Jump to content

Fire Season


Recommended Posts

Some reading for anyone interested, on what the experts think might be in store for the upcoming fire season.  Looks potentially active, of course.  However, if you take a minute to think about the good that comes from wild fires and the ecosystems that depend on them, maybe things aren't as grim as they seem.  Running around dumping water on naturally occurring fires for the past 50+ years is just another way of messing with mother nature.  Eventually she will win and forests will burn. 

 

http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/outlooks/monthly_seasonal_outlook.pdf

 

http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/outlooks/extended_outlook.png

 

"The Northwest is facing a complicated set-up to fire season. Precipitation deficits and warm weather left the Area with little snowpack. This will allow fuels to dry earlier than usual and leaves carry-over fine fuels standing tall. During the spring the warmth continued; however, some precipitation entered the Area. This did little to quell the drought or add to the anemic snowpack. It did provide inputs of precipitation that was well timed for adding additional grass growth through the growing season. It is likely the combination of these conditions will lead to an earlier than usual onset of both range and timber fires and that this will extend the length of the fire season in the Northwest."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some reading for anyone interested, on what the experts think might be in store for the upcoming fire season. Looks potentially active, of course. However, if you take a minute to think about the good that comes from wild fires and the ecosystems that depend on them, maybe things aren't as grim as they seem. Running around dumping water on naturally occurring fires for the past 50+ years is just another way of messing with mother nature. Eventually she will win and forests will burn.

 

"The Northwest is facing a complicated set-up to fire season. Precipitation deficits and warm weather left the Area with little snowpack. This will allow fuels to dry earlier than usual and leaves carry-over fine fuels standing tall. During the spring the warmth continued; however, some precipitation entered the Area. This did little to quell the drought or add to the anemic snowpack. It did provide inputs of precipitation that was well timed for adding additional grass growth through the growing season. It is likely the combination of these conditions will lead to an earlier than usual onset of both range and timber fires and that this will extend the length of the fire season in the Northwest."

I don't think anyone is denying that wildfire is an important part of natural ecosystems. This is especially true east of the Cascades. The problems is, after years of fire suppression, we get these massive, canopy-destroying fires as opposed to the smaller, low-intensity burns many areas used to see on a regular basis.

 

Couple this with the fact that wilderness areas are already pretty marginalized by development and suddenly a destructive fire in a primative area is looking like a pretty big loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

.. Yeh, kind of my attitude regarding fire and the whole, they should also certainly be looked at as beneficial thinking. If adding to what Jesse's pointed to here just above, saying that irrespective of the good that fire does, that certainly the ideas of both vigilance along with general safety aren't lessened with whatever benefits to nature, following whatever fire.

 

And with this, even more so during a specific year when fire may do more damage. Pointed to in a TV news article here more south, main Sacramento station, and about the potential more general in California where looked at more broadly, the basic ideas of both, the dryness more general with the drought, together with one more specific, the distance to supplies of water used in combatting fires. 

 

Weatherwise, best case, like Jesse's said here more just above, and I've said previously, .. cooler conditions, with some additional precipitation. If with where looking at main precip. a somewhat different likelihood and type being possible North compared to more south. 

  • Like 1
---
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is denying that wildfire is an important part of natural ecosystems. This is especially true east of the Cascades. The problems is, after years of fire suppression, we get these massive, canopy-destroying fires as opposed to the smaller, low-intensity burns many areas used to see on a regular basis.

 

Couple this with the fact that wilderness areas are already pretty marginalized by development and suddenly a destructive fire in a primative area is looking like a pretty big loss.

 

Are you just assuming this was how things worked as for as what we "used to see?"  I'm pretty sure the Tillamook and Yacolt burns wouldn't today be defined as smaller, low-intensity burns.  

My preferences can beat up your preferences’ dad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you just assuming this was how things worked as for as what we "used to see?" I'm pretty sure the Tillamook and Yacolt burns wouldn't today be defined as smaller, low-intensity burns.

No. It's fairly common knowledge that 20th century fire suppression techniques have contributed to larger wildfires on average.

 

Of course there are always outliers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It's fairly common knowledge that 20th century fire suppression techniques have contributed to larger wildfires on average.

 

Of course there are always outliers.

It's a balance. Because of fire suppression, the chances of seeing fire activity such as occurred during both those are extremely remote. That was my point.

