33 thoughts on “Forests After Fire – Dr. Chad Hanson on post-fire forest ecology”

  1. Luckily, many environmentalists are wise to Hanson’s ‘snake oil’, being taught how his beliefs are not supported by the wide body of science. People are realizing that he does not speak the truth and his accusations have turned to unsupported finger-pointing. Again, ad nausem, the Forest Service does not clearcut in salvage sales. If they truly did, Hanson would have brought it into court, in the lawsuits he has lost in the last many years. Either clearcuts are in the project’s plans, or they just didn’t happen. I have already debunked all of his pictures, and apparently, him and his people don’t know how to read a map. Private salvage logging practices are much different than what the Forest Service does.

    Hey, Chaderoonie! Just stop. Your golden goose is dead, burned by catastrophic wildfire. Give it up, already! Fighting against salvage logging in the WUI is harmful to humans.

    Reply
  2. Here is one view from an environmentalist friend of mine.:

    “I want to be clear about my critique of Hanson and his acolytes though, and in an odd way it may seem to back Mr. Zinke up. I believe that there is a split in the environmental community about forest management and that Rich Gordon is spot on when he says that reasonable people in the communities and regions are working together and can find solutions. The problem is with state and national environmental organizations, often distant from the on the ground conditions that are driving cooperation, who oppose forest management and thinning in the false belief that doing nothing will be a better condition. I run into this all the time from state Sierra Club, NRDC, the CARB EJ Committee, and a smattering of other groups. They are failing to take a wide range of issues into account, most notably the fact that the forest itself is part of a wider ecosystem that is constantly evolving that is tied to other ecosystem services that we rely on. They also fail to take into account the more modern idea that natural and social systems are actually integrated and codependent. The argument that “co-benefits,” avoided costs, and social systems must be taken into account fall on deaf ears, ears that often reject even solid empirical data about those services and avoided costs. The real problem is that leadership from those groups elevate Dr. Hanson’s comments to the level of the New York Times and LA Times, giving his position more credibility than it is due, with very little rational and science based push back to move to more rational solutions. That plays right into the war of all against all and frozen governance on forest management issues…and they win a stalemate. Our objective should not be to vilify Dr. Hanson but to change this narrative to the broader solutions.”

    Reply
    • My friend’s prior comment about Hanson:

      “I don’t think anyone is laying blame here, that was left to Zinke. But being an avid reader of forestry science I admit I am no fan of Dr. Hanson. One thing I notice in his papers and comments is that he often selectively quotes other scientists to support his own conclusions even when the body their work supports an opposite conclusion. This is a practice one only notices if they cross reference the comments Dr. Hanson quotes. He also regularly brings information to the table to support his conclusions from scientific papers and research that were not originally designed to study the topic he is writing on or the forest conditions he is writing on, which calls into question their veracity as supporting arguments. These are practices that do not inspire confidence in his conclusions. But the most troubling is the common practice of using a “lack of consensus” about what to do to rationalize not doing anything at all, which I am convinced is his overall strategy. Since his main point is usually, “ do nothing” this plays into his desired outcome. This practice really flies in the face of the concept of adaptive management, and trying a variety of approaches to test theories and select the best treatments for the specific situation or geography.”

      Reply
      • Interesting that these are some of the same “tactics” that environmentalists accuse industry of using to cast doubt about climate change, etc.
        And, as a person who has had to do content analysis and response to comments on letters received about Forest Service decisions, I can definitely say that I’ve seen a fair amount of these types of things. I even had to write a declaration for a lawsuit that involved taking “new” information (literature citations) submitted by the folks suing the Forest Service and using that to show how and why that “new” information did not support the point they were trying to make in their lawsuit. I’m all for people participating in good faith to improve the analysis and bring helpful new information to light, but in many cases this type of “participation” just wastes everyone’s time (and tax dollars). But this is thankfully not the case for all environmental groups/advocates. I work with several of them who do participate in good faith and who do take the time to write helpful comments (with additional analysis) that have improved FS analysis and outcomes.

        Reply
        • I looked at official comments on some sort of Forest Service project and it seemed like one third of all the comments mentioned Monsanto, which obviously had no part of the project. I think that since the Department of Agriculture was involved, there was a kneejerk reaction, assuming that Monsanto was, somehow, involved in the decision.

          Yes, it is interesting to look at the official comments on a given project, and the responses from the Forest Service addressing those ‘concerns’. With the Internet, now everyone can submit official comments, and many of them are just so stupid that a single sentence can dismiss them.

          Reply
          • Hi Larry. What “some sort of Forest Service project” are you talking about specifically? Please provide a name of the project. I’ve noticed that a number of Forest Service projects (including some timber sales) involve the spraying of weeds. Perhaps that’s where Monsanto comes in. Thanks for providing additional information and context. Cheers!

