Wildfire Hysteria

[BigHornRam]

Does this bug the chit out of you Nameless?

http://newstalkkgvo.com/governor-bu...ts-millions-to-support-timber-industry-watch/

 

[Nameless Range]

Nameless,

Lubrecht State forest manages it's land with revenue from it's land. They don't get any funding from the state. Is that too much to ask from the Forest Service? Probably, but a least it could fund a portion of the work.

Now you're just making stuff up. Lubrecht Forest is managed by the Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station (MFCES). From their website:

Using the state base funds, the MFCES pursues additional funding to conduct research and outreach that enhances the understanding, stewardship, and use of Montana's timber, water, wildlife, land, and other natural resources in ways that enhance quality of life. In 2011-12, the Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station managed nearly $35,000,000 in additional external grants and contracts. The state's investment in the MFCES provides the matching funds needed to obtain much of this additional funding. Federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, the National Science Foundation, and the National Park Service, as well as state agencies, NGOs, and private foundations all support MFCES research. The USDA's McIntire-Stennis program also provides federal research funds to the MFCES.

Lubrecht is managed for grazing and forestry sure, but it is primarily an outdoor classroom. The idea that it doesn't recieve State and Federal funds couldn't be further from the truth. Back to the OP, feel free to dispute those 4 points.

 

[BigHornRam]

Nameless,

According to the manager of Lubrecht, their entire operating budget must be covered by revenue from Lubrecht, which includes revenue from the cabin and classroom facility. They do apply for grants for forest management projects.

http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...cle_b3f07576-4e01-53fd-b6c3-402371a9a473.html

Working out issues on Montana state forests. Could we do the same on Montana Federal forests?

 

[1_pointer]

Nameless,

According to the manager of Lubrecht, their entire operating budget must be covered by revenue from Lubrecht, which includes revenue from the cabin and classroom facility. They do apply for grants for forest management projects.

http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...cle_b3f07576-4e01-53fd-b6c3-402371a9a473.html

Working out issues on Montana state forests. Could we do the same on Montana Federal forests?

Possibly. However, some of these things may not scale well. 28,000ac isn't small, but not near the acreage of federal forests.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Washington state had fires on state ground, on wildlife dept ground, USFS ground, tribal ground, and private timberland ground. Every single one of them blew up, as Nameless pointed out. Sometimes you just can't do anything to prevent a crown fire.

I'd like to see more treatments done. The whole process is mired in inefficiency, and those that are most critical of the inefficiencies are the biggest part of the problem.

BHR,

Have you been taking communication lessons from Big Rack? Why don't you quite coming across like a passive aggressive arse and simply state your arguments in a concise manner?

 

[BigHornRam]

Washington state had fires on state ground, on wildlife dept ground, USFS ground, tribal ground, and private timberland ground. Every single one of them blew up, as Nameless pointed out. Sometimes you just can't do anything to prevent a crown fire.

I'd like to see more treatments done. The whole process is mired in inefficiency, and those that are most critical of the inefficiencies are the biggest part of the problem.

BHR,

Have you been taking communication lessons from Big Rack? Why don't you quite coming across like a passive aggressive arse and simply state your arguments in a concise manner?

JLS,

Did you watch the Primm Meadow video? Did you learn anything from it?

 

[BigHornRam]

Possibly. However, some of these things may not scale well. 28,000ac isn't small, but not near the acreage of federal forests.

Could it have something to do with the fact that the State has a better legal position when dealing with lawsuits such as this, then the Federal Government does, Pointer? Hence the settlement by the environmental groups?

 

[1_pointer]

Could it have something to do with the fact that the State has a better legal position when dealing with lawsuits such as this, then the Federal Government does, Pointer? Hence the settlement by the environmental groups?

While very well could be a factor that's not the point I was trying to make. What is affordable/practical on 28,000ac may not be so on 280,000ac. Hence the reference to scale.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

JLS,

Did you watch the Primm Meadow video? Did you learn anything from it?

Yes, I did watch it, and no I really didn't learn anything new and/or significant from it. I'm well aware of forest ecology.

Was there a salient takeaway that you were hoping I'd come back with after watching it?

 

[BigHornRam]

Yes, I did watch it, and no I really didn't learn anything new and/or significant from it. I'm well aware of forest ecology.

