National Forest - Bush road building misinformation?

[cardcounter0]

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]

[ 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]

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]

[ 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]

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]

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 km²), 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]

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]

[ 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]

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]

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.