Fire Acreage in 2013 Question

I’ve been interested in fire acreages since the discussion of the black-backed woodpecker habitat.

I ran across this story this AM. It sounded like the Beaver Creek fire was 85 square miles. That seems pretty big to me. But then at the end of the story they talked about the Pony Complex (229 square miles).

So naturally I got curious about all of the current acreages.Here is a great NIFC site that tells you many things you might want to know. What I thought was interesting was that this year at this date, we seem to have a lot fewer wildfire acres than in past years. I wonder if I am reading this wrong?

Also the Beaver Creek link seems to be broken, I wonder if it got subsumed into another fire?

28 thoughts on “Fire Acreage in 2013 Question”

  1. Sharon, acreage is only one measure of fire. The more importnat and generally overlooked is damage to the landscape. Few if any reports coming fromthe fires or NIFC mention watershed damage, habitat loss, soil damage or economic damage to adjacent communities.

    Reply
    • John, I’ll address your comment at face value…and play devil’s advocate a little.

      Why would you assume there is a more important and overlooked measure of damage resulting from a fire? What about the benefits? After all, many fires are managed for “resource benefit” and the acreages tallied towards “restoration” targets. If you are interested in some more perspective about this and what it means, I’d suggest you reference Bill Imbergamo’s written testimony form the June 25 Senate ENR hearing.

      Don’t get me wrong.one of my favorite “hats” is fire ecologist, but I also understand (and routinely sell) the fact that fire can be good and bad. It’s all a matter of “it depends”. (I can feel Bob and Larry banging on their keyboards already….)

      As far as reporting: mechanically, the NIFC website only presents the information that is filtered up from daily 209 reports and/or WFDSS (wildland fire decision support system -both need an account) Most larger fires being managed by an Incident Managment Team also have their own fire information personnel. Simple point is, only the blandest of information is reported upward (acres, actions planned, number of resources on the fire, etc) for good reason. Qualitative data about bad vs. good effects of a fire are not germaine for factual reporting purposes….the media and pundits seems to have that covered. Like John said below, “Every fire makes a great news story”.

      Reply
  2. Sharon, you are reading the NIFC correctly – the number of wildfires and acres burned to date is lower than the 10-year average. I’ve noticed that too, as one of my staff is currently on a fire assignment in CA so I’ve been checking the NIFC site daily. I know the southeast has been especially wet this year, so I think there has been very little activity in FL or TX, so I wonder if that has contributed to the lower number of fires (perhaps not acres)? Many of the USFS R8 (Southern Region) fire staff have been going on assignments out west, whereas in previous years, it seems they usually went somewhere in the south this time of year. Will be interesting to see where the year end totals fall.

    Reply
    • Thanks, Marek..
      We have had the monsoon pattern here with daily rains.. don’t know how widespread that is. It does make a person curious as to the why.

      Reply
  3. 8/17/13 4:30 pm PDT:
    – “… the Beaver Creek Fire grew … to 144 square miles.”
    – “”This fire is consuming everything,” fire spokeswoman Madonna Lengerich said. “The fire is so hot, it’s just cremating even the biggest trees.””
    – “Fire crews on Saturday faced another challenging day battling a rapidly growing wildfire burning closer to two posh central Idaho resort communities,”
    – “So far, authorities have issued mandatory evacuations for 1,600 residences in the valley, which serves as a vacation getaway for celebrities like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom Hanks.”
    —> So it’s a little early to be making judgements as to damage.
    http://news.yahoo.com/aircraft-used-battle-idaho-fire-smoke-clears-231000602.html

    Reply
  4. I just wish that the BAER burn severity maps were easier to access…and find. They’re great to compare…in a very rough way…burn severity in “fuels treatment” areas or past timber harvest units.

    OK…now…my “radical persona” is getting a kick out of a wildfire forcing the evacuation of another liberal enviro enclave. The county surrounding Sun Valley was one of only two “blue” county’s in Idaho in the 2012 election. They gave Obama 60% of the vote. I gots a feeling they’re gonna be fans of “fuels treatments” soon. The ski Area will most likely be fans of “slurry”…as I’m guessing they might be painting it red soon. That said…I certainly hope no one gets hurt. On Google earth,the forests around Sun Valley look impacted(dead) from beetles.