  • Like 1

My preferences can beat up your preferences’ dad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a balance. Because of fire suppression, the chances of seeing fire activity such as occurred during both those are extremely remote. That was my point.

The chances of a large scale wildfire west of the Cascades has always been extemely remote. Try to come up with one more that you know of in our history besides Yacolt and Tillamook. They're really rare.

 

This conversation was about the east side, because that is the PNW wildfire hot spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chances of a large scale wildfire west of the Cascades has always been extemely remote. Try to come up with one more that you know of in our history besides Yacolt and Tillamook. They're really rare.

 

This conversation was about the east side, because that is the PNW wildfire hot spot.

I suspect they aren't/weren't as rare as you probably think.

My preferences can beat up your preferences’ dad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really good resource on wildfire history in the PNW: http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=5496

 

It refutes some points being discussed here, and supports others.

Backs up my point about small, low intensity fires being more common in earlier days pretty well.

 

Something tells me Dewey doesn't know much about forest ecology. Doesn't strike me as the outdoorsy type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Backs up my point about small, low intensity fires being more common in earlier days pretty well.

 

Something tells me Dewey doesn't know much about forest ecology. Doesn't strike me as the outdoorsy type.

Because I don't post about every time I take a walk outside?

 

Your take on things is incorrect. Fire suppression isn't the problem, as I'm sure is mentioned in that article.

My preferences can beat up your preferences’ dad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I don't post about every time I take a walk outside?

 

Your take on things is incorrect. Fire suppression isn't the problem, as I'm sure is mentioned in that article.

Read the article big boy.

 

Overzealous fire suppression in the early part of the 20th century has played a role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good lord, it's right there in the first paragraph.

 

Fire suppression is not the problem.

 

Are we reading the same article?

 

From the first paragraph:

 

Fire was once a natural part of the environment, and Native Americans used it in their quest for survival. But settlers and their descendants regarded fire as the enemy of the forests that generated so many jobs and that symbolized the Evergreen State. Fire suppression became the goal. This changed by the 1970s. Foresters demonstrated that policies of aggressive suppression had actually been detrimental to forest health and productivity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good lord, it's right there in the first paragraph.

 

Fire suppression is not the problem.

 

This is from the article I posted earlier:

 

"A fire suppression policy implemented by the United States Forest Service and other land management agencies at this time greatly decreased the occurrence of fire in these forests. The absence of reoccurring fire, coupled with widespread logging and grazing of forest lands, has led to unforeseen changes in forest composition, structure and ecology."

 

"Today's forest is often characterized by dense "dog-hair" thickets of young pines with a thick accumulation of litter on the forest floor. Previously, many pine forests of the region were open stands of large, old ponderosa pine underlain by an understory of native grasses. Small fires maintained this open structure by killing seedlings and encouraging growth of grasses. Some ecologists recognized this change in the nature of these pine forests as a possible problem as early as the 1930s, but changes in forest management did not occur until the 1970s. Fires in many of today's ponderosa pine forests are no longer low-intensity ground fires but rather catastrophic, stand-replacing crown fires."

 

"Prior to fire suppression, the fires in the pine forests of the region behaved in a somewhat predictable manner determined by years of evolution and natural processes. The forest ecosystem of today, in contrast, has possibly reached a point of unstable criticality."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you just assuming this was how things worked as for as what we "used to see?"  I'm pretty sure the Tillamook and Yacolt burns wouldn't today be defined as smaller, low-intensity burns.  

From the first article:

 

Before the arrival of settlers in the early nineteenth century, fire visited Northwest forests from two sources -- natural causes such as lightning and Native Americans. Lightning insured that regular, low-intensity fires swept forests and prairies, which needed fire to open seed cones and to clear competing species. These fires crawled slowly through brush and dried needles and leaves without doing serious damage to larger trees or to wildlife.

 

Logging operations left behind waste, called slash or slashings. Timberland owners burned slash to prevent it from becoming fuel for fires that could endanger virgin stands of timber. Many fires resulted from slash fires that got out of control. So, to protect the timber resource, Washington state law required loggers to burn their slash safely in the spring and fall. To reinforce the requirement, loggers were liable for fires that got out of control. The managed burning of slash did reduce the number of fires from that source, but the practice introduced fire into the Douglas fir forests of the Northwest on a more frequent cycle than before settlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we reading the same article?

