Heading off fires in west-side forests by ‘thinning’ every decade is a ‘fool’s exercise’ says Dr. Jerry Franklin

When most reporters cover wildfire and forest issues they seem to present an entirely false narrative (feed by the timber industry and pro-timber industry politicians, ad nauseam) that all forests in the U.S. are unnaturally over-crowded and dense and all forests used to burn frequently, but at a very low severity.

While that narrative might (generally) be true of a certain (but small) percentage of forests in the western U.S. (for example, such frequent fire, but low burn severity forests, make up only about 5% of the entire forested landscape in Montana and northern Idaho), the vast majority of forest ecosystem in the western U.S. have a much more complicated and mixed fire history. This includes huge forest ecosystems that were born of, and are maintained by, mixed- to high-severity fire regimes.

That’s why this piece in the Seattle Times by Hal Bernton is so important, and refreshing.

The article highlights a new study from a research team that included scientists from the University of Washington, Washington state Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Forest Service scientists. Better yet, the reporter got out into the forest with some of the leading forest and fire ecologists around.

One interesting tidbit of information in this article was the fact that early in Dr. Jerry Franklin’s career, he also dove into wildland fire issues. In fact, Dr. Franklin co-authored a 1982 study of Mount Rainier National Park, uncovered evidence of huge conflagrations 900 years ago that affected nearly 50 percent of the forested areas.

Apparently, if you believe Trump’s Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke that wildfires are caused by “environmental terrorist groups,” that huge conflagration that burned nearly 50% of the forested areas around present-day Mount Rainier National Park in approximately is 1118 A.D. is a real eye-opener, proving that “environmental terrorist groups” have been living in our midst for almost 1000 years now. Tune in to Fox News, The Daily Caller and Breitbart “News” for more breaking coverage exposing this 1118 A.D. “environmental terrorist” sect. In the meantime, here’s some snips from Bernton’s latest article:

On a remote ridge, the hemlock, silver and noble firs stood for several centuries, nurtured by deep winter snow and drenching rains. Then last year, amid the searing August temperatures, the Norse Peak fire on the east side of the Cascades pushed over the range’s crest and engulfed this stand, killing most of these trees.

Now the charred trunks rise like ghostly sentinels in a forest littered with charcoal, which still gives off whiffs of the smoke that billowed from the 55,909-acre blaze. This austere burn zone is a typical aftermath to intense fires that, over the course of centuries, periodically feast upon the huge amounts of wood that grow in the west-side forests of our region.

The fire ecology of such forests, and how it may evolve amid climate change, is of increasing importance as wild-land smoke emerges as a regional concern. The polluted air that hung this summer over a vast stretch of the West Coast — from San Francisco to Vancouver, B.C. — has generated a fresh wave of support for more logging and cool-season burns to thin the forests and reduce the potential fuel.

These tactics are standard practice east of the Cascades. But in a peer-reviewed paper published this year, a research team of University of Washington, state Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Forest Service scientists caution that such tactics won’t do much to tame or head off west-side fires, which are forecast to happen more often — and burn more acreage — as climate change spurred by the combustion of fossil fuels reduces winter snowpack and increases summer temperatures.

But wetter forests, such as the stand torched in the Norse Peak blaze, have a very different relationship with fire. They burn infrequently but the toll on the trees often is severe. Trying to head off these fires would require thinning these public lands every decade or so, and that would change the natural character of these lands in what Franklin calls a “fool’s exercise.”

There also are benefits to these west-side fires, which Franklin says can act as powerful sources of forest renewal.

31 thoughts on “Heading off fires in west-side forests by ‘thinning’ every decade is a ‘fool’s exercise’ says Dr. Jerry Franklin”

  1. I don’t think that Americans are going to be welcoming such intense wildfires, and a return to when humans ran away from wildfires. Modern society won’t stand for ‘free-range’ wildfires, as some preservationists desire in their “Whatever Happens” program.

    Reply
    • I don’t think that Americans are going to be welcoming such intense hurricanes, and a return to when humans ran away from hurricanes. Modern society won’t stand for “free-range” hurricanes, as some climate change denier’s desire in their “Energy Dominance” program.

      Reply
      • But, yes, we CAN do something about wildfire size and intensity, in a relatively short period of time. Fixing climate change and warming might be just a bit problematic if the sun is going through a period of higher output *smirk*. Pretending that all the variables in today’s forests are “within the natural range of variation” is not advised.

        BTW, hurricanes have been surprisingly slow the last handful of years, especially in numbers of US landfalls.

        Reply
  2. Matthew, thanks for posting this as its own thread. I have the same comment as before..
    With all due respect to Jerry and the other forest scientists..

    “By late in the 21st century, some climate models indicate that the amount of west-side forests that will burn in an average year will be more than double that of the last half of the 20th century. And, in any one particular patch of forest, fire is expected to make more rapid returns than in past centuries.”

