The intensity and frequency of the wildfires was the result of more than eight decades of a nationwide policy of fire suppression. The fires were dangerous from a human perspective, but ecologically are a normal and important component of the system, maintaining species diversity and productivity.

Agreed, the decades of fire suppression, which largely started in the 1930s when the CCC built thousands of miles of fire roads and turned out tens of thousands of men for fire-fighting, and which formed the basis for fire suppression until the 1990s, led to the serious burgeoning of undergrowth and other fuel materials that make fires today so much dangerous. The recent policies of prescribed burns and allowing wildfires that don't endanger human life or property to ru their course are far better for restoring forest health than simply increasing the harvest of timber from federal lands.

I might add that you'd think this party, with all the lip-service they give to private enterprise, wouldn't be in such a rush to use up federal assets (federal timber) in competition against us private landowners who manage our lands for timber production.

Excuse me if I disagree, but blaming the fires on policies started in the 30s, instead of blaming a change in regulations in the early 90s, is illogical. Let's see: for 60 years fires were relatively contained. Then, the rules change under Clinton. In just a handful of years, the most terrible fires break out. But, let's blame the policy of 60+ years instead of the new, "improved" policy. Doesn't make sense, though does make one feel better about one's take on the world.

My only other take on it was that thousands of jobs were created, by the use of active forest management.

And controlled burns are a part of the "old" plan, as reinstated by the Bush administration.

The forestry-WH connection is another issue for me. I DO worry about the unfair practices and laws of this administration, although such things are a part of all administrations (Marc Ritch anyone?). Many things are happening that make me think Big Bro is well on the way. IN this case, what are the bidding practices for federal timber? Are there competitive policies? Or, as I imagine, do a handful of Big Boys call all the shots? (As I imagine.)

Forestry management is a positive to me, but the politics of logging are something totally different.

There was a front page article in The "liberal" New York Times about the this Sarah

Here is a link that might be useful: Administration Overhauls Rules for U.S. Forests

The policy from the 1930s to the 1990s was to stop every fire, period. The consequence was that undergrowth and downed timber accumulated in the understory. This has led to much more dangerous condition, and when this material in the understory, accumulated for decades, does catch fire, it results in infernos and crown fires.

By contrast, cyclical fires through the forest remove the downed timber and much of the understory, while largely leaving mature trees intact. You end up with a healthier, more productive forest. (While there are fewer trees, the ones that are there grow at a considerbly faster rate due to the lack of competition for nutrients, and because additional nutrients are released through the burning of the understory material.)

We know better than to allow our family timber lands to accumulate such a heavy understory growth. After a timber cut and a replanting, we generally do burns at about the three-year mark, and then again as needed until the planted trees have reached a level that understory plants can't compete. Without those burns (or herbicides or mechanical work), the planted trees would be competing with the weedy growth and would grow much slower if they weren't choked out altogether. (Yes, I admit, much of our land is in monoculture plantations, but we retain about half in mixed forest and leave large areas as wetland buffers untouched, even though we have the right to log them seasonally.)

Controlled burns were not a part of the 1930s policies.

The reason fires have been so dramatic in recent years is partly meteorological (there have been a number of years of below average precipitation) and partly due to the fact that these fires have caught in areas where fires have been prevented for decades, leading to the accumulation of understory materials. Removing these materials through controlled burns in proper weather conditions will greatly reduce the risk of catastrophic crown fires and will improve forest stands.

Contrary to the administration claims, this understory material is not of high value. Pulpwood prices have been severely depressed for more than ten years, and many pulp mills have closed. Timber companies make a considerably higher profit from sawtimber.

There are actually fewer forestry jobs these days, not because of any change in forest management, but because of the decline in pulpwood utilization, and improved technology in harvesting sawtimber.

While I am an owner of private timber lands and have concerns about competing sales from federal timber assets, I don't think the federal bid structure is rigged. However, many timber sales offered by USDA Forest Service these days fail to bring in a single bid. While there has been some rebound this year in timber prices (largely due to rebuilding efforts following the Florida hurricanes), there just aren't as many lumber mills or pulpwood mills or chipper plants operating these days. Prices peaked about 1994, and they've been down about 1/4 from that level for some time now. (Sawtimber has fared better.)

