Medicine Bow Mountains: A logging nightmare? (Cheyenne, Casper: hotel, houses, neighborhoods)

[lovethewest]

The stunningly beautiful Medicine Bow Mountains or Snowy Range of southeastern Wyoming are some of the most dramatic and unique in all the state. However, it saddens and sickens me when I come across a huge patch of deforested land. If you look at the range on Google Earth or something similar you will notice the National 'Forest' is merely a patchwork of forested areas. In fact, I read somewhere that The Snowies are some of the most forested mountains in all of the Rockies. Does anyone know if there has been any limitations on logging or if it is restricted maybe? Or are they still hauling the beautiful trees down by the truck load. I personally think the entire range should become Medicine Bow National Park (no joke). Any thoughts?

[sunsprit]

the trees are a renewable resource.

with the poor health of the regional forests due to the extended drought, the logging is of great benefit to preserving the forests.

having just flown (and driven) over many of the forested areas from Cheyenne to South of Colorado Springs, over all the Colorado River drainage, and West past Vernal and on to Salt Lake City ... the amount of standing dead forests is frightening.

I flew back from SLC awhile back, and saw a lightning started fire about 30 miles south of my route down in the Vernal area. The access to the fire was almost impossible for firecrews, and they didn't have an airtanker available to help out. That fire burned a lot of ground.

We're seeing the same problems in Idaho right now with current fires in the National Forests/Parks, too.

This summer, driving past some of the National forests in Colorado by State Bridge and Kremmeling, my wife commented that when a fire got started in those completely dead stands of trees, the fires would be of "biblical proportions". There's no way that we'll be able to keep them under control, and they'll create their own turbulence and windstorms which will feed the fire all the more.

I have friends with land in Utah that got engulfed with the infernos this summer, too. Lost 95% of their cattle, buildings that had been on the property since the 1800's, all their equipment ... everything. They were out in the pastures trying to create firelines with their tractors, and could see the fires approaching them. When they started to leave because the fires were getting close, they tried driving out at 45-60 mph on their dirt roads ... and couldn't outrun the fire's path. They abandoned their vehicles to the fire and waded into the riverbed to avoid dying in the flames, themselves.

Another example of recent history in regional forest fire management .... I have a friend with a ranch down by Pecos, NM. It was almost totally wiped out in a matter of hours in the Viveash fire a few years ago. While most of his tree'd lands were healthy, the fire was so intense that it burned out over 3 million board feet of timber (and his house and outbuildings and equipment) in a matter of hours. About 75% of his 3000 acres was burned out in the firestorm in that short time. The area was devastated by the fire, which was impossible to put out for many days ... it was put out when it essentially burned out.

I believe that folks from other portions of the USA, where the forests are healthy, the types of trees are quite different, and there's adequate moisture for the ecosystem ... simply don't have a clue as to the volatile nature of the trees and the delicate balance between healthy forests and standing firewood that we have here in the West.

I don't read about big forest fires in the Eastern USA, for example. But in the arid high alititude West, it's a whole different story. One simply cannot apply the same standards of care and concern to these very different lands.

The fallacy of "leave it be ... it's natural forest" thinking is that leaving it alone is better for the health of the forest. It's not. Either we cut it for beneficial use and safety in a controlled manner or mother nature will clear it for us at great risk to health and safety of all the forest users ... wildlife, watershed, environmental benefits, infrastructure, human use/enjoyment.

A final note ... most of these western forests were planted for conservation efforts and to produce multiple benefits for the regional ecology, watershed, and wildlife, as well. The time has come to harvest what we can and propagate new stands of timber to continue those benefits.

[lovethewest]

Wow those are some really intense stories! Thanks for sharing.

As for the logging thing, I agree with you that dead forests should be taken out. I have a friend that has been building a house in the Sierre Madre Mountains near Encampment, WY for 10 years, and the entire mountainside behind them is dead because of the pine beetle. They have to go through a whole set of regulations to make sure their house will survive. Thankfully it's surrounded by aspens which don't burn as easily. However, I think the logging of living trees should at least be limited especially in the Snowies.

[MRVphotog]

20 years ago clear cutting(cutting down everything in sight) was the dominate mentality of logging. As you can imagine it caused many problems regarding erosion and wildlife. Luckily, the USFS saw the light and logging is a more selective process now which works well. It clears out the dead(both standing and deadfall) which reduces fire danger while leaving the live ones to grow, hold soil and continue to provide shelter for wildlife.

I lived thru the Yellowstone fires of 1988, an event that showed that the NP's policy of putting down fires was badly flawed and has gone back to a let it burn policy except when structures are in danger. Mother nature has her own way of cleaning up the deadfall unfortunately many places do not have that luxury. Fires near populated areas like in CA, CO and UT are dangerous only cause folks built homes in or near the forest...it has been an accident waiting to happen for years.

The Snowies are incredible....A yearly trip to Deep Lake was awesome.

[imbobbbb]

well there are big differences between national forests and national parks.national forests are managed by the us dept of 'agriculture',they were originaly established to be government supervised and regulated tree farms which is why the forest service manages them not the park service.there isnt an acre of praire,forest or desert in this country that someone doesnt feel is too special to be logged/mined/grazed.of course there are people on the other side who dont think anyplace is too special,you have to try to achieve a balance and whatever you do one group will be unhappy.

[wyolady]

I camp, ride ATV's and snowmobile in the snowies at least 12-14 times a year - all over in different places, some quite remote - and I've never seen any forest areas that appear to have been damaged or worse off by logging. I have seen small sections of 1-2 acres that have been logged and the seedling trees coming up are healthy and beautiful. I've also seen evidence left by the forest service and loggers of cleaning up diseased and dead trees/branches that are down and I know this makes the forest healthier.

I also saw the incredible damage done on the Saratoga side of the snowies by the pine beetle - it is really sad.

I know, I know - someone will probably post that I can't be sympathetic to the forest if I ATV there. I stay on designated paths, leave little footprints, etc. so please don't go there.....

[MRVphotog]

Originally Posted by imbobbbb

well there are big differences between national forests and national parks.national forests are managed by the us dept of 'agriculture',they were originaly established to be government supervised and regulated tree farms which is why the forest service manages them not the park service.there isnt an acre of praire,forest or desert in this country that someone doesnt feel is too special to be logged/mined/grazed.of course there are people on the other side who dont think anyplace is too special,you have to try to achieve a balance and whatever you do one group will be unhappy.

Yous absolutely right....the NPS mission is preservation while the USFS mission is multiple use. Logging is a big part of the USFS's management as well as recreation, hunting and a few others.

Since fires know no boundaries there are similarities in how each agency deals with them. When I lives in JH we used to refer to GT and Jellystone as flypaper.....keeps all the tourists in one place leaving the national forests that surround the parks a great place to get away from the crowds.

Achieving a balance is where all the controversies are. For about 6 years I was a photog for the Casper Star-Tribune which is basically the state paper and once in awhile I would have to go up in a little plane to photograph things like floods, forest fires etc. I could always tells where the boundaries were cause the massive clear cuts were very obvious from the air and they stopped at the NP boundaries from the NF's.

Clear cutting was just bad forest management although the loggers didn't mind cause it was much easier and they made more money. The whole mentality has changed since then and the loggers have adjusted.

The idea of "sustainable resource" is great but in the west where the trees grow very slowing the entire ecosystem can be destroyed waiting for the trees to grow back that's why the policy changed.

The idea of making the snowies into a national park is a bad idea but would take a new thread to discuss the pros and cons of doing such a thing. Just one reason is that the snowies would be so overrun by people that it would disaffect the very reasons it was suggested by the original poster.

When I was going the UW in the early 70's you saw alot of bumper stickers " fish in Wyoming, live in Wyoming...fish in Colorado, fish in Colorado".

[jazzlover]

Different forest ecosystems require different management. There is no "one size fits all" formula. Most of the Snowies are lodgepole forest. Lodgepoles tend to grow in even-aged stands (those "dog-hair" forests), are prone to pine beetle, and reseed by burning. Thus the cycle of grow, get sick, burn, and reseed is the life-cycle of many lodgepole stands. The stupid part is when man builds structures, etc. in that kind of environment. Sooner or later, a lodgepole forest is going to burn--and the cycle seems to run in about 100-400 year intervals. As I have posted elsewhere, a forester friend of mine said, "There are only two kinds of lodgepole forests; those that are going to burn and those that are burning." In many areas, from central Colorado north into Canada, lodgepole is the climax tree species on many sites.

