3 ms·
I am a small scale forester (hundreds to thousands of acres). Supposed to burn is ... complicated and not necessarily true. Many forests in the PNW have had ind
by forestrywat 2mo ago
I am a small scale forester (hundreds to thousands of acres). Supposed to burn is ... complicated and not necessarily true. Many forests in the PNW have had indigenous Americans burn them regularly because it improves forest health. These fires were typically kept small and well maintained to avoid damage to the trees. White settlers put a stop to this practice, and natural fires were considerably less common than anthropogenic ones in some regions.
So it might be correct to say that fires can be healthy for forests, but "supposed to" is more difficult to assert.
I just finished limbing, brush clearing, and preparing burn piles from a section of my forest because removing fuel is good, but most forests in America are young planted forests. They have smaller trees, less diversity, higher than typical density, and small trees that can cause fires to climb to crowns (where they then become deleterious rather than helpful.)
If we were to return to indigenous practices of regular burning, we would likely see healthier forests. But I'm not sure we'd see as much timber production from them. Since that's what most forests are held for... I don't see practices moving away from trying to maximize timber while minimizing cost any time soon.
- bluGill 2mo agoThanks for that complexity. I've posted brought the same thing and all the responses have been "no, fire is bad" from people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about. I'm standing by my claims. However understand that I am in no way contradicting anything you said.
- cyberax 2mo agoIndigenous practice resulted in the deforestation of the American West so a lot of forests in Oregon and Washington are new growth.
- forestrywat 2mo agoAll forests in the American west, barring a few relatively small parks, are new growth. Predominantly from settlers cutting them down. Indigenous practices changed which trees grew, for instance the Gary oak was much more prevalent in areas they tended. But old growth was predominantly removed by settlers.
- cyberax 2mo agoNope. The woods in Oregon (Willamette Valley) and WA were planted and/or allowed to grow by settlers. There are true old growths along the coast and higher up the mountains. If you want to specifically hike through the old-growth forests, Olympic Peninsula in WA is the best option. Humans were modifying the Earth on the continent-wide scale long before the industrial age.
- forestrywat 2mo agoYes, in the Wilamette Valley the indigenous folks maintained Gary Oaks and prevented other trees from growing there. This was open oak savannah, and when the settlers came in they took the land and turned it to agricultural land. What they couldn't plant on, they ignored, and other tree species moved in to land that was previously managed to grow Gary oaks. I'm a PNW native, you don't need to tell me about the small sliver of old growth we still have in the Olympics.
- cyberax 2mo ago> Yes, in the Wilamette Valley the indigenous folks maintained Gary Oaks and prevented other trees from growing there. Yes, and that's a fancy way of saying "used periodic burns" to remove the vegetation to make the land more hospitable for grazers. Meaning more animals to hunt, this was arguably a form of agriculture and also served to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. > I'm a PNW native, you don't need to tell me about the small sliver of old growth we still have in the Olympics. Then you should actually learn about the history, and not its Disneyified version.
- forestrywat 2mo agoYou keep saying things that agree with me, smugly insisting I don't understand. You are very confusing to converse with.