iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

forest fires

Started by Randy88, July 04, 2013, 09:32:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

curdog

Quote from: beenthere on July 07, 2013, 12:34:35 PM
QuoteThey would also burn the woodlands to keep them open for travel, reduce the fire risk around there settlements and to promote food species

Often I wonder why we are not also doing the same to reduce the fire hazards around our settlements... the one just recently in AZ in particular comes to mind. The firefighters that were lost were trying to protect the town and lost. Seems fire breaks and back fires would be one very useful tool for control. And I admit I am not familiar with the particulars that might make it impossible to set up these controls in all situations.
There is burning that is done in the wildland urban interface areas, but they are difficult. Thetthing that makes these areas at risk, makes them the most difficult to burn. The amount of structures definitely complicates things. It's not the actual putting the fire on the ground but the smoke management. Smoke on roads is a traffic hazard, people complain about smoke in there yards. Most areas can burn safely given the right conditions, but managing the smoke is the hardest part.
There are cost share programs such as cwpp, CPP , that will pay for the burning for hazard reduction. CPP is available within certain distances of USFS land.
I wish it was easier to get these burns accomplished and as more and more people are less in touch with the cycles of nature the harder it will become. If we can educate the average landowner on the need for burning and they can see areas that have been burned I think the smoke management complaints would go down. Many of the people in my area are retired from urban areas and the need for burning is unknown to them. I have put on some classes for some landowners and they really see the benefits to burning, so maybe there will be more fire put on the ground in the future.

Rocky_Ranger

Quote from: beenthere on July 07, 2013, 12:34:35 PM
QuoteSeems fire breaks and back fires would be one very useful tool for control.

Right on - those Native Americans though didn't value living in the WUI and charging large amounts of $ to do so, often without any zoning.  Fire breaks do work, "back burns" i.e. prescribed fire works like a charm most of the time - just gotta do it.  The neighbors will scream bloody murder over smoke, over cutting too many trees, those nasty log trucks, etc.  Require the zoning and refuse to insure hazardous locations and see how many will build - they won't be able to borrow the $ so only the very rich will get to experience multiple rebuilds due to fire/flood/catastrophe.....
RETIRED!

Gary_C

Quote from: curdog on July 07, 2013, 09:43:51 AM
But lightening was not the only cause. Native Americans burned a lot. They would burn grasslands annually to provide habitat for large game that they hunted and to knee the grasses they need to make baskets. They would also burn the woodlands to keep them open for travel, reduce the fire risk around there settlements and to promote food species such as blueberry.

The Native Americans were nomads and normally did not have any permanent structures. When the European settlers arrived and the Natives were taken off the land, the settlers started building structures out in the woodlands and then demanded a stop to the burning.

That's how the USFS got into the business of fire supression. To save the structures.
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

beenthere

Gary_c

QuoteThat's how the USFS got into the business of fire supression. To save the structures.


Where do you get that?
south central Wisconsin
It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

Rocky_Ranger

Actually, the USFS got into the fire prevention and control business after the 1910 super fires.  100 people, or so, lost their lives in the Idaho and Montana fires, millions of acres burned in a short time.  Read, or "Google - the year of the fires", or anything John Maclean writes.  The 1910 fires gave way, or actually initiated, "the 10 AM policy"; cussed and discussed everywhere - and discounted as being bad.  Actually, the 10 AM policy is still very valid today - just in areas that necessitate that sort of a response, or when fire conditions are such that every fire must be suppressed (no managing fire).  The USFS does not do structure protection very well, and we don't do any structural fires, period.  Usually, when the USFS is doing structural protection, the fire has went to hell in a hand basket.  Last resort, ring fire around structures and leave.  That, or wrap structures to help ward off radiant heat - including burn-outs around structures.
RETIRED!

curdog

Quote from: Gary_C on July 07, 2013, 01:48:21 PM
Quote from: curdog on July 07, 2013, 09:43:51 AM
But lightening was not the only cause. Native Americans burned a lot. They would burn grasslands annually to provide habitat for large game that they hunted and to knee the grasses they need to make baskets. They would also burn the woodlands to keep them open for travel, reduce the fire risk around there settlements and to promote food species such as blueberry.

