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

[JimmyHoffa]

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.

And there's so much indirect cost associated with lumber such as enviro stuff, L and I and other fees, that it's tough to follow down the demand with respect to price and profit.

[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.

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.

It's "unlimited" in terms of the feds aren't going to wake up and say "well we ran out of money so we're done fighting fires this year." The money comes from somewhere, and with the USFS when the fire budget is drained they take it from within the other programs of the USFS. That's why Congress stepped in this year and said the large fires starting in 2020 will be paid by FEMA, that way the federal land management agencies aren't diverting all their money towards fires.

[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.

It's "unlimited" in terms of the feds aren't going to wake up and say "well we ran out of money so we're done fighting fires this year." The money comes from somewhere, and with the USFS when the fire budget is drained they take it from within the other programs of the USFS. That's why Congress stepped in this year and said the large fires starting in 2020 will be paid by FEMA, that way the federal land management agencies aren't diverting all their money towards fires.

Makes more sense.

USDA Forest Service Announces New Strategy for Improving Forest Conditions

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAOC/bulletins/20670fb#.W3XdtVESCcY.facebook

[NOCK NOCK]

I understand The FS has to "rob peter to pay paul"......My point is, They could aggressively attack fires early, Get them out, for a TON of less $$$$ instead of watching them burn in wilderness areas until they become a threat, which in turn costs millions to then fight them. Bad management decisions on the FS part. 

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.

As a firefighter, You should already know that several of these fires were not attacked from the start...Wolverine, Tyee 2018.

[WAcoueshunter]

I understand The FS has to "rob peter to pay paul"......My point is, They could aggressively attack fires early, Get them out, for a TON of less $$$$ instead of watching them burn in wilderness areas until they become a threat, which in turn costs millions to then fight them. Bad management decisions on the FS part. 

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.

As a firefighter, You should already know that several of these fires were not attacked from the start...Wolverine, Tyee 2018.

I'm not a firefighter, and don't profess to know all their thinking and strategy.  I'm also not a skeptic who thinks I know how to do everyone's job better than they do.  But I do spend a lot of time in the Tyee 2018 burn area.  They've been prescribed burning that patch from Ardenvoir to Tyee Mountain every fall for at least the last five years, presumably to get rid of the downfall and fuel from the 1994 fire.  There's a patch on the backside of Tyee that is (maybe was, at this point) a forest of 50' sticks, pretty much impassable.  Doesn't surprise me that they'd let it burn.

[NOCK NOCK]

FS complains about  having shortfalls in firefighting funds,  and then they have to draw funds from other programs.  Put the fires out earlier in their life and save money,  or don’t complain about the condition you’ve helped arise.

[NOCK NOCK]

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.

As a firefighter, You should already know that several of these fires were not attacked from the start...Wolverine, Tyee 2018.
[/quote]


@Doublelunger, Here's what you asked for,

narrative timeline of the pacific northwest 2015 fire season - ArcGIS
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=6809aeac3495448886fd8c53349d32e9%20

For the next 27 days, the Wolverine Fire was monitored. Intermittent bucket drops were applied to slow fire movement while crews prepared indirect fireline.

[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.

As a firefighter, You should already know that several of these fires were not attacked from the start...Wolverine, Tyee 2018.

@Doublelunger, Here's what you asked for,

narrative timeline of the pacific northwest 2015 fire season - ArcGIS
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=6809aeac3495448886fd8c53349d32e9%20

For the next 27 days, the Wolverine Fire was monitored. Intermittent bucket drops were applied to slow fire movement while crews prepared indirect fireline.
[/quote]

It was monitored while crews prepared indirect line. That's  lot different than patrol status. On almost all large fires indirect attack is the primary way of fighting them.

[NOCK NOCK]

I never claimed to be an expert in firefighting terminology. Monitored (To observe, watch, keep track of) or Patrolled (To keep watch over), neither is a direct attempt at extinguishing a fire, and have the same basic meaning.

Indirect (attack?) line.....Allowing a fire to burn up ground in hopes of stopping it some distance away from the actual front line. How can it be considered an attack if your not even working the fire line?  Pretty much describes what I first mentioned (Yellow line around Tyee fire) Allowing it to get large before seriously attempting to fight it.

Wolverine was not a large fire...…..until it was let go for nearly a month. Many other recent fires had the same storyline.

I understand that on large fires an indirect line, and/or a contingency line, is the best course of action. Problem is that NO fires start large, a lot of them could be extinguished early on, saving lives, resources, property, and money!

Doublelunger, I applaud your commitment to what you've been trained/taught about wildfires, and fighting them,  after all it's how you made your living I'm guessing, and if all fires were put out quickly that would hurt your $$ intake, but because my opinion differs from yours does not mean that I am wrong, or naïve.

I, along with a ton of other folks, are sick and tired of having to breathe unhealthy smoke all summer long, and watching all of our valuable public resources go up in smoke because of bad management decisions. It's past time the FS starts to manage the forests and not let them all turn black.


Im Out. 

[KFhunter]

I had some buddies that tried a direct attack on the front of a fire, the fire swept past them and melted their turn signals, emergency lights and other plastics on the fire truck and bubbled the paint, the windows were down too and it did some damage in the cab as well.   

They're lucky to be alive, other than some singed cheeks and smoking hair, no lasting harm to either of them   

Way to cowboy it up guys 



Moral of the story?  keep them windows rolled up 

[bobcat]

I think this may have been already mentioned, but not all timber is worth logging. Much of it will cost more to log than it's worth. So to say logging is the answer and will solve the problem is being just a little too simplistic.

The problem really is a result of man putting out fires in the last 100 years, which of course has already been said as well.

I think part of the solution is for people to stop building in fire prone areas.

[KFhunter]

There is no one solution and many times it could be multiple combinations that would best work.

[Doublelunger]

I never claimed to be an expert in firefighting terminology. Monitored (To observe, watch, keep track of) or Patrolled (To keep watch over), neither is a direct attempt at extinguishing a fire, and have the same basic meaning.

Indirect (attack?) line.....Allowing a fire to burn up ground in hopes of stopping it some distance away from the actual front line. How can it be considered an attack if your not even working the fire line?  Pretty much describes what I first mentioned (Yellow line around Tyee fire) Allowing it to get large before seriously attempting to fight it.

Wolverine was not a large fire...…..until it was let go for nearly a month. Many other recent fires had the same storyline.

I understand that on large fires an indirect line, and/or a contingency line, is the best course of action. Problem is that NO fires start large, a lot of them could be extinguished early on, saving lives, resources, property, and money!

Doublelunger, I applaud your commitment to what you've been trained/taught about wildfires, and fighting them,  after all it's how you made your living I'm guessing, and if all fires were put out quickly that would hurt your $$ intake, but because my opinion differs from yours does not mean that I am wrong, or naïve.

I, along with a ton of other folks, are sick and tired of having to breathe unhealthy smoke all summer long, and watching all of our valuable public resources go up in smoke because of bad management decisions. It's past time the FS starts to manage the forests and not let them all turn black.


Im Out. 

I don't know much about the wolverine fire. It seems like your digging awfully deep into the weeds to try to prove something. My only point or stance is that fires are not managed with the specific goal of letting them get big enough so that they can be fought until the snow flies like you implied. If the wolverine fire was in some sort of  patrol/monitor status then it was because some managers decided that letting it burn was a good and low risk option that would yield some benefit. Guess what, people make bad decisions,  fire is unpredictable, and stuff happens.  I can guarantee its not a big conspiracy like you think. 

As far as my time as a wild land FF. Putting fires out quick and doing my job to the best of my ability was always the ultimate goal. Their was always another assignment and another fire to fight so it didn't really matter if you put one out quick. The only thing that ended fire season for a hotshot or a smokejumper was the changing of the seasons.

I'll sum up my opinion on everything..

In regard to large and intense fires and why they're becoming so regular

1) massive fuel loads as a result of suppressing fires fire so long and so frequently.

2) drought, hotter drier weather. More mild winters etc. Fuel is much drier and burning seasons are much longer than they ever have been.

3) lack of logging and grazing

Fixing number 1 would be extremely difficult or almost impossible for reasons that have been covered already

Fixing number 2 will never happen. Imo

Working on number 3 is the most realistic and will help but I view it as a band aid for a gunshot wound.

My advice is don't build in the wood and if you do have really good defensible space.

[timberfaller]

"If the wolverine fire was in some sort of  patrol/monitor status"

"Wilderness" fire are just that, "monitor/wait and see" or what is called "let it burn policy" only when it threatens private,state,federal land will "monitor" change to "well, lets see what happens".   The original fire that became "Wolverine" had been "monitored" for weeks before nature took a turn and fanned it big time.  Then it was to late to fight it to put it out.

The powers that be knew they had a problem of their creating.   Went clear down lake to Shady pass to start making a fire break(they knew it wouldn't hold too if it got that far).  They spent days looking of old miners roads that could be opened up for breaks.   But its all water under the bridge now.

Wilderness in the minds of the deep state(lobbyist moneys)are places MAN has to leave alone(eco-freaks say it must stay that way and provide the $$$$$$$) because MAN only screws things up and Loggers are evil dudes!

[wolfbait]

"If the wolverine fire was in some sort of  patrol/monitor status"

"Wilderness" fire are just that, "monitor/wait and see" or what is called "let it burn policy" only when it threatens private,state,federal land will "monitor" change to "well, lets see what happens".   The original fire that became "Wolverine" had been "monitored" for weeks before nature took a turn and fanned it big time.  Then it was to late to fight it to put it out.

The powers that be knew they had a problem of their creating.   Went clear down lake to Shady pass to start making a fire break(they knew it wouldn't hold too if it got that far).  They spent days looking of old miners roads that could be opened up for breaks.   But its all water under the bridge now.

Wilderness in the minds of the deep state(lobbyist moneys)are places MAN has to leave alone(eco-freaks say it must stay that way and provide the $$$$$$$) because MAN only screws things up and Loggers are evil dudes!

Drugs, Lies, Incompetence and Corruption: New Forest Service Normal?

"In a 2007 wildfire case involving a large logging company, the US Forest Service was found to have repeatedly lied under oath and falsified its investigation regarding a wildfire in the Plumas and Lassen National Forests."


http://usfspayettenationalforest.blogspot.com/2017/03/us-forest-service-lied-under-oath.html




In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.  s:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml