Legacy of Fire: The Ghost of Trees

[Nikki Stavile]

Companion forum thread to: Legacy of Fire: The Ghost of Trees

Nikki Stavile writes on the impact of fire on hikers and the communities they hike through using stores from Jasper and the Tahoe Rim Trail.

[tkkn c]

Excellent writing, took me back to memories and experiences of burned and unburned forests (Gila Wilderness specifically).  Thanks!

[John Conley]

The real tragedy in all this is that it was/is pretty much self-inflicted by the “do-gooders” who for too many years (and continuing into the present) have opposed responsible forest management. Of the three main ingredients, “fuel” is by far the culprit in the recent disastrous mega-fires. If, instead of quoting Smokey the Bear and ignoring the accumulation of debris on the forest floor and the dead/dying trees, Americans would have learned a lesson from Europe and managed our forests to minimize dangerous “fuel,” “the Climate” would have far less damaging impacts on our forests (and adjacent communities). It’s too bad society won’t put the blame where it belongs and take effective measures for the future. I guess it’s just easier, and more politically satisfying, to just “Blame Global Warming.”

[AK Granola]

Great article! It’s scenes and descriptions are familiar to all of us who live in the west.

[Paul Wagner]

I don’t think do gooders have ever opposed fuel reduction in the forest.  They have opposed clear cutting forests, which tends to leave vast areas that are both unsightly and filled with lower-story brush that is pure fire hazard.  Many of the largest fires and/or most damaging fires in California have not been true “forest fires” but have been brush fires–huge areas below the true  timber forests.

That’s certainly true of the fires in Napa, where I live, and the Rim Fire and Mariposa Fire, on the western edge of Yosemite.

[jscott]

Paul makes excellent points. And it’s been the accepted policy to emphasize fuel reduction and let some forest fires burn for decades now.

What constitutes “responsible forest management” varies depending on whom you ask.

[Terran Terran]

Google AI overview:

While a clean-looking forest floor might seem appealing, it’s generally best to leave the forest floor undisturbed, as removing fallen leaves and debris is detrimental to the health and ecosystem of the forest.

Here’s why:
Nutrient Cycling:
Fallen leaves and wood decompose, returning vital nutrients and minerals to the soil, which is crucial for the health of the forest ecosystem.

Habitat and Food Source:
Decomposing wood creates a diverse range of micro-habitats for insects, fungi, and small animals, which in turn become food sources for birds and other wildlife.

Moisture Retention:
Leaf litter and other organic matter help retain moisture in the soil, which is important for plant growth and overall forest health.

Natural Processes:
Forests are naturally designed to handle the decomposition of organic matter, and removing this material disrupts these natural processes.

Fire Risk:
While some may think removing debris reduces fire risk, it’s important to note that natural forest fires can play a role in the health of the forest ecosystem, and removing debris can also create a situation where fires can spread more quickly.

Near me
Open now
Within 20 mi
Online estimates
To prevent fires
Top rated

Results for
Peyton, CO 80831
∙ Choose area

Search Results
AI Overview
AI Overview

+8

While a clean-looking forest floor might seem appealing, it’s generally best to leave the forest floor undisturbed, as removing fallen leaves and debris is detrimental to the health and ecosystem of the forest.
Here’s why:
Nutrient Cycling:
Fallen leaves and wood decompose, returning vital nutrients and minerals to the soil, which is crucial for the health of the forest ecosystem.
Habitat and Food Source:
Decomposing wood creates a diverse range of micro-habitats for insects, fungi, and small animals, which in turn become food sources for birds and other wildlife.
Moisture Retention:
Leaf litter and other organic matter help retain moisture in the soil, which is important for plant growth and overall forest health.
Natural Processes:
Forests are naturally designed to handle the decomposition of organic matter, and removing this material disrupts these natural processes.
Fire Risk:
While some may think removing debris reduces fire risk, it’s important to note that natural forest fires can play a role in the health of the forest ecosystem, and removing debris can also create a situation where fires can spread more quickly.
Exceptions and Considerations:
Invasive Species:
In some cases, removing invasive plants or debris may be necessary to protect the native ecosystem.
Pathways and Trails:
Clearing pathways and trails for human access may be necessary, but this should be done in a way that minimizes environmental impact.
Fire Prevention:
In areas with high fire risk, controlled burns or thinning of undergrowth may be necessary to reduce fuel load.
Community Cleanups:
Participating in community cleanups to remove litter and trash can be beneficial for the environment.
In summary, while some forest management practices may involve clearing certain areas, it’s generally best to leave the forest floor undisturbed to maintain its natural health and biodiversity.

