News
Smoke blankets Flagstaff
If you live in a low spot in Flagstaff, don't be surprised if you're greeted by the smell of smoke this morning. A Fort Valley prescribed burn sent up two impressive columns of smoke over Flagstaff Wednesday. But then a wind shift and spot showers sent that smoke rolling into the city and surrounding low spots, prompting calls to the Forest Service and putting their forecasters on the defensive.
"We're telling folks that it will likely settle in the area -- at least some of it will -- overnight," said Brienne Magee, spokeswoman for the Coconino National Forest. Magee said the Forest Service got "quite a few" calls because of the smoke, but she declined to say exactly how many calls were received.
"When the clouds moved in, it kind of changed the ventilation and the winds shifted a bit," Magee said.
The Flagstaff Medical Center emergency room was quiet, with no noticeable influx of asthma sufferers.
The accompanying shower Wednesday dropped enough rain to cancel today's scheduled prescribed burn in the same area.
"A lot of folks are just a little bit surprised to see that there's a prescribed burn in the middle of June," Magee said.
She says the decision to have prescribed fires isn't based on season, but instead on fuel conditions.
An unusually wet May and cooler temperatures this June have extended the burn season for fire managers.
MONSOON ON HORIZON
Indeed, the "real" monsoon is just around the corner, says a local meteorologist.
David Vonderheide, a weather technician with the National Weather Service in Bellemont, said the dew point, which had been in the teens, reached 41 degrees Tuesday afternoon, a sign that moisture is moving up from the Valley, the Gulf of California and Gulf of Mexico.
"It's an indicator that we're definitely heading into the real monsoon. The structure of the atmosphere is getting itself all set up," Vonderheide said.
Vonderheide said the slight winds kept shifting Wednesday, pushing the smoke back into the city.
The smoke lingers, especially in the early hours, because of cooling air.
"At night, when the air gets cool -- the air on the slopes - - that cool air moves downhill and into valleys and depressions, and it kind of follows the terrain, just like water," Vonderheide said.
If a layer of warmer air moves on top of the cooler air, it creates a temperature inversion and when that happens, Vonderheide explained, the air mass doesn't want to move, trapping the smoke, or whatever other pollutants might be in the air.
Laura Clymer can be reached at lclymer@azdailysun.com or 913-8601.Cyndy Cole contributed to this report.
»Subscribe to the Arizona Daily Sun
A lone hiker ambles through Buffalo Park in the shadow of smoke on the San Francisco Peaks on Wednesday. Smoke from prescribed burns descended on Flagstaff for much of the afternoon. (Josh Biggs/Arizona Daily Sun
Ads by Yahoo!
Flagstaff Jobs
$30/Hour Work From Home Jobs.View Home Jobs Now! Computer Required.
National-News-Gazette.com
Readers' Favorites
Most commented stories
- Plea deal in abortion scuffle (300)
- FUSD budget override fails (83)
- From illuminated to eliminated (76)
- Student scofflaws now a Target (72)
- Big-city care driving FMC prices (63)
- Locals losing campus contracts (50)
- ADOT to cut plows (49)
- Tired from a tough hike? Rescuers fear Yuppie 911 (32)
- State suspends operations at 13 rest areas (30)
- Detox falling short (28)
Leave your comments below:
watching from afar wrote on Jul 8, 2009 8:44 PM:
" To Honey:
I am sorry that your family has health problems and I am in agreement with you on the issue of the ridiculous costs of homes in this area. But that is another issue. As far as smoke issues in Flag. What do you propose? If the FS completely stopped managing the forests, what would happen? Recent studies have shown that due to 100 years of suppression fuel build up has become more of a threat then in years past. And this is evident in areas surrounding Flag. The heavy fuel loading (i.e. dog hair thickets and dead and down material) presents a serious threat to the communities in and around Flag, especially during April and May when the winds come. You couple that with individuals building their homes in these high risk areas and you have a recipe for disaster. So, to minimize this threat agencies like the FS and Flag FD thin these areas, followed by prescribed burning. Now a previous post mentioned a possibility of chipping the left over fuel and this in actuality, has occurred. The problem is that there is too much material to be effective with chipping. I know the FS watches the weather closely prior to implementing their prescribed burns. If the report comes back that there is not good ventilation that day, then they don't burn. Sometimes those forecasts are wrong, thus the smoke impact can have negative effects on Flag. And I don't think they are "flagrant" with their management. The fact is that presribed burning is not something new. They were actively engaged in prescribed burning when your family moved here 25 years ago. The problem now is that it is more complex with what I mentioned before. I sincerely wish your family the best and I know that the FS does there best to notify the public when burning will occur. I know it sounds simple to stay inside and shut the windows, but this may be your best alternative. "
I am sorry that your family has health problems and I am in agreement with you on the issue of the ridiculous costs of homes in this area. But that is another issue. As far as smoke issues in Flag. What do you propose? If the FS completely stopped managing the forests, what would happen? Recent studies have shown that due to 100 years of suppression fuel build up has become more of a threat then in years past. And this is evident in areas surrounding Flag. The heavy fuel loading (i.e. dog hair thickets and dead and down material) presents a serious threat to the communities in and around Flag, especially during April and May when the winds come. You couple that with individuals building their homes in these high risk areas and you have a recipe for disaster. So, to minimize this threat agencies like the FS and Flag FD thin these areas, followed by prescribed burning. Now a previous post mentioned a possibility of chipping the left over fuel and this in actuality, has occurred. The problem is that there is too much material to be effective with chipping. I know the FS watches the weather closely prior to implementing their prescribed burns. If the report comes back that there is not good ventilation that day, then they don't burn. Sometimes those forecasts are wrong, thus the smoke impact can have negative effects on Flag. And I don't think they are "flagrant" with their management. The fact is that presribed burning is not something new. They were actively engaged in prescribed burning when your family moved here 25 years ago. The problem now is that it is more complex with what I mentioned before. I sincerely wish your family the best and I know that the FS does there best to notify the public when burning will occur. I know it sounds simple to stay inside and shut the windows, but this may be your best alternative. "
Honey wrote on Jul 8, 2009 7:30 AM:
" Whatever. I hope all of you non-locals who tell me to quit my whining end up having to deal with the same nightmare my family is going through because then you just might shut your own mouths. Trying to tell me it is "So much worse somewhere else" is a cop out. Go back to somewhere else then. My family members don't have the option to move at this time or they would, primarily because you non-locals are destroying our quality of life as it is (hmm...raising housing costs because you want a monstrous house to play in for two months out of the year, getting on local committees that you have no place being on and making detrimental decisions, etc.) Remember the whole "poverty with a view" that you so gleefully tell your friends in somewhere else? Yeah. My family has been here 24 years, they didn't do prescribed burns as flagrantly back then if at all. We moved here for my mother so she could go to school. They used to have logging, which is actually one of the original industries that built this town and horrifies tree huggers to death. Natural caused fires were a given, and sure, my family had breathing issues then but there is a magical thing that happens with natural fires...THEY EVENTUALLY END. Prescribed burns are an ongoing, weekly, if not daily occurrance and they occur year round. This is not natural. I hope the forest service people are pleased that they are killing off my family. I hope they never develop breathing problems from their "fuel management" because honestly, it's a fate worse than death. "
N AZ Resident wrote on Jul 8, 2009 12:19 AM:
" I'm not an expert in fire but I do realize some of the challenges faced by foresters in this area: Snow is on the ground here from December thru April. Spring time burning is difficult on wildlife. Hunters are all over the woods in September thru November and burning then will not make for a happy experience. It rains in July and August. I've been here for 11 years and I'm grateful and satisfied for the way wildfires have been dealt with so far in the area. "
Anne wrote on Jul 6, 2009 4:53 AM:
" It may seem like common sense that if you reduce the fuel you reduce chances of forest fire. Bush said if there are no trees there are no forest fires. But what a catastrophe for all life on this planet if it becomes deforested.
Prescribed burns desiccate the forests making them much more dangerous. You also increase bark beetle infestations causing great tree kill and making the forest like a tinder box. Mature forest is very fire resilient and fire retardant. Natural fires in such places are minimal and brief. Mature forests are a great source of health and wealth for humans and animals and they keep the water clean. Repeated prescribed burns make safer mature forests very unlikely. A world without mature forests will be uninhabitable by humans and all other animals. Earth with its oxygen and water, so far, is a unique resource in this universe. Slash and burn is no longer a viable policy for Earth. "
Prescribed burns desiccate the forests making them much more dangerous. You also increase bark beetle infestations causing great tree kill and making the forest like a tinder box. Mature forest is very fire resilient and fire retardant. Natural fires in such places are minimal and brief. Mature forests are a great source of health and wealth for humans and animals and they keep the water clean. Repeated prescribed burns make safer mature forests very unlikely. A world without mature forests will be uninhabitable by humans and all other animals. Earth with its oxygen and water, so far, is a unique resource in this universe. Slash and burn is no longer a viable policy for Earth. "
JK wrote on Jul 6, 2009 4:29 AM:
" So only those who don't directly profit from prescribed burns are against them???
Is that surprising?
Science is objective, propaganda is biased.
Prescribed burns do not prevent forest fires. They may or may not slow them down. They do cause bad health in humans - no doubt about that at all. They make it difficult for wildlife and increase the prevalence of bark beetle infestations. They are one of the major causes of global warming and are even destroying rain forests where there is plenty of water. There is so much evidence they cause desiccation of forest lands and open those lands up for development and privatization - no point in protecting ugly, deforested lands. The research has been posted by myself and others in recent days on this and related threads about how repeated burns in an area destroy any chances for fire resilient mature forest. Especially when accompanied by overpumping groundwater and lowering the water table.
Those who favor prescribed burns have quoted none of the research at all. They just continually repeat the mantra of fear --- "you'll be sorry when we let your homes burn". Many of the catastrophic fires of recent times were runaway "controlled" burns or "managed" burns - like those burning 400 homes in Los Alamos.
And they chant "you're whining sickly wimps if you complain about medical bills and disability due to smoky days" - burn days making up more than 1/4 of the year. But even the big, robust, healthy firefighters from 9/11 proved how dangerous breathing smoke is to the human body. The human body has NO defenses against small, toxic, and often carcinogenic particulates.
Many more homes are lost to catastrophic medical bills than to forest fires in the US. In fact, the major cause of losing one's home is due to medical bills... the only country in the civilized world where people live in dire fear of medical bills. Also the only country where it is government policy to destroy its own citizens through dirty air policies. "
Is that surprising?
Science is objective, propaganda is biased.
Prescribed burns do not prevent forest fires. They may or may not slow them down. They do cause bad health in humans - no doubt about that at all. They make it difficult for wildlife and increase the prevalence of bark beetle infestations. They are one of the major causes of global warming and are even destroying rain forests where there is plenty of water. There is so much evidence they cause desiccation of forest lands and open those lands up for development and privatization - no point in protecting ugly, deforested lands. The research has been posted by myself and others in recent days on this and related threads about how repeated burns in an area destroy any chances for fire resilient mature forest. Especially when accompanied by overpumping groundwater and lowering the water table.
Those who favor prescribed burns have quoted none of the research at all. They just continually repeat the mantra of fear --- "you'll be sorry when we let your homes burn". Many of the catastrophic fires of recent times were runaway "controlled" burns or "managed" burns - like those burning 400 homes in Los Alamos.
And they chant "you're whining sickly wimps if you complain about medical bills and disability due to smoky days" - burn days making up more than 1/4 of the year. But even the big, robust, healthy firefighters from 9/11 proved how dangerous breathing smoke is to the human body. The human body has NO defenses against small, toxic, and often carcinogenic particulates.
Many more homes are lost to catastrophic medical bills than to forest fires in the US. In fact, the major cause of losing one's home is due to medical bills... the only country in the civilized world where people live in dire fear of medical bills. Also the only country where it is government policy to destroy its own citizens through dirty air policies. "
watching from afar wrote on Jul 5, 2009 8:13 PM:
" For the whiners, have you ever lived in an area that has had numerous large fire events historically? If you have then you'll know that those large fires typically burned for weeks and sometimes months. And what happens at night? The inversions set in. Visibility can be measured within feet. Think about the small amount of smoke you witness in Flag and mulitply that by 10. Then sit in that smoke every night for one month. The last major fire on the forest was the Birdie Fire, and that burned only a few thousand acres. Try hundreds of thousands of acres. There are several reasons why there haven't been many catastrophic fires on our surrounding forests. One of those being PRESCRIBED BURNING! So pipe down and be thankful you only deal with smoke on a limited basis. "
Curly Cat wrote on Jul 5, 2009 11:20 AM:
" I have trouble breathing and functioning on days there are control burns; it definitely affects my health negatively. In addition, I can't bicycle or walk when people burn wood in their fireplaces to stay warm. Whenever there is a burn, I wonder why residents here can't think of another way to deal with the problem besides polluting our clean air.
I have a suggestion: When possible, can the overgrowth be chopped up and sold or used as mulch? "
I have a suggestion: When possible, can the overgrowth be chopped up and sold or used as mulch? "
Logic wrote on Jul 5, 2009 9:41 AM:
" JK, I'm sorry, but can you tell us your background in forest health and management so we can decide for ourselves if your words have any merit? The funny thing is, the only people who think controlled burns are propaganda are the ones that have no background what so ever in forestry. It sure seems obvious to me... what happens when you blanket the ground with fuel? A lightning strike comes along and you get an uncontrollable fire, people die, houses and businesses burn to the ground because it can't be stopped. Thin things out and there is less fuel and the fire is easier to control. Propaganda? This sounds more like common sense! "
JK wrote on Jul 3, 2009 11:33 AM:
" The majority of health problems with the Flagstaff area are man made, not natural ones.
If made by man they can be unmade by man.
And it isn't just "one" somebody's mother --- it is many moms and dads and children, especially babies. Wait till air pollution somebody you love. Asthmatics, people experiencing their first heart attack. FMC calls it Grand Canyon season.
Not everybody has much choice about where they live.
Prescribed burns do nor prevent forest fires and they don't save homes. That is just propaganda. They kill trees, enhance bark beerles, and make old growth mature, fire resistant forests impossible. They do kill and injure hundreds of people. Most homes are lost by medical bills, not forest fires. "
If made by man they can be unmade by man.
And it isn't just "one" somebody's mother --- it is many moms and dads and children, especially babies. Wait till air pollution somebody you love. Asthmatics, people experiencing their first heart attack. FMC calls it Grand Canyon season.
Not everybody has much choice about where they live.
Prescribed burns do nor prevent forest fires and they don't save homes. That is just propaganda. They kill trees, enhance bark beerles, and make old growth mature, fire resistant forests impossible. They do kill and injure hundreds of people. Most homes are lost by medical bills, not forest fires. "
flag forester wrote on Jul 3, 2009 10:49 AM:
" which prospect is worse: someone's sickly mother winding up in the hospital, or 400 homes being destroyed as in the rodeo-chediski fire?
sorry, but my sympathy does not extend very far for people who a) live in places that they know will be damaging to their health, and b) put their needs over the safety of the entire community. "
sorry, but my sympathy does not extend very far for people who a) live in places that they know will be damaging to their health, and b) put their needs over the safety of the entire community. "
Honey wrote on Jul 2, 2009 7:31 AM:
" You all think that its okay for a "little" smoke to come rolling into town. Well, thanks. I suppose its all okay for you because you aren't watching your mother DIE because she cannot breathe. You don't have the fear in your head that if your mother goes outside or even answers the door she might drop dead. You don't have to worry about that dreaded phone call in the middle of the afternoon saying that your mother just got picked up by the ambulance again because she lost all the oxygen in her body and became paralyzed because the smoke was so thick outside and she had to go to work because she can't get social security or retirement yet. Hope you jerks are pleased that the air quality is so much worse somewhere else because my mom is dying, slowly, everytime the forest service gets their weather reports wrong and they screw up. She doesn't bother going to the hospital anymore, if she can avoid it because they'll do nothing for her, so thanks Forest Service. Try and go outside and actually experience the weather and find someone who actually reads weather reports before setting your stupid fires, I'd rather see some stingy rich person's second home burn to the ground that have to attend my mother's funeral. Second home owners don't belong here in Flagstaff anyways. They need to go home to somewhere else. "
Anne wrote on Jun 30, 2009 10:39 AM:
" to FS Fan who wrote:
"And I can tell you with certainty that nobody who works for the USFS wants those lands turned over to private hands."
