| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
It's supposed to be near 90 here by Sunday ... yuck
far worse is that it's 34 in Ashton as I type but forecast to reach mid 60's this weekend, whoa, Whoa, WHOA !!! we don't need or want a super quick runoff of this years excellent snowpack such as happened a couple years ago ... be cool ..... think cool |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
On 2008-04-10, Larry L wrote:
be cool .... think cool Can't help but..... With windchill, it's 26 deg F, here. My shorts wearing day of last week is but a vague memory. :\ nb |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
be cool
.... *think cool Can't help but..... With windchill, it's 26 deg F, here. *My shorts wearing day of last week is but a vague memory. *:\ Right now, its a balmy 57 here in San Francisco (well, it feels pretty balmy to me). Tomorrow I head back to Omaha with a high of 37 and a 90% chance of snow. Frank Reid |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
"notbob" wrote Can't help but..... With windchill, it's 26 deg F, here. My shorts wearing day of last week is but a vague memory. :\ It's not that I want ya'll freezin' just that we don't want an extra warm period right now a couple years ago a very nice snow pack washed out to the sea ( instead of sinking into the ground ) in May and the summer ended up hot and dry enough that many fisheries were closed down to protect the surviving fish this year we have a chance to replenish groundwater in most of the West ... just need a 'normal' Spring, instead of a extra hot one ... don't like seeing a 30degree rise in 3 days, scary ( if you like fish, or food grown with irrigation, or drinking water ) |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
"Frank Reid" wrote Right now, its a balmy 57 here in San Francisco (well, it feels pretty balmy to me). to find real California balmy, head East, young man ( but only about 1 1/2 hours ) it's nearly 80 here right now .. ( Oakdale ) |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
Larry L wrote:
It's supposed to be near 90 here by Sunday ... yuck far worse is that it's 34 in Ashton as I type but forecast to reach mid 60's this weekend, whoa, Whoa, WHOA !!! we don't need or want a super quick runoff of this years excellent snowpack such as happened a couple years ago ... be cool .... think cool It snowed a half inch here in Spanish Fork, UT yesterday. This winter has about caused me to lose faith in global warming. Russell Who would like to get his garden going. |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
"Russell D." wrote It snowed a half inch here in Spanish Fork, UT yesterday. This winter has about caused me to lose faith in global warming. Russell Who would like to get his garden going. This could be a great year for you to take a trip back home, Russell That lovely river snaking through one of God's most splendid efforts just might be pretty high until late July, however G |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
On Apr 10, 6:21*pm, "Larry L" wrote:
"Frank Reid" wrote Right now, its a balmy 57 here in San Francisco (well, it feels pretty balmy to me). to find real California balmy, head East, young man ( but only about 1 1/2 hours ) * it's nearly 80 here right now .. ( Oakdale ) Uh, no. Frank Reid (I'll build a snowman in your image on Friday) |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
On 2008-04-10, Larry L wrote:
....it's nearly 80 here right now .. ( Oakdale ) Yep, that's Oakdale. I spent a lot of time there when I was a kid. Learned to fish on the Stanislaus out around Atlas Rd. I've seen it hit 100+ in mid-April in the Central Valley. Not sure what's in store for me here in Central Colorado, this Summer, but right now I'd kill for one 70 deg day. nb |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
....it's nearly 80 here right now .. ( Oakdale )
Yep, that's Oakdale. *I spent a lot of time there when I was a kid. *Learned to fish on the Stanislaus out around Atlas Rd. *I've seen it hit 100+ in mid-April in the Central Valley. *Not sure what's in store for me here in Central Colorado, this Summer, but right now I'd kill for one 70 deg day. My Mom always used to tell me that it was 105 on the day I was born (April 15) outside of Los Angeles. Frank Reid |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
"notbob" wrote but right now I'd kill for one 70 deg day. Of course, right now is the time of year when this area is at it's best, it's absolutely lovely here now. I sometimes feel a bit guilty mentioning that when others are at still in suffer-season but in Summer this place can be miserable, we pay g. But, I'm on my third travel trailer. Each has gotten lots of use, months each year, getting me out of the heat and into the mountains .... first for work running field trials, now for my 'fishing' trips. I came very close to buying a place in Idaho, instead of this one, but then it occured to me that I'd end up wintering here in a trailer and if you're going to travel to stay in consistent 'dog working temperatures' it makes more sense to go to the mountains in summer than to come here in winter fog and rain to 'rough it.' ...imho |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
"Frank Reid" wrote My Mom always used to tell me that it was 105 on the day I was born (April 15) outside of Los Angeles. Frank Reid Did she ever call you the most expensive tax she ever had to pay? ( April 15 ? ) |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
On Apr 10, 3:04 pm, "Larry L" wrote:
It's supposed to be near 90 here by Sunday ... yuck whoa, Whoa, WHOA !!! It was 37 this morning on my back porch...but supposed to reach 80 by Monday...farmers down here would probably rather see a quick runoff than a slow one, since their irrigation water comes from so far away (Rio Grande basin in Colorado and northern NM). The best way to improve groundwater retention would be to get rid of half (probably more) of the trees in the mountain west. Kill a tree, save a forest...and a trout stream (obroff). Jon. |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
wrote in message ... On Apr 10, 3:04 pm, "Larry L" wrote: It's supposed to be near 90 here by Sunday ... yuck whoa, Whoa, WHOA !!! It was 37 this morning on my back porch...but supposed to reach 80 by Monday...farmers down here would probably rather see a quick runoff than a slow one, since their irrigation water comes from so far away (Rio Grande basin in Colorado and northern NM). The best way to improve groundwater retention would be to get rid of half (probably more) of the trees in the mountain west. Kill a tree, save a forest...and a trout stream (obroff). Actually, the best way to improve groundwater retention would be to get rid of 90% (probably more) of the people in the mountain west.* Kill a cowboy, save a third of a continent. Wolfgang *of course this would not only solve the problem, it would also moot it. ah well, i guess i can learn to live with that. |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
"Larry L" wrote in message ... It's supposed to be near 90 here by Sunday ... yuck far worse is that it's 34 in Ashton as I type but forecast to reach mid 60's this weekend, whoa, Whoa, WHOA !!! we don't need or want a super quick runoff of this years excellent snowpack such as happened a couple years ago ... be cool .... think cool We had 22 degrees this morning and it's a blue bird day. They are talking 65 degrees Sat. and 70 degrees on Sun. Sounds like a dream given the extended winter we have had. The lake is still completely froze over and I doubt it will open before fishing season. My grandfather has had a cabin on the lake for 55 years and he has never seen the lake froze over on opening day of fishing season. Are elevation is just under 2500 ft., however we are in a snow belt on the WA./ID. boarder, we had over 140 inches of snow fall this year. The snow in the area has had a very slow melt off, allowing for the ground to accept a great deal of the water, although the creeks, streams and sm. rivers are bloated. I understand your position in CA, but here in the N.W. I'm ready to see and feel the SUN! JT |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
"JT" wrote I understand your position in CA, but here in the N.W. I'm ready to see and feel the SUN! yeah, I'm sure you are I just flashed on that summer, two or three back, when a good snowpack did little real good for the aquifier/rivers because of a very hot May ...... thus my post Hopefully it will warm soon for you, just not too quickly I thought you were in Montana ... no? .... maybe just because of Bitterroot trips |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
"Larry L" wrote in message ... "JT" wrote I understand your position in CA, but here in the N.W. I'm ready to see and feel the SUN! yeah, I'm sure you are I just flashed on that summer, two or three back, when a good snowpack did little real good for the aquifier/rivers because of a very hot May ...... thus my post Hopefully it will warm soon for you, just not too quickly Very true... I thought you were in Montana ... no? .... maybe just because of Bitterroot trips No... I reside in WA. I regularly try and get over to MT., but not nearly as much as I would like too. I look forward to hearing about your travels this season. JT |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
wrote in message ... The best way to improve groundwater retention would be to get rid of half (probably more) of the trees in the mountain west. Kill a tree, save a forest...and a trout stream (obroff). Jon. good Lord, I hope you are joking here, Jon. Tom |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
