Forest Fires

A word about Forest Fires...

This country is seeing, once again, the result of a 'no burn' policy implemented by the federal government since the 20's and before.

As a result of extinguishing fires for the past 50-100 years, forest floor fuel levels have increased, timber and plant species that have depended on fire ecology have changed, and timber stands that were once weeded out by fire have now been susceptible to insect and diesease outbreaks that have also created acres of standing dead timber that add to the fuel supply; timber stands susceptible to lightning stikes.

In effect, forest floor fuels, and 'ladder fuels' are created that not only allow the fire to begin and run on the ground, but then spread tree to tree resulting in running crown fires. With enough heat, oxygen and fuel, a fire to creates enough of it's own weather to gain momentum in the form of strong convection current and winds.

The result? 50-100 years of fuel build up, increasing the risk and compounding the risk for potential larger conflagrations as the years and decades of "putting the smokes out" continued.

I'm afraid folks, that the Yellowstone fires in 1988 was the beginning of a high alert and clarion call that nature is in control here. Trying to to do an end run and outwit nature only really comes back to bite us in the b_tt but in a larger way in the next go round.

Change is occuring but we still build homes and communities on the interface of woodlands and areas susceptible and having a history of burning and flooding etc. Will we learn...?

9N'er

Minnesota has it's government-named Boundary Waters Canoe Area. We've taken care of it 'lo these many years, harvesting mature forest products. Now the BWCA is at similar risk, because of 30+ years of bureaucratic flat-liners.

I'd like to offer this view on the topic. Having been in the forestry business in upstate New York (even though I'm in Texas - long story), I'm more familiar with some of the fire issues than I otherwise would be.

Certainly everyone would agree that our forests, natural, commercial, and those under governmental/quasi-gov management are a precious resource for their beauty and value as building material. The same can be said for coastal lands, aquifers, earthquake-prone lands, mountains, swamps etc. As a nation, we actually have MORE forest to enjoy than 100 years ago because through governmental action and because responsible companies and individuals understood what was at stake, we collectively realized the importance of re-forestation and made changes.

I DO agree with your position on the "no-burn" policy. It is a formula for this sort of wildfire destruction of EXACTLY what we are trying to preserve. In my "educated" opinion, proper forestry management, vis-a-vis as timber companies provide, provides better (but not absolute) protection against fires, against diseases, and promotes more wildlife than "natural" forest.

Our well-intentioned "environmentalists" (and we all are - just a matter of degree and approach) don't understand or refuse to understand this. Their solution is a "no-human presence" policy to everything. This is wrong and wishful thinking.

As Americans we enjoy the freedom of being able to choose where we live and play. Often, we make unwise decisions which put us in harm's way even though the warning signs are apparent. My only problem is with people who expect the government to bail them out if they lose everything as a result of their decision to build in an area subject to disaster.

Most Americans (I still believe) don't think this way and accept the consequences of their decisions. Unfortunately, the press only publishes the hard-luck cases and our "ever-so-caring" politicians feed off other people's misfortune in order to get votes.

Combine the power of environmentalist lobbies and the politician handwringing and you have the formula for disaster you describe.

The vast majority of us on this board and our fellow Amricans lead honest, hard-working, independent lives and want to have little to do with government. We choose not to call our representatives and register our objections, we choose not to organize (en mass) and demand changes.

Special interest groups such as environmentalists are extremely organized. Though in the minority, they effect change (their way) because they are vocal. And they vote -EVERY TIME.

Do we?

Respectfully submitted,

Evil Steve

I'm glad you put the word "environmentalists" in quotes -- I don't think many of them understand the subject well enough to be described as such.

As a Scout in S/W Colorado (near Durango) I helped re-plant what was called the Lime Creek Burn, a 3-year BURN started by the Ute Indians warparty trying to escape a whiteman's possie from what was Bakers Fork and is now Silverton.

In 1956, I surveyed timber access roads on Missionary Ridge which is now BURNING outside Durango. I'm gonna hate going home to visit next time.

Farmers, the ORIGINAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS..... Dell

I live in Durango. If you can tell me how to post pictures I will post some that tell the whole story.

Yes, WE are independent... and we respect the values that have "made" this country. But, as you reflect, we will have to take the values of our restored N's and restore this country, before it is too late.

Letters and email messages to our elected officials do make a difference. Find out your representatives address and keep reminding him/her of your presence.

Finally, last week in Ontario a mother and her son drowned while sunbathing along a river. The river was below a dam and the authorities opened the dam. Now people are wanting the Ontario gov't to ring bells or sirens before releasing dam water. JEEZ again.

Up here in Montana if you were to propose a timber sale in a national forest you would get picketed by tree huggers. Can't even cut the fire damaged stuff from last year's fires. A tremendous fuel load just waiting on a forest ranger with a letter to burn.

YOur mileage may vary

Somebody (outside the family) commented to my dad about how awful it was that we sold the land to someone who was cutting down those beautiful old trees -- especially the ones that might be as much as 100 years old.

Dad nearly blew a gasket over that one.

I fully agree and wonder the same things...