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]

profdant139 wrote:
Actually, steelhunter, these are THREE governmental entities that disagree with each other!

I am biased toward the Cal Fire model (mostly thinning) simply because the thinned forests (such as Jackson and Mountain Home) look so great -- green, open, healthier trees. But I am speaking from ignorance. Just because it looks good does not make it right!

I guess the answer depends, in part, on the goals of the forest managers -- is the forest there for museum-like preservation, as in the national parks? Is the goal to maximize logging revenue, without worrying about esthetics? Is the goal to "fireproof" the forest, to avoid catastrophic crown fires in a drought-prone era?

If thinning is the answer, how does one avoid damage to the soil (compaction) and the watershed? And would prescribed burns be any less damaging, given not only the ashy runoff but also the soil damage caused by falling trees?

I've hiked through recent "prescribed burn" areas many times, and it can create quite a mess -- lots of freshly turned soil, clogged stream-beds, etc. But on the third hand, that is kind of what happens in a natural burn, too!

How to manage toward an agreed goal is the sticky wicket because as you point out there is no consensus. ....some want recreation, some want fiber production and some want wilderness.

You are a thoughtful soul....maybe we need more of your kind to resolve the dilemma.

[cewillis]

1320Fastback wrote:
Again not a expert but forest fires have been happening before man was a thing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2015/11/19/the-age-of-fire-when-ancient-forests-burned/amp/

That is indeed very interesting: factual history/evolution/botany/ecology/chemistry.
Clearly fire was nature's original way - and the way I would prefer, except that humanity has changed nature so much that the 'nature way' has big potential and actual problems. And it now seems impossible to me to restore original forest conditions on any meaningful scale.
So my weasel answer is 'it depends'; fire when 'reasonable and practical'.

[profdant139]

Actually, steelhunter, these are THREE governmental entities that disagree with each other!

I am biased toward the Cal Fire model (mostly thinning) simply because the thinned forests (such as Jackson and Mountain Home) look so great -- green, open, healthier trees. But I am speaking from ignorance. Just because it looks good does not make it right!

I guess the answer depends, in part, on the goals of the forest managers -- is the forest there for museum-like preservation, as in the national parks? Is the goal to maximize logging revenue, without worrying about esthetics? Is the goal to "fireproof" the forest, to avoid catastrophic crown fires in a drought-prone era?

If thinning is the answer, how does one avoid damage to the soil (compaction) and the watershed? And would prescribed burns be any less damaging, given not only the ashy runoff but also the soil damage caused by falling trees?

I've hiked through recent "prescribed burn" areas many times, and it can create quite a mess -- lots of freshly turned soil, clogged stream-beds, etc. But on the third hand, that is kind of what happens in a natural burn, too!

[1320Fastback]

Of particular interest after 6:30

https://youtu.be/CAgP9fo3f7s

[steelhunter]

profdant139 wrote:
I figured there had to be more to it than a simple choice. What are some of the factors?

The reason I ask is that Cal Fire and the national forests and the national parks do not see eye to eye on the choice between thinning and prescribed burns.

Ahh yes. Two government agencies at odds over how best to manage.
It may be that the differing views have a political root.

[profdant139]

I figured there had to be more to it than a simple choice. What are some of the factors?

The reason I ask is that Cal Fire and the national forests and the national parks do not see eye to eye on the choice between thinning and prescribed burns.

[steelhunter]

profdant139 wrote:
tom and barb and steelhunter, if you both are logging professionals, do you have specific opinions about thinning versus prescribed burns?

To put it another way, what's past is past -- clearly, total fire prevention did not work. And clear-cutting does prevent fires, but it is a pretty extreme remedy. So that is why I am trying to evaluate the various middle-ground solutions. I am guessing that the answer is not so simple.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

Both methods have a place in managing timber areas. It depends on a variety of factors.

[steelhunter]

1320Fastback wrote:
Again not a expert but forest fires have been happening before man was a thing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2015/11/19/the-age-of-fire-when-ancient-forests-burned/amp/

Interesting....

[steelhunter]

Tom/Barb wrote:

steelhunter wrote:

Easily verifiable. ......

http://www.seattlemag.com/article/best-hikes-old-growth-forest

There are a few parks that old virgin trees. no where's near the hundreds of ac. that you believe.

It's just one easily verifiable example.


Thee are many other areas with thousands of acres. Mt. St Helens for example.

n any case these places have more than a few hundred acres and FAR more than the 50 acres you claim.

You need to investigate before you accuse others of ignorance.

[Tom_Barb]

steelhunter wrote:

Easily verifiable. ......

http://www.seattlemag.com/article/best-hikes-old-growth-forest

There are a few parks that old virgin trees. no where's near the hundreds of ac. that you believe.

[1320Fastback]

Again not a expert but forest fires have been happening before man was a thing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2015/11/19/the-age-of-fire-when-ancient-forests-burned/amp/

[profdant139]

tom and barb and steelhunter, if you both are logging professionals, do you have specific opinions about thinning versus prescribed burns?

To put it another way, what's past is past -- clearly, total fire prevention did not work. And clear-cutting does prevent fires, but it is a pretty extreme remedy. So that is why I am trying to evaluate the various middle-ground solutions. I am guessing that the answer is not so simple.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

[Tom_Barb]

valhalla360 wrote:
If there were no forest fires before man, did pines only come into existence when man started forest fires?

Fire has always been here, and is a part of mother nature's way. Only her way the fire never plumbs thru the forest canopy. It creeps along the forest floor, doing what mother intended.

[ppine]

Forest Rangers have nothing to do with forest management. Foresters are the group that manage forests. They tell loggers what to do.

Every forest prescription is site specific. If we are talking about So Cal then mostly there will be Jeffrey pine stands, and a little higher and wetter mixed conifer stands with white fir, incense cedar, maybe some Douglas fir.

National Forests in the western US, and So Cal in particular suffer from neglect, 110 years of fire suppression and little logging in the last 30 years. Therefore they are way over stocked, meaning too many stems per acre. That is the main reason we have megafires, insect outbreaks like pine beetles and other problems.

The normal way to restore health to these forest types is to thin them and selectively harvest them to get back to a historic density level. In Jeffrey pine, that means 50-75 stems per acre. NF lands typically have 250 to as high as 600 or more. After thinning/harvesting then they can have the understory safely burned by prescribed fire. Most stands are too dense for fire alone.

Take a good look at Yosemite NP. It has been protected for 150 years. Fires have ravaged the park. There are giant burn scars of standing dead trees that go on mile after mile. It is a disaster area caused by "protection."

Fire is a natural part of forest ecosystems especially away from the coast where some species are fire adapted and even fire dependent. Lewis and Clark talked about all the smoke. Lightning used to cause frequent smaller low intensity fires each summer. No we have giant infrequent fires.

Old growth trees are measured in hundreds of years. The normal rotation age for commercial pine forests used to be around 100 years. Now we have the techology to use smaller logs so the rotation age is more like 60-75 years.

[steelhunter]

steelhunter wrote:

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.

Easily verifiable. ......

http://www.seattlemag.com/article/best-hikes-old-growth-forest