View Single Post
  #4   Report Post  
Old 14-05-2003, 07:20 PM
mhagen
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Letter and an Editorial

Aozotorp wrote:
(Aozotorp) writes:


No one disputes that the West faces a major risk of wildfires each summer.


A

wrongheaded and nearly century-long policy of suppressing fires, which was


not

reversed until the 1990s, created a dangerous buildup of fuel in the woods.


The

region is also in the fourth year of a severe drought. Sprawl development
around big cities and second home projects in scenic mountain areas have


pushed

more homes into the ''wildlife urban interface,'' where uncontrolled fires
ignite houses and put both residents and firefighters at risk.


I wonder how effective this "fire suppression" actually is. Even with
modern equipment, it has been impossible to stop the major forest fires
of the last decade. All they can realistically do is try to protect
structures and pray for rain. Historically, there have always been
excessive fuel loads and catastrophic forest fires.

The only real change is that we don't intentionally set everything on
fire every year like the Indians used to do. I don't hear anyone
advocating a return to arson as a way of enhancing hunting prospects.



I was not aware the Indians set fire to the forests every year!



Urban sprawl is a separate problem not directly related to forestry.
Homeowners need to take responsibility for managing their own property,
which includes a fire buffer zone, access roads and perhaps fire fighting
equipment. Certainly they need to provide a water supply. Small
woodlots also rarely receive any practical forest management. The
occupants may live in the country, but their orientation is urban and
they don't care for their land.

I am also curious how private forest owners manage to control fire so
well. I have noticed that, though private timber interests own half of
the forests in Oregon, the vast majority of the woodlands burned has been
on public land.



Sterile tree fams most likely will not go up!


That's a fairly well established fact. The debate seems to be between
the folk who insist the Indians were only "light" burners and those who
maintain they totally transformed the North American landscape. My
theory (based on western washington) is that burning practices and
frequency varied. Some areas (lowlands and areas near settlements)
burned so frequently that vegetation communities were fire adapted and
very useful to the inhabitants. Most of these are now town sites, since
the "prairies" appeared to be most suitable to homesteaders. In other
areas, like higher elevations and wet forests, natural causes and
frequencies prevailed. Even so that meant a good burn was likely once
every century. See Cronon for eastern burning practices. Pyne did a
series of fire books covering the entire world. Both authors are good reads.

Private timberlands burn but usually are put out quickly. Nine times
out of ten the cause is an escaped slash burn. As a rule they control
access, methodically eliminate fuels and have a grid of roads that not
only act as firelines but make fire suppression much easier than on the
Feds territory. Private outfits also have their own fire fighting
equipment, can instantly get loggers to put in line and have cooperative
agreements with state forestry fire fighters.

The Feds got the higher and more lightening prone ground. Less roads,
steeper slopes, way less personel to put out the fires, and a slough of
heavy fuels that really can't be reduced with either the environemtnal
rules or log costs as they are. Plus the fallout from preventing ground
fires for a century. The interesting observation is why the national
parks have so much less fire. They have even less access and personel
than the Forest Service or BLM, are definitely up in lightning country
and have plenty of fuel. As far as I know, the Parks have only recently
gone to a "let it burn" policy for backcountry blazes.