How a forest stopped a fire in its tracks

[charrison]

Linkage

SUSANVILLE, Calif. -- Where the fire came through Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest last September, the ground is ash and the trees are charcoal. Black and gray are the colors, lightened only by small mounds of red dust at the base of some of the charred trunks -- the leavings of bark beetles -- and flecks of green where new growth pokes above the ash.

Through the tall, ravaged columns, however, a living pine forest is visible. And as visitors inspecting the fire damage walk toward the living forest, they come to an abrupt transition.

September's blaze was named the Cone Fire, for the hill where it was first thought to have begun. It burned 2,000 acres of Lassen National Forest, and 1,600 of those were in Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest, a 10,000-acre area within Lassen set up in 1934 for ecological study by the Forest Service.

When the Cone Fire swept through these woods it came to a patch of forest that was different from the rest, and stopped dead. What stopped the fire was an experimental plot that had been selectively logged to thin it, and had been burned in controlled fashion. The result was an open forest, much the way it might have been 500 years ago when regular forest fires swept through the high dry country, and no one tried to stop them.

 

[Bowfinger]

The article also says:

Stephens said the Bush administration's current Healthy Forest Initiative is mainly about reducing regulation and does not specify fire management regimens. He also said he thought that not enough emphasis in the initiative was placed on reducing surface fuels by prescribed burning, or other means. Whether large trees were removed or left made a big difference for wildlife, Zack said. Large trees, and large dead trees, are attractive to woodpeckers and other creatures.

In short, it's about profit for the loggers, not controlled thinning and the clearing of underbrush that is necessary for effective fire suppression.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The article also says:

Stephens said the Bush administration's current Healthy Forest Initiative is mainly about reducing regulation and does not specify fire management regimens. He also said he thought that not enough emphasis in the initiative was placed on reducing surface fuels by prescribed burning, or other means. Whether large trees were removed or left made a big difference for wildlife, Zack said. Large trees, and large dead trees, are attractive to woodpeckers and other creatures.

In short, it's about profit for the loggers, not controlled thinning and the clearing of underbrush that is necessary for effective fire suppression.

Nice selective reading. The short of the article includes brush management and selective logging. And there appears to be more than one way to accomplish this.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

What stopped the fire was an experimental plot that had been selectively logged to thin it, and had been burned in controlled fashion. The result was an open forest, much the way it might have been 500 years ago when regular forest fires swept through the high dry country, and no one tried to stop them.

I guess we should hire some Native Americans to selectively log the area to thin it and then burn it in a controlled fashion. Who knew GWB was an affirmative action fan?! I'm not a horticulturalist but if I had to guess . . . there was very little selective thinning 5 centuries ago. Forests grew, burned, and revived on an ecological time scale and pattern. Then again maybe the tribal elders consulted the rain god periodically . . .

 

[DealMonkey]

I don't think selective logging by itself will accomplish much. It seems like the controlled burns are what really keeps things under control.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

What stopped the fire was an experimental plot that had been selectively logged to thin it, and had been burned in controlled fashion. The result was an open forest, much the way it might have been 500 years ago when regular forest fires swept through the high dry country, and no one tried to stop them.

I guess we should hire some Native Americans to selectively log the area to thin it and then burn it in a controlled fashion. Who knew GWB was an affirmative action fan?! I'm not a horticulturalist but if I had to guess . . . there was very little selective thinning 5 centuries ago. Forests grew, burned, and revived on an ecological time scale and pattern. Then again maybe the tribal elders consulted the rain god periodically . . .

Yes, for at least the last 50-100 years forest have received a good deal of fire protection, allowing them to grow denser and then burn hotter(doing more damage).

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

What stopped the fire was an experimental plot that had been selectively logged to thin it, and had been burned in controlled fashion. The result was an open forest, much the way it might have been 500 years ago when regular forest fires swept through the high dry country, and no one tried to stop them.

