Post by: wolfbait on August 09, 2018, 01:05:11 PM
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/after-libs-blame-west-coast-fires-on-global-warming-forester-speaks-out/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=conservative-brief-CT&utm_campaign=dailyam&utm_content=conservative-tribune
Post by: Jake Dogfish on August 09, 2018, 01:11:04 PM
Don’t see anyone mentioned in the article. Fake news? :dunno:
Post by: bracer40 on August 09, 2018, 03:03:03 PM
Post by: timberfaller on August 09, 2018, 03:07:58 PM
Post by: Old Man Yager on August 09, 2018, 04:04:13 PM
Who are the “Libs”that started this rant?Don't know who the libs are either, but I do know that Clinton shut down the logging, which put a lot of good people out of work and caused a lot of heartache in small logging towns. And now fires are worse than ever because forests are so full of fuel for the fires.
Don’t see anyone mentioned in the article. Fake news? :dunno:
Post by: tlbradford on August 09, 2018, 04:34:09 PM
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/aug/03/mcmorris-rodgers-us-forest-service-chief-tout-publ/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/aug/03/mcmorris-rodgers-us-forest-service-chief-tout-publ/)
Post by: timberfaller on August 09, 2018, 04:53:18 PM
The process is really simple, a crowded forest will burn hot and out of control, a thinned forest where tree limbs aren't touching other trees, most of the time the fire stays on the floor and is more apt to be controlled.
When the government can finally figure out that if they would allow third party lawsuits against these "eco-freak groups" some of the injunctions will cease to be filed!
Every one who losses property to wildfires, should be able to file suit against the likes of the Sierra Club and people like Mitch Friedman.
Post by: Doublelunger on August 09, 2018, 04:54:50 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 10, 2018, 08:42:04 AM
After Libs Blame West Coast Fires on Global Warming, Forester Speaks out
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/after-libs-blame-west-coast-fires-on-global-warming-forester-speaks-out/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=conservative-brief-CT&utm_campaign=dailyam&utm_content=conservative-tribune
I completely agree with these comments from the story:
Quote
“You take away logging, grazing and maintenance, and you get firebombs,” Zybach said.
Although not strictly a “firebomb,” the wildfires are so violent that they have spawned a “firenado” from the sheer intensity of the heat.
With record wildfires engulfing over 600,000 acres, Zybach’s prediction has played out in a deadly fashion.
We can all thank liberals, enviros, Dems, and some RINO's for shutting down all the logging, all these fires of course contribute vast quantities of heat to our atmosphere. It wasn't the Republicans that shut it all down. The liberals, enviros, and Dems own this!
Post by: wolfbait on August 10, 2018, 10:58:02 AM
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?
Post by: ribka on August 10, 2018, 12:33:48 PM
Having read the article bradford, its a very small step. One thing for sure though, most of the environmental groups that have their hands in shutting down the forest after the Sierra Club started the process are still at it!!!
The process is really simple, a crowded forest will burn hot and out of control, a thinned forest where tree limbs aren't touching other trees, most of the time the fire stays on the floor and is more apt to be controlled.
When the government can finally figure out that if they would allow third party lawsuits against these "eco-freak groups" some of the injunctions will cease to be filed!
Every one who losses property to wildfires, should be able to file suit against the likes of the Sierra Club and people like Mitch Friedman.
Mitch, self appointed leader of conservation NW, a self admitted terrorist, grew in Chicago and became a self proclaimed forestry expert and started spiking trees and shutdown very sound forest management practices across the western US. With his incredibly ignorant views he helped destroy tens of thousands of acres of forest and tens of thousands of innocent animals like the endangered mule deer, lynx , woodland caribou etc. what a sham anyone listens to this fraud :chuckle:
Post by: SteelheadTed on August 10, 2018, 06:48:11 PM
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?
I don't think he is saying that. I think the point is "do what they naturally do", burn (not put them out).
Post by: Doublelunger on August 10, 2018, 10:00:22 PM
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.
Post by: buglebrush on August 10, 2018, 10:56:35 PM
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.
Right. The outward expansion of humans causes lightning to strike and start fires. Bologna. Proper logging would certainly reduce fuel immensely. It's crazy that most of our lumber products come from Canada while we simply feed the fires with our timber resources.
Post by: Doublelunger on August 11, 2018, 08:51:07 AM
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.
Right. The outward expansion of humans causes lightning to strike and start fires. Bologna. Proper logging would certainly reduce fuel immensely. It's crazy that most of our lumber products come from Canada while we simply feed the fires with our timber resources.
Dude just look at this forum. Every time a new fire pops up somewhere everyone and their mom is like "oh man, there's a lot of houses up there I hope they get this one out soon!" I don't like seeing homes burn end either does anyone else so we go put the fires out and fuel that should have burned doesn't and it piles up and this happens year after year and then eventually you get fires that blow up and gobble up hundreds of thousands of acres. Logging and grazing DOES help but it's only a band aid for a much bigger problem.
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on August 11, 2018, 09:24:33 AM
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on August 11, 2018, 09:54:09 AM
Quote
Log it, graze it or watch it burn
We need to get our forests working again and say no to wilderness areas and IRAs. While I typically refrain from writing opinion pieces or letters to the editor, the recent catastrophic fires in our area have convinced me to act otherwise. I had originally wanted to write a rebuttal to an opinion piece that derided our local Stevens County Cattlemen’s Association for a billboard they sponsored stating that we need to “log it, graze it, or watch it burn.” The cattlemen were, of course, speaking about the management on the Colville National Forest where timber harvest levels have dropped significantly in the past 20 years and where grazing allotments are almost in a perennial state of jeopardy. The result of this inaction in regards to the management on the Colville National Forest is the worst fire season since the “Big Burn” of 1910 where much of the West was on fire until that winters’ snow eventually put out the fires that had destroyed so much of the landscape. To be fair, this was before the invention of the modern day equipment that we currently utilize to fight fire, but it was also before the designation of wilderness areas. Locally, a group called the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition has been supporting the expansion of wilderness areas in the Colville National Forest. The environmental interests represented on this coalition have agreed not to file lawsuits on timber sales in exchange for expanding and establishing new wilderness areas. I mention this because in wilderness areas, there are literally no options for fighting fire. As a local firefighter once told me, the only option for managing a fire in a wilderness area is to, “let it burn.” My office has been inundated with phone calls, letters, emails and messages wanting to know why there aren’t more resources available to fight the fires currently raging in the Colville National Forest. Imagine if wilderness areas were expanded. Even if the State or Federal government had resources available, they wouldn’t be able to utilize those resources because you are not allowed to in areas managed as “Wilderness”. The term “Wilderness Area” sounds harmless because a major reason we all live in this area is the attraction to the outdoors, both for recreation and as a way to make a living. The wilderness in and of itself is a wonderful thing that allows local families the opportunity to raise their families in an area where their proximity to nature literally meets them at their doorstep. Wilderness Areas, however, have a very different meaning. By definition, a Wilderness Area Designation doesn’t allow for mechanized equipment to enter their boundary lines. This means less recreation opportunity for ATV riders, bicyclists, hunters, campers, firewood cutters and huckleberry pickers. It also means the potential loss of grazing land for our ranchers, and no ability to ever cut down even a single tree with a chainsaw. It also means, that in a time of fire, you wouldn’t be able to drive a fire engine or any other firefighting equipment past those imaginary boundary lines. When you add into the mix that the same group, the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition, is also supporting the decommissioning of roads on the Colville National Forest, I am left wondering how we are supposed to fight fires in other areas that aren’t being sought as Wilderness Areas, but are being promoted as “Inventoried Roadless Areas” or IRA’s, as they are known in Forest Service lingo. In addition to hearing from my constituents about the lack of resources for fighting these fires, for years I have heard from folks wondering why their favorite forest road had been closed. These roads are utilized for ranchers to access their grazing allotments, but were also historically used for logging, as well as access to firewood, hunting, berry picking and other recreational activities. The answer to these issues seems pretty simple in my opinion. We need to get our forests working again. We need to return to the logging practices that allowed for healthy timber harvests, grazing, and access that not only allowed people to make a living, but also offered many recreational opportunities. The reason that the Cattlemen’s Association sponsored billboard is so valid is because those practices of grazing and yes, logging, reduced the likelihood of forest fires. That isn’t to say that we wouldn’t have fires, but we would greatly reduce our susceptibility to them if we had access, and employed preventive measures like logging and grazing. We would also increase our ability to fight the fewer fires that we would have because the conditions in the forest would be so much better. There would be reduced fuels, more defensible space, healthy timber stands, and the grazing would keep the grasses and weeds knocked down. When I see the pictures of dead, burned cows, as well as houses totally destroyed and property burnt to a crisp, it is heart-wrenching. To see all of the devastation that has been caused by these fires is hard to look at. It is even more difficult to look at knowing that a lot of the destruction could have been prevented. I, for one, wholeheartedly support the Cattlemen’s message of “log it, graze it, or watch it burn.” I am sad that their message was so prophetic, but it is time that we stand together as a community and say no to “Wilderness Areas” and “Inventoried Roadless Areas”. We have to send a message to the Forest Service and the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition that people’s lives, homes, properties, and livestock are more important than an ideology. Finally, I want to thank all of the volunteers and fire-fighters that are working so hard to put these fires out. We live in a special place where so many people are willing to help their neighbors in times of trouble. These selfless acts do not go unnoticed and are greatly appreciated by all of us.
Brian Dansel
7th District State Senator Republic
Trump Administration Appoints Brian Dansel to Serve as State Executive Director for USDA’s Farm Service Agency in Washington State
https://www.fsa.usda.gov/state-offices/Washington/news-releases/2017/stnr_wa_20171108_rel_98
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on August 11, 2018, 10:47:16 AM
Post by: jmscon on August 11, 2018, 11:01:07 AM
Management of these forests is the only answer. Letting fires burn to reduce the fuel load is not a realistic answer with today's population density. The forests of the past that evolved to handle fires no longer exist. We have changed the landscape therefore we have a responsibility to manage it properly.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
100% agree!! Once we cut the forests they are changed FOREVER and they need to be managed properly!
If we logged responsibly I would be all for it, but as long as I find these signs at every new clear cut, no way.
This too!
Post by: bearpaw on August 11, 2018, 01:10:19 PM
If we logged responsibly I would be all for it, but as long as I find these signs at every new clear cut, no way.
Privately owned lands are being extensively managed and logged. There is no spraying happening on National Forest logging jobs that I've ever heard of so it's not a valid point regarding opening up logging on public lands. Your argument is mixing apples with oranges, the spraying is occurring on privately owned timber lands and that is a completely different discussion. :twocents:
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on August 11, 2018, 01:36:34 PM
If we logged responsibly I would be all for it, but as long as I find these signs at every new clear cut, no way.