On 11-Apr-2008, "Wolfgang" wrote: Actually, the best way to improve groundwater retention would be to get rid of 90% (probably more) of the people in the mountain west.* Kill a cowboy, save a third of a continent. Wolfgang *of course this would not only solve the problem, it would also moot it. ah well, i guess i can learn to live with that. Need any help? Or send them to LA NYC or Hotlanta Fred Fred |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
"Tom Littleton" wrote in message news:QyQLj.25$DD2.12@trndny04... wrote in message ... The best way to improve groundwater retention would be to get rid of half (probably more) of the trees in the mountain west. Kill a tree, save a forest...and a trout stream (obroff). Jon. good Lord, I hope you are joking here, Jon. Tom No he is not joking. The forests of the inland West are way overstocked compared to their pre-settlement condition. Particularly those in the Ponderosa Pine and dry mixed conifer ecotypes. Pre- settlement stands of trees in those ecotypes commonly averaged 30-100 trees/acre while they now commonly have from 300-5000 trees/ac. The result is unhealthy fire-prone stands that deplete soil moisture. The specific reasons for the changes in stocking levels are too complex to explain here, but if anyone is truly interested I will explain them via email, or you could take your request to alt.forestry where it would be answered by myself or another forester. Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
Bob Weinberger wrote:
"Tom Littleton" wrote in message wrote in message The best way to improve groundwater retention would be to get rid of half (probably more) of the trees in the mountain west. Kill a tree, save a forest...and a trout stream (obroff). good Lord, I hope you are joking here, Jon. No he is not joking. The forests of the inland West are way overstocked compared to their pre-settlement condition. Particularly those in the Ponderosa Pine and dry mixed conifer ecotypes. Pre- settlement stands of trees in those ecotypes commonly averaged 30-100 trees/acre while they now commonly have from 300-5000 trees/ac. The result is unhealthy fire-prone stands that deplete soil moisture. The specific reasons for the changes in stocking levels are too complex to explain here, but if anyone is truly interested I will explain them via email, or you could take your request to alt.forestry where it would be answered by myself or another forester. God, Bob, honestly, you should charge us all some sort of fee for regularly popping in and cleansing this nut house with infusions of straight-forward sanity. Hope you and yours are well. JR (who believes he'll drop by alt.forestry....) |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message news:9RWLj.116$nT1.44@trndny09... good info snipped I suppose what you say makes sense, but I notice the word "pre-settlement". Which gets us back to Wolfgang's point, perhaps the problem lies more with the settlement than with the trees. Tom p.s. anyhow, a second to JR's comment...thanks for providing helpful, informed input! |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:06:47 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote: "Bob Weinberger" wrote in message news:9RWLj.116$nT1.44@trndny09... good info snipped I suppose what you say makes sense, but I notice the word "pre-settlement". Which gets us back to Wolfgang's point, perhaps the problem lies more with the settlement than with the trees. Tom p.s. anyhow, a second to JR's comment...thanks for providing helpful, informed input! If the people responsible for the increase in trees had instead planted (probably subsidized) corn or Bermuda hay on the land, and anyone suggested that less corn or grass would require less water, and so, getting rid of some of the corn or grass was a good idea, would you complain or even think the person suggesting such was not both reasonable and sensible? So why is it any different because of the type of introduced fauna? As to whatever Wolfgang's point may have been, he obviously hasn't volunteered to be the first to leave this planet, so... HTH, R |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
|
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
|
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:26:06 -0700, rw
wrote: wrote: On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:06:47 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote: "Bob Weinberger" wrote in message news:9RWLj.116$nT1.44@trndny09... good info snipped I suppose what you say makes sense, but I notice the word "pre-settlement". Which gets us back to Wolfgang's point, perhaps the problem lies more with the settlement than with the trees. Tom p.s. anyhow, a second to JR's comment...thanks for providing helpful, informed input! If the people responsible for the increase in trees had instead planted (probably subsidized) corn or Bermuda hay on the land, and anyone suggested that less corn or grass would require less water, and so, getting rid of some of the corn or grass was a good idea, would you complain or even think the person suggesting such was not both reasonable and sensible? So why is it any different because of the type of introduced fauna? 