Spot on. I wonder how much education on this might help. Maybe we ought to design an infographic that gets the message across and find various ways of getting it under the noses of politicians and county officials and such.
I know some people who work at the forest service. They love the forest. I think there is a lot of misconception about what is the best course of action.
Another great article. I think one of the problems with modern Democracies (and, just to be clear, I think we have it worse here in Africa than you have it in the U.S.) is that too many politicians believe that, because they won an election they have carte blanche to write any legislation that they can get passed by their majority. True Democracy would require any legislation to be publicly discussed WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS and then there would be a far greater chance that (a) the legislation would actually be relevant to the problem and (b) practical to apply on the ground. I think another problem is that our laws are too detailed: once passed, it is very difficult to get any changes made. If, instead the legislation was less detailed, but relied on what we have here (Statutory Instruments, somewhat similar to your Executive Orders) then, providing the SI or EO did not actually contravene the intention of the law, they can be issued much more quickly to fine tune the law to make it more effective under different circumstances. One advantage you have in the States, is that you could have 52 different State interpretations of the Federal Forest Act and, in this way run 52 experiments as to how best to protect your forests and property from fires.
City people who have never worked in the woods or even spent a night there, have no business trying to dictate forest management decisions to those who know forests and forestry the best.
Sorry to break it to you, but real forests in the Real World don't quite work the way some professor at Purdue says they do.
It's WAY past time to restore some sanity to forest management and return the decision-making from the ivory tower back to those people who are actually on the ground.
Hi Ken: The closest I've been to ivory towers was 40 years ago when I got a bs at a land grant state college, and I don't live in the city. These are my opinions based on lots of research. And as I said, it's complex. There are places where thinning makes sense, but in the backcountry?
Having almost lost a cabin to the Caldor fire, it seems beyond belief that the enormous amounts of dry fuel on the ground, standing snags, and particularly dead trees might have something more to do with the heat of the fire than the humidity. Have you walked through our national forests? Before the fire, the forest service forbid the removal of any wood on the ground—a single acre could have dozens and dozens of down trees. Maybe this bill is no good, but I think your argument is bs.
B.S. is a pretty broad term for such a complex subject. The same with walking through the National Forests. There are many spread all over the place, with different conditions. But almost all of them have been cut at least once, some twice or three times. Worse, they are often replanted with single species, even aged monocrops, which aren't natural, are susceptible to disease and don't function as well hydrologically. Caldor is a logging town. I imagine a lot of logging has gone on in those forests. That's not to blame. Just pointing it out. And as I mentioned, there are places where thinning makes sense, especially near communities. But over the long haul, I think we need to let forests regain their biological integrity and ability to hydrate themselves.
The Caldor was an enormous fire stretching some forty miles along the American River Basin and Highway 50 south of Lake Tahoe. What I get from the way you write is not complexity, but complexity disguising an agenda. Hence, my distrust. This fire spanned multiple ecosystems but common to them all was the enormous amounts of fuel. If you want to dispute that, fine, but this article is an unsuccessful attempt to give yourself an authority by claiming “complexity” which is the traditional “expert’s” dodge.
Fair enough. But I don't claim to be an expert. And I stand by my comment on complexity. Everything is complex, but forest fires seem particularly complex. Fire is natural, yet the forests aren't any more as they've been so dramatically altered. Fires have been repressed, further aggravating natural cycles. We've been drying out ecosystems coast to coast for centuries now. I will try and learn more about the Caldor fire in particular. In any case, I think a bill that removes citizen overview of public lands is wrong at the outset.
This particular fire began near the town of Grizzly Flats. The Forest Service made the decision to let it burn overnight, which caused the incineration of Grizzly Flats, one thousand houses, and then mile after mile of some of the most beautiful parts of California. When you know that you’ve been deceived, even if you’re not sure why, whether by incompetence or plan, you tend to instinctually revert to common sense, and distrust explanations that seem overly esoteric. This dynamic has been reinforced for a long time now, by untruths couched in expertise. I have no idea what motivates the forest service but I can tell they don’t care about my concerns for the forest, which are an ordinary citizen’s concerns. In fact, my gut tells me that they see me as the primary obstacle. This fact is antithetical to the original creation of national forests: that citizens might enjoy the land of their own country.
I agree about the forest service lacking responsiveness to citizen concerns, which is my main critique of the Fix Our Forests Act.
It would also be interesting to know if the buildings that burned had been hardened against fire. This to me is the key to keeping people safe, as opposed to logging the backcountry.
And yes, my understanding is the government originally set up the forests service to protect forests for the people, but timber interests gradually took over.
Ecologists point out that post-fire landscapes are particularly rich in wildflowers and bird life. A book called Nature's Phoenix, by Dominick Della Salla and Chad Hanson paints a very different picture of fire than we are used to. I wouldn't stop getting out there. According to these scientists, the land is revivifying.
If I come across as ingenuous, that's a valid observation. Thanks for pointing it out.
Your assertion is that forests that have had dead trees cut down are more vulnerable to fire because the leftover space dries the forest and increases wind speed? Besides the fact that this defies logic, who is going to want to take all the risk for your unproven theory. Will you?
It's not my assertion. See the work of fire ecologist Chad Hanson and others. And most large scale thinning isn't cutting down dead trees but live trees, often big and mature ones, naturally resistant to fire, because that's where the money is. Meanwhile, the fact that thinning forests makes them windier, drier and warming is something rather easily measured, and the idea that it will all work it then for the benefit of the land sounds as theoretical as it gets. Meanwhile, as for risk, you are basically asking that the rest of his risk wrecking our forests and destroying habitat so you can have a cabin in the woods and never have to worry about fire in a fire adapted landscape.
I looked up “fire ecologist” which amounts to an advocacy position, not a scientific one. The position of fire ecologists is to not suppress fires at all, which of course, means that anyone who lives in the mountains is on his own. I took you more seriously than I should have.
No, I don't mean anyone who lives in the mountains should be on their own. It's the opposite, actually. I think the forest service should immediately focus their resources precisely on people who live in the mountains by providing expertise and resources to help people in fire prone areas harden their homes and create a defensible space. This is the quickest and most effective way to protect people and property. As for my comment, I'm sorry. It was crass and said in haste. I felt I had made an effort to send you some information about the situation, and you seemed to dismiss it out of hand. But not an excuse to be thoughtless.
In any case, you have your perspective and I'll try to better understand it by reading more of the pro-fuel reduction standpoint.
My point is, I just happen to think rehydrating landscapes is the logical way to start. I think we're in the fix we're in mostly because of logging; it's dried out our forests in my opinion, and such extensive thinning as is being proposed will dry it out more.
Right on the spot, good article. It needs to be addressed by the population.
If the people could understand that Santa Ana winds could be humidified not be so hot and so fast by an environment that retains the water rain before it reaches the Pacific, it would be much easier.
There comes your demonstration of flour and bread and the soil sponge/ microbiome, forest, and all the methods to increase humidity, reshaping landscape, beavers, biodiversity.
LA Times maybe has a reporter that can listen the other side of the story and then understand why without trees there is no hydration .
So we harden the homes, but let a million acres of forest burn each year, say goodbye to old-growth trees, let all that carbon into the atmosphere, breathe the smoke, and say, "That's nature?" No, thanks. The independent research you cite has been overhwhelmingly debunked, most recently in a paper published last year in Fire Ecology: https://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s42408-023-00241-z
"While reducing stand density can lead to greater surface fuel drying (Kane 2021; Whitehead et al. 2006) and higher surface wind speeds (Bigelow & North 2012; Russell et al. 2018), our data provide clear evidence that the suppressing effect of crown fuel reduction far outweighed any enhancing effect of increased drying or higher windspeeds on fire behavior."
Reducing fuels is paramount. Go Fix Our Forests, GO!
Spot on. I wonder how much education on this might help. Maybe we ought to design an infographic that gets the message across and find various ways of getting it under the noses of politicians and county officials and such.
That's a good idea, Asa. It's remarkable how poorly informed we are about how our landscapes work.
Usually (not always) when I meet the "demons" at work screwing everything up, they just wind up being well-intentioned and oblivious.
I know some people who work at the forest service. They love the forest. I think there is a lot of misconception about what is the best course of action.
Love that idea. I think we've got someone who can do it. Timing is everything right now.
Great! If you do wind up producing it, please pass it along. I could use it too!
Thank you Rob.
Another great article. I think one of the problems with modern Democracies (and, just to be clear, I think we have it worse here in Africa than you have it in the U.S.) is that too many politicians believe that, because they won an election they have carte blanche to write any legislation that they can get passed by their majority. True Democracy would require any legislation to be publicly discussed WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS and then there would be a far greater chance that (a) the legislation would actually be relevant to the problem and (b) practical to apply on the ground. I think another problem is that our laws are too detailed: once passed, it is very difficult to get any changes made. If, instead the legislation was less detailed, but relied on what we have here (Statutory Instruments, somewhat similar to your Executive Orders) then, providing the SI or EO did not actually contravene the intention of the law, they can be issued much more quickly to fine tune the law to make it more effective under different circumstances. One advantage you have in the States, is that you could have 52 different State interpretations of the Federal Forest Act and, in this way run 52 experiments as to how best to protect your forests and property from fires.
City people who have never worked in the woods or even spent a night there, have no business trying to dictate forest management decisions to those who know forests and forestry the best.
Sorry to break it to you, but real forests in the Real World don't quite work the way some professor at Purdue says they do.
It's WAY past time to restore some sanity to forest management and return the decision-making from the ivory tower back to those people who are actually on the ground.
Hi Ken: The closest I've been to ivory towers was 40 years ago when I got a bs at a land grant state college, and I don't live in the city. These are my opinions based on lots of research. And as I said, it's complex. There are places where thinning makes sense, but in the backcountry?
Yes. In the back country. Trees regenerate far faster than what is good for them. Forests need management to stay healthy.
There is no reason to lose good wood to catastrophic wildfires every year.
Having almost lost a cabin to the Caldor fire, it seems beyond belief that the enormous amounts of dry fuel on the ground, standing snags, and particularly dead trees might have something more to do with the heat of the fire than the humidity. Have you walked through our national forests? Before the fire, the forest service forbid the removal of any wood on the ground—a single acre could have dozens and dozens of down trees. Maybe this bill is no good, but I think your argument is bs.
B.S. is a pretty broad term for such a complex subject. The same with walking through the National Forests. There are many spread all over the place, with different conditions. But almost all of them have been cut at least once, some twice or three times. Worse, they are often replanted with single species, even aged monocrops, which aren't natural, are susceptible to disease and don't function as well hydrologically. Caldor is a logging town. I imagine a lot of logging has gone on in those forests. That's not to blame. Just pointing it out. And as I mentioned, there are places where thinning makes sense, especially near communities. But over the long haul, I think we need to let forests regain their biological integrity and ability to hydrate themselves.
The Caldor was an enormous fire stretching some forty miles along the American River Basin and Highway 50 south of Lake Tahoe. What I get from the way you write is not complexity, but complexity disguising an agenda. Hence, my distrust. This fire spanned multiple ecosystems but common to them all was the enormous amounts of fuel. If you want to dispute that, fine, but this article is an unsuccessful attempt to give yourself an authority by claiming “complexity” which is the traditional “expert’s” dodge.
Fair enough. But I don't claim to be an expert. And I stand by my comment on complexity. Everything is complex, but forest fires seem particularly complex. Fire is natural, yet the forests aren't any more as they've been so dramatically altered. Fires have been repressed, further aggravating natural cycles. We've been drying out ecosystems coast to coast for centuries now. I will try and learn more about the Caldor fire in particular. In any case, I think a bill that removes citizen overview of public lands is wrong at the outset.
This particular fire began near the town of Grizzly Flats. The Forest Service made the decision to let it burn overnight, which caused the incineration of Grizzly Flats, one thousand houses, and then mile after mile of some of the most beautiful parts of California. When you know that you’ve been deceived, even if you’re not sure why, whether by incompetence or plan, you tend to instinctually revert to common sense, and distrust explanations that seem overly esoteric. This dynamic has been reinforced for a long time now, by untruths couched in expertise. I have no idea what motivates the forest service but I can tell they don’t care about my concerns for the forest, which are an ordinary citizen’s concerns. In fact, my gut tells me that they see me as the primary obstacle. This fact is antithetical to the original creation of national forests: that citizens might enjoy the land of their own country.
Here is an article/oped from the San Francisco Examiner that shows that there was extensive logging in the area that burned. https://www.sfexaminer.com/archives/cal-fire-timber-industry-must-face-an-inconvenient-truth/article_04d1faa3-6109-58ee-bbff-6dd39c11ec88.html
I agree about the forest service lacking responsiveness to citizen concerns, which is my main critique of the Fix Our Forests Act.
It would also be interesting to know if the buildings that burned had been hardened against fire. This to me is the key to keeping people safe, as opposed to logging the backcountry.
And yes, my understanding is the government originally set up the forests service to protect forests for the people, but timber interests gradually took over.
Ecologists point out that post-fire landscapes are particularly rich in wildflowers and bird life. A book called Nature's Phoenix, by Dominick Della Salla and Chad Hanson paints a very different picture of fire than we are used to. I wouldn't stop getting out there. According to these scientists, the land is revivifying.
If I come across as ingenuous, that's a valid observation. Thanks for pointing it out.
Your assertion is that forests that have had dead trees cut down are more vulnerable to fire because the leftover space dries the forest and increases wind speed? Besides the fact that this defies logic, who is going to want to take all the risk for your unproven theory. Will you?
It's not my assertion. See the work of fire ecologist Chad Hanson and others. And most large scale thinning isn't cutting down dead trees but live trees, often big and mature ones, naturally resistant to fire, because that's where the money is. Meanwhile, the fact that thinning forests makes them windier, drier and warming is something rather easily measured, and the idea that it will all work it then for the benefit of the land sounds as theoretical as it gets. Meanwhile, as for risk, you are basically asking that the rest of his risk wrecking our forests and destroying habitat so you can have a cabin in the woods and never have to worry about fire in a fire adapted landscape.
I looked up “fire ecologist” which amounts to an advocacy position, not a scientific one. The position of fire ecologists is to not suppress fires at all, which of course, means that anyone who lives in the mountains is on his own. I took you more seriously than I should have.
No, I don't mean anyone who lives in the mountains should be on their own. It's the opposite, actually. I think the forest service should immediately focus their resources precisely on people who live in the mountains by providing expertise and resources to help people in fire prone areas harden their homes and create a defensible space. This is the quickest and most effective way to protect people and property. As for my comment, I'm sorry. It was crass and said in haste. I felt I had made an effort to send you some information about the situation, and you seemed to dismiss it out of hand. But not an excuse to be thoughtless.
In any case, you have your perspective and I'll try to better understand it by reading more of the pro-fuel reduction standpoint.
My point is, I just happen to think rehydrating landscapes is the logical way to start. I think we're in the fix we're in mostly because of logging; it's dried out our forests in my opinion, and such extensive thinning as is being proposed will dry it out more.
Right on the spot, good article. It needs to be addressed by the population.
If the people could understand that Santa Ana winds could be humidified not be so hot and so fast by an environment that retains the water rain before it reaches the Pacific, it would be much easier.
There comes your demonstration of flour and bread and the soil sponge/ microbiome, forest, and all the methods to increase humidity, reshaping landscape, beavers, biodiversity.
LA Times maybe has a reporter that can listen the other side of the story and then understand why without trees there is no hydration .
So we harden the homes, but let a million acres of forest burn each year, say goodbye to old-growth trees, let all that carbon into the atmosphere, breathe the smoke, and say, "That's nature?" No, thanks. The independent research you cite has been overhwhelmingly debunked, most recently in a paper published last year in Fire Ecology: https://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s42408-023-00241-z
"While reducing stand density can lead to greater surface fuel drying (Kane 2021; Whitehead et al. 2006) and higher surface wind speeds (Bigelow & North 2012; Russell et al. 2018), our data provide clear evidence that the suppressing effect of crown fuel reduction far outweighed any enhancing effect of increased drying or higher windspeeds on fire behavior."
Reducing fuels is paramount. Go Fix Our Forests, GO!