Any Wildland Fire Fighters Out There ?

[OLDNEWBIE]

Along with most the green trees. Since organized fire suppression started in Oregon it has left 110 years of fuel build up. Once it catches it burns everything that would normally survive in a forest that has been allowed to self clean every 5 years or so.
The fires that burn now are predominantly "stand replacement" . So in a since you would be right but eventually your view would be vast burn scars choked up with non-native weeds and fire adapted brush that grows much faster and steals water and nutrients from any tree that tries to grow back





A lot of people don't know what they are talking about. It is under/no management of unburned fuel that allows massive fires
Since people have been suppressing fire Mother Nature can't do her job. People have done a poor job at forest clean up......especially since the environmentalists have all but shut down logging on Federal lands in Oregon
Forests in the Pacific Northwest need to burn, are designed to burn.
Either we cut , pile and burn on our terms or Mother Nature does it on hers.

By over management I meant enviro types curtailing logging and not letting some fires run there course.
You hear talk of how the Native Americans never put out fires and there was no lack of trees when Lewis and Clark came along.
Of course things are different now with population and the timber industry and all.

A little confused. People who say let more of it burn are full of it or partly right?

 

[BoonDocks36]

The current plan for forests is SNAFU & FUBAR.

If we cut, to the Limit of legal logging dictates In Place CURRENTLY, we would Improve our FORESTS, and make the More Fire Proof.

But whacko greenies care more for a Tree, than a Loggers Life, or His Family. I know to many loggers. They need work, slash the cull trees, leave the biggest to grow more!!!

Has worked for a century.

philip

 

[oli700]

A little confused. People who say let more of it burn are full of it or partly right?

Well it depends on their agenda . There are a few reasons that are acceptable in my eyes. Firefighter safety being #1.

It is ultimately the right answer but it's a day late

Back when fire suppression started here it was spurred on by the burns of 1910.
A few towns burned , a few people died but as bad as it sounds fire suppression was organized to save or main natural resource, merchantable timber.
Back then life was hard here, people had to spend a lot of there existence trying to live......there fore only a few hard folks populated the woods .

Fast forward to now. All the amenities in life that we all take for granted , the easiness of life in the woods had led to the population of the wild places.
We now have two big issues. Our most abundant , valuable resource it choked up in a dog hair thick tender box and there are people living in it which adds to the already dangerous and complicated task of fire suppression.......plus ignorant people who should not be allowed to live in the woods starting more and more fires as the Wildland urban interface grows and grows.
Now we gave to worry about evacuations, structure protection and the hazards that brings to firefighters.....electricity, septic tanks, propane tanks, hazardous material smoke and so on

These are a couple reasons that letting it burn is not a solid answer....it does have validity in a limited few places.....very limited , even time of year and drought conditions

And that's just on the west side of the Cascades .....there are a slew of good reasons on the East side.....grazing and cattle production industry is a good one.