Care to read
Title: The privatization of public lands
Author: More, Thomas A.
Date: 2007
Source: In: Burns, R.; Robinson, K., comps. Proceedings of the 2006 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium; 2006 April 9-11; Bolton Landing, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-14. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 135-141.
The conference document ..."contains articles and posters presented at the 2006 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. Contents cover tourism marketing, fish and wildlife, place meaning, leisure and gender, recreation resource allocation, nature-based tourism, methods, leisure motives, outdoor recreation management, tourism impacts, outdoor recreation among specific populations, leisure constraints, environmental attitudes and values, leisure cognition, environmental education and experimental learning, wildland-urban interface issues, and attribute evaluation and preference.
"Extremists seek to halt all funding of the national parks and public lands in order to create incentives to ensure that these lands become self-funding at a minimum, and preferably profitable." Land managers would ascertain the value of the resources on land it oversees and then "would sell or lease rights to those commodity values and keep the monies received."
In light of a recent extreme proposal by House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo and the Bush Interior Department "to scale back and commercialize the park system to help meet its budget needs," Subcommittee Chairman Mark Souder, R-Ind., and his fellow members stopped off in Flagstaff, Arizona in the fifth of a six-stop fact-finding mission.
However, Rep. Pombo's proposal was not the only piece of bad news coming down the pike. The Salt Lake Tribune reported that a "leaked memo draft" written by Paul Hoffman, the Assistant Interior Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, "proposed revisions of park management policies that would allow cell phone towers, low-flying tour flights and all-terrain vehicles in parks, expand snowmobile access and would limit park managers' authority to prevent development."
"We don't like what we see," Richard Smith of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, told the Subcommittee. "We are saddened to watch the ongoing efforts by the political leadership of the [Interior] Department and the Park Service to privatize our national park system, a system that author Wallace Stegner called 'the best idea America ever had.'"
http://dissidentvoice.org/Nov05/Berkowitz1130.htm "
"And I can tell you with certainty that nobody who works for the USFS wants those lands turned over to private hands."
Care to read
Title: The privatization of public lands
Author: More, Thomas A.
Date: 2007
Source: In: Burns, R.; Robinson, K., comps. Proceedings of the 2006 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium; 2006 April 9-11; Bolton Landing, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-14. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 135-141.
The conference document ..."contains articles and posters presented at the 2006 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. Contents cover tourism marketing, fish and wildlife, place meaning, leisure and gender, recreation resource allocation, nature-based tourism, methods, leisure motives, outdoor recreation management, tourism impacts, outdoor recreation among specific populations, leisure constraints, environmental attitudes and values, leisure cognition, environmental education and experimental learning, wildland-urban interface issues, and attribute evaluation and preference.
"Extremists seek to halt all funding of the national parks and public lands in order to create incentives to ensure that these lands become self-funding at a minimum, and preferably profitable." Land managers would ascertain the value of the resources on land it oversees and then "would sell or lease rights to those commodity values and keep the monies received."
In light of a recent extreme proposal by House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo and the Bush Interior Department "to scale back and commercialize the park system to help meet its budget needs," Subcommittee Chairman Mark Souder, R-Ind., and his fellow members stopped off in Flagstaff, Arizona in the fifth of a six-stop fact-finding mission.
However, Rep. Pombo's proposal was not the only piece of bad news coming down the pike. The Salt Lake Tribune reported that a "leaked memo draft" written by Paul Hoffman, the Assistant Interior Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, "proposed revisions of park management policies that would allow cell phone towers, low-flying tour flights and all-terrain vehicles in parks, expand snowmobile access and would limit park managers' authority to prevent development."
"We don't like what we see," Richard Smith of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, told the Subcommittee. "We are saddened to watch the ongoing efforts by the political leadership of the [Interior] Department and the Park Service to privatize our national park system, a system that author Wallace Stegner called 'the best idea America ever had.'"
http://dissidentvoice.org/Nov05/Berkowitz1130.htm "
JK wrote on Jun 30, 2009 10:18 AM:
" Sometimes the canopy from big tree forest was closed and sometimes not... but it always delivered shade for the ground during most of the day retarding forest desiccation.
Compare to the wide open spaces in thinned areas.
http://ag.arizona.edu/gila/naturalresources/foresthlth/thinned.jpg
http://arizona.indymedia.org/uploads/2002/11/pnf-cover.jpg
So-called regenerated area after a burn:
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/photos/shatford.jpg
Check out what old growth healthy forest looks like:
http://arizona.sierraclub.org/conservation/forest_managment/old_growth_forever.asp
Currently, only 5 percent of our centuries old, old growth forests remain in the Southwest. "
Compare to the wide open spaces in thinned areas.
http://ag.arizona.edu/gila/naturalresources/foresthlth/thinned.jpg
http://arizona.indymedia.org/uploads/2002/11/pnf-cover.jpg
So-called regenerated area after a burn:
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/photos/shatford.jpg
Check out what old growth healthy forest looks like:
http://arizona.sierraclub.org/conservation/forest_managment/old_growth_forever.asp
Currently, only 5 percent of our centuries old, old growth forests remain in the Southwest. "
asthmatic wrote on Jun 30, 2009 6:08 AM:
" "The Flagstaff Medical Center emergency room was quiet, with no noticeable influx of asthma sufferers." That is because most of us asthmatics stay inside due to the heavy smoke...It DOES affect us whether the article or the Forest Service wants to admit that. I know that most asthamatics dread fire season and might not seek FMC treatment but do treatment at home with inhalers or breathing machines. Maybe the article should have looked at how the doctor's offices see an influx on these days. "
FS Fan wrote on Jun 29, 2009 10:09 PM:
" Hi Anne - OK one more, then I'm really done. The PP and pine-oak forests here didn't have a closed canopy historically. That's my point and a fact you don't seem to realize. You're trying to apply the wrong forestry principles to the forests being restored here. You're right, the fires didn't go into the canopy because there was such great distance between trees that it stayed on the ground - rejuvenating the grasses and forbs which native grazers and browsers loved (not just the elk which dominate now). And I can tell you with certainty that nobody who works for the USFS wants those lands turned over to private hands. They are the public trust and those who work for you truly care about the forests. And finally, it is not ideal that human management is necessary, and vehicles and weeds are real problems. But reality is that humans ARE here, and we (like it or not, but you are here, too, so I'd guess you do like it) are now a part of the ecosystem and must at least try to be good stewards. I don't think you'd like it if managers just stood and watched (you'd have nothing to wipe your butt with, to build and fix your home with, eat, drive, ride, read, play in, whatever). Attempts to separate yourself (people) from the environment are futile. We are here, and until we're eliminated management is necessary. Native Americans knew this, too, as they set fires to improve hunting and habitat for their prey animals. Hello - being an environmentalist should not mean being passive! "
Anne wrote on Jun 29, 2009 7:18 AM:
" Watch the revolving doors...
A sample...
"Flagstaff, AZ —After more than six years of service as the Coconino National Forest Supervisor, Nora Rasure has accepted a position in Washington, D.C., as the Deputy Director of Recreation, Heritage and Volunteer Resources."
'nuf said...
.......