 

From the first paragraph:

 

Fire was once a natural part of the environment, and Native Americans used it in their quest for survival. But settlers and their descendants regarded fire as the enemy of the forests that generated so many jobs and that symbolized the Evergreen State. Fire suppression became the goal. This changed by the 1970s. Foresters demonstrated that policies of aggressive suppression had actually been detrimental to forest health and productivity

Exactly. Fire suppression is no longer the issue and efforts were made to balance efforts. The issue is a lack of common sense policy due to ridiculous environmental and habitat concerns.

My preferences can beat up your preferences’ dad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how you assume I am wrong about an issue you clearly know very little about yourself based on a suspicion.

 

Says a lot about your nature. :)

Settle down. It's just an opinion based on common sense.

My preferences can beat up your preferences’ dad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Fire suppression is no longer the issue and efforts were made to balance efforts. The issue is a lack of common sense policy due to ridiculous environmental and habitat concerns.

 

I don't know what the article says, I haven't got the time to read it. But do know from other sources, that fire suppression, has lead to the kind of more intense fires mentioned above mainly, with in that main "fuels" (additional debris essentially.) both more plentiful and drier, have worked to rise the heat and so more basic quickness of spread and ferocity of some fires. 

 

And that, certainly in some areas, it (or more specifically this element of it.) continues to be .. a problem. 

  • Like 2
---
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is denying that wildfire is an important part of natural ecosystems. This is especially true east of the Cascades. The problems is, after years of fire suppression, we get these massive, canopy-destroying fires as opposed to the smaller, low-intensity burns many areas used to see on a regular basis.

 

Couple this with the fact that wilderness areas are already pretty marginalized by development and suddenly a destructive fire in a primative area is looking like a pretty big loss.

 

No. It's fairly common knowledge that 20th century fire suppression techniques have contributed to larger wildfires on average.

 

Of course there are always outliers.

 

Here are my first two initial posts.

 

Note that EVERYTHING I said here was backed up by the two articles. It's like I actually know what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good lord you are a slimy lawyer.

 

Past fire suppression was/is the issue. Forest haven't yet recovered from the misguided fire suppression policies of the early-mid 20th century, and we are still paying the price.

 

Forests aren't something that change overnight. We are still reaping the misfortune of early fire over-suppression.

 

Admit you were wrong.

Spare the insults. You're coming off a little desperate. Obviously things don't change overnight, yet efforts at effective forest management have been slowed or even halted by environmental-based, politicized issues.

 

Fire suppression requires common sense balance. Take the 30 Mile Fire back in 2001 (I think). I lived up there at the time and it was very controversial when those firefighters were killed because that fire was absolutely no danger to any life or property as it was. It was a push from the environmentalists that ensured that fire be immediately suppressed as dictated by federal statute.

 

Ultimately, fire suppression is only part of the equation. Simply stopping fires from threatening life or large areas of property should be the only goal. Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung to where suppression has taken a back seat to more politcally-fueled issues.

My preferences can beat up your preferences’ dad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spare the insults. You're coming off a little desparate. Obviously things don't change overnight, yet efforts at effective forest management have been slowed or even halted by environmental-based, politicized issues.

 

Fire suppression requires common sense balance. Take the 30 Mile Fire back in 2001 (I think). I lived up there at the time and it was very controversial when those firefighters were killed because that fire was absolutely no danger to any life or property as it was. It was a push from the environmentalists that ensured that fire be immediately suppressed as dictated by federal statute.

 

Ultimately, fire suppression is only part of the equation. Simply stopping fires from threatening life or large areas of property should be the only goal. Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung to where suppression has taken a back seat to more politcally-fueled issues.

 

You are going off on a tangent.

 

Would it kill you to admit that I was actually spot on in my first two posts?

 

Also, read the two articles. It sounds like you could learn a lot from them. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are going off on a tangent.

 

Would it kill you to admit that I was actually spot on in my first two posts?

 

Also, read the two articles. It sounds like you could learn a lot from them. :)

Same for you.

 

Long live GW!

My preferences can beat up your preferences’ dad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. I think by definition, and where considering the context more basic here above, neither view is tangential necessarily. And that even, with this if more basic back and forth, at least some emphasis has been put more on the down, set against the more good side of wild (if more mainly forest.) fire, each where considered along with the drier conditions at this point more weather and climate wise.  

---
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biscuit fire - 2002 - 500,000 acres.

 

Completely different eco-region. The eastern Siskiyous are dry. Much more akin to central/eastern Oregon.

