After Libs Blame West Coast Fires on Global Warming, Forester Speaks out

[jmscon]

I have a good friend over there who contracted with Vaagen to log his property. They started on it for about a month this spring and then stopped as they said the larger timber had no demand at the current time. Been sitting idle for the rest of the summer and told him they hoped to be able to do more next spring but demand is very weak right now. He's reconsidering as the prices they're paying are so low he's thinking of waiting to see if they go back up.  Main reason he wanted to log his property (about 1600 acres) is because one the fires came so close last year it made him think of getting it thinned down. Guess that's maybe why so much of the timber company land in the NE is sitting untouched and susceptible to fires.

Vaagen Bros doesn’t want anything above 14” in diameter, IIRC. They also don’t want ponderosa pine just fir and tamarack. Most ponderosa, around Colville, goes to the Boise mill in Kettle Falls. Not sure in Vaagen sells to them on contracted cuts or what their relationship is. Larger diameter logs used to go to Omak plywood plant or now Cle Elum for export. Also with the recent fires over the last couple of years the salvage cuts have flooded the market. One last thing, when the fire season heats up the woods get shut down and loggers move to firefighting.

One thing I haven’t seen talked about on here is the life cycle of standing timber. Most trees are marketable until they are 40 years old and older on the dry east side. Once you have a timber harvest or fire no one will touch it for years except for some minor thinning. So fires or logged areas after the 70’s won’t get touched except for some minor thinning for a couple more years.

[wolfbait]

Trump tweet nails it, bad policies behind nightmare California wildfires


"The pundits and pundettes blame “climate change,” the President blames “environmental laws.” The President is right. Unfortunately for the pundits and pundettes, the United States Forest Service (USFS) and Cal Fire have powerful evidence supporting President Trump’s premise."


http://www.freerangereport.com/index.php/2018/08/09/trump-tweet-nails-it-bad-policies-behind-nightmare-california-wildfires/

[baldopepper]

I have a good friend over there who contracted with Vaagen to log his property. They started on it for about a month this spring and then stopped as they said the larger timber had no demand at the current time. Been sitting idle for the rest of the summer and told him they hoped to be able to do more next spring but demand is very weak right now. He's reconsidering as the prices they're paying are so low he's thinking of waiting to see if they go back up.  Main reason he wanted to log his property (about 1600 acres) is because one the fires came so close last year it made him think of getting it thinned down. Guess that's maybe why so much of the timber company land in the NE is sitting untouched and susceptible to fires.

Vaagen Bros doesn’t want anything above 14” in diameter, IIRC. They also don’t want ponderosa pine just fir and tamarack. Most ponderosa, around Colville, goes to the Boise mill in Kettle Falls. Not sure in Vaagen sells to them on contracted cuts or what their relationship is. Larger diameter logs used to go to Omak plywood plant or now Cle Elum for export. Also with the recent fires over the last couple of years the salvage cuts have flooded the market. One last thing, when the fire season heats up the woods get shut down and loggers move to firefighting.

One thing I haven’t seen talked about on here is the life cycle of standing timber. Most trees are marketable until they are 40 years old and older on the dry east side. Once you have a timber harvest or fire no one will touch it for years except for some minor thinning. So fires or logged areas after the 70’s won’t get touched except for some minor thinning for a couple more years.

Vaagen does indeed work with Boise and it was them who wanted no more of the larger ponderosa. He also owns acreage on the west side that he cant get logged because he's also being told lack of demand. Sometimes we seem to forget that the lumber industry is also subject to the laws of supply and demand - there is no unlimited demand for lumber and lots of unlogged land is simply there because there is no demand for the lumber right now.

[WAcoyotehunter]

"30mbf to 80mbf." 

Why so little??   Oh ya, logging is evil!!  The Twisp district(70's)30mbf was about one years worth of logging sales.  Winthrop was its own district and put out a little less.

In 1979 I seen 28mbf of sales listed in the timber office of the USFS,  ALL stopped by one group, The Sierra Club.  YEARS of hard work by timber markers and engineers(roads crew).  At that time there was only about 150 members of the Sierra Club!!!  


"Raping forests for the benefit of few is stupid." also "94% to 96%" purchased in America is American lumber

Care to elaborate your statement??

I would like to see a link to prove those numbers!

That's an annual cut of 80mbf....

I'm not going to discuss forest management with a guy that has a tagline of "the only good tree is a stump".

[pianoman9701]

The reason fires are so big these days is because we've been suppressing them for over one hundred years. Instead of letting them do what they naturally do we put them out and now we have enormous fuel loads that result in huge fires that burn all summer long. The lack of logging and grazing is a microscopic fraction of the real problem.

Do you mow your lawn, or just let it grow?

Logging and grazing weren't here for the last 4.5 billion years and either were fires of this magnitude. Don't get me wrong I fully support both but they're not the problem. What's really to blame is ignorance and the outward expansion of humans into more and more remote locations.

Ignorance of what, needing to replace the cleaning that fires of the past performed? Outward expansion will continue as long as our population grows. You may not like it but it's a fact that's here to stay. Trends tells us that's not slowing down anytime soon. And, we aren't able to let forest fires go unchecked because we have to protect private property owners, communities, and business. Logging is the modern day equivalent of naturally occurring wildfire. It creates breaks, cleans the debris, and opens spaces for ungulates to graze. When we put a moratorium on logging the NFs in the late 80s, we created the perfect storm for wildfires - efficient fire fighting and ending logging. It's got to be one or the other and controlled, planned logging is the answer.

[Doublelunger]

The reason fires are so big these days is because we've been suppressing them for over one hundred years. Instead of letting them do what they naturally do we put them out and now we have enormous fuel loads that result in huge fires that burn all summer long. The lack of logging and grazing is a microscopic fraction of the real problem.

Do you mow your lawn, or just let it grow?

Logging and grazing weren't here for the last 4.5 billion years and either were fires of this magnitude. Don't get me wrong I fully support both but they're not the problem. What's really to blame is ignorance and the outward expansion of humans into more and more remote locations.

Ignorance of what, needing to replace the cleaning that fires of the past performed? Outward expansion will continue as long as our population grows. You may not like it but it's a fact that's here to stay. Trends tells us that's not slowing down anytime soon. And, we aren't able to let forest fires go unchecked because we have to protect private property owners, communities, and business. Logging is the modern day equivalent of naturally occurring wildfire. It creates breaks, cleans the debris, and opens spaces for ungulates to graze. When we put a moratorium on logging the NFs in the late 80s, we created the perfect storm for wildfires - efficient fire fighting and ending logging. It's got to be one or the other and controlled, planned logging is the answer.

Ignorance, meaning for a very long time (up until the 1960's) we didn't understand fire and its role in the ecosystem so everytime there was a fire whether it was human caused or natural we would put it out.

[NOCK NOCK]

@Doublelunger

1. So how do you define the let it burn policy? Or are you saying there is not such.

2. We have heard it over and over, These big fires are because we have suppressed fires so well in the last 100years. What has changed present day that we are now not suppressing as well?

The reason fires are so big these days is because we've been suppressing them for over one hundred years. Instead of letting them do what they naturally do we put them out and now we have enormous fuel loads that result in huge fires that burn all summer long. The lack of logging and grazing is a microscopic fraction of the real problem.

Still waiting for an answer for above questions. 

[NOCK NOCK]

 We either put fires out or we let them burn it can’t be both 

[Doublelunger]

@Doublelunger

1. So how do you define the let it burn policy? Or are you saying there is not such.

2. We have heard it over and over, These big fires are because we have suppressed fires so well in the last 100years. What has changed present day that we are now not suppressing as well?

The reason fires are so big these days is because we've been suppressing them for over one hundred years. Instead of letting them do what they naturally do we put them out and now we have enormous fuel loads that result in huge fires that burn all summer long. The lack of logging and grazing is a microscopic fraction of the real problem.

Still waiting for an answer for above questions. 

Sorry I'm having a hard time putting your first question into context. but ill try to answer it.

1. Letting fires burn is a good option when the situation allows it. They do it all the time in the wilderness areas and sometimes in non wilderness (usually Forest service) areas that are more remote. Lots of times; because of the proximity to communities, structures, or whatever else its not an option. So yes you can do both.

2. What has changed? the amount of fuel on the ground mostly. Before man arrived fire would clean up the forests naturally a few times every hundred years. There was never a mass accumulation of fuel on the ground so when fire did come through it would burn with low intensity.  Now that we've been putting them out for a hundred+ years we have a massive fuel loading problem which results in fires don't burn at low intensities anymore and are therefore harder to put out.

[NOCK NOCK]

When a new start is detected there are 2 options, 1. Attempt to put it out, or 2. Patrol it (do nothing but watch it.)

What we are seeing these days is "Let it burn"...…...until it threatens civilization.
So yes, My original statement is very accurate.
"Once the fire gets big enough that it will keep the agencies employed on it till the snow flies, and it is starting to threaten the public, they get serious about fighting it."