            Reply
  3. Anyone have anything specific to say in response to what Dr. Chad Hanson specifically says in this video? Of course, if all some folks have is ad hominem attacks, by all means please continue those.

    Reply
    • Most of what Hanson says in the video clip is true, but he looks only at ecological factors and values, not social or economic values. In favoring wildfire, he does not mention that active forest management can help restore ecological functions and safeguard communities and infrastructure.

      Today I emailed Hanson and said, in part:

      “My question to you is, In your opinion, what role, if any, should active forest management play in Sierra Nevada forests?

      “I invite you to post a response on the blog, or to reply to me and allow me to post it.”

      I hope he joins the discussion here….

      Reply
    • Hanson is describing the 1-time fire in this video. In that sense, I too have seen natural regeneration of not just lodgepole or knobcone pines but also ponderosa, Douglas-fir, & even true firs. My observations are that late summer fires, after seeds have matured, survive within the cones. However, what Hanson ignores is the recurrence of fire within these same burned over landscapes, reburns that we see occurring within 10-20 years after the first fire in the forests of not only Sierras but Klamaths, Siskiyous, Cascades, Blues & beyond.. The regeneration coupled with grasses & the early seral brush provides the fine, flashy fuels for fire to run & the hundreds of dead trees per acre–standing and fallen–provide the 1,000-hour fuels to increase the intensity & heat. These unaltered heavy fuels left intact across 1,000’s of acres pose extreme hazards for firefighters. The result is the Forest Services “box & burn” strategy of fighting forest fires, relying on the mostly ineffective aerial attacks of VLATs, SEATs or helicopter water buckets to take on any direct efforts. We’ve seen many areas that first burned within the last 20 years now having burned for the third time, leaving no coniferous seed source in these landscapes.

      Reply
  4. I don’t know about the Sierra Nevada forests. I have observed the forests of Southwestern Oregon since about 1974. Fires have dramatically increased in that time. I believe the increased has been caused by the change of policy by the FS. That policy encourages fire.
    Most the fires in the last 20 years in Southwestern Oregon have been catastrophic in nature. Theses fires have changed the landscape. They have destroyed century old forests, caused untold health and economic hardship on the people, and have cost the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars. They have turned many of our once green, forest covered, lush mountains, into hot, dry, brush fields.
    What Dr. Chad Hanson says is mostly true, but only from very his limited viewpoint. I think he fails to look at total scope of what fire does. He is unfortunately promoting a agenda, in my observation, that is very destructive to our forests.

    Reply
      • For whatever it’s worth, here’s a panned-out image of the landscape Larry is talking about. Sure looks like a bunch of the landscape has a history of logging, and clearcutting. Could that maybe have impacted how much of the arson-caused King Fire was ‘salvage’ logged?

        Also, for whatever it’s worth, the King Fire was started by arsonist Wayne Huntsman. In 2016, the Huntsman pleaded guilty to arson and was sentenced to 20 years in prison, as well as being ordered to pay $60,000,000 in restitution. (Source: https://vernpierson.us/blog/blog/2016/04/08/king-fire-arsonist-pleads-guilty/)

        Given this fact, I fail to see how this is, as Larry claims, “a perfect example of trading old growth for 6 years of black-backed woodpecker habitat.”

        How is the world is this a perfect example Larry? Did the arsonist do the trading? Wait, let me guess…It’s Dr. Chad Hanson’s fault?

        Reply
        • Well, people like Hanson don’t even address the problem of human-caused wildfires, accepting the “Whatever Happens” scenario, including fires like the King Fire and Rim Fire. Pretending that human-caused fires and re-burns are “natural and beneficial” is Hanson’s downfall. His views, are moot, due to his ignorance and acceptance of ALL fires. Forest Service thinning projects are designed to reduce the impacts and damage of ALL wildfires. Arson fires are becoming a much larger part of “Whatever Happens”, which preservationists embrace as ‘natural’. Pretending that today’s intense and tragic wildfires are just fine isn’t a rational thought. Hanson WELCOMES such fires! Hanson WANTS “larger and more intense wildfires”. It’s a main part of his plan for public forests. He says that, right up front.

          Reply
          • Adding to this situation, how can we do more prescribed burning, which most people advocate, when Hanson insists on no active management? How can we reduce fuels, including over 100,000,000 dead trees (and even more live extremely-flammable trees crowded from fire suppression)?

            Reply
            • Once again, you’ve made yourself a huge strawman Larry…Congrats! Where in the world does “Hanson insist on no active management?” Please step up your attack game Larry. Thanks.

              Reply
  5. The video seems pretty innocuous and others seem to agree. Hanson’s main points seem to be that high severity fire is ecologically good where it occurs in patches, and post-fire logging is ecologically bad. I didn’t really see any arguments against these points here. Yes, there may be some non-ecological benefits from salvage logging, and those tradeoffs must be made in a public planning process and adhere to legal ecological requirements. He seems to leave open the question of what post-fire conditions could be ecologically bad enough that salvage logging might be better, possibly those contributing to reburns over large areas. But even there, why would an outcome of long-term brushfields necessarily be ecologically bad (especially considering future climates)?

