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

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
Once again, large forest fires are covering the national forests and other
federal lands in the West -- and everyone knows it is because past Forest
Service fire suppression policies have led to a dangerous accumulation of
fuels. That's why Congress is giving the Forest Service and other agencies $400
million a year to treat hazardous fuels -- twenty times the amount they spent a
decade ago.

That's also why the Forest Service continues to suppress 99.7 percent of all
fires. Even though everyone knows it should let more fires burn, built-up fuels
are so dangerous that it doesn't dare let fires burn. So Congress has more than
doubled the budgets for fire preparedness (such as having firefighters on
standby) and firefighting.

But is the story about hazardous fuels true? Thoreau Institute researcher
Randal O'Toole spent a year reviewing data about scores of recent fires and
couldn't find any evidence that hazardous fuels are responsible for those
fires, firefighter fatalities, or increased fire suppression costs. Instead,
droughts are the cause of the fires, new technologies and an aging workforce
are the causes of increased firefighter fatalities, and perverse incentives to
waste money are the main cause of increased firefighting costs.

Nor is it true that a scientifically managed program of prescribed fire will
reduce future fires and firefighting costs in the West. 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.

This means that the $2.9 billion a year that Congress is dumping on federal
fire programs is mostly wasted. Naturally, the Forest Service perpetuates the
hazardous fuels myth so that it can get those funds. But the long-term solution
to fire problems is to spend less money, not more.

All of this information is detailed in a new, 53-page report published by the
Thoreau Institute. You can download any of several versions of the report
below.

Full report in Acrobat (pdf) format (1.3 MB)
Full text (36,000 words) of the report with no graphics in Word (.doc) format
(300 KB)
Short version (3,600 words) of the report in html format (23 KB)
Op-ed-length (800 words) version of the report in html format (6 KB)
A short paper on drought, with access to data showing the strong correlation
between drought and acres burned

The Thoreau Institute

(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.

(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.

Science???

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.

(Aozotorp) wrote in message ...


(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.

Science???

Eco-Spammers can rarely back up what they post, believing it to be the
Gospel and graciously bestowing it on an unsuspecting and uneducated
(on forest management issues) American public. Maybe those
bigmouth/smallbrain "preservationists" will learn more about forests
when their favorite piece of wilderness is toasted by a wildfire which
started in areas outside of the famous "wildland urban interface". A
let-burn policy HAS been established in parts of our National Forests,
mainly to save money. I'd have to agree that USFS fire policies need
adjusting. I've seen many brand new 4x4 vehicles just hitting the
forest I'm working on. Most of them look like fire suppression rigs.
You'd think the Thoreau Institute would have dotted their i's and
crossed their t's. There seems to be a silly game of semantics and
misdirection in the use of the term "fire risk". "Healthy Forests"
certainly won't stop forest fires but, "Healthy Forests" WILL reduce
their intensities.

Larry, a true environmentalist

(Aozotorp) wrote in message
...


(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.

Science???

Eco-Spammers can rarely back up what they post, believing it to be the
Gospel and graciously bestowing it on an unsuspecting and uneducated
(on forest management issues) American public. Maybe those
bigmouth/smallbrain "preservationists" will learn more about forests
when their favorite piece of wilderness is toasted by a wildfire which
started in areas outside of the famous "wildland urban interface". A
let-burn policy HAS been established in parts of our National Forests,
mainly to save money. I'd have to agree that USFS fire policies need
adjusting. I've seen many brand new 4x4 vehicles just hitting the
forest I'm working on. Most of them look like fire suppression rigs.
You'd think the Thoreau Institute would have dotted their i's and
crossed their t's. There seems to be a silly game of semantics and
misdirection in the use of the term "fire risk". "Healthy Forests"
certainly won't stop forest fires but, "Healthy Forests" WILL reduce
their intensities.

Larry, a true environmentalist



Hey Lad =The Thoreau Institute is your bread and butter! A right-wing think
tank wanting to maximize timber cutting and selling off of public assets so
that it is in private management - It is your big dream!

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.

"Le Messurier" wrote in message
om...
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."
snip

You are right if you are talking about large treeless expanses of grassland. However, fire produced
many moderately good sized openings (but generally smaller than would be used to classify the area as
a grassland) within the Ponderosa forest. The fires were not universally low intensity. When they
would hit an area of heavy fuels, they could become intense. Such areas didn't always reseed back to
PP immediately - often spending a significant period of time in grass, brush or Aspen before PP
recolonized. During the period that PP was recolonizing (especially during the period when the
reprod was pole sized) the fuels would often be heavy enough to repeat the cycle if a fire passed
thru.


--
Bob Weinberger - La Grande, OR

Remove "invalid" and place a dot between bobs and stuff to reply email

This may be a case of trying to find one restoration point when there's
a whole range of them. In general forest area has increased since the
1920's. Prior to white settlement, seasonal fire in the intermountain
region and the west side was widespread and noted by ALL the early
visitors. In the fertile valleys between the Cascades and the Coast
range, fire's were even more ubiquitous. The Willamette and
corresponding area in Washington was burned black yearly by the local
tribes. This is not new stuff.