    Reply
  5. Derek – it is sad and I truly pray and hope that there is no harm to life or personal property. It doubly tough when we realize that it is highly probable that sound forest management would have reduced whatever damage occurs not only to people and their property but to the forest ecosystem. Even clearcuts where appropriate and a resultant highly diverse age distribution of well managed stands would look a lot better than the 144 square mile Beaver Creek clearcut that we had at 4:30pm PDT today. And it is still rolling and roiling as we speak. It is terribly sad that uninformed policy created a mess this big in order to buy the votes of the shortsighted.

    Reply
    • I’m not sure Gil has a very good understanding (from his home in the eastern US) of the type of landscape burning as part of the Beaver Creek fire near Ketchem and Hailey, Idaho.

      Ed described the general landscape and ecosystem burning in the Beaver Creek Fire best in another comment when he called it “marginally productive bring forests.”

      I just uploaded a couple of satellite images showing the general location of the Beaver Fire. As anyone can clearly see, Ed’s description of this landscape being “marginally productive fringe forests” is right on the money.

      http://ncfp.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/hailey.png

      http://ncfp.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/ketchum.png

      For what it’s worth, here’s how the official government InciWeb describes the “Fuels Involved” in the Beaver Fire:

      2 Timber (grass and understory)
      Grass, sagebrush, riparian areas and timber

      Furthermore, let’s compare the actual facts about the landscape burning in the Beaver Creek fire (open grasslands, “marginally productive forests” in one of the wildest, most remote parts in the lower 48 states) with the supposed statements of facts coming from Gil and Derek.

      Gil stated:

      “It doubly tough when we realize that it is highly probable that sound forest management would have reduced whatever damage occurs not only to people and their property but to the forest ecosystem. Even clearcuts where appropriate and a resultant highly diverse age distribution of well managed stands would look a lot better than the 144 square mile Beaver Creek clearcut that we had at 4:30pm PDT today….It is terribly sad that uninformed policy created a mess this big in order to buy the votes of the shortsighted.”

      Yes, Gil, it is terribly sad that uninformed comments on this blog, from yourself and others, create the impression (or is that just a good ‘ol fashion allegation?) that the Beaver Creek fire was caused by a lack of logging (“clearcuts” or “well managed stands”).

      And for Derek to somehow manage to make this fire – burning through a fire-prone ecosystem of grasses, open meadows and forest – about the fact that the county voted 60% for President Obama really takes the cake for crazy…while also being par for the course.

      Reply
      • Matthew, I am confused.. how can the fire be burning in “one of the wildest, most remote parts in the lower 48 states” and threatening communities at the same time?

        Reply
      • Flew over the western part of this fire yesterday on my way home from SLC….Gotta agree with you on this Matt, except for the wildest most remote stuff.

        If it weren’t for the red stripes of retardant here and there, I doubt I’d have been able to tell where the fire perimeter was. Of course that was my (somewhat cramped) view from 30,000 feet or so….which is also probably just the right level for armchair quarterbacking fire management decisions.

        Reply
        • I figured that out a few days ago JZ. I would agree with Matt too…it doesn’t look like there had been any past or present logging in that area…or that there ever could have been. It’s pretty obvious…that besides some RX burns on grasslands…there “wasn’t much” to thin anyway.

          But highlighting the peripheral is only designed to obscure the real issue, and the real issue is “state of mind.” After what these Libs have been through, they will have a “personal evolution” towards logging and fuels treatments just like their “hipster” brethren in Colorado, Santa Fe and Arizona (Santa Fe “thinned” 6,000 acres in their watershed). I doubt they will have much opposition, or fund any opposition, to logging and thinning…..in general. Those who consider themselves “enviros” get pretty pragmatic pretty damn fast when faced with wildfire. And THAT…is what separates this era from 20 years ago. A point I’ve been trying to drive home for a long time.

          It does look like there is a bit of a “bug tree” problem developing on the ski slopes. I wouldn’t be surprised if the ski area calls their local logger to start “thinning” their slopes…just like Vail, Winter Park, Breckenridge, Keystone, Beaver Creek, ect. ect. ect.

          And Guy…I’m sure your comment doesn’t mean you’re bigoted and intolerant towards people of religion…but it is fun to unleash our radical ego once in awhile isn’t it. LOL. Gotta go…”Night Gallery” is coming on.

