Arkansas Canoe Club Forums

I prefer beer.

kru

I prefer frozen custard

you're right - beer's better

Fantastic, if you come to canoe school, I can't wait to have a beer with you.

kru

@kru I will also state that if you ever go out and fight 1 large out of control fire in high winds, I believe you would enjoy a good prescribed burn to limit the possibility of a large out of control forest/wildfire. I've been on the volunteer department here for 2 years now and Oklahoma has seen its fun with wildfires in the last 2 years. If a prescribed burn cuts down on the possible loss of homes and lives of the people that live in them as well as the people that go out to help control or stop them, I'm all for it. Just my opinion of my experiences.

Oh and I prefer a good whiskey

kru1 wrote:

Butch Crain wrote:spent almost 30 years oblivious to anything below the canopy before getting schooled during a short stint w/ the Nature Conservancy in the gulf coastal plain

forest diversity is greatest in the herbaceous layer which is the habitat most tortises & reptiles depend on

no fire = overdeveloped midstory = poor to no herbaceous layer & associated fauna

How could they ever have survived the last 320 million years without prescribed burns. Thank goodness we have the game and fish.

kru

You're right they didn't have prescribed fires. They had a naturally occuring wildfire regime that could burn millions upon millions of acres with no anthropogenic fire breaks such as...massive land-use changes, cities, highways. A fire that started by lightning on the plains of oklahoma could burn all the way to Arkansas and work its way into some of those dissected plateaus. A lightning strike could burn up a whole river basin without burning out. After it burns it won't burn again until it's built up enough fuel again, say 3-5 years depending on aspect, slope, canopy cover, rainfall. See a pattern starting kru? Also if you worked on a fire crew you would see that prescribed fires and wildfires alike are not consistent. They create a whole matrix of areas that are burned at different levels (some areas left mostly unburned where fuel load isn't heavy). This is the beauty of biodiversity. It is no ones goal to burn everything at the same level. Hell for the most part you cant hardly get a north facing slope full of hardwoods to burn up. I love fire and love what it is doing ecologically, but that is not to say I don't see your point. I agree that there are certain situations that fire isn't as necessary or natural, and as a biologist I think that's an important point in any instance. Too much of any one thing is bad. Too much fire can be bad, too little fire can be bad. That is what adaptive management is all about, always moving forward with our thinking.

Mitch Allen
Ex wildland firefighter, current river biologist

Bravo Mitch. Well said.

gma06001- wrote: You're right they didn't have prescribed fires. They had a naturally occuring wildfire regime that could burn millions upon millions of acres with no anthropogenic fire breaks such as...massive land-use changes, cities, highways. A fire that started by lightning on the plains of oklahoma could burn all the way to Arkansas and work its way into some of those dissected plateaus. A lightning strike could burn up a whole river basin without burning out. After it burns it won't burn again until it's built up enough fuel again, say 3-5 years depending on aspect, slope, canopy cover, rainfall. See a pattern starting kru? Also if you worked on a fire crew you would see that prescribed fires and wildfires alike are not consistent. They create a whole matrix of areas that are burned at different levels (some areas left mostly unburned where fuel load isn't heavy). This is the beauty of biodiversity. It is no ones goal to burn everything at the same level. Hell for the most part you cant hardly get a north facing slope full of hardwoods to burn up. I love fire and love what it is doing ecologically, but that is not to say I don't see your point. I agree that there are certain situations that fire isn't as necessary or natural, and as a biologist I think that's an important point in any instance. Too much of any one thing is bad. Too much fire can be bad, too little fire can be bad. That is what adaptive management is all about, always moving forward with our thinking.

Mitch Allen
Ex wildland firefighter, current river biologist

Mitch is correct on his points. The last prescribed burns in the area were around 10 years ago. Since then we have had severe storms,tornadoes, and one real nasty ice storm that has made the fuel load massive and in need of burning.

"let it burn"

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/08/forest_ ... y_partner/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO8MEVTQutI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's some more info.

My sense is that a large majority of the public prefers their forests in a "mostly natural" state but not necessarily "completely natural" with the snags from ice damage lying about, wood that is never harvested, the occasional big fire that crowns and takes out man made structures, streams filled with wood, and other "inconveniences" nature throws.

Having had some limited experience with prescribed burning, I would caution anyone (respiratory illnesses or not) to avoid paddling near the burn area, especially in the part of the day when the temps start dropping and the air tends to move into the valleys. You may not come out with any diagnosed respiratory illnesses, but if smoke fills the river valley there will be no where to run and it will be a tearful hacking experience.