[John Conley]

Hi Paul,
Thanks for your views.

I suppose the notion of “do gooders not opposing fuel reduction” depends on how you define it.

I worked for years as a NPS Ranger. I know from first-hand experience the opposition/knee jerk reactions of too many of our fellow citizens to the idea of allowing “naturally caused” burns to help control the forests and avoid the catastrophic conflagrations of late. I also never experienced any public enthusiasm for clearing out the debris and downfalls as is routinely done in European forests.

Perhaps a point on which we can both agree is that the main culprit isn’t “Climate Change/Global Warming.” All the best (and I am truly sorry for your fire losses), John

[John Conley]

“removing fallen leaves and debris is detrimental to the health and ecosystem of the forest.”

I expect that not a few people have also noticed that the catastrophic wildland fires that have fed on the undisturbed leaves, debris, fallen trees, etc., is also “detrimental to the health and ecosystem of the forest”!

[Terran Terran]

Leaves are nothing new. Personal to prevent fire risks have been seriously reduced by the rake it man.

https://www.nationalforests.org/blog/what-is-prescribed-fire-and-why-is-it-important-for-forest-health

[AK Granola]

[Jerry Adams]

I was walking around mt hood.  I saw a tree that was smoldering after lightning

I called 911.  They said they knew about it.  It went on to burn many square miles including the trail I was on, nice camping spots.

They could have easily put it out but choose not to in wilderness areas.

It’s difficult to decide not to fight fires in this situation.

Maybe they should have put this one out.

Maybe do prescribed burns when there is less risk of huge fire

On west side of cascades the undergrowth quickly grows back after a fire because it rains so much.  The fire risk is not as bad a risk as other places because of not allowing fires.

It’s complicated

After a century of not allowing fires some places are tinder boxes and it will be difficult to get out of our predicament.

[Jerry Adams]

If everywhere is a couple degrees warmer (global warming) it makes everything worse.  Maybe not the biggest factor

[AK Granola]

I live in a tinder box of black spruce trees in a trapped valley. It is only a matter of time. Across the vastness of Alaska, letting things burn is the only option in most places. Now with so few federal employees left, nothing will be done about most of our wildfires. I just hope we can get out in time. Then it’s start over, somewhere, with nothing.

[Jerry Adams]

Can you make your house fireproof?

Non flammable roof, walls, no gutters with fir needles, no vents, clear brush around house,…

[AK Granola]

Thanks Jerry. We have fireproofed to the greatest extent possible. But there are a lot of dry trees, black spruce is what they call “gasoline on a stick.” If a fire takes off and there’s wind, the valley will go.

Appreciate every day.

[John Conley]

I’ve been a BPL member since the earliest days. I remain a member because of interest in the gear articles/reviews. For the most part, with the “environmental” articles, I try to keep my mouth shut (sometimes the urge to comment overwhelms me!). Free speech seems to be coming back in vogue after a dark period of censorship and “cancelling.” I’m trying to not let this renewed freedom for expression push me to be on these discussions too frequently.

I’ll close with this thought: As we bemoan the inconveniences of fires and other circumstances, just imagine if today’s “backcountry explorers” and hikers had to make their own ways, as did our pioneer forerunners (no “ship-ahead boxes,” no conveniently accessible motels/stores/Burger Kings and pizza, to help us through the “zero days?” I’m sure Lewis & Clark, Jim Bridger, Jedediah Smith, and the like, would have welcomed some groomed trails and frequent white, blue, or diamond-shaped blazes.

 

[jscott]

John, I’m not able to connect up what Jedediah Smith et. al. have to do with global warming and fire policy.

I’m old enough to see that persistent, annual catastrophic fires in unexpected places (B.C. and Canada as a whole; the entire U.S. west and now the East) have increased and remain persistent. I’ve watched myself as Lyell and other glaciers have eroded and become designated snow fields, not glaciers. I’ve read that this is happening world wide. Many other consequences are steadily unfolding and have been world wide.

In short I don’t agree that rapid climate change is an insignificant contributor to fires in the West and elsewhere. I’m not a do-gooder without true understanding. For example, I understand that we won’t be going back to the climate and environment of Jedediah Smith anytime soon. However,  like you, I DO very much appreciate trails and even signage in the wilderness! these last don’t contribute to global warming beyond a teensy weensy amount. Insignificant compared to a single coal plant,  etc.

 

[Terran Terran]

They followed the indians. I’m descended from the “blue” Bollings. Those related to Pocahontas.

The “Red, White, and Blue Bollings” refers to different branches of Pocahontas’s family tree. The “Red Bollings” are descendants of Pocahontas’s granddaughter, Jane Rolfe, through her marriage to Robert Bolling. The “White Bollings” are descendants of Robert Bolling’s second marriage to Anne Stith. The “Blue Bollings” are a less well-defined group who claim descent from John Bolling and Elizabeth Blair, with some claims confirmed through ancestry research.

They were called the “blue” Bollings because the just came out of the blue . No actual relationship

[John Conley]

All the best to you jscott.

The reason we have chocolate and vanilla ice cream is so people have choices, can make their own evaluations and decisions. The more I delve into the explanations for how things are in the world, the less certain I am that the puny actions of humanity (good or bad) have any role in the eventual outcomes. The majority of honest “science” seems to point to the conclusion that the climate of the earth is cyclical (measured in huge chunks of time), and that these cycles are likely to continue, long after humans become as extinct as dinosaurs.  I have nothing against those who “feel good” for “doing something.” I just feel sad it they’ve convinced themselves that what they’re doing will matter over the span of time.

[Terran Terran]

Yet there is only one truth. Vanilla doesn’t taste like chocolate because it isn’t chocolate. Admittedly what we know about the world changes as we gather further knowledge. What we know about global warming isn’t decided by politics or what makes us feel good. It’s a best guess supported by scientific evaluation. There are actually folks that study it and get their information from sources other than social media.

[AK Granola]

I work at one of the institutions that produces phenomenal research on climate change, and I live in a place where we see the effects daily. The preponderance of scientific consensus is quite clear that human behavior is a huge and probably the most significant contributor to the dramatic climate change we are now seeing. It was known in the 1800s and it’s known now.

I can’t imagine anyone seeing the American Geophysical Union as anything other than an “honest” producer of scientific research. No the majority of “honest” science – whatever that means – is not pointing to a different conclusion.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/

[Jerry Adams]

“Merchants of Doubt” is a good book.  She mostly talks about how the tobacco companies fought off the message that cigarettes were dangerous.  They hired scientists to do fake stories to put doubt on the message.  Some people honestly believed that being anti tobacco was like being communist, interfering with free market capitalism.  Tobacco companies didn’t have to pay for that but popularized it.

There were several decades where people continued to smoke making the tobacco companies a lot of money.  If there were regulations earlier, a lot of people wouldn’t have died, and the tobacco companies would have missed out on a lot of profits.

This book was mostly before people were aware of global warming.  But she also mentions this.

The fossil fuel industry will make a lot more money the longer they can delay action.  They are happy about any stories that shed doubt on global warming.

 

[John Conley]

Hi Jerry,

Here’s another good book that offers a perspective worth considering by open-minded folks: “Unsettled” by Steven E. Koonin. (as George Bernard Shaw said: “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”)

[Terran Terran]

And?

[Author]

Posts