          Reply
          • “And Guy…I’m sure your comment doesn’t mean you’re bigoted and intolerant towards people of religion…” Derek, I sure hope not! But then, Zeus did tend to unleash those thunderbolts, as I recall the stories. That’s what I get for walking through a minefield. I don’t get the impression that you were especially offended, but I’m sorry if anyone else was! -gk

            Reply
      • Matthew

        I love your character assassination. Have you read Sharons opening post at http://ncfp.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/what-if-we-abstained-from-generalization/#comment-25947
        I am going to attempt to comply with Sharon’s wishes to “abjure generalizations”

        Re your comment: “Yes, Gil, it is terribly sad that uninformed comments on this blog, from yourself and others, create the impression (or is that just a good ‘ol fashion allegation?) that the Beaver Creek fire was caused by a lack of logging (“clearcuts” or “well managed stands”).”
        –> You seem to be going way out of your way to demean others and have since I joined this group. In this case you have made me say things that I didn’t say. Show me where I said “the Beaver Creek fire was caused by a lack of logging”. It was caused by lightning, you know it and I know it so what is your game plan here?
        –> Read what I said again: “it is highly probable that sound forest management would have reduced whatever damage occurs not only to people and their property but to the forest ecosystem”. This is scientific fact and the key words are “highly probable”. That’s what a significant portion of sound forest management is all about, reducing the probability that lightning strikes and beetle attacks will turn into huge catastrophes.

        Now let’s talk about your misinformation when you say “let’s compare the actual facts about the landscape burning in the Beaver Creek fire (open grasslands, “marginally productive forests” in one of the wildest, most remote parts in the lower 48 states)”
        –> There is nothing in the incident report that says marginally productive forests. It clearly says as you quoted elsewhere “2 Timber (grass and understory) Grass, sagebrush, riparian areas and TIMBER” (emphasis added).
        –> Your broad generalization of the whole area as marginal forest suggests that you don’t realize that foresters deal on a site/stand specific basis rather than broad brushing even a single square mile. And the Beaver Creek fire was 163.2 Square Miles (104,457 acres per the incident site at 4:30pmPDT 8/19/13)
        –> The News Photos and Videos, Your links to the aerials, and Larry’s comment at http://ncfp.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/what-if-we-abstained-from-generalization/#comment-25947 stating: “You should have noticed that I posted a picture taken from the top of Bald Mountain (top of Sun Valley Ski Area), showing the kind of forests in the area. Actually, that picture has more forest than the southernmost part of the fire. Much of those forests have thick forests on the north-facing slopes, and grass and sagebrush on the south-facing slopes. Derek said that those forests had severe insect mortality, which is consistent with a lack of salvage logging after the 2007 Castle Rock Fire.” all seem to contradict your broad generalization of “marginally productive forests”. I’m sure that some significant acreage is what you claim but you can’t just ignore the significant acreage that is productive. If you really want to get really specific, I can probably dig up an estimate of the pre fire inventory volumes to be found in this area. But I don’t need to, I just went to Google Earth and zoomed in to about 1”:1000′ and there were lots of good timber stands there and yes there was lots of grasslands. So where is your expertise that allows you to say that this is all marginally productive forest land? Do you even know how to define marginally productive forest land in terms of stocking and growth rates?

        Re your comment: “I’m not sure Gil has a very good understanding (from his home in the eastern US) of the type of landscape burning as part of the Beaver Creek fire near Ketchem and Hailey, Idaho.”
        –> So next time why don’t you ask instead of assuming the worst?
        –> From the photos and videos that I saw, the terrain isn’t any different than what I worked on in the Shasta-Trinity National forest in 1964 when I was fighting fires or marking lines and doing Timber Stand Improvement work between fires. Yes, there appears to be more open grasslands and smaller timber than in North Ca. way back in ’64. I also lived outside of San Fran and worked in San Fran in the mid 70’s and got a fair feeling for the range of timber in and above Yosemite. I went camping in a wilderness area in the Sierra’s at 6,800′ and went driving through high elevation forests so I have a fair feeling for what we are talking about. Plus I have eyes that can look at a small scale 12/31/2010 Google Earth map and see lots of timber. So I am not an expert on the locale but my professional opinion is that you are way out of your league and need to “abjure generalizations” and especially those which aren’t based on facts.