Wolverine, Duncan, Okanogan & Carlton complex's, Tripod, Tunk, Lime belt, and Tyee 1994 for a total  of 1,235,954 acreage..... The majority of these fires could have been kept much smaller had they been attacked quicker instead of "patrol mode" That's a lot of land/timber that was wasted. How many folks lost their lives, homes, property, livelihood because of the let it burn policy? How much lumber was wasted?

Nowadays folks have to live all summer with smoke so thick it makes them choke, and is a huge deterrent to tourism. If the FS continues this philosophy we will end up with nothing but charred forests, and less and less wildlife. Heck the Entiat valley has very little acreage left that has not seen a fire in the last 40 years, 100' tall trees are a thing of the past.

Man has changed the face of the planet, and forests. Now we want to go back and let nature take its course is unrealistic at best. Does a person get a puppy and then expect it to feed it self?

As to the Natural burn every 100+ year is the reason thing, again Hogwash.
1994 Tyee fire burned 135k acres......2018 Tyee burning again, 30k+ and not low intensity. 




Checkout this list of major WA fires, its quite sobering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Washington_wildfires

[Doublelunger]

They generally don't just let fires burn if theirs a chance they can threaten communities. As far as I know none of the fires you referenced were ever in patrol status. Care to cite your sources? And If your going to argue that suppressing wildfires for a centuary hasn't caused them to burn with higher intensity then you flunk wildfire 101. I won't argue with you anymore but I would suggest a quick Google search to get you up to speed. Speaking of fires this thread is turning into a bit of a dumpster fire so I think I'm done with this one.

[buglebrush]

When a new start is detected there are 2 options, 1. Attempt to put it out, or 2. Patrol it (do nothing but watch it.)

What we are seeing these days is "Let it burn"...…...until it threatens civilization.
So yes, My original statement is very accurate.
"Once the fire gets big enough that it will keep the agencies employed on it till the snow flies, and it is starting to threaten the public, they get serious about fighting it."


Wolverine, Duncan, Okanogan & Carlton complex's, Tripod, Tunk, Lime belt, and Tyee 1994 for a total  of 1,235,954 acreage..... The majority of these fires could have been kept much smaller had they been attacked quicker instead of "patrol mode" That's a lot of land/timber that was wasted. How many folks lost their lives, homes, property, livelihood because of the let it burn policy? How much lumber was wasted?

Nowadays folks have to live all summer with smoke so thick it makes them choke, and is a huge deterrent to tourism. If the FS continues this philosophy we will end up with nothing but charred forests, and less and less wildlife. Heck the Entiat valley has very little acreage left that has not seen a fire in the last 40 years, 100' tall trees are a thing of the past.

Man has changed the face of the planet, and forests. Now we want to go back and let nature take its course is unrealistic at best. Does a person get a puppy and then expect it to feed it self?

As to the Natural burn every 100+ year is the reason thing, again Hogwash.
1994 Tyee fire burned 135k acres......2018 Tyee burning again, 30k+ and not low intensity. 




Checkout this list of major WA fires, its quite sobering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Washington_wildfires

Exactly right. 

[bigtex]

Do you really want to know why the fires are so big these days? It's all about the money.
Millions of dollars go to the FS,DNR,BLM, and private FF agencies. It's all about "use it or lose it" funding. Thousands of employees in these organizations would not be making any money if fires were put out early.

Take a look at the below screen shot from the Cougar creek fire dated 8-7-18. Notice the yellow line. Some will argue this, but in reality, everything inside this line has already been decided by the FS to "let it burn" instead of trying to get it put out early. Notice how close that line is to the town of Ardenvoir. Why?
Once the fire gets big enough that it will keep the agencies employeed on it till the snow flies, and it is starting to threaten the public, they get serious about fighting it. They now look good to the public and are doing a great job protecting property and lives......and the circle of Money continues to flow their way.

Speaking of "let it burn" policy, If fires are a natural part of the ecosystem, and huge fires are because we have suppressed them to well for the last 100 years, Why not let them burn? Its natures way right?

PS; I am in no way ranting on those who are out there on the fireline doing the dirty work, they bust their hineys and deserve what they earn. The upper managers, well that's another story. 

I have to call BS on this. I was a wildland firefighter for 15 years (recently had a career change). I worked for the Forest Service and BLM and most of my career was as a hotshot and smokejumper. I've spent thousands of days and tens of thousands of hours on the fireline battling fire in every single state west of the continental divide from Alaska to Texas. My life was fire...and in all of my experiences I was NEVER on an incident that was managed  so that it would get big enough to keep people employed till the snow flies.