Was there a salient takeaway that you were hoping I'd come back with after watching it?

Guess not since you are a forest ecology expert, JLS.

Do these comments from George Wuerthner sound a lot like N. R.'s O. P.?


Wuerthner to speak on fire science myths and policy


Posted on October 22, 2015 in Valley News


By Russ Lawrence

Author, photographer, and professional student of fire ecology George Wuerthner will speak in Hamilton on Monday, October 26 on with the goal of dispelling some of the myths that currently surround forest fire management policy, while bringing the most current scientific findings to light.
Bitterrooters for Planning is sponsoring Wuerthner’s presentation, in the Community Room at City Hall, 223 S. Bedford at 7 p.m. The free event “speaks to our mission,” said BFP President Jim Rokosch.
“How do we be proactive, in terms of planning for infrastructure and services?” said Rokosch. “The main concern is protecting homes, lives, and property, and BFP’s part of that is not only how to protect the people who are already there, but making good decisions, and not putting people in harm’s way in the first place.”
The discussion will be a timely exploration of wildfire’s potential impacts on forest ecosystems and human values, according to Bitterrooters for Planning.
Wuerthner is the Ecological Projects Director at the Institute for Deep Ecology, and lives in Bend, OR. Part of his job is to keep abreast of the scientific literature on topics including fire ecology, and to synthesize that information for the public, for interest groups, and for professionals in the field. Another part of his job is to travel the West and examine the aftermath of large fires.
“I’ve seen more of the larger fires you hear about in the news than anyone else,” he claimed, giving him a broader perspective than researchers who may only study fire behavior in one region or one habitat type. He has drawn from his experience to write numerous books on fire ecology, and on fire management policy.
He’s hopeful that the audience will be balanced among policy makers (including elected officials), on-the-ground managers, and citizen activists. He feels that much of today’s fire management policy discussion is based on out-of-date research and discredited paradigms.
His talk will be based on an ecological perspective, and will focus on three themes. The first is that large, unmanageable wildfires are not the problem, but rather the symptoms of a larger problem.
“What I would tell politicians is that if you’re really serious about doing something about fires, you’ve got to address climate change,” Wuerthner said. He noted the current political emphasis is on logging to prevent large fires, but cited “a growing body of evidence that climate and weather control more than fuels.”
“We are creating a climate that is leading to large fires,” he said. “That changes your whole paradigm about fires.”
Under the extreme fire weather conditions of recent years, large fires are simply unstoppable, no matter how many resources we throw at them.
“I have a certain sympathy for managers,” said Wuerthner, who face a choice between aggressive suppression and letting fires burn. Chances are good that under benign conditions, a fire will go out on its own, but the consequences of a major fire escaping are disastrous.
That leads to his second theme, that current fire policy simply needs to adapt to the new data, citing in particular the research of Jack Cohen, of the USFS Fire Sciences Laboratory in Missoula. Logging and thinning far from structures and important infrastructure has little or no value, while aggressive treatment near structures and communities is highly effective, both from an economic as well as a resource protection perspective.
“We can’t predict where a fire will start,” Wuerthner said, “but we can predict what we don’t want to burn up.”
Much of fire science is counter-intuitive, he claimed, pointing out recent findings that the presence of beetle-killed timber doesn’t necessarily increase the likelihood of large fires, while intensive forest management may have little or no effect on the behavior of large fires under extreme conditions.
His third theme is potentially the most controversial. Even if we could stop large wildfires, he claims, there are many ecological benefits to them, and trying to control them is “a fool’s game.”
The policy is to be aggressive in fighting large fires, ignoring the fact that periodic wildfires are important for ecosystem health, he said. The aftermath of an intense fire may appear tragic, but many plant and animal species depend on fire, and severely burned forests are, in fact, surprisingly biodiverse habitats.
Wuerthner bases his conclusions on a wide reading of current material. “I may not agree, but you have to read it all,” he said.
His presentation will include graphics illustrating his points, and Wuerthner will accept questions from the audience following his presentation.
“We want to bring a broad perspective on wildfire and fire science, how it relates to our local valley,” Rokosch said, “and to inspire a balanced discussion on what the science tells us.”
Bitterrooters for Planning is a non-profit community organization, advocating for protection and stewardship of our living landscape. For more information, visit Bitterrooters for Planning on Facebook.