I guess we should hire some Native Americans to selectively log the area to thin it and then burn it in a controlled fashion. Who knew GWB was an affirmative action fan?! I'm not a horticulturalist but if I had to guess . . . there was very little selective thinning 5 centuries ago. Forests grew, burned, and revived on an ecological time scale and pattern. Then again maybe the tribal elders consulted the rain god periodically . . .

Yes, for at least the last 50-100 years forest have received a good deal of fire protection, allowing them to grow denser and then burn hotter(doing more damage).

I'm not in disagreement with you charrison. However, I'd just like to add that I hope we don't follow the same road as Sweden. If memory serves me correct, I think something like 80-85 percent of their "old growth" forests have already been logged and replanted.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

What stopped the fire was an experimental plot that had been selectively logged to thin it, and had been burned in controlled fashion. The result was an open forest, much the way it might have been 500 years ago when regular forest fires swept through the high dry country, and no one tried to stop them.

I guess we should hire some Native Americans to selectively log the area to thin it and then burn it in a controlled fashion. Who knew GWB was an affirmative action fan?! I'm not a horticulturalist but if I had to guess . . . there was very little selective thinning 5 centuries ago. Forests grew, burned, and revived on an ecological time scale and pattern. Then again maybe the tribal elders consulted the rain god periodically . . .

Yes, for at least the last 50-100 years forest have received a good deal of fire protection, allowing them to grow denser and then burn hotter(doing more damage).

I'm not in disagreement with you charrison. However, I'd just like to add that I hope we don't follow the same road as Sweden. If memory serves me correct, I think something like 80-85 percent of their "old growth" forests have already been logged and replanted.

Most of the timber in this country already comes from tree farms. Rarely do timber farms suffer from massive fires...

 

[Bleep]

Most of the timber in this country already comes from tree farms. Rarely do timber farms suffer from massive fires...

Got a link that will give any truthfulness to that statement?

Bleep
In fact here is a link to prove your statement wrong. Link

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yes, for at least the last 50-100 years forest have received a good deal of fire protection, allowing them to grow denser and then burn hotter(doing more damage).

Wouldn't one expect a progressive increase in fire loss due to our interventions? So why is that fires have not done progressively more damge over the past 4 decades?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bleep

Most of the timber in this country already comes from tree farms. Rarely do timber farms suffer from massive fires...

Got a link that will give any truthfulness to that statement?

Bleep
In fact here is a link to prove your statement wrong. Link

hmm a 5 year old link about about a single farmer, who has had a timber farm since 1927....


and

They want help in getting controlled burning permits and assistance from the Florida Division of Forestry. Public opinion against controlled burning has made the practice increasingly difficult, they said.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

What stopped the fire was an experimental plot that had been selectively logged to thin it, and had been burned in controlled fashion. The result was an open forest, much the way it might have been 500 years ago when regular forest fires swept through the high dry country, and no one tried to stop them.

I guess we should hire some Native Americans to selectively log the area to thin it and then burn it in a controlled fashion. Who knew GWB was an affirmative action fan?! I'm not a horticulturalist but if I had to guess . . . there was very little selective thinning 5 centuries ago. Forests grew, burned, and revived on an ecological time scale and pattern. Then again maybe the tribal elders consulted the rain god periodically . . .

Yes, for at least the last 50-100 years forest have received a good deal of fire protection, allowing them to grow denser and then burn hotter(doing more damage).

As I understand the article, it's not the density of the trees, it's the amount of underbrush, pine needles, and dead limbs that accumulate on the ground that make modern fires so much more intense. The article talks about 700 year old trees that show evidence of burns every 10 years or so. The fires burned off the material on the ground, leaving most trees relatively healthy. The problem today is the heavy accumulation on the ground leads to hotter, more sustained fires that kill the trees too.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

What stopped the fire was an experimental plot that had been selectively logged to thin it, and had been burned in controlled fashion. The result was an open forest, much the way it might have been 500 years ago when regular forest fires swept through the high dry country, and no one tried to stop them.