Large trees were associated with low temperature NATURAL burns during storm season where there was likelihood of rain and when most animals and birds had finished raising their young. The canopy almost never was involved in those fires. No vehicles were around to compact the earth or bring in seeds of invasive species from far off places. The ground water was at a much higher level than is the case nowadays. These are not the conditions of prescribed burns as being done in the last decade. If you examine the maps at AZFireMap.org you will see the locations of the fires are to open up the last of the remaining canopy. Undoubtedly in a few years the appointees in control will tell us there isn't much left worth saving and economic conditions make it imperative to hand over the forest to developers and the subdivisions will move in big time. And then the fires with all the invasive brush and small trees will be truly spectacular - not to mention mudslides. See California for many examples (It used to be spectacularly green in many regions with giant trees until Reagan and his brother-in-law took care of that). "
A sample...
"Flagstaff, AZ —After more than six years of service as the Coconino National Forest Supervisor, Nora Rasure has accepted a position in Washington, D.C., as the Deputy Director of Recreation, Heritage and Volunteer Resources."
'nuf said...
.......
Large trees were associated with low temperature NATURAL burns during storm season where there was likelihood of rain and when most animals and birds had finished raising their young. The canopy almost never was involved in those fires. No vehicles were around to compact the earth or bring in seeds of invasive species from far off places. The ground water was at a much higher level than is the case nowadays. These are not the conditions of prescribed burns as being done in the last decade. If you examine the maps at AZFireMap.org you will see the locations of the fires are to open up the last of the remaining canopy. Undoubtedly in a few years the appointees in control will tell us there isn't much left worth saving and economic conditions make it imperative to hand over the forest to developers and the subdivisions will move in big time. And then the fires with all the invasive brush and small trees will be truly spectacular - not to mention mudslides. See California for many examples (It used to be spectacularly green in many regions with giant trees until Reagan and his brother-in-law took care of that). "
FS Fan wrote on Jun 28, 2009 9:13 PM:
" Hi Anne - Your statements are well thought-out. But again, you have not studied up on THIS forest. Recurring fire is what made the Southwest PP trees large. Your perspective is short-sited, too, as you mentioned remembering nearby portions of the forest being moist and cool. I don't even know what to say about that - do you really think your experience here (even if it's 30+ years) is enough to base judgement on when old-growth PP trees can be 400 years old and wet and dry cycles in the SW can last as long as 30-40 years? All the critters matter, but fire ecology has a lot to do with the local ecology - even the burrowing animals.
Oh, and the local FS is not made up of political appointees. Instead, this has been ground zero for fire ecology research and finding ways to restore PP forests to near pre-settlement conditions. All this is happening with many agencies, private organizations, and universities involved.
Lively discussion, but I'm out. Peace. "
Oh, and the local FS is not made up of political appointees. Instead, this has been ground zero for fire ecology research and finding ways to restore PP forests to near pre-settlement conditions. All this is happening with many agencies, private organizations, and universities involved.
Lively discussion, but I'm out. Peace. "
catching up wrote on Jun 28, 2009 3:47 PM:
" After being out for while and catching up on the news, I am doing something I have never done before, and that is contribute the the arguments that occur in this section. People are blaming the USFS, the weather reports and on and on. Having lived in Flagstaff all my like and having to watch one of our once beautiful mountains be destroyed by fire, with very little anyone could do.
I have been in Flagstaff and having planned an outdoor outing only to have a day that was supposed to be sunny and nice turn out to have rainstorms which made me cancel my plans. Was I upset with the weather reports. No they report but do not have control and things do change.
As for the firefighters whether they be USFS or FFD, Summit or Highland firefighters, these man and woman do their job for minimal pay compared to the pay many receive for doing such things as checking us out at a grocery store and this is the kind of thanks they are given. Yes they did choose to go into this profession with the desire to help communities and people. Every year the are degraded for one thing or another . They are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. I for one, as annoying as it can be am willing to put up with the smoke. It is not like it is every day of the year. Knowing several of the man an woman I know that they take several things into factors before they burn, such as moisture content in the vegetation, can't be to wet or to dry, which helps them decided when to burn. They can not burn unless they have approval from the EPA.They also have different types of fire that they burn, besides the controlled burns. They burn slash pile which is from trees what are to little to survive and they are piled along with dead trees that need to be removed partially for the public's safety.
Instead of complaining about a few bad days of smoky air how about you take that time and find one of these man or woman and thank them for their services they provided and for putting their lives on the line or each and every one of us. Yes, this is a job they choose to do but they did not choose to be constantly belittled, which they too put up with.
Thank you to all the firefighters for taking extra time from your families when it is need, to help protect everyone of us, whether we complain or not. I am proud to be a part of a community that has this type of dedication. "
I have been in Flagstaff and having planned an outdoor outing only to have a day that was supposed to be sunny and nice turn out to have rainstorms which made me cancel my plans. Was I upset with the weather reports. No they report but do not have control and things do change.
As for the firefighters whether they be USFS or FFD, Summit or Highland firefighters, these man and woman do their job for minimal pay compared to the pay many receive for doing such things as checking us out at a grocery store and this is the kind of thanks they are given. Yes they did choose to go into this profession with the desire to help communities and people. Every year the are degraded for one thing or another . They are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. I for one, as annoying as it can be am willing to put up with the smoke. It is not like it is every day of the year. Knowing several of the man an woman I know that they take several things into factors before they burn, such as moisture content in the vegetation, can't be to wet or to dry, which helps them decided when to burn. They can not burn unless they have approval from the EPA.They also have different types of fire that they burn, besides the controlled burns. They burn slash pile which is from trees what are to little to survive and they are piled along with dead trees that need to be removed partially for the public's safety.
Instead of complaining about a few bad days of smoky air how about you take that time and find one of these man or woman and thank them for their services they provided and for putting their lives on the line or each and every one of us. Yes, this is a job they choose to do but they did not choose to be constantly belittled, which they too put up with.
Thank you to all the firefighters for taking extra time from your families when it is need, to help protect everyone of us, whether we complain or not. I am proud to be a part of a community that has this type of dedication. "
SJUNE wrote on Jun 27, 2009 11:31 PM:
" Where is the fresh Mtn Air??? Timing is what most complaints are about!!!
Fine out who schedules these burns. Don't NFR work year around???
Great article!!! "
Fine out who schedules these burns. Don't NFR work year around???
Great article!!! "
Anne wrote on Jun 27, 2009 9:08 AM:
" "Anne - you obviously have done some reading, but your understanding does not seem to include enough historical knowledge of THIS forest that surrounds Flagstaff."
The research I referenced, except for the rain forest info, is about the local forests and local human health. Did you even look? "
The research I referenced, except for the rain forest info, is about the local forests and local human health. Did you even look? "
Anne wrote on Jun 27, 2009 8:49 AM:
" I've done more than a little reading.
The beginning of the unhealthy forests began with clear cutting and the removal of the big trees -- the best fire retardants a healthy forest has. Every fire that recurs (and fires almost always recur where there was fire before) makes the existence of big trees ever more unlikely. The high tree kill after even a prescribed burn is very measurable and certainly noticeable to those of us who observe the forest and its wildlife closely.
Vehicles used by forestry personnel and others compact the soil making rain runoff a big problem after burns and are the main mechanisms for the introduction of non-native, invasive species of flammable brush. Cattle exacerbate the harm. If the prescribed burns are of high temperature like a pile burn, then the surface of the soil actually gets sealed in a way that makes rain absorption almost impossible. All those little burrowing animals killed during and after burns are REALLY, REALLY important for a healthy forest.
The best thing humans can do for a healthy forest is nothing - stay away - encourage big trees by protecting them from the Nackards of the world, and let that canopy get tall and deep. Stop pumping the groundwater and stop subdivisions and businesses from using that water, destroying the canopy, and endangering the trees further. The complexities of the ecosystem are poorly understood by USFS - many of the bosses are political appointees with an ideology but little science and they are like bulls in the proverbial china shop for the most part and certainly for the last 8 years or so.
I remember when big parts of the local forest were always cool and moist - healthy for it and healthy for me. Now it is almost always hot and dusty, the burrowing wildlife that kept the soil open to rainwater is almost gone and with it the owls and other predators that maintained the population levels. A particularly bad time of year for prescribed burns.... bad for the forest when trees (and animals) are actively in their grow cycle, and bad for me and other humans forced to breathe the smoke from such clumsy, harmful management techniques.