    How could you predict acres burned without considering ignition sources and fire suppression?

    IMHO It’s kind of like talking about flooding on rivers without considering dams and levees.

    Reply
      • Matthew, . My observation was on the statement that “some climate models indicate that the amount of west-side forests that will burn in an average year will be more than double that of the last half of the 20th century.” Neither Franklin nor Harvey are climate modellers, they are ecologists. So it seems that I would not be disagreeing with them, but the people who developed models for fires that did not seem to include suppression in considerations of acreage burned. My point would be directed at them (or someone who misinterpreted what they said or …)

        But even given that, if you disagree with Zinke, no one suggests that you email him with your concerns. I’m not sure where you’re going with the contact info.???

        Reply
    • Maybe doubling of wildfire activity is not such a big deal. In the same way that doubling the rate of a rare disease need not be a huge concern to all humans. Even if stand replacing fire becomes twice as frequent, it will still be a rare event. There will still be plenty of places that are safe from the flames. There will still be time for old growth to develop in many places that do not burn. Consider for instance …

      … we attempt to remove some of the confusion surrounding this subject by performing a sensitivity analysis wherein long-term, landscape-wide carbon stocks are simulated under a wide range of treatment efficacy, treatment lifespan, fire impacts, forest recovery rates, forest decay rates, and the longevity of wood products. Our results indicate a surprising insensitivity of long-term carbon stocks to both management and biological variables. After 80 years, … a 1600% change in either treatment application rate or efficacy in arresting fire spread resulted in only a 10% change in total system carbon. This insensitivity of long-term carbon stocks is due in part by the infrequency of treatment/wildfire interaction and in part by the controls imposed by maximum forest biomass. None of the fuel treatment simulation scenarios resulted in increased system carbon.

      Campbell, J, Agar, A (2013) Forest wildfire, fuel reduction treatments, and landscape carbon stocks: A sensitivity analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 121 (2013) 124-132 http://fes.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/fes.forestry.oregonstate.edu/files/PDFs/Campbell_2013_JEM.pdf

      Reply
  3. Wow! Major New Discovery! EVERYTHING IN FORESTRY IS SITE SPECIFIC! Where have I heard that before? Oh yea, I learned that in college over 50 years ago.

    Reply
    • That’s cool Gil, but sort of funny as I don’t recall you talking very much about the site-specific nature of these types of forest ecosystems that were born of, and are maintained by, mixed- to high-severity fire regimes, which burn infrequently.

      Reply
      • Matthew

        Apparently you shouldn’t rely on your memory. Try a search on “site specific”, maybe that will help you to remember to get your facts right b4 you run off at the mouth.

        As to ‘these types of ecosystems’ why limit to a particular forest ecosystem when “EVERYTHING IN FORESTRY IS SITE SPECIFIC!”??? Don’t be myopic.

        Ever hear of spruce pine (no not spruce & pine)?
        Ever hear of longleaf pine?
        Ever take a college level course on U.S. forest ecosystems?

        Reply
  4. Using the term “forest renewal” to describe a watershed of dead fire killed old growth is like calling a wildfire that destroys hundreds of homes a “home renewal” event.

    Reply
  5. Is it possible to ban or at least limit the comments of Mr. Koehler? His insults, pettiness and just plain mean spiritedness often drags the conversation on this blog into the gutter. It’s rare that I see an exchange with him on the blog that doesn’t quickly deteriorate into name calling. In the thread, he is particularly unprofessional in his exchanges. Sad!

    Reply
    • Thanks, Bob. I agree that Matthew, as well as others here, can definitely be irascible from time to time. It used to bother me (why can’t we all get along?) but then I figured perhaps its just a mode of expression that many just see as par for the course. This particular thread barely registered for me on the “name-calling” scale.

      Our irascible regulars know a great deal and contribute much to the blog, and I think most other regulars have gotten to the point where we can overlook or read past it. Matthew’s contributions are particularly valuable because he represents views we would otherwise not hear, and so adds immeasurably to our thought diversity.

      On the other hand, if anyone here is rude to you, you are fully entitled to ask them to cut it out.

      Reply
    • Matt always seems to always be ‘grouchy’, this time of year. It’s getting close to hunting season and it renews him (and makes him a little more polite). It is also obvious that he is getting fearful and frustrated at what is progressing, politics-wise. It is the proverbial pendulum, swinging wildly away from preservationism.

      From my point of view, a science-based concept of active forest management is gaining traction but, Congress (and Trump) want to dictate the terms of such management. I would not be surprised to see more ‘renegades’ to the Administration, hiding in the Forest Service, resisting ignorant calls for more clearcuts and board feet, to “prevent wildfires”.

      I can verify what he is saying about Montana forests. Truly, there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ management scheme, in forests there. Matt isn’t some far-off city-slicker, firing off salvos from his urban tower of righteousness. He’s a human who loves the outdoors, and he’s worried about this Administration. (I am too!)