So what's the point? Major fires will occur whether forests are thinned
or not. Lightning and human nature assures that. I seriously doubt that
Congress is going to finance thinnings in wilderness areas, though his
cronies have stated that the roadless areas left by Clinton may be fair
game. If he reduces fuel loading near settlements, that's a plus. If
not, it's a scam.

Now if the PR stated that "thinning" meant selective cutting for
multi-aged, ecological forest management, I'd feel a bit more confident
in this ploy.

Bottom line: the only thing that CONTROLS fire is the weather.

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message ...
"Le Messurier" wrote in message
om...
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."
snip

You are right if you are talking about large treeless expanses of grassland. However, fire produced
many moderately good sized openings (but generally smaller than would be used to classify the area as
a grassland) within the Ponderosa forest. The fires were not universally low intensity. When they
would hit an area of heavy fuels, they could become intense. Such areas didn't always reseed back to
PP immediately - often spending a significant period of time in grass, brush or Aspen before PP
recolonized. During the period that PP was recolonizing (especially during the period when the
reprod was pole sized) the fuels would often be heavy enough to repeat the cycle if a fire passed
thru.

I know of an interesting area on one of the old Ranger Districts I've
worked on in the past. The area had burned, perhaps in the 40's or
50's, leaving very few very large P. pines. It was probably a good
cone year for white fir because the stand today is nearly pure white
fir and in terrible shape. We salvage logged bug trees back in the
early 90's and saw an incredible amount of fuels on the ground. I went
back there in 2000 and helped prepare a timber sale. It pretty dang
difficult to selective log in a stand where good leave trees are very
scarce. If ever there was a good reason to clearcut the stagnant white
fir, here it is. Plant it back into pine and I'm sure it would do
fine. Unfortunately, that can't happen and the stand will be logged,
(or has already been), leaving crappy thinned out white fir with
skinup damage. Will it reduce future fire intensity? Yes. Will it
eliminate catastrophic fire? Most certainly not. Someday, I'll go back
to that stand and take an "after" picture, already having the "before"
ones.

Larry

(Le Messurier) writes:

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.

There has been a substantial encroachment of forests into grasslands
since the buffalo were eradicated at the end of the last century.
Buffalo have an instinctive antipathy toward trees. A buffalo will go
out of its way to kill small trees. Maybe they just like to run without
running into anything, but the absence of trees on the Great Plains is
primarily due to the historic large herds of buffalo. Urban sprawl has
introduced tree species with landscaping, and existing forests have
encroached from both the east and west. If the plains ever revert to a
natural state, they will become a great central forest in North America.

Another, quite separate issue is the encroachment of Juniper and Pinon
Pine forests into grasslands in the more arid parts of the west. Juniper
is a water thief that will eradicate competing vegetation. If an area
develops a 40% juniper canopy, the destruction is so complete that the
ecology of the land can not recover naturally.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

To: Larry Caldwell,
I hadn't heard the buffalo hypothosis before. Interesting. As for
forest expansion in Arizona goes, I doubt that there has been any
influence of that kind. I'd be more inclined to believe that
topography is the ruling factor. The ponderosa pine forest there
parallels the Mogollon Rim. Mostly ON the rim, but much of it below
it. Here, prevailing winds from the SW, S, and SE bring warm moist
weather which rises at the rim to meet the cool (cold) weather on top
which is a gain of about 2000 feet in 3 to 5 miles distance. Average
elevation on top is about 7000' but some of it is 9000'. This produces
snow and rain. Of course in Arizona this "wet" area is still very dry
by standards elsewhere. Thus the stage is set for PP growth. On the
North side of the rim, or ON the rim, (It's the Colorado Plateau) the
trend is a decrease in elevation and within 10 to 20 miles of the rim
the forest gives way to Juniper, then grasses and then mostly bare
dirt and rock (The later is "Navajo type country".) Elevations have
dropped to 3500 to 4000 feet. It is very dry and moisture soaks into
the sandstone very rapidly with almost none remaing near the surface
to support vegetation. Since the PP forest in Arizona is the largest
PP forest in the world it is important to understand how it grows.

I certainly agree with you regarding Juniper. It can and has become a
weed. There are numerous places where ranchers plow it up and burn
the piles and hope it goes back to grass. But putting cattle back on
it will prevent the grasses from becoming dominant unless the Junipers
are "managed" over time.

By thew way. BEAUTIFUL dogs on your web site!



Larry Caldwell wrote in message nk.net...
(Le Messurier) writes:

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.

There has been a substantial encroachment of forests into grasslands
since the buffalo were eradicated at the end of the last century.
Buffalo have an instinctive antipathy toward trees. A buffalo will go
out of its way to kill small trees. Maybe they just like to run without
running into anything, but the absence of trees on the Great Plains is
primarily due to the historic large herds of buffalo. Urban sprawl has
introduced tree species with landscaping, and existing forests have
encroached from both the east and west. If the plains ever revert to a
natural state, they will become a great central forest in North America.

Another, quite separate issue is the encroachment of Juniper and Pinon
Pine forests into grasslands in the more arid parts of the west. Juniper
is a water thief that will eradicate competing vegetation. If an area
develops a 40% juniper canopy, the destruction is so complete that the
ecology of the land can not recover naturally.