re: Collaboration to save the West's forests

quote:

---

US should take bids. US could make money off this.

---

They do.

quote:

---

Not saying it’s bad, but don’t pretend it’s natural.

---

Who said natural but you?
You want natural touch nothing and watch more acreage burn.
Reduce the under brush unnaturally and watch less acreage burn.

quote:

---

Remember that a lot of forested areas contain trees that were planted for timber. They aren’t the apex species of that climate zone. Most of the pine species in south Louisiana and Mississippi would die off and be overtaken by broad leafs, bottom hardwoods and cypress if left alone for a few hundred years.

---

This is a good point. However with the government lands I would think it would be better to replant native trees to the area (instead of pine which probably was not native) with hardwoods being preferred. Mainly because hardwoods provide food for wildlife and pines only have cones that squirrels eat.

After the areas are thinned or clear cut, a forestry mulcher could be run under them to remove a lot of the debris. Then in a year or two controlled burns would be of great use. After a while the trees would get large enough for their canopy to kill off most of what would feed a fire.

I would also hope that the forestry service would cut some roads (fire lanes\breaks) so if a fire breaks out the firefighters can get to it quickly. Plus these fire lanes can be used to stop the controlled burns.

My property is on a 4 year burn rotation. Since that started (about 12 years ago) the abundance of wildlife is noticeably higher, and the possibility of a fire destroying it has been reduced.

You just have to have professionals foresters involved. The science is there. The value of the timber will pay all the bills. We best hope the timber companies make a profit. That way you create a ton of great jobs, lower the cost of importing lumber from Canada and give us a marketable commodity we can export worldwide.

These forests, to save them, and allow them to coexist with an ever increasing population, must be managed. It’s really simple. We have to take the emotion out of all of this discussion. Our forests are a tremendous asset, just like our oil and gas reserves. AND OUR FORESTS ARE RENEWABLE.

Fire is natures way of dealing with problems in the Forest. Humans move into fire prone areas and cry when we have wildfires.

quote:

---

"clear cutting"...of what. Any country boy worth his salt knows that what sprouts up after a clear cut is low growing and fire-hazard weeds and grass. Or that tinder at the bottom is necessary to start even a campfire. It takes the trees years to come back. And with a canopy, that shades (flammable tinder) grasses, it's near impossible to burn.

---

Your country boy must not live out west. Clear cutting solves the fire issue for a long time. Out west grass fires are not nearly the concern as forest fires. When you see a 80 foot tall lodge pole pine explode (not burn - freaking explode) you will understand.

After clear cutting there would need to be weed management practices, but that process in a limited fashion is great for forests and wildlife.

quote:

---

When Trump said this and then said we should get advice from other countries, like Finland, with better forest management The Washington Post said he was a retarded dipshit who didn't know anything and so did every progressive on this board.

Everyone remember that?

From less than a month ago?

Hypocrisy unbounded.

---

Severity of this years wildfires have nothing to do with management. We have a few decades of data showing that the management has been extremely effective.

What isn't effective is suburban sprawl dramatically increasing the area of management that is necessary.

NC TIGER,

Are you a forester? Do you have stats on the lumber imported from Canada by year? Not sure where all of our sawmills/plywood mills in the south have gone but they are a fraction of what they were in the ‘80’s. I’m sure the stats are even worse in the west.