Fires

[Al Agnew]

Interesting, MTM and Wayne...

Nope, I want no part of fighting fires, it's a difficult, dangerous business. But for the companies who supply the equipment, chemicals, etc. it's also highly profitable. Nothing wrong with profit, but once a fire gets to a certain size, as MTM said, it's pretty much unstoppable, so why not concentrate all your effort in trying to protect what needs protection the most.

The question remains, how do you get the forests of the West back into a condition where they are fire resistant. I'll be the first to admit that "letting it burn" won't always work, either. Take a look at Yellowstone Park after the big fires. Yep, it's all regenerating and it's all good for wildlife, etc. But you can just look at all those regenerating forests jam-packed with little trees, and know that they are another disastrous fire waiting to happen, simply because they are too crowded. I didn't say it was the timber companies' fault, necessarily, that the forests got to be the way they are. Mismanagement runs all through the history of the public lands. But the thing is, the genie is out of the bottle. How do you get the forests back into fire resistant shape, with big trees spaced widely apart and mostly grass growing on the ground between them? You can't do it by removing more mature timber. You could do it by thinning timber and clearing brush only where you've got maturing timber that's too thick already, THEN letting fires burn. But then you have the problems associated with road building and subsequent erosion. And Wayne, harvesting small timber may be profitable, but is it profitable when you can only take a limited percentage of the small timber, or if you have take the small timber without damaging any big trees interspersed with it? Helicopter logging? How many places and situations is that profitable? How much second and third growth forest, not yet mature, is there? How much effort and money would it cost to get all the public land forests back into fire resistance? Huge taxpayer dollar amounts any way you look at it.

The problem with some green groups is the same as the problem with animal rights idiots...they either don't understand forest ecology, or they ignore it in favor of "preserving" individual forests and trees, just as the PETA people don't care about ecology, just about saving individual creatures. But there are a lot of thoughtful people who are seeing the problems and wrestling with solutions that don't involve screwing things up worse.

As for the money made by the leaders of environmental organizations...ask yourself this, how does it compare with the money made by the leaders of any similar-sized corporation? I'm not excusing exorbitant amounts of money made, but there is a case to be made for paying someone for organizational and management skills when you're talking about running a "company" of that size. And the thing is, they are that size because they are made up of a lot of people sending in money, people who do NOT have the "it's all about money" mindset. Those people may sometimes be misguided, but they don't have nefarious motives.

You're right about one thing, for sure...there is seldom any middle ground with much of anything, anymore. It's all one big escalation. Don't know who started it first, companies who didn't care one bit about anything but profit, or organizations that didn't care about anything but their own narrow goals. But you get people one side who are unwilling to compromise, and then you get people on the other side who are unwilling to budge an inch, and then people on the first side that go overboard to counteract the people on the other side. There is no trust and no respect on either side. I find myself doing it, too. And it ain't no way to get things done right. People like me, who wish to defend wild country and the organizations that are working to protect it, and people like you, who see the other side of the story, really need to get together and work together. There really isn't enough of that going around these days.

[Wayne SW/MO]

And Wayne, harvesting small timber may be profitable, but is it profitable when you can only take a limited percentage of the small timber, or if you have take the small timber without damaging any big trees interspersed with it?

Thats a good point Al, but everyone needs to remember that standing timber, which is what we sell, via the FS, is a raw material. The price for the finished product is pretty much set by the big companies such as Weyerhauser, Georgia Pacific and other smaller companies that own huge tracts of timber on private land. My point is that if the timber is sold cheap enough, or even given away with conditions, it will most likely be profitable. The bottom line is that the FS has to quit managing for financial gain and start managing them as huge playgrounds for the public, which is what I believe the majority wants. I don't think the public cares what the Democrats or Republicans think about the NF, I don't think they want the Congress to play with them, I think they would be satisfied with a goal of maximum sustainable use, not of financial returns

I'm afraid that Yellowstone is somewhat a lost cause, because I don't think the NPS has the funds or expertise to nurse it back over the decades it will take. As you pointed out its becoming ripe for another fire, because its still in an unnatural state, and it will remain that way until the canopy rises above the natural fuel on the forest floor.

[MTM]

Gavin- Just an update on the fires on the Boulder. It is now headed right for Brokaw's place do to a wind change. Here is the paper on it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14815242/

It amazes me how fast and far these fires can go in a day. The Fridly fire that we had a few years ago went from 3,000 acres to over 29,000 acres in one night do to the wind comeing up real strong. I was on Depuy's spring creek that next day and it looked like and Atom bomb had went off.

