HikeArizona.COM

I dedicate this fire to the bunnyhuggers [-X and anti-logging lobbies :yuck: that have pressured politicians :guilty: into allowing the national forests to fuel up with overgrowth over the last 20 to 30 years. How do you think those burrowing owls and other critters you thought you were protecting are doing in their new crispy habitat?

That is very mean-spirited, and that is what I am saying to everyone who says hateful things about environmentalists. I am sick and tired of all the dumb*pumpkin rednecks from Eagar saying the same things you are saying, and now I have to hear it from non-locals as well? It is NOT TRUE, it is mean, and it is hurtful for people like you to start pointing fingers when you don't even live in the area or know anything about it. Stop watching Faux News, since they lie, too. (They have to be about the biggest liars around.)

Real environmentalists have known for as long as I have been an adult, and took a forest biology class 39 years ago, that FIRE IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in western forests. Fire SUPPRESSION by the Forest Service, which started in about 1910 under Gifford Pinchot, with the idea of saving the forests from fire to protect them so that the timber could be used, is the cause of these catastrophic fires. The problem started 100 years ago. Recently, thinning has occurred, since finally the USFS admits their policies were WRONG for over 100 years. The Forest Service caused this problem. They are the originators of the problem, which started many decades ago. They not only suppressed the fires, they also brainwashed the public with their stupid Smokey the Bear baloney. Yeah, some tree-huggers may have also been brainwashed that fire is bad. Fire is good, but it needs to occur frequently. Not once every 100 years.

Now we need to do some tree thinning. There has been some going on lately, but it takes a very long time to accomplish. Anyone who thinks we should not thin the forest after 100 years of fire suppression is just not reading up on science.

azbackpackr wrote:That is very mean-spirited, and that is what I am saying to everyone who says hateful things about environmentalists. I am sick and tired of all the dumb*pumpkin rednecks from Eagar saying the same things you are saying, and now I have to hear it from non-locals as well? It is NOT TRUE, it is mean, and it is hurtful for people like you to start pointing fingers when you don't even live in the area or know anything about it. Stop watching Faux News, since they lie, too. (They have to be about the biggest liars around.)

Real environmentalists have known for as long as I have been an adult, and took a forest biology class 39 years ago, that FIRE IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in western forests. Fire SUPPRESSION by the Forest Service, which started in about 1910 under Gifford Pinchot, with the idea of saving the forests from fire to protect them so that the timber could be used, is the cause of these catastrophic fires. The problem started 100 years ago. Recently, thinning has occurred, since finally the USFS admits their policies were WRONG for over 100 years. The Forest Service caused this problem. They are the originators of the problem, which started many decades ago. They not only suppressed the fires, they also brainwashed the public with their stupid Smokey the Bear baloney. Yeah, some tree-huggers may have also been brainwashed that fire is bad. Fire is good, but it needs to occur frequently. Not once every 100 years.

Now we need to do some tree thinning. There has been some going on lately, but it takes a very long time to accomplish. Anyone who thinks we should not thin the forest after 100 years of fire suppression is just not reading up on science.

I'm excited about seeing some discussion on this topic, in particular, the conflict of people's 'cabin' lifestyle and natural wildfire expression, but I think a new thread should be started, and this one limited to the events and facts surrounding the fire.

azbackpackr wrote:That is very mean-spirited, and that is what I am saying to everyone who says hateful things about environmentalists. I am sick and tired of all the dumb*pumpkin rednecks from Eagar saying the same things you are saying, and now I have to hear it from non-locals as well? It is NOT TRUE, it is mean, and it is hurtful for people like you to start pointing fingers when you don't even live in the area or know anything about it. Stop watching Faux News, since they lie, too. (They have to be about the biggest liars around.)

Real environmentalists have known for as long as I have been an adult, and took a forest biology class 39 years ago, that FIRE IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in western forests. Fire SUPPRESSION by the Forest Service, which started in about 1910 under Gifford Pinchot, with the idea of saving the forests from fire to protect them so that the timber could be used, is the cause of these catastrophic fires. The problem started 100 years ago. Recently, thinning has occurred, since finally the USFS admits their policies were WRONG for over 100 years. The Forest Service caused this problem. They are the originators of the problem, which started many decades ago. They not only suppressed the fires, they also brainwashed the public with their stupid Smokey the Bear baloney. Yeah, some tree-huggers may have also been brainwashed that fire is bad. Fire is good, but it needs to occur frequently. Not once every 100 years.

Now we need to do some tree thinning. There has been some going on lately, but it takes a very long time to accomplish. Anyone who thinks we should not thin the forest after 100 years of fire suppression is just not reading up on science.

About the only thing I could add to the above (which I couldn't have ever said better myself) is that I do think there's *some* value to the Smokey the Bear stuff.

On one hand it convinces people that any fire of any type for any reason is evil incarnate... obviously untrue. But it does at least try to reduce the frequency of those fires being human-caused. I'm all for letting the forest do its own thing, burn when nature flips the switch, and just let it be, but I am not a fan of having it be caused by idiots in the woods.

