To Mike Hagen: I'm not aware that "much of the present day Ponderosa
forest occupies what used to be grassland in the late 1800's. Stopping
fire and grazing changed that." The grasslands were IN the forests,
and were the prevalent ground cover. This is what allowed the low
intensity fires to "work" in keeping this forest type free of
excessive fuel loading. I don't believe that the area covered by the
ponderosa forests have grown. What has happened is that on the
fringes of the forest Junipers, growing like weeds, have extended
their coverage significantly, and what used to be pure grassland has
become Juniper "forest". This was caused by grazing cattles' hooves
chewing up the ground and setting the stage for easy germination of
Juniper. I may have misunderstood what Mike was saying but thought it
needed clearing up.

and..

To Aozotorp: I cannot understand why you think that the support of
forest health is just a right wing thing. The Thoreau Institute is
off the wall in may istances of which I've been aware. Most people
believe in forest heath as a goal and we would very much welcome the
participation of the left in achieving that goal. It would be much
more productive than politicizing environmental issues.


mike hagen wrote in message ...
Le Messurier wrote:

(Aozotorp) wrote in message ...

http://www.ti.org/fire.html


Regarding the article

The West Is Burning!
"New: The Thoreau Institute's comments on President Bush's "Healthy Forests
Initiative": It will cost billions, but it won't stop fires..."
The Thoreau Institute


This is hogwash: " Unlike the Southeast,where most forests are
ecologically adapted to frequent, low-intensity fires,most forests of
the West are adapted to infrequent, high-intensity fires. The West has
always had big fires and it always will have them.

"Most" fires in the West are not adapted to infrequent, high-intensity
fires. MOST forests in the West are dry type with Ponderosa being the
largest species prevelant in the West. This species is certainly not
adapted to high intensity fires. Quite the contrary is true. It's why
the Ponderosa forests need thinning as part of a full fuel reduction
program. Drought intensifies the problem to be sure, and yes some of
our western forests are not only adapted to but dependant on high
intensity fires, but Ponderosa forests do not regenerate naturally
after a stand replacing fire. We need thinning to save the forests.
Aozotorpe knows this and should be more careful in perpetuating false
science.

Torp just passes along whatever has the word forest in it. There's no
discrimination.

Seems to me ALL the major western fires this year are in Ponderosa/ Doug
Fir/ Lodgepole interior zones. Check out BC especially. It' a very
tough season.

Looks like a fire ecology connection. Let's see, where do meadows and
Aspen forests come from? Sure, a light burn keeps Ponderosa thinned out
but much of the present day Ponderosa forest occupies what used to be
grassland in the late 1800's. Stopping fire and grazing changed that.

There are certainly spots where thinning is the right plan, and lots
where it isn't. But don't fool yourself that that will stop fires from
starting. The real problem is the conversion of forestland to residential.