Reduced Public Access in the Name of Safety

[texwest44]

This was a huge gripe for me when I lived in WA. The restrictions on access and recreation were always a pain. But the fires were always so catastrophic - the east slope of the Cascades from Canada or Oregon is just massive fire scar after massive fire scar. It seemed like there was more burned forest than unburned.

I was camped outside of Ephrata at Rimrock meadows in 2020 when that giant fire that started up on the Colville rez jumped the damn Columbia and moved its way south. Covered 15 miles of open sage land in 24 hours, it was incredible. Fires just seem more aggressive in WA than other places for some reason.

 

[sapperJ24]

Based on the operations map, it looks to me like the management strategy is to use this fire to prepare/improve indirect fire breaks for a pretty large area. I do think it is unfortunate that so much public lands are closed.

https://ftp.wildfire.gov/public/incident_specific_data/pacific_nw/2025_Incidents_Washington/2025_Pomas_WAOWF000242/GIS/Products/20250704/brief_36x48_land_20250703_2015_Pomas_WAOWF000242_0704day.pdf

 

[mdhunter]

It’s impossible to debate when the other side has “safety” in their argument. I am not saying I agree with the closures but it’s a tough sell.

 

[Blowdowner]

Regardless of fire policy i think an American citizen should be allowed to recreate as close to the fire as he wants. And forgo emergency response. Here's a funny idea - lead ammo only when fire danger is up.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Regardless of fire policy i think an American citizen should be allowed to recreate as close to the fire as he wants. And forgo emergency response.

Agree to adamantly disagree. Unrealistic opinion, void of knowledge of public safety policy at every level: local, county, state, and national. Smacks of ME! ME! ME! attitude.

 

[Treeshark]

It’s impossible to debate when the other side has “safety” in their argument. I am not saying I agree with the closures but it’s a tough sell.

I predict we will be seeing more and more of these types of closures- some may be legitimate, while others will be done as a form of protest.

 

[Irrelevant]

The post fire effects from a fire scar reburning 10 years later often offer some highly desirable forest characteristics. By 10 years, much of the snag component is on the ground and will carry fire reducing the regen stocking rate. This leaves a clean up forest with wider spaced trees.

I hope this is true. Here's part of the cuurent area from 2 years ago.

 

[Perlodid]

I hope this is true. Here's part of the cuurent area from 2 years ago.
View attachment 377378

This post and the one you are replying to has led me down a serious rabbithole in the fire literature about snag longevity/attributes. Snag dynamics seem 100x more complicated than I expected. But I really wonder what influences snag fall rates in WA because pretty much every burned area (<10 years old) I have seen so far on the east side of the Cascades looks roughly like this picture (most snags still standing + high density). My initial impression is that the fall rates are lower than the literature reports, at least historically and as a result we have standing dead trees for longer than expected, but I don't know if that trend is real or just my own bias. Sounds like it varies quite a bit by species, diameter, elevation, etc. And my assumption is that a longer period post-fire with high density standing snags = slower succession/recovery. I don't know anything about fire, but it's interesting to think about.

 

[sapperJ24]

I hope this is true. Here's part of the cuurent area from 2 years ago.

This post and the one you are replying to has led me down a serious rabbithole in the fire literature about snag longevity/attributes. Snag dynamics seem 100x more complicated than I expected. But I really wonder what influences snag fall rates in WA because pretty much every burned area (<10 years old) I have seen so far on the east side of the Cascades looks roughly like this picture (most snags still standing + high density). My initial impression is that the fall rates are lower than the literature reports, at least historically and as a result we have standing dead trees for longer than expected, but I don't know if that trend is real or just my own bias. Sounds like it varies quite a bit by species, diameter, elevation, etc. And my assumption is that a longer period post-fire with high density standing snags = slower succession/recovery. I don't know anything about fire, but it's interesting to think about.

There's way more standing snags in that picture than I anticipated for a 10 year old burn. That specific picture looks like an area that burned hot and hasn't had much regen yet, lots of bare mineral soil still and some shrub component which seems like maybe it isn't ready to carry fire yet. I suppose this is generally why I try to qualify statements based on ecosystems, but failed to this time around. I was thinking more of Lodgepole Pine dominated forests and burns. It seems like the North Cascades are primarily Douglas fir (of course) and quick review of the literature suggests that doug fir snags likely stand for about 15 years.

To continue rabbit-holing there's some information on reburns in the webinar: https://research.fs.usda.gov/firela...ars/bob-marshall-wilderness-complex-1988-2020

Basically, succession/recovery is kind of tricky and as always depends greatly on a few factors. If the snag component is still standing, then there will be little clean up of the snags, maybe some, but not as much as we typically desire. If the snags have fallen and are stacked (allowing for good air flow), and the new regen has not yet had a cone crop, then we can expect significantly reduced stocking rates and a more open forest. If the snags are down and the regen has produced cones, then moderate stocking is possible. And if the fallen snags have rotted and broken down then it is unlikely for fire to carry through thick regen.

 

[Mtn Dawg]

To the original question: I think it depends on the particulars of each fire. My own sensibilities are aligned with the freedom to use my own judgement and take reasoned risks. What the hell does it mean to be free? But the other side of that is obviously that the forest service is placed in a no win situation. They have to do the best they can with too limited resources and lots of pressure coming from every side. Policy cannot possibly cover all variables. Each fire is its own situation. I can understand why they would create seemingly needless closures preventing access. And at the end of it is it really so bad? Maybe we actually get in our own way sometimes. Maybe we need to chill out a bit more and let things unfold without judgement. I have spent the past several weeks tromping in and around some fire zones ( places I have hunted and hope to hunt) in Colorado that were allowed to burn dating from 2002 through 2022. They are all unique. The 20 year old fire is recovering beautifully. The 2021 fire will take more than that by my estimation.

