Controlled Burn

[Paddlegal]

http://arkansasmatters.com/content/full ... cid=135931

[prophet]

i hear blackened turtle is excellent

[Butch Crain]

i hear blackened turtle is excellent

Barbacoa de la tortuga! C'est si bon!

[Fish]

"No, fire good. Fire our friend!" - from Young Frankenstein (which everyone should watch in its entirety every Halloween!)

I'm not at all sure that burns are really necessary around here, but they're probably the least destructive forest "treatment" USFS does. Personally, I'd take more burns and fewer "seed cuts" any day. I'm not trying to criticize USFS here - they are just implementing policies from above (if you disagree, I hear there's a chance to fire the current policymakers here in a few days). Nor am I trying to justify burning as being a net positive for Ozark forests - that's a tough question to answer.

I can recommend that you go hike the Butterfield trail just east of Holt Road at Devil's Den if you'd like to see what a controlled burn looks like after 2 to 3 years of regrowth. It's actually some seriously beautiful forest - not easy to tell it was ever burned (looked really ugly just after the burn). But it was plenty beautiful and healthy looking before the burn too, so the question of whether or not it's worth the effort to burn comes to mind. No way to make up your mind sitting on the couch - get out in this spectacular weather, hike around and gather ye evidence while ye may!

- Fish

[Butch Crain]

something else to consider Fish - most of those "blowlogs" (we call 'em den trees down here south of the border) are the result of a fire scar in those trees' past - just sayin'.

[Fish]

After Saturday night, I'm pretty sure us NW Chapter folks are in no position to criticize anyone for setting anything on fire. :)

- Fish

[FarPastGone]

Don't forget that fires were a natural process in the ecosystem before we came along. The advent of fire suppression has led to thicker undergrowth and denser forests which only means bigger fires. Before fire suppression, fires would largely sweep through forest bottoms having little ability to crown keeping trees adequately spaced, undergrowth in check, and the accumulation of debris to that between fires.

While it may in the end have very few noticeable differences on the forest, it is just a way to "fight fire with fire", or have ecological benefits that I can't tell you about.

[JTarver]

Incidentally..they use the controlled burns for much more than just scorching off tall growth...and for fricassee turtles. ( not that they aren't tasty mind you )
One of the controlled burns we use here in Arkansas is to help maintain current populations of Endangered species..such as the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker.
These birds only use a specific type of pine tree to nest in..on average...which must be of a certain age range..and also be infect with red heart rot. ( a pine fungus that causes the inner wood to become soft. ) If the grasses and forests around these tree become to tall..it allows easy access for snakes and other predators to reach the woodpeckers nests.

Therefore, controlled burns are scheduled to maintain lower grass/shrub/small tree levels..thus ensuring ( or trying to ) the species survival.

Not saying they are right or wrong for doing this, but it's simply one of the many reasons for burns.

Joe

[Trismegistus]

Right or wrong? Well I think we can all agree that the USFS's overzealous endeavors at fire suppression throughout most of the past century has had profound and unintended environmental consequences and that ideally we need to develop ways to coexist with natural forces that shape our environment -- especially fire as it has had a powerful influence on the environment long before man ever set foot on this planet.

As we can no longer allow natural fires to burn out-of-control, prescribed burns under controlled conditions are are only means we have to restore many ecological habitats that are quickly fading into obscurity. We can debate the hows, whens and wheres but the benefits to our environment are readily apparent to those who study natural history.

[Trismegistus]

I bet folks are wishing there were more controlled burning in California!!

How do you beat it in folks heads that fires are both natural and inevitable and that fire suppression does not prevent fire, it only forestalls fire. Scientist after scientist has come forward and offered ample proof:

Minnich made perhaps the most forceful statement of the fire-dependency of chaparral: The present regime of large, intense conflagrations in southern California chaparral appears to be an artifact of fire suppression..... Since 1910, small fires have been replaced by ever-larger ones, with numerous conflagrations since the 1950s despite increased suppression investment. The longer the period since a fire, the greater both the probability and the magnitude of the next fire. Large fires will occur more frequently in the wake of fire suppression. Duhh!!!

Fire suppression also entails a massive social subsidy: The firefighting taxes and insurance assigned risk pools represent a significant expense -- one of the largest expenses incurred by the USFS is in fighting fires. And instead of focusing on vegetation management the USFS has had to focus on "structure survival" albeit study after study has demonstrated that vegetation management beyond the structure's immediate vicinity has little effect on structure ignitions.

As soon as we all recognize that fire is a natural phenomena to which our flora and fauna have adapted to over eons of time, the better our efforts will be at using this resource to improve and restore our natural environments.

[Zach]

The California fires are also being made worse by non-native grasses that dry up early in the season and dry more completely than the native species that held moisture later into the fire season.

[prophet]

anyone interested in controlled burns should hang around the western Ozarks for the next few months as USFS signs warning of controlled burns have been posted from Shores Lake to Hwy 23.

Also, a mysterious orange trunk disease has affected the majority of large oaks and pines just East of Shores Lake along the road. Hopefully this can be stopped by cutting them all down before the orange plague spreads.
i 'm glad the forest has been saved from first the pine beetle, then the red-oak borer, and now from branch rubbing.

[Trismegistus]

A lot of folks are trying to lay the blame for these wildfires on 1) global climate changes and 2) invasive flora such as the arundo and pampas grass -- and certainly both can be considered contributing factors and can be used to support various political and management agendas but regardless the truth is that the high chaparral is and always will be highly combustible. In fact these plants evolved to take advantage of a fire-prone environment. For some of the plants, the strategy for weathering the dry summers is to become resinous, thus flammable, and to sprout back from the surviving crown within weeks after a fire. Others have seeds that actually require fire to germinate—either the heat causes the seed coat to split or the nitrogen dioxide in smoke sets off a reaction that causes the seed to crack and put out a green seedling the first time it rains. Moreover when you take an enviornment that is prone to fire -- read Mark Twain's "Roughing It" for the account of a campfire that becomes a raging California forest fire -- and then suppress fires for two, three or more decades and throw a Santa Ana wind into the mix -- the outcome was guaranteed.

[prophet]

i wonder if lack of fire is the main cause of overcrowded stands?

could previous management activity have any effect?

does a clearcut grow back the same as a stand managed with a select cut?

how does dropping every other pine in an overcrowded stand help with wildfire safety?

[Drifter]

Was reading somewhere (not gonna bother quoting sources here) that particularly out in Northern California - lots of fires have gotten out of hand because many of the fire resistant Lodgepole Pines have been logged out, and thick underbrush and less hardy species that come in after that become very flammable.

Natural forests have much less buildup of "hazardous fuels" than do pine farms, etc. Logging tends to necessitate the prescribed burning.

$.02