, and what trees that remain will catch fire anyways, when the smallest source catches the brush on fire.

You can do this experiment in your backyard. Try to burn some big logs with a match. Then try to burn some small twigs. Then put the big logs that wouldn't burn on top of the small burning twigs. Record your results.

wacki
08-23-2004, 07:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Hold a match to a big tree. It won't burn. In fact, hold a hundred matches to a big tree. No fire.

Now hold a match to a bunch of brush. Fire. Pretty soon, small trees catch fire. Later big trees, and the 90 ft. flames you are so fixated upon.

To stop the 90 ft. flames, get rid of the brush. Then the source of the fires are eliminated.

Cut down the big trees without clearing brush, and what trees that remain will catch fire anyways, when the smallest source catches the brush on fire.

You can do this experiment in your backyard. Try to burn some big logs with a match. Then try to burn some small twigs. Then put the big logs that wouldn't burn on top of the small burning twigs. Record your results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, go out and clear all the brush in the 23 million acres of federal land. Get back to me when your done.

cardcounter0
08-23-2004, 07:59 PM
Clearing all the brush is what needs to be done if you want some artificial fire free National Tree Farm.

If you are talking about a National Forest and Wilderness Area, then fire is a natural (and healthy) part of maintaining the ecosystem and balance.

Of course, logging companines want the Taxpayer to create the National Tree Farm, then they want to reap the benefits (and probably be subsidized) when they log it.

I'm in favor of the Forest and Wilderness, which existed (and managed to survive) long before International Paper and Companies were around.

If I want to see "wilderness" surronded by roads, with easy access for all, I can go to Central Park in New York City.

Ed I
08-23-2004, 09:11 PM
I spent 2 wks in 1988 fighting fire in Yellowstone. The fire was only extinguished when the snows of fall came. The roads in the park provided very little help. If you do some research you'll see that roads and logging are of little help in stopping fires. Some of the hottest fires burn in logged areas because the biggest most fire resistant trees are the ones that are removed.

Roads create their own set of problems, such as increased sedimentation.

I realize that fire suppression for decades has created a set of conditions that are not normal. Also the drought the west is experiencing exacerbates these conditions. I believe what the fire ecologists have to say even though they are drowned out by the loggers and politicians. Logging/thinning is not the answere.

wacki
08-23-2004, 09:11 PM
Look last year the US spent $ 1,326,138,000 dollars fighting forest fires. That's fire suppression, not prevention.

In 2002 it was $ 1,661,314,000 and 5,260,825 acres burnt.
http://www.nifc.gov/stats/wildlandfirestats.html

1.6 billion dollars and 5.2 million acres.


Last year:
13 major fires in Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties in California covering 800,000 acres (3237 kmē), killing 24, displacing 120,000 and destroying 3,600 homes in October 2003. Damage estimated at 2 billion USD.

That means forest fires cost the US atleast 3.6 billion dollars last year.

It's a problem that can't be ignored. And the current problem isn't a natural one. The natural fire dynamics of the wilderness is offbalance in large areas of the national forests do to poor management policies in the past.

Next time you post, please include links/facts, because your not helping anyone. This is a very complex situation. In some areas you can do controlled burns. In some areas you need dirt roads to serve as fire breaks even if they are many many miles apart. All I'm saying is maybe we should listen to the experts. If the experts say no to loggers, then we should say no to loggers/roads. If the experts say they are needed, bring them in.

I suggest you read:
http://jfsp.nifc.gov/link2.htm

wacki
08-23-2004, 09:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I spent 2 wks in 1988 fighting fire in Yellowstone. The fire was only extinguished when the snows of fall came. The roads in the park provided very little help. If you do some research you'll see that roads and logging are of little help in stopping fires. Some of the hottest fires burn in logged areas because the biggest most fire resistant trees are the ones that are removed.

Roads create their own set of problems, such as increased sedimentation.

I realize that fire suppression for decades has created a set of conditions that are not normal. Also the drought the west is experiencing exacerbates these conditions. I believe what the fire ecologists have to say even though they are drowned out by the loggers and politicians. Logging/thinning is not the answere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any links? I'm not questioning what you say, it's just that the NIFC website doesn't seem to have alot of information when it comes to "the good, the bad, the ugly" of it all. The website isn't very helpful. What you say about removing the biggest of trees makes sense. When I need information about biology/chemistry/medicine I goto PubMed, NIH, or NCBI. Is there a good source of information for papers/reviews published by fire ecologists?

I have done research, that much should be obvious. I need someone like you to help point me in the right direction though.

Also what kind of sedimentation is being caused by roads?

At the NIFC website the links to papers like:
"Wildland Fuels Management: Evaluating and Planning Risks and Benefits"

and

"A Risk Based Comparison of Potential Fuel Treatment Tradeoff Models"

All seem to be dead. It's very frustrating. Please keep in mind, I only meant that we should follow the experts advice. All I've really said is that if the experts say they need roads/logging then road/log. If they say control burn, then control burn. It's a totally different. I want to get to the heart of it all and find out what the experts are saying. If letting the loggers in is wrong, then I want to know. If you looked at the first two links I've posted, it looks like there are people saying roads/bulldozers are a good thing. Your comments are making me think twice. It's getting hard to know what is real and what isn't on this subject.


Do you know who the leading fire ecologists are?

Ed I
08-24-2004, 12:32 AM
www.ems.org/wildfires/ecology.html (http://www.ems.org/wildfires/ecology.html)

www.firelab.org (http://www.firelab.org)

www.fisheries.org (http://www.fisheries.org)

I don't know much about doing searches and I'm lazy to boot. I hope these sites will be of some use.