        Reply
        • Gil, there are a couple things I don’t understand about your previous post. Especially the part: “well managed stands would look a lot better than the 144 square mile Beaver Creek clearcut that we had at 4:30pm PDT today….It is terribly sad that uninformed policy created a mess this big in order to buy the votes of the shortsighted.” I understand that in the first section, you are using the term “clearcut” metaphorically, and while a wildfire is certainly different than a clearcut, I think I can understand the point your are trying to make. But the second section I don’t quite get: by “uninformed policy” are you referring to the Sawtooth National Forest plan, or something else? What exactly is the policy you refer to, that created this big mess (the forest fire, I assume)? Do you mean that people were allowed to build homes too close to a potential fire zone? I can see where that would be a policy problem. But you say the policy was created to “buy the votes of the shortsighted”… Could you be more specific, because I’m unsure what you’re talking about. You don’t mean that the policy, whatever it is, is different in the Sun Valley area than elsewhere in Idaho, do you? The only currency that can buy votes in Idaho generally is very conservative, except perhaps in Sun Valley/Ketchum and of course Moscow and Boise, where the major universities are located. If you’re talking about a national policy that was imposed to buy votes, then I’m a little surprised; I was unaware that forest management policy played a major role in any recent elections at the national level. I’m not trying to bust your chops, just wondering if you could put a little meat on your generalizations. Thanks!

          Reply
          • Matthew

            At least I responded with facts while you ignore the consequences of your words like:
            –> “Marginally Productive Forests” applied to all of the forest stands in 163 Square miles when a 1″ to 1000′ scale map concretely shows the opposite. Of course it is entirely meaningless that Larry also reported “Much of those forests have thick forests on the north-facing slopes, and grass and sagebrush on the south-facing slopes” and offered a representative photo. Of course it’s meaningless because you seem to have selective memory loss anytime facts are present that are contrary to your imaginings as to your legendary wisdom. And the fact that the two of us can document that means absolutely nothing to you so you didn’t even bother to ask to see the evidence because you didn’t want to find out that you are wrong. You’re really slick.
            –> And naturally you failed to respond to my questions “So where is your expertise that allows you to say that this is all marginally productive forest land? Do you even know how to define marginally productive forest land in terms of stocking and growth rates?” Silence speaks volumes.
            –> Falsely and unequivocally saying that I said “the Beaver Creek fire was caused by a lack of logging” when all you have to do is see my post. Gee, I wonder why you didn’t respond to that either.
            –> I am sure that you are a man of great integrity, but, I sure would like to see an example of it every once in a while.

            BTW: Since you seem to be good at defining things for others to follow, please define “character assassination” for us so that we can know right from wrong. OOps, you don’t have to define it, Merriam-Webster already has. It says: “the slandering of a person usually with the intention of destroying public confidence in that person”. Everything that comes out of your mouth when you have no facts to back you up is “character assassination”
            And if you disagree with that then just go and suck your thumb or stomp your feet and throw another verbal tantrum. Whatever turns you on.

            Glad to see that you are your old self sticking to generalities like “… it is terribly sad that uninformed comments on this blog, from yourself and others …” I didn’t think that Sharon’s admonition would make much of an impression on you and you have proven me right there also.

            Reply
            • Gil, based on the Merrian-Webster definition you provided I hardly engaged in anything close to a “character assassination” in this comment thread, so please drop it and instead deal with the consequences of your words. And if you disagree with that, Gil, then just go and suck your thumb or stomp your feet and throw another verbal tantrum. Whatever turns you on. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right Gil? I mean, you seems to be doing your own share of thumb sucking, foot stomping and verbal tantruming, eh? But, if you truly believe I have wronged you here in this specific comment section to the point of a “character assassination” or “slander” then please file a civil lawsuit against me. I’ve pasted below a legal definition of “slander” to help you.

              Back to the issue at hand, which seemed to be the Beaver Creek fire and what type of landscape it was burning in. Seems as if JZ, Derek and others agree with the characterization that the ecosystem burning west of Ketchum/Hailey can be described as “marginally productive forests.” And remember, it was Ed who described the landscape that way, with those specific words, in a previous comment and I simply stated that I believed he hit the nail on the head with characterizing the forest in that way, especially when compared with some of the concepts/ideas you’ve tossed out there about this ecosystem in Idaho.

              And, yes, Gil, I understand that on the north-facing slopes there can be found some thick forests. I’ve lived, hiked, hunted, etc in the northern Rockies for almost 20 years so I have a decent understanding of what our landscape looks like. As such, I also understand that this landscape in this part of the world includes patches like that and plenty of grass, sagebrush, open meadows and generally sparsely treed.

              The only reason I even chose to comment on this particular blog post was because I felt that comments from yourself and Derek about the landscape burning in the Beaver Creek fire weren’t very accurate. I still feel that way. Thanks.

              P.S. Slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one’s occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications

              Reply
              • Matthew

                So Mirriam-Webster isn’t good enough for you. Your reply seems to suggest that you are prone to push things to lawsuits instead of complying with the intent of not demeaning (to lower in character, status, or reputation) anyone.

                I will not file a civil lawsuit against you because I don’t have any experience in filing lawsuits of any kind. I’d be a sitting duck for someone with your experience in the arena of filing lawsuits.

                Reply
                • No, Gil, my reply suggests that if you think I engaged in anything close to a “character assassination” or “Slander” (which is illegal) you should file a civil lawsuit against me and see how far that gets you. There isn’t one attorney in the country who would look at this comment thread and conclude that I’ve engaged in “slander.”

                  As far as not being “demeaning to anyone” your suggestion above that I “just go and suck your thumb or stomp your feet and throw another verbal tantrum. Whatever turns you on” seems to fit the bill.

                  I have better stuff to do than to continue on this track with you Gil. Thanks.

                  Reply
          • Guy

            Re: “you are using the term “clearcut” metaphorically”
            –> Agreed

            Re: ““buy the votes of the shortsighted”… Could you be more specific”

            –> From the first cries to save the NSO, environmentalist pressure to end harvesting on public lands built to the point where sound forest management has been seriously curtailed on USFS lands. As you can see here http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/documents/sold-harvest/documents/1905-2012_Natl_Summary_Graph.pdf The harvest levels have been reduced significantly since 1990.
            Why is that important? Look at the two graphs in the opening post and my first comment at this link https://ncfp.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/fighting-back-fire-from-the-denver-post/

            –> The daddy of the NSO now says “For spotted owls “we kind of put the blinders on and tried to only manage habitat, hoping things wouldn’t get worse” See http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Spotted-Owls-New-Nemesis.html – There is lots of additional documentation showing why this is a case of scientists trying to stop evolution and in fact working counter to coping with global warming. Also see Bob’s post here https://ncfp.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/fighting-back-fire-from-the-denver-post/

            –> So the shortsighted are those environmentalists whose voting power brought harvesting nearly to a halt based on faulty science (more links if you need them and in other posts here at NCFP). As a result of a significant drop in commercial harvests there are significantly less dollars to pay for the necessary treatments that provide the heterogeneity necessary to minimize the total acres burned as shown in the graphs and likewise to minimize the acreage lost to beetles. See http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=2877778&type=member&item=245884599&qid=76a7e085-2abc-442d-a01e-b507f2aac998&trk=group_items_see_more-0-b-ttl for insight on how the probability and extent of Spruce Beetle damage to Colorado could have been reduced.

            –> Can I unequivocally say that the 163 square miles in the Beaver Creek Fire as of 4pm PDT 8/19/13 could have been reduced to 10 square miles or a 100 square miles if we were cutting at a sustained level that produced a diversity of age classes spread throughout the forest? No, I can not. No one can, not even the local experts. What I can say as supported by the two graphs is that the total acres burned per year would be significantly less on the entire USFS acreage and based on past practices and success the same applies to the extent of Beetle damage. Where appropriate, clearcuts help to bring crown fires to the ground and thinning helps to keep the fires from crowning. Thinning also improves the stand vigor by reducing competition between trees for sunlight and soil moisture and nutrients. When all of that is combined with monitoring beetle spots and taking steps proven to be successful to contain the spots, catastrophic beetle outbreaks are significantly reduced which in turn minimizes the odds for a catastrophic fire following on the heels of a catastrophic beetle outbreak. Global warming only increases the need for sound forest management in order to keep forest vigor high to cope with the increased stress that makes forests increasingly susceptible to beetles.

            Let me know if you need more documentation or clarification.