Now, a lot of clearcutting occurred in the Rockies in spruce-fir forests (those were the desirable trees for lumber; for years, lodgepole was thought of as a "junk" tree). The problem with clearcutting in spruce-fir is that the trees may take centuries to re-colonize cut areas, or a sub-climax species (often lodgepole or aspen) will colonize the site. In the case of aspen, spruce-fir will usually eventually grow in the aspen groves--in time choking out the aspen. Spruce-fir can do the same thing where lodgepole has replaced it after cutting of the original spruce-fir forest--IF the lodgepole does not burn first and start the cycle all over again.

Cutting of dead or dying trees in a lodgepole stand can actually be beneficial. It opens up the forest canopy, so sun-loving plants--such as grasses, forbs, and (in some areas) aspen can colonize the site. It also gives the remaining lodgepole better access to nutirents--which makes the trees healthier and more able to fend off beetles. The problem is, of course, that logging has its own impacts (roads, noise, etc.) that must be considered. Also, there is limited demand for lodgepole logs.

As another poster noted, some areas in the Rockies are so full of diseased trees that only a major fire--a la Yellowstone '88--will cleanse the forest. Anything in the way of one of those is likely to get roasted.

Part of living in the Rockies is accepting that nature can change the landscape very quickly. Many residents (many of them the transplanted "newbies") just can't get their arms around that. Throw in human activities, and the environment becomes even more dynamic. Personally, I am much more concerned (and, at times, despondent) over what humans have done to the Rocky Mountain West's environment in the last few decades compared to what nature has done, most of the human damage being done--not for productive purposes (logging, mining, ranching, etc.), but rather for the purely consumptive purposes of recreation, second homes, trophy houses, etc. Few want to admit to the adverse impacts of those activities have upon the mountain environment in the Rockies.

[ElkHunter]

The thing that bothers me about clear cutting is that there are three reasons for clear cutting.

1) Disease or beetles.

2) Logging company's want to clear cut and will argue that it will free up the forest for new growth.

3) The forestry service has not had the resources to keep up with under growth and it gets ahead of them so they have no choice but to Clear Cut.

I grew up in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The forestry service down there has campained for more help and the state has given it to them to some degree. As such, they've been able to keep ahead of the undergrowth and they've kept it clean so that fires don't travel well. The Black Hills has few fires and then only in really remote canyons that are very difficult to access. But they don't have the territory that we do.

In Wyoming, the vast mountain ranges and the sheer number of square miles prohibits getting the number of people to maintain it properly. That means clear cutting to clean up areas. As long as we're going to clear cut, we just as well sell it. That means we're going to bring in logging company's to do the job. They don't get it all, but they get enough that our men and women can clean up the rest.

Then the eco system starts all over again. I wish it could just continue instead of having to start all over.

[MRVphotog]

Man, I should edit my posts better. Sorry. I assume you know the bumper sticker I was referring to was "live in Wyoming, fish is Wyoming. Live in Colorada, fish in Colorado", not what I wrote.

Greats points in the previous posts. The drought is really starting to change the playing field. Clear cutting is still a management tool.

When the NPS finally woke up and realized that the fires in 1988 was a serious problem and not just another area specific fire started by mother nature and will be put out by mother nature it was too late.

Imagine the horror from people all over the world when they started hearing the news and then seeing the pictures of tractors mowing down trees in a desparate attempt to make a firewall to stop the advance. Unfortunatly, they and the 55,000 firefighters lost the war but won many many battles. The most famous is the saving of Old Faithful Hotel. Today, the natural recovery in YSP is nothing short of amazing and did make it a better forest for the future.

Mother nature knows how to maintain her lands but when it involves stuctures, neighborhoods, people's lives, other factors have to be considered, not jus the biological ones. It's kind of a bummer but that's the way things are.