The Native Americans were nomads and normally did not have any permanent structures. When the European settlers arrived and the Natives were taken off the land, the settlers started building structures out in the woodlands and then demanded a stop to the burning.

That's how the USFS got into the business of fire supression. To save the structures.
Early native Americans were hunters and gatherers but eventually they started to form semi permanent settlements. During the Mississippian time period ( starting about 2800 years ago) they began to settle in river bottoms and began to grow corn or maize with a swiden type agriculture. They would stay in these settlements until the land was not fertile enough to sustain crops.
The USFS got involved in fire suppression after a series of deadly fires in the early 1900's , and did so for a combination of reasons. One the early foresters graduated from northern schools with all of the forestry background coming from Europe. There was not a long standing culture of burning in either of these areas ( as there was in the southeast at least). Also these catastrophic fires were seen as a problem to establishment of forests so they had to be eliminated. Eventually through federal funding fire suppression was carried out bythe states. This was ddefinitely influenced by the high demand and financing by the pulp and paper industry who wanted to promote the small diameter trees needed in pulp production.
I'm sure there is a lot that played into it and there were probably different reasons across the country.  A real good read is an article by Fowler and Konopick called the history of fire in the southern us. It explains a lot more than I know on the subject and care to type on this little keyboard on my phone :)

shortlogger

Here in the Ouachita national forest in the Poteau ranger district in Western Arkansas they do extensive controlled burning every spring and also some in the fall . That being said we still have an occasional wild fire in the summer but they are usually put out pretty quick due to low ground fuel and a extensive network of established fire trails . Even so we still have our fair share of controversy about the controlled burning every spring .
1 Corinthians 3:7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase . "NKJV"

Gary_C

Quote from: beenthere on July 07, 2013, 02:26:55 PM
Gary_c

QuoteThat's how the USFS got into the business of fire supression. To save the structures.


Where do you get that?

From a lot of reading over many years. Here is one place with a summary of some of the history of fire supression.  History of wildfire suppression in the United States

Here is one part of that summary that clearly shows the criteria for supressing or not involves determining if resources or structures are threatened.

When the U.S. Forest Service was established in 1905, it became the primary task of the Forest Service to suppress all fires on the forest reserves it administered. In 1916, the National Park Service was established and took over park management from the Army. Following the Forest Service approach, fire suppression became the only fire policy and remained in the national parks for the next five decades. Some foresters questioned the economic logic of such suppression efforts. However, the extensive fires of 1910 solidified the Forest Service as the premier fire control organization and fire suppression remained the only fire policy for all federal land management agencies until the late 1960s.

Complete fire suppression was the objective, even though these early efforts were less than successful until the advent of vehicles, equipment, and roads during the 1940s. As early as 1924, environmentalist Aldo Leopold argued that wildfires were beneficial to ecosystems, and were necessary for the natural propagation of numerous tree and plant species. Over the next 40 years, increasing numbers of foresters and ecologists concurred about the benefits of wildfire to ecosystems. Some managers allowed low intensity fires to spread in remote areas unless they threatened valuable resources or facilities.


So regardless of the area of the country, you can generalize that supressing fires is always to protect resources or structures.
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.


Randy88

Very good article Ron, and basically its right, peopel will get paid for their loss of property by insurance and then rebuild the same house they had before and in a few years everthing will be forgotten, just like many times before.   Until insurnace companies refuse to insure these properties nothing will change in my opinion.   

