Dwain Goforth wrote in message m...

Spin is right. Actually 78,870 acres burned at high
intensity (mortality approaching 100%). Mortality in
Moderate intensity is 40-80% for trees (old growth usually
less than young growth.)

Erosion from high intensity fire areas can be significant.
Road building for salvage logging on these same steep slopes
is a much larger danger for erosion and sedimentation.


You don't figure in the accompanying insect attacks that always come
after a fire. Sgnificant timber volume is harvested when the beetles
kill those "borderline" trees that are so common in areas of medium to
high intensity fire. Most salvage on steep slopes is harvested by
helicopter. When helicopters are used, roadbuilding is kept to a
minimum. (Though landings are large)


Many of the areas spared by the fire are so rocky and infertile that not
many trees grow there anyway. The fire dropped to low intensity in those
areas because there wasn't much to burn.

It's quite a stretch to claim that the Biscuit Fire was beneficial in any
way. It did reduce the fuel load in the area, but that's about it.


Forest fires are a natural part of the Siskiyou region and
recur every 20-100 years. The Biscuit fire was simply larger
than average.


Tell me then, just what size IS the average fire there? Yes, I know
that catastrophic fire IS a part of the ecosystem but, what is the
"normal" frequency of fires that size?

Fire can be beneficial for many species, some even require
it. The patchwork mosaic of rock types and fire history in
the Siskiyou and Kalmiopsis areas is the very reason why
there is such a wonderful diversity of plants and animals
there.


Catastrophic fire can't be good for the poster animals used by
"preservationists", the marbled murrelet and the northern spotted owl.
Salmon runs will be impacted, as well.

Without recurring fires some of the species would go extinct
in the area, and others would be highly reduced in extent.
Therefore, natural fires are beneficial over the long run.

Don't believe the "spin" of Larry Caldwell and others. They
only see money in trees. Because they didn't make a profit,
the area is "ruined."


And, when logging occurs on forestland, areas are "destroyed" in the
minds of "preservationists". I've seen the word "pristene" used by
them as well when there are stumps in the area, too.


For some facts, try...


http://www.biscuitfire.com/baer_summary.htm


Remember, only you can prevent ignorance.

That road is a four lane highway going in both directions. I've worked
on many burn salvage projects and have seen for myself what happens
out there. Today's fires are RARELY beneficial, and only in small
areas do they benefit forests.

I'm not saying that we should harvest all acres of all fires or thin
every acre. The Siskiyous ARE wonderfully diverse and man should take
precautions to reduce the amount of catastrophic fire in every forest.

Larry eco-forestry rules!