There are valid uses for very selective, RARE use of prescribed burns but that is not the way the technique is being used by USFS and other fire-setters in the area. Burn days now make up about a quarter of the year and AzDEQ is not exerting appropriate control. "
The beginning of the unhealthy forests began with clear cutting and the removal of the big trees -- the best fire retardants a healthy forest has. Every fire that recurs (and fires almost always recur where there was fire before) makes the existence of big trees ever more unlikely. The high tree kill after even a prescribed burn is very measurable and certainly noticeable to those of us who observe the forest and its wildlife closely.
Vehicles used by forestry personnel and others compact the soil making rain runoff a big problem after burns and are the main mechanisms for the introduction of non-native, invasive species of flammable brush. Cattle exacerbate the harm. If the prescribed burns are of high temperature like a pile burn, then the surface of the soil actually gets sealed in a way that makes rain absorption almost impossible. All those little burrowing animals killed during and after burns are REALLY, REALLY important for a healthy forest.
The best thing humans can do for a healthy forest is nothing - stay away - encourage big trees by protecting them from the Nackards of the world, and let that canopy get tall and deep. Stop pumping the groundwater and stop subdivisions and businesses from using that water, destroying the canopy, and endangering the trees further. The complexities of the ecosystem are poorly understood by USFS - many of the bosses are political appointees with an ideology but little science and they are like bulls in the proverbial china shop for the most part and certainly for the last 8 years or so.
I remember when big parts of the local forest were always cool and moist - healthy for it and healthy for me. Now it is almost always hot and dusty, the burrowing wildlife that kept the soil open to rainwater is almost gone and with it the owls and other predators that maintained the population levels. A particularly bad time of year for prescribed burns.... bad for the forest when trees (and animals) are actively in their grow cycle, and bad for me and other humans forced to breathe the smoke from such clumsy, harmful management techniques.
There are valid uses for very selective, RARE use of prescribed burns but that is not the way the technique is being used by USFS and other fire-setters in the area. Burn days now make up about a quarter of the year and AzDEQ is not exerting appropriate control. "
JK wrote on Jun 27, 2009 4:04 AM:
" "The Flagstaff Medical Center emergency room was quiet, with no noticeable influx of asthma sufferers."
What we have here IS a failure to communicate.
I just caught up with listening to my podcasts on iTunes and KNAU ran (on smoke day) a podcast about the surges in admissions which they call "Grand Canyon Season"--- all about out-of-towners and weekend warriors and other people having cardiac and respiratory problems needing rescue and/or ER or regular hospital services.
So .... what he have here is definitely a communication problem.
Now, it is true that FLG and points north are at 7000 ft or higher -- if you are an astronomer, several weeks of altitude adaptation are recommended or required depending on who your employer is - even in cool weather. Add warm weather and that adds effectively a couple of thousand feet to where your body thinks it is because the partial pressure of oxygen drops considerably. . So even local people, well-adapted to the altitude, may have some problems breathing compared to doing same chores in cool weather. In nice weather it is tempting for many people to do a lot MORE than one would do in cool weather. So that increases likelihood of breathing or cardiac problems - even in the local population -- which is what FMC calls the "weekend warrior".
Now.... add heavy smoke to the warm weather to the altitude and suddenly one's body thinks it is at 12000 feet. Oxygen is in very short supply.
Many out-of-towners will experience great distress but even local people may have their first heart attack or bout of serious breathing problems.
Flagstaff Medical Center IS experiencing a surge in admissions and rescues -- they just aren't blaming the smoke or attributing it to asthma... they call it "Grand Canyon Season".
To sort out how many of the rescues and admissions are due to particulate count and how many are due to the season one would have to have access to both sets of data. I don't think there is any public reporting of particulate count outside of the visibility distance via the weather reporting at the airport. That is not sufficient for health prediction purposes.
Anyway, there IS a large surge in respiratory/cardiac admissions at FMC.
So...this seems to be an opportunity for the Daily Sun to add particulate count and and the oxygen content per volume of air to daily weather reporting. It would be a great service for locals and visitors. The traumas of "Grand Canyon Season" can be mitigated.
The FMC spokesperson said that people aren't aware or being informed. "
What we have here IS a failure to communicate.
I just caught up with listening to my podcasts on iTunes and KNAU ran (on smoke day) a podcast about the surges in admissions which they call "Grand Canyon Season"--- all about out-of-towners and weekend warriors and other people having cardiac and respiratory problems needing rescue and/or ER or regular hospital services.
So .... what he have here is definitely a communication problem.
Now, it is true that FLG and points north are at 7000 ft or higher -- if you are an astronomer, several weeks of altitude adaptation are recommended or required depending on who your employer is - even in cool weather. Add warm weather and that adds effectively a couple of thousand feet to where your body thinks it is because the partial pressure of oxygen drops considerably. . So even local people, well-adapted to the altitude, may have some problems breathing compared to doing same chores in cool weather. In nice weather it is tempting for many people to do a lot MORE than one would do in cool weather. So that increases likelihood of breathing or cardiac problems - even in the local population -- which is what FMC calls the "weekend warrior".
Now.... add heavy smoke to the warm weather to the altitude and suddenly one's body thinks it is at 12000 feet. Oxygen is in very short supply.
Many out-of-towners will experience great distress but even local people may have their first heart attack or bout of serious breathing problems.
Flagstaff Medical Center IS experiencing a surge in admissions and rescues -- they just aren't blaming the smoke or attributing it to asthma... they call it "Grand Canyon Season".
To sort out how many of the rescues and admissions are due to particulate count and how many are due to the season one would have to have access to both sets of data. I don't think there is any public reporting of particulate count outside of the visibility distance via the weather reporting at the airport. That is not sufficient for health prediction purposes.
Anyway, there IS a large surge in respiratory/cardiac admissions at FMC.
So...this seems to be an opportunity for the Daily Sun to add particulate count and and the oxygen content per volume of air to daily weather reporting. It would be a great service for locals and visitors. The traumas of "Grand Canyon Season" can be mitigated.
The FMC spokesperson said that people aren't aware or being informed. "
FS Fan wrote on Jun 26, 2009 7:37 PM:
" Anne - you obviously have done some reading, but your understanding does not seem to include enough historical knowledge of THIS forest that surrounds Flagstaff.
Fires, beetles, the timing of our precipitation, and the intense sunlight that we get at approximately 30 degrees latitude all contributed to the pre-settlement condition of this forest (which, by the way, had FAR fewer trees in the true ponderosa pine and pine-oak portions of our forest, they more resembled savannas and pine/grasslands). And that is what the USFS is working toward by conducting their thinning and burns. If they do not catastrophic fire will do it for them in a much less healthy and dangerous way - contributing more to global warming in large bursts and causing more prolonged human exposure to smoke in the years that those fires happen. Additionally, there is new evidence that pre-settlement PP forest conditions actually sequester more carbon than overgrown PP forests, especially when you factor in the threat of large wildfire.
Those same factors you mention - fire, beetles, intense sunlight - play an active role in working back toward the historic PP condition. The plants and animals of PP forest evolved with frequent fire - including the beetles (there's no getting rid of the beetles, PP trees are their habitat, and they will always kill some of the trees even in a healthy PP forest). But if we choose not to manage THIS forest and work toward pre-settlement conditions (or at least something more resembling it that is acceptable and sustainable), beetle OUTBREAKS and fire will cause landscape scale mortality like that currently seen in beetle outbreaks in lodgepole pine forests in Colorado, or the beetle outbreak around Prescott during the early 2000's, or that which resulted from the Rodeo-Chediski fire.