    I think the discussion is evidence that there are differences of philosophy in play regarding the precautionary principle (esp. shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity) and adaptive management (robust decision-making in the face of uncertainty), and the amount of environmental risk that is acceptable. Most timber sales are not structured to produce adaptive management, but that could be done to address this question.

    Reply
    • The projects I worked on were beneficial, reducing the massive fuels buildups, which will burn again, in the next 10-40 years. That is California’s reality. We include the larger ecological unit, as it currently exists. It’s sad that some people don’t see a bigger picture. One that includes grandmothers and babies.

      Reply
    • “Most timber sales are not structured to produce adaptive management, but that could be done to address this question.”

      ALL of the Forest Service’s Sierra Nevada thinning projects, which do not include old growth harvesting or clearcutting, are designed with that in mind. Generally, trees between 10 and 18 inches are cut, with a few larger trees, crowding better trees, are thinned out, too. That has been in effect for 25 years now. How about a debate that actually talks about these facts?

      Reply
  6. We should show some respect for the trees. First by trying to keep them alive and healthy. Then by not wasting some of the finest and most beautiful timber in the world, by letting them rot away, after they have been killed by fire.
    I would rather have forests then brush fields. I think forests are better at helping moderate a drier, warmer climate.
    I think their are many kinds of wildfires. The ones I think that could be avoided are the ones the FS “manage”. The Camp fire was contained in 17 days. The FS spends hundreds of millions dollars each year “managing” their fires for months, usually till the rains put them out. (With no concern, it seems, to affect these fires have on the forest or the people who live near them).
    Shouldn’t we talking about some of the downsides of fire too?

    Reply
      • No, I was just saying I think the FS could put their summertime fires out if they wanted to.
        A lot of private landowners are burning their brush piles now. With the rain and wind, fire and smoke isn’t a problem. Now seems like a lot better time to burn.

        Reply
  7. On 31 May 2019, the Sierra Nevada Conservancy held a field trip regarding a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Redevelopment (HUD) funding application by Stanislaus National Forest for $70 million, through the National Disaster Resilience Competition, to salvage log burned areas of the 2013 Rim Fire FOR BIOMASS BURNING – A DESTRUCTIVE CLEARCUTS-FOR-KILOWATTS SCHEME. This field trip was attended by 80 persons, including members of more than 20 environmental organizations in opposition to post-fire salvage logging, including Sierra Club and Sequoia ForestKeeper. Dr. Chad Hanson, John Muir Project Fire Ecologist, and Dr. Dominick DellaSala, Geos Institute Director, lead the effort to defend the position to not salvage log recovering burned forest habitats. Brandon Collins, USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station, said there was little to no conifer regeneration within the Rim Fire. We saw seedling regeneration at multiple sites. And the Forest Service saw the seedlings growing in the Rim Fire snag forest habitats as fuel, when we see this as biodiverse habitat. Besides providing habitat for Black-backed woodpeckers and other cavity nesting species, standing burned dead trees/snags provide cooling shade that helps hold the moisture in the ground for the already-growing, natural tree seedling regeneration and for eventual delivery of that retained drinking water to communities below the forest. At no time did the Forest Service acknowledge the value of the standing burned dead trees/snags for sequestering carbon in the forest or counteracting the climate crisis. The agencies would not even address the repeated queries about the emissions from biomass power generation that the project would cause. The blatant climate science denial and antipathy toward nature by the Forest Service and its supporters (John Buckley, Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center), (David Edelson, The Nature Conservancy), and (Craig Thomas, Fire Restoration Group) of this clearcuts-for-kilowatts scheme was stunning. Why is $70 million in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Redevelopment (HUD) disaster funds going to log federal forests (creating unnatural flammable conditions) when those funds should be spent on community disaster relief? This $70 million of HUD funding should, instead, be applied to the real disaster of the Camp Fire in Butte County, to help the victims in Paradise, California who lost everything.

    Reply
    • 80,000 acres of the Rim Fire burned into Yosemite National Park, where fire intensity was increased, as was old growth mortality. There is no lack of snag habitat in the area, supposedly for spotted owls and woodpeckers. However, snags are only useful to BBWs for 6 years after they die. The food they eat dies out and they have to go in search of ‘fresh meat’ in a newer burn.

      If it is close to communities, I’d say that this would be a very good thing. Oddly enough, when logging does happen close to towns, where some say it should occur, others move the goal posts, yet again. The claims that salvage logging close to Paradise enhanced the Camp Fire are bogus. You cannot sequester carbon in dead trees. Actually, dead and dying trees produce more powerful GHGs. We have incredible numbers of dead trees in the Sierra Nevada National Forests.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Larry Harrell Fotoware Cancel reply