I guess we should hire some Native Americans to selectively log the area to thin it and then burn it in a controlled fashion. Who knew GWB was an affirmative action fan?! I'm not a horticulturalist but if I had to guess . . . there was very little selective thinning 5 centuries ago. Forests grew, burned, and revived on an ecological time scale and pattern. Then again maybe the tribal elders consulted the rain god periodically . . .

Yes, for at least the last 50-100 years forest have received a good deal of fire protection, allowing them to grow denser and then burn hotter(doing more damage).

As I understand the article, it's not the density of the trees, it's the amount of underbrush, pine needles, and dead limbs that accumulate on the ground that make modern fires so much more intense. The article talks about 700 year old trees that show evidence of burns every 10 years or so. The fires burned off the material on the ground, leaving most trees relatively healthy. The problem today is the heavy accumulation on the ground leads to hotter, more sustained fires that kill the trees too.

Yes, but density is also an issue.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

But isn't density significantly less important than underbrush? Back in the good ol' days, the trees didn't get up and run during a fire . . . the hardy trees lived and the podunk ones died along with the underbrush. Isn't fire nature's way of culling/clearing underbrush which contributes to harmful density?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
But isn't density significantly less important than underbrush? Back in the good ol' days, the trees didn't get up and run during a fire . . . the hardy trees lived and the podunk ones died along with the underbrush. Isn't fire nature's way of culling/clearing underbrush which contributes to harmful density?

It would be foolish to ignore density. A denser forest has more fuel.

It is time to either thin the forests a bit, or stop putting out forest fires and let nature do all the work.

 

[Ferocious]

Should it surprise anyone that Bush is pro business at the expense of anything else?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
But isn't density significantly less important than underbrush? Back in the good ol' days, the trees didn't get up and run during a fire . . . the hardy trees lived and the podunk ones died along with the underbrush. Isn't fire nature's way of culling/clearing underbrush which contributes to harmful density?

It would be foolish to ignore density. A denser forest has more fuel.

It is time to either thin the forests a bit, or stop putting out forest fires and let nature do all the work.

The problem is that the Bush plan ignores the underbrush, the far more important piece of the puzzle. The logging companies aren't required to clear the ground, and they have no financial incentive to do so except when it's incidentally required to get to the trees they want.

That was what I tried to point out in my original post at the top of this thread. The Bush plan is only about making money for logging companies. The diversion about "protecting our forests" is just another deception to sell the plan to people who aren't paying attention. It is their standard mode of operation, and one of the reasons I am so distrustful of the Bush administration. They try to conceal their intentions by deceptive manipulation, i.e., they lie through their teeth.

Sure, if the loggers clear-cut an area, they may remove much of the underbrush too. If they do selective logging of the biggest, old-growth trees, however, they'll leave much of the underbrush alone. This is a lose-lose - it does almost nothing for fire control while simultaneously destroying natural resources that will take hundreds of years to replace.

If Bush really cared about protecting forests from fire, his plan would carry an obligation that logging companies clear the underbrush in return for access to a managed selection of the trees in each area. It imposes no such obligations. Therefore, it's about profits, not good forestry practices.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

What stopped the fire was an experimental plot that had been selectively logged to thin it, and had been burned in controlled fashion. The result was an open forest, much the way it might have been 500 years ago when regular forest fires swept through the high dry country, and no one tried to stop them.

I guess we should hire some Native Americans to selectively log the area to thin it and then burn it in a controlled fashion. Who knew GWB was an affirmative action fan?! I'm not a horticulturalist but if I had to guess . . . there was very little selective thinning 5 centuries ago. Forests grew, burned, and revived on an ecological time scale and pattern. Then again maybe the tribal elders consulted the rain god periodically . . .

Yes, for at least the last 50-100 years forest have received a good deal of fire protection, allowing them to grow denser and then burn hotter(doing more damage).

I'm not in disagreement with you charrison. However, I'd just like to add that I hope we don't follow the same road as Sweden. If memory serves me correct, I think something like 80-85 percent of their "old growth" forests have already been logged and replanted.

where I live 99,9% of the forest is planted because of logging in the last 100 years. I've been a couple of times to the great "old growth" forests the USA still have (Alaska, Oregon, California). I would hate to see them gone and replanted by the sterile forest we have. You guys don't realize what great nature you still have when you compare it with the crowded European countries. Our govt. realized what damage was done the last 100 years and is protecting the 0,1 of real forest with all means possible.
Don't make the same mistake we did, you are going to regret it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

What stopped the fire was an experimental plot that had been selectively logged to thin it, and had been burned in controlled fashion. The result was an open forest, much the way it might have been 500 years ago when regular forest fires swept through the high dry country, and no one tried to stop them.

I guess we should hire some Native Americans to selectively log the area to thin it and then burn it in a controlled fashion. Who knew GWB was an affirmative action fan?! I'm not a horticulturalist but if I had to guess . . . there was very little selective thinning 5 centuries ago. Forests grew, burned, and revived on an ecological time scale and pattern. Then again maybe the tribal elders consulted the rain god periodically . . .

Yes, for at least the last 50-100 years forest have received a good deal of fire protection, allowing them to grow denser and then burn hotter(doing more damage).

I'm not in disagreement with you charrison. However, I'd just like to add that I hope we don't follow the same road as Sweden. If memory serves me correct, I think something like 80-85 percent of their "old growth" forests have already been logged and replanted.

where I live 99,9% of the forest is planted because of logging in the last 100 years. I've been a couple of times to the great "old growth" forests the USA still have (Alaska, Oregon, California). I would hate to see them gone and replanted by the sterile forest we have. You guys don't realize what great nature you still have when you compare it with the crowded European countries. Our govt. realized what damage was done the last 100 years and is protecting the 0,1 of real forest with all means possible.
Don't make the same mistake we did, you are going to regret it.

I dont see anyone advocating clearcuts.

 

[amok]

Bowfinger hit the nail on the head with his last post. The logging companies have no incentive to actually do anything effective.

 

[McGyver]

got to put out the bush-fire

 

[DealMonkey]

Quid Pro Quo?

Linked...

Meanwhile, another Clinton-era regulation aimed at protecting 60m acres of national forests from logging and road building is also about to be scuttled, according to justice department sources quoted in yesterday's Washington Post. The ban had been one of the last acts of the outgoing administration, but it had been a consequence of more than a year of open hearings held by the Forest Service in which the views of 1.6m members of the public had been taken into account. For its part, the timber industry contributed $3.2m to the Bush campaign in the 2000 elections. The money, it seems, is talking louder.

 

[RossGr]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

What stopped the fire was an experimental plot that had been selectively logged to thin it, and had been burned in controlled fashion. The result was an open forest, much the way it might have been 500 years ago when regular forest fires swept through the high dry country, and no one tried to stop them.

I guess we should hire some Native Americans to selectively log the area to thin it and then burn it in a controlled fashion. Who knew GWB was an affirmative action fan?! I'm not a horticulturalist but if I had to guess . . . there was very little selective thinning 5 centuries ago. Forests grew, burned, and revived on an ecological time scale and pattern. Then again maybe the tribal elders consulted the rain god periodically . . .

Actually in the Pacific Northwest the Native Americans DID selective burning. With regularity burned large ares. Fire was a common event, and rarely did the fires reach the size of the fires we now see. There are definite benifits to more regular but smaller fires. Wether the natives knew what they were doing or did it simply because they liked to watch the flames, the result was a healthier forest.

We have errored over the last 50years by stomping out every flame that flickers in the forest, now we have some serious troubles.