            Reply
            • Gil, thanks for the reference you included in your reply “…From the first cries to save the NSO, environmentalist pressure to end harvesting on public lands built to the point where sound forest management has been seriously curtailed on USFS lands. As you can see here http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/documents/sold-harvest/documents/1905-2012_Natl_Summary_Graph.pdf The harvest levels have been reduced significantly since 1990.” But, I think you’re substituting correlation for causation. Note that sales and harvest actually went up slightly from 2001 to 2010, but it would of course be equally unsubstantiated to attribute that increase to NSO… the conclusions should come from the facts, not vice versa. Of course, if you look at a bigger picture (the long-term graph of timber sales and harvest shown in the link you provided), there has been an overall trend of reduction in both sales and harvest since about the mid-70’s, perhaps related to NFMA (1976) and the concurrent public outcry over decades of forest mismanagement and excessive clearcutting. It also correlates to a timeframe when, as the General Accounting Office reported in 2003, “Historically, the Forest Service has not been able to provide Congress or the public with a clear understanding of what the Forest Service’s 30,000 employees accomplish with the approximately $5 billion the agency receives each year. Since 1990, the GAO has reported seven times on performance accountability weaknesses at the Forest Service.” (Government Accountability Office, “Forest Service: Little Progress on Performance Accountability Likely Unless Management Addresses Key Challenges,” GAO-03-503, May 2003). Lots of things going on, and hard to untangle all the threads, but the “just trust us, we’re professional foresters” approach has not resonated well, for many reasons, with the public that owns our national forests. Until organizations like the USFS and SAF (a society which I first joined in 1978, and only recently rejoined) manage to be less thin-skinned and move away from a continually defensive posture, the debate over appropriate forest planning is unlikely to be as productive as it could be. -Guy

              Reply
              • Guy

                Re: “But, I think you’re substituting correlation for causation. Note that sales and harvest actually went up slightly from 2001 to 2010, but it would of course be equally unsubstantiated to attribute that increase to NSO… the conclusions should come from the facts, not vice versa”
                –> You are free to think whatever you want. You are even free to ignore the facts. The science of forestry tells us that the downtrend in total acres burned is the result of decreased harvests, but then you would have known that already if you’d paid attention to the cause and effect relationships that I explained in my reply to you above.
                –> The increase in harvest from 2001 to 2010 doesn’t even register on the scale of significance in terms of the change in volume harvested compared to the decreases after 1990/93. 2001 to 2010 could be anything and its changes in volume harvested isn’t significant enough to waste any time on trying to figure it out.

                Re: “Of course, if you look at a bigger picture (the long-term graph of timber sales and harvest shown in the link you provided), there has been an overall trend of reduction in both sales and harvest since about the mid-70’s”
                –> Sure you can say that, but you’d be ignoring the causal effects. Looking at the graph, I see normal fluctuations in harvest levels post WWII through to 1990/93. Post WWII the infrastructure in the forest products industry had to be built to handle the growing demand so harvest volume could only climb a little at a time. Then around ’80 through 83 demand in the whole forest industry went bust but infrastructure was maintained to a fair degree by retaining key employees and producing minimal volumes. If the mills would not buy it then the timber harvest had to be reduced. Then, post ’90 Federal policy intervened and harvest levels began their step fall off of the cliff. So, does that help you to understand the causal effects?

                Re: The ““just trust us, we’re professional foresters” approach has not resonated well, for many reasons, with the public that owns our national forests”
                –> You are correct and now you have increasingly large acreages of fire and beetle kill to show for it. Check the total fire acres graph. It looks like a pretty hollow victory to me.
                –> Isn’t it sad that that ever so wise public abandoned continuously improving forestry practices based on the latest established science. Instead they followed a proclaimed science that turned out to never have been science after all as attested to by the results, by current science and by the daddy of the NSO himself (“We just put the blinders on”).

                Reply
  6. Conditions are still rather dry, here in California. We are ripe for a lightning bust, and the big wildfires that go with them. Currently, we have dry lightning and a red flag warning for today, with several larger fires burning, already. We are in the peak month of wildfires and I expect we’ll add acreage to the National totals. Back in 1987, the “North Zone” of California had thousands of lightning strikes and hundreds of lightning fires during a three day period. Our Ranger District, alone, had 43 fires in those three days, with the largest one being 28,000 acres. North Zone didn’t want to hear from you unless your fire was over 10,000 acres. Fires burned for weeks and weeks, with fire fighters getting sick from the smokey inversion layers, day after day after day.

    We still have until mid-November before the SoCal fire season is over with, too!

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Sharon Cancel reply