SwampDonkey

DNR closed the woods in our area due to high fire danger. The air here is full of smoke from Quebec fires and 2 NB fires up north.
"No amount of belief makes something a fact." James Randi

1 Thessalonians 5:21

2020 Polaris Ranger 570 to forward firewood, Husqvarna 555 XT Pro, Stihl FS560 clearing saw and continuously thinning my ground, on the side. Grow them trees. (((o)))

HiTech

Here in the Adirondack's in northern New York I don't think you could start a good forest fire. I always called the Adirondack Park the "Asbestos Forest". After the Micro Burst of "95" left so much blown over I thought there would be fires. Nothing. When I was in Montana hunting a couple times that was a different ball game. It looked like a fire could start any second. We were camped in the mountains outside of Dillon. We had camp fires at night but made a fireplace out of stones and cleared the debris away. Even the Forest Ranger who checked on us said it was a nice job. I did notice they clear cut in large chunks...say 50 acre squares or so. Then all the stumps and debris are piled up. I guess they do that so they can replant these areas. I did notice that blowdowns don't seen to rot like they do here. I guess the air is so dry there that it sort of preserves them.

SwampDonkey

That closure lasted one day, as we've had 6-7" of rain since. ;D
"No amount of belief makes something a fact." James Randi

1 Thessalonians 5:21

2020 Polaris Ranger 570 to forward firewood, Husqvarna 555 XT Pro, Stihl FS560 clearing saw and continuously thinning my ground, on the side. Grow them trees. (((o)))

Raider Bill

Just watched this about Spanish water drop planes. Interesting how much they steer almost looked like nascar driving.

http://biggeekdad.com/2012/12/spanish-water-drop-planes/
The First 70 years of childhood is always the hardest.

mesquite buckeye

Quote from: HiTech on July 30, 2013, 08:22:06 AM
I did notice that blowdowns don't seen to rot like they do here. I guess the air is so dry there that it sort of preserves them.

They still rot. It is just a slower timeframe than you are used to. Small point.

Ron- That article is mostly on the mark. Too bad they could not let it go without beating the Global Warming...oops... Climate Change drum one more time.

One other thing. I think we should consider all risks when building. Definitely I see the need for fire resistant structures, removal of ladder and fine fuels near structures for fire prone areas. Let's not forget wind resistant structures through much of the central and southern US (mobile type homes are not), and earthquake resistant structures in high risk earthquake areas such as areas affected by the New Madrid Fault Zone (most of the middle of North America), which is overdue. Then there is the Yellowstone Megavolcano evacuation plan (also overdue). Speaking of evacuations, don't forget the next glacial is coming and is also due, better get those people out of the northern and NE US and much of Canada. Then there is the Asteroid Defense System, which will be thought about after the doomsday asteroid is discovered and there isn't time left to build it.

Maybe a bit overstated, but there are lots of hazards out there. It is easier to see it as a problem for "those silly/stupid" other people. I think we are all guilty of lack of foresight about one danger or another.
Manage 80 acre tree farm in central Missouri and Mesquite timber and about a gozillion saguaros in Arizona.

Mt406

Hi I was reading though this subject.... Today when I was looking at a sale it came to mind so I took some pics there are large parts  of Montana look like this now. this is on a north slope  lodge pole at about 7500 ft.. with the drought and warmer winters and bugs.
We have lots of fires and big ones.
You can blame who you want, Tree Huggers, Bunny huggers, BLM, USFS, State. Its a mess and will keep burning until they come up with a practical solution. I am not holding my breath.

trying to figger out how to upload some pics


beenthere

Mt
Go to "Home", then down to "Behind The Forum" and click on the first thread there. It will walk you through the pic posting steps. Should help.

They are in your gallery, so good on that part. Now when you are in your post (Use the modify button) and click on your pic, it will enlarge. Then scroll down to where it says "Insert pic in post" and say "yes". It will show.
To check before clicking on Post, the do a Preview first. If not as you want it, then you can fix it before posting. Good pics of the beetle killed forests.
south central Wisconsin
It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

Ianab

Or, from the section below the image in the gallery, grab the code that looks like
[img]https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/33427/IMG_1216.JPG[/img]

Paste that into the thread, and you get ...


That method will work on ANY computer or browser.

Ian

BTW, I can see what you mean about it being a tinder box. With that amount of dead trees, once fire starts it's going to take off...
Weekend warrior, Peterson JP test pilot, Dolmar 7900 and Stihl MS310 saws and  the usual collection of power tools :)

Mt406

 

 

Thanks for the help

Randy88

Ok people some more questions from someone not living in fire prone area's, with the photo posted of a beetle kill area, which I've seen many times before while traveling, and the tree hugger's of this world shut down the harvesting till the tree's are worthless, and then along comes a fire that damages houses and lives.   Does or has anyone sued the tree hugger or judge that shut down the harvest in the first place??

Next question is, in a shut down harvest of dead tree's, what besides fire is there to do with the timber?   Wait 30 years for it to rot and decay and hopefully start over again.     

Granted I don't like waste, I"ll be the first to admit it, and I don't live in fire prone areas but to me, I'd be very upset if a timber near me looked like that photo Mt406 posted, it looks to me like a fire hazard waiting for an ignition source and the potential for a very bad situation to develop.     

To leave a timber looking like that is far better than to do a clear cut and remove some or most of the stuff and renew the timber so it can regrow again?   

I've also been told over the years, after a large fire goes through, the huggers will tie it up in court so nothing can be harvested till its too late to get anything of value out of the timber, then drop their lawsuit and move on.   Just how can one group of people have so much influence over the courts, when in reality it costs more and does more damage than good in the end, no I just don't get it.   Peoples lives and property are not as valuable as some beetle damaged dead tree's, or live tree's.   

Is education the key to this whole problem, I just don't understand how some group can influence so many judges and the media and deter against proper woodland management.

mesquite buckeye

That is exactly how it goes. We have fire after fire in mis managed western timber and the wood is left to rot. People come forward to salvage the trees and they are fought every step of the way.

It is really simple when you boil it down. Nature good, people bad. Never mind that people set up the situation we have now. Never mind the potential gain to national income. Never mind the waste of precious resources.

It is said that resource waste and depletion is the root of the collapse of many, if not most of the world's great civilizations. If that is the road we choose, we get what we deserve in the end.

Somewhere in the argument stewardship needs to be reinserted.
Manage 80 acre tree farm in central Missouri and Mesquite timber and about a gozillion saguaros in Arizona.

Andy B.

I've been reading up on controlled burning and forest fires and this seemed like an interesting thread.  Then I got to the photos Mt406 posted.  Holy crap, that looks like a natural disaster waiting to happen!

So I have a question, when that area burns (since there obviously is no IF involved), will the burning have more positive effects for the forest than if a logging crew went in there with skidders, chainsaws and bulldozers and just cut 95% of everything down (heck, maybe 100%)?  I realize a fire regenerates the forest, and some plants require the fire to propagate.  If the fire process is removed by human intervention, can human intervention than regenerate the forest?  Do you have to go through and manually plant the seedlings that would have started after the fire?

To me it seems a waste to just burn everything, but maybe that is what needs to happen, I have no idea.

Andy B.

terry f

    More thinning and stewardship money, thinning is where its at. People can blame the tree huggers all they want, but look at that picture and ask yourself what logger would go into that hill, build a road, and harvest low value spruce or lodge pole, even if you gave it to them. No logger could go in there and come out in the black, unless there was some high value trees or government help. If that hill doesn't burn, wouldn't we be ahead going in in 10 to 15 years and thinning or knocking down the new poles with a chainsaw crew. Not going to happen without tax dollars involved, but a good use of money, in my opinion. Not much danger in cutting down a 4 inch pole, but if you want to fireproof  our forests, that's a place to start.

mesquite buckeye

Some of the fires burn so hot they are sterilizing events. Seeds have to blow in or be flown on. Woods like that almost certainly would crown out and kill most of the still living trees. I'd say it is already too late there.
Manage 80 acre tree farm in central Missouri and Mesquite timber and about a gozillion saguaros in Arizona.

Thank You Sponsors!