Let it burn or not?

[Rank Amateur]

I'm posting this question on this forum because fire is directly related to forage which is related to animals which is related to hunters. Ok with that having been said, on my recent scouting trip to E. Oregon I found that a fire had started in my old stomping grounds in Murderer's Creek unit. I walked down into it and looked around. The ground is pretty well cleaned up. The small and medium size fir trees are dead or dying. Most of the large pine are fine. This area is fairly remote and no immediate structures. The area is typical of a lot of E. Or. in that fires have been suppressed for decades, I know of several fires that have been suppressed in the immediate area. This area is National Forest and I would assume a roadless area. In my opinion, it appeared that this fire would have burned to the top of the ridge line (2 miles) where there is a road. There probably would have been some crowning in the thicker and dead fir areas.

So the question is, should these fires be allowed to burn or continue to be jumped on at all cost?

[sandman]

Is this a trick question?O.K I'll bite.Put out the fire at all costs.

[sturgn]

I say they let it burn, makes for a more healthy forest!

[stickflicker]

let it burn!!!

[Maverick Maxcat]

This is a much deeper question than you realize. Fire should be brought back to the ecosystem, there are many benefits for the forest and the animals. But, as you noted, fuel loads right now are enormous, due to the last 100 years of our influence. We need to reduce the fuel loads before letting fire occur, or major soil damage and stand replacement will occur.

If our politicians can grow brains and spines, simultaneously, we will stand up to the greenies and harvest this fuel. It should be economically viable given today's energy costs.

We burn areas of the ranch every year. It kills off the juniper starts and recycles nutrients back into the soil. The feed comes back vigorously after a fire, and the deer and elk seek out these areas, preferring them over unburned areas. The hard part is getting the fire to stop where you want.......

MM

[wdlfbio]

forests will always burn. It's kiinda like the saying when dealing with car problems... "you can pay now, or pay later". Suppression eventually leads to fires burning bigger and hotter.

In some systems, fires need to be very hot (lodgepole forests for instances). In others, fires are cool and short (height, not length of time, ponderosa pine forests).

National Park or wilderness generally = Roadless

National Forest generally does NOT = Roadless

If the fire wasn't started by an idiot, and there's little chance of it causing substantial personal damages, let it burn.

If the fire was idiot-caused, evaluate it, but let it burn as much as possible. (maybe impossible to do when around homes/businesses)

[baltz526]

every new fire should be managed as a controlled burn when possible.

[TheRogue]

We should be spending the money we normally spend every summer fighting large forest fires, doing spring controlled burns....and even winter time burns when conditions allow. That, and thinning the worst of the dying timber patches out.

My .02

TR

[Rank Amateur]

You guys are restoring my faith! This area needs to burn, I have been saying this for the last 20 years. If they would have only let some of the fires of the past do their work we would not have the problem that exists in this place today. Smokey the bear has done harm.

The area I'm talking about is the south slope of Aldrich ridge. This is a fairly large roadless area and I would believe it is included in the current turmoil of the Bush over turn of the Clinton roadless protections.

Frankly I am quite perturbed that this fire was put out, it is exactly what needs to happen. They also built a four wheeler trail into this area that will be there for years.

I don't think in areas like this there are enough finacial incentives to go in and mechanically remove the ladder fuels. Going in mechanically will leave roads, helicopter will be too exspensive. Yes there is some nice pines in a few areas, but to log those out will basically remove the forest that we are striving to create.

You guys are right though, it is going to burn, its just a matter of when. The longer we wait the more severe it is going to be. They had a fire that was low to medium intensity and was not crowning they should have fought it at the top of the ridge.

[Tilla]

This is what I spent studying in my last years of college (30 years ago). Facts have been in the books for a long long time. But a nation brought up with the Federally funded...Industry Funded... Smokey the Bear attitudes the concept would not very popular. But especially since the Yellowstone fire, the forest service got tired of being politically bashed for following let it burn practices. So they decided to start educating people about how forests are not a "climax community" (a popular high school brain washing film)........ but a cycle.
So, in my opinion wildfires should be let to burn. Protect the homes/structures.
Poor Bambi!

[Snapset]

Let it burn. It will all grow back, when it does, let it burn again.

[Salmo trutta]

Letr burn

and I don't buy the crap about salvage logging it either. I've seen pretty mature trees cut that were quite healthy in the name of salvage logging. Just have to look at the Biscuit fiasco to see that point.

[BrianMaguire]

This is a much deeper question than you realize. Fire should be brought back to the ecosystem, there are many benefits for the forest and the animals. But, as you noted, fuel loads right now are enormous, due to the last 100 years of our influence. We need to reduce the fuel loads before letting fire occur, or major soil damage and stand replacement will occur.

If our politicians can grow brains and spines, simultaneously, we will stand up to the greenies and harvest this fuel. It should be economically viable given today's energy costs.

We burn areas of the ranch every year. It kills off the juniper starts and recycles nutrients back into the soil. The feed comes back vigorously after a fire, and the deer and elk seek out these areas, preferring them over unburned areas. The hard part is getting the fire to stop where you want.......

MM

I was all with you until you got to the greenie part. The greenies are the ones pushing for thinning and controlled burns and have been for years, they are on our side. What the greenies however don't want, and niether do we, is more roads punched in to thin an area and for the large fire resistant trees to be cut. The east side has the "east side screens" that protect the large trees and there is huge pressure to remove this protection. Couple that with the roadless area protection removal and we will get worse habitat, not better.

The Ochoco is doing quite a bit of thinning, commercial and non commercial and it is doing some good.

As for let it burn, I think you really can't with the fuel loads. Prescribed fire and thining needs to occur first then you can let it burn. With so many old clear cuts and tremendous fuel loads a let it burn policy would have disasterous results in many areas.

I say burn it but on our terms. We need categorical exclusions so the USFS can set fires when the time is right.

[Magnum]

This fairly simple.

Fire started by man..Put it out.

Fire started by nature, let nature's course prevail & let it burn.

[ehunter]

Let it burn!! Protect houses and stuctures but let it go animals and some tree's and grasses and shubs need it.

[wdlfbio]

I remember getting pounded with "climax" this and that. If there ever was such a thing, by now, everything would be climax. Problems with forest mgmt are trying to maintain a forest at a static stage. Nature doesn't seek to maintain, rather to fluctuate....entropy :smile:

[dubl_t]

my $.02 worth? does it really matter? Native americans practiced controlled burning before europeans enterd the picture. We practiced our "Manifest Destiny" and took "control". What did we take control of? The land?, the People?, the weather? Man cannot be taken out of the picture (sorry @#%%^peace $aggots). In Biblical perspective, "man"is here to "manage". Right or wrong. So we do our best. Unfortunatly, the $$$ comes into play. so, do we manage for someone's economic benefit or the "benefit of nature"? Sure, "controlled" burning has its benifits "more than can be measured" but if the Forest Service doesn't spend ($$) their quota, don't they lose it? Long story cut short, what to do? conform, adapt and move on? I don't know (public land mgmt sucks from both sides of the fence). Next beer please.

[elkhuntr28]

Let it burn!! Protect houses and stuctures but let it go animals and some tree's and grasses and shubs need it.

Exactly my thoughts as well!!!