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. I'd offer it's "conservation" (the stereotypical "tree hugger") run amok - whether it's deer in Connecticut, trees in wherever, this or that sub-sub-sub-sub-species of snail darter here, etc. True _conservation_ isn't a matter of "saving" as much of whatever as can be (artificially) possible. IMO, man should accept that he will impact the planet, leave as small a footprint as possible, and let "nature" take "her" course. And part of that "small footprint" is much less "public" water, land, etc. Any "public" land, water, etc., that can't sustain any and all of the "public," under an each must leave a "small footprint" scheme, can't support special subsets - i.e., there should be no FFing-only on "public" water. If it's Sam Spinfisherman's or Cindy Canepole's water, too, they oughta be allowed to fish their method, too. Furthermore, the whole idea of "saving it for our grandchildren" is a real scam - those "saving" it have been "saving" it so long, the first people fed that bull**** are long dead, and the supposed beneficiaries, the grandchildren, are now grandparents...who grandchildren aren't allowed to use it freely, ostensibly so THEIR grandchildren can "have" it. TC, R |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
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. nb |
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. nb As I stated in my original post on this subject, the causes are far more complex than can be adequately covered here. While control of forest fires certainly is an important element in the equation, the answer is far far more complex than just saying suppression of forest fires is the cause. For example, in many ecotypes the failure to control forest fires will commonly result in much of the area converting from forest to brushfields - which are even less friendly to maintaining the water table, and in fact many of those areas were brushfields pre-settlement. And, in areas where Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) or Jack pine(Pinus banksiana) is present (2 species that are quite dependant on fire for regeneration), forest fires usually result in an ensuing "doghair" stand of Lodgepole or Jack pine with thousands of trees/ acre. BTW "settlement itself is not so much a factor as the choices that the settlers made. Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
Bob Weinberger wrote:
"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. nb As I stated in my original post on this subject, the causes are far more complex than can be adequately covered here. In my neck of the woods I don't believe it's all that complicated. Fire suppression has resulted in huge overgrown forests of small lodgepole, crowded together like sticks. Over the past decade they've been decimated by pine bark beetles. The trees have died and the needles have mostly fallen off, so the "red trees" aren't as noticeable as before, but there's a huge fuel load waiting to burn. Large, healthy trees in more-or-less mosaic conditions (which I believe is the natural condition here) don't seem nearly as affected by the beetles as the small, crowded trees. Aside from some modest logging, these wilderness forests haven't been "managed" in any way, that I can tell, except by fire suppression. I think we need active management to return the forest to a healthy state. I think the Forest Service should build fire breaks and access roads for controlled burns. They have a plan to do just that, but lack of money and the bureaucracy is holding it up. In the meantime, we spend mucho bucks on fighting big fires. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
On 2008-04-12, Bob Weinberger wrote:
more complex than just saying suppression of forest fires is the cause. True. I saw another great program where they are just now realizing the importance of salmon on the forest ecosystem. Bears and other predators dump the remains of partially eaten fish on the forest floor which is turn provides necessary plant nutrients. I'm thinking we should toss a catch or two back into the woods to help it out, maybe the gut hooked ones. ;) nb |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
"rw" wrote in message m... Bob Weinberger wrote: As I stated in my original post on this subject, the causes are far more complex than can be adequately covered here. In my neck of the woods I don't believe it's all that complicated. Fire suppression has resulted in huge overgrown forests of small lodgepole, crowded together like sticks. Over the past decade they've been decimated by pine bark beetles. The trees have died and the needles have mostly fallen off, so the "red trees" aren't as noticeable as before, but there's a huge fuel load waiting to burn. Large, healthy trees in more-or-less mosaic conditions (which I believe is the natural condition here) don't seem nearly as affected by the beetles as the small, crowded trees. Aside from some modest logging, these wilderness forests haven't been "managed" in any way, that I can tell, except by fire suppression. I think we need active management to return the forest to a healthy state. I think the Forest Service should build fire breaks and access roads for controlled burns. They have a plan to do just that, but lack of money and the bureaucracy is holding it up. In the meantime, we spend mucho bucks on fighting big fires. Well I know how you physical sciences types like answers to be simple and straight forward, however in the biological sciences answers are rarely simple and straightforward. For instance those thick Lodgepole pine stands you are talking about are "usually" the result of previous fire rather than the result of fire suppression. The "normal" cycle in the Lodgepole pine type is: an overdense stand of Lodgepole followed by bark beetle and/or fire followed by another overdense Lodgepole stand, ad infinitum. Only in those areas of Lodgepole pine where other species can be competetive (in some sites, Lodgepole pine is the only species adapted to the site) can the cycle be broken. In those cases it requires the ABSENCE of fire for long enough for the other species to mostly take over the site when the relatively short lived Lpp declines (often following a bark beetle outbreak, if fire is absent for long enough for the heavy fuel load of dead Lodgepole to decompose). And the above only applies to the Lodgepole pine ecotype. The dynamic is quite different in the Ponderosa Pine ecotype and still different in the Grand Fir ecotype ( two other predominant ecotypes in "your part of the world"). And BTW the predominant species that is present on a site NOW does not necessarily determine what ecotype the site is in. That is determined by the site parameters that dictate what plant association is climax for the site in the absence of management actions. And that is still further complicated by such things as in the wetter end of the Ponderosa Pine ecotype where the true climax, in the absence of the "normal" cycle of periodic light burns, is Doug-fir or True Firs, but the fire climax is Ponderosa. Also in "your part of the world" much of the mosaic pattern that is present is a result of significant areas that can support (except during unusually wet cycles) only grass or xeric shrubs, and areas with a high water table (wet meadows), interspersed with areas that have the right amount of moisture/soil depth to support tree growrth. Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
Bob Weinberger wrote:
"rw" wrote in message m... Bob Weinberger wrote: As I stated in my original post on this subject, the causes are far more complex than can be adequately covered here. In my neck of the woods I don't believe it's all that complicated. Fire suppression has resulted in huge overgrown forests of small lodgepole, crowded together like sticks. Over the past decade they've been decimated by pine bark beetles. The trees have died and the needles have mostly fallen off, so the "red trees" aren't as noticeable as before, but there's a huge fuel load waiting to burn. Large, healthy trees in more-or-less mosaic conditions (which I believe is the natural condition here) don't seem nearly as affected by the beetles as the small, crowded trees. Aside from some modest logging, these wilderness forests haven't been "managed" in any way, that I can tell, except by fire suppression. I think we need active management to return the forest to a healthy state. I think the Forest Service should build fire breaks and access roads for controlled burns. They have a plan to do just that, but lack of money and the bureaucracy is holding it up. In the meantime, we spend mucho bucks on fighting big fires. Well I know how you physical sciences types like answers to be simple and straight forward, however in the biological sciences answers are rarely simple and straightforward. I realize that you feel that you must be the expert on this subject, and that you think its all too complicated for someone as naive and ignorant as I, but the situation is very clear. The large, dense stands of mature lodgepole pine in the SNRA are a result of a century of fire suppression. I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. That's the position of the Forest Service. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
JR wrote:
Bob Weinberger wrote: ... The specific reasons for the changes in stocking levels are too complex to explain here, but if anyone is truly interested I will explain them via email, or you could take your request to alt.forestry where it would be answered by myself or another forester. God, Bob, honestly, you should charge us all some sort of fee for regularly popping in and cleansing this nut house with infusions of straight-forward sanity. Oh please, sanity my ass. Bob is a diehard Swiftboater and Swiftboaters should be charged double roff's annual membership fee. And I wonder how much of Bob's "forestry" he got from watching CNN six years before CNN went on the air. ;-) -- Ken Fortenberry |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:54:58 -0700, rw
wrote: Bob Weinberger wrote: "rw" wrote in message m... Bob Weinberger wrote: As I stated in my original post on this subject, the causes are far more complex than can be adequately covered here. In my neck of the woods I don't believe it's all that complicated. Fire suppression has resulted in huge overgrown forests of small lodgepole, crowded together like sticks. Over the past decade they've been decimated by pine bark beetles. The trees have died and the needles have mostly fallen off, so the "red trees" aren't as noticeable as before, but there's a huge fuel load waiting to burn. Large, healthy trees in more-or-less mosaic conditions (which I believe is the natural condition here) don't seem nearly as affected by the beetles as the small, crowded trees. Aside from some modest logging, these wilderness forests haven't been "managed" in any way, that I can tell, except by fire suppression. I think we need active management to return the forest to a healthy state. I think the Forest Service should build fire breaks and access roads for controlled burns. They have a plan to do just that, but lack of money and the bureaucracy is holding it up. In the meantime, we spend mucho bucks on fighting big fires. Well I know how you physical sciences types like answers to be simple and straight forward, however in the biological sciences answers are rarely simple and straightforward. I realize that you feel that you must be the expert on this subject, and that you think its all too complicated for someone as naive and ignorant as I, but the situation is very clear. The large, dense stands of mature lodgepole pine in the SNRA are a result of a century of fire suppression. I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. That's the position of the Forest Service. Here's the thing, brother - you ain't stupid, so think... Hey, ymmv, R |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
"rw" wrote in message m... I realize that you feel that you must be the expert on this subject, and that you think its all too complicated for someone as naive and ignorant as I, but the situation is very clear. The large, dense stands of mature lodgepole pine in the SNRA are a result of a century of fire suppression. I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. That's the position of the Forest Service. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. No Steve I don't think you are naive and ignorant in general, but you have amply demonstrated that you have no understanding of Lodgepole pine ecology. Lodgepole with its thin bark is almost never thinned by an underburn and most any fire in a pure or near pure Lodgepole stand tends to be a stand replacement fire. Because most Lodgepole pine has serotinous cones (the cones are retained unopened on the tree and only open and disperse their seeds after being exposed to high heat), the seeds from many years of cone crops are all released at once following a fire. Often tens of thousands of seeds/acre are released following a fire and they have high germination rates in the mineral soil exposed by the fire. Unless the seedlings are thinned by man, animals (rare except in peak snowshoe rabbit years), some unusual weather conditions, or some unusually agressive brush out-competes the young seedlings, the resulting Lpp stand will be super dense and will remain so until the next fire and/or Mt. Pine Beetle outbreak kills all or most of the stand and the cycle starts over. And as for the position of the Forest Service: 1. Are you sure that you understand what their position is? i.e are they referring to Lodgepole pine specifically or are they making general comments about forest conditions, that in your neck of the woods are really only applicable to the Ponderosa Pine and Dry Mixed conifer types (DF, WL, PP, & GF/WF with some Lpp in the mix.). 2. Check to see if your local ranger district has anyone left who has actual training and experience in forest ecology. Many FS Districts no longer have anyone on staff with such training or experience. They no longer require people holding "Forester" positions to actually have forestry or silviculture or forest ecology training - many of them have had a few general biology courses at best Bob Weinberger La Grande,OR |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:33:56 GMT, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote: And as for the position of the Forest Service: 1. Are you sure that you understand what their position is? i.e are they referring to Lodgepole pine specifically or are they making general comments about forest conditions, that in your neck of the woods are really only applicable to the Ponderosa Pine and Dry Mixed conifer types (DF, WL, PP, & GF/WF with some Lpp in the mix.). 