Finally, I don't recall Marc Rich having anything to do with forest policy.

Randy, the fire suppression policies actually have its roots in 1911 after the catastrophic fires in Idaho, Montana, and Washington killed 80 firefighters. It has been expanded ever since. Recent drought after an extraordinary wet period are actually more responsible than any policies by any administrations. It is a matter of time more than anything else with a variety of factors involved.

We as a society have been encroaching on the forests. As a result, with many people living in or adjecent to forests, it became a battle to save private property instead of public property. Homeowners expect that the fires will be put out by firefighters, because they are taxpayers. Unfortunately, many (actually most) homeowners don't take the proper precautions such as building firelines etc because they want to have the feeling of "living in the woods".

IMHO, the fires should be allowed to burn themselves out with homeowners towns and municipalities should ensure that they have proper precautions taken. Have the fire departments say to the homeowners, if you don't build a fireline, your house will be at the bottom of the list to save. That way resources can be used to save private property where the owners have taken precautions.

When the fires burn, it clears out the underlying brush and other dead/diseased trees. Healthy trees then have room to grow. Fire also triggers germination of other seeds as well as providing "fertilizer" for existing trees.

That is my take on it. If the BLM and the forestry service can't manage the land, let it manage itself. We would be much better off, and that would be the "true" healthy forest initiative. I trust lumber companies with forests as much as I trust foxes guarding henhouses.

Here is a link that might be useful: Roots of Fire Suppression

Once again, why mid to late 90s after decades of fire suppression for troubles to grow so large? We stopped real management in the 90s, the fires grew worse. Clinton didn't want anyone or anything in the forests. So, underbrush wasn't cleared. Fire breaks weren't kept in place. Fires were allowed to burn uncontrollably.

So far as "nature knows best", well, what's natural is often a disaster for man. To a large extent, we HAVE to manage the environment, or suffer.

In the end, however, I'm not stupid. We all die. And natural disasters from fires to hurricanes to germs and viruses will always kill millions. The discussion of the balance between intervention/nonintervention, and types of interventions, is why this site is here, I suppose.

PS: I don't pretend to be the most knowledgable here, I just look at facts. And maybe we should hire more people to help manage the forests. People need jobs. And are a HUGE part of the ecology of the planet, not something separate from it. The fact is: 90s were the worst decade in decades for fires. And the government had a "hands off" policy at the time.

Anyway, everybody have a Merry Christmas.

Here's another article from the LA Times.Sarah

Here is a link that might be useful: U.S. Rewrites Rules Governing Forests

Randy, it's actually completely logical. We had decades over which fuel loads were allowed to build, combined with severe drought in many areas in the 90s = lots of intense wildfires at that time. Those fuels did not build up in the 8 years of the Clinton administration. The fires, dangerous though they may have been, were needed to undo some of the damage that almost a century of fire suppression had done, since you can't safely do a prescribed burn in an area with really high fuel loads.

Also, the Clinton administration did not stop forest administration entirely, as you claim. It did set up specific reserve areas, primarily old-growth, where harvest activities would be limited or excluded. Fire suppression was de-emphasized in the budget, in part because people were starting to listen to the scientists who said that suppression was creating a more dangerous situation, and reducing the "health" (diversity and productivity) of the forests.

The "roadless areas" were established - management was still permissible in much of these, but it had to use less-damaging roadless methods. Fire suppression was obviously more difficult in those areas, but by definition fire was not as dangerous to human habitation in those areas.

These rule changes are just another in a string of rewriting rules to comply with politicization and religification of policymakers priorities. These changes haven't gone unnoticed by environmental groups, and the like or by the scientific community whose principles are compromised. I think the various groups who have formed to address this rapid decline in standards should form an alliance with the other groups to work to undo damage that has been done & prevent any more from even being considered.

This article gives some history of the beginnings of the movement.

Here is a link that might be useful: Z

Did anyone read this in nyt today? Sarah

Here is a link that might be useful: Trouble in the forests