 

[Flynarrow]

1) Fire is the necessary change agent in a FIRE DEPENDENT ecosystem. A century of putting out almost all fires has increased fuel loading and in many areas has reduced vegetative diversity in the landscape that provided natural fire breaks.

2) Our population generally has a low understanding of consequences of "just put it out". Smokey Bear has had his effect in making fire "bad" in the eyes of most.

3) Most landscapes will eventually burn. Increasingly, the fires making substantial change in landscapes occur in extremely dry windy conditions meaning fires become much larger than if smaller fires were allowed to burn to create diversity and reduce fuels.

4) Agency decision makers are not rewarded for taking risks....either by allowing some fires to burn that may damage private property or allowing people too close to fires resulting in injury or death. Easier to "just put it out". While agencies are blamed for keeping people at length, the adverse effects of deaths resulting from a smaller people exclusion zone are likely mega lawsuits and/or career ending.

5) Therefore, the deck is stacked against fires playing close to their natural role in these fire dependent ecosystems.

 

[Blowdowner]

Agree to adamantly disagree. Unrealistic opinion, void of knowledge of public safety policy at every level: local, county, state, and national. Smacks of ME! ME! ME! attitude.

I never said I'm going anywhere near a fire. Cleveland National Forest was completely shut down a few years ago on deer opener because it was hot. It's our land. If you can go swimming near sharks you can go hiking near lava you can go hunting regardless of fire danger.

 

[RealMuddyboots]

I brought this up in another thread, but I think it warrants its own thread.

Here in Eastern WA we're seeing increased regulations restricting public use and recreation on public lands due to the wildfire risk. While I think everyone is in agreement that wildfire suck and that we shouldn't go out of our way to start them. The "safety third" in me, gets more and more irritated at this concept that we need to do everything possible to get a zero result (that's my perception of where we're going). When you combine those heavy-handed front-end restrictions with the fact that the FS almost categorically refuses to "put out" fires, you end up with drastically less "access" than we think we have to our public lands.

Example: The Pomas Fire in the Glacier Peak Wilderness area (Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest), it started on June 13, they closed down 100+ sq miles, and are already stating publicly that it'll "burn" until Oct. It's only grown to 1,700 acres in over two weeks, even though it's been 100+ degs the last two days. The nearest MODIS detection is 15 miles from the edge of the area closure. Just a few years ago, a fire like this would have caused some trail closures over maybe a 10-20 sq miles area all in the wilderness. Now it's just ridiculous.

The title led me to think this thread was about Portland.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I never said I'm going anywhere near a fire.

But you clearly expressed this, "an American citizen should be allowed to recreate as close to the fire as he wants." Implicit ... but who wants to argue on the internet?!

 

[Blowdowner]

But you clearly expressed this, "an American citizen should be allowed to recreate as close to the fire as he wants." Implicit ... but who wants to argue on the internet?!

You obviously. But now that you've quit this discussion you're not not allowed to drive over 65 mph, skydive, own guns, rock climb or reply.

 

[Dave N]

One less place to hang out now. The Grand Canyon Lodge burned down in the fire there. Among other buildings.

 

[MTGomer]

To add to the criticism of let it burn policy, the GCNP lodge has burned

Blame National Park Service, not climate change or Trump, for Grand Canyon fire | Opinion

The Grand Canyon Lodge burned not by an act of God but from National Park Service hubris that it could 'manage' a fire in fire season.

www.azcentral.com

 

[MTGomer]

I personally don’t care much for the “just in case, you never know, better safe than sorry, see something say something” lame safety culture in this country.
Safety has been hyper prioritized like it’s some kind of obtainable goal. According to science, women place a much higher priority on safety and security than men do. As women’s roles in leadership positions continue to increase, we can probably expect more emphasis on safety.

In AZ they will close USFS roads during the Nov hunting season because it is forecasted to snow or did snow a couple of inches. Incredibly lame

 

[Irrelevant]

I'll eat some crow on my criticism of the Pomas fire management. Somehow, with 100+ temp and wind, the fire really didn't grow much and hasn't put out significant heat in the last 48 hrs. However, I do still find considerable fault in their massive closure area.

 

[wannabee]

1) Fire is the necessary change agent in a FIRE DEPENDENT ecosystem. A century of putting out almost all fires has increased fuel loading and in many areas has reduced vegetative diversity in the landscape that provided natural fire breaks.

2) Our population generally has a low understanding of consequences of "just put it out". Smokey Bear has had his effect in making fire "bad" in the eyes of most.

3) Most landscapes will eventually burn. Increasingly, the fires making substantial change in landscapes occur in extremely dry windy conditions meaning fires become much larger than if smaller fires were allowed to burn to create diversity and reduce fuels.

4) Agency decision makers are not rewarded for taking risks....either by allowing some fires to burn that may damage private property or allowing people too close to fires resulting in injury or death. Easier to "just put it out". While agencies are blamed for keeping people at length, the adverse effects of deaths resulting from a smaller people exclusion zone are likely mega lawsuits and/or career ending.

5) Therefore, the deck is stacked against fires playing close to their natural role in these fire dependent ecosystems.

Yupp, it depends on the type of fire regime of the forest. The fuels have allowed the severity to increase these fires to scorched earth, negatively affecting the different kinds of forests around that could have been a natural breaking the fires in the first place. I'm not familiar with WA though.