Fishing - slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa

FishingBanter (http://www.fishingbanter.com/index.php)

- Fly Fishing (http://www.fishingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa (http://www.fishingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=31258)

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2008-04-12, rw wrote:

My guess is that the increase in trees is largely due to many years of
fire suppression. That's what it appears to be in Idaho, anyway, and now
we're paying the price in large fires.

Yep.

One of the educational channels did a whole show on it. The "Only you can
prevent forest fires" campaign and accompanying fire control programs
instituted by the US Forest Service were wildly succussful. Consequently,
natural fires didn't keep undergrowth in check and allowed tree density to
spiral out of control. Now, with trees only 2-3 feet apart, there is no
controling any kind of fire. I've seen stands in CA so dense, you can
hardly walk through them. When those go, it's an unstoppable firestorm.
Another case of man screwing with nature until it bites back.

Wow! A WHOLE show? Wow!

Wolfgang
who hasn't watched a whole show in......well, gosh, a whole long time.

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa

wrote in message
...

...Never Anonymous,
R

Never saying anything sort of precludes the need, ainna?

Wolfgang

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message
news:9qBMj.5407$DD2.4251@trndny04...

"rw" wrote in message
m...

I've made my point. I'm not about to spend hours of my time marshalling
evidence that you would deny or obfuscate in any case.

Thats more typical of the tactics and spin I've come to expect from you.
Thank you for restoring my faith in my ability to judge other people's MO
and way of approaching disputes. Oh, BTW to whom have you made your point?

Let it rest, Bob. That was the most gracious surrender you or anyone else
is likely to get from stevie or any of the other pez-heads in this place.
:)

Wolfgang

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa

Bob Weinberger wrote:
"rw" wrote:
You seem (to me) to be saying that a century of fire suppression has had
essentially no or very little effect on the the lodgepole forests of the
SNRA in central Idaho.

Aside from flying in the face of common sense, and being a rather
absolutist position, it contradicts other "experts" in the field.

Well I was right, it was unrealistic of me to expect you to understand what
not only I, but most of the experts ( not the PR and media types who try to
distill and simplify the information for the public), are actually saying
about the issue. Though from your statements I find it difficult to believe
that you talked to any actual experts and, that if you actually read any of
the research (not distillations of that research dumbed down for public
consumption) on the topic, you really comprehended what was actually being
said.

Tell you what, why don't you take the complete set of my posts on this issue
to one of your "experts" and ask them to find major fault with anything I
have said Lodgepole pine - not your misinterpretations of what I said -
the actual posts. If they truely have any real training in forest ecology
and do find any major points of disagreement, I'd like nothing better than
to get them on a panel with me and basic reseachers of Lodgepole ecology
from the Uof I, WSU, OSU, UBC, and UW. I could probably drum up support
for and get a symposium rolling on the issue, since Lodgepole pine ecology
is a hot topic right now because of the major Mt. Pine Beetle outbreaks
going on in BC and CO, and, when I was more active in forest management (
and especially when we were going through a major Mt. Pine Beetle outbreak
here in the Blue Mts in the 70's), I worked with, served on panels with,
and cooresponded with many of these experts on a regular basis and could
probably get the Dean of the Cof F at OSU to agree to host such an event.
Also, though most of the experts on Lodgepole pine ecology that were with
the Forest Service are long retired or deceased, I could probably still get
a couple of those still alive to review and comment on the statements as
well. However, I will only go to that trouble if you agree to attend the
symposium and if your expert has some real credentials in the field of
forest ecology and is not just another "babershop biologist" who gets all
his information on the subject from simplified distillations of the issues
without having the requisite background to evaluate and comprehend what is
actually being said and how it fits the overall picture. And I want to hear
the actual points of conflict from your expert - not your interpretation of
what he/she said.

But even with all that I doubt that I or they could get through to someone
who can only see the world and everything occurring in it with a strict
"if, then, else - black or white" mind set and who filters out everything
he hears or reads that does not fit that mold.

While working at the Yellowstone Association Institute I had an
opportunity to meet many biological scientists in many diverse
specialties. The folks who really know what they're talking about,
the Ph D's who are expert in their fields, have no problem at all
explaining complex issues to laymen. I have never heard a single
one say "you couldn't possibly understand this".

Then there are the full of themselves, full of **** guys who prattle
on using Latin and technical jargon. They'll tell you about their
credentials and the credentials of experts they know, how many
conferences they've attended, workshops they've chaired, panel
discussions they've been invited to sit on, anything and everything
except a coherent, articulate exposition, in terms a laymen can
understand, of the subject at hand.

--
Ken Fortenberry

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
Bob Weinberger wrote:
"rw" wrote:
You seem (to me) to be saying that a century of fire suppression has had
essentially no or very little effect on the the lodgepole forests of the
SNRA in central Idaho.

Aside from flying in the face of common sense, and being a rather
absolutist position, it contradicts other "experts" in the field.