      Reply
    • Howdy Bob Barker. Interesting comment on this thread. Maybe you haven’t read most blog posts or comments on this blog. There have been disagreements here for the past 10 years. Lots of information exchanged as well. I reviewed the thread above and I’m failing to see where I call anyone a name. I often respond “in kind” and that’s a weakness, I admit. I can be ‘grouchy’….especially to those who have been ‘grouchy’ to me. I will try and do better. However, your anonymous comment asking for me to be banned from a blog I’ve contributed to, and moderated, for the past 8 years or so won’t go un-noticed. At least not by me. Cheers.

      Reply
      • Matthew

        1) So now your are threatening Bob with your power as a moderator? You tried that on me shortly after I joined. How did your efforts at intimidation work out? I couldn’t get anything posted for a month after I stood up to you a couple of times. Amazingly, all my problems went away when Sharon gave me permission to approve and edit my own posts/comments.
        –> RE-READ your comment: “your anonymous comment asking for me to be banned from a blog I’ve contributed to, and moderated, for the past 8 years or so won’t go un-noticed. At least not by me.”

        2) I’ve known several Bob Barkers – Why do you assume that Bob Barker isn’t his real name and accuse him of making an anonymous post?

        3) Why is it ok for people that you like to use a pseudonym (i.e. Tree123, 2nd… and others) but not for anyone who takes a stand against you? You are being logically inconsistent. You have even chastised others who objected to the use of a pseudonym. You know Sharon will stand with anyone who responsibly posts/comments anonymously.

        Reply
        • Howdy Gil. I’m not “threatening” anyone. So let’s get that clear. Also, I’ve been a moderator on this blog for about 8 years and have personally approved thousands of comments on this blog. I’ve never not approved any comment anyone has ever written, even if those comments attack me personally. That includes comments from you Gil. Your allegation that I supposedly was involved in any way in your apparent problems with not being able to “post for a month” on this blog is totally unfounded and I would challenge you to offer any proof. But whatever. If you, or anyone else, have any comment on this original article in the Seattle Times or any of the science or research contained within it, let’s discuss that. If anyone questions the research methods of the scientists, I’ve included their contact information above. Write them with your questions and report back to this blog please.

          Reply
                • P.S. Your allegation that I supposedly was involved in any way in your apparent problems with not being able to “post for a month” on this blog is totally unfounded and I would challenge you to offer any proof.

                  Reply
                    • Hi Pam: You are free to not read the blog.

                      P.S. When someone makes an allegation that I supposedly was involved in any way in their apparent problems with not being able to “post for a month” on this blog…and I know for a fact that the allegation against me is totally unfounded…what should I do?

                      P.P.S. As I mentioned previously…if you, or anyone else, have any comment on this original article in the Seattle Times or any of the science or research contained within it, let’s discuss that. Thanks.

                  • I made no allegation – simply stated the facts – no names mentioned as being the source of my previous access issues.

                    So I am asking you to cut it out as Sharon suggested above to Bob.

                    I am done with this conversation.

                    Reply
                    • For the record Gil. Here is the allegation that you made:

                      “You tried that on me shortly after I joined. How did your efforts at intimidation work out? I couldn’t get anything posted for a month after I stood up to you a couple of times. Amazingly, all my problems went away when Sharon gave me permission to approve and edit my own posts/comments.”

                      The allegation you made is 100% untrue and unsubstantiated. I have never at any point censored or removed or prevented anyone from commenting on this blog, including you Gil. I’ve actually approved hundreds of your comments on this blog, including your most recent comment above. I most certainly will not “cut it out” when it comes to defending myself. Perhaps you should “cut it out” about making stuff up about me. Sound good? Cheers.

                    • Matthew

                      Here is the whole quote: “So now your are threatening Bob with your power as a moderator? You tried that on me shortly after I joined. How did your efforts at intimidation work out?”

                      i.e. Intimidation is the indirect threat to embarrass someone – That is the threat that I referred to – So, how have your continued attempts at intimidation worked out?

      • For whatever it’s worth, someone who went by the name of “Michael Keenan” tried to post a response to the “Bob Barker” post above. With the exception of Michael starting off by telling Bob he was “full of sh*t” I personally didn’t see too much offensive in the “offensive post” that was removed.

        Reply
        • We (contributors) are all moderating, which is essential for having a conversation in almost real time and also weeding out the worst offenders. We don’t all agree on the degree of offensiveness, so I think we will just have to go along with the person who decides, unless we want to overrule that person. If there were seen to be a bias against certain people/viewpoints, I would want to know.

          Reply
  6. And yet the number of “subscribers” has increased from under 400 to more than 500 in the time I’ve been paying attention. (Maybe the quiet period overlapping with Sharon’s time off was not a coincidence.)

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Steve Wilent Cancel reply