Always stay curious, and always keep learning, but also take the time to understand more about the ecosystem that you're a direct part of (e.g. read local research, too). It will improve your knowledge of how we can live more sustainably here in Northern Arizona or wherever you may be. After all, that's just as important as what's going on in Australia or the tropical rainforests. "
Fires, beetles, the timing of our precipitation, and the intense sunlight that we get at approximately 30 degrees latitude all contributed to the pre-settlement condition of this forest (which, by the way, had FAR fewer trees in the true ponderosa pine and pine-oak portions of our forest, they more resembled savannas and pine/grasslands). And that is what the USFS is working toward by conducting their thinning and burns. If they do not catastrophic fire will do it for them in a much less healthy and dangerous way - contributing more to global warming in large bursts and causing more prolonged human exposure to smoke in the years that those fires happen. Additionally, there is new evidence that pre-settlement PP forest conditions actually sequester more carbon than overgrown PP forests, especially when you factor in the threat of large wildfire.
Those same factors you mention - fire, beetles, intense sunlight - play an active role in working back toward the historic PP condition. The plants and animals of PP forest evolved with frequent fire - including the beetles (there's no getting rid of the beetles, PP trees are their habitat, and they will always kill some of the trees even in a healthy PP forest). But if we choose not to manage THIS forest and work toward pre-settlement conditions (or at least something more resembling it that is acceptable and sustainable), beetle OUTBREAKS and fire will cause landscape scale mortality like that currently seen in beetle outbreaks in lodgepole pine forests in Colorado, or the beetle outbreak around Prescott during the early 2000's, or that which resulted from the Rodeo-Chediski fire.
Always stay curious, and always keep learning, but also take the time to understand more about the ecosystem that you're a direct part of (e.g. read local research, too). It will improve your knowledge of how we can live more sustainably here in Northern Arizona or wherever you may be. After all, that's just as important as what's going on in Australia or the tropical rainforests. "
JK wrote on Jun 26, 2009 7:05 PM:
" Air conditioning units add to global warming and the local urban heat bubble. That is, such units make forest desiccation even worse... almost as bad as prescribed burns if it should become common practice. "
Anne wrote on Jun 26, 2009 6:50 PM:
" The chart of the nau data about bark beetles is here:
http://www2.for.nau.edu/swsaf/Research/2009/Bugs_n_Burns_Poster_02_18__09.pdf
The effect is highly dramatic compared to the control sites. "
http://www2.for.nau.edu/swsaf/Research/2009/Bugs_n_Burns_Poster_02_18__09.pdf
The effect is highly dramatic compared to the control sites. "
Anne wrote on Jun 26, 2009 6:44 PM:
" Another reference about bark beetles and prescribed burns:
We compared bark beetle attacks and tree mortality between paired prescribed-burned and unburned stands at each of four sites in Arizona and New Mexico for three growing seasons after burning (2004Â2006). Prescribed burns increased bark beetle attacks on ponderosa pine over the first three post-fire years from 1.5 to 13% of all trees, increased successful, lethal attacks on ponderosa pine from 0.4 to 7.6%, increased mortality of ponderosa pine from all causes from 0.6 to 8.4%, and increased mortality of all tree species with diameter at breast height >13 cm from 0.6 to 9.6%. On a per year basis, prescribed burns increased ponderosa pine mortality from 0.2% per year in unburned stands to 2.8% per year in burned stands. Mortality of ponderosa pine 3 years after burning was best described by a logistic regression model with total crown damage (crown scorch + crown consumption) and bark beetle attack rating (no, partial, or mass attack by bark beetles) as independent variables. Attacks by Dendroctonus spp. did not differ significantly over bole heights, whereas attacks by Ips spp. were greater on the upper bole compared with the lower bole. Three previously published logistic regression models of tree mortality, developed from fires in 1995-1996 in northern Arizona, were moderately successful in predicting broad patterns of tree mortality in our data. The influence of bark beetle attack rating on tree mortality was stronger for our data than for data from the 1995-1996 fires. Our results highlight canopy damage from fire as a strong and consistent predictor of post-fire mortality of ponderosa pine, and bark beetle attacks and bole char rating as less consistent predictors because of temporal variability in their relationship to mortality...
Title: Prescribed fire effects on bark beetle activity and tree mortality in southwestern ponderosa pine forests
Author: Breece, C.R.; Kolb, T.E.; Dickson, B.G.; McMillin, J.D.; Clancey, K.M.
Date: 2008
Source: Forest Ecology and Management. 255: 119-128. "
We compared bark beetle attacks and tree mortality between paired prescribed-burned and unburned stands at each of four sites in Arizona and New Mexico for three growing seasons after burning (2004Â2006). Prescribed burns increased bark beetle attacks on ponderosa pine over the first three post-fire years from 1.5 to 13% of all trees, increased successful, lethal attacks on ponderosa pine from 0.4 to 7.6%, increased mortality of ponderosa pine from all causes from 0.6 to 8.4%, and increased mortality of all tree species with diameter at breast height >13 cm from 0.6 to 9.6%. On a per year basis, prescribed burns increased ponderosa pine mortality from 0.2% per year in unburned stands to 2.8% per year in burned stands. Mortality of ponderosa pine 3 years after burning was best described by a logistic regression model with total crown damage (crown scorch + crown consumption) and bark beetle attack rating (no, partial, or mass attack by bark beetles) as independent variables. Attacks by Dendroctonus spp. did not differ significantly over bole heights, whereas attacks by Ips spp. were greater on the upper bole compared with the lower bole. Three previously published logistic regression models of tree mortality, developed from fires in 1995-1996 in northern Arizona, were moderately successful in predicting broad patterns of tree mortality in our data. The influence of bark beetle attack rating on tree mortality was stronger for our data than for data from the 1995-1996 fires. Our results highlight canopy damage from fire as a strong and consistent predictor of post-fire mortality of ponderosa pine, and bark beetle attacks and bole char rating as less consistent predictors because of temporal variability in their relationship to mortality...
Title: Prescribed fire effects on bark beetle activity and tree mortality in southwestern ponderosa pine forests
Author: Breece, C.R.; Kolb, T.E.; Dickson, B.G.; McMillin, J.D.; Clancey, K.M.
Date: 2008
Source: Forest Ecology and Management. 255: 119-128. "
Anne wrote on Jun 26, 2009 4:24 PM:
" Reality check should read the research -- March issue of Science published a synopsis.
Bark beetles are increased in areas with prescribed burns. Prescribed burns dessicate the forest. A drought (global warming caused substantially by fires of one sort or another) and/or overpumping ground water just makes it worse.
Even the rain forest is being dessicated ....
Rainforests are increasingly susceptible to forest fires today due to degradation from selective logging, fragmentation, and agricultural activities.
Natural fires in the Amazon generally do little more than burn dry leaf litter and small seedlings. Typically these fires have flames that only reach a few inches in height and have virtually no impact on tall trees or the canopy itself. However, in passing, the fire sets the path for recurrent fires and subsequent forest loss. Once-burned forests are twice as likely to be deforested as unburned forests, largely because the initial fires—however small—thin out the canopy, allowing more desiccating sunlight to reach the forest floor. Previously burned forests, in addition to having more combustible material, are also often adjacent to fire-maintained pastures and therefore are frequently exposed to sources of ignition. Subsequent fires burn with increased velocity and intensity and cause higher tree mortality. Fires intervals of less than 20 years may eliminate all trees in the forest stand.
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0809.htm
Gee, what do you think Arizona dessicating sunlight is doing to Flagstaff "managed" forests??????? "
Bark beetles are increased in areas with prescribed burns. Prescribed burns dessicate the forest. A drought (global warming caused substantially by fires of one sort or another) and/or overpumping ground water just makes it worse.
Even the rain forest is being dessicated ....
Rainforests are increasingly susceptible to forest fires today due to degradation from selective logging, fragmentation, and agricultural activities.
Natural fires in the Amazon generally do little more than burn dry leaf litter and small seedlings. Typically these fires have flames that only reach a few inches in height and have virtually no impact on tall trees or the canopy itself. However, in passing, the fire sets the path for recurrent fires and subsequent forest loss. Once-burned forests are twice as likely to be deforested as unburned forests, largely because the initial fires—however small—thin out the canopy, allowing more desiccating sunlight to reach the forest floor. Previously burned forests, in addition to having more combustible material, are also often adjacent to fire-maintained pastures and therefore are frequently exposed to sources of ignition. Subsequent fires burn with increased velocity and intensity and cause higher tree mortality. Fires intervals of less than 20 years may eliminate all trees in the forest stand.
