Montana DNRC Gets It

Straight Arrow · May 23, 2018

... the parameters that allow a fire to get into that small percentage of fires that aren't put out quickly has more to do with weather conditions and difficult terrain than anything else ...

Much has been analyzed and written about the 2017 fires and from what I've seen, your assumption seems valid. High wind conditions, along with longstanding drought, especially in difficult terrain are factors common to the more severe and impactful fires. Limited firefighting resources also contributed to the time it took to respond, as there were fires in many locales, not all of which could be responded to in time to "put out quickly".

Incidentally, it did not appear that thinning, logging, or other man-managing of large forested areas made any difference. Hence the statement, "you can't log your way out of wildfire potential". What did make a difference relative to damage and impact was the thinning and managing of fuels in specific finite areas where risks to homes, facilities, and structures were high.

Sytes · May 23, 2018

Straight Arrow and others, I fear this year may be as bad if not worse... Already in the 80's in NW MT and it is May!
The big fear of one hell of a messed up funding / budgeting for our firefighters - Fed, State and Contractors mostly paid by the Feds. Valuable effort by all.

We may disagree on the positive impacts of logging for American families, thinning for one of the most valuable renewable resources, improved forest habitat for both flora and fauna and fire reduction - in the opinion of thinning, if the forest were managed overall with such benefits, the thick adjacent to the properly managed thinned forests will always hamstring the positives toward improved fire supression. If proper management (w/o anti extremes stifling such) of forests took place, fire supression would be much more successful.
Meh - the power of internet forum disagreements.
Cheers for your opinion.

Ben Lamb · May 23, 2018

BigHornRam said:
That was one of your more absurd comments made to date, Ben. Sad that you think this way. Luckily few people in Montana think like this.

THanks. I worked hard on that. I like to throw things out there like this because you often times do similarly when speaking about public lands. It's frustrating, isn't it?

DNRC has no real mandate to manage for wildlife habitat values. They do some of this work, absolutely and they used to do a lot more when MEPA had teeth to it and agencies had to respond to specific concerns rather than simply acknowledge they recieved them. FWP does this as well, and we all know how much I defend that agency.

I like the folks at DNRC. They do good work & are dedicated public servants, but to elevate them over any other agency ignores their mandate or the fact that their idea of providing habitat for cavity dwellers is 2 trees per section (from the article) or that their salvage sale is about wildlife habitat restoration when it's about getting the cash from the logs - which again is their constitutional mandate - ignores reality & their charge, as well as the legislative influence on state lands over the last 20 years.

BigHornRam · May 23, 2018

Ben Lamb said:
THanks. I worked hard on that. I like to throw things out there like this because you often times do similarly when speaking about public lands. It's frustrating, isn't it?

DNRC has no real mandate to manage for wildlife habitat values. They do some of this work, absolutely and they used to do a lot more when MEPA had teeth to it and agencies had to respond to specific concerns rather than simply acknowledge they recieved them. FWP does this as well, and we all know how much I defend that agency.

I like the folks at DNRC. They do good work & are dedicated public servants, but to elevate them over any other agency ignores their mandate or the fact that their idea of providing habitat for cavity dwellers is 2 trees per section (from the article) or that their salvage sale is about wildlife habitat restoration when it's about getting the cash from the logs - which again is their constitutional mandate - ignores reality & their charge, as well as the legislative influence on state lands over the last 20 years.

I've never thrown anything out there that stupid Ben. The KPAX news says they are leaving 2 trees per acre, not 2 trees per section. It said the DNRC is leaving some sections uncut, or leaving some nonmerchantable on the ground. It also says that the comments from the public have been overwhelmingly positive.

I'll take how our state is manageing the forests over what the Lolo National Forest is doing with their lands right now, hands down. So does a lot of people that care about the forests. I think you will be hearing more of this in the months to come.

BWALKER77 · May 23, 2018

As long as the roads are decommissioned I am fine with this. Ive never seen logging that hurt game populations.

Ben Lamb · May 23, 2018

Your first sentence is subjective. Plenty would disagree.

BigHornRam · May 23, 2018

Straight Arrow said:
Incidentally, it did not appear that thinning, logging, or other man-managing of large forested areas made any difference. Hence the statement, "you can't log your way out of wildfire potential". What did make a difference relative to damage and impact was the thinning and managing of fuels in specific finite areas where risks to homes, facilities, and structures were high.

This is pure made up bullshit. I have gave you numerous links to where it has made a big difference last year. Please provide links where forest experts said it made no difference.

Ben Lamb · May 23, 2018

BWALKER77 said:
As long as the roads are decommissioned I am fine with this. Ive never seen logging that hurt game populations.

Anyone traveling on state land better know for sure that road is open. ALL roads on state trust lands are closed unless signed open. Whether those roads are decommissioned or not makes little difference - the public is often excluded from traveling on state lands because recreation is not a constitutionally mandated byproduct of state trust land management.

BigHornRam · May 23, 2018

Ben Lamb said:
Your first sentence is subjective. Plenty would disagree.

Don't know about plenty. A handful of half wits, maybe.

BigHornRam · May 23, 2018

Ben Lamb said:
Anyone traveling on state land better know for sure that road is open. ALL roads on state trust lands are closed unless signed open. Whether those roads are decommissioned or not makes little difference - the public is often excluded from traveling on state lands because recreation is not a constitutionally mandated byproduct of state trust land management.

Are you referring to vehicle travel Ben? Or foot travel? Please provide some links to what you are trying to pass off here.

Straight Arrow · May 23, 2018

I have gave you numerous links to where it has made a big difference last year.

You have gave (sic) instances where proactive forest management did make a difference. Those instances involved areas limited in size and other differentiating characteristics ... certainly not instances involving "large forested areas". To clarify, large would mean thousands of acres, not hundreds. If your contention is also to extend such forestry practices to the millions of acres of National Forest on a continuing man-managed basis, I would also characterize that as "absurd". That's my studied opinion; 'sorry it differs from yours. You certainly don't have to agree or even accept it. Carry on with cut and paste.

BigHornRam · May 23, 2018

Double post

BigHornRam · May 23, 2018

Straight Arrow said:
You have gave (sic) instances where proactive forest management did make a difference. Those instances involved areas limited in size and other differentiating characteristics ... certainly not instances involving "large forested areas". To clarify, large would mean thousands of acres, not hundreds. If your contention is also to extend such forestry practices to the millions of acres of National Forest on a continuing man-managed basis, I would also characterize that as "absurd". That's my studied opinion; 'sorry it differs from yours. You certainly don't have to agree or even accept it. Carry on with cut and paste.

Western N Forests already have tens of millions of acres of roaded second growth forests, and to stop management on them now is absurd. Please provide some sources of research for your studied opinions. I will continue to provide sources that back my studied opinions. If you want to have a reasonable back and forth, let's do it. That's what these forums are about. If not that's fine too.

Straight Arrow · May 23, 2018

If you want to have a reasonable back and forth, let's do it.

It's not a debate. You want the European model. I want wild wilderness-like public lands, without more extensive road systems and extensive logging and mining. It's not a matter of back and forth cut and paste; it's more a difference of philosophies. You appear to make money from wood products resource extraction and naturally promote such. I am an old retired guy who is concerned about those whose intent seems to be acquiring and promoting the maximization of wealth through man-managing and harvesting natural resources. I am more concerned about my progeny being able to experience wilderness and other pristine areas and the wildlife which inhabit them. You seem to like man-handling nature to elevate the economical benefits; I don't really give a rip for the dime ... hunting, hiking, health and visiting wild roadless places comprise my priorities relative to this issue.

Straight Arrow · May 23, 2018

Western N Forests already have tens of millions of acres of roaded second growth forests ...

Likely an exaggeration, but even if true, does that mean that those roads are continuously maintained, that the forests are thinned, logged, or otherwise "managed" and if so, for forest health, fire risk mitigation, money or for what purpose? To coin a term from post #27, "bullshit"!

BigHornRam · May 24, 2018

Straight Arrow said:
Likely an exaggeration, but even if true, does that mean that those roads are continuously maintained, that the forests are thinned, logged, or otherwise "managed" and if so, for forest health, fire risk mitigation, money or for what purpose? To coin a term from post #27, "bullshit"!

The. US has over 188 million acres of National Forest. Idaho alone has over 38 percent of its acres in N F ownership. Educate your self.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._National_Forests

BigHornRam · May 24, 2018

Straight Arrow said:
It's not a debate. You want the European model. I want wild wilderness-like public lands, without more extensive road systems and extensive logging and mining. It's not a matter of back and forth cut and paste; it's more a difference of philosophies. You appear to make money from wood products resource extraction and naturally promote such. I am an old retired guy who is concerned about those whose intent seems to be acquiring and promoting the maximization of wealth through man-managing and harvesting natural resources. I am more concerned about my progeny being able to experience wilderness and other pristine areas and the wildlife which inhabit them. You seem to like man-handling nature to elevate the economical benefits; I don't really give a rip for the dime ... hunting, hiking, health and visiting wild roadless places comprise my priorities relative to this issue.

I organized an on-site tour of a recent forest improvement project last Wednesday, that was made up of Forest Service (and retired Forest Service), DNRC, MSU extension, private forest landowners, a logging contractor that did the work, and a TNC staff forester. All people that are knowledgeable about forestry and are concerned about the future of our forests. There was a broad and interesting discussion about many topics. You should consider participating in a similar educational tour. It might make you a little more informed about what is actually going on in our Western Forests.

BTW I have made a living as a carpenter, working with wood and building people homes to live in. A career and an occupation that I am proud of.

Sytes · May 24, 2018

http://m.williamsnews.com/news/2018...-williams-could-top-379-mil/?templates=mobile

Interesting read.

BigHornRam · May 24, 2018

Sytes said:
http://m.williamsnews.com/news/2018...-williams-could-top-379-mil/?templates=mobile

Interesting read.

Yes it is.

From the article......

"The project aims to thin approximately 15,200 acres of dense vegetation on Bill Williams Mountain with traditional commercial timber harvesting and stewardship contracts, but will require more intricate hand felling, ground base logging and helicopter logging because of the steep, varied terrain."

Is 15,200 acres a good sized project in your estimation, Straight Arrow?

BigHornRam · May 24, 2018

Here's a 54,000 acre restoration project moving forward. Absurd?

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/aug/08/colvilles-a-to-z-timber-project-can-move-forward-c/

Montana DNRC Gets It

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page