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!

[1320Fastback]

Not a expert but believe creating Smokey the Bear was dead wrong and set us up for failure. Wild fires have been a part of this planets history since the beginning of time but for some reason we must convince the public they are bad and must be put out.

I understand fighting then if structures are in danger but needlessly putting them out and creating decades of underbrush and old growth is insanity.

[opnspaces]

Just an opinion...I prefer the prescribed burn as fire is a natural part of the forest life cycle. Some seeds need the heat of a fire to even germinate although fire can get out of hand which is why I heard they no longer use the term controlled burn.