SAVE OUR FORESTS!!!!

[Mad Machinist]

I have sent a post to the admin here to explain my position and I will do the same here. I will make no effort to hide who I am as that would be counterproductive to what I am trying to do. I will not lie about who I am and many of you here can research my user name on pirate4x4. Doing that you will realize my position on many things.

This isn't about right or left, eco vs. ohv, or any of the other isssues. This is about what NEEDS to be done.

To give perspective about what I am going to post here, I need to tell you all a little about myself. I spent 14 years on a forest fire crew and I am not talking about what is in the books. I am talking about real world experience. 3 years on a hand crew, 6 years as a crew boss and 5 years as an engine boss. 3 years ago, I hung up my gear for the last time at my wife's request. For those that want to call me a candyass, watch this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4y-RzVGrHg . MY WIFE GOT THAT CALL. I hung up my gear because nobody would listen to us about what was going to come.

There are currently 40 million acres of OUR National Forests in need of thinning to prevent catastrophic wildfires like the Wallow fire that is a mere 31.75 miles north of me according to Google Earth. This fire literally destroyed 71 nesting sites for the Mexican Spotted Owl, 1/3rd of what is in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. This is only the beginning, now we are dealing with the acidity of the ash killing the endangered spikedace and loach minnows.

The Center for Bioligical Diversity finally succeeded in putting the final nail in the coffin of the forest products industry here in 1995. We have for years told these radical environmental groups what would happen if they banned logging. And it is now unfortunately coming true. They have learned NOTHING fron the Chedeski-Rodeo fire.

The 1910 Woolsey Inventory is cited endlessley by the various eco groups. And you can find it here, http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/Research/changed_southwestern_forests.htm

Yes, mistakes have been made. And we have learned from them. Yet, CBD supports the White Mountain Stewardship that saved many Northeastrn AZ communities, but litigated a PROVEN measure that has received national recognition and is the basis of the wildfire policies today. http://www.gffp.org/about_gffp/default.htm And here is the rebuttal from one of the leaders of this project who is also the fire cheif there. http://azdailysun.com/news/opinion/columnists/article_fb584a6c-46c3-5521-9b42-4d5d3b1a3330.html

The project litigated is the 10th project they had done.

This also ignores the fact that in cleaning up OUR National forests, we could also put many people back to work to get this done, we could also take a MAJOR step forward is gaining energy independence from foreign oil. Look up the Biomax 15. It is a wood gasification unit that cn run off of wood pellets that would be produced fron thinning OUR national forests. And ladies and gentlemen this is just the beginning.

[denbot]

1. So how in earth did these forests survive before we clear cut them

We have been clear cutting the west for the last century. After a clear cut there is a lot of brush, it is the result of a forrest trying to regenerate. If we had left them alone we would not have this problem now.

There would be more trust in thinning plans if companies like Weyerhauser did not use them as a cover to clear cut right up to stream beds here in the Pacific West. After being "burnt" continuously for four decades, environmental groups are digging in, and not signing off on more "thinning" plans.

I truly hope no one gets hurt during fires. Plans that genuinely thin growth including undergrowth to mitigate wildfire potential have my support. Recent history has not built a lot of trust in forrest thinning programs to the detriment of man and nature.

[Mad Machinist]

2. what i am proposing

does have alot of short term impacts. But if we kill 5 spotted owls to get 100 owlets to survive the next nesting season, that is a scrafice I am willing to make.

Research has shown me that these owl like open forests, so how can they survive in a forest so choked with small trees and undergrowth. If we eliminate the undergrowth and open up the forest, they will recover in a short order.

The USFS here refuse to sign a 20 year agreement to supply an OSB plant with the thinnings to make the plant break even. So in essence, the USFS and the various eco groups involved are the ones killing our endangered species. This is all done under the guise of "preserving" what is left.

In the past, bad decisions were made and the repercussions of those decisions are happening now. In defense of those decisions, nobody really knew what would happen in the future because of those decisions. We now know better and know what needs to be done. Yet we have to fight to do what is right.

