Forest Service misses education opportunity
By George Wuerthner, 6-17-10
 |
|
 | |
| An example of where clearcuts did not stop wildfire | |
|
The Elliston Face proposed logging sale on the Helena National Forest near the town of Elliston, Montana is yet another example of how the Forest Service exploits the public’s misconceptions about wildfire and forest ecology to further its logging agenda. Like the old time physicians who bled the “bad” blood to treat patients no matter what the ailment, the Forest Service seems incapable of doing any management that doesn’t include logging as the solution to any problem—whether real or manufactured.
For example, the Forest Service justifies the Elliston Face timber sale on the basis of reducing what they call “hazardous” fuels (which as an ecologist I call woody biomass). To quote the FS, “This project would reduce wildland fire risk and help protect lives, communities, and ecosystems from the potential consequences of a high-intensity wildland fire within treatment areas.”
The Forest Service makes these assertions even though the statement is full of falsehoods, misleading and/or unproven assumptions.
For instance, there is no attempt to determine the probability of a fire. Douglas fir/lodgepole pine forests that dominate the Elliston Face sale area are naturally characterized by mixed severity and stand replacement fires that occur every half-century to several centuries apart. So the likelihood that this particular area will burn any time in the near future is extremely low—yet the Forest Service treats it as if the area is in imminent danger of a fire.
This is important because even the Forest Service’s own analysis concludes that logging of the Elliston Face will have some adverse impacts on soils, watersheds, wildlife, scenery and recreation. So we need to ask whether the potential effects of a fire that may not occur for a century or more is worth the negative impacts created by the logging process now?
Furthermore, the FS fosters the perception that wildfire is imminent because some of the lodegepole pine have died from pine beetle. Yet they conveniently neglect to note that all the fuel in the world will not produce a blaze if climatic conditions are non-conducive to a fire. If you don’t have the right climatic conditions, you won’t get a blaze. That all those conditions, including an ignition source, wind, low humidity and extended drought will all come together in the same place at the same time is extremely rare—which is why these forests do not burn but once every century or two.
Plus a red-needled tree is no more flammable than a green tree under the climatic conditions that drive large blazes. The presence of fine fuels and flammable resins makes all trees susceptible to fires under the right conditions. And contrary to common perception, dead trees-once they lose the needles and small branches-are less likely to burn. So the presence of dead lodgepole pine does not significantly increases fire hazard—in fact it can reduce fire risk.
But the misconceptions don’t end there. Whether thinning forests actually reduces fire hazard is not clearly demonstrated by research.
Some studies suggest that thinning can sometimes reduce fire spread, but other studies have found that thinning can actually INCREASE fire risk by opening up the forest to greater drying and wind penetration, and by creating conditions that favor the rapid regrowth of understory shrubs and trees that can provide the fine fuels that sustain fires.
Let’s keep in mind that some of the largest wildfires in Montana in recent years have raced through heavily logged areas including the Black Cat and Jocko Lakes fires near Missoula, the Derby Fire near Big Timber, among others. In other words, logging, even the near complete removal of trees by clearcutting, did not effectively stop large blazes.
Beyond that fact, all studies suggest that the effectiveness of thinning—even where it is thought to work—rapidly declines as understory grasses, shrubs and trees released from competition regrow creating more of the small fine fuels that support fires. Thus thinning isn’t a one-time event, and will have to be repeated frequently even if it does work—which I have said, is not by all means conclusive.
But it gets worse than that. The Forest Service’s own analysis has six indicator species— including pileated woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, martin, northern goshawk. These species depend on dead snags and down wood that pine beetles and wildfire create. But the FS treats beetles and wildfire as unwelcome events.
Worse, logging would obviously reduce the availability of such dead tree habitat now as well as in the future. In fact, the EIS ironically notes that “marten (mature forest Indicator) has not been observed but is probably present year-round in very low numbers—because of the paucity of large woody debris” which logging will only decrease further.
Plus the closest the timber sale boundary is to the town of Elliston is about a half mile, with the majority of the town in a non-forested valley more than a mile from the timber sale closest edge.
Research by the FS own scientists suggests that thinning any greater distance than a hundred or so feet from a home provides little additional reduction in fire risk. In other words, this timber sale will do little to safeguard Elliston from wildfire—indeed; most of the town is in no jeopardy what so ever from a direct fire front.
Secondly, the best way to reduce fire hazard isn’t to log the forest, but to reduce the flammability of homes by installing metal roofs, removal of trees from near homes, and so forth. All of this work should take place on private lands. In this regard, it is up to the citizens of Elliston to take responsibility for their own personal home safety.
Furthermore, if the County Commissioners were truly concerned about fire hazards, they would not permit house construction in the fire plain. Zoning is the best way to protect homes and safe lives rather than expect taxpayer to fix the problem they created by allowing home construction in inappropriate sites. Building in a fire plain is just as foolish as building in a river floodplain.
While the Forest Service document implicitly portrays large wildfires as somehow “destructive” such fires are a natural part of these forest ecosystems.
Thus the Forest Service creates a “problem” by mischaracterization of what is a natural process that poses little real threat to the town of Elliston. It advocacy of a money losing timber sale that may cost taxpayers more than a million dollars is irresponsible.
Instead of using the Elliston Face to counter misconceptions about wildfire and who is actually responsible for protecting property, the FS exploits the fears of misinformed citizens. One can only conclude the agency is still the handmaiden to the timber industry rather than a public servant working on behalf of all citizens of the country.
George Wuerthner has published 35 books including several on wildfire ecology.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Of course, knowing that "natural processes" (wildfire and beetle epidemics) have been and will happen on 90% of the Helena, wouldn't a logical scientist agree that there should be no shortage of "snag habitat". One thing no one can accuse the green movement of is having any perspective, but they sure write well.
See for yourself on Google Earth. Warning: only open minded enviros need look-all others may not want their long held beliefs challenged. In the "fly too" box in upper left corner enter the following Latitudes and longitudes(put spaces between the degrees, minutes, seconds). 45 41 34.44N, 113 45 13.15W is the Rat Creek fire west of Wisdom. Or try 48 25 35.01N, 114 49 44.43W-its the Brush Creek fire west of Whitefish. The "green polygons" are regenerated clearcuts that didn't burn. For kicks, click on the "clockface" on the toolbar. you can look at "pre-fire" photos and compare. The contrast is stunning. Lets try one more-48 48 22.39N, 115 11 12.55W-this is south of Eureka. Great polygon shot.
Clearcuts don't stop fires, but that's where firefighters stop them. No one is demanding we "log it all" to save it, but salvage clearcuts in strategic places (ridges) can save entire watersheds. The Derby fire southwest of Bozeman watershed was stopped on it's east side by a line of regenerated clearcuts.
Philip Omi did a study for the USFS after the Yellowstone fires. The summary states that 90% of mature forests suffered severe fire damage while only 20% of regenerated clearcuts did". The brush Creek "post-fire analysis" found similar results. I ask only one thing, check out the google images before replying to my post. The hardest thing we can do is challenge our own beliefs. we only lie to ourselves when we resist.
P.S. George, I sent the photos to Veblen and Schoenagel-they were very polite but I do believe it was the first they seen of them.
First, you say that fires outside the WUI should be left to burn. Then you say that the WUI should be left alone because it never burns. You're parallelling the global warming deniers saying that there is doubt in the myraid of studies and observations regarding forests. However, we keep seeing new highs in catastrophic wildfires, property damage, air and water pollution, destruction of endangered species habitat, extreme soil impacts and, yes, even human deaths. Hey, American Indians managed the forests around their own homes, so why can't we duplicate thopse conditions?? Douglas fir and lodgepoles are EXTREMELY flammable, especially when dead and fallen on the ground.
Sorry George, but, what about the children and the elderly living in Elliston?? Are we to leave them to the whims of preservationists and arsonists? Restoring forests back to pre-man conditions just isn't possible, as no one knows what those conditions were. Lewis and Clark did describe historical conditions, though, and that should really be the goal, restoring forest health and resilience to drought, bugs and wildfires.
It might be worthwhile to read the book how statistics lie. The 7% figure you quote does not accurately reflect the impacts of logging. That 7% is the most productive and most valuable (from fish and wildlife habitat) lands on the forest. So logging 7% even if it seems like a small amount has had a great effect on wildlife. Why is the bull trout endangered on the Helena NF? One factor is that so many creeks have suffered from logging sedimentation. Even though logging has only impacted a relatively small percentage of the forest--it is exceeding ecological parameters for many species.
As you are probably aware only 1% of the West is riparian zones, but 70-80% of the west's wildlife depends on riparian areas. So if I wanted to do what you have done, I could wipe out all the riparian habitat in the West and say look only 1% of the area was impacted, but that 1% would still have a disproportionate impact.
But beyond that point, the starting assumption you have is that fires are bad--which they are not from an ecological perspective. And that is paradigm shift that needs to be accomplished.
In other words even if clearcuts did limit fires, that would just be one more reason to limit them--because they are interferring with ecosystem processes. These processes including wildfire have been shaping ecosystems for thousands of years. We have been only logging these forests has lead to the dozens of endangered species. I do not know of one species that has been endangered as a direct consequence of wildfires.
If this is once again a jobs issue where the public entity (Forest Service) subsidizes a private entity (loggers) with taxpayers dollars, then let me suggest that the goverment pay the loggers outright (welfare) to not log and keep the forest ecosystem in tack. It's a more honest way of doing business.
As for Elliston burning, there's no doubt the community is fearful due to misinformation. If logging is the answer to those fears, then why not log all of the private forests that are closest to Elliston and leave the public land and resources alone?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qRVP02SjfCs/S4G8JbEUgQI/AAAAAAAAAtI/PSKcxNdqKVM/s400/P2150273-web.jpg
Tell me if you think these pictures of Yosemite aren't catastrophic. What used to be a stand of giant ponderosa and sugar pines just 20 years ago is now reduced to baked earth and dead plants, with very little organic matter left. This land can barely even support brush anymore. It may take a century before pines can reseed into the interior of this fire, as the heavy seeds cannot travel very far each season that pines actually produce seeds. Sometimes it takes 3-4 years in between good cone crops.
"Fires are a natural ecological process that actually leaves the forests healthier." This statement isn't supported by scientists, or my observations and photographic evidence. Low intensity fires were more common in historical times, with fuel loads and tree densities being MUCH, MUCH lower than they are today. Today's re-burns in unsalvaged stands, like the Yosemite fire, always rresults in similar conditions. I could also post Biscuit Fire pictures that show the exact same example of widespread catastrophic forest destruction, including nearly a thrid of Oregon's spotted owl habitat.
"Healthier"?!?!? I beg to differ. When such unhealthy forests at-risk to wildfires are so close to towns, we HAVE to act. I'm sure we'll soon hear someone blaming Elliston's residents for living where they live.
Thinning around Elliston might not completely prevent fire per se, but the fire would in fact be only as intense as the fuel load allows. A decent thin job, even a clearcut, is a much more rational action than to just let the stuff jackstraw and burn completely to black.
I have seen a series of Logger's photos, and they are righteous. I have been to several of his photo spots myself over the years, and noted many of the same fire-behavior patterns he has. One doesn't need a rocket science degree to comprehend the realities, just a pair of eye connect to a rational brain.
Tell ya what, Geo. You go ahead and throw down a bond that if the Elliston project is blocked, you'll pay for the fire management when it does in fact light off, as it certainly looks like it will.
There is a half mile of private timberland between the nearest part of the Elliston town site and the boundary of the FS lands. If one wanted to effectively help Elliston, you would log those private lands. Here's the map so you can see for yourself http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/projects/elliston_ea_map.pdf
But if you know the location of Elliston, you know that the majority of the town is out in a grassy valley with the Little Blackfoot River riparian area (read fire break) between it and the timber sale location. Yes there are a few houses, etc. along the highway that are closer to the sale location, but they are a small percentage of the town's infrastructure.
Plus most of those homes and businesses are also somewhat removed directly from the forested hills (which are private lands). The only homes that are in real jeopardy are a few strung out along the creek south of the highway--and when I checked the other day even the majority of them had metal roofs, had logged trees that were too close to their homes, and so forth. So they were doing the right things to reduce their fire flammability and defensibility.
But again as I point out the probability of a fire is extremely low. Even if you log, it only effect fire risk for a short time before new regrowth actually increases the flammability. It is far more cost effective for people to reduce the flammability of their homes than attempt to control fire behavior through logging.
This timber sale isn't really necessary--even if you believe it will work to increase the safety of the town. And Dave it is going to cost you and me a million dollars. You're a responsible kind of guy--why would you advocate that taxpayers lose a million dollars logging the hillside when it won't significantly affect the probability that Elliston will burn? Is that being responsible? If the people of Elliston are really worried about fire, they can pay to log the private lands immediately south of town--with their own money. Not only would logging the private land next to the town be more effective, if they had to really pay for this, I bet most residents of Elliston would conclude the risk of a fire just wasn't that great to justify the expense.
If there is enough wind, the other factors are minimized and fires grow by leaps and bounds. How about the Oakland Hills fire that burned in the San Francisco Bay Area?!? Despite the extremely high humidity, the fire raced through thick green vegetation at very high intensity, burning dozens of homes and killing people who couldn't escape. Ditto for the fires in Australia a few years ago.
You cannot assume that a fire will come from only one direction. Fuel breaks at least give firefighters a chance to stop a fast-moving wildfire. It's anti-human to rely on weather to stop wildfires. You people make it sound like the Forest Service is going to clearcut old growth and riparian zones, while leaving the slash everywhere, when laws prohibit those practices. You can't force private landowners to cut their trees but, you can encourage an aestheticly-thinned stand.
A June 2007 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office showed that appropriations
for federal agencies to prepare and respond to wild fires rose from an average of $1.1 billion per
year in fiscal years 1996 through 2000 to an average of more than $2.9 billion per year from
fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Adjusted for inflation, this is the same as an increase of $1.3
billion to $3.1 billion.2
According to the GAO there are three reasons for the increase costs of fighting fires:
1. Increased fuel buildup due to past fire suppression
2. Severe weather and drought
3. A growing number of homes built in or near wildlands
Anybody got the figures from 2005 on?
We all end up paying for these "forest fires from hell" because those in charge are not willing to pay attention to the 3 most likely causes (listed above) and addressing them without, destroying wilderness areas.
But then again, fighting fires is now what some would consider "a booming business" in the west. From the more than willing manpower available because of what you can make on a fire line (heard it was somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 to $250 a day) 3 meals - usually catered by an independent source or local establishment and.... a sturdy tent and bed for the night. And that doesn't include the "runners" more paid people to pick up officials, change out crews etc. All paid for by tax dollars.
Not trying to make light of a bad situation but Nature has had no problem keeping forests and wildlife in check when it came to forest fires in years past (or centuries, depending on how far back one wants to go)
It's mankind, who continuely infringes, demanding all sorts of sympathy and support even when they are more than aware of the hazards of living on the cusp, as in wilderness areas.
I mean seriously, how many of you have looked at those idiots on the news, who built homes on hillsides (mudslides) on the west coast and wondered "what the hell were they thinking???????"
And guess what? We all pay for it when insurance rates go up..................
Also on the horizon is the desire of firefighters to have the power to let ANY "unplanned ignition" burn, claiming imaginary "resource benefits". Soooo, you're going to trust them to keep fires (and overtime!) in check??!? The long-standing gridlock in forest management is also a very big factor in adding to the inability to control wildfires. Firefighters use the safety issue to decide to let fires burn, too. Giving all the decisions to firefighters is very much like "letting the fox guard the henhouse". Letting fires burn has consistently resulted in mega-fires that are incredibly damaging and costly, as well as burning up private property, impacting air and water quality, destroying endangered species habitat, eliminating archeological sites, tying up dwindling suppression resources, and yes, killing human beings.
Pre-historic fires used to be a lot less damaging, due to Indian management. Today's fires are a very far cry from those fires of the distant past. Stop blaming people for wanting to live where they live. Indians lived where they wanted to, in the "wilderness" they managed so well. Why can't WE?!?!?
You miss a point about fires. Fires only burn when there is proper conditions. The idea that Indians burned the West from mountaintop to mountaintop is fashionable among those advocating more logging, but does not make ecological sense because the vegetation does not burn readily in most years.
In most summers, for instance, you take a blow torch to the lodgepole pine in Yellowstone and you will not get a fire of any significant to burn--unless of course the climatic conditions are favorable for a fire. But since these conditions do not come but once in every century or so most of the time you will not get a fire at all.
In most years, in most higher parts of the West you can't burn the forests--it's too wet to burn. Most Indian burning, where it occurred, was focused near villages. (as recent research in the Willamette Valley and elsewhere has shown) And then, only at the lowest elevations. The idea that Indian burning kept the entire West open and park-like as much a myth as the idea that Indians never killed more than they could eat.
Most mountain big sagebrush, for instance, has a 100-300 year rotation. Most lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, western red cedar, hemlock, and a host of other species also had equally long and/or longer fire rotations.
In Montana, the vast majority of lands are either sagebrush (historically-though much converted to wheatfields and hayfields) and/or forest types like lodgepole pine that did not burn frequently.
For instance, 96% of the forests in Montana are mixed to high severity fire types. In other words they do not burn frequently and tend to naturally have high fuel loadings. They are not "sick" "unhealthy" and/or out of balance.
The amount of land in Montana that one could reasonably make the claim that fire suppression has potentially affected to some degree is very small--and most of this forest type is on private lands.
Those "proper conditions" can be a multitude of differing combinations. Let me use an analogy that you will be able to understand. In photography, a good exposure can be produced with numerous combinations of apertures and shutter speeds. However, if the scene is too bright, no combination of settings, within the limits of the camera, can produce a good exposure. The brightness represents winds, and when the winds are high, as they are every year, it simply doesn't matter whether the trees are dead or green. They burn and crown into devastating firestorms.
You cannot say that today's forests represent a "natural" condition, and hence, wildfires cannot be considered to be "natural" as well. This is a conundrum and contradiction that preservationists fall into. They claim that fire suppression is causing all the catastrophic fires but, they prefer to preserve those unbalanced conditions. We HAVE to intervene when these conditions occur near humans. As much as preservationists want to eliminate forest towns and homes, that simply cannot even be considered.
The historical pure stands of lodgepoles generally do occur at the higher elevations, and are already within designated wilderness areas. Yes, you are correct that these pure stands have their cycles, and must be left to do what they do. However, restoring ponderosa pine stands, and their accompanying characteristics, should be a priority in order the "re-grow endangered species habitat".
Indians in my part of the country ventured high into the mountains and torched it off as they wandered back down during the fall. The sheer fact that historical conditions at the mid-elevations included HUGE pines, no understory, and a rich carpet of flammable bear clover is proof enough that these forests evolved with VERY active fire regimes. The invasion of incense cedars and true firs threatens to eliminate the precious old growth that has survived innumerable fires during their centuries of existence. Even the higher elevation forests include jeffrey pines, also adapted for frequent fires.
All in all, I have yet to see a 300 year old subalpine fir, lodgepole pine or mountain hemlock. One other factor you don't consider is the very existence of modern man, and their carelessness with fire. Yep, let's allow a forest to become choked with weedy trees, eliminate fuels reduction projects, then watch it all burn near cities and towns. Remember the Hayman Fire??!! A little campfire was helped a bit to escape and more than 100,000 acres went up in smoke, just like that. We need forests that survive wildfires for centuries, instead of ones that live for only 120 years.
First keep in mind this discussion is about Montana, not Arizona, California or any other region. That makes a difference because the vegetation, climate, and other factors are different across the country.
Again I repeat, less than 4% of Montana is ponderosa pine forest type. Most of this exists on the very lowest elevation lands--lands that are primarily private lands, not forest service lands. So it's a moot point for discussion of FS policies in Montana to talk about open ponderosa pine forests since the majority of the vegetative communities are not of this type. Rather the majority of forest types had much longer fire intervals--thus have not been significantly altered by fire suppression.
Furthermore, even among the ponderosa pine type, there is a growing body of evidence that stand replacement fires were always present--particularly in the Rockies. I can send you various references, but the generalization that these stands were open and park like does not apply universally to the ponderosa pine in the Rockies. Although it may be more true for the Southwest than other areas for a host of reason i can't get into here.
And even among ponderosa pine one has to assume that fire suppression was effective. There is more evidence to suggest that fire suppression is greatly overrated as a causal factor--at least in the Rockies. During most of the mid-part of the last century, the northern Rockies were dominated by much cooler and wetter weather. Fires just didn't spread much during this time--which is exactly the time when everyone assumes fire suppression was effective. Then in the late 1980s and beyond, we began a cycle of much drier, warmer weather and not surprisingly we had large fires.
Keep in mind that some of the biggest fires on record occurred long before there was fire suppression and when the supposed influence of Indians was still in effect. For instance there were huge fires in the Coast Ranges of Oregon in the 1850-1860s. The 1910 fires of western Idaho and Montana occurred long before fire suppression had any influence.
Finally, wind is a very important feature in the spread of large fires as you suggest, but wind is only one component. You need drought. You need low humidity. You need high temperatures. If you don't have all those together in the same place at the same time , you won't get a big fire.
It is not unlike driving a car. If I turn the ignition (lightning or Indians/fire crew) and don't put the car in gear (drought), it doesn't go. If I turn the ignition and have no fuel (biomass) it doesn't go. If I turn the ignition and don't let off on the clutch (winds) it doesn't go and so on. I have to do all these things at the same time to make the car move. Ditto for a big fire.
You can have all the fuel in the world and if it's not dry, it won't burn. Most of Southeast Alaska is dominated by very large Sitka spruce and western hemlock. There's a ton of biomass on the forest floor. It rains like hell. It doesn't burn.
I worked for 3 months on the Bitterroot and saw pure stands of ponderosa pines throughout the Clark Fork, including the middle elevations in that watershed. I contest your figure of 4% in western Montana but, accept that the higher elevations were and are currently heavy to lodgepole and other species. I also am sure that pre-historic (pre-white man) forests were more ponderosa type forests. When forests that have a lodgepole understory burn, usually at high intensity, it kills the overstory ponderosas, and they do not return, out competed by the sheer numbers of lodgepoles. There is a zone between the two types of forests that has been severely-impacted by wildfire, resulting in "off-site" lodgepole thickets.
The fires you speak of in Oregon were the result of the lack of Indian burnings. As the conifers grew back in thick, young forests, they became a great fire hazard of overstocked and unhealthy stands. Prime sources of firestorms. Too many trees for the amount of annual rainfall simply isn't a good thing. The lodgepole "strategy" to dominate uses that fact to keep other species from competing. Clearly, this works well for them in the upper elevations. Their serotinous cones also enhance that strategy.
You can look at the land that burned in 1910 and still see the impacts of that huge, catastrophic wildfire (which was also enhanced by man's activities). Hot wildfires impact soils WAY more than the layperson knows, reducing fertility, increasing bulk density, vaporizing topsoil/organic material and eliminating micro and macro-nutrients. Man's effect on the forests were indeed significant, even way back then. There were no rules, laws or policies controlling logging back then. There was massive fuel loading from crappy logging. The last time we had these catastrophic wildfires, human densities were minimal. Today, there are a great many communities that cannot stand in the path of such conflagrations.
I do believe you when you claim that P. pines burned catastrophically, as I have witnessed that in many locales. However, those forests were not like the historic forests seen by Lewis and Clark. However, at that time, Indian populations were waning, due to disease, and the scale of their burnings was diminished.
Finally, we simply cannot return to the days of massive fires, as we have too many towns and human improvements to protect. Elliston is one of them and we cannot just hope that nature will spare it. Or, do you propose that we take all the forest dwellers and forcibly remove them to "reservations", for their own safety???
I do appreciate your thoughtful debate and use of scientific facts in your responses, George. It's been a breath of fresh air to actually respect my worthy opponent. We both speak truths, where it applies to particular pieces of ground. I've never been to Elliston but, what I have seen on the Bitterroot screams mismanagement over many decades.
You need to read a lot more fire ecology stuff. Start with William Bakers Fire Ecology of the Rockies--good overview that will surely provide you with a lot of new insights coupled with your experience.
There are numerous studies that use soil charcoal and other factors to determine past fire frequency, size, and so forth. There are a quite a number of studies that go back thousands of years. They clearly show that Indian burning was localized. They also show that ponderosa pine forests burned in stand replacement fires. This is not a "new" event or thing. You need to read more about fire ecology.
George, I suggest you get a lawyer and litigate the Elliston Face project.
there you go again with misinformation and flawed assumptions.
Bark beetles do not increase flammability. Indeed, red needle trees are nearly as flammable as green trees in drought, but decline in flammability once the needles drop. Thus bark beetles actually reduce flammability of forests for a period of years after infestation. The current events around the West are actually making many of these areas safer from fire. There is some research on this done at the U of Colorado that was presented at a fire conference in December of this year. It will be published shortly.
In any event, rather the increase in fire potential is not from the dead trees, but the regrowth of new trees released from competition after the bark beetle trees die. That hits a high point about 20-30 years after the beetle attack, then declines rapidly as the new trees grow into the canopy and it shuts off light. So the time to worry about increased fire risk is several decades down the road.
As for Elliston and any other towns in the West, there is no way to protect them by logging except to remove all the trees surrounding the town and do so on a frequent basis.
The problem for Elliston is that the forested areas surrounding the town are private lands--as I stated the closest FS lands are more than a mile from the core downtown area. Look at the link I provided a few comments back and you can see the location of public vs private lands.
Do you advocate going on to the private lands and logging them against the land owner's wishes? In rural Montana where it's my private land and i will do what I want, you will not get far.
A number of analysis of fire risk has found basically the same thing as with Elliston--the bulk of fuels reduction--if it needs to be done at all is on private lands, not on public lands. I don't have the exact statistics in front of me, but if you use a matrics of fuels within a mile of all towns, it's something like 90% of all fuel reduction is on private lands not public lands.
But you won't hear the Powell County Commissioners screaming about how the private land owners need to log their lands to reduce fuels to save Elliston. Not they focus on the FS lands because they are using fire as an excuse to up logging. Or we can conclude that they are irrational--an assumption I won't necessarily discount. But the point is that if communities wanted to reduce fire hazard--they need to start in their own backyards and work out from there. Not the other way around.
Hey, we have more than 17 MILLION acres of dead and dying forests. I choose to follow the Precautionary Principle in mitigating the effects of drought and bark beetles that are sooo, sooo visible and tangible in the rural west. There are dozens of examples where fires in remote areas suddenly show up on the doorstep of towns when the winds come up. With the advent of Let-Burn fires routinely escaping containment, we'll see more and more homes burning, due to firefighter screw-ups.
Welcome to the "New West"!
If I lay down on a railroad track and get run over by the train--is that your fault? Is that Society's fault? Should society remove all the train tracks so no one will be killed by trains because some people may be foolish enough to sleep on tracks?
The responsibility for fire hazard reduction rests with the individual and communities. Places like Elliston refuse to bite the bullet and demand that home owners fire proof their homes. Until I see that done around the West I am not going to support the destruction of our forest ecosystems by logging when the real problem isn't the forests--it's the foolishness of the West's rural residents. Who, unfortunately, are not getting good information so they can modify their views--which was the point I was making about the FS. Instead of giving people the information they need to make informed decisions, they basically confirm misinformation.
A couple of points. Research has demonstrated that if you have a metal roof you have a 95% chance of surviving a direct hit by a blaze. Do a few more things like putting screens on vents, removal of burnable materials from near homes, etc. you can practically fireproof a home. Of course, this is the responsibility of the home owners. So if you want to be stupid enough to live in the fire plain, you can probably survive a fire if you take the right precautions.
I've seen this numerous times after visiting many burned communities. There will be houses side by side--one burned to the ground, the other intact. Same fire. Different approaches to fire proofing the home.
But beyond that fact, you and other proponents of logging keep wanting the government to subsidize the foolish decisions of people who should have and should know better. If you want to park your car on a railroad track, don't complain to the railroad that they should stop the trains.
People have to take responsibility for their own poor decisions and actions. I feel sympathy for those who are hit with unexpected and unpredictable events, especially when it's not their fault--the fishermen affected by the Gulf Oil Spill is a case in point.
But I don't have much sympathy for people who ignore repeated warnings.
There are plenty of places to live in the West that are safe from wildfires. If one chooses to ignore this advice, than they have to live with the consequences.
There is a widespread attitude in America that we bail out people, particularly externalize the real costs of things on taxpayers.
Decisions to build in fire plain are made by developers, individuals, and enabled by county and other governments are who hostile to land use planning and zoning. After they allow this kind of sprawl to occur, they whine to the government "oh please come save me from my stupid decisions--and by the way, I want you to pay for it."
Typically this comes from the "don't tell me what to do with my property and my guns conservatives, who then want the hated "government" who they don't want to pay taxes to, to spend tax payer money (typically obtained from urban residents) to come save their skins. No more.
Insisting that residents be moved off their own lands, and into the concrete jungle is the epitome of preservationist "elitism". The government is mandated to provide public safety with a combination of what you recommend AND reducing fuels in the WUI on public lands. In the Flaggstaff example, residents have been evacuated and risk losing their homes, due to preservationist foot-dragging and litigation. In the case of the Angora Fire in Tahoe, the Forest Service had YEARS of chances to protect the long-established housing subdivision in the face of massive mortality and lack of forest health.
In the case of the Angora Fire in Tahoe, the Forest Service had DECADES!!! of chances to protect the long-established housing subdivision in the face of massive mortality and lack of forest health.
THIS is a step in the right direction!!!!!!
Read and comment, please!