2. Check to see if your local ranger district has anyone left who has actual training and experience in forest ecology. Many FS Districts no longer have anyone on staff with such training or experience. They no longer require people holding "Forester" positions to actually have forestry or silviculture or forest ecology training - many of them have had a few general biology courses at best Now hang on a minute, here...are you seriously suggesting that someone with a _US Government agency_ might not know what they are doing...? Come on, now, Bob, that's just crazy talk... HTH, R I mean, they're from the government...they're here to help... Bob Weinberger La Grande,OR |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
Bob Weinberger wrote:
"rw" wrote in message m... I realize that you feel that you must be the expert on this subject, and that you think its all too complicated for someone as naive and ignorant as I, but the situation is very clear. The large, dense stands of mature lodgepole pine in the SNRA are a result of a century of fire suppression. I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. That's the position of the Forest Service. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. No Steve I don't think you are naive and ignorant in general, but you have amply demonstrated that you have no understanding of Lodgepole pine ecology. Lodgepole with its thin bark is almost never thinned by an underburn and most any fire in a pure or near pure Lodgepole stand tends to be a stand replacement fire. "Fire is a principal factor in the establishment and structure of most lodgepole pine forests. Historically, the frequency of fires varied every 60 to 500 years and their severity resulted in a diverse mosaic of age classes and species mixtures in Idaho's lodgepole pine forest types. In the Northern Rockies province, severe fires typically have created large expanses of even-aged, pure or mixed species stands of lodgepole pine. In the Southern Rockies Province, low-intensity surface fires often have maintained multi-aged stands in which climax species were unable to develop. The Middle Rockies have a good representation of both conditions. Fire suppression efforts, however, have reduced the diversity of age classes and forest structure." Idaho Forest Products Commission So clearly you're the one oversimplifying by claiming that all lodgepole forests react the same way to fire in all places. Note the last sentence. "An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows almost everything about almost nothing." Anonymous -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:51:20 -0700, rw
wrote: Bob Weinberger wrote: "rw" wrote in message m... I realize that you feel that you must be the expert on this subject, and that you think its all too complicated for someone as naive and ignorant as I, but the situation is very clear. The large, dense stands of mature lodgepole pine in the SNRA are a result of a century of fire suppression. I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. That's the position of the Forest Service. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. No Steve I don't think you are naive and ignorant in general, but you have amply demonstrated that you have no understanding of Lodgepole pine ecology. Lodgepole with its thin bark is almost never thinned by an underburn and most any fire in a pure or near pure Lodgepole stand tends to be a stand replacement fire. "Fire is a principal factor in the establishment and structure of most lodgepole pine forests. Historically, the frequency of fires varied every 60 to 500 years and their severity resulted in a diverse mosaic of age classes and species mixtures in Idaho's lodgepole pine forest types. In the Northern Rockies province, severe fires typically have created large expanses of even-aged, pure or mixed species stands of lodgepole pine. In the Southern Rockies Province, low-intensity surface fires often have maintained multi-aged stands in which climax species were unable to develop. The Middle Rockies have a good representation of both conditions. Fire suppression efforts, however, have reduced the diversity of age classes and forest structure." Idaho Forest Products Commission So clearly you're the one oversimplifying by claiming that all lodgepole forests react the same way to fire in all places. Note the last sentence. Yeah, nothing avoids oversimplification like a single sentence from a commission...I defy one to find or even invent a better way to fully explain a complex issue... "An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows almost everything about almost nothing." Ah...well, if it helps at all, I, speaking only for myself mind you, consider you ROFF's foremost expert on Mac stuff... Anonymous Ya know, I always wonder about this dude (or dudette, as the case may be...I'll bet their first name is Chris or Pat or something...) ...I mean, sometimes, he or she writes pretty good stuff, and then, other times, I think that he or she ought to be flat-out ashamed to have his or her name on that ****... Never Anonymous, R |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
"rw" wrote in message m... The paragraph you qouted and your misinterpretation of it is an outstanding example of the dangers of trying to oversimplify the role of the fire in the environment in order to explain it to the public. "Fire is a principal factor in the establishment and structure of most lodgepole pine forests. Historically, the frequency of fires varied every 60 to 500 years and their severity resulted in a diverse mosaic of age classes and species mixtures in Idaho's lodgepole pine forest types. True, but the scale of the mosaic varies tremendously, and in most cases, the size of the pure or almost pure Lodgepole elements in the mosaic are those that burned on a 60-90 year cycle. Those areas that have a much longer fire return interval almost never support Lodgepole stands for that period, and it is precisely the ABSENCE of fire for long intervals that allowed other species to dominate those sites. Get one of your Forest Service friends to try to show you a Lodgepole pine stand that is over 250 years old - not an individual tree (though good luck even finding that), but a stand of 10 acres or more that is mostly lodgepole pine and over that age. In the Northern Rockies province, severe fires typically have created large expanses of even-aged, pure or mixed species stands of lodgepole pine. Yep. and guess what, at the time the above was written, almost all those large expanses of even-aged pure or mixed species stands of lodgepole pine got their start in the early 20th century - before the advent of intensive fire suppression. Indeed, it was the 1910 fires in N. Idaho and W. Montana (which alone accounted for the start of most of those stands) which was the major impetus for the fire suppression programs we followed for the rest of the 20th century. The pure Lodgepole stands that started in that era are now over-ripe for a beetle epidemic and/or fire to start them over. Our fire suppression efforts weren't a significant cause of their overstocked condition, they simply delayed the inevitable. Yes, in those stands where Lodgepole pine was not the major component of the stand, fire suppression was indeed oftena major factor in most of those stands staying over-dense. In those situations low ground fires would have, in most cases, killed out most of the Lodgepole ( as well as most of the Grand/White Fir) element of the stands, thus thinning out the stands. In the Southern Rockies Province, low-intensity surface fires often have maintained multi-aged stands in which climax species were unable to develop. The Middle Rockies have a good representation of both conditions. Fire suppression efforts, however, have reduced the diversity of age classes and forest structure." All very true, but it has little to do with pure or near pure Lodgepole pine stands. The Middle and Southern Rockies have large components of Ponderosa Pine and Dry Mixed Conifer types, and that is where fire suppression has indeed reduced the diversity of age classes and structure. Meanwhile the vast majority of pure to near pure stands of Lodgepole pine in those ares continue to be over stocked - with or without fire -, and most stay that way for the 60 - 100 years between fire return events. Idaho Forest Products Commission So clearly you're the one oversimplifying by claiming that all lodgepole forests react the same way to fire in all places. Note the last sentence. Unlike you, I diligently try to avoid speaking in absolutes when talking about biological processes. I may not always succeed, but I always try. Take note of all the qualifiers contained in my explainations and tell me how any careful reader of even average ability could come to the conclusion that I was making blanket statements "that all lodgepole forests react the same way to fire in all places." Or perhaps its unrealistic of me to believe you are capable of such, given your past performance careful reading and comprehension of complex issues that don't have the absolute relationships that you are used to in physics. "An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows almost everything about almost nothing." Anonymous Bob Weinberger La Grande,Or |
slow down summer ... whoa, Whoa
Bob Weinberger wrote:
Unlike you, I diligently try to avoid speaking in absolutes when talking about biological processes. 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. What we're seeing is a tremendous build-up of fuel due to to beetle infestation, and the natural course of this fuel load burning being thrwarted by fire suppression. It's been happening for a long time. Eventually, something is going to give. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:05 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter