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!

[ppine]

profdant139 wrote:
ppine, why is there a difference in forest management practices between west and east? That is an interesting fact!

Meteorology has a lot to do with it. Moist air masses come off the Pacific and are forced to rise by orographic lifting over the Cascades. The West Side is cooler, wetter, and has a long growing season. Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, red alder and bigleaf maple are the dominant species.

On the East Side, in the rainshadow of the Cascades, is much drier and warmer due to compressional heating. Ponderosa pine needs around 18-20 inches of precip to survive above the rangeland. With increasing altitude, species like Douglas fir, aspen, grand fir coexist in mixed conifer stands. Englemann spruce occurs much
Further east near the Rockies. There is little hemlock.


The timber types are managed much differently. As I mentioned before, clearcutting is only used on the West Side of the Cascades and in the Olympics, not east of the Cascades except under unusual conditions. WA and OR both have State Forest Practices Acts which are more stringent than the USFS requirements.

[profdant139]

Yes, clear cutting is the norm in the West -- it is, of course, the least expensive way to harvest trees, and it generates the most revenue. Prescribed burns send some of the trees up in smoke. Thinning is more expensive than clear cutting.

But now let's assume that we are talking about an area with some scenic value -- such as the various mountain roads in Western Washington, where millions of folks (and their tourist dollars) go to hike, fish, mountain bike, ski, etc.

The forest service probably does not want to clear cut in those places. You can see that decision process in action when you climb a little way up Mt. Rainier on the Paradise side and look south -- the areas of the forest near the mountain but outside the park are not clear cut, while the land further in the distance has that distinctive patchwork look of a forest that is periodically subject to logging. Not pretty, but cost effective.

So let's narrow the question -- in the areas that are not to be clear-cut, is there a reason to favor prescribed burns or thinning as a fire reduction (not prevention) technique?

I do understand that the west side is too wet to burn most of the year -- does that mean that the NFS uses thinning in the areas that are not clear cut? Or do they sometimes use prescribed burns?

[Tom_Barb]

profdant139 wrote:
ppine, why is there a difference in forest management practices between west and east? That is an interesting fact!

Totally different forests, different weather, different terrain. different trees.

West side coastal west slopes of the Cascades, 10 months of the year you couldn't set a fire with napalm. clear cutting is the norm in the tree farms, and the predominate tree is the hybrid cedar and Fir trees

East side dry from late April, thru November rolling terrain, big beetle infestation. trees - hemlock, spruce

[profdant139]

ppine, why is there a difference in forest management practices between west and east? That is an interesting fact!

[ppine]

Claercutting is common in wet forest timber types in northern CA,and the West Side of OR and WA, and the coastal ranges of BC and Alaska.

East Side forests are commonly harvested by selection cuts.

[caver]

Stihl vs Husqvarna vs Echo vs Dolmar and GO!

[dieseltruckdriv]

Naio wrote:

dieseltruckdriver wrote:

Anyone who has been to the Black Hills might find it hard to believe that nearly the entire forest has been logged, but but it has, responsibly.

The news releases some organizations put out would try to convince people that logging means clear cutting, but that isn't normally the case.

In the PNW, which we are discussing, clearcutting is the norm. In other regions, it is not.

The OP didn't state only in the PNW. There are always more examples than just one location. I didn't see this post this before it got narrowed down to one area, I was posting more generally.

[Naio]

I worked in forestry. I do not own a car.

Google 'viewshed', before you speak about the forests along highways.

[Tom_Barb]

Naio wrote:

Tom/Barb wrote:

Your idea that all soil is gone can simply be disproved by observing how well the replanted areas do.

It's not an idea. It's real life work experience.

There are still places with forests, that's for sure! But there is a lot of bare rock where forest used to be. And if you go out with a bag of trees and attempt to replant a clearcut, you will find it is very difficult to locate spots to put the trees. Bare rock and gravel are where soil should be.

Show me, Where ...... even Mount St.Helens forests are thriving. Talk about bare rock..

I think you need to get out of your car and go for a walk The north Cascade Highway was cut out of solid rock in places, Since it was opened, in 1972 the trees are thriving on the shoulders of the highway.