 

[BigHornRam]

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/03/05/whither-the-hunterconservationist/

For those of you who don't know who George is, here's another one of his classics to read.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

BHR,

First, I'm not an expert, nor did I claim to be. I certainly wouldn't consider the video link to be expert material. It's basic Ponderosa forest ecology.

Second, I would agree with every single point Weurther made.

As I said, the entire process is broken. The majority of the Forest Service's efforts and money in terms of fire management go to the suppression aspect of it. And for what? Basically it's spending money to try and control the uncontrollable so that the public (and politicians) are happy that they are doing enough.

They are completely focusing on the wrong aspect, but they have no choice. How many federal politicians are clamoring for the FS to spend billions of dollars on aggressively thinning the urban interface? I can count them on one hand that's made into a fist. Instead, they make the FS spend their annual budgets on wildfire disaster efforts and then rail on them for being inefficient and not doing a good job.

And, all of this said, I'm still not really sure exactly what argument or point you are trying to make. Maybe I'm just too dumb to figure it out.

 

[BigHornRam]

“We are creating a climate that is leading to large fires,”

You agree with this point of Wuerthners, JLS?

How so? With CO2 ? Could that big yellow orb in the sky have anything to do with climate?

 

[BigHornRam]

And, all of this said, I'm still not really sure exactly what argument or point you are trying to make. Maybe I'm just too dumb to figure it out.

The point I'm trying to make is average Montanan is a getting tired of the George Wuerthner types.

Bullock is getting tired of it.
RMEF is getting tired of it.
And I'm getting tired of it.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

You agree with this point of Wuerthners, JLS?

How so? With CO2 ? Could that big yellow orb in the sky have anything to do with climate?

I'm not going to delve into this one, it's pointless.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

The point I'm trying to make is average Montanan is a getting tired of the George Wuerthner types.

Bullock is getting tired of it.
RMEF is getting tired of it.
And I'm getting tired of it.

So besides the climate change aspect, what part of his article do you disagree with?

 

[BigHornRam]

I'm not going to delve into this one, it's pointless.

Well at least you didn't come out and call me a flat earther, JLS. Thanks.

 

[BigHornRam]

So besides the climate change aspect, what part of his article do you disagree with?

Much of it. George is anti logging. His views revolve around that fact.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Much of it. George is anti logging. His views revolve around that fact.

Well, regardless of what his views are on wolves and logging, I think there is some very sound logic in his points.

If you're going to spend money, spend it where you can most influence fire behavior. I don't think you would argue the fact that when it comes to true forest management, we're kind of in triage mode. Therefore, I would agree that the best bang for the buck would come directly at the urban/wildlland interface. We have enough of that to keep agencies and contractors busy for years.

I have no beef with responsible logging. None whatsoever. I do think if you are looking at things in terms of fire management, logging won't produce the same level of results when it's done in the backcountry vs. the urban interface.

And, as I pointed out earlier, you have years that are an anomaly, like this year where it didn't matter WHAT kind of forest management was in place, it all burned.

So, give your ideal 5 step process you would use to restore forest health across the northern Rockies and inland NW?

 

[BuzzH]

Could it have something to do with the fact that the State has a better legal position when dealing with lawsuits such as this, then the Federal Government does, Pointer? Hence the settlement by the environmental groups?

Having a small area like Lubrecht pay for itself is easy when considering the mandate by which its managed.

But, for you to use Lubrecht as a case study in "how it ought to be done" on Federal Lands is a bit disingenuous and not even close to a fair comparison. About like apples and aardvarks.

Pointer made the best observation, that what works on one small piece of MT forest is not going to necessarily work on anything of scale.

I wonder what the profit margin would look like on Lubrecht if the same requirements were mandated on that 28K acres that are required of National Forests via laws, regulations, etc.?

You know, little things like Lubrecht having the diversity of tree species, slope, etc. found on varying elevation with a complex mix of habitat types, soil types, and the list goes on and on.

Then consider the things the NF system is REQUIRED to follow, the various acts they're required to follow, and it become really clear that if places like Lubrecht were under the same requirements, it wouldn't come close to paying for itself.

Its just not right to cherry pick a small piece of prime timberland and claim that the rest of the world can be managed the same way...doesn't work in theory or reality.