Privately owned lands are being extensively managed and logged. There is no spraying happening on National Forest logging jobs that I've ever heard of so it's not a valid point regarding opening up logging on public lands. Your argument is mixing apples with oranges, the spraying is occurring on privately owned timber lands and that is a completely different discussion. :twocents:
The 1st image was from a DNR clear cut = public land. I agree that logging is part of the solution to mega fires, however the current forestry practices of monocropping the forest for timber production is a big part of the problem. Healthy forests should be incredibly complex ecosystems, not never ending pine plantations, and I feel that is very relevant to the current conversation.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on August 11, 2018, 02:24:21 PM
Post by: wolfbait on August 11, 2018, 03:03:46 PM
I completely agree with this message written by our former State Senator Brian Dansel who is now working for the Trump Administration! :twocents:QuoteLog it, graze it or watch it burn
We need to get our forests working again and say no to wilderness areas and IRAs. While I typically refrain from writing opinion pieces or letters to the editor, the recent catastrophic fires in our area have convinced me to act otherwise. I had originally wanted to write a rebuttal to an opinion piece that derided our local Stevens County Cattlemen’s Association for a billboard they sponsored stating that we need to “log it, graze it, or watch it burn.” The cattlemen were, of course, speaking about the management on the Colville National Forest where timber harvest levels have dropped significantly in the past 20 years and where grazing allotments are almost in a perennial state of jeopardy. The result of this inaction in regards to the management on the Colville National Forest is the worst fire season since the “Big Burn” of 1910 where much of the West was on fire until that winters’ snow eventually put out the fires that had destroyed so much of the landscape. To be fair, this was before the invention of the modern day equipment that we currently utilize to fight fire, but it was also before the designation of wilderness areas. Locally, a group called the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition has been supporting the expansion of wilderness areas in the Colville National Forest. The environmental interests represented on this coalition have agreed not to file lawsuits on timber sales in exchange for expanding and establishing new wilderness areas. I mention this because in wilderness areas, there are literally no options for fighting fire. As a local firefighter once told me, the only option for managing a fire in a wilderness area is to, “let it burn.” My office has been inundated with phone calls, letters, emails and messages wanting to know why there aren’t more resources available to fight the fires currently raging in the Colville National Forest. Imagine if wilderness areas were expanded. Even if the State or Federal government had resources available, they wouldn’t be able to utilize those resources because you are not allowed to in areas managed as “Wilderness”. The term “Wilderness Area” sounds harmless because a major reason we all live in this area is the attraction to the outdoors, both for recreation and as a way to make a living. The wilderness in and of itself is a wonderful thing that allows local families the opportunity to raise their families in an area where their proximity to nature literally meets them at their doorstep. Wilderness Areas, however, have a very different meaning. By definition, a Wilderness Area Designation doesn’t allow for mechanized equipment to enter their boundary lines. This means less recreation opportunity for ATV riders, bicyclists, hunters, campers, firewood cutters and huckleberry pickers. It also means the potential loss of grazing land for our ranchers, and no ability to ever cut down even a single tree with a chainsaw. It also means, that in a time of fire, you wouldn’t be able to drive a fire engine or any other firefighting equipment past those imaginary boundary lines. When you add into the mix that the same group, the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition, is also supporting the decommissioning of roads on the Colville National Forest, I am left wondering how we are supposed to fight fires in other areas that aren’t being sought as Wilderness Areas, but are being promoted as “Inventoried Roadless Areas” or IRA’s, as they are known in Forest Service lingo. In addition to hearing from my constituents about the lack of resources for fighting these fires, for years I have heard from folks wondering why their favorite forest road had been closed. These roads are utilized for ranchers to access their grazing allotments, but were also historically used for logging, as well as access to firewood, hunting, berry picking and other recreational activities. The answer to these issues seems pretty simple in my opinion. We need to get our forests working again. We need to return to the logging practices that allowed for healthy timber harvests, grazing, and access that not only allowed people to make a living, but also offered many recreational opportunities. The reason that the Cattlemen’s Association sponsored billboard is so valid is because those practices of grazing and yes, logging, reduced the likelihood of forest fires. That isn’t to say that we wouldn’t have fires, but we would greatly reduce our susceptibility to them if we had access, and employed preventive measures like logging and grazing. We would also increase our ability to fight the fewer fires that we would have because the conditions in the forest would be so much better. There would be reduced fuels, more defensible space, healthy timber stands, and the grazing would keep the grasses and weeds knocked down. When I see the pictures of dead, burned cows, as well as houses totally destroyed and property burnt to a crisp, it is heart-wrenching. To see all of the devastation that has been caused by these fires is hard to look at. It is even more difficult to look at knowing that a lot of the destruction could have been prevented. I, for one, wholeheartedly support the Cattlemen’s message of “log it, graze it, or watch it burn.” I am sad that their message was so prophetic, but it is time that we stand together as a community and say no to “Wilderness Areas” and “Inventoried Roadless Areas”. We have to send a message to the Forest Service and the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition that people’s lives, homes, properties, and livestock are more important than an ideology. Finally, I want to thank all of the volunteers and fire-fighters that are working so hard to put these fires out. We live in a special place where so many people are willing to help their neighbors in times of trouble. These selfless acts do not go unnoticed and are greatly appreciated by all of us.
Brian Dansel
7th District State Senator Republic
Trump Administration Appoints Brian Dansel to Serve as State Executive Director for USDA’s Farm Service Agency in Washington State
https://www.fsa.usda.gov/state-offices/Washington/news-releases/2017/stnr_wa_20171108_rel_98
:yeah: :tup:
X2-It's about time some common sense came back into management.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 11, 2018, 08:21:55 PM
I don't think the recent increase in fire activity is entirely due to forest conditions and restrictions. I watched a DNR cut burn just as hot as private timberland and FS land.... Climate change absolutely has changed fire frequency and severity.Management of these forests is the only answer. Letting fires burn to reduce the fuel load is not a realistic answer with today's population density. The forests of the past that evolved to handle fires no longer exist. We have changed the landscape therefore we have a responsibility to manage it properly.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
100% agree!! Once we cut the forests they are changed FOREVER and they need to be managed properly!If we logged responsibly I would be all for it, but as long as I find these signs at every new clear cut, no way.
This too!
Post by: Vine Maples and Cottonwoo on August 12, 2018, 10:26:44 AM
Geo-Engineering/Chemtrails
Agenda 21
Poor Management Due to Lack of Funding, BECAUSE WE SPEND SO MUCH MONEY ON WARS AROUND THE GLOBE! Imagine if we spent some fraction of that money here at home on things to benefit our country and people.
Dishonest, Corrupt Politicians, and more so, the Dishonest, Corrupt, and Unelected Bureaucrats
Propaganda via the Corrupt MSM
A question; How much Grant Money and Corporate Financing is behind these ECO Groups?
A Final Question; Is Human Misery Profitable? Many things exist because they are profitable. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Post by: wolfbait on August 12, 2018, 12:25:04 PM
I think there are a number of things at play here:
Geo-Engineering/Chemtrails
Agenda 21
Poor Management Due to Lack of Funding, BECAUSE WE SPEND SO MUCH MONEY ON WARS AROUND THE GLOBE! Imagine if we spent some fraction of that money here at home on things to benefit our country and people.
Dishonest, Corrupt Politicians, and more so, the Dishonest, Corrupt, and Unelected Bureaucrats
Propaganda via the Corrupt MSM
A question; How much Grant Money and Corporate Financing is behind these ECO Groups?
A Final Question; Is Human Misery Profitable? Many things exist because they are profitable. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Some Great points, I think you just about covered it, the fake environmentalists push the agenda's set forward by corrupt politicians.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on August 12, 2018, 01:55:08 PM
Post by: Russ McDonald on August 12, 2018, 03:57:29 PM
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on August 12, 2018, 04:12:27 PM
If we logged responsibly I would be all for it, but as long as I find these signs at every new clear cut, no way.
Privately owned lands are being extensively managed and logged. There is no spraying happening on National Forest logging jobs that I've ever heard of so it's not a valid point regarding opening up logging on public lands. Your argument is mixing apples with oranges, the spraying is occurring on privately owned timber lands and that is a completely different discussion. :twocents:
The 1st image was from a DNR clear cut = public land. I agree that logging is part of the solution to mega fires, however the current forestry practices of monocropping the forest for timber production is a big part of the problem. Healthy forests should be incredibly complex ecosystems, not never ending pine plantations, and I feel that is very relevant to the current conversation.
Again it appears you are referring to private land tree farms? This conversation is more about the mismanagement of public land forests! :dunno:
Please note, most all the big out of control fires are on public lands, obviously there is a reason the big fire problem is mostly on public lands!
Post by: jmscon on August 12, 2018, 04:42:46 PM
There are also people on here and other places that I’ve read that want the forest service to be reduced to only what they were originally created for, to fight forest fires.
So, where does that leave us?
Post by: bearpaw on August 12, 2018, 05:01:34 PM
forest service to be reduced to only what they were originally created for, to fight forest fires.
So, where does that leave us?
Realistically I doubt that will happen! I would be happy to see more logging rather than letting all that good timber burn! Sure, any land with growth can burn, but there is a much better chance of controlling a fire where there are breaks in the dense forest, and logging makes breaks in the forests. Having more logging will keep more dollars and jobs in the US rather than buying Canadian lumber and leave much better economies in rural towns!
Post by: bearpaw on August 12, 2018, 05:08:07 PM
Trump Admin. Dumping ‘Roadless Rule’ to Log Los Padres Forest
https://www.breitbart.com/california/2018/08/09/trump-admin-dumping-roadless-rule-to-log-los-padres-forest/
Quote
According to the Ecological Institute at Northern Arizona University, research data reveals that southwestern forests through the 1990s were “open-structured” forests that were subject low-intensity fires due to relatively light fuel loads of vegetation, downed needles, and woody debris, and also due to smaller tree saplings and seedlings.
But these same forests two decades later have become much denser, and the majority of fires have quickly been suppressed to protect natural resources, human communities, and structures. Consequently, the accumulation of fuels has greatly increased the likelihood of “wildfires of unprecedented severity” due to active crown fires spreading from tree to tree through the canopy of densely packed forest stands.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on August 12, 2018, 05:24:06 PM
More vegetation for animals to feed on alsoforest service to be reduced to only what they were originally created for, to fight forest fires.
So, where does that leave us?
Realistically I doubt that will happen! I would be happy to see more logging rather than letting all that good timber burn! Sure, any land with growth can burn, but there is a much better chance of controlling a fire where there are breaks in the dense forest, and logging makes breaks in the forests. Having more logging will keep more dollars and jobs in the US rather than buying Canadian lumber and leave much better economies in rural towns!
Post by: bearpaw on August 12, 2018, 05:31:02 PM
More vegetation for animals to feed on alsoforest service to be reduced to only what they were originally created for, to fight forest fires.
So, where does that leave us?
Realistically I doubt that will happen! I would be happy to see more logging rather than letting all that good timber burn! Sure, any land with growth can burn, but there is a much better chance of controlling a fire where there are breaks in the dense forest, and logging makes breaks in the forests. Having more logging will keep more dollars and jobs in the US rather than buying Canadian lumber and leave much better economies in rural towns!