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0809.htm
Gee, what do you think Arizona dessicating sunlight is doing to Flagstaff "managed" forests??????? "
Vast Majority wrote on Jun 26, 2009 3:51 PM:
" I see that we are being lumped into two categories here: the "whiners" and the "vast majority". It ain't so.
Everywhere I go, people are up in arms about the smoke. Nobody says it is OK. Everybody wants it stopped. The only difference of opinion in the real world seems to be whether the decision-makers are less-than-intelligent or sadistic power freaks. "
Everywhere I go, people are up in arms about the smoke. Nobody says it is OK. Everybody wants it stopped. The only difference of opinion in the real world seems to be whether the decision-makers are less-than-intelligent or sadistic power freaks. "
flag forester wrote on Jun 26, 2009 1:16 PM:
" basic principles of the ecosystem in which you reside-- shall we cover them?
1) small, seasonal surface fires are both natural and necessary for the health, resilience, and fire-resistance of our ponderosa pine forests.
2) many decades of fire suppression and human alteration of the landscape have brought our ecosystem to an unhealthy place, where small, seasonal surface fires are prone to turning into large, furious crown fires (burns the whole tree instead of just the understory!) that can devastate large expanses of forest, and the communities located within them (see also: Rodeo-Chediski fire).
3) failing to manage forests appropriately-- that is, toward the end goal of increasing human safety by tending toward balance and health in the forest ecosystem-- results in devastating fires (see also: Rodeo-Chediski fire).
4) the best tools we have as wildfire prophylactics-- aside from public education-- are thinning and prescribed burns. disturbance by wildfire is both a NATURAL and NECESSARY process in our ecosystem.
5) historically, flagstaff has burned to the ground twice.
i'm not a forester because i want to have a yee-hawin' good time burning slash piles and felling trees. i'm a forester because i care deeply about the health and safety of our community, and am dedicated to conducting research to help produce responsible and productive management decisions to preserve our hometown and the beautiful, priceless tracts that surround it.
knowing that you live in a place where wildfire is natural and necessary, and that the absence of it increases fuel loads and likelihood of catastrophic fires, and that this system has been further taxed by extended periods of drought, which decision causes more harm: deciding to burn a small parcel of land in the experimental forest to further the cause of increasing overall fire safety and preparedness, or failing to do so because it makes the townfolk whine?
ever heard the saying "can't see the forest for the trees"? i suggest examining its relevance to this situaton. "
1) small, seasonal surface fires are both natural and necessary for the health, resilience, and fire-resistance of our ponderosa pine forests.
2) many decades of fire suppression and human alteration of the landscape have brought our ecosystem to an unhealthy place, where small, seasonal surface fires are prone to turning into large, furious crown fires (burns the whole tree instead of just the understory!) that can devastate large expanses of forest, and the communities located within them (see also: Rodeo-Chediski fire).
3) failing to manage forests appropriately-- that is, toward the end goal of increasing human safety by tending toward balance and health in the forest ecosystem-- results in devastating fires (see also: Rodeo-Chediski fire).
4) the best tools we have as wildfire prophylactics-- aside from public education-- are thinning and prescribed burns. disturbance by wildfire is both a NATURAL and NECESSARY process in our ecosystem.
5) historically, flagstaff has burned to the ground twice.
i'm not a forester because i want to have a yee-hawin' good time burning slash piles and felling trees. i'm a forester because i care deeply about the health and safety of our community, and am dedicated to conducting research to help produce responsible and productive management decisions to preserve our hometown and the beautiful, priceless tracts that surround it.
knowing that you live in a place where wildfire is natural and necessary, and that the absence of it increases fuel loads and likelihood of catastrophic fires, and that this system has been further taxed by extended periods of drought, which decision causes more harm: deciding to burn a small parcel of land in the experimental forest to further the cause of increasing overall fire safety and preparedness, or failing to do so because it makes the townfolk whine?
ever heard the saying "can't see the forest for the trees"? i suggest examining its relevance to this situaton. "
Reality Check wrote on Jun 26, 2009 12:54 PM:
" Anne please stop posting. Your propaganda sounds like Bush talking. Bark beetle infestations were caused by drought and crowded tree stands. Just a consequence of climate change and fire suppression with a little grazing added in. Fact on the Mogollon Rim bark beetles infestations attacked areas with no treatments, go out in the forest and look for yourself. We are lucky to live in a community with lots of scientist that study this very thing. With NAU forestry, ERI, GFFP, Riverside research I'm sure none of these very educated scholars know what they are talking about since this is their profession. Post facts not hear say. Maybe its global warming with those records being set off in the deserts. To think that our environments never change and the Earth has just been status quo for millions of years is ludicrous. "
FLG mom wrote on Jun 26, 2009 12:18 PM:
" I'm sure its not a fun day for asthma suffers, however if you live in the area long enough you do know that burns are going to happen so maybe investing in an indoor air conditioner with HEPA filters is what you may need to invest for such days. Otherwise, you'll just have to keep your windows open like the rest of us and breath in the "smoky" stench and be at least grateful its not a real Wildfire. Besides if it were a real wildfire, you'd be in a gymnasium with other regular folk sleeping on the floor. So people, PLEASE, let the US Forest Service do their job and quit WHINNING! Otherwise, pack up your SUV and head to smoggy PHX or shut your windows and buy/turn on your air conditioner for your overpriced home/condo/townhome. "
JK wrote on Jun 26, 2009 11:30 AM:
" Nutrient recycling occurs naturally in a healthy forest - and slowly so the trees really benefit and get large. There aren't many trees larger than 16" around Flagstaff.
Prescribed burns are unnecessary in a healthy forest. Large trees are a far better fire deterrent than "managed" areas with prescribed burns.
Prescribed burns have to be done over and over because what is produced is not healthy forest but Bark Beetle Bonanza. "
Prescribed burns are unnecessary in a healthy forest. Large trees are a far better fire deterrent than "managed" areas with prescribed burns.
Prescribed burns have to be done over and over because what is produced is not healthy forest but Bark Beetle Bonanza. "
Confused wrote on Jun 26, 2009 9:59 AM:
" After reading all the comments I don't believe the "complainers" are upset because prescribed burns are being done. I think most are are upset at the TIMING of the controlled burns. I think we all understand why these burns are necessary (to prevent catastrophic fires), but what isn't clear is why the burns must take place during the hottest time of year when it's difficult to keep windows closed up in the house. Can anyone explain why the burns can't be done during other times of the year when it's easier to keep the home closed up? "
Global warming tree hugger wrote on Jun 26, 2009 7:09 AM:
" It is ironic that controlled burns of this size are common in a town and near a university that is obsessed with promoting reduction of CO2 emissions to reduce global warming. It also seems obvious that to reduce the production of CO2 emissions, and still control forest overgrowth, that Flagstaff should begin promoting large-scale logging to reduce forest fuels. How's that for additional irony...? "
FS fan wrote on Jun 25, 2009 8:37 PM:
" Again, folks, please keep in mind it's not just about lowering the threat of catastrophic fire. This forest needs fire for nutrient cycling and regeneration of undergrowth and for the health of the trees themselves. Reducing large wildfire threat is the driving economic force, but fire is necessary for the plants and animals that evolved here with its presence on return cycles as low as 3-7 years. Thank you USFS! If you want to live oblivious to the ecosystem you live in please move to a large city (but practice green lifestyles while you're at it)! "
Please FS wrote on Jun 25, 2009 8:16 PM:
" Forest Service keep doing your jobs for the greater public good and not focused around vocal groups. It is what the vast majority expect and pay you to do. Thanks. "
Elevate Yourself wrote on Jun 25, 2009 8:12 PM:
" Thank you all for those that support the managed burning activities and that do not subscribe to a insular universe or that George Bush is Satan and that all presived evil still relates to him. Friends of the forest unite and the N.I.M.B.Y...................... pound sand. Remember "facts are friendly." "
Anne wrote on Jun 25, 2009 7:10 PM:
" 1. Smoke (fine particulate matter) CAUSES respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and makes pre-existing ones worse.... especially dangerous to children and the elderly.
