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]

Right after a thinning, younger age class trees are not very noticeable. That is exactly what happened after frequent low intensity ground fires before fire suppression by man. Fore

[Varmintmist]

caver wrote:
Stihl vs Husqvarna vs Echo vs Dolmar and GO!

Husky

[Huntindog]

ppine wrote:
Huntindog,
Forest management is a long term strategy. It is always a long term endeavor. We management forests for our children. Sometimes you have to look closely to see the regen and younger age class trees left after thinning and selection cuts.

In many stands you will not see saplings and seedlings, trees say under 20 feet tall. But there will often be plenty of pole sized trees in the understory. It takes awhile to look carefully and see what is happening.

Oh I have looked. In AZ there are NO pole sized trees left after they thin it.
According to your thinking, saplings and seedlings are not needed.
I disagree. A healthy forest should have trees of all ages.

And you need more than just a few. In the years that it takes for a tree to mature, many will die. That is the way nature works. It is why all living things tend to produce more than is needed. It ensures that after attrition, the species will survive.

Of course none of us will live long enough to see it, so the public is fine with it. For now. It will be many years before our descendants look around, and see no trees where a forest used to be.... I wonder if they will realize what they are missing, and why.

[ppine]

Huntindog,
Forest management is a long term strategy. It is always a long term endeavor. We management forests for our children. Sometimes you have to look closely to see the regen and younger age class trees left after thinning and selection cuts.

In many stands you will not see saplings and seedlings, trees say under 20 feet tall. But there will often be plenty of pole sized trees in the understory. It takes awhile to look carefully and see what is happening.

[Huntindog]

From what I have seen, forest management is taking a short term view of thinning.

They go thru and remove all of the small trees, leaving just the large ones.
The public is OK with it, as they like the big trees.
I wonder what it will look like when those big trees die. There are no smaller trees in the pipeline to take their place.

A more sustainable approach would be to thin removing trees of all sizes.. Keeping in mind that the reason mother nature allows so many small trees to sprout, is that few of them will live long enough to become the large trees we all like to see.

[dave54]

profdant139 wrote:
Forb! I learned a new word -- great for Scrabble, too. Thanks, Dave!

I like cwm -- that is a real word and is in the official scrabble dictionary. So is aa (a type of lava). Both have won games for me on the last turn.

[profdant139]

Forb! I learned a new word -- great for Scrabble, too. Thanks, Dave!

[ppine]

Forest management is actually nothing like plants in your garden.

[dave54]

ppine wrote:
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.

Depends upon species and desired results.

Trees are like plants in your garden, Some species will tolerated shade, others need full sunlight to grow best. Plant a sun-loving tree in a shaded understory and it will not thrive. May not even survive. Those species do best in larger openings -- like clearcuts or a related harvest method (regeneration harvesting comes in many forms. Clearcutting is one type, but a lay person is often unable to discern the subtle differences).
Many forest diseases and pests attack only a single species or closely related species -- like mistletoe. The mistletoe species that attacks pines will not harm firs, and vice versa. If a stand is infected, you must remove all the trees of the target species whether they look infected or not. Then replant with a different tree unaffected by the pest. Only clearcutting may work in those situations.
Clearcutting has been used to improve wildlife habitat. Browsers like deer and elk love clearcuts. They grow lots of shrubs and forbs for food, with cover just a short dash away into the trees. Other wildlife are cover dependent -- spotted owl, martins, fishers, et al -- and clearcutting is inappropriate if the goal is habitat improvement for those species. Foresters look at all these factors, and others, when laying out a timber sale and deciding upon the best harvest method. Sometimes clearcutting is the best choice.

[dave54]

32 years in the business.

It's not either/or. Depends upon site conditions and objectives. Sometimes a combination of both is needed. Time of year is also a factor. Different results depending upon Spring versus Fall burns (Locally, Summer is too dry/too risky, and Winter is too wet -- cannot burn snow.)

Burns require optimum weather conditions. The right combination of fuel moistures, humidity, and wind speed/direction. Then they all have to occur on an allowable burn day under local air quality rules. One burn I was involved with waited three years for the perfect alignment of conditions and air quality rules. But that was unusual. One northern California National Forest looked at historical climate patterns and allowable burn days under Air Quality rules and found they averaged 18 days per year for optimum weather conditions and air quality regs. Cannot have much of a prescribed burning program with 18 days per year.

Mechanical treatment can be done any time. Not weather dependent. Some areas may need some mechanical treatment before it can be safely burned with satisfactory results. Other cases, mechanical treatment will not achieve the desired results -- only fire will produce the results wanted.

[RGar974417]

I won't say I am an expert on forest management, BUT, I am chairman of our local water authority. We have over 2,000 acres in our water shed. About 30 years ago, we hired a forester who draws up plans for which part of our water shed gets logged. We do a logging project every 2 years. He lays out what to cut and what to leave.We make any where from $50,000 to $175,000 which we have used to replace our older water mains. That has saved our customers millions in fee increases. We have never had a forest fire and the deer population is thriving. We need to manage our National Forest.It can make money which can be used to keep up our federal parks and campgrounds, it will help prevent fires and be beneficial to wildlife if done correctly.

[profdant139]

Great points -- thanks!!

[ppine]

Tom/Barb,
We have answered this question several times. Most forests, especially on pulbic lands are way overstocked, too many stems per acre. Most of them need to be thinned and/or selectively logged before prescribed fire can be safely used. Green trees need to be removed to make stands fire resilient not just standing dead.

[Tom_Barb]

profdant139 wrote:

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? 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?

On the wet side they don't do much, no need.

Tree farmers plant close, and allow the tress to fight fo the sun. it makes long straight logs.

over time the trees will thin them selves.