I could see the Boulder fire today from my house over Livingston Peak and it is a little over 10,000 feet. So it is getting bad again. It is supposed to rain by Thursady and be real cool over the weekend which will help a lot. I think I said that in an avarage year we have snow around Sept 19th. Well it is a might early and well needed. Ron

[Wayne SW/MO]

When I was in Oregon there was a fire about 30 miles from our place. We were aware of its progress every few hours, even though it wasn't coming our way, nor threatening the town in which we did most of our shopping. The interesting thing about it was that it moved into a Wilderness area, and at that point they had to let it go. They monitored it by air and knew where it would emerge from the Wilderness, they then cut a break and knocked it down quickly. This has always come to mind when I see a large fire is burning, and I have wondered why this plan isn't done in other fires? The reason it seems is that unlike this fire, where no private property was threatened, most fires are fought to avoid property loss, because there isn't enough manpower to do both.

It appears that much of the loss of forest can be attributed to people living a little too close to nature.

[jscheetz]

Hey all,

I have a place up near Roscoe MT, and when we were up there a few weeks ago the Derby fire (the one near NYE) had just started up and was only at 18,000 acres. Even though it was 40 some miles away from us there were ashes all over the car in the morning and you could'nt see up the valley. Pretty scary stuff everytime I am up there during fire season. Seeing the glow of one of those huge fires really makes you realize how much in control we are not!

MTM you actually live there as do many of my friends so I know you have a "hands on view" which we outsiders can't always know, but I think from what I see is that the RM front is so exploding with sprawl that there will just be more and more fire troubles. As you know in the fire fighting biz, areas are designated priority for fighting that have homes or buildings on them. So the more buildings there are the more news there will be about the fires. As you said, there are lots of fires up there that start and are put out or burn out (I do lots of hiking and backpacking and you come across tons of small burn areas in the backcountry). So I don't just think that the problem is too much "fuel" due to no clear cutting - I think that as people delve deeper into the woods to live they are expecting to be protected by the "man" - so we tend to hear on the news about a fire that burned a few houses - but not one in the backcountry - so it seems like there is more problems.

As for the general view on this board about the "problems" always going back to the green groups - If it weren't for those we probably wouldn't have the symbol of our nation left flying the friendly skies, we wouldn't have ANY wolf populations rebounding (although I know better than to get you natives started on that) ;o) And numerous other victories over selfishness and greed that have come about partly because some "wacko" took a stand for those who couldn't stand for themselves. Sure there are nuts in the enviro movement - just like there are in ANY movement - but you can't blame an entire movement full of many good people for everything.

Anyway - just my 2 cents - hope the fires get under control - it is defintely pretty frightening being there near them.

JS

[MTM]

My only problem with the green Group's is that there is "NO" longer any middle ground. It is all "My way or the Highway" They can't let anything go through if they do then they admit defeat and will lose donation money's. That is the base of the whole problem. I know what has been tried and what they have taken to court and it is everything that has anything to with cutting any timber of public land.

You would be surprised at how much private land gets cut. The is because they know if they don't get it cut is will be wasted and will be a source of fires in the future.

I will really worry about it when it get's closer to my house so far so good. But I sure hate to see all of our forest's burn and go to waste just so some groups can look good in the news. Sorry but living here for most of my life gives me an insiders view of these problems. People that have summer homes here are on there own. I worry about the fire fighters that may lose there lives to protect those peoples homes.

I won't get into the Wolf thing except to say they introduced them as indangered and they are not. It was all a lie so that they could get them introduced into the park. Period. There are over 3 thousnd in Minnesota, Several hundred in Wisconsin and several hundered in Michigan. And many thousand in both Canada and Alaska. It was a lle hiped up so that people got there way. I like the wolves but there are right ways and wrong ways to do things. Lying is the wrong way. Just an opinion.

It is also funny that some of the people pushing the hardest are now making a lot of money each summer taking people on Wolf trips into the park. Funny how that works out isn't it. My wife and her sister paid a guy $200 each to go on a day trip with him to see wolf's and didn't see a thing. I didn't know about this until it was over with or I would have told them a few things about what is going on. It seem they know were the wolves are at all times do to the radio colors they are wearing. This guy knew that he couldn't show them wolves that day but he still took there money. Enough said. Ron

[jscheetz]

Hey Ron,

Hope the fires stay away from your neck of the woods!

I really enjoy reading your posts! They are very interesting to me. I hope you don't take offense to this, certainly none intended, but you sound EXACTLY like a friend of mine who lives over near Red Lodge - pretty close to the park as you do. He has lived there his whole life and often uses phrases like "When my Grandad and I.....) So he too has that Insider info. Right down to the whole "wolf reintroduction conspiracy" thing. The facts are that wolves used to live in all 48 of the lower states, and were all but wiped out between the late 1800s and around 1920. So saying that they aren't endangered - comon now. Any species that has that kind of a decline in such a short historical period is bound to be on the radar for problems with the gene pool and disease. No one said there were not wolves in Canada - but if you look at the world wide population there used to be lots of wolves in places like Great Britain, Mexico, Japan - and they are not there now - so the wolf as a species and it's subspieces is undisputably in global decline.