Cyrus
08-24-2004, 02:47 AM
What are you re-posting that for?

I already conceded that Bill Clinton, by forbidding road building, mining, or drilling in federal forestland, was acting as the ENEMY of the environment. While George W Bush, by rescinding Clinton's order, shows he is the FRIEND of the forests and the environment.

You convinced me already! What more do you want? Kill me?!

..Oh, my aching, aching sides.

WDC
08-24-2004, 09:30 AM
That reminds me of the cops in San Fran. I think. that shot a guy to stop him from committing suicide.

cardcounter0
08-24-2004, 09:37 AM
I thought we were talking about National Forests and Wilderness.

"13 major fires in Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties in California covering 800,000 acres (3237 kmē), killing 24, displacing 120,000 and destroying 3,600 homes in October 2003. Damage estimated at 2 billion USD."

Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties???

800,000 acres displacing 120,000 people? So about 1 person per 6 acres? That doesn't sound like wilderness to me, more like a suburb.

Doubt if these people would be in favor of a logging operation next to the park where the kids play.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

cardcounter0
08-24-2004, 09:39 AM
No, we need to build logging roads across Wyoming because of the great damage fires do in Las Angeles County California.

CORed
08-24-2004, 03:55 PM
Most of the misinformation is coming from the Bush administration. Fires are a real problem in the West. However, the "Healthy Forests Initiative" was primarily a ploy to relax environmental regulations and allow subsidized logging to resume. Most timber sales on federal land lose money for the government. For many years, the Forest Service hid this fact by not including the costs of road building in the equation. The Clinton administration (correctly IMO) tried to make sure that timber sales made money for the government.

Fire is a naturally occuring event in most Western forests. Much of the problem, especially in Ponderosa Pine forests, is that the Forest service has done such a good job of fire suppression that dead wood has accumulated, and the forests have become much denser, with lots of small trees to act as "ladders", to cary the fire to the crowns. Allowing fires to burn in wilderness areas will actually alleviate the problem. In populated areas (which is a fairly high percentage of western forests) a "let it burn" approach is not feasible. Prescribed burns are. Logging to thin forests has some value. The trouble is that the most fire prone forests, with dense stands of stunted trees, are of little value for lumber. These are not the forests that will be logged under the "Healthy Forest Initiative". Old growth forests with large, commercially valuable trees will be logged, and in a few decades, be replaced with more fire-prone secondary growth.
The "Healthy Forests Initiative" will be just as effective in controlling forest fires as the Iraq invasion has been in ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction.

CORed
08-24-2004, 04:00 PM
I believe that logging can be done in an environmentally responsible manner, and that, in some cases, can reduce the fire hazard. I don't believe that the Bush administration has any intention of doing it that way. I think that if they have their way, logging will be done to the sole benefit of the logging companies.

CORed
08-24-2004, 04:16 PM
You have totally bought into the logging company propaganda. Big trees are not the problem. Big trees are what the logging companies want. Brush and small trees are the problem. Roads can sometimes help in fighting fires, but the truth is, if you have a wind-driven crown fire in a dry forest, nothing stops it. Not bulldozed fire lines, not roads, not slurry bombers, not even large rivers (I remember reading about a forest fire in Montana many years ago that jumped the Missouri river). When faced with such a fire, wildland fire fighters cut line on the rear and sides of the fire, and get out of the way of the leading edge until the wind dies down. The only way to prevent such fires is to have more frequent, less intense fires, and reduce the load of small fuel. This can be accomplished by letting fires burn in wilderness areas, and by controlled burns in populated areas.

cardcounter0
08-24-2004, 04:20 PM
The width of the Missouri River in Montana -- you'll probably have to provide a link. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I remember camping on the shores of the banks of the Missouri in Montana, near a town called Yankton on my way to the Black Hills.

CORed
08-24-2004, 04:25 PM
If i'm not mistaken, the areas in California where so much damage was done, are chock full of roads. I know the Hayman fire in Colorado crossed many dirt roads, a paved two lane highway, and the South Platte River.

cardcounter0
08-24-2004, 04:26 PM
If only the loggers had been able to cut down ALL the trees in time!

wacki
08-24-2004, 06:26 PM
If you look at the link I posted it had several quotes from people who are in the field including Jim Wright, deputy director of fire protection for the California Department of Forestry. I tend to have faith in the expert opinion, as I am very familiar with the concept that what naturally feels right isn't always the correct path to choose, and sometimes it's even the worst path to choose. Experts have enough background in their specific subject to be able to seperate the emotional decisions from the rational ones. It's sometimes just very difficult to know who the experts really are.

I will admit the link that was posted in my first post had me all but sold on fire prevention via thinning for some (not all) of the forests. And I hope you guys realize how I could come to this conclusion by reading that article, as it does point out some significant problems. I also hope you realise that I have repeatedly said if the experts say yes, then I say yes. If the experts say no, then I say no.

It's just to bad there isn't a PubMed or NCBI for Wildfire/Forestry so you could easily look up the good from the bad. Even though resources have been hard to come by, from information I have seen on the NIFC website I am starting to think that every policy implemented in the last 50 years has been flawed, not just the current policy.

Again, that conlusion is premature as I still don't even know who the leading experts are on the subject. And I doubt anyone that has posted in this thread does. And when I say experts I mean experts that scientists/firefighters agree on as experts, not just the guys the News cameras run to. Both the practical and the analitical experts. Most experts won't do interviews with reporters because the concepts they have to explain are to complex to fit in a 3 minute soundbite so their message gets twisted anyway.

Thanks Ed I for the links. You are the only one who actually took the time to post some hard data, and I appreciate your efforts.