Tahoe Fire, a lesson (Reno: houses, construction, camping)

[greatbasinguide]

There was a great article in today's Reno Gazette on the Tahoe Fire and blame.
RGJ.com: There's enough blame to go around

It is well worth reading.

Moderator cut: copyright

[garth]

I watched an interesting interview the other day. The news spoke with a woman with a house that survived the Angora Fire while the neighboring houses burned to the ground. Her house survived because she disobeyed the agency that had forbidden creating a fire space around her house.

She was all for preserving forested areas, but she also understood the need to cut fuel back from around her home to keep the big flames away from her structure. After creating the space, she also cleaned up the fallen pine needles on the ground, not only from her property, but also from immediately adjacent federal property.

These move were forbidden, and even illegal, but she did them anyway. As a result, her house survived. She spoke about her actions freely to the news crew.

I say, "good job" to her. Here was a little "civil disobediance" that was needed and proper.

There's always a balance to be met between "hugging the trees" and clear cutting the forests. Both are extremes. The problem is that the tree hugging has dominated the system to the detriment of the safety of homeowners and the general population, the health of the forests, and other industries. It has resulted in the buildup of an unnatural amount of fuel.

Perhaps locally, there might be a change in policies. I seriously doubt that it will be addressed nationwide. The extreme contingent is so entrenched in the system that it will be very hard to get them to change their policies to manage the forests in a natural way.

. . . at least that's my opinion of what needs to be done, and how the mindset needs to change.

[olecapt]

Wrong issue I think. The "needles" issue is actually a Lake Tahoe clarity issue and is an attempt to limit the erosion of earth into the lake. Not really the general green issue at all. More the battle to stop damaging Lake Tahoe by runoff from the construction around it.

[greatbasinguide]

It is not a tree hugging issue at all. The ancient forests were wide open and clear due to frequent fire. Suppressing fire has created huge amounts of biomass waiting to burn. Fires now burn with high intensity and are very destructive. There are just too many trees, and that is not due to environmentalists, it is due to a mistake belief that fire is harmful to the forest. For the past thirty years the Forest Service has worked to correct that, but they simply do on have the resources needed.

The womans remark about raking the needles is partly right, Defensible space according to TRPA does allow removal of fuel, but, where and when is where that particular disagreement came in.

[garth]

greatbasinguide, I like what you've often written on this forum. I find we're often in agreement, but I be to differ with you on the "tree hugger" issue. I have found that the US Forest Service has been taken over by the extreme environmentalist viewpoints for years, either in fact or in end effect. It has resulted in poor forest managment techniques that has contributed to the current problem, here and elsewhere.

I can give another example of such mismangement, at least from a more moderate point of view. There is a forest in northern Minnesota called the Boundry Waters Canoe Area (BWCA). Years ago, it was managed for the benefit of many different sectors of the recreational population. Boaters, snowmobilers, fishermen, hikers, campers . . . all had access. Then, things changed. No motorized vehicles were allowed in the area and the managment of the forest changed.

A few years later, a big "blow-down" happened. Basically, a big vertical wind covering a wide area of the forest, kocked down countless thousands of trees. It blew them flat to the ground and killed them.

Rather than allowing the harvesting of these now-dead trees so that they could be put to constructive use, the US Forest Service denied access to the forest. They just wanted the dead trees to lay there and rot instead of letting a lumber company harvest the dead trees and plant new seedlings to take their place or clear the land and allow the forest to recover.

There were sooooo many trees killed in that event, there's no way that they were needed in such numbers to provide habitat for whatever animal wants to live in dead logs. It made no sense, especially in light of the additional fire hazard that the now dead trees are providing . . . and that is the problem they have created. There's a whole bunch of material up there ready, willing, and able to become a big problem.

The US Forest Service, IMO, has become the enforcement arm of the vocal extreme environazis. Through their mandate that the forest be kept from burning to save whatever owl, bird, fish, or you name it, from losing their habitat, they have created the current problem. It's the same problem in the BWCA as it is in the Sierra Nevada.

Combine the situation with the US Forest Service with an entity like the TRPA, and people end up with a problem we have just seen. Personally, I would like to see the TRPA and its decision-makers held responsible for the damage to people's property who can prove they tried to mitigate the problem but were denied by the agency. However, I doubt that there's any way to do that.

I guess the end result is that the homeowners are going to end up with the biggest bill and inconveinence while the taxpayers (you and me) are going to end up footing the firefighting bill due to the actions of the environazi groups, TRPA, and the US Forest Service. They get off scott free and the little guys end up covering their backsides.

BTW, I think I might have been a little harsh, but this is an issue that's hit a little close to home in the past . . . a long time ago. I think if I ever have a rep from one of those environmental extremist groups knock on my door as a fund raiser, they will certainly discover that they are as welcome as a hemmorhoid on a bull-rider.

[greatbasinguide]

People can differ without resorting to chainsaws at twenty paces I cannot speak to the boundary waters, wilderness cannot be logged, it is my understanding that fuel moistures are typically high, limiting fire intensity in the upper midwest (and I am familiar with the Wisconsin fires of about 1900 that destroyed huge areas, so nothing is set in stone) I left the forest service 25 years ago. My last job was fuels management, that is determining what to do about the incredible amount of fuel on the ground.

Through their mandate that the forest be kept from burning to save whatever owl, bird, fish, or you name it, from losing their habitat, they have created the current problem.

This is not the problem. Fire suppression has been the mantra of the Forest Service for nearly 100 years. Why? fire is bad, it destroys watersheds, and in the early days especially, merchantable timber, by suppressing fire, logging could happen on a greater scale. (Finding out who wears the white hats and who wears the black hats in this arena is complicated).

If we want to address the spotted owls, that was one of the more humorous non issues. Spotted owls like old growth timber, so do loggers, no old growth timber, no owls, and no loggers. The finale to that is, much of the old growth is gone, the owls have adapted, the loggers have vanished, not due to the government but due to the market.

A couple of more political anomalies. TRPA was created by two arch conservatives, Laxalt and Reagan. Also. much of the fuel loading in our National Forests is due to Reagan, While President he kicked logging into high gear. In the Truckee District Forest Service logging went from less than a million board feet a year to 5 and 10 million board feet a year. A perhaps little known fact is that logging creates slash, slash is generally lopped and scattered creating huge fuel loads. Also, Red Fir, a desirable timber has about a 10% cull rate, that is, in old growth red fir (abies magnifica) stands about 10% of the wood will be rotten, the fallers do not know which is rotten and which isn't until they fall the tree, guess what happens to the cull trees, they remain on the ground. The logging companies could core bore the tree before falling and determine if the tree is cull, they don't, too slow.

So, along with Smokey Bear another villain in this opera is Reagan, by creating TRPA, and by creating huge fuel loads in the Forests.

I am an environmental extremist, I far prefer trees, owls, wolves etc to people. I have also worked as a logger, and still fall many trees each year, mm white hat or black hat?

The problem at the lake was the TRPA mandate, along with the general Forest Service problem, no money. I think we take all the teenage welfare mothers and fathers, hand them saws and put them to work, but you know, if we take out 3 out of every 5 trees in the basin, the citizens are going to scream.

The single greatest lesson I learned from my years in the Forest Service; the regulators are hated from both sides. The fact that the Sierra Club hated us, and the logging industry hated us, told me we were doing a damned good job of balancing the conflicting interests.

[garth]

Originally Posted by greatbasinguide

People can differ without resorting to chainsaws at twenty paces

How about 20 paces and a pair of willow twigs?

ON EDIT:

Here's an OpEd piece I just read in the Nevada Appeal. Honest, I didn't write it and I just read it a moment ago.

Click here fo the Nevada Appeal Newspaper Article along the lines of the discussion.

[olecapt]

But where are you going with all this...AS GBW pointed out you probably need to lose two/thirds of the trees. And you probably can't simply cut them...what you really need to do is let them burn. But you can't let them burn because of the people there.

If you try and log them you add to the stuff on the floor. If you clean up the stuff on the floor you cause erosion and damage the lake.

The answer is that homes there should have been allowed only under the most limited of circumstances...but that is not what happened.

I have real trouble getting into a tree hugger discussion on this one. I can just hear the property owners as you suggest removing 2/3rds of their trees.

It is a monumental screw up. It was driven by a vast misunderstanding of the natural mechanisms. And, at this point, there may be no reasonable way to fix it. Just goes on until we have a fire that settles the issue.

[Tressa]

Garth I must agree with you, we need to come up with a happy medium. The forest is indeed beautiful when it's green and must be the ugliest thing on earth when it burns. The act of natural will always take care of the forest, but man can help reduce some of the challenge by thinning it out, not mowing it down but thinning it out.

[garth]

Originally Posted by olecapt

But where are you going with all this

. . . probably nowhere. It's just a friendly discussion applicable to a portion of Nevada. However, out of discussions can come resolutions . . . although I'm sure any discussion in this forum will not have any affect on the pending actions at the lake.

It is a monumental screw up.

Absolutely right on the mark!

Just goes on until we have a fire that settles the issue.

I betcha' nothing is going to be settled. It'll be back to business as usual very shortly. The homeowners will rebuild and the TRPA will insist on repopulating the flora without regard to proximity, fire, and homeowner concerns & safety, as was touched on in part in that OpEd link I posted.

Best of all the taxpayers get to pay for the repairs and then get charged for a Federal access pass just to gain access to what we already paid for in our taxes . . . but that's a whole other issue.

BTW, it was determined that the fire was caused by a campfire, although they don't have any idea built it. The campfire was in a section of a camping area where it was not allowed.

Does anyone know if the person(s) were identified or if there's anyway to identify them? I don't know if there are any access records or assignment documents. I'm not familiar with the way it works.