And as far as the "no middle ground" for the green groups. Isn't it the same way with the large corps? The only reason that they try to do the right thing at all is due to public opinion and bottom dollar company image and stock prices. Left on their own I am pretty sure they would have a "no middle ground" policy as well.

I believe you have lived there and have the "insiders" views that are indeed extrememly valuable - and something that is so unique that outsiders just can't get that. But I would just put out to you that sometimes people in your situation have not only the actual "local living" views on things - but also the "traditions" that come along with it. Not that this is a bad thing - on the contrary, too much of the country has lost much of their past - however, when my friend talks about how his Grandad used to do it - he is living on tradition and in the past. The world we live in now is vastly different than it was at the turn of the century - and we can't expect to fix today's problems with yesterday's paradigms. While I for one certainly wish we could go back - we can't. So we must figure out the best way to move forward from where we currently stand within the light of the current circumstances. So I would just hope you can look at things with an open mind and not let the past (which is an incredible resource and a great teacher - don't get me wrong) be your only basis for what you think. There is lots of new information available to us that wasn't just 50 years ago - so we should take advantage of that as we deal with the natural world and all of it's resources.

JS

P.S. If your wife and her sister still want to go see the wolves let me know. Next time I am up there I will take them - and I bet we will see them. Can't guarantee it - but won't charge $200 either!

[MTM]

jscheetz

In truth the wolves that were planted here are the same as in the east. That is one fact. The other fact is that we have a guy here that was rasing wolves and letting them go without permission for a number of years before they planted them. That is a fact to. I know I saw a few way before they planted them. Bet you never herd that one?

I was an Outfitter for over 37 years here and I know I can show my wife wolves just about anytime I want to take them. But having medical problems now will not let me take them. I guided the back country around the park for many years and I also know what the Green groups have done and not done. I would have told my wife what was going on but they never asked before the fact.

I agree with you that the Large Logging Companys would cut what ever they could get away with. But there should be over site and there is now but they still can't cut "ANYTHING". They are sued every time the try. I suggest you take a look at a map and overlay the burnt areas in just the past 8 years. I bet you will be amazed at how much timber and land has been layed to waste. There really isn't that much land left to burn in my area. If you take in the 3 fires this year down valley, The Fridley Fire from a few years ago and the Yellowstone Fire and the others of that year.

So in everyone's view that dosen't live here and are from states that it has no effect on it is there opinion to just let it burn. And when there isn't any left to burn we will all be happy because we wasted a resource that could have been used for the good of all. Given people job's and helped maintain our forests if done in the proper way. Help keep the price of a house down. But when they won't let them do "ANYTHING" that says one thing to me. Someone is getting rich off of keeping or forests in this kind of shape. Nd it sure isn't the Logging Companys.

One other point. We have a lot of Califorina people that have moved here and built homes in an around the forested area's and it is real funny how they are all for the "LET IT BURN" way until it is comming at there house then they raise hell with the Forest Service for not protecting Better. They don't trim and cut a break around there homes or nothing.

How about the Big Fires in the Jackson Hole area a few years back when the forest service foamed those million dollor homes to protect them from a big fire down there. We the public paid for it to at about 28 thousand a house. They didn't do that when it was the small guy that has lived here for his whole life. By the way that was not during the Bush period either.

The Game and Fish Department gets call after call from people that have built homes in the mountains and the deer, elk and other animals are eating there plants to the ground. They are told "TOUGH" LOL.

Or how about over on the Big Hole River were the ranchers have sold back there water rights so the river has some water in it to protect the fish. They sure didn't have to but they understand a few things about nature. But are made to look like they don't like the land. Now it seems there are so many large homes going in over there that they are causing the same problems because they want to water there lawns and fill there pools.

One other point a fast one. Several years ago they had a large meeting of experts on wolves in the park. I was working in the local sporting goods store and a guy come into the store one night and we were slow and started talking. Come to find out he was the head of the Michigan Wolf Program. Now these are his words not mine. Believe it or not.

He told me " This has to be the worst place I have seen to try and introduce wolves into. For one thing the animals the wolves will be feeding on will Migrate out of the park in the winter time and will go on to private ground. Which means they will start to kill cattle and other live stock. (This has proven true) Another point is that there is just to much building going on all around this area for the wolves not to get into trouble with man. All you have to do is take a look at the Grizzly to see that.

In Michigan were we have our wolves there is less than a person per square mile and most of the land is think forest and swamp land. Perfect to them. here you have mountains but there is a lot more private land than were our wolves are. They are going to get into trouble and I hate to see that". His statement not mine.

