12 thoughts on “Forestfirefacts.org”

  1. Jon Haber: ” though I suspect some will not agree with all of it”

    Well for one the site presumes that only ‘THEY’ have the settled science on anything to do with land management. For example sentences like this are plastered all over their website & Facebook page:

    “We must use science-based solutions to keep our communities safe and our forests healthy from forest fires”

    Science is fine, but what science and who’s version of science ??? I watch and observe all the time debates in many combat forums where both sides of an issue claim to have the settled science. Whatever happened to years of on the ground hands on experience and above all “Common Sense” ??? I find over the years (since I was a kid) many who promote themselves as the intelllectual ones in the know when it comes to Science have very little common sense. If this were not true, we wouldn’t have things like climate change and general environmental ruin.

      • So did humans, soooo…….

        The reality is that more humans now are suffering from the effects of wildfires, than ever before. Should we ignore human suffering, in favor of what some other humans THINK is good for ‘nature’, yet destructive?

      • I think the forest and the animals that inhabit them evolved in spite of fire, not because of, kind of like cancer and people. Fire is not a friend to the forest or a needed component. Trees and forests can survive and flourish fine without fire. Fire is very destructive to the forest. Fires kills trees, lots of them, of all ages and species.

        • Bob: “I think the forest and the animals that inhabit them evolved in spite of fire, not because of, kind of like cancer and people.”

          I agree, too much emphasis is placed on “Burn Baby Burn” as opposed to looking at the role animals played in shaping old growth forests. Sure fire is a natural component, but it’s the very last tool in the shed that should be used. In the absence of large herbivores, especially megafauna, hands on maintenance by selective logging and extremely countrolled grazing for brief moments each year need to be considered. Fire is going to happen whether we want it or not. Mainly because 90% will come from human cause.

          Bob: “Fire is not a friend to the forest or a needed component. Trees and forests can survive and flourish fine without fire.”

          I’ve often what role the giant ground sloth, Mastodon, etc played in thinning forests and stripping limbs from the ground to as high up as they could reach in the elimination of fire ladder components like branches close to the ground. Forests of Pine, Redwood, Lodgepole, etc.


          In recorded history of most of the photos of Lodgepole forests, we are generally treated to a view of matchstick forests. And even after a fire like this one below, the dense seeding and sapling regeneration is as dense at the previous parent trees. With the presence of ancient animals, what or how did they role play in the thinning process ??? Because clearly in the photo elow, without thinning you’ll only get more of the same. I don’t doubt that burning of these forests by Native Americans kept this type of competitive Lodgepole ecosystem stunted, hence the name Lodgepole.


          The reason I question this use of fire over and over because Indians did it, there are some relic circumstances in which Lodgepoles can become mammoth in size, which would require changing the name. Like this giant in San Bernardino National Forest near Big Bear. While there are natives (maybe Cahuila) which were in the area, I’m not sure they were into as much burning as the larger tribal peoples up north. Here’s the chapion tree below. Did megafauna have a role in shaping such trees ??? Does anyone care ??? Would it make any difference ??? You raverage person would simply never associate such a tree below as a Lodgepole.


      • 2ndLaw: “Might have something to do with the fact that wildlife evolved with fire.”

        Apparently no one told the Spotted Owls

    • Here in California, spotted owl recovery is tied to saving their actual nests, in addition to the nesting habitats. The problem is that those areas are at the highest risks of stand-replacement fires. It’s no wonder that Wildlife Biologists are looking at ‘crafting’ replacement habitats, through active forest management. I think they have given up on ‘saving’ the current habitats from firestorms. Additionally, owls do not often build new nests. (Edit: Why couldn’t we build man-made nests in emerging potential habitats?)


Leave a Comment

Discover more from The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading