Bush visits Tucson, Environmentalists to protest

[Crayz9000]

Great, now I'm up against two people at once.

I'm not trying to condone either commercial logging or a completely hands-off policy. I'm just saying that a lot of forests, in their current state, are not suited to fires. They've had too much highly flammable stuff build up in the past century, and before fires can occur normally (a small to moderate fire every 10 years) that fuel has to be taken care of.

Graeme, you live in Canada, for God's sake. Your forest service didn't have the ass-backwards fire policy that the US Forest Service had for most of the 20th century.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Great, now I'm up against two people at once.

I'm not trying to condone either commercial logging or a completely hands-off policy. I'm just saying that a lot of forests, in their current state, are not suited to fires. They've had too much highly flammable stuff build up in the past century, and before fires can occur normally (a small to moderate fire every 10 years) that fuel has to be taken care of.

Graeme, you live in Canada, for God's sake. Your forest service didn't have the ass-backwards fire policy that the US Forest Service had for most of the 20th century.

I must admit, the Us policy on this issue has been dismal...

[Stormbringer]

I must admit, the Us policy on this issue has been dismal...

Then why are you so upset about implimenting a reasonable and responsible plan? Select harvesting is what is needed to clear overgrown forest while preserving the ecology. In order to get to the trees to be cut you've got to clear the underbrush which is the fire hazard. It's not the ideal solution as far as nature is concerned but it's the best possible balance between human needs and natures. Not to mention it prevents the huge fires that have been such a problem.

[Stormbringer]

I have never said that. I would vote for a republican if they suported my views, but how often will you find one? hmm?

Funny, you slammed Ah-nuld simply for being a Republican. In fact you said you hadn't even bothered to see what he views were since he was a Republican. Nevermind that he's actually very liberal on social issues and indeed supports many of the same thing you do. But hey, why judge some one on their record when you can do it on their party?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I must admit, the Us policy on this issue has been dismal...

Then why are you so upset about implimenting a reasonable and responsible plan? Select harvesting is what is needed to clear overgrown forest while preserving the ecology. In order to get to the trees to be cut you've got to clear the underbrush which is the fire hazard. It's not the ideal solution as far as nature is concerned but it's the best possible balance between human needs and natures. Not to mention it prevents the huge fires that have been such a problem.

*ideabox*

This just kind of popped into my brain

What you could do, sure, go ahead with *selective harvesting, but give the underbrush a controlled burn. This would renew the soil, and provide lumber(thoughwe really should try and switch to somethng other than lumber but that is the future, this is now) Aswell as keep our natural balance... win win... but of course the stupid environmentalists(FIRE BAD!!) will protest this as well...

[Stormbringer]

*ideabox*

This just kind of popped into my brain

What you could do, sure, go ahead with *selective harvesting, but give the underbrush a controlled burn. This would renew the soil, and provide lumber(thoughwe really should try and switch to somethng other than lumber but that is the future, this is now) Aswell as keep our natural balance... win win... but of course the stupid environmentalists(FIRE BAD!!) will protest this as well...

You don't really know much about forestry do you?

That might work, except once the underbrush starts burning it's going to take the rest of the forest with it. We're not talking about little weeds and green plants, this is small scrub trees and lots of dead wood as well. Once a fire burns it'll burn everything, especially given the tinderbox conditions that prevail in most public land in America.

[Drewcifer]

...What you could do, sure, go ahead with *selective harvesting, but give the underbrush a controlled burn....

...That might work, except once the underbrush starts burning it's going to take the rest of the forest with it....

Yes and no.

Early forest management in the US was to completely put out fires, a zero-tolerance policy, if you will. Although this seemed like the right thing to do at the time, it has resulted in a tremendous and unnatural build up of fuel. What would normally be a relatively small fire builds into a firestorm, devastating the landscape, leaving a "moonscape with matchsticks".

However, studies and test programs have led the US Forest Service to rethink that policy over the last decade. Policies are changing to include clearing out debris and detritus from the forest floor, and then start small, controlled burns. When the majority of the fuel is gone, fires tend to stay a ground level, rather than 'crowning' and burning entire trees and forests down. The smaller fires still induce germination, and the smaller fires tend to add mineral content to the soil, rather than baking it dry and burning out all the organic matter (making it almost sterile) like a large forest fire does. As well, established trees are relatively unharmed by small ground fires. (In fact, giant sequoias need small fires to keep other trees from crowding out sun-hungry sequoias saplings.)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

GO ENVIRONMENTALISTS!!! KEEP THE WILDERNESS ALIVE SO I AM NOT JOBLESS WHEN I GET MY DEGREE!!!

I cant believe that bastard is in MY state....

I can't believe you said that. Most of the forests of America will be charred ruins at this rate if the President's initiatives are not passed. Have you ever actually lived in a rural area?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes and no.

Early forest management in the US was to completely put out fires, a zero-tolerance policy, if you will. Although this seemed like the right thing to do at the time, it has resulted in a tremendous and unnatural build up of fuel. What would normally be a relatively small fire builds into a firestorm, devastating the landscape, leaving a "moonscape with matchsticks".

However, studies and test programs have led the US Forest Service to rethink that policy over the last decade. Policies are changing to include clearing out debris and detritus from the forest floor, and then start small, controlled burns. When the majority of the fuel is gone, fires tend to stay a ground level, rather than 'crowning' and burning entire trees and forests down. The smaller fires still induce germination, and the smaller fires tend to add mineral content to the soil, rather than baking it dry and burning out all the organic matter (making it almost sterile) like a large forest fire does. As well, established trees are relatively unharmed by small ground fires. (In fact, giant sequoias need small fires to keep other trees from crowding out sun-hungry sequoias saplings.)

Right, but this needs to be done in conjunction with the clearing of some timber in certain areas, to correct the excessive density. Not in the long term, certainly, but in the short term, until the natural forest density is restored. Otherwise such operations do have danger to them, and may not be effective on their own.

[Drewcifer]

Right, but this needs to be done in conjunction with the clearing of some timber in certain areas, to correct the excessive density....

Correct. Thanks for adding that

Some long term studies have found forests that are almost 10 times as dense as they would/should be naturally. One forest range in particular, iirc, naturally would have a density of 300 trees per acre, but had grown to 2000, due to the old 'no fire' policy.

But yes, part of the newest forest managment policies include density corrections, along with controlled burns, etc.

[Alyrium Denryle]

*ideabox*

This just kind of popped into my brain

What you could do, sure, go ahead with *selective harvesting, but give the underbrush a controlled burn. This would renew the soil, and provide lumber(thoughwe really should try and switch to somethng other than lumber but that is the future, this is now) Aswell as keep our natural balance... win win... but of course the stupid environmentalists(FIRE BAD!!) will protest this as well...

You don't really know much about forestry do you?

That might work, except once the underbrush starts burning it's going to take the rest of the forest with it. We're not talking about little weeds and green plants, this is small scrub trees and lots of dead wood as well. Once a fire burns it'll burn everything, especially given the tinderbox conditions that prevail in most public land in America.

What part of controlled burn do yu not understand? You clear away te dead shit so tat you dont have a section of woods that will alight with a sprk, and you manage and control the size and heat of the flames.

Doing what bush wants to do, will not enrich the soil, it is a short term solution, that, while it may work for a few decades will kill off the forests i the long run.

[Alyrium Denryle]

GO ENVIRONMENTALISTS!!! KEEP THE WILDERNESS ALIVE SO I AM NOT JOBLESS WHEN I GET MY DEGREE!!!

I cant believe that bastard is in MY state....

I can't believe you said that. Most of the forests of America will be charred ruins at this rate if the President's initiatives are not passed. Have you ever actually lived in a rural area?

THis has been adressed, and yes, I have lived in a rural area.

I lived on a two acre property outside of fairbanks alaska, in the foothills surounding the city.. roughly 10-15 miles out of town.

I am against current US policy, and that of the past decades, seeing as how neither work.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Clearing away some of the access density would however, be a good idea, in conjunction with controlled burns... THough I wouldnt trust the ogging industry to do it without some competnt oversight

*curses lack of edit button*

[Alyrium Denryle]

Hmm... Doing this in Arizona, however does present a few problems. The areas that have burned already, should be able to replenish temselves naturally, possibly with a bit of replanting.

However getting controlled burns to work in a state(or region rather) that has been under drought conditions for 5 years could be a bit tricky...

Oh the mess smokey the bear has put us in...

[Joe]

yes stormbringer because the answer to people speaking out against programs, politicians, and political moves by the government in a democracy is to tell them to leave rather than to stay and campaign for your position and then vote next time you get the chance. typical.

Oh, blow me. If you're as unreletingly unhappy here as Alyrium and you apparently are, take your misery elsewhere.

[Stormbringer]

Hmm... Doing this in Arizona, however does present a few problems. The areas that have burned already, should be able to replenish temselves naturally, possibly with a bit of replanting.

However getting controlled burns to work in a state(or region rather) that has been under drought conditions for 5 years could be a bit tricky...

It's best to just do it the unnatural way. It's economical beneficial and it's not so insane as throwing matches into a firestorm waiting to happen.

Oh the mess smokey the bear has put us in...

Human started fires usually should be put out. It's the ridiculous policy of stopping any fire that got us in this mess.

[Hamel]

I had no idea that putting out some forest fires was doing more harm than good. That's, um, dudical.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

That's why you thin the forests out, numbnuts. We've coddled the forests for too long, and there's too much underbrush. Let it burn normally right NOW and you'll only get more conflagrations like the Arizona fires.

Then let those fires happen. Most areas need to be burned at least once a century to stay healthy, and "selective harvesting" is hardly a healthy practice for a forest. Unless, of course, you are telling me that a forest fire normally removes the trunks of the trees from the area, builds logging roads, and that loggers routinely apply heat to the area so that trees such as jack pine can seed.

As romantic as the idea of letting the forests burn merrily the way "they ought to" is, it's an idea that is, right now, astonishing in it's short-sighted stupidity.

Just as short-sighted as the Forest Service's policy of stomping out every forest fire that started in the last century. Letting wildfires burn works only when the forests of the west are in a healthy condition to begin with, that is, somewhat open savannah-type country. Then, fires tended to clear out undergrowth and fallen trees. What one doesn't want is a monstrous firestorm where the fires scream right up into the treetops and become the spectacular crown fires you see on TV. Those fires aren't natural, and they aren't healthy for the forest.

Not like the forests in the west are very healthy to begin with. They're not supposed to be dog-hair thickets choked with a hundred-plus trees per acre. Right now, we need to take an active forest policy that involves controlled burns, and selective logging and thinning. There's no way around it. Although in some states, there's no longer any choice, due to the astonishing spread of the bark beetle. (In nary a few months, one can find entire square miles where most of the trees have been killed by the little insects.)

[Crayz9000]

Oh, fuck me. The Angeles National Forest is apparently burning right now, on the back side of Mt. Lukens. As I recall, that's an area that hasn't burned for 25 years now.

So I'm not sure if this is a Forest Service controlled brush-clearing fire or some idiot camper's fire that got out of hand, but at any rate it's not very enjoyable smelling burning brush.

[Crayz9000]

Oh, better yet. The National Interagency Fire Service doesn't have any data on this fire on their page, so this is definitely unscheduled.

It could be ash and smoke from the current Los Padres blaze, but I shouldn't be seeing smoke on the wrong side of the mountain range...

[Graeme Dice]

I can't believe you said that. Most of the forests of America will be charred ruins at this rate if the President's initiatives are not passed. Have you ever actually lived in a rural area?

Would you please care to explain to us all how cutting down and removing the largest trees also removes the underbrush and deadfall in the area?

[Graeme Dice]

What one doesn't want is a monstrous firestorm where the fires scream right up into the treetops and become the spectacular crown fires you see on TV. Those fires aren't natural, and they aren't healthy for the forest.

That's a ridiculous statement. Crown fires are perfectly natural in any forest fire that has high winds. They do less damage to the underbrush than a slower fire anyways, so I'm not sure what people here are talking about.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Would you please care to explain to us all how cutting down and removing the largest trees also removes the underbrush and deadfall in the area?

You do both, because as Drewcifer noted, some forests are 10 times as dense as they should be.