Well I was right, it was unrealistic of me to expect you to understand
what not only I, but most of the experts ( not the PR and media types who
try to distill and simplify the information for the public), are actually
saying about the issue. Though from your statements I find it difficult
to believe that you talked to any actual experts and, that if you
actually read any of the research (not distillations of that research
dumbed down for public consumption) on the topic, you really
comprehended what was actually being said.

Tell you what, why don't you take the complete set of my posts on this
issue to one of your "experts" and ask them to find major fault with
anything I have said Lodgepole pine - not your misinterpretations of
what I said - the actual posts. If they truely have any real training in
forest ecology and do find any major points of disagreement, I'd like
nothing better than to get them on a panel with me and basic reseachers
of Lodgepole ecology from the Uof I, WSU, OSU, UBC, and UW. I could
probably drum up support for and get a symposium rolling on the issue,
since Lodgepole pine ecology is a hot topic right now because of the
major Mt. Pine Beetle outbreaks going on in BC and CO, and, when I was
more active in forest management ( and especially when we were going
through a major Mt. Pine Beetle outbreak here in the Blue Mts in the
70's), I worked with, served on panels with, and cooresponded with many
of these experts on a regular basis and could probably get the Dean of
the Cof F at OSU to agree to host such an event. Also, though most of the
experts on Lodgepole pine ecology that were with the Forest Service are
long retired or deceased, I could probably still get a couple of those
still alive to review and comment on the statements as well. However, I
will only go to that trouble if you agree to attend the symposium and if
your expert has some real credentials in the field of forest ecology and
is not just another "babershop biologist" who gets all his information
on the subject from simplified distillations of the issues without having
the requisite background to evaluate and comprehend what is actually
being said and how it fits the overall picture. And I want to hear the
actual points of conflict from your expert - not your interpretation of
what he/she said.

But even with all that I doubt that I or they could get through to
someone who can only see the world and everything occurring in it with a
strict "if, then, else - black or white" mind set and who filters out
everything he hears or reads that does not fit that mold.

While working at the Yellowstone Association Institute I had an
opportunity to meet many biological scientists in many diverse
specialties.

Dang. Who'da thunk there was THAT MUCH room under a barstool?!

The folks who really know what they're talking about,
the Ph D's who are expert in their fields, have no problem at all
explaining complex issues to laymen.

Depends on the experts, the field, and the audience.

I have never heard a single
one say "you couldn't possibly understand this".

Sure you did.....you just didn't understand it.

Then there are the full of themselves, full of **** guys who prattle
on using Latin and technical jargon. They'll tell you about their
credentials and the credentials of experts they know, how many
conferences they've attended, workshops they've chaired, panel
discussions they've been invited to sit on, anything and everything
except a coherent, articulate exposition, in terms a laymen can
understand, of the subject at hand.

Spoken like one who has never succeeded in identifying or understanding and
expert on any subject. :)

Wolfgang
o.k., so, everyone who's surprised stand up and be counted.

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...

While working at the Yellowstone Association Institute I had an
opportunity to meet many biological scientists in many diverse
specialties. The folks who really know what they're talking about,
the Ph D's who are expert in their fields, have no problem at all
explaining complex issues to laymen. I have never heard a single
one say "you couldn't possibly understand this".

Then there are the full of themselves, full of **** guys who prattle
on using Latin and technical jargon. They'll tell you about their
credentials and the credentials of experts they know, how many
conferences they've attended, workshops they've chaired, panel
discussions they've been invited to sit on, anything and everything
except a coherent, articulate exposition, in terms a laymen can
understand, of the subject at hand.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Well Ken anytime I have explained the issues under discussion to laymen,
those of even average intelligence had no trouble understanding the issues
PROVIDED THAT they had not already made their minds up that they already
knew all the answers and weren't about to accept anyone else's input that
differed from what they "knew"- no matter what expertise that other person
may have on the matter. And yes, given Steve's mindset he probably can't
understand it. However, I didn't say that people in general couldn't
possibly understand it, I simply said that it was far more complex than
could be answered quickly in a flyfishing forum ( and definately more
complex than rw's simple black/white summation), but that I would be glad to
take the time to explain it in detail to anyone who was truly interested. I
would guess that the majority of ROFFians are bored to tears by the level of
detail I have already gone into tree density and the role of fire.

And my experience with Phd's, both those from whom I simply sought ad hoc
informatin, and those I hired to provide ongoing expertise on various
issues, convinced me that those who oversimplified their answers were as
worthless to me as those who couldn't couch their answers in terms I could
fully understand.

Bob Weinberger La Grande,OR

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa

On Apr 14, 1:03 pm, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:

would guess that the majority of ROFFians are bored to tears by the level of
detail I have already gone into tree density and the role of fire.

Well having started all this, I'll just say that I've enjoyed seeing
that level of detail :-) One question, do we have lodgepole down here
in our southern NM mountains or are the dense stands I see all
immature Ponderosas? One thing I need to get better at is identifying
trees. About all I know is long soft needles are pines and short fat
needles are firs. Is that right?

Down here, a whole 'nother thread could be started about the pinon-
juniper takeover of historic grasslands...

issues, convinced me that those who oversimplified their answers were as
worthless to me as those who couldn't couch their answers in terms I could
fully understand.