Case in point. There was a case here in AZ that was brought forth about a rancher who was "supposedly" abusing OUR lands. Pictures of the "supposed" abuse were brought forth and it was proven in a court of law that these pictures were taken in an area that was OUTSIDE of his grazing permit. In Fact it was PROVEN that these pictures were taken in an area that was trampled by the so called "greenies". It was so bad that the Center for Biological Diversity went to the higher courts to argue that they had the right to lie under the First Amendment to get what they wanted. You can read about it here.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/02/ron-arnold-beating-big-green-trial-lawyer-game#ixzz1Df1oIgPL

I am NOT proposing that we log OUR forest wholesale, that has no benefit. BUT if we go in and "thin" the forest with proper management, we not only get an area that ALL can enjoy, we also get a renewable resource we can use to further energyt independence that we can use to live in harmony with our environment.

Thinning would include taking out both small trees that contribute to the fire danger and also large trees that show signs of distress such as the canopy dieing off due to bark beetle infestation.

The oppponents say that we will have to keep thinning the forests, but the is the beauty of PROPER forest management. We manage to not only positively affect the forests and endangered species, but provide a renewable resource to gain energy independence.

Alot of critics say it cannot be done because the government cannot afford to pay for it. But I say get the government out of the way and we will get this moving. And we will get this moving so fast that it will be mind boggling. And once we get this goping we will not only make this self sustaining, we will also have a very positive effect on the national deficit because we are once again producing something.

Here is alot of research done by our very own USFS. Here is a start about small logs. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/results.php

Wake up people and stop being sheep lead to the slaughter. More will follow as I work it out in my mind.

[JDPriestly]

3. I wonder whether the people who reject the idea of selective

thinning of the forests know what it is like to live summers in Los Angeles without occasional cooling day-trips into the Los Angeles mountains.

This is not a question of clear-cutting. This is a question of preserving forests by carefully culling forests too heavily wooded to be safe in our modern society.

I have a tiny garden. If I plant my tomatoes (or any plants for that matter) too close together, my garden does not flourish. Same for trees. The alternative is forest fires that are very dangerous in our modern, heavily populated world, forest fires that eventually lead to erosion and other problems. This is not about the fires in certain brush areas of the high desert that are a natural part of the renewal of the plant life. This is about the fires in forests.

Thanks for posting this.

[mike_c]

5. I reject the idea of selective thinning on public lands for several reasons....

First and foremost though-- I'll admit-- I reject it because it serves the needs and objectives of the forest products industry and governmental land stewards whose mismanagement created this problem in the first place. I'm a forest ecologist in northern California where some of that battle is still being fought (although not nearly as much as it used to be, thankfully).

I have participated in very stand successful management experiments that showed greatly reduced flammability, improved disease resistance, and enhanced habitat quality in selectively thinned stands on the Lassen National Forest and elsewhere, but with the caveat that the greatest improvements were seen in stands that were thinned in some of the least commercially attractive manners, i.e. to preserve old-growth structural characteristics (multi-aged stands with reduced stocking density and multilayered crown structure, for instance, with the high volume old growth preserved as much as possible).

That's all well and good, but let's be frank-- we don't have the money or the manpower to undo 100 years of fire suppression with chainsaws and log trucks. All we'd really be doing is opening up the last commercially desirable stands on many forests to logging as an inducement to operators to thin other stands without commercial appeal. Any commercial use for those low value stands will only stimulate further industrial management to maintain high productivity-- the woods become the supply chain for industry.

Instead, reestablishing the natural fire regime would accomplish the same objectives, easily, inexpensively, and permanently-- but it would have significant impacts on people currently living in high risk areas (pretty much most western montane forests, these days) and it would change the appearance of the forests that people are now used to seeing overstocked. In the short term, it would eliminate standing timber on vast swaths of those forests, and make no mistake, regeneration will take multiple generations throughout much of the west. We created this situation and there isn't any pleasant way out of it.

on edit-- I should clarify that selective harvest should be one of the lynchpins of private land management if prescribed fire is out of the question (and it usually is). But even there, research suggests that the usual silviculture, which identifies commercially viable trees for preferential harvest in order to profit the landowner and/or the timber operators are often the least effective for reducing vulnerability to fire. Selective harvest can also be used wisely to protect high value stands on public lands, but again, there is often conflict between ecological objectives and commercial viability.

