TW200 Forum banner
  • Hey Everyone! Enter your bike HERE to be a part of this months Bike of the Month Challenge!
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,793 Posts
I "get to" ride through old fire burns all the time. Generally, I think it sucks but you can see for a long way. Almost every trail ride I ride includes fire burn scars. The worst part of the burned areas is that more burned trees fall on the trail creating a lot of chainsaw time to clear the trail. I've been working on one local trail through a burned area off and on all summer and still don't have it cleared from downed trees. Maybe next year I'll get it cleared and it's only a short 3.5-mile trail. Oofta!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,534 Posts
The logging seen in first photo shows commercial salvage of fire killed trees on privately owned land.
Subsequent photos of standing dead trees are likely on USFS public lands where similar harvesting and subsequent re-planting is uncommon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,490 Posts
The logging seen in first photo shows commercial salvage of fire killed trees on privately owned land.
Subsequent photos of standing dead trees are likely on USFS public lands where similar harvesting and subsequent re-planting is uncommon.
There's a reason behind that. In California, the environmentalists threaten lawsuits to the local forest managers. Those managers have a choice; spend their budget fighting lawsuits or spend it doing some good. Which, by the way, is why the area got over grown and burned down in the first place. Their argument is that "nature" has a plan for standing burned forest that benefits wildlife. I don't think any judge has ever ruled in favor of that premise, but that's their stance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
Weather and bugs rapidly deteriorate dead trees. They quickly become worthless for lumber, and nobody will bid to harvest them. An after burn lawsuit need only delay harvest a couple years to “win”.

Right or wrong, my understanding of the harvest argument comes from time spent in Montana. Harvest provides an economic boom that sure seems like proper management of a valuable public resource to me. On the other hand, leaving the trees is suppose to fertilize the next generation, and reduce sediment runoff into creeks. Over the years I have come to realize valid points exist on both sides making it a tough call.

Burns can be great elk habitat. Standing tracts of older burnt trees can be scary to enter. With more than a slight breeze, one hears the constant thunder of falling trees.

Too bad we can’t at least agree to cut danger trees back away from paved roads, dirt roads, and two tracks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,244 Posts
In the end, the burn is as normal as rain, or lightning, or bear crap, or snow and it'll all come back one way or another. It seems like it takes forever, but it has happened hundreds of times in the past and it took but a blink of an eye as far as Ma Earth is concerned.

Not saying I want my home scorched and not negating the catastrophic losses for people who lose property and lives. Just saying that elk and bears don't seem to mind black bark and fallen trees.

Fourty years of backpacking skewed my view of burnt tree country. It's ugly the first year. It's better next year. It's amazing five years later. After ten years, the old forest is forgotten and it all seems normal again.

It's all a part of the process.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,534 Posts
Those reforestation comments are applicable for wetter climates than the more arid eastern Sierra terrain of most of the Dixie Fire. Traveled tough 3 historic burns occurring within the last 6 years yesterday on eastern slopes. None had recovered as far as any noticeable evergreen growth. New sage and leafy brush in drainages was nice but burnt standing timber and blackened sage stumps was the dominant impression.
Much different than the impressive explosion of growth following the Mt.St.Helens explosion I saw within but a few months where there was an abundance of sun, nutrients and water.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
Weather and bugs rapidly deteriorate dead trees. They quickly become worthless for lumber, and nobody will bid to harvest them. An after burn lawsuit need only delay harvest a couple years to “win”.

Right or wrong, my understanding of the harvest argument comes from time spent in Montana. Harvest provides an economic boom that sure seems like proper management of a valuable public resource to me. On the other hand, leaving the trees is suppose to fertilize the next generation, and reduce sediment runoff into creeks. Over the years I have come to realize valid points exist on both sides making it a tough call.

Burns can be great elk habitat. Standing tracts of older burnt trees can be scary to enter. With more than a slight breeze, one hears the constant thunder of falling trees.

Too bad we can’t at least agree to cut danger trees back away from paved roads, dirt roads, and two tracks.
This is very interesting. I will start looking for this phenomena. Still, what Native Americans had done for centuries with controlled burns, then plantings seem to indicate that the private landowners have it right on this point. P
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top