Wildfire management on public lands, whats your view on it in the way of hunting in fishing.

[KMO385]

What everyone's take on how fire is managed on thr public lands in there area?

 

[Jnasa]

Thank you for starting the thread.

 

[BuzzH]

Depends on a lot of variables, you can't manage it one size fits all.

 

[KMO385]

Depends on a lot of variables, you can't manage it one size fits all.

So many variables, but I think we're stuck in situation now in a lot places where we have places that havent seen fire in 100 years, or places that are invaded by invasives.

 

[nrpate05]

Lots of variables, but I don't think it takes the rescission of the roadless rule to accomplish. In general, in remote Wilderness areas, it can be ok to let fires burn - an attempt at keeping close to 'natural' processes. In areas closer to urban areas, there has to be more involvement. Prescribed fire can be a great tool when applied correctly. We've been seeing a good amount of prescribed burns to enhance aspen habitat, reinvigorating forage for ungulates. All for it.

 

[TheTone]

A bunch of the traditional awesome elk country near me was shaped and created by fire. Unfortunately of late the timber seems to be made out of asbestos. It’s also super confusing to me that small fires that do start seem to get hammered immediately. Someday it will burn and be good elk country again but I doubt it’s ever good again in my lifetime

 

[KMO385]

Lots of variables, but I don't think it takes the rescission of the roadless rule to accomplish. In general, in remote Wilderness areas, it can be ok to let fires burn - an attempt at keeping close to 'natural' processes. In areas closer to urban areas, there has to be more involvement. Prescribed fire can be a great tool when applied correctly. We've been seeing a good amount of prescribed burns to enhance aspen habitat, reinvigorating forage for ungulates. All for it.

I think ending the road less rule could probably lead to more fires because most human caused fire in the wildlands are in close proximity to a road. Prescribed burning, thinning projects or a combo of both needs to happen.

 

[44hunter45]

A bunch of the traditional awesome elk country near me was shaped and created by fire. Unfortunately of late the timber seems to be made out of asbestos. It’s also super confusing to me that small fires that do start seem to get hammered immediately. Someday it will burn and be good elk country again but I doubt it’s ever good again in my lifetime

I was out in a spot last night that produced a lot of elk 30 years ago. I tagged a couple in there. Passed on a sow bear with cubs in the same drainage.

It is just a dog hair tangle now. All late succession is just 30 years since it was clear cut. They never even thinned it.
When it goes up it will be scorched earth. It will look like the moon.

 

[peterk1234]

Interesting topic. I've got nothing meaningful to add but I'm following to learn from some meaningful thoughts and comments.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Prescribed burning, thinning projects or a combo of both needs to happen.

That's actually being prioritized in urban wildland interface areas and near development, however not enough since every worthwhile program seems to get the "DOGE" defunding.
The reality is that what you suggest is naive and lacks the understanding of the millions and millions of acres across North America of fire prone forests.
There is nowhere near the money, manpower, equipment, and even willingness to treat the hugely vast North American forests like is done in Europe. 'Simply unrealistic.

Even with rescinding roadless areas protections, it would take a national defense size budget to accomplish anything meaningful. Pipe dreams are the folly of those who are unaware.

 

[TheTone]

I think ending the road less rule could probably lead to more fires because most human caused fire in the wildlands are in close proximity to a road. Prescribed burning, thinning projects or a combo of both needs to happen.

Most thinning projects around me are pre commercial where everything cut is just left to lay. It’s always a complete mess to walk and hunt through. It’s also kinda funny to see the edges of the jobs get posted that it is a fire hazard. I’d just be happy to see them plant less after a cut than what they commonly do which seems to be plant way to much and then go cut at least half of them down in 15 or so years

 

[peterk1234]

That's actually being prioritized in urban wildland interface areas and near development, however not enough since every worthwhile program seems to get the "DOGE" defunding.
The reality is that what you suggest is naive and lacks the understanding of the millions and millions of acres across North America of fire prone forests.
There is nowhere near the money, manpower, equipment, and even willingness to treat the hugely vast North American forests like is done in Europe. 'Simply unrealistic.

Even with rescinding roadless areas protections, it would take a national defense size budget to accomplish anything meaningful. Pipe dreams are the folly of those who are unaware.

You know, if the states owned the land it would be managed correctly.

C'mon like everyone else reading this didn't have the same wiseass thought.

Too soon?

 

[Straight Arrow]

You know, if the states owned the land it would be managed correctly.

C'mon like everyone else reading this didn't have the same wiseass thought.

Not readers in Montana, 'cause we know we don't even have enough state money to fuel the necessary chain saws!

 

[KMO385]

That's actually being prioritized in urban wildland interface areas and near development, however not enough since every worthwhile program seems to get the "DOGE" defunding.
The reality is that what you suggest is naive and lacks the understanding of the millions and millions of acres across North America of fire prone forests.
There is nowhere near the money, manpower, equipment, and even willingness to treat the hugely vast North American forests like is done in Europe. 'Simply unrealistic.

Even with rescinding roadless areas protections, it would take a national defense size budget to accomplish anything meaningful. Pipe dreams are the folly of those who are unaware.

100% a pipe dream. Reinstating well fire managed ecosystems is never going to happen. Fires will always be an issue, and have been an issue there were giant stand replacing fires before european settlement, not to the extent as we have them today. The truest statement I've ever heard in fire management is "as long as male teenagers have had the means to start a fire, there's been human caused wildfire." Unfortunately it was after the fires of 1910 where where people thought it was a good idea to try and put everything out by 10am the day after it was reported, leading us to fire excluded ecosystems that we see so much of. But a real question is do we let fires burn if it doesnt threaten life and property and hit a proverbial reset button, or not?

 

[WVmike]

I don't live in the west but I do like to hunt out west. I think fires are an important part of an ecosystem to allow for nutrients, burning off deadfall and allowing for new growth. It also could be bad depending on how hot the fire burns and doesn't allow for regrowth for a while if the fire is super hot. Obviously needs to be managed a little more near populated areas but wilderness areas are wilderness for a reason also.

 

[BuzzH]

I think we're stuck in situation now in a lot places where we have places that havent seen fire in 100 years

So what?

That's not unusual or even a bad thing depending on the tree species, elevation, aspect. etc.

 

[SAJ-99]

Unfortunately it was after the fires of 1910 where where people thought it was a good idea to try and put everything out by 10am the day after it was reported, leading us to fire excluded ecosystems that we see so much of.

If we had this ecosystem, the one well-managed by fire that you seem to think existed before the Great Burn, how did the burn happen at all? The strategy of putting out all fires by 10am isn't true everywhere. See the other thread where a smoldering fire is closing access. Our approach has changed multiple times over the decades. We had a "let it burn" strategy for the Yellowstone fires of 1988 until that got western. A large part of the problem is there are just more homes in places there should not be homes. Add that things are hotter and drier than they have ever been and it isn't hard to see how we got here. Ask any P&C insurance company. Hard to balance fire, caused by nature or caused by idiot, with the competing demands of stakeholders. Also add that it really a problem of scale. 40,000 burned acres when Columbus hit the continent's shores are totally different in scale and scope than 40,000 burned acres in 2025.

 

[Goodfish]

I don’t really think that much of it has to do with the health of forests or wellbeing of wildlife. It has to do with a group of law firms that have made a business model of suing Federal and State governments regardless of the merit of a project. The Forest Service and most of the other agencies would dearly love to log and provide forest health thinning etc but around here every project gets sued and stopped for multiple years if not permanently.

 

[BuzzH]

I don’t really think that much of it has to do with the health of forests or wellbeing of wildlife. It has to do with a group of law firms that have made a business model of suing Federal and State governments regardless of the merit of a project. The Forest Service and most of the other agencies would dearly love to log and provide forest health thinning etc but around here every project gets sued and stopped for multiple years if not permanently.

Bigger problem is congress cutting staff and funding for the past 3 decades.

 

[KMO385]

If we had this ecosystem, the one well-managed by fire that you seem to think existed before the Great Burn, how did the burn happen at all? The strategy of putting out all fires by 10am isn't true everywhere. See the other thread where a smoldering fire is closing access. Our approach has changed multiple times over the decades. We had a "let it burn" strategy for the Yellowstone fires of 1988 until that got western. A large part of the problem is there are just more homes in places there should not be homes. Add that things are hotter and drier than they have ever been and it isn't hard to see how we got here. Ask any P&C insurance company. Hard to balance fire, caused by nature or caused by idiot, with the competing demands of stakeholders. Also add that it really a problem of scale. 40,000 burned acres when Columbus hit the continent's shores are totally different in scale and scope than 40,000 burned acres.

The fire behavior has definitely more extreme all over the country. Many Pondarosa Pine ecosystems have become too dense and the park like stands have closed in. I believe at least before the 20th century or late 19th century most of the ecosystems had a somewhat normal fire regime that was closer in line to what they evolved with. I just think we're stuck in place were extreme fire behavior, fire in the urban interface and large fire are going to be a norm.