[Mad Machinist]

6. your part right

The projects you have been involved in are exactly what I am proposing, but in a much grander scale. And this will take years to sort out both manpower wise and money wise. But your comment about how this would only serve the needs of the forest products industry illustrates one of the ways that this has been allowed to become a problem.

And yes prescribed fires would be part of the equation, if the USFS could ever figure out how to control them.

I can't put this anymore simply. If there is no lumber, no houses get built. No houses get built, people don't have jobs. People don't have jobs and we get in the situation we are in now. Millions out of work, 99 plus weeks of unemployment, crime goes up because people are just trying to feed their families, you get the idea.

[mike_c]

8. now you're offering an entirely different rationale....

Resources, jobs, construction. Those are precisely the forest product management industries and institutions that have benefited the most from mismanaged fire regimes. Supporting them is not a valid ecological argument, IMO.

[mike_c]

4. or we could simply let the natural fire regime reestablish itself...

...and manage western forests the way they were successfully managed for millenia. You're right-- there is way too much fuel on the ground, way too much stocking in the woods-- but that's the result of precisely the management objectives that you're calling for. Those management entities create demand for more forest products, greater stand productivity, and increased calls for prolonged harvest. Industrial forestry, in a word.

On the other hand, realizing that that sort of management is mistaken suggests a far better response-- stop managing that way altogether. Or-- the more enlightened approach-- pursue active management that mimics, as closely as possible, the natural fire regime, e.g. prescribed fire as a management tool to restore natural stocking densities and species composition.

Just doing the same things that got us into this mess over again isn't the best solution, IMO.

[Mad Machinist]

7. Fire would be used

in areas that could not be thinned for whatever reason. The problem with letting fire burn everything is how many species would be wiped from the face of the earth because of it. Once the forests are thinned out, fire could once again be used on a wider scale.

What I am proposing is some of the old management style with alot of new twists. I'll explain.

According to alot of foresters I have talked to, there is on average around 100 tons of overstocked trees, fuelwood on the ground, brush, etc., per acre in the largest part of our national forests. So this equates to roughly around 4 BILLION tons of fuelwood choking our forests just waiting for that spark to set it off.

Even if we could remove just 400 million tons per year, that would be enough to fuel 4000 25MW biomass power plants. Those 4000 power plants would produce enough of power to provide electricity to approxiamtely 120 million homes. With a carbon nuetral ouput. In ten years when it is done, we get to start all over again with a renewable resource that just keeps on giving and we keep our forests clean.

Or we could use just half that biomass for the power plants and turn the other half into wood pellets that would provide a carbon nuetral heating source for home heating or for a portable power unit like the Biomass 15 or the STAK unit. http://stakproperties.com/ Hook that Stak unit up to a Generac and you have your own power source that is now carbon nuetral.

A hell of alot of people would go back to work so they would be paying taxes again. Revenues would increase and cuts would not have to be made to critical programs. The amount of people this would take to get going and keep going would be absolutely staggering.

And small logs are becoming profitable. And the national forests are GOING to be thinned and logged again. It is in Congress right now to eliminate the National Forests from the NEPA process in order to deal with the extreme fire danger they are facing. It is up to those of us who care to make sure a SUSTAINABLE program is instituted.

[mike_c]

9. there is no evidence whatsoever that a natural fire regime...

...would cause the extinction of anything, although data from lots of research, including in my lab, suggest that a return to natural fire would CERTAINLY be a profound disturbance. Ecosystems in much of the west would take a century or more to recover fully (think steep, dry slopes). Some would likely slip into alternative ecological trajectories. But fire suppression is the PROBLEM, not the answer.

I've been a fan of biomass fuel in the past, but NOT at the expense of creating a new forest products industry that continues to suppress wildfires in favor of productivity. It's just a bad bargain ecologically. It creates further resistance to wise management.

[Mad Machinist]

10. I think you misunderstood

what I said about the fire causing extinction level events. A NATURAL fire regime will not cause that. ANd I will readily agree that low intensity burns are quite beneficial to the forests, especially the ponderosa pines here in AZ. They need it to reseed.

HOWEVER, what I was refering to was the type of stand replacing fires much like the Wallow fire here. ANd I do stand corrected on the amout of spotted owl nesting sites that were effected. It wasn't 1/3rd, IT WAS OVER HALF WITH EGGS AND OWLETS IN THE DESTROYED NESTS. Now the ash is washing into rivers here that are habitat for the endangered spikedace and loach minnows. The monsoon season just kicked off here, and we are already seeing fish die offs due to the acidity of the water.

AS for letting the fires burn, not going to happen under one of the very monsters the environmentlists created. Under the Endangered Speicies Act, critical habitat destruction is illegal, whether intentional or not. The very same thing that has stopped the loggers is actually KILLING many endangered species. So under the ESA, the "let it burn" policy is actually illegal.

Take a look at who was really in charge of Forest policy for the last, oh, 25 years. Didn't get what you wanted, sue. Recover your attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act and look for the next one. Don't like a forest plan, sue until it is changed into what you want. At least until people wise up.

The biggest threat to Lake Tahoe, famed for it's water clarity, was claimed to be logging and tree removal because of sedimentation. AT one time you needed a permit to remove a tree from your yard at it was rarely granted. Alot of very smart and experienced people told them what would happen if their policies didn't changed. Well they didn't listen and the area burned pretty bad and they realized tht loggin and tree removal was the bigest threat, IT WAS FOREST FIRES. The sediment that washed into the lake was unbelieveable. Now you are REQUIRED to remove any tree or brush within something like 200 yards of a structure.

If you take a hard look at our National Forests, you will find that the vast majority of them are habitat for one "endangered" species or another. So that makes them either off limits to logging or makes in extremely diffucult to do anything there. There was an area up in Oregon that burnt a few years ago. The fire had been predicted for decades. The project spent six years in planning and litigation, with most of it in litigation. 430 acres had been cleared when the area was lit up by a lightning strike. Alot of endangered species habitat was destroyed, especially spotted owl habitat. So if we want to say that stand replacing fires are a natural thing, then we must also say species extinction is also a natural thing no matter what the cause. Adapt or die, nature's rules not mine.

What I proposed to an independent forester here is this. Mechanically harvest the trees that need removed to thin the forest. While harvesteing, use the harvester to delimb the trees and take only the trunk of the tree. After an area is cleared, PURPOSELY start a low intensity burn to remove the limbs and underbrush, thus clearing the understory and letting the area take care of itself after that until the time comes to do it all over again. This way we get the best of both worlds and a jump start on stand regneration for when the time comes to remove the old trees due to disease, blow downs, whatever.

The only way to preserve the forests is to do what I have proposed and there are alot of the moderate environmental groups who are seeing the validity of what some of us have proposed. I have put aside of the fights that have put many of thes groups and I literally at each other throats. So if we are willing to put differences aside to find a solution, then so should everybody else, no matter what end of the issue you are on.


The majority of the people out there are not liking the forests burning like this and there are alot of calls to do exactly what I spelled out. NAd the majority will get what they want. This is the way the democracy you and alot of others wants works. Majority rules whether you, I or anyone else likes it or not. This is the danger of creating a democracy instead of the republic we are supposed to be with limited powers. This is just the first time the environmentalist are going to get burned under the system they have tried to convince everybody we live under.

ANd believe it or not, you have played your part in creating the megacorporations we have today. All the laws created only served to drive the little guy out of business because he either could not afford to fight litigation or just flat out could not afford to comply with arbitrary and capricious laws. So a few smart people bought out there contracts and eventually became powerful enough to influence Congress into giving them what they want. SO now they serve special interests, who line their campaign pockets, instead of the people as the system was intended to.

The only way to preserve the forests is to do what I have proposed and there are alot of the moderate environmental groups who are seeing the validity of what some of us have proposed. I have put aside of the fights that have put many of thes groups and I literally at each other throats. S oif we are willing to put differebces aside to find a solution, then so should everybody else, no matter what end of the issue you are on.