I suppose that the idiot-factor would be much less than it is today though if the forests hadn't been engineered into giant tinder boxes by (mis)management mechanisms...

jochal wrote:I think a new thread should be started, and this one limited to the events and facts surrounding the fire.

X2

The thread has been split and moved.

Now I have to read over this to figure out why Rick (who now owns burnt land) is being called "mean-spirited" for wanting the forest properly managed and not allowed to build up fuels
?

azbackpackr wrote:Real environmentalists have known for as long as I have been an adult, and took a forest biology class 39 years ago, that FIRE IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in western forests

Isn't this what Rick was implying
?

I'm not sure who's to blame most. But let's all agree that there are a whole range of beliefs in the very broad term of "environmentalists". And that may be part of the problem. There's ELF-type crazies and there are much more moderate folks. They don't all believe the same thing.

I will say that I believe half the problem is all the regulations required to have a managed burn. In fact, it could be the residents of those small towns now affected who have prevented thinning in the past due to the poor air-quality that a smoky prescribed burn causes.

Whenever a fire starts, I think one of the most beneficial things that happens is that firefighters manage to burn "safely" so much more terrain than the "real" fire is burning. Terrain that would never have gotten the permits for a managed burn. I have secretly hoped that this fire would allow a slow, low burn up Baldy, because that's some thick pumpkin in there, and could greatly benefit from some ground fire. And there's no way that it would EVER be allowed to happen otherwise.

Who's fault is that? Government? Residents? Special Interest Groups? Logging companies? Preservationists? Tribal traditions? Probably a little of all of them.

Actually the Apaches had the best forest management when I worked for the FS. Their extra fuel burden was already cut, piled, and mostly burned. Our forest was doghair and downed logs. No wonder the fire wasn't pushing too hard into the reservation.

I agree with PageRob, that despite their many social issues, one thing the Apaches have so right is their forest management. The Kinishba fire, which started on the reservation way back in 2003, ran up against some thinning that had been done, also on the reservation, in the area closest to Pinetop. The people of Pinetop issued a public "thank you" to the Apaches because the fire was slowed and stopped in this thinned, managed area.

If you drive 260 from Pinetop to Sunrise, via McNary, you will see they have continued to do this treatment on their lands, much, much faster than it is being done on the NF lands to the east.

I agree Baldy really, really needs a burn, but again, it sure would be good if it could be a managed burn. These huge fires, known as "gobbler fires" by the old-time firefighters, will eat up any and all available fuels, including all the biological function of the soils. Then afterwards, huge erosion.

1) you are not forced to read anything
2) click the back button to leave the page

This reminds me of "conversations" my best friend and I had about fires. He's was rabid that enviro's were to blame and that fires are natural and should run their course. I said they should be fought because in this day and age most are human started and are not natural in origin. So if we let all fires run their course the whole state would burn down. This arguement went for years until.......
He and his wife bought a cabin in Pinetop....
Just before the Rodeo-Chediski fire..

I agree that the Apaches are doing a great job on the forest clearing. It may look gross for a couple of years, but nothing like a fire.

Well, and with this recent fire, as soon as it crossed over onto their territory they went in and started working it, without much communication from "Incident Command." Needless to say, this made all the petty USFS bureaucrats go absolutely ape.

We thought it was hilarious. The Apaches are basically thumbing their noses at the Forest Service, and saying (and rightly so) "Hey you mf white people started this thing and now it's on OUR land, and don't go telling us we can't fight it!"

I keep writing responses, but they keep turning into rants. As a former forester and fire ecologist, I have a pretty different view than most people. I will say this: myths surround forest management, history, and policy. In Arizona, things have changed a lot since 1880. :bdh: I refer you to this:
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=6145&p=71699#p71699

Well, for better or worse, the Forest Service is a large bureaucratic machine, People like that they can call up a million dollar 747 to drop a ton of chemicals on a forest to slow it's spread. The fire people are as much a product of the machine as they are a part of it, and if you've dealt with them, at any level, you know they have an attitude. They're a lot like the military, and that is why they function like it. They were designed to be that way, though. Plus, it attracts a certain type of person, and they promote like minds.

I like this image:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/apachesitg ... hotostream

I feel for a lot of the fires we have these days, that is the best thing to do. Just pull off and watch. Instead, we get this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/apachesitg ... hotostream


Course, we'll throw money at anything provided we get to declare a state of emergency. It's been 9 years since the last mega fire in Arizona, how many trees could have been cut down and how many acres burned, for the amount of money we're spending on this one incident? We also have the Horseshoe 2, the Murphy Complex, and there was the Miller over in NM. They'll be others this year, more than likely.

You really aren't doing too much more than watching when a fire that used to look like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/apachesitg ... hotostream
Looks like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/apachesitg ... hotostream

Taking Te-Wa's advise on this one. (sort of)

BTW, OP, there are no burrowing owls in the dense pine forests, so they're doing just fine. They favor open, vegetation, and since they have a burrow, they would be just fine.

LOL. Was the burrowing owl thing bothering you all night?

No, I just noticed it, but I did think it was dumb.

To you azbackpackr. You say what Mr Vincent wrote was hateful? How about you being a hypocrite calling the residents of Eager names. Let's dedicate the fire to the ignorant person who started it.

See liz's post.