Millions of dead trees in the Colorado Mountains (Denver, Colorado Springs: how much, roofing)

[Mike from back east]

Hell, I'm 61 and can remember lots of stuff back 55 years or more, and even as a tyke, I recall "Smokey Bear" campaigns every year to prevent forest fires, long before global warming, long before enviro-whackies, long before trophy homes in the high country of western states. Smokey Bear goes back 65 years, to 1944. Forest fires have always been a concern, as has fighting them and preventing them. I recall reading of whole towns in logging country (I think it was upper Michigan or Wisconsin, many years ago) that went up in flames with horrendous loss of life; working towns, not the sort of urban sprawl or mountain development that drives some people on here to apoplectic fits of anger. The current danger is nothing new, just a new twist on an old story.

We need to be careful with stereotypes, generalities, bumper sticker slogans, finger pointing, etc; it usually misses the target.

There are solutions, like chipping the wood into bio-mass fuel and burning the stuff to generate electricity, etc, but no one wants to do it, even as a government function to prevent worse losses/costs later when fire does occur.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

Hell, I'm 61 and can remember lots of stuff back 55 years or more, and even as a tyke, I recall "Smokey Bear" campaigns every year to prevent forest fires, long before global warming, long before enviro-whackies, long before trophy homes in the high country of western states. Smokey Bear goes back 65 years, to 1944. Forest fires have always been a concern, as has fighting them and preventing them. I recall reading of whole towns in logging country (I think it was upper Michigan or Wisconsin, many years ago) that went up in flames with horrendous loss of life; working towns, not the sort of urban sprawl or mountain development that drives some people on here to apoplectic fits of anger. The current danger is nothing new, just a new twist on an old story.

We need to be careful with stereotypes, generalities, bumper sticker slogans, finger pointing, etc; it usually misses the target.

There are solutions, like chipping the wood into bio-mass fuel and burning the stuff to generate electricity, etc, but no one wants to do it, even as a government function to prevent worse losses/costs later when fire does occur.

Mike, then was then and now is now. The fact is that NOW the biggest impediment to proper forest management is all that recreational development that has occurred in fire-prone areas. Not logging, not mining, not ranching-- it's recreational development.

One of the big problems in mountain resource management over the decades is that man, with all of his ego and hubris, thinks that he is smart enough to overcome the natural order of things. He is not--and, as we are finding out with many things, human efforts to "modify" the environment are either ineffective over time, or so rife with unintended consequences that the side effects are more devastating than the original problem. Our century of fire suppression is a good example. Another one is reservoir-building. It augments water supplies for a time, but--as we are discovering--it creates all kinds of problems in wetland ecosystems, and--guess what?--those reservoirs eventually fill with silt--usually a lot faster than people think--and will become essentially useless for their original function of storing water. If I have learned anything during my half-century-plus on this planet it is that Mother Nature pretty much had things right to begin with--and the more we **** with it, the more unpredictable, dangerous, and deadly the results are likely to be.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Mike, then was then and now is now. The fact is that NOW the biggest impediment to proper forest management is all that recreational development that has occurred in fire-prone areas. Not logging, not mining, not ranching-- it's recreational development.

One of the big problems in mountain resource management over the decades is that man, with all of his ego and hubris, thinks that he is smart enough to overcome the natural order of things. He is not--....snip....

Yes, that recreational development is the "new twist" I was referring to.

Human ego will always be a problem, then we get our clock cleaned (Titanic anyone?) and wise up. For a while.

[jayhawkfan96]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

Yes, that recreational development is the "new twist" I was referring to.

Human ego will always be a problem, then we get our clock cleaned (Titanic anyone?) and wise up. For a while.

You're absolutely right. We humans always react to these things. And in a few years forget. Look at the similarities to what happened leading up to the recent economic meltdown and compare it with market activity from the 1920's. In no way identical, but some eerie similarities.

Another part of the problem here is the USFS. Despite it's charter and the number of good people I'm sure work for it, the USFS all to often acts like nothing more than a glorified land broker. Unfortunately I think everyone is right, and the end result is inevitable. I am glad to see that some of the municipalities, I happened to check Silverthorne's webpage, are offering a credit towards indigenous trees that the pine beetle won't effect. Such as aspen, blue and englemann spruce, etc. It's part of their dead tree removal plan, hoping to minimize the effect of a fire when it happens. I doubt it will make a big difference. But it shows that at least some people are able to see past this very moment.

[CosmicWizard]

wanneroo wrote:

Same where I live now in PA, everything was clear cut from 1830-1910 and now a deep lush forest has returned.