Uh, oh, that better be the last time I simplify to "kill a tree, save
a forest" :-)

Jon.

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa

Bob Weinberger wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

You are too young to have fought fires before the days of extreme fire
suppression. You are clueless about those days. The fires and the smoke
killed most of the beetles, so you did not have the massive fuel stock.
There were big fires, but not like now. Even the Indians ignited fires to
reduce the fuel load and get fresh growth going.

Yes if by the term "extreme fire suppression" you mean before we had any
active programs to fight forest fires, you are correct, but at 67, I suspect
that I may be older than you. And over 2/3 of that lifespan has been spent
studying and working with forest systems, and my first of many tours on a
fire line was in 1959.
If you think the fires of today are all bigger than occurred before "extreme
fire suppression" google up info on the Peshtigo Fire, the Yacoult Burn, The
Tillamook fires, and the 1910 fires in Idaho & Western Montana just to name
a few, not to mention the reports of Lewis and Clark, Fremont and other
early explorers and travelors in the US West.
If you aren't over 100 years old, please tell me what makes you an expert on
forest conditions pre circa 1915, while I, who have spent 45 years studying
the research on forest history, journals of early explorers and pioneers ,
and examining dedrochronological evidence of past fires, am clueless.
Yes there were large fires in the past before we did our best to control
them and yes in many locales the Native Americans purposely set fires for a
whole host of reasons , but the point you and rw are missing is that not all
forests are the same, not all forest types respond to fire in the same
manner, and the "natural" fire regimes, average return cycle, and average
fire intensity tend to be quite different in different forest types. In
some forest types such as Lodgepole pine, and Jack pine, which are very
easily killed by even a very light fire, but are adapted to regenerate
profusely following fire, the common effect of fire on stand density for
pure or near pure stands of these species is to reduce it to at or near 0
trees per acre for the short time until the stand starts again - usually
with very high tree densities. In some other forest types, the suppression
of fire indeed was/is a major contributing factor (but not always the most
important) to many of the overstocked stands we have today.

Apart from a renewed appreciation of your knowledge of the
subject, I have an entirely new appreciation of your patience
with armchair experts ....

..... and a heightened suspicion that if Madonna posted here on
the matter of nymphomania, some here would insist they knew more
about it than she did....

;)

- JR

slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa

wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 1:03 pm, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:

would guess that the majority of ROFFians are bored to tears by the level
of
detail I have already gone into tree density and the role of fire.

Well having started all this, I'll just say that I've enjoyed seeing
that level of detail :-) One question, do we have lodgepole down here
in our southern NM mountains or are the dense stands I see all
immature Ponderosas? One thing I need to get better at is identifying
trees. About all I know is long soft needles are pines and short fat
needles are firs. Is that right?

Down here, a whole 'nother thread could be started about the pinon-
juniper takeover of historic grasslands...

issues, convinced me that those who oversimplified their answers were as
worthless to me as those who couldn't couch their answers in terms I
could
fully understand.

Uh, oh, that better be the last time I simplify to "kill a tree, save
a forest" :-)

Jon.

The range of Lodgepole pine just barely reaches the Northern border of New
Mexico, so the major component of most overstoked stands you see down where
you are would likely be immature Ponderosa. In the absence of moderately
frequent ground fires, Juniper and Pinon Pine may be present in the
understory of the lower elevation and drier PP stands, while at higher
elevations and sites with more moisture, Douglas-fir and White Fir may be
likely componrnts of a dense understory in Ponderosa Pine stands. . At still
higher elevations you can get into Fir or Spruce/Fir ecotypes (primarily
White Fir, Douglas-fir, Englemann Spruce, and Sub-alpine Fir) where the
natural fire return interval averages in the hundreds of years and when it
occurs tends to be a stand replacement event. Thus in those types, fire is
rarely a major factor in controlling stocking density.

Your handy key for identifying tree species is close - perhaps close enough
for your purposes.
Slightly more detail for your part of the world:
1. If the needles are 3 1/2" long, pointed on the end, are in bundles of
2-3 needles which when held together are round in cross section = Ponderosa
2. If the needles are 1 1/2 - 3" long, round in cross section, and pointed
on the end, are in bundles of 1-3 needles depending on species = one of the
Pinon Pine species.
3. If the needles are from 1/2- 7/8" long, fairly flat in cross section,
blunt to slightly notched on the end, and come out individually and opposite
on two sides of the twigs in a fairly flat array = Douglas-fir
4. If the needles are from 7/8-1 1/2" long, having a cross section like a
short fat "m", ends slightly notched, and come out individually on two sides
and the top of the twigs = White Fir
5. If the needles are from 1/2 - 3/4" long, somewhat square in cross
section, very sharp on the ends, and arranged individually all around the
twigs = Englemann Spruce.
6. If the needles are from 1/2 - 3/4" long, but similar in all other aspects
to White Fir, BUT the branches all leave the trunk at a definate downward
angle giving all but the smallest specimens a distinctive New England church
spire shape, and all but the lower trunk of very old specimens has smooth
silver gray bark with numerous "pitch blisters" = Sub-alpine Fir.

Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR