Ashland, Oregon

[Pahn]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

The Redwood Forests survive because the fires burn the undergrowth and leave the big trees alone. But there are no big trees in a "managed" forest, just baby trees. Because tree farmers aren't looking to harvest their trees in 1,000 or 2,000 years. They want trees they can cut down in 30 or 40 years, and those are the trees that have no chance of surviving a forest fire. Which leaves a barren landscape of charred dead trees whit nothing alive as far the eye can see.

Right, but aggressively fighting fires won't change any of that, and will only make it worse. It'll just let fuel build up, unless you've got a plan to clear that fuel some other way. It's not like California, before mankind, went 1000 - 2000 years between fires. Smaller trees had to survive fires to make it to become old trees, and they did that by having smaller, more frequent fires.

Let the fires burn. Maybe get lumber from areas less prone to drought.

[snowave]

Unfortunately, we are past the point of the "let it burn" philosophy. Yes, we screwed up for decades when fire management should have been better, but we just didn't know.

However, with intensifying drought/warmer temps across the west, (along with extensive tree mortality) fires need to be fought aggressively, as they are burning unprecedented amounts of forest and communities. Even fires deep in wilderness areas that have recently been left to burn unchecked are now ripping across entire mountain ranges and getting into populated areas. It sucks, but we have to prioritize, and attempt to put them out whenever possible. Forest thinning projects and low intensity burns in shoulder/off seasons are still a good idea, although they are usually rather small scale, and near at-risk areas.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by snowave

Unfortunately, we are past the point of the "let it burn" philosophy. Yes, we screwed up for decades when fire management should have been better, but we just didn't know.

However, with intensifying drought/warmer temps across the west, (along with extensive tree mortality) fires need to be fought aggressively, as they are burning unprecedented amounts of forest and communities. Even fires deep in wilderness areas that have recently been left to burn unchecked are now ripping across entire mountain ranges and getting into populated areas. It sucks, but we have to prioritize, and attempt to put them out whenever possible. Forest thinning projects and low intensity burns in shoulder/off seasons are still a good idea, although they are usually rather small scale, and near at-risk areas.

Oh, look! There's no money for aggressive firefighting, to say nothing of preventive work like removing dead trees and thinking forests, because the Forest Service, Nat'l Parks Service, and other federal and state agencies that depend on federal support have all had their budgets slashed, so the wealthy can wallow in more tax breaks!

Well, that's the way the cookie crumbles... What a shame.

[ExNooYawk2]

This thread is so old it's starting to grow hair. So where did the OP wind up? After all this time he/she could be in a nursing home.