Prescribed Burns/Forest Management

[TradLife406]

Any foresters here?

While exploring my hunting area I noticed there's a ton of dead fall. The forest is so choked with the lodge poles that a lot of them are half dead. There's very little grass and ground vegetation either.

My only experience in forestry is a short stent as a wildlander in college for a couple seasons. And looking at this mountain range it looks like its only a matter of time before it's going to get nuked.

Some of these spots can't even hold wildlife because it's too thick.

How does the Forest Service evaluate what needs to be burned in their given districts?

 

[freebird134]

I have a PhD in forestry, but I'm not a forester. However, I'll say this.... Different districts and areas will have different objectives. We hunters often get short sighted, seeing everything through a lens that values game species the most. However, that's not always how things are managed. All that deadfall that we hate walking through, and all those dead pines that seem like a waste, are habitat for a lot of different animals. I promise those thick areas hold wildlife, even if it isn't the kind of wildlife we like to shoot!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mtnrunner260]

There are a ton of factors that go into a prescribed burn. From wind speed, humidity, and dozens of physical factors. Then there are the legal ones, hippies suing because they want it to be left alone no mater what.
But the last 100 years of fire suppression have left many of our forests in the west past the stag where they would normally be reset by a fire.
But as urban interface expands it will continue to become more difficult to safely execute a prescribed burn. Though we will see an increase in catastrophic events.
I would love to see a group representing sportsman's sue the FS for not conducting treatments to help balance out the seirra club lawsuits.
I would encourage you to have a conversation with the district manager where you are an see what their thoughts are on it. It's possible they are just so busy with other things it's not on the radar yet.

 

[5MilesBack]

Some of these spots can't even hold wildlife because it's too thick.

I hunt some serious deadfall every year, some of it stacked well over my head and I'm 6'6". I always find elk in there as they seem to really love that stuff. Probably because most sane people won't go near it.

 

[Jon Boy]

mtnrunner hit the nail on the head. Another factor too is budget. Wildfire eats away at the budget and theres little money leftover for prescribed burns. Which is a funny thing because if we did a more prescribed burns it would slow a lot of fires down from becoming catastrophic and in the end would save money. I'm assuming your talking about the little belts considering you live in great falls? For that particular ranger district the budget was slashed and the fuels crew was eliminated so don't expect to see any RX burns any time soon.

 

[KMBH]

I am not a forester...many areas will not burn adequately until conditions reach the point where you would be out of the prescribed conditions for burning.

 

[Hambone]

Depends on the area as well, unlikely they will do a prescribed burn in areas that wouldn't impact and civilization or roads if they were to ignite. Also they are costly, it takes a lot of manpower to pull off a successful burn and with putting fire on the ground comes liability. If it was to jump lines and heaven forbid consume structures, then the entity that allowed/ put on the burn is on the hook financially. Soooo, in short I wouldn't count on getting a burn done in your specific area you are looking at. more likely a fire will come through naturally or by arson and clean everything up. Jon Boy not necessarily, I would say that as a whole the fire service extinguishes fires too quickly when there are opportunities to have the fire burn areas that could use it. I believe a lot of this comes down to inability to preplan every specific area. It would be crazy logistically to do that. especially in the wilderness areas. Anyway you look at it though it cost a lot of coin to manage wildland fires.

 

[justinspicher]

The ranger district I work for just did 6500 acres of controlled burn this month and are already looking at doing another 7k next year.

 

[fngTony]

The ranger district I work for just did 6500 acres of controlled burn this month and are already looking at doing another 7k next year.

S.w. Colorado? Could use some up north.

 

[freebird134]

more likely a fire will come through naturally or by arson and clean everything up. Jon Boy not necessarily, I would say that as a whole the fire service extinguishes fires too quickly when there are opportunities to have the fire burn areas that could use it.

I agree with he second part (let them burn!), but I hope you aren't advocating arson!

 

[BroodBuster]

Why spend 2 million on a prescribed burn when you can spend 200 million on an actual fire? Ever seen all that bitchin gear and the infrastructure it takes to fight a wild fire? Just last year they cut out a million or so of old growth to build a fire line that the fire never got close too. Wildfires are a racket. Give the money to the homeowners. If they use it on a boat instead of protecting their homes oh well. I'm of the let them burn crowd while protecting the towns. And the towns are best protected long before fire season. I'm tired of spending hundreds of millions protecting Microsoft millionaires who spend a week a year in their hillside mansions!

"Government doesn't solve problems. It subsidizes them." Ronald Reagan

I think that has become the forest services missions statement.

 

[justinspicher]

I just starts working for the forest service this season and don't really understand why they do a lot of what they do.

As far as prescribed burns, I am on the fence about it. I see the point, but haven't seen any gains from it yet either.

 

[Laker]

Just noticed the area I have been drawn for to hunt sheep in November will be having a controlled burn 3 weeks prior to my hunt. I am concerned if and how it will affect the sheep in the area. Anyone else ever run into this?

 

[Shrek]

The ranger district I work for just did 6500 acres of controlled burn this month and are already looking at doing another 7k next year.

That's great but how many acres are in need in the district ? 150,000 ? 1,000,000 ? I'm pretty sure without even having a clue as to where you are that their rate of controlled burns doesn't even come close to keeping up with the rate of buildup of excess fuels. There needs to be a ten year campaign nation wide to burn off every acre that needs it and then keep it up. Risk managers are a big part of the problem. Conditions have to be about perfect. They've made the perfect the enemy of the good. If you're really being aggressive then some fires will get away and smoke will close a freeway now and then but the total loss will be much less than one out of control catastrophic fire in terrible conditions.

 

[N2TRKYS]

Just noticed the area I have been drawn for to hunt sheep in November will be having a controlled burn 3 weeks prior to my hunt. I am concerned if and how it will affect the sheep in the area. Anyone else ever run into this?

I don't know about sheep, but deer and turkeys will be back in an area that's still smoking.

 

[Jon Boy]

Depends on the area as well, unlikely they will do a prescribed burn in areas that wouldn't impact and civilization or roads if they were to ignite. Also they are costly, it takes a lot of manpower to pull off a successful burn and with putting fire on the ground comes liability. If it was to jump lines and heaven forbid consume structures, then the entity that allowed/ put on the burn is on the hook financially. Soooo, in short I wouldn't count on getting a burn done in your specific area you are looking at. more likely a fire will come through naturally or by arson and clean everything up. Jon Boy not necessarily, I would say that as a whole the fire service extinguishes fires too quickly when there are opportunities to have the fire burn areas that could use it. I believe a lot of this comes down to inability to preplan every specific area. It would be crazy logistically to do that. especially in the wilderness areas. Anyway you look at it though it cost a lot of coin to manage wildland fires.

It's obvious that suppressing the vast majority of fires is less productive than managing them. Having said that managing fires is a very very rare event due to political reasons, liability, and cost. Most fires that are 'managed' are said to be fully suppressed in the media just so the public doesn't have an uproar. The 'let it burn' term that was used during the yellowstone fires of '88 set back managed fires a long ways. I completely agree that we extinguish fires all too soon but managing them is something that is far too complicated and political, and way over my pay scale to even think about.

 

[justinspicher]

That's great but how many acres are in need in the district ? 150,000 ? 1,000,000 ? I'm pretty sure without even having a clue as to where you are that their rate of controlled burns doesn't even come close to keeping up with the rate of buildup of excess fuels. There needs to be a ten year campaign nation wide to burn off every acre that needs it and then keep it up. Risk managers are a big part of the problem. Conditions have to be about perfect. They've made the perfect the enemy of the good. If you're really being aggressive then some fires will get away and smoke will close a freeway now and then but the total loss will be much less than one out of control catastrophic fire in terrible conditions.

The district has around 2 million acres. 200,000 of it is wilderness. I think a lot of it is to get ahead of the beetle kill situation.