Controlled burns in national forests (Fayetteville, Ozark: environment, vacation, homes)

[luvarkansas]

I see the Forest Fire Service (er, Forest Service) has started their "controlled" burns again. Does anyone know of any kind of organized or grassroots movement to stop this madness? People who live in those areas can't even go outside, and last year they burned up more than 50 markers along the Ozark Highlands Trail, and have yet to replace them. How can it be that the "Forest Service" doesn't know that the forests in Arkansas do NOT benefit from controlled burns the way they do out west? And they frequently get OUT of "control" and burn up many things they're not supposed to (like the OHT).

Does anyone here know anything about this or have any suggestions?

[Capt. Dan]

Why would the Ozarks NOT benefit from burning off old undergrowth to make way for new growth and eliminate fire fuel?

[johnrex62]

I am confused too. Why is this a bad thing? If not done, wouldn't the undergrowth create an even greater hazard of life threatening fire to those who live near the forested areas?

While I can see it being an inconvenience, what is the loss of a few dozen trail markers against the potential loss of life and homes?

I do not live around any forests, so perhaps there is something about forest management that is different in Arkansas than elsewhere, if so, please enlighten us.

[luvarkansas]

Not much time, but controlled burns in Arkansas do not actually control wildfires, and neither are wildfires a natural occurrence in the Arkansas forests like they are in the west. Here is one link I found with more information:

Sierra Club Analysis of U.S. Forest Service Rational for Conducting Massive Burning Program in the Ouachita and

The loss of the markers on the OHT is not exactly the point....when they started this they were not supposed to burn over the hiking trails....have you ever driven for hours to go to a hiking trail, anticipating a beautiful hike, and when you got there, found it completely blackened and ugly? And last year they even burned a place called Fern Gully, which was supposed to be protected also.

I can post more later, right now gotta go.

[junkman18]

Originally Posted by luvarkansas

I see the Forest Fire Service (er, Forest Service) has started their "controlled" burns again. Does anyone know of any kind of organized or grassroots movement to stop this madness? People who live in those areas can't even go outside, and last year they burned up more than 50 markers along the Ozark Highlands Trail, and have yet to replace them. How can it be that the "Forest Service" doesn't know that the forests in Arkansas do NOT benefit from controlled burns the way they do out west? And they frequently get OUT of "control" and burn up many things they're not supposed to (like the OHT).

Does anyone here know anything about this or have any suggestions?

They are the Government they know everything

[luvarkansas]

Another link with info on both sides of the issue:


The Morning News: News : Natural Selection? Elk, Fire Raise Ire

[RogMar]

Originally Posted by luvarkansas

Not much time, but controlled burns in Arkansas do not actually control wildfires, and neither are wildfires a natural occurrence in the Arkansas forests like they are in the west.

As an Arkansas timber producer, I have been to many seminars, given by diverse groups, on timber management. I have seen the effects of controlled burn and the effects of the absence of it.

Although I realize this falls in with other controversial causes-celebrite', there are very important reasons that controlled burns are done, and the fact that we don't have wildfires like California is one if the rewards.

Ideal timber population is 18 trees per acre. The only way you're going to find those numbers is to look in someones yard. We have *lots* of trees.

Along with tree density, you get infestation. Encroaching plants start choking out plants that are essential for wildlife forage.

With the infestation of this non-beneficial plant growth, ticks proliferate.

If the controlled burns were not done, the first result would be staving deer populations from non-edible invasive plants. Less wildlife means less "oh wow" factor for 'nature lovers'. Food supply has an immediate and devastating effect on wildlife. Last year we had a "late freeze" which hurt the acorn production very badly. We all saw starved deer over the winter.

Second effect would be that you would not be able to enjoy the forest without being very heavily doused with DEET. That's more than a little bit of a downer on the family vacation.

Third effect is that we now raise toward California's wildfire status.

Following a controlled burn, beneficial plant life starts growing almost immediately. I have done burns and seen new growth in two days. The trees, which is our main goal, now don't have to compete with the over-grown brush, the ash adds a very esential nutrient to the soil. Ticks, which carry a number of afflictions, some that you never get over, are decimated.

A little wood smoke, and some temporarily charred areas are one of the prices you pay so you can have a pristine nature setting tomorrow.

Lastly, if you think it doesn't control wildfires, check the local papers from my county from last summer and take a look at the varied and numerous acres in flames that did not do controlled burn.

A very simple way to illustrate my point would be to tell you to try this *once*...........

Next spring, before your grass starts greening, burn your old grass off.

You won't believe the improvement.

[Stormcrow73]

Originally Posted by RogMar

Next spring, before your grass starts greening, burn your old grass off.

You won't believe the improvement.

Yep, we did this EVERY year on most of our fields that were strictly for hay production. We always got better bale/acre yield on a burned field.

[luvarkansas]

Hayfields are different from forests.

I don't often find myself on the side of environmentalist wackos, but I agree with them on this. California is different from Arkansas. Dry thunderstorms that do not produce rain that reaches the ground are most prevalent in the western United States....not Arkansas. Arkansas also does not have the high winds that California does. Lightning strike wildfires are just not a serious problem in the Ozarks and are not a frequent natural occurrence. This is why they say that the controlled burns are not controlling wildfires.

Add to that the fact that they burn all year long and thus kill young animals (I'm not a big animal lover, but neither do I like to be cruel to animals), and the fact that their "controlled" burns are not very controlled, and you have the reasons for my beef. I've seen some of these "controlled" burns....they are 10 feet high and burning up the sides of the trees, catching some pretty large ones on fire...they get out of "control" and burn up places they are not supposed to, such I mentioned before about Fern Gully and the OHT....these places will not be recovered for years....and not to mention the terrible smoke they produce (some from poison ivy, which can be fatal for people who allergic to breathe). Even people who live in towns are affected by the smoke...I found a page that talked about how the smoke was affecting Fayetteville, causing the streetlights to come on in the middle of the day, etc. (this was in '04) It's not just "a little wood smoke". You literally cannot go outside for days if you live near one of the burns.

Well, anyway, I've had my say and I guess I'll just go away now. At least I found out that there are groups who are trying to stop it. Big government, though....'nuff said.

[luvarkansas]

Originally Posted by RogMar

As an Arkansas timber producer, I have been to many seminars, given by diverse groups, on timber management. I have seen the effects of controlled burn and the effects of the absence of it.

Well, I just had to say something else. The national forests are not being maintained for timber production, they are there for us to be able to get out in the woods and enjoy nature and wilderness...which does just fine left to itself, thank you.

As I said before, I'm not an animal lover, nor an environmentalist wacko, but I just can't see burning up all the baby animals that they certainly kill with these fires....acres and acres and acres of them.

People in Arkansas should do more protesting of this. I just get spittin' mad every time I think about it.