:yeah: My best hunting is on private lands that are regularly logged and thinned every 10 years or so. The USFS lands would support so much more wildlife if so many acres weren't dead on the forest floor caused by all the overaged timber.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 12, 2018, 08:34:30 PM
Not say that I am getting old, but this is the third time in my lifetime that I remember this exact area burning. 1972 Gold Ridge and Slide Ridge Fire combined to make one huge fire. 1994 the Tyee complex burned all the way to the City of Chelan. Now the Cougar Creek Fire. This doesn’t take into account all the other fires that have taken place in the Entiat watershed.
The biggest question now is how will all the different agencies involved manage the area for the next several years. It seems after every Fire season someone comes up with new post fire manage plan to compensate for the last plan that didn’t quite work like they had hoped for.
As usual they will manage it improperly. :twocents:
Look at the last 10 years in the Entiat Valley, The USFS major job is no longer managing the forest, its managing fires, and doing a piss poor job of it. No more logging, and they are very vocal about prescribed burns......which they constantly tell the public will help to control huge fires. Take Tyee as an example, during the last big fire (Wolverine I believe) they spent tons of cash making a supposable 300' wide fire break for miles(It was more like 30' wide BTW). It went all the way up Tyee ridge, and somewhere back in behind Leavenworth/Lake Wenatchee/Plain area. For the last 2-3 years they have did a ton of prescribed burns along Tyee Ridge........How are those working out for them right now? :bash:
The FS also likes to distribute the Koolaid that because we suppressed fires for so many years....this is why the big ones are happening now. HOGWASH!!
Responsible logging breaks up large tracts of timber, reducing the possibility of fires becoming huge. Suppression of fires while they are small saves miles and miles of timber/forest land. At the pace the USFS is letting the valleys burn, 10 more years and there wont be a tree up there taller than 12'.
Our USFS is a hot mess that is totally out of control. Until we can find a way to reel them in, and back to managing OUR forests for ALL user groups, the carnage will continue.
Post by: jmscon on August 12, 2018, 10:18:23 PM
forest service to be reduced to only what they were originally created for, to fight forest fires.
So, where does that leave us?
Realistically I doubt that will happen! I would be happy to see more logging rather than letting all that good timber burn! Sure, any land with growth can burn, but there is a much better chance of controlling a fire where there are breaks in the dense forest, and logging makes breaks in the forests. Having more logging will keep more dollars and jobs in the US rather than buying Canadian lumber and leave much better economies in rural towns!
I’d be happy to see more logging as well! Watching the Sanpoil mill close down and instantly cause 10% unemployment in Republic was heartbreaking! And I heard the plywood mill in Omak has closed.
I just think that a lot more land is getting burnt up and out of control than just FS land.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 12, 2018, 11:54:07 PM
I've had quite a bit of success hunting Harvest units also, but that doesn't mean we should Harvest everything out there. The animals we hunt aren't the only ones that deserve a place to live in the woodsMore vegetation for animals to feed on alsoforest service to be reduced to only what they were originally created for, to fight forest fires.
So, where does that leave us?
Realistically I doubt that will happen! I would be happy to see more logging rather than letting all that good timber burn! Sure, any land with growth can burn, but there is a much better chance of controlling a fire where there are breaks in the dense forest, and logging makes breaks in the forests. Having more logging will keep more dollars and jobs in the US rather than buying Canadian lumber and leave much better economies in rural towns!
:yeah: My best hunting is on private lands that are regularly logged and thinned every 10 years or so. The USFS lands would support so much more wildlife if so many acres weren't dead on the forest floor caused by all the overaged timber.
Post by: bearpaw on August 13, 2018, 05:06:18 AM
I've had quite a bit of success hunting Harvest units also, but that doesn't mean we should Harvest everything out there. The animals we hunt aren't the only ones that deserve a place to live in the woodsMore vegetation for animals to feed on alsoforest service to be reduced to only what they were originally created for, to fight forest fires.
So, where does that leave us?
Realistically I doubt that will happen! I would be happy to see more logging rather than letting all that good timber burn! Sure, any land with growth can burn, but there is a much better chance of controlling a fire where there are breaks in the dense forest, and logging makes breaks in the forests. Having more logging will keep more dollars and jobs in the US rather than buying Canadian lumber and leave much better economies in rural towns!
:yeah: My best hunting is on private lands that are regularly logged and thinned every 10 years or so. The USFS lands would support so much more wildlife if so many acres weren't dead on the forest floor caused by all the overaged timber.
Never said we had to harvest everything, I agree with keeping "never logged areas" never logged, I agree with keeping current wilderness, I don't agree with the near total elimination of logging that enviro whackos forced upon us, the removal of forest access and fire protection roads also used by the public for decades, and the fact that we have to import timber products from Canada as a result of enviro laws was pure economic ignorance at it's finest!
Nature has pretty well established this fact: "Log it, graze, it, or let it burn!" One way or another these dense over aged forests are more unnatural than if we had allowed/continued logging the last three decades!
Post by: Skyvalhunter on August 13, 2018, 05:23:20 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 13, 2018, 09:31:45 AM
Post by: timberfaller on August 13, 2018, 10:33:55 AM
The held a meeting in Spokane WA over grazing and range wars taking place, they stated that if they(USFS,DNR,BLM) didn't change their ways, YOU'D see the results just sitting in your ivory towers in Spokane when it went up in smoke!
Oh so Right!!
Had a dispatch for a dozer Saturday afternoon, all it did was go out and open up roads which had been water barred or tank trapped! :bash: :bash: :bash: Newbies on fire teams are asking, "what has happened to all these roads that are shown on our maps???" :o :o :o
Post by: Cougartail on August 13, 2018, 12:49:59 PM
and the fact that we have to import timber products from Canada as a result of enviro laws was pure economic ignorance at it's finest!
The economic ignorance was logging off all our lands and selling it to Japan for pennies on the dollar through legal loopholes and buying off special interests.
The Spotted Owl was used to stop this unethical practice that made a few rich at the expense of the taxpayers/citizens. It cost the Forest Service far more to sell trees than it took in in revenue.. majorly stupid!
Also if you look at old growth forests (200+ years old.) they have little burnable under brush, cooler temperatures and far higher humidity. They fight their own fires..
All timber sales should take into account fire suppression, road management, and sale set-up cost. The taxpayers don't need to subsidize home ownership in America. Let the Canadians..
Post by: buglebrush on August 13, 2018, 03:24:00 PM
I've had quite a bit of success hunting Harvest units also, but that doesn't mean we should Harvest everything out there. The animals we hunt aren't the only ones that deserve a place to live in the woodsMore vegetation for animals to feed on alsoforest service to be reduced to only what they were originally created for, to fight forest fires.
So, where does that leave us?
Realistically I doubt that will happen! I would be happy to see more logging rather than letting all that good timber burn! Sure, any land with growth can burn, but there is a much better chance of controlling a fire where there are breaks in the dense forest, and logging makes breaks in the forests. Having more logging will keep more dollars and jobs in the US rather than buying Canadian lumber and leave much better economies in rural towns!
:yeah: My best hunting is on private lands that are regularly logged and thinned every 10 years or so. The USFS lands would support so much more wildlife if so many acres weren't dead on the forest floor caused by all the overaged timber.
Nobody's pushing for logging everything out there. Stop coming up with false calamities to muddy the issues. Without a return to logging areas that we used to log, wildlife will suffer immensely; and frankly must of us don't love wolves and grizzlies like you do. What's wrong with managing for healthy ungulate populations for a change? It'll actually improve long-term predator populations as well.
Post by: wolfbait on August 13, 2018, 08:21:04 PM
I don't think the recent increase in fire activity is entirely due to forest conditions and restrictions. I watched a DNR cut burn just as hot as private timberland and FS land.... Climate change absolutely has changed fire frequency and severity.Management of these forests is the only answer. Letting fires burn to reduce the fuel load is not a realistic answer with today's population density. The forests of the past that evolved to handle fires no longer exist. We have changed the landscape therefore we have a responsibility to manage it properly.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
100% agree!! Once we cut the forests they are changed FOREVER and they need to be managed properly!If we logged responsibly I would be all for it, but as long as I find these signs at every new clear cut, no way.
This too!
Utility Co. Blames Global Warming for Wildfires, Fails to Mention It Started 12 of Them
https://www.westernjournal.com/utility-co-blames-global-warming/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=trump-supporters&ff_campaign=dailypm&ff_content=western-journal
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 14, 2018, 07:45:27 AM
What areas did we "used to log"?? Pretty much EVERYTHING, which has helped get us into this problem. Managing for healthy ungulate populations is great- but you can't just manage for ungulates. You do recognize that there are more nongame species than just wolves and grizzlies right???I've had quite a bit of success hunting Harvest units also, but that doesn't mean we should Harvest everything out there. The animals we hunt aren't the only ones that deserve a place to live in the woodsMore vegetation for animals to feed on alsoforest service to be reduced to only what they were originally created for, to fight forest fires.
So, where does that leave us?
Realistically I doubt that will happen! I would be happy to see more logging rather than letting all that good timber burn! Sure, any land with growth can burn, but there is a much better chance of controlling a fire where there are breaks in the dense forest, and logging makes breaks in the forests. Having more logging will keep more dollars and jobs in the US rather than buying Canadian lumber and leave much better economies in rural towns!
:yeah: My best hunting is on private lands that are regularly logged and thinned every 10 years or so. The USFS lands would support so much more wildlife if so many acres weren't dead on the forest floor caused by all the overaged timber.
Nobody's pushing for logging everything out there. Stop coming up with false calamities to muddy the issues. Without a return to logging areas that we used to log, wildlife will suffer immensely; and frankly must of us don't love wolves and grizzlies like you do. What's wrong with managing for healthy ungulate populations for a change? It'll actually improve long-term predator populations as well.
I think it's remarkable that this thread has made it 3 pages and no one has mentioned prescribed fire as being a possible solution.
Post by: KFhunter on August 14, 2018, 08:13:25 AM
I never understood prescribed burns myself due to the small scope of them. If they did a lot more of it perhaps it would be a good thing, but people whine about smoke :dunno:
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 14, 2018, 08:32:06 AM
Yea they prolly can’t hurt, and may actually help if done in the proper spot......problem is no one one knows where lightning is going to strike next. Last year the FS did some burning up the 5900 rd.......in 6-7 spots along the road, all less than 50yard diameter, what good is that going to do?
I am a firm believer the FS likes to burn for the sake of saying they are actually doing something. Burning off 1-100 acres has little effect on summer wildfires.
Post by: bearpaw on August 14, 2018, 12:29:41 PM
and the fact that we have to import timber products from Canada as a result of enviro laws was pure economic ignorance at it's finest!
The economic ignorance was logging off all our lands and selling it to Japan for pennies on the dollar through legal loopholes and buying off special interests.
The Spotted Owl was used to stop this unethical practice that made a few rich at the expense of the taxpayers/citizens. It cost the Forest Service far more to sell trees than it took in in revenue.. majorly stupid!