What most don't understand is the federal agencies have to fund the fires from within their agency budget. As an example if the USFS budget is $1 billion and Congress has given them $250 million for fires but they actually spend $400 million on fires the USFS has to take that extra $150 million away from other programs within the agency. So that means they'll tap into funding for road maintenance, law enforcement, wildlife programs, etc and in some cases depleting those programs. This has caused a huge problem for the USFS. Congress just authorized FEMA to pay for some large fires but that doesn't take effect until 2020.

Now in comparison, if WA DNR goes over budget for fire the WA legislature essentially reimburses the agency the next year.

Use it or lose it.  Believe I already stated that.

Point is, it’s NOT being used properly.


Ps, I too have a little knowledge about how governmental agensies operate, 2 incomes in my family from such.

That's not "use it or lose it". That's oh sh** we ran out of fire money lets tap into the budget of all other programs and have them pay for fire.

[wolfbait]

Do you really want to know why the fires are so big these days? It's all about the money.
Millions of dollars go to the FS,DNR,BLM, and private FF agencies. It's all about "use it or lose it" funding. Thousands of employees in these organizations would not be making any money if fires were put out early.

Take a look at the below screen shot from the Cougar creek fire dated 8-7-18. Notice the yellow line. Some will argue this, but in reality, everything inside this line has already been decided by the FS to "let it burn" instead of trying to get it put out early. Notice how close that line is to the town of Ardenvoir. Why?
Once the fire gets big enough that it will keep the agencies employeed on it till the snow flies, and it is starting to threaten the public, they get serious about fighting it. They now look good to the public and are doing a great job protecting property and lives......and the circle of Money continues to flow their way.

Speaking of "let it burn" policy, If fires are a natural part of the ecosystem, and huge fires are because we have suppressed them to well for the last 100 years, Why not let them burn? Its natures way right?

PS; I am in no way ranting on those who are out there on the fireline doing the dirty work, they bust their hineys and deserve what they earn. The upper managers, well that's another story. 

I have to call BS on this. I was a wildland firefighter for 15 years (recently had a career change). I worked for the Forest Service and BLM and most of my career was as a hotshot and smokejumper. I've spent thousands of days and tens of thousands of hours on the fireline battling fire in every single state west of the continental divide from Alaska to Texas. My life was fire...and in all of my experiences I was NEVER on an incident that was managed  so that it would get big enough to keep people employed till the snow flies.

What most don't understand is the federal agencies have to fund the fires from within their agency budget. As an example if the USFS budget is $1 billion and Congress has given them $250 million for fires but they actually spend $400 million on fires the USFS has to take that extra $150 million away from other programs within the agency. So that means they'll tap into funding for road maintenance, law enforcement, wildlife programs, etc and in some cases depleting those programs. This has caused a huge problem for the USFS. Congress just authorized FEMA to pay for some large fires but that doesn't take effect until 2020.

Now in comparison, if WA DNR goes over budget for fire the WA legislature essentially reimburses the agency the next year.

Use it or lose it.  Believe I already stated that.

Point is, it’s NOT being used properly.


Ps, I too have a little knowledge about how governmental agensies operate, 2 incomes in my family from such.

That's not "use it or lose it". That's oh sh** we ran out of fire money lets tap into the budget of all other programs and have them pay for fire.

The way it was explained to me some years ago is, fire was unlimited federal spending, not taken from other departments as you suggest. Many of the districts resupplied there fire hoses etc. when fires occurred instead of dipping into their own funding.

[KFhunter]

did the fire start on county? private? state? federal land? cause of fire? did it burn across state or federal land?  was a disaster or state of emergency declared? did it go mutual aid?

I don't really know much about funding wild land fires other than it's convoluted and different agencies often argue about who's footing what portion of the bill.   

USFS wants big fire funding to dip out of the disaster relief funds like hurricanes and the like to stabilize their budget, as bigtex said they start robbing Peter (non fire fighting budget for projects and such) to pay Paul (firefighting budget) when it comes to funding big fire fighting costs.  Stabilizing the budget by getting money from disaster relief might be a good idea, USFS is loathe to do projects with fire season looming ahead (might need the $$ for fire fighting). 

They really need to open roads and do more thinning, logging and doing things like installing water tanks and trails...like they used to do.


As for getting new equipment like trucks or fire hoses there is a plethora of grants available, a good friend of mine has done a lot for the small local fire dist from grants.