 

I guess by west of the Cascades I mean west of the Cascade Crest and north of the Rogue-Umpqua Divide. :)

 

From that point northward forests west of the crest take on their classic "northwestern" damp, mossy quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the tree density part. In my mind, that's more a contributor to huge fires than undergrowth. After an area is logged or burned, we replant it with a tree every 100 square feet or so. In fact its required by law to maintain tax deferral status.

 

A mature forest will suppress undergrowth without a fire. Large trees block sunlight and absorb huge amounts of soil moisture.

 

Take a drive between Prineville and Mitchell. There was a huge fire there last summer in the Ochocos. There isn't much undergrowth but the trees are relatively close together.

 

IMO more roads and thinning are a better tool than trying to burn the undergrowth every few years.

If the forest is healthy and spaced out the fires will naturally only burn the undergrowth (in most cases).

 

It's the unhealthy forest conditions created by years of unnatural fire suppression and logging (then replanting dense, unnatural mono-culture stands) that is the issue.

 

Basically, the forests did just fine before we came over and mucked everything up. There's a reason they survived thousands of years without our help. Now that we have entered the system and altered things some management is needed. But it is only to mitigate the issues that we ourselves have caused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

Suffice it to say that a best way to deal with the idea of managing our forests, inarguably all susceptible to fire, is still yet to have been found. And with this, some "suppression" practices have lead to more intense and greater sized fires than what might have occurred given more "natural" forest conditions. 

 

.. Probably the most noteworthy idea relating to fire suppression / broader forest management, looked at here at this forum, dedicated to the weather, is that that in some cases "control burns" have been general disasters. 

 

i.e. the idea of improving the timing where looking at the scheduling of / .. identifying the best times for, "control burns".

---
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

-

Suffice it to say that a best way to deal with the idea of managing our forests, inarguably all susceptible to fire, is still yet to have been found. And with this, some "suppression" practices have lead to more intense and greater sized fires than what might have occurred given more "natural" forest conditions. 

 

.. Probably the most noteworthy idea relating to fire suppression / broader forest management, looked at here at this forum, dedicated to the weather, is the that that in some cases "control burns" have been general disasters. 

 

i.e. the idea of improving the timing where looking at the scheduling of / .. identifying the best time/s for, "control burns".

 

 

Bingo. Maybe people will understand this point when they read it from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-
.. A number of main points covered fairly concisely. 
 
http://yubanet.com/regional/Lessons-from-the-Rim-Fire-for-Saving-our-Forests.php#.VUw4ryjZRnp

.. Earlier recognition of a/ the problem. General analysis of a fairly devastating fire with others pointed to, with the reasons as to why. 

http://www.pushback.com/Wattenburg/articles/NowTheyHaveBurnedLosAlamos.html

---
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A lot of worry here in the Cascade Foothills of Northern Oregon. Fire danger is now "extreme" according to the sign at the local firehouse. All of the grass has dried out already which astonishing for this early. The shrubs are still fairly green, but with hot temps, unpredictable winds, it isn't an ideal situation right now. 

Snowfall                                  Precip

2022-23: 95.0"                      2022-23: 17.39"

2021-22: 52.6"                    2021-22: 91.46" 

2020-21: 12.0"                    2020-21: 71.59"

2019-20: 23.5"                   2019-20: 58.54"

2018-19: 63.5"                   2018-19: 66.33"

2017-18: 30.3"                   2017-18: 59.83"

2016-17: 49.2"                   2016-17: 97.58"

2015-16: 11.75"                 2015-16: 68.67"

2014-15: 3.5"
2013-14: 11.75"                  2013-14: 62.30
2012-13: 16.75"                 2012-13: 78.45  

2011-12: 98.5"                   2011-12: 92.67"

It's always sunny at Winters Hill! 
Fighting the good fight against weather evil.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of worry here in the Cascade Foothills of Northern Oregon. Fire danger is now "extreme" according to the sign at the local firehouse. All of the grass has dried out already which astonishing for this early. The shrubs are still fairly green, but with hot temps, unpredictable winds, it isn't an ideal situation right now. 

 

Just drop everything and buy a lakeside summer home. It's really easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New fire by Mt. Adams. At this rate over half of the area around its base will be burnt up (Cascade Creek fire of 2012 burned up much of the SW side and the Cold Springs fire of 2008 burned up much of the South-Southeast).

 

Always sucks seeing some of my favorite hiking/camping country go up in flames.

 

http://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/4360/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...