The wolves are here so there is nothing more to be said about them excet that it is a shame to see them killed just so someone can say "we got wolves there". You know like the one they let go and it came out of the park and killed 14 sheep in one night. Then they had to get a chopper and dart it, take it back into the park. Told everyone that they would feed it road kill and it would no longer kill sheep. After feeding it road killed deer and other game for a few months they let it go again and the next night it was at the same ranch and killed another lot of sheep. By the eay it was said it cost the public about 100 thousand for that one wolf to try and make a good wolf out of a wild animal. Just showing what is really happening out here. Not saying all the wolves are bad for they are not. But you never hear those things on the news just like you never heard a word on the national news about the fires out here until they were so bad that they have to report on them. I won't go into the reason why they don't report on these things until they are forced to.

All I am saying is that there is no "MIDDLE GROUND" anymore and the forests and the people that "LIVE IN THESE STATES" are taking the brunt of it all for the good of WHAT? It sure isn't for the good of our forests or the people that live here. I am done. As it does no good to argue over things like this anymore. I know were it is leeding and I hate to see it coming. Ron

[jscheetz]

Ron,

You make some good points. I think unfortunately however there is not a lot of truth on the logging side either. Many of the logging companies are using "scare tactics" to push through timber sales of our National forests by saying that it is "reducing the fuel" to stop these terrible fires. While they may or may not be achieving that in the end - it's just a money maker to them.

Plus the timber sales on National forest land is HEAVILY subsidized - just like the grazing of cattle is. It is much cheaper to log and graze cattle on fed lands - who pays for that? That is a simply crazy policy that needs to change.

I am sure being right there and guiding for all those years you have lots of awesome stories of wolves and all kinds of things - sounds like you probably had the opportunity to work in an area that most people only get to visit - what a blessing!! We're all jealous of that!

But I can see that you have a real disdain for "outsiders" building homes or coming there from elsewhere and having an opinon. But I would just say that in regards to the millions and millions of acres of National Park, National Forest, and National wilderness areas - last time I checked I paid my Federal taxes. So while you do get the priviledge of living nearby - that's just geography.

JS

[MTM]

You are misreading me. I do not mind people moving here but why do they move here to try and change what we have to what they moved from? My point is if you check it out there isn't much if any cutting being done on National Forest land anymore. Check it out for yourself. Most all cutting being done here is on private land. That leaves all the forest land to burn when they do nothing. Like I said if you do an overlay of what has burnt in just my area you will see that there isn't all that much left to burn. When do you hit a middle ground? when it has all been burnt? You can not even get the Greens to look at anything Period. They will sue and that is there answer to it all now days. That is a fact. I will repeat they will not let them cut anything without suing.

As I see it there is a middle ground that can help us all but I say money is the answer to this on both sides the Greens are making a ton of it by suing and the logging companys are making it by clear cutting. The local people are taking it in the shorts from both sides. That is my point of view. I told the guy that is the head of the local logging company some years ago they should have been selectitve cuting years ago. If they had they would be like Germany and still be cutting forest's that were 150 years old.

You own these forests as much as anyone does. The difference is that you are not here breathing the smoke that is so think you can't see a half mile and you aren't worring about your house burning and losing everything and you aren't worring about friends that are fighting those fires and may be killed like happened in the Firdley Fire. That is the difference in my view between the people that live here and those that just visit.

I would in no way ever try and tell you how to run your state I don't live there and I don't know enough about it. But in the west people figure that becasue we don't have a lot of people we are a bunch of dumb hicks that don't know much. I spent most of my life in the forests and the streams of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming and I do know what is good for these states and what is bad. Is it good to let it burn and waste? Is it good after it has burnt not not let them cut the dead standing timber even though they know it will become a bigger fire hazard by not letting them cut it? Is it good to not let them replant and reseed areas that have burnt?

To much building isn't good for any area period. Take a look at the National Rivers Org and you will see that the Great Yellowstone River right were I live is now on the top 10 most indangered rivers list because of all the building they are doing. Nope it has nothing to do with how many are moving here does it? Look at what just one builder has done in Arkansas.

Just like the wolves I think they are a neat animal but you are going to tell me it is OK to introduce them into and area were you "KNOW" they are going to be in trouble from the start?

Everyone looks at this country and thinks "big sky country" it is but it isn't because of the forests we don't have half the forests you do in the east, it is just open land. When you let it burn and don't even try to do anything to help it dosen't take much to kill it all off. 1.3 Million acres just this year. The most ever. Add up the previous 5 years and see what you come up with. That is what is happening because of money hungry people. They make people believe that you "Can't cut anything" or you will lose the whole World. I say BS. There can and should be oversite. But they can't even agree on that. They don't want to because it may make them look weak. There needs to be something done but nothing will be until it is all gone. Just like in any city, there has to be 20 people killed at a bad corner before they will put up a "STOP" sign. That is my view. Ron