Also if you look at old growth forests (200+ years old.) they have little burnable under brush, cooler temperatures and far higher humidity. They fight their own fires..
All timber sales should take into account fire suppression, road management, and sale set-up cost. The taxpayers don't need to subsidize home ownership in America. Let the Canadians..
I have to disagree, the spotted owl was used to stop all logging! It didn't matter where the trees were going! :chuckle:
I'm not a fan of shipping whole logs, but that's not the core issue, the issue is "all logging" on public lands and especially USFS. I don't care if they make it illegal to export whole logs, it would likely be better for our economy and provide more jobs if they did. I want to see these thick fire prone forests getting logged, providing jobs, creating mozaic forest breaks, making money rather than burning up and costing taxpayers more to fight fires. We will all be much safer in rural areas and taxpayers everywhere will benefit if logging is greatly increased.
Quote
https://www.statesmanexaminer.com/content/fire-line-fire-district-4-news
As of this writing, there are around forty wildland fires in the western United States, plus one in Minnesota. All the western states, from Montana to New Mexico, California to Washington and in between are impacted.
Some of the fires are in truly wildland areas only, but most are in the “wildland urban interface”. The area where a wildland fire can readily extend into the areas of human habitation.
According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), sixty percent of the new homes built in the U.S. since 1990 were built in the “wildland urban interface”, which now represents 40 percent of the single-family homes in the U.S. Essentially, nearly half of the homes in the United States are at risk for wildfire.
Between 1999 and 2015, 2,750 structures (homes and other buildings) were destroyed by wildfire annually, but in 2015, 4,636 structures were destroyed by wildfire. The 2017 Tubbs fire in California consumed 5,500 structures alone.
In 1990, the cost of suppression of wildfire was reported to be about $400 million and nearly $1.5 billion in 2000. According to the national Interagency Fire Center, these costs reached nearly $2 billion in 2016 and in 2017 the costs neared $3 billion. These costs do not include the insured and uninsured losses or the economic impact to communities.
Post by: bearpaw on August 14, 2018, 12:32:14 PM
Prescribed burns, lol.
Yea they prolly can’t hurt, and may actually help if done in the proper spot......problem is no one one knows where lightning is going to strike next. Last year the FS did some burning up the 5900 rd.......in 6-7 spots along the road, all less than 50yard diameter, what good is that going to do?
I am a firm believer the FS likes to burn for the sake of saying they are actually doing something. Burning off 1-100 acres has little effect on summer wildfires.
:yeah: :chuckle: great points...
How about some prescribed logging that makes money rather than costing money! :twocents:
Post by: buglebrush on August 14, 2018, 12:44:47 PM
What areas did we "used to log"?? Pretty much EVERYTHING, which has helped get us into this problem. Managing for healthy ungulate populations is great- but you can't just manage for ungulates. You do recognize that there are more nongame species than just wolves and grizzlies right???I've had quite a bit of success hunting Harvest units also, but that doesn't mean we should Harvest everything out there. The animals we hunt aren't the only ones that deserve a place to live in the woodsMore vegetation for animals to feed on alsoforest service to be reduced to only what they were originally created for, to fight forest fires.
So, where does that leave us?
Realistically I doubt that will happen! I would be happy to see more logging rather than letting all that good timber burn! Sure, any land with growth can burn, but there is a much better chance of controlling a fire where there are breaks in the dense forest, and logging makes breaks in the forests. Having more logging will keep more dollars and jobs in the US rather than buying Canadian lumber and leave much better economies in rural towns!
:yeah: My best hunting is on private lands that are regularly logged and thinned every 10 years or so. The USFS lands would support so much more wildlife if so many acres weren't dead on the forest floor caused by all the overaged timber.
Nobody's pushing for logging everything out there. Stop coming up with false calamities to muddy the issues. Without a return to logging areas that we used to log, wildlife will suffer immensely; and frankly must of us don't love wolves and grizzlies like you do. What's wrong with managing for healthy ungulate populations for a change? It'll actually improve long-term predator populations as well.
I think it's remarkable that this thread has made it 3 pages and no one has mentioned prescribed fire as being a possible solution.
I think it's remarkable a person would actually favor burning timber up rather than responsible logging practices. I'm sure you favor the no spring bear in 113, right? It's a joke to manage that whole area based on the local grizzlies greatly to the detriment if moose, elk, and deer. Besides, Idaho's liberal predator Management sure have hurt the grizzly population in the rest of the Selkirks. Don't pretend that WDFW'S management is isn't predicated on predators first and foremost.
Post by: bearpaw on August 14, 2018, 01:06:50 PM
What areas did we "used to log"?? Pretty much EVERYTHING, which has helped get us into this problem. Managing for healthy ungulate populations is great- but you can't just manage for ungulates. You do recognize that there are more nongame species than just wolves and grizzlies right???I've had quite a bit of success hunting Harvest units also, but that doesn't mean we should Harvest everything out there. The animals we hunt aren't the only ones that deserve a place to live in the woodsMore vegetation for animals to feed on alsoforest service to be reduced to only what they were originally created for, to fight forest fires.
So, where does that leave us?
Realistically I doubt that will happen! I would be happy to see more logging rather than letting all that good timber burn! Sure, any land with growth can burn, but there is a much better chance of controlling a fire where there are breaks in the dense forest, and logging makes breaks in the forests. Having more logging will keep more dollars and jobs in the US rather than buying Canadian lumber and leave much better economies in rural towns!
:yeah: My best hunting is on private lands that are regularly logged and thinned every 10 years or so. The USFS lands would support so much more wildlife if so many acres weren't dead on the forest floor caused by all the overaged timber.
Nobody's pushing for logging everything out there. Stop coming up with false calamities to muddy the issues. Without a return to logging areas that we used to log, wildlife will suffer immensely; and frankly must of us don't love wolves and grizzlies like you do. What's wrong with managing for healthy ungulate populations for a change? It'll actually improve long-term predator populations as well.
I think it's remarkable that this thread has made it 3 pages and no one has mentioned prescribed fire as being a possible solution.
I think it's remarkable a person would actually favor burning timber up rather than responsible logging practices. I'm sure you favor the no spring bear in 113, right? It's a joke to manage that whole area based on the local grizzlies greatly to the detriment if moose, elk, and deer. Besides, Idaho's liberal predator Management sure have hurt the grizzly population in the rest of the Selkirks. Don't pretend that WDFW'S management is isn't predicated on predators first and foremost.
:yeah: If we were talking about junipers or scrub maples that have taken over areas in some states it would be understandable. But I haven't been able to figure out why anyone would rather burn up trees suitable for lumber or fiber than log them either, the lack of critical thinking and poor economics of burning trees verses logging them is mind boggling!
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 14, 2018, 04:49:13 PM
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. :bash:
Post by: jstone on August 14, 2018, 05:19:43 PM
Post by: Alan K on August 14, 2018, 06:03:49 PM
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. :bash:
Unfortunately this is very true... I know several guys who get deployed on fire each year and they all say the same thing. If they were allowed to attack these things when they're small they could get them out in a hurry. Instead they 'assess' until things grow out of control.
Of course these guys don't mind those fat paychecks though, and I cant blame them because fire checks supplementing their normal income is needed to get them decent annual pay.
Post by: jstone on August 14, 2018, 06:19:03 PM
Post by: wolfbait on August 14, 2018, 06:44:17 PM
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. :bash:
Unfortunately this is very true... I know several guys who get deployed on fire each year and they all say the same thing. If they were allowed to attack these things when they're small they could get them out in a hurry. Instead they 'assess' until things grow out of control.
Of course these guys don't mind those fat paychecks though, and I cant blame them because fire checks supplementing their normal income is needed to get them decent annual pay.
Agree X2, Folks are getting fed up with the let it burn policy, the DNR BS in 2014 woke many people up also.
Sucking smoke a good part of the summer or on alert for evacuations for those that run, is not high on anyone's list. I think this policy is on its last legs and more logging etc. will be implemented in the future as those with common sense take control and demand management instead of burning.
As has been made clear above, the change has to come from the very top.
Post by: magnanimous_j on August 14, 2018, 06:58:13 PM
But every time fires are brought up, sportsmen always go right to management issues and ignore the elephant in the room which is climate change. No one can deny that record high temperatures and wildfires are clearly linked.
We can ignore this issue for a while. The PNW is less affected than many other regions in the country, but we will have to deal with it eventually. From a capitalistic standpoint, most of us now own land that will only become more valuable in the future BECAUSE of climate change. But if we don't get on it soon, we'll wreck our region too.
Post by: wolfbait on August 14, 2018, 07:04:47 PM
read a couple posts up by NOCK NOCK.
I never understood prescribed burns myself due to the small scope of them. If they did a lot more of it perhaps it would be a good thing, but people whine about smoke :dunno:
Back in the early 80's control burns were lit at night when it was cool, burning the brush and wood trash, and they really were controlled, now all the control burns I have seen have been more in the form of wildfire, leaving more fire fuel then before it was lit, it's more in the line of quantity versus quality.
Just like letting the fires get huge before they are fought, it is a waste of money etc..
Post by: wolfbait on August 14, 2018, 07:06:55 PM
Smart forest management is key. I think if we do it intelligently, we can provide jobs, lumber resources, better wildlife environments AND protect the forests.
But every time fires are brought up, sportsmen always go right to management issues and ignore the elephant in the room which is climate change. No one can deny that record high temperatures and wildfires are clearly linked.
We can ignore this issue for a while. The PNW is less affected than many other regions in the country, but we will have to deal with it eventually. From a capitalistic standpoint, most of us now own land that will only become more valuable in the future BECAUSE of climate change. But if we don't get on it soon, we'll wreck our region too.
You should look into geoengineering, which will explain much of your "climate change".
Post by: Holg3107 on August 14, 2018, 07:32:53 PM
Quote
You should look into geoengineering, which will explain much of your "climate change".
WOW!!! You just took the tinfoil hat to the next level there Wolfbait!!! You throw around a whole lot of fringe sites and links on this website but getting into chemtrails and SRM... Damn... you're ummmm… making yourself more "credible" by the second...
Post by: CAMPMEAT on August 14, 2018, 08:12:38 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 15, 2018, 06:44:41 AM
Don't assume to know what I think or believe (it's pretty clear you have no idea). I don't know why you're hung up on G bears, but I support a spring B bear season and I support responsible logging practices. I logged my property and I spent ten years on the board for the Forestry Coalition trying to get the CNF to increase logging yield from 30mbf to 80mbf...What areas did we "used to log"?? Pretty much EVERYTHING, which has helped get us into this problem. Managing for healthy ungulate populations is great- but you can't just manage for ungulates. You do recognize that there are more nongame species than just wolves and grizzlies right???I've had quite a bit of success hunting Harvest units also, but that doesn't mean we should Harvest everything out there. The animals we hunt aren't the only ones that deserve a place to live in the woodsMore vegetation for animals to feed on alsoforest service to be reduced to only what they were originally created for, to fight forest fires.
So, where does that leave us?
Realistically I doubt that will happen! I would be happy to see more logging rather than letting all that good timber burn! Sure, any land with growth can burn, but there is a much better chance of controlling a fire where there are breaks in the dense forest, and logging makes breaks in the forests. Having more logging will keep more dollars and jobs in the US rather than buying Canadian lumber and leave much better economies in rural towns!
:yeah: My best hunting is on private lands that are regularly logged and thinned every 10 years or so. The USFS lands would support so much more wildlife if so many acres weren't dead on the forest floor caused by all the overaged timber.
Nobody's pushing for logging everything out there. Stop coming up with false calamities to muddy the issues. Without a return to logging areas that we used to log, wildlife will suffer immensely; and frankly must of us don't love wolves and grizzlies like you do. What's wrong with managing for healthy ungulate populations for a change? It'll actually improve long-term predator populations as well.
I think it's remarkable that this thread has made it 3 pages and no one has mentioned prescribed fire as being a possible solution.
I think it's remarkable a person would actually favor burning timber up rather than responsible logging practices. I'm sure you favor the no spring bear in 113, right? It's a joke to manage that whole area based on the local grizzlies greatly to the detriment if moose, elk, and deer. Besides, Idaho's liberal predator Management sure have hurt the grizzly population in the rest of the Selkirks. Don't pretend that WDFW'S management is isn't predicated on predators first and foremost.
Prescribed fire, in the right areas, would absolutely help reduce wildfire severity and wouldn't burn up much timber. We should be setting fires in September to get low fuels burned off and let the weather put them out.
We are in this situation for several reasons:
1) we stomped out every fire for the last 100 years and loaded up fuels
2) we logged too much in the early 1900's and created unnatural, overstocked forest
3) we don't log enough now to reduce fuels
4) we have a changing climate that heats up earlier in the summer
The "Graze it, Log it, or watch it burn" mantra is a simple (stupid) advertising scheme that doesn't help us get to healthy, productive forests.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 15, 2018, 06:48:03 AM
That's true- the small scale burns mostly a waste of time and the FS is WAY too cautious with their fires. The legal risk of a fire escaping is incredibly high.Prescribed burns, lol.
Yea they prolly can’t hurt, and may actually help if done in the proper spot......problem is no one one knows where lightning is going to strike next. Last year the FS did some burning up the 5900 rd.......in 6-7 spots along the road, all less than 50yard diameter, what good is that going to do?
I am a firm believer the FS likes to burn for the sake of saying they are actually doing something. Burning off 1-100 acres has little effect on summer wildfires.
:yeah: :chuckle: great points...
How about some prescribed logging that makes money rather than costing money! :twocents:
You have trashed NEWFC on here several times in the past. I strongly recommend you listen in on some of those meetings and see what they are trying to do with forest management.
Post by: Doublelunger on August 15, 2018, 07:16:50 AM
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. :bash:
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.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 15, 2018, 08:08:40 AM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on August 15, 2018, 08:42:35 AM
That's true- the small scale burns mostly a waste of time and the FS is WAY too cautious with their fires. The legal risk of a fire escaping is incredibly high.Prescribed burns, lol.
Yea they prolly can’t hurt, and may actually help if done in the proper spot......problem is no one one knows where lightning is going to strike next. Last year the FS did some burning up the 5900 rd.......in 6-7 spots along the road, all less than 50yard diameter, what good is that going to do?
I am a firm believer the FS likes to burn for the sake of saying they are actually doing something. Burning off 1-100 acres has little effect on summer wildfires.
:yeah: :chuckle: great points...
How about some prescribed logging that makes money rather than costing money! :twocents:
You have trashed NEWFC on here several times in the past. I strongly recommend you listen in on some of those meetings and see what they are trying to do with forest management.
@WAcoyotehunter
I definitely was firmly opposed to what seemed to be the primary purpose of the coalition which essentially seemed like a blackmail tactic by enviros to basically exchange limited logging for increased wilderness areas. I will not subscribe to or participate in any such tactics used by the enviro crowd to "make a deal" for more wilderness in exchange for allowing a small amount of logging. No, I don't agree with more wilderness and it's a good thing local people stood up strongly against that push. I think that because local people stood strong against wilderness the coalition was able to agree to some logging concessions without greatly increasing wilderness areas, I agree that was a big win for NE WA. The coalition likes to take credit, but I sincerely think the results would not have been as good if there had not been a lot of opposition. The opposition was just as important to the outcome if not more important than those wanting to cut a deal! Whether we agree or disagree with that summation doesn't really matter at this point, that's all history now.
I agree with maintaining current wilderness, we need roadless areas, I agree that habitat management is extremely important, but I also believe in continuing all multiple use including recreation opportunities for all users, maintaining access for everyone including people of all ages and those with limited mobility, and I support responsible logging, grazing, and mining which creates jobs and supports our local economy. I am optimistic that the Trump Administration will bring back more logging and mining, maintain grazing, and hopefully increase recreational use, all of which creates jobs and boosts our local economy.
I don't know what the coalition is doing now, so I have no comment (good or bad) regarding their current activities? I'm always willing to take another look at anything and I like the thought of participating in activities that benefit NE WA, so I do have a few questions if you might happen to know and don't mind me asking:
- Has the coalition backed off with the push for more wilderness?
- Does the coalition support increased recreation opportunities for all users?
- Does the coalition support ATV/UTV use on forest roads which are open to other motorized travel?
- Does the coalition support further increasing logging?
- Does the coalition support allowing responsible mining?
- Does the coalition support continuing all current grazing allotments?
- What activities does the coalition want to decrease or curtail?
Thanks for any insight.
Post by: bigtex on August 15, 2018, 09:13:04 AM
:yeah:Do you really want to know why the fires are so big these days? It's all about the money.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.
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. :bash:
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.
Post by: wapiti hunter2 on August 15, 2018, 09:16:46 AM
https://www.facebook.com/Nightline/videos/10153361251442801/
Post by: Cougartail on August 15, 2018, 09:20:01 AM
I have to disagree, the spotted owl was used to stop all logging! It didn't matter where the trees were going! :chuckle:
No offense but incorrect. The Spotted Owl was used to stop the cutting of old growth timber. The Japanese wanted old growth for ease of making paper out of it. The spotted owl primarily lives in old growth. The industry and insiders blew smoke up loggers/millworkers tailpipes saying it was the wacky eviro types that caused the shortage of work. That was a complete lie. Most loggers were put out of work by automation and millworkers by exports and automation. Automated equipment couldn't handle old growth and steep previously unlogged areas. It required men/loggers which was the last stand for the working guy.
I watched a track hoe with automation cut, delimb, cut to length and load more trees in 1/2 hour than a 5 man team could do in a day. That's why loggers are out of work.
The exporters where making top dollar selling subsidized logs abroad because our scumbag government wasn't operating timber sales like a business. Everybody wanted our cheap logs thus few logs were available for local mills and they couldn't compete. Banning unmilled logs would have saved the industry but it was more profitable for the powers to be to export and blame the owl.. just plain stupid!
By the way.. Make America Great.. Mill our forest products in the USA!
Post by: bearpaw on August 15, 2018, 09:50:15 AM
I have to disagree, the spotted owl was used to stop all logging! It didn't matter where the trees were going! :chuckle:
No offense but incorrect. The Spotted Owl was used to stop the cutting of old growth timber. The Japanese wanted old growth for ease of making paper out of it. The spotted owl primarily lives in old growth. The industry and insiders blew smoke up loggers/millworkers tailpipes saying it was the wacky eviro types that caused the shortage of work. That was a complete lie. Most loggers were put out of work by automation and millworkers by exports and automation. Automated equipment couldn't handle old growth and steep previously unlogged areas. It required men/loggers which was the last stand for the working guy.
I watched a track hoe with automation cut, delimb, cut to length and load more trees in 1/2 hour than a 5 man team could do in a day. That's why loggers are out of work.
The exporters where making top dollar selling subsidized logs abroad because our scumbag government wasn't operating timber sales like a business. Everybody wanted our cheap logs thus few logs were available for local mills and they couldn't compete. Banning unmilled logs would have saved the industry but it was more profitable for the powers to be to export and blame the owl.. just plain stupid!
By the way.. Make America Great.. Mill our forest products in the USA!
No offense to you, but that may have been the stated goal, but the result was a reduction of all logging on federal lands. Automation has happened in most all industries, but when mills are forced to shut down due to a lack of logs to process you can't sugar coat that as being due to some other cause! It's not only the spotted owl, the enviros have used a long list of excuses to curtail logging! ;)
I do not agree with the idea of exporting whole logs either.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 15, 2018, 10:05:02 AM
:yeah:Do you really want to know why the fires are so big these days? It's all about the money.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.
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. :bash:
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.
Post by: baldopepper on August 15, 2018, 10:25:13 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 15, 2018, 10:47:35 AM
- Has the coalition backed off with the push for more wilderness? It has relaxed a lot from the crazy original ask, but is still interested in Wilderness- particularly a 13k increase to the Salmo Priest and something (IDK what exactly) in the Kettles.
- Does the coalition support increased recreation opportunities for all users? Yes. They are working on Trails and access for all users, despite the ATV crowd not representing themselves....
- Does the coalition support ATV/UTV use on forest roads which are open to other motorized travel? IDK. I don't know if they do or not.
- Does the coalition support further increasing logging? Yes. The NEWFC proposal (signed by CNW and Land Council) increases yield from the CNF from 30mbf to 80mbf.
- Does the coalition support allowing responsible mining? IDK. Mining is not part of the Forestry Coalitions purview.
- Does the coalition support continuing all current grazing allotments? I think so. Grazing interests have chose not to represent themselves...but the group has not proposed any change to grazing.
- What activities does the coalition want to decrease or curtail? The coalition wants to increase logging, recreation, and wilderness. The CNF is big enough to meet all of those goals, pretty easily.
Post by: Cougartail on August 15, 2018, 11:07:08 AM
I have to disagree, the spotted owl was used to stop all logging! It didn't matter where the trees were going! :chuckle:
No offense but incorrect. The Spotted Owl was used to stop the cutting of old growth timber. The Japanese wanted old growth for ease of making paper out of it. The spotted owl primarily lives in old growth. The industry and insiders blew smoke up loggers/millworkers tailpipes saying it was the wacky eviro types that caused the shortage of work. That was a complete lie. Most loggers were put out of work by automation and millworkers by exports and automation. Automated equipment couldn't handle old growth and steep previously unlogged areas. It required men/loggers which was the last stand for the working guy.
I watched a track hoe with automation cut, delimb, cut to length and load more trees in 1/2 hour than a 5 man team could do in a day. That's why loggers are out of work.
The exporters where making top dollar selling subsidized logs abroad because our scumbag government wasn't operating timber sales like a business. Everybody wanted our cheap logs thus few logs were available for local mills and they couldn't compete. Banning unmilled logs would have saved the industry but it was more profitable for the powers to be to export and blame the owl.. just plain stupid!
By the way.. Make America Great.. Mill our forest products in the USA!
No offense to you, but that may have been the stated goal, but the result was a reduction of all logging on federal lands. Automation has happened in most all industries, but when mills are forced to shut down due to a lack of logs to process you can't sugar coat that as being due to some other cause! It's not only the spotted owl, the enviros have used a long list of excuses to curtail logging! ;)
I do not agree with the idea of exporting whole logs either.
Look at the historical data of tree harvest and timber employment. Raping forests for the benefit of few is stupid. Had the government not subsidized the timber sales and stopped exportation we would have had more than enough logs. That's a fact and you can't sugar coat that! Giving away are timber assets to foreign countries doesn't employ Americans.
Just so you know, 94% to 96% of the lumber used in America comes from America now that the export retrictions are in effect. Can't suger coat the supply problem with those numbers.. :chuckle:
Post by: timberfaller on August 15, 2018, 11:10:38 AM
Why so little?? :o :chuckle: 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!!! :bash: :bash:
"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!
Post by: jmscon on August 15, 2018, 11:25:12 AM
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.
Post by: wolfbait on August 15, 2018, 11:48:37 AM
"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/
Post by: baldopepper on August 15, 2018, 12:03:30 PM
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.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.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 15, 2018, 12:08:59 PM
"30mbf to 80mbf." :yike: :yike: :yike:That's an annual cut of 80mbf....
Why so little?? :o :chuckle: 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!!! :bash: :bash:
"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!
I'm not going to discuss forest management with a guy that has a tagline of "the only good tree is a stump".
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 15, 2018, 12:20:14 PM
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.
Post by: Doublelunger on August 16, 2018, 07:36:50 AM
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.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 16, 2018, 08:22:54 AM
@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. :dunno:
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 16, 2018, 08:24:16 AM
Post by: Doublelunger on August 16, 2018, 08:47:38 AM
@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. :dunno:
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.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 16, 2018, 06:31:57 PM
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. :bash: :bash:
Checkout this list of major WA fires, its quite sobering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Washington_wildfires
Post by: Doublelunger on August 16, 2018, 08:37:20 PM
Post by: buglebrush on August 16, 2018, 08:57:36 PM
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. :bash: :bash:
Checkout this list of major WA fires, its quite sobering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Washington_wildfires
Exactly right.
Post by: bigtex on August 16, 2018, 09:11:36 PM
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.Use it or lose it. Believe I already stated that.:yeah:Do you really want to know why the fires are so big these days? It's all about the money.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.
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. :bash:
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.
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.
Post by: wolfbait on August 16, 2018, 09:42:15 PM
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.Use it or lose it. Believe I already stated that.:yeah:Do you really want to know why the fires are so big these days? It's all about the money.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.
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. :bash:
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.
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.
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.
Post by: KFhunter on August 16, 2018, 09:57:13 PM
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.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 16, 2018, 10:00:21 PM
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.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.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.
Post by: bigtex on August 16, 2018, 10:21:25 PM
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.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.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.Use it or lose it. Believe I already stated that.:yeah:Do you really want to know why the fires are so big these days? It's all about the money.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.
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. :bash:
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.
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.
Post by: wolfbait on August 17, 2018, 06:12:19 AM
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.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.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.Use it or lose it. Believe I already stated that.:yeah:Do you really want to know why the fires are so big these days? It's all about the money.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.
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. :bash:
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.
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.
Makes more sense.
USDA Forest Service Announces New Strategy for Improving Forest Conditions
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAOC/bulletins/20670fb#.W3XdtVESCcY.facebook
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 17, 2018, 08:29:30 AM
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.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on August 17, 2018, 09:11:58 AM
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. :bash: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.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 17, 2018, 11:40:47 AM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 17, 2018, 03:04:20 PM
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.
Post by: Doublelunger on August 17, 2018, 07:58:54 PM
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.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 17, 2018, 09:10:12 PM
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. :hello:
Post by: KFhunter on August 17, 2018, 09:13:21 PM
They're lucky to be alive, other than some singed cheeks and smoking hair, no lasting harm to either of them :chuckle:
Way to cowboy it up guys :tup:
Moral of the story? keep them windows rolled up :IBCOOL:
Post by: bobcat on August 17, 2018, 09:24:34 PM
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.
Post by: KFhunter on August 17, 2018, 09:45:09 PM
Post by: Doublelunger on August 17, 2018, 10:19:18 PM
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. :hello:
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.
Post by: timberfaller on August 17, 2018, 10:43:11 PM
"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 $$$$$$$) because MAN only screws things up and Loggers are evil dudes!
Post by: wolfbait on August 18, 2018, 01:01:46 PM
"If the wolverine fire was in some sort of patrol/monitor status"
"Wilderness" fire are just that, "monitor/wait and see" or what is called "let it burn policy" only when it threatens private,state,federal land will "monitor" change to "well, lets see what happens". The original fire that became "Wolverine" had been "monitored" for weeks before nature took a turn and fanned it big time. Then it was to late to fight it to put it out.
The powers that be knew they had a problem of their creating. Went clear down lake to Shady pass to start making a fire break(they knew it wouldn't hold too if it got that far). They spent days looking of old miners roads that could be opened up for breaks. But its all water under the bridge now.
Wilderness in the minds of the deep state(lobbyist moneys)are places MAN has to leave alone(eco-freaks say it must stay that way and provide the $$$$$$$) 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
Post by: Vine Maples and Cottonwoo on August 19, 2018, 01:02:57 PM
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/geoengineering-an-interview-with-a-us-air-force-general/
Post by: wolfbait on August 19, 2018, 08:53:56 PM
For you WolfBait-
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/geoengineering-an-interview-with-a-us-air-force-general/
Thanks Vine-M, pretty informative site. :tup:
Post by: MitchFriedman on August 21, 2018, 04:34:02 PM
Every one who losses property to wildfires, should be able to file suit against the likes of the Sierra Club and people like Mitch Friedman.
Bring it on!
Here's what's up: https://www.conservationnw.org/where-theres-smoke-theres-fire/
Post by: KFhunter on August 21, 2018, 04:39:30 PM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on August 21, 2018, 04:48:34 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 22, 2018, 06:59:38 AM
I love it.
Every one who losses property to wildfires, should be able to file suit against the likes of the Sierra Club and people like Mitch Friedman.
Bring it on!
Here's what's up: https://www.conservationnw.org/where-theres-smoke-theres-fire/
Post by: buglebrush on August 22, 2018, 08:15:06 AM
There's so much garbage in that article it's mind boggling. Carbon Credits? :yike:
Every one who losses property to wildfires, should be able to file suit against the likes of the Sierra Club and people like Mitch Friedman.
Bring it on!
Here's what's up: https://www.conservationnw.org/where-theres-smoke-theres-fire/
Post by: KFhunter on August 22, 2018, 11:59:34 AM
1) fostering a defensible space around your home is good
2) thinning is good
3) massive increase in prescribed burns is good
4) creating anchor points and using treated areas to funnel fires is good
5) Mega fires are bad
6) When things are this dry it's just going to burn, agreed.
And some things we don't agree on
1) paying more taxes (carbon credits) is going to solve mega fires - disagree
2) kicking people out of woodland wild areas is going to solve mega fires - disagree
3) restricting new housing on wild land areas is going to solve mega fires - disagree
And here's a few things I'd like to add that he might disagree with.
1) opening existing roads for fast reaction fire suppression would do more to solve mega fires than paying more taxes
2) increased grazing leases to keep grasses shorter, helps reduce understory fuel.
3) huge reduction of predators so browsers (deer, elk, moose) will also help reduce brush
4) increased logging with some strip logging, thinning and other logging practices to create a patchwork, bring back slash-n-burn.
Post by: MitchFriedman on August 22, 2018, 12:51:38 PM
Carbon taxes: I'm open to other/better ways to address climate change if you've got 'em. But I'm beyond arguing whether it's happening or is a factor in the fires. There are countless ways to back that up, but I'll post this one that I saw just today: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/08/14/1802316115
Houses in the woods: My point isn't that they cause (or solve) mega fires, just that they drive way up the cost of fighting fires. Actually, to the extent that we fight fires around homes that we'd otherwise let burn, I guess they do add to mega fire.
1) opening existing roads for fast reaction fire suppression would do more to solve mega fires than paying more taxes
Yep, disagree. 85% of fires in WA are ignited by people, mostly along roads. So roads have a real fire downside. They also of course have other downsides (maintenance costs, impacts to streams and wildlife).
2) increased grazing leases to keep grasses shorter, helps reduce understory fuel.
Agreed as part of defensible space around homes, but not in general. Hell, we've had huge fires (Carlton, Conconully, Tunk, Grass Valley, etc) in heavily grazed grass/shrubland.
3) huge reduction of predators so browsers (deer, elk, moose) will also help reduce brush
Nope. Biggest mortality sources on ungulates are winters, disease, cars, etc. Biggest other variable in their densities is competition with livestock for forage, contradicting your #2.
4) increased logging with some strip logging, thinning and other logging practices to create a patchwork, bring back slash-n-burn.
Disagree. You're gonna hate this, but there's a lot of good science now showing that managed (logged) timberland burns hotter than unmanaged. Think fires like North Star, Carpenter Road, the big one by Cle Elum last year, all in heavily roaded and logged areas. Hell, think about the massive fires across BC this summer and last. BC's been logging at insane rates the last 20 years, especially in areas like around Williams Lake that was ground zero for fire last year. The type of logging that can improve conditions in terms of fire is really well thought out thinning, and it's essential to follow with fire. See https://www.conservationnw.org/private-timber-plantations-burn-more-severely-than-adjacent-public-forests/ and https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980-015-0218-0
Post by: KFhunter on August 22, 2018, 08:22:55 PM
Thanks KFHunter.
Carbon taxes: I'm open to other/better ways to address climate change if you've got 'em. But I'm beyond arguing whether it's happening or is a factor in the fires. There are countless ways to back that up, but I'll post this one that I saw just today: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/08/14/1802316115
You're gonna hate this;
Trump is helping solve the climate change problem by imposing tariffs on China (when discussing climate change we must do so on a global scale).
Per GDP dollar, China is twice as dirty as the US on CO2 emissions. Trump is bringing those jobs back here to the US where we actually watch our emissions. With a robust economy and strong job market there will be more incentive to improve our carbon footprint, but stagnant wages and lack of jobs and a terrible market isn't going to help drive an ecological conscience.
Also, we could vastly decrease our carbon foot print by following my ideas for fire suppression. The biggest contributor to our carbon footprint is forest fires, that's undebatable, on a bad year such as this forest fire carbon output will dwarf all other sources of emissions (barring a big volcanic eruption) and on a more normal year forest fires will easily out produce automobiles for CO2.
Houses in the woods: My point isn't that they cause (or solve) mega fires, just that they drive way up the cost of fighting fires. Actually, to the extent that we fight fires around homes that we'd otherwise let burn, I guess they do add to mega fire.
Not quite, do you understand how funding works for fire districts? More homes = more money, more green zones and easily defensible fire areas. Agreed that California is a bit different than here, but in WA homes means less fire, more roads to serves as fire breaks. I agree with you that I don't really want to see more homes in the woods but to accomplish that would require more wilderness which I'm against. I want to maintain the status quo for wilderness and national forests. If a massive logging company decided to sell off all it's holdings I wouldn't oppose the government buying it up if it borders or is within national forest and including it into national forest. I don't want more wilderness, it's a useless and purely emotional construct.
1) opening existing roads for fast reaction fire suppression would do more to solve mega fires than paying more taxes
Yep, disagree. 85% of fires in WA are ignited by people, mostly along roads. So roads have a real fire downside. They also of course have other downsides (maintenance costs, impacts to streams and wildlife).
Aren't stats fun! If you dig into those stats further you'll find that mega fires aren't typically man caused until you get into California, take arson and drug growers off the top and you'll find even fewer man caused fires..take off railroads, power lines and plane crashes and that whittles it down further. Now take off roads that'll never be closed anyways and that 85% goes way way down. Point is, how many of those 85% of man caused fires happen on forest service roads that could be closed or are closed, not a lot.
That 85% is just a number and isn't relevant to keeping a road open or closing it.
2) increased grazing leases to keep grasses shorter, helps reduce understory fuel.
Agreed as part of defensible space around homes, but not in general. Hell, we've had huge fires (Carlton, Conconully, Tunk, Grass Valley, etc) in heavily grazed grass/shrubland.
"when it's this hot and dry it's just going to burn" is relevant here, bad years with bad fires doesn't prove if grazing is helpful or not, there's plenty of studies to back up that grazing can be benificial and you even said so yourself when you said: "Agreed as part of defensible space around homes" but then you go and show your true intentions and desire in the second half of that sentence when you declare that grazing is not good in general. You wish for no cattle on public land is the only conclusion I can draw from your switch there.
3) huge reduction of predators so browsers (deer, elk, moose) will also help reduce brush
Nope. Biggest mortality sources on ungulates are winters, disease, cars, etc. Biggest other variable in their densities is competition with livestock for forage, contradicting your #2.
There's no contradiction, winter kill is going to happen with or without predators. It just so happens that it's far more frequent and prevalent with predators on the scene depriving ungulates of precious energy reserves fleeing for their lives in deep snow. Chase a herd of elk or deer and it might take them a week to die when predators are no longer around, is that winter kill or indirect predator kill? Bio's will tell you it's winter kill "due to lack of quality browse and climate change blah blah" when in fact it's just a bad year with bad snow and low energy reserves and too many predators chasing/nagging/bumping them off beds and feeding.
4) increased logging with some strip logging, thinning and other logging practices to create a patchwork, bring back slash-n-burn.
Disagree. You're gonna hate this, but there's a lot of good science now showing that managed (logged) timberland burns hotter than unmanaged. Think fires like North Star, Carpenter Road, the big one by Cle Elum last year, all in heavily roaded and logged areas. Hell, think about the massive fires across BC this summer and last. BC's been logging at insane rates the last 20 years, especially in areas like around Williams Lake that was ground zero for fire last year. The type of logging that can improve conditions in terms of fire is really well thought out thinning, and it's essential to follow with fire. See https://www.conservationnw.org/private-timber-plantations-burn-more-severely-than-adjacent-public-forests/ and https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980-015-0218-0
You didn't mention the massive amounts of beetle kill in BC, this is what's feeding the BC fires. Have you taken the time to observe it? I have, it's mind boggling the amount of dead standing trees, talk about hot huge fires! We agree on thinning and a few other things, but I feel that you're being disingenuous by leaving out so many pertinent details or misleading people with irrelevant studies or %'s
I appreciate you coming on HW and giving us such an inside and personal glimpse into the thinking that goes on inside CNW and WDFW.
Post by: Vine Maples and Cottonwoo on August 22, 2018, 08:48:59 PM
Post by: wolfbait on August 23, 2018, 02:36:46 AM
WolfBait, How much do you think HAARP plays into the scenarios? How about HAARP and this Smoke Situation?
I'm couldn't really tell you, it's been a few years since I looked into the "climate change" BS.
What's your idea?
Post by: Southpole on August 23, 2018, 07:54:37 AM
Post by: highside74 on August 23, 2018, 08:05:00 AM
Post by: buglebrush on August 23, 2018, 08:37:58 AM
Great point with the bug kill trees KF, I haven’t heard anyone remind us of that fact yet. I think it was Colorado a few years back was having some horrific wildfires due to the amount of bug killed forests.
Yes and when the Forest Service does try to log a beetle kill area it gets tied up in the courts until the beetles are outside the original timber sale.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on August 23, 2018, 08:45:32 AM
Post by: Southpole on August 23, 2018, 09:00:01 AM
Why do these enviro terrorist groups rein so much control over the populas ? Answer, because people are sheep and are afraid to stand up for their own good will. :bash:They’re great master manipulators of people’s emotions=donations....
Post by: CAMPMEAT on August 23, 2018, 04:54:47 PM
Why do these enviro terrorist groups rein so much control over the populas ? Answer, because people are sheep and are afraid to stand up for their own good will. :bash:They’re great master manipulators of people’s emotions=donations....
Right on. Plus they don't spend their own money...............
Post by: MitchFriedman on August 24, 2018, 09:22:56 AM
You make some good points, esp in unpacking the ignition source stat's. But you make some wild ones too. I'll just respond to a few things:
Carbon: I dispute that wildfire is the biggest source of carbon emissions. These things are measured. First, fire only volatilizes 10-15% of the carbon in a forest, less than logging. Second, fire is inevitable, so it's background to the issue of climate change. Last, the life cycle calculations get really complicated and contentious.
Roads/fire: Even if it turned out the open roads don't correlate well to ignition, there's an argument to be made over how well they correlate to successful suppression, at least under the extreme conditions that are the concern. I've already cited numbers of big, damaging fires that were in heavily managed/roaded landscapes.
Cows: My views on public lands grazing and even cattle in general are complicated. It's enough to say that I'll call BS whenever somebody tries to mis-characterize grazing as a public service. To suggest that having enough cows across the backcountry that they could effect landscape fire patterns is feasible or desirable is frankly nuts.
Beetles: You've ignored that the reason for the mountain pine beetle epidemic is climate change. Winters even in BC don't get cold enough anymore to kill the larvae, so we now have two or three beetle cycles per year, overwhelming the trees. Those forests have been heavily salvage logged, about as fast as humanly possible with the biggest mills in the world. But of course not every bettle-killed tree gets logged. Do beetle-impacted forests burn more/hotter than others? That's complicated.
Predators: Ain't worth debating further, as there's no scenario in which we suppress predator pop's the way you propose. It public shouldn't and wouldn't stand for it. It's nuts.
Post by: ribka on August 24, 2018, 02:30:35 PM
I wonder if someone who poached elk for 20 years came here and lectured us on the ethics of hunting would be received on here?
KFHunter,
You make some good points, esp in unpacking the ignition source stat's. But you make some wild ones too. I'll just respond to a few things:
Carbon: I dispute that wildfire is the biggest source of carbon emissions. These things are measured. First, fire only volatilizes 10-15% of the carbon in a forest, less than logging. Second, fire is inevitable, so it's background to the issue of climate change. Last, the life cycle calculations get really complicated and contentious.
Roads/fire: Even if it turned out the open roads don't correlate well to ignition, there's an argument to be made over how well they correlate to successful suppression, at least under the extreme conditions that are the concern. I've already cited numbers of big, damaging fires that were in heavily managed/roaded landscapes.
Cows: My views on public lands grazing and even cattle in general are complicated. It's enough to say that I'll call BS whenever somebody tries to mis-characterize grazing as a public service. To suggest that having enough cows across the backcountry that they could effect landscape fire patterns is feasible or desirable is frankly nuts.
Beetles: You've ignored that the reason for the mountain pine beetle epidemic is climate change. Winters even in BC don't get cold enough anymore to kill the larvae, so we now have two or three beetle cycles per year, overwhelming the trees. Those forests have been heavily salvage logged, about as fast as humanly possible with the biggest mills in the world. But of course not every bettle-killed tree gets logged. Do beetle-impacted forests burn more/hotter than others? That's complicated.
Predators: Ain't worth debating further, as there's no scenario in which we suppress predator pop's the way you propose. It public shouldn't and wouldn't stand for it. It's nuts.
Post by: idaho guy on August 24, 2018, 03:03:11 PM
What is your educational background and training that permits you to speak as a so called authority on forest fires, timber management, climatogy, apex predator managements etc?? A spokesman from organization has come on here and lectured us on many topics concerning predators, wildlife timber etc. Your online biography indicates that you spent at least 20 years of your career putting spikes in trees that injured hard working innocent guys just trying to make a beneficial lawful honest living and take care of their families. I think the unscientific policies you have been pushing your entire life has resulted in tremendous damage of our western ecology and caused the loss of a lot of trees, habitat and animals . I say this with all due respect.KFHunter,
You make some good points, esp in unpacking the ignition source stat's. But you make some wild ones too. I'll just respond to a few things:
Carbon: I dispute that wildfire is the biggest source of carbon emissions. These things are measured. First, fire only volatilizes 10-15% of the carbon in a forest, less than logging. Second, fire is inevitable, so it's background to the issue of climate change. Last, the life cycle calculations get really complicated and contentious.
Roads/fire: Even if it turned out the open roads don't correlate well to ignition, there's an argument to be made over how well they correlate to successful suppression, at least under the extreme conditions that are the concern. I've already cited numbers of big, damaging fires that were in heavily managed/roaded landscapes.
Cows: My views on public lands grazing and even cattle in general are complicated. It's enough to say that I'll call BS whenever somebody tries to mis-characterize grazing as a public service. To suggest that having enough cows across the backcountry that they could effect landscape fire patterns is feasible or desirable is frankly nuts.
Beetles: You've ignored that the reason for the mountain pine beetle epidemic is climate change. Winters even in BC don't get cold enough anymore to kill the larvae, so we now have two or three beetle cycles per year, overwhelming the trees. Those forests have been heavily salvage logged, about as fast as humanly possible with the biggest mills in the world. But of course not every bettle-killed tree gets logged. Do beetle-impacted forests burn more/hotter than others? That's complicated.
Predators: Ain't worth debating further, as there's no scenario in which we suppress predator pop's the way you propose. It public shouldn't and wouldn't stand for it. It's nuts.
I removed my post you said it much better! :tup: I still want to know how successful he thinks his plan was to save the spotted owl! I was trying to be too polite ha ha
Post by: buglebrush on August 24, 2018, 03:04:43 PM
People like Mitch make their money preying on the fears they create in others.
Post by: KFhunter on August 24, 2018, 11:03:40 PM
[/size]
KFHunter,
You make some good points, esp in unpacking the ignition source stat's. But you make some wild ones too. I'll just respond to a few things:
Carbon: I dispute that wildfire is the biggest source of carbon emissions. These things are measured. First, fire only volatilizes 10-15% of the carbon in a forest, less than logging. Second, fire is inevitable, so it's background to the issue of climate change. Last, the life cycle calculations get really complicated and contentious.
Don't take my word for it ;)
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110580
*note -this is a 2007 article, I wanted to illustrate that in 2007 there was a big fear about global warming and a big increase in fires (the sky is falling)...but turns out it's just normal for California to have lot's of fires. Somethings never change! Now let's fast forward back to 2018*
Also, once the fire has pumped tons or even gigatons of pollutants into the atmosphere it's a double whammy, those burnt trees, grass and shrubs aren't consuming CO2 or cleaning the air, nor making 02. So while fire is inevitable it doesn't have to be as distructive as it is, opening roads and suppressing them earlier is doable, and the responsible thing to do!
Roads/fire: Even if it turned out the open roads don't correlate well to ignition, there's an argument to be made over how well they correlate to successful suppression, at least under the extreme conditions that are the concern. I've already cited numbers of big, damaging fires that were in heavily managed/roaded landscapes.
If you can't get to the fire you can't suppress it, in rural Washington we have volunteers who get on the fires very quickly when they can, but often they can't. If a lightening strike crates a plume of smoke it often takes days to get a dozer in to open a road so they can reach it, very very frustrating when you can see it across a canyon but the dang road is impassible due to kelly-humps and brush that heads over there. I've had firefighters sitting and twiddling their thumbs because they can't get to a fire..a few days later after the lightening storm things dry out and that fire takes off and it's out of control. Any brush-land firefighter knows that access to the fire is the number one hurdle to putting it out quickly. This is a no brainer.
Cows: My views on public lands grazing and even cattle in general are complicated. It's enough to say that I'll call BS whenever somebody tries to mis-characterize grazing as a public service. To suggest that having enough cows across the backcountry that they could effect landscape fire patterns is feasible or desirable is frankly nuts.
The Horns fire burning right now is following a cattle grazing line.
I talked about this very issue a number of years ago right here on this forum, and in the very same area that's being burned now. I talked about how the wolves are keeping the cattle pushed down in the very same area that is now scorched. I talked about how you can drive up the road and you'll see shorter grasses where cattle have grazed then it transitions into 5 foot tall grasses where they quit grazing. The wolves kept the cattle pushed down from the peaks (where the fire now burns) even though cattle historically grazed right to the top prior to wolves. There is even an old water tank on Horns mountain for this but now the cattle want to hug the corrals where the cattlemen park, they have to constantly push them to new grazing areas then they just come right back down, sometimes overnight. As a hunter I witnessed this first hand, it was weird seeing the DMZ between wolves and cows, and now that area denied cattle has gone up in flames.
Beetles: You've ignored that the reason for the mountain pine beetle epidemic is climate change. Winters even in BC don't get cold enough anymore to kill the larvae, so we now have two or three beetle cycles per year, overwhelming the trees. Those forests have been heavily salvage logged, about as fast as humanly possible with the biggest mills in the world. But of course not every bettle-killed tree gets logged. Do beetle-impacted forests burn more/hotter than others? That's complicated.
There's no denying the current warm/dry trend is giving the beetles a big boost, that is inevitable and unpreventable. I'm less focused on things like carbon tax credits (which do no one any good let alone the climate) and instead more focused on tangible benefits, such as managing beetle kill in the forest. Opening roads is a big part of that, some spraying and logging, burning..(we don't really need to discuss all the methods for controlling pine beetle kill do we?)
Eventually climate change will lead to a cooler trend, then like in the 70's well all be yelling about global cooling! Like I said before when talking about climate change we must do so on a global scale. Washington is already a pretty clean state, and it's the Evergreen state! Our trees more than make up for any pollution Washingtonians may put out.
Predators: Ain't worth debating further, as there's no scenario in which we suppress predator pop's the way you propose. It public shouldn't and wouldn't stand for it. It's nuts.
There's plenty to debate about with predators! And as I've shown above predators can have a direct correlation to wild fires, even more so than stream erosion and beavers.
The public is getting less and less supportive of predators, that's a battle you're loosing and not because of anything we who support more management of predators are saying, but the predators themselves are winning that battle for us; they (predators) are begging to be managed each time they kill a bicycler just outside of Seattle, or attack a 10 yr old Washington boy in YNP, or send a government employee up a tree.
Post by: MitchFriedman on August 25, 2018, 12:20:44 PM
ribka: I don't know what fake news sites you hang out on, but you've got my bio wrong. Try Google, you'll find plenty about me there.
Idaho Guy: I'm pleased with the results of our spotted owl work. Had we not done it, they'd be about extinct now and the best carbon-storing and water-purifying forests in the world would be too. But this thread is rambling enough, so I suggest you stay focused.
Bunglebrush: I think you've got me confused with the Trump arm of the Republican party, using fear of minorities and immigrants to get your dander up and your wallet out. I don't use fear, I use science. Though I should add that the folks who seems to express the greatest fear of predators, including KFlogger in his last post, tend to be the big armed men. Why are the most macho among us always the most panicked about predators?
Wolfbait: You need to learn how to use the email function of the site. I received the below email from you, obviously meant for someone else. Fun!
KFlogger:I appreciate your rational debate style and many informed points, but clearly we're far apart on a lot of things. My sense is that you've got control issues. You want hardcore control and suppression of fire (you may be the last Smokey Bear fan out there), forests, grass, predators, basically everything but carbon. You even seem to think you could control mountain pine beetle, despite watching BC trash its forests for two decades trying in futility to get ahead of beetles. Yours would be a world of roads, stumps and cows. Your ungulates would be unfit disease pools, your streams running mud, your salmon all from hatcheries and net pens. I'm pretty sure you'd have just as much fire though. And I'm absolutely certain that I wouldn't want to live in that world.
For those interested, here's the email Wolfbait accidentally sent me: "You did a great job with mitch, pointing out the BS. :tup: :tup:
I tried to reply to his crap, but every time I reread what I had wrote, there were to many cuss words, usually started out "you dirty lying ^%(&&hole" and it got worse from there. No doubt I would have probably been banned for life, and the wolf lovers etc. would have won again."
Post by: MitchFriedman on August 25, 2018, 12:36:00 PM
https://www.conservationnw.org/understanding-wolf-behavior/
Post by: wolfbait on August 25, 2018, 03:36:16 PM
Well at least you got the message mitch, now you probably need to get back to begging for money from the uninformed, and counseling WDFW on the best ways to spin the next wolf attack.
And probably about time to schedule another meeting with WDFW and the rest of the fake environmentalists, on how to keep the suing going, just like happened with the original illegal wolf introduction.
You did what you came on here to do, impress everyone as to how intelligent you are, somehow I don't think you are leaving any kind of lasting impression, well maybe one or two, but they aren't too flattering for you.
Cheers
By the way, Good Job KF :tup: :tup:
Post by: ribka on August 25, 2018, 04:34:48 PM
For those who worry about cougar or wolf encounters, here's some useful info to keep you out of a tree:
https://www.conservationnw.org/understanding-wolf-behavior/
Mitch, did you ever pay medical bills and missed wages for the loggers you injured when you were spiking trees in that ecoterrorist organization Earth first??
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/the-threat-of-eco-terrorism
All those years spent growing up in Chicago made you an authority on wolves and forest fires???😂😂😂😂
You’re the same duplicitous person you always were and no one in here believes your lies. A few on here have defended you stating you were a “nice guy” after reading your condescending and arrogant posts you certainly did not leave a nice guy impression with me
Post by: MitchFriedman on August 25, 2018, 04:39:43 PM
And probably about time to schedule another meeting with WDFW and the rest of the fake environmentalists, on how to keep the suing going, just like happened with the original illegal wolf introduction.
Well heck, Wolfbait, you had to go and invoke me again. So since you mention the suing, here's this:
https://www.conservationnw.org/news-updates/statement-on-togo/
Now I'm off, back to my lair. M
Post by: wolfbait on August 25, 2018, 05:38:05 PM
And probably about time to schedule another meeting with WDFW and the rest of the fake environmentalists, on how to keep the suing going, just like happened with the original illegal wolf introduction.
Well heck, Wolfbait, you had to go and invoke me again. So since you mention the suing, here's this:
https://www.conservationnw.org/news-updates/statement-on-togo/
Now I'm off, back to my lair. M
I read some of that slobber mitch, WDFW and CNW came up with the most damaging wolf plan there ever was, have and still are pretending to want to help ranchers?
WDFW refusing to confirm wolf predation, wolves etc. isn't helping ranchers, prolonging wolf delisting does fund WDFW and CNW fake endangered wolf programs.
And then there's the impact of wolves on the ungulates...
Post by: idaho guy on August 26, 2018, 10:21:54 AM
For those who worry about cougar or wolf encounters, here's some useful info to keep you out of a tree:
https://www.conservationnw.org/understanding-wolf-behavior/
[/quote
I did not even read the above article because I think I know where it’s going. I hunt lions and wolf ever year and have no fear for myself my fear is for other wildlife. Recent fires destroyed 9 times more spotted owl habitat than logging. That’s a fact you should look up instead of just using worn out talking points based on nothing.Spotted owl population has spiraled since you and others shut down logging. I would like you and others to look at Results of your efforts before jumping on the next fake environmental crisis. I care about conservation deeply but hate mismanagement and for what? Results of most environmental groups efforts are usually counter productive to what they are “saving “
Post by: bearpaw on August 26, 2018, 11:24:28 AM
Post by: wolfbait on August 26, 2018, 12:59:20 PM
Quote from: bearpaw on September 24, 2017, 09:51:37 PM
It's interesting and really very intelligent, CNW brags how they help rural folks coexist with wolves, while at the same time many of their members most likely belong to other groups that immediately sue to stop any wolf management even when wolf population goals are exceeded. Don't be duped!
The same violent whakos shut down the logging industry
Look what what they have done the health of our forests the past two decades
These groups are involved in social engineering and our very good at it
They are very active attending public meetings, lobbying our politician going on facebook hunting forums
Printed media with lies. They typically say they support hunters ranchers and behind the scenes have other groups file lawsuits like they did in Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan
They want to fundamentally destroy rural culture and all of its traditions like hunting ranching with uncontrolled flooding of apex predators
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,218612.15.html
"Negotiating with environmentalists has only ended in more wolves than originally promised. The wolfers have themselves repeatedly proven time after time that you cannot expect a good faith agreement, you cannot trust them, honesty and good faith is not in their vocabulary. When this state eventually reaches it's outrageous wolf goals I guarantee there will be lawsuits or initiatives to try and prevent wolf management. :twocents:"
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,218612.0.html
And that's where we are today....
Post by: timberfaller on August 26, 2018, 01:35:11 PM
:tup:
It is also know as, Brainwashing and propaganda!!
As Karl Marx believed, Get'em while they are young, they won't know any better as adults!!!!
Post by: Vine Maples and Cottonwoo on August 27, 2018, 09:35:10 PM