tek9tim
ArboristSite Guru
Windthrown
Fires. I think the biggest problem with the public's perception of fire is that it's a bad thing. Yellowstone, for example. Mostly lodgepole pine. The natural fire cycle for it is to grow doghair thick, reach maturity, have large, high intensity stand replacement fires, then regenerate doghair thick, and so on. Everyone was so shocked after Yellowstone upon seeing the "destruction" that the fires caused, and then everything came back the way it should. Of course, you're familiar with the fire cycle for ponderosa pine, which should burn every 10-15 years with low intensity fires.
Then there're the mixed conifer forests of western Washington and Oregon, that generally stay pretty moist, and don't burn. Until you get years of drought or disease stacked up, and then the forest burns with high intensity, killing most of the trees. The problem with these forests is that it isn't natural to be maintenance burned the same as ponderosa forests. Yeah, the indians did it, but that doesn't make it proper. About the only way for humans to safely mimic the natural fire cycle in these forests is to clearcut it. And I'm glad that you made the connection between the two. The main problem is that we tend to not allow the ecosystem to fully recover before clearcutting again. I also like the reference to a mosaic forest. Fires also wouldn't burn uniformly through the forest, like in riparian areas. It really takes alignment of the elements for fires to burn well in these forests, the natural cycle makes it a rare event, but demand for lumber makes disturbance a regular event.
I am not a tree hugger, and most certainly do not think that logging should be stopped entirely, I just think it needs to be done more consciously on public lands. Yeah, that means doing it more conservatively in the moist forests, but it needs to be done WAY more on the east slopes of the cascades before all the trees are killed by bugs or irregularly intense fires. (of course, logging on the east side should mimic the natural fire regime as well, meaning mostly thinning out) The main obstruction comes from undereducated environmental groups that think that ALL logging is bad. Then there's a reluctance from logging companies to take on a less profitable sale. But, it's happening.
I guess to sum stuff up, I agree with what I think it was CaseyForest said about natural occurences becoming percieved as bad when they interrupt human life. Also, thanks to Smokey Bear people think all fire is bad, and thanks to environmental groups, people think all logging is bad. What needs to be realized is that things occur in a natural cycle. If what's happening is within the parameters of what occurs naturally, it's certainly not a tragedy. Nothing is permenant. People have a lot of resistance to this concept, especially in regards to the forest.
Fires. I think the biggest problem with the public's perception of fire is that it's a bad thing. Yellowstone, for example. Mostly lodgepole pine. The natural fire cycle for it is to grow doghair thick, reach maturity, have large, high intensity stand replacement fires, then regenerate doghair thick, and so on. Everyone was so shocked after Yellowstone upon seeing the "destruction" that the fires caused, and then everything came back the way it should. Of course, you're familiar with the fire cycle for ponderosa pine, which should burn every 10-15 years with low intensity fires.
Then there're the mixed conifer forests of western Washington and Oregon, that generally stay pretty moist, and don't burn. Until you get years of drought or disease stacked up, and then the forest burns with high intensity, killing most of the trees. The problem with these forests is that it isn't natural to be maintenance burned the same as ponderosa forests. Yeah, the indians did it, but that doesn't make it proper. About the only way for humans to safely mimic the natural fire cycle in these forests is to clearcut it. And I'm glad that you made the connection between the two. The main problem is that we tend to not allow the ecosystem to fully recover before clearcutting again. I also like the reference to a mosaic forest. Fires also wouldn't burn uniformly through the forest, like in riparian areas. It really takes alignment of the elements for fires to burn well in these forests, the natural cycle makes it a rare event, but demand for lumber makes disturbance a regular event.
I am not a tree hugger, and most certainly do not think that logging should be stopped entirely, I just think it needs to be done more consciously on public lands. Yeah, that means doing it more conservatively in the moist forests, but it needs to be done WAY more on the east slopes of the cascades before all the trees are killed by bugs or irregularly intense fires. (of course, logging on the east side should mimic the natural fire regime as well, meaning mostly thinning out) The main obstruction comes from undereducated environmental groups that think that ALL logging is bad. Then there's a reluctance from logging companies to take on a less profitable sale. But, it's happening.
I guess to sum stuff up, I agree with what I think it was CaseyForest said about natural occurences becoming percieved as bad when they interrupt human life. Also, thanks to Smokey Bear people think all fire is bad, and thanks to environmental groups, people think all logging is bad. What needs to be realized is that things occur in a natural cycle. If what's happening is within the parameters of what occurs naturally, it's certainly not a tragedy. Nothing is permenant. People have a lot of resistance to this concept, especially in regards to the forest.