Yeah, when I go back to PA for a visit, some of the fields of my chilhood are now forested over. It doesn't tke nature long to re-assert itself when it is left to do so.


jazzlover wrote:

One of the big problems in mountain resource management over the decades is that man, with all of his ego and hubris, thinks that he is smart enough to overcome the natural order of things.

I will take it even further and suggest that believing that there is something to overcome regarding the natural order of things is the root cause of just about every problem that our society.....has brought upon ourselves.

[wanneroo]

Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy

This post is just wrong all over the place!

First, fire suppression is controlled by the local municipal politicos who are beholden to the real estate/development business interests. You can't blame looney left enviro's on that one, sorry.

Second, I don't doubt fire suppression is part of the equation. However, the real reason the pine bark beetle epidemic is as bad as it is right now, is because the winters are no longer cold enough to kill off the majority of beetles. You sure as heck can't blame that on the Greens, either!!

Bottom line: Lay off the Greens and get a clue, dude!

Save the trees started with eco wackos in the 1800's. It's nothing new.

The local municipal politicos, many of them in the mountains are enviro wackos.

Colorado cycles through 40 year periods of wet and dry, and cold and warm. The past few winters have been getting pretty cold in the mountains so the temperatures are turning back to colder temps.

[wanneroo]

Originally Posted by CosmicWizard

wanneroo wrote:

Same where I live now in PA, everything was clear cut from 1830-1910 and now a deep lush forest has returned.

Yeah, when I go back to PA for a visit, some of the fields of my chilhood are now forested over. It doesn't tke nature long to re-assert itself when it is left to do so.

My parents property was clear cut logged around 50 years ago with a few trees left at the time. It is now a fairly dense forest and give another 20 years denser still. I fight a constant battle keeping saplings from coming up in a few clear areas on the property.

If lodgepole pines go, then something will take their place. I'm not too worried. The world changes, always has, always will.

[20yrsinBranson]

Originally Posted by Weekend Traveler

I just returned from a one week trip to the Colorado Mountains and left depressed.

Since I was last there ten years ago I was shocked by two different things:

First, the millions of dead or dying trees in the mountains of Colorado It was especially shocking between Denver and Breckenridge. It seemed like the forests were basically destroyed with whole hillsides full of dead or dying trees. What can they do? It appears like they would be better off just clear-cutting the hillsides and start fresh.

The second thing that hit me about the mountains of Colorado was the mass development between Denver and Vail. I noticed huge areas are now overwhelmed by second homes, many in foreclosure. It seemed like the Vail valley is now 12 miles of one home and building after another. Ugly Sprawl.

Your thoughts?

Pine Beetle. DDT? LOL Maybe after all the trees die the uber trendy wannabe hummer driving upscale PITA former Californians will leave. (Hopefully, not for the midwest - we don't want them).

20yrsinBranson

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by wanneroo

My parents property was clear cut logged around 50 years ago with a few trees left at the time. It is now a fairly dense forest and give another 20 years denser still. I fight a constant battle keeping saplings from coming up in a few clear areas on the property.

If lodgepole pines go, then something will take their place. I'm not too worried. The world changes, always has, always will.

The difference in Colorado's semi-arid alpine environment is that the cycles are much longer than they are in the East. Burnt off areas may not regenerate for a century or two--if ever, in some places. You're right about the change, though--it's going to come whether we want it or not. Forest mismanagement plus warmer and drier climatic patterns over the last few years will see to that.

PS--I hardly think that such visionaries such as Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot were "enviro-whackos"--they were true visionaries who recognized that resources should not be squandered. Too bad we didn't listen better to them. They had it figured out--over a century ago--better than we do today.

[wanneroo]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

The difference in Colorado's semi-arid alpine environment is that the cycles are much longer than they are in the East. Burnt off areas may not regenerate for a century or two--if ever, in some places. You're right about the change, though--it's going to come whether we want it or not. Forest mismanagement plus warmer and drier climatic patterns over the last few years will see to that.

PS--I hardly think that such visionaries such as Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot were "enviro-whackos"--they were true visionaries who recognized that resources should not be squandered. Too bad we didn't listen better to them. They had it figured out--over a century ago--better than we do today.

Understood about the differences as my family has been partly in Colorado for 100 years.

But the forest will come back and regenerate as it always does. It might look different but so it goes.

I've been to Yellowstone a few times since the massive 1988 fires and it is making it's way back. Mount St. Helens as well in the outer zone, the trees are coming back.

I think Teddy was someone like me. We live in the world, not on top of it or below it. I think he always sought out the balance and that is what the enviro wackos don't get. Usually as in the case here, they make it worse.