Seeking expert opinion: thinning vs prescribed burns

[profdant139]

Almost all of us on this forum are avid users of the national forests. Some of us favor extensive logging. Some of us don't want the forest altered in any way. I understand both of those positions.

My in-between view (which is worth precisely nothing) is that in the real world, there is a significant danger of catastrophic fire, especially in an era of bark beetle infestation and global warming. (I know that opinions differ as to the cause of warming, but there is no factual doubt that things are warming up, for some reason.)

So between clearcutting and doing nothing, there is (of course) a middle ground, and that is what the national forest rangers are already doing, more or less. Instead of preventing all fires (which eventually creates an unsustainable fuel load), they are using prescribed burns and thinning.

We have visited several state demonstration forests managed by Cal Fire, and they are mostly controlled with thinning, rather than prescribed burns. Those forests look very healthy, to my non-expert eyes.

The national parks mostly use prescribed burns. That seems to work ok, but a lot of timber goes up in smoke, and there are risks of wildfire, and there are areas of the parks that don't get burned very often, leading to fuel overloads. Many forests in the national parks look crowded and unhealthy, in my non-expert opinion. (Example: the forests along Tioga Road in Yosemite, packed with weedy and stunted conifers.)

So (finally) this is my question -- if you are an expert on forest management, which method do you favor, and why? Or is this a "false dichotomy," which is not an either/or question that depends on the circumstances?

If you are not an expert, feel free to express your feelings. But I am really hoping to learn something from our members who actually know something about timber management on public lands.

I know what you are thinking -- what difference will this civil exchange of ideas make? Here is my answer -- almost every forest management program is open to public comment. If we (the collective "we") learn something from this discussion, it will enable us to participate more meaningfully in the public comment process; and maybe we will thus have a greater impact on the decision-makers than if we were just expressing our individual wishes.

Thanks for reading this long posting (sorry about that!), and I am looking forward to some well-reasoned analysis!

[steelhunter]

Tom/Barb wrote:

steelhunter wrote:
Where'd you hear that....the Sierra Club?

nope, Washington history, you should try to inform your self.

The forest managers call any tree over 50 years "old Growth" when we purest know that the proper term is "virgin growth", trees that were adult growth when Columbus came here.

Just for Steel hunter, I do have a BA in forestry. and have actually worked in the logging industry.

I was born in Port Angeles and did work as a choker setter, felled many trees, was a a certified log scaler, pulled green chain, worked on mill ponds, planted trees and was a log buyer among other forest occupations. I also worked for the U.S.Forest Service, National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife.


Using your definition there are thousands of acres of never logged "virgin" timberland in Washington. Mt St Helens, Oympic Wilderness, North Cascades.
Much of this is too steep for felling and logging with the old technology.

I know exactly what I'm talking about because I've been to these places. These ancient forests have thousands of acres of 400 to 1000 year old trees.

Forest managers DO NOT call anything over 50 years as old growth nor have they ever.

As for your credibility based on a degree I hold a Masters degree.

[valhalla360]

If there were no forest fires before man, did pines only come into existence when man started forest fires?

Many species require a fire in order to germinate.

The issue is the policy of stopping all fires created a new type of fire problem.

If we are worried about heavy machinery, maybe start an Asian elephant breeding program, they've been used for centuries for logging. Think about the excitement as the kids see a real live elephant dragging a tree out of the forest. (Plus it helps support an endangered species)

[lane_hog]

Tom/Barb wrote:

1320Fastback wrote:
Wild fires have been a part of this planets history since the beginning of time

This is absolutely wrong..

It wasn't until man cut down the medieval forest that we had wild fires. In mother nature's way we don't have low branches on trees to promote Plumbing thru the forest canopy.

Uh, no. That's just ignorant.

Maybe the redwoods you cite didn't burn, but look at the make-up of places like the Canadian Shield (which has remained largely uninhabited), and you'll find evidence that forest fires have been around almost as long as cloud-based static electricity has been around.

[Tom_Barb]

steelhunter wrote:
Where'd you hear that....the Sierra Club?

nope, Washington history, you should try to inform your self.

The forest managers call any tree over 50 years "old Growth" when we purest know that the proper term is "virgin growth", trees that were adult growth when Columbus came here.

Just for Steel hunter, I do have a BA in forestry. and have actually worked in the logging industry.

[Tom_Barb]

steelhunter wrote:

Tom/Barb wrote:

1320Fastback wrote:
Wild fires have been a part of this planets history since the beginning of time

This is absolutely wrong..

It wasn't until man cut down the medieval forest that we had wild fires. In mother nature's way we don't have low branches on trees to promote Plumbing thru the forest canopy.

Treat your self to a drive thru the redwoods, and see for your self..the big trees have scorching marks but they still support the forest canopy.

Man came along and cut the old growth, replanted and recut prior to the trees developing into what mother had in mind.

There are only 50 ac in the state of WA that haven't been logged. yes back in the late 1800s they logged the whole place. what you see in our parks now is second growth.

Only 50 acres of Washington haven't been logged?

Where'd you hear that....the Sierra Club?

There are thousands of of acres of never logged areas in Washington.

I can show you steam windless, at the 8'000 foot level.

We were swing old growth red cedar shake blocks off the 9'000 for level as late as 2005, because that was the only old growth left.

nice for a non- native to know so much about my state.

[ORbiker]

profdant139 wrote:
I wonder if thinning can be paid for by the value of the timber removed?? And maybe also some money can be set aside for mitigating or repairing the damage done by the logging equipment?

I am revealing my ignorance here!! 😉

What type of timber? Size? Location off main roads? Number of acres?

[steelhunter]

Tom/Barb wrote:

1320Fastback wrote:
Wild fires have been a part of this planets history since the beginning of time

This is absolutely wrong..

It wasn't until man cut down the medieval forest that we had wild fires. In mother nature's way we don't have low branches on trees to promote Plumbing thru the forest canopy.

Treat your self to a drive thru the redwoods, and see for your self..the big trees have scorching marks but they still support the forest canopy.

Man came along and cut the old growth, replanted and recut prior to the trees developing into what mother had in mind.

There are only 50 ac in the state of WA that haven't been logged. yes back in the late 1800s they logged the whole place. what you see in our parks now is second growth.

Only 50 acres of Washington haven't been logged?

Where'd you hear that....the Sierra Club?

There are thousands of of acres of never logged areas in Washington.

[Tom_Barb]

1320Fastback wrote:
Wild fires have been a part of this planets history since the beginning of time

This is absolutely wrong..

It wasn't until man cut down the medieval forest that we had wild fires. In mother nature's way we don't have low branches on trees to promote Plumbing thru the forest canopy.

Treat your self to a drive thru the redwoods, and see for your self..the big trees have scorching marks but they still support the forest canopy.

Man came along and cut the old growth, replanted and recut prior to the trees developing into what mother had in mind.

There are only 50 ac in the state of WA that haven't been logged. yes back in the late 1800s they logged the whole place. what you see in our parks now is second growth.

[wildtoad]

Whether is controlled burns, thinning, planned commercial logging, the forests benefit long term from any of these activities. Heck just take a look at some of the areas that have been clearcut and left to recover. Within a few years nature has done its magic and trees, bushes, ground cover has made a new young forest.

Regardless if you want to live among the trees, you should be encouraging ( and be willing to help pay for ) responsible forest management.

[agesilaus]

profdant139 wrote:
I wonder if thinning can be paid for by the value of the timber removed?? And maybe also some money can be set aside for mitigating or repairing the damage done by the logging equipment?

I am revealing my ignorance here!! 😉

Probably could if it was done with heavy equipment. Can you imagine what would happen if busloads of tourists find huge tractors and such cutting down 90% of trees alongside the road at Bryce, Yellowstone, Yosemite or any of most other National parks??

"Mommy, Mommy why are they hurting the park?"

Sending hordes of men in to do it tree by tree and brush by brush just cannot be cost effective. And even that could not be done in a NP without screams of outrage. Maybe they could leave a strip of untouched woods in public views. But roads would have to be cut and so on. You'd have to start by firing 75% of NPS personnel.

[profdant139]

I wonder if thinning can be paid for by the value of the timber removed?? And maybe also some money can be set aside for mitigating or repairing the damage done by the logging equipment?

I am revealing my ignorance here!! 😉

[Lwiddis]

IMO both controlled burns and thinning have a place in proper forest management. What doesn’t have a valid place is doing nothing except preventing fire.

[agesilaus]

Not an expert either but thinning is obviously very expensive. But in a thinned forest you can now safely have controlled or uncontrolled burns without a catastrophe.

In many unthinned woods you cannot have a fire since it would escalate into a conflagration. The woods in Bryce for example where I got this lecture. I don't recall the exact numbers but before fire control Bryce woods had 100 trees and acre and after fire control it now has 1000 trees an acre. A fire today would reduce the whole place to ashes and kill everything alive there. Those numbers are 100% extracted from air by me but the real numbers were just as startling.

The 100/trees forest could burn and did burn without killing the forest. The 1000/tree woods can never be allowed to burn since a fire would be so hot it would kill the trees and sterilize the soil.

However now they are stuck to convert 1000/tree to 100/tree is very very costly without using heavy equipment that is destructive itself. You have to send men in to cut down trees and brush tree by tree and the downfall has to be dragged out and removed. We are talking billions of dollars and the environmentalists would be fighting it in courts tree by tree. They are doing some but not enough.

[enblethen]

It takes thinning, controled burns and cleaning up of some of the downed trees.
By cleaning low brush and downed trees along the roads, it prevents many man-made fires.

[azdryheat]

Let people go in and cart off the dead and downed trees. Getting rid of the kindling will go along way to reduce massive fires.