[ppine]

This thread is rambling all over the place. The simple answer is that a forest stand needs to be thinned and/or logged to get to the right density of trees before it can safely be burned by prescription.

Thin it, then burn it. Simple.
MS Silviculture University of Washington, College of Forest Resources.

[ppine]

The forests best known for being open with room to ride through, are the ponderosa pine forests of the Intermountain West. Ppine is my specialty. It is a fire adapted species and the historical density of trees in those forests was around 50-75 trees per acre. Now due to neglect we have 200-600 stems or more per acre. That has a lot to do with the current megafires.

[ppine]

Bug,
Not sure where you are getting this idea about forest soils being eroded and all that is left is rock. I have had the title of soil scientist/hydrologist. Overland flow is rarely if ever recorded in forests. They have high levels of organic matter and are relatively wet. They have a layer of needles, duff and small branches for armoring. The tree canopy intercepts rainfall. Even after a clear cut on the West Side the root mass stays in tact holdingn the surface soil in place for around 7 years.

I have run planting crews of up to 30 people at a time. We had no trouble finding soil to plant in.

The PNW includes eastern WA, eastern OR and Idaho. A lot of people seem to forget about all of those East Side drier forest types that are not clearcut. They are harvested by various types of selection cuts.

The US Forest Service did not exist until 1910. There were minimal regulations for timber cutting on public lands until 1964 and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act. In the early 1970s we got a whole group of environmental laws passed. The confusing one for timber sales is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It is currently being streamlined specifically to speed up the review of timber sales.

Many States like OR and WA have had their own Forest Practices Acts for decades.

[Naio]

Tom/Barb wrote:

Your idea that all soil is gone can simply be disproved by observing how well the replanted areas do.

It's not an idea. It's real life work experience.

There are still places with forests, that's for sure! But there is a lot of bare rock where forest used to be. And if you go out with a bag of trees and attempt to replant a clearcut, you will find it is very difficult to locate spots to put the trees. Bare rock and gravel are where soil should be.

[Tom_Barb]

Naio wrote:

Tom/Barb wrote:
Little known fact: When clear cutting is done a certain amount of slash must be left on the ground to protect from erosion. And the law requires the area be replanted with in 4 years.

Those laws were pushed through by environmentalists relatively recently. Most of the west was clearcut with no requirement for replanting, and slash was burned.

Now that most of the western forests have been clearcut multiple times, it is very difficult to find any soil in which to replant the trees. I worked in reforestation and have much experience with this. There's a lot of bare exposed rock that used to be forest..

During the 1800's there were no laws on timber cutting, and the forest were clear cut and left to replant by Mother Nature. It wasn't until after WWII that any conservation ideas were implemented.

Your idea that all soil is gone can simply be disproved by observing how well the replanted areas do.

[Naio]

agesilaus wrote:
Supposedly the original forests on the continent were such that settlers could drive their teams and wagons easily in between trees.

You must be thinking of forests back east. They were heavily managed by native people, including periodic prescribed burns, selecting for nutbearing trees, etc. That open, parklike atmosphere was not natural.

In the PNW coast range, which we were just discussing, settler wagons were limited to traveling one mile per day. It took a group all day to clear 1 mile of forest in a path wide enough for a wagon.

Tom/Barb wrote:
Little known fact: When clear cutting is done a certain amount of slash must be left on the ground to protect from erosion. And the law requires the area be replanted with in 4 years.

Those laws were pushed through by environmentalists relatively recently. Most of the west was clearcut with no requirement for replanting, and slash was burned.

Now that most of the western forests have been clearcut multiple times, it is very difficult to find any soil in which to replant the trees. I worked in reforestation and have much experience with this. There's a lot of bare exposed rock that used to be forest.

dieseltruckdriver wrote:

Anyone who has been to the Black Hills might find it hard to believe that nearly the entire forest has been logged, but but it has, responsibly.

The news releases some organizations put out would try to convince people that logging means clear cutting, but that isn't normally the case.

In the PNW, which we are discussing, clearcutting is the norm. In other regions, it is not.