2. Prescribed burns do NOT prevent catastrophic forest fires. See Woody fire coverage for details.
Also, as recently reported in Science:
"...a combination of prescribed burns and mechanical thinning increased the incidence of tree death from bark beetles and wood borers. ...human activities, such as livestock grazing, preferential logging of large trees ... have led to changes in forest structure: increases in tree density, smaller tree size and increased fuel load.... " and the invasion of non-native species. "
2. Prescribed burns do NOT prevent catastrophic forest fires. See Woody fire coverage for details.
Also, as recently reported in Science:
"...a combination of prescribed burns and mechanical thinning increased the incidence of tree death from bark beetles and wood borers. ...human activities, such as livestock grazing, preferential logging of large trees ... have led to changes in forest structure: increases in tree density, smaller tree size and increased fuel load.... " and the invasion of non-native species. "
re Granola Bob wrote on Jun 25, 2009 6:03 PM:
" try calculating the carbon stored by a healthy p.pine forest that has been thinned and burned with low intensity surface fires every 5-10 years, and compare that to the carbon released during unnatural stand replacing canopy fires in untreated p/pine forests. "
Intellectual wrote on Jun 25, 2009 5:20 PM:
" Prescribe fire prevents catastrophic fire. Flagstaff citizens you live in a climate that has evolved with low intensity fires burning through the understory. Only in the last hundred years have fires been suppressed. This would be the equivlant of not cleaning your childern's room for their first 20 years. It would be a mess. Fire acts like a vaccum cleaner. If you can't handle this natural process please leave Northern Arizona.
During the heyday of the Riordan logging operations at the turn of the 20th century the Riordans would send their children to Phoenix. "
During the heyday of the Riordan logging operations at the turn of the 20th century the Riordans would send their children to Phoenix. "
sled wrote on Jun 25, 2009 4:56 PM:
" Why doesn't the forest service chip/pulp/pulverize the piles or do something else besides control burns (RECYCLE the material)...I image control burning is not good for the air quality and more importantly for people with respiratory problems! For living in such a health concise city I am amazed that people don't protest against this too! "
Granola Bob wrote on Jun 25, 2009 3:45 PM:
" The smoke from the fire was equal to over a million cars exhaust for a one year periord. Thanks USFS for your effert to help gobal warming. "
Laura Ryan wrote on Jun 25, 2009 2:34 PM:
" Try living in New York. I would give my right arm to get back to Flagstaff. "
Smokey wrote on Jun 25, 2009 1:50 PM:
" I rather smell smoke for a few days then watch my home burn down, because the Forest Service didn't take preventive measures. The people who are complaining are acting like short sighted sissies. We live in a forest and along with the beauty of the surrounding trees comes inherent fire danger. And this month's cool weather is providing not only a respite for our usual high fire danger this time of a year, but a great opportunity to practice prevention. "
concerned wrote on Jun 25, 2009 12:39 PM:
" I love this people like "e" that state "if you have a problem - get over it or move". The same kind of logic used to support Bush's decision to invade Iraq. "
mk wrote on Jun 25, 2009 11:40 AM:
" We are surrounded by a ponderosa pine forest. It is made of wood. It WILL burn. It is part of the natural cycle. Do we want it to burn little by little or all at once? Here is an article worth reading: http://www.mountainsmagnificent.com/rocky-mountains-ponderosa-pine/rocky-mountains-ponderosa-pine-forest-fire.html "
Anne wrote on Jun 25, 2009 10:55 AM:
" The next catastrophic fire I will hope and pray that planes with slurry are still being funded by officials who do NOT believe that prescribed burns PREVENT forest fires.
In California they cut way back on the slurry planes to save money and their recent fire seasons have been truly spectacular, destroying large numbers of homes even in the wealthy areas, and killing people. "
In California they cut way back on the slurry planes to save money and their recent fire seasons have been truly spectacular, destroying large numbers of homes even in the wealthy areas, and killing people. "
e wrote on Jun 25, 2009 10:19 AM:
" Really Flagstaff?
It's just a little bit of smoke. Keep complaining until there is a catastrophic fire that affects your home and family- Then I'm sure you'll be the first to point the finger at the Forest Service for not doing enough. Get over it or move. "
It's just a little bit of smoke. Keep complaining until there is a catastrophic fire that affects your home and family- Then I'm sure you'll be the first to point the finger at the Forest Service for not doing enough. Get over it or move. "
educate yourself people wrote on Jun 25, 2009 10:02 AM:
" well done CNF, we support thinning and burning as much as you can
remember, prescribed fire smoke is a sign of progress!! "
remember, prescribed fire smoke is a sign of progress!! "
smokey wrote on Jun 25, 2009 9:47 AM:
" My house got to 80 degrees inside yesterday because we had to close all the windows due to the smoke. Even the ceiling fans we have in every room didn't help. My daughter has asthma and she had to use her inhaler most of the day. Prescribed burns just because fuel conditions are good in June w/the temp in the 80's??? That is crazy! Whoever thought that was a good idea sure made a bad decision........ "
flaggrrl wrote on Jun 25, 2009 9:16 AM:
" Um, if it weren't for these articles, I wouldn't have even known there was a fire. I smelled it on my way home from work and if I didn't know they were burning, I would have just figured someone's car needed work. I don't understand why people choose to live somewhere knowing about the various weather/environment issues (heavy snow in the winter, fire/prescribed burns other times of the year) and then just sit around and whine about how it's hot and they want to open their windows waaaahhhhh.
I do feel for folks having respiratory issues, but overall, judging by the comments in this article and the other one on the fires, the whining needs to stop. If you have respiratory issues that are regularly affected by living here ... then why do you live here? A good friend of mine can't move out here (even though she'd like to) because her son has a heart condition that reduces the oxegenation of his blood and he will basically die if it travels or tries to live somewhere much higher than sea level. They deal with it, they don't move somewhere and then complain like it's their job when stuff happens that they know is going to happen.
What next, should I send angry letters to the mayor when my sinuses are uncomfortably dried out due to the low humidity? Please. "
I do feel for folks having respiratory issues, but overall, judging by the comments in this article and the other one on the fires, the whining needs to stop. If you have respiratory issues that are regularly affected by living here ... then why do you live here? A good friend of mine can't move out here (even though she'd like to) because her son has a heart condition that reduces the oxegenation of his blood and he will basically die if it travels or tries to live somewhere much higher than sea level. They deal with it, they don't move somewhere and then complain like it's their job when stuff happens that they know is going to happen.
What next, should I send angry letters to the mayor when my sinuses are uncomfortably dried out due to the low humidity? Please. "
Flabbergasted wrote on Jun 25, 2009 9:09 AM:
" I find it shamefully ironic that this story appears right alongside the EPA's report of how clean the air is in Coconino County. How can these burns be allowed to go on so close to the city, especially during this time of year? Because most homes in Flagstaff do not have air conditioning, this is the time of year when windows must be opened at night to allow cool air in. But with these controlled "burns" -- or "mandatory lung contamination sessions" if we call them what they really are -- we are faced with two choices: Keep the homes closed up and be miserable from the sweltering heat, or open the windows and be miserable from the constant smoke inhalation. "
concerned wrote on Jun 25, 2009 9:02 AM:
" Another bad decision by the Forest Service. Similiar to the North Kaibab's Warm Fire in 2006 where they let a lightning-caused fire burn under managed conditions and then lost control of it and it burned nearly 60,000 acres. The Warm Fire started on almost the same date. I have asthma and I could not have the windows open last night on the warmest day of the year so far. Maybe the Forest Service should pay the medical bills for the people affected or better yet, suffer the same breathing problems that some residents do. The Forest Service won't tell you, but the amount of area treated over the last 15 years by prescribed/control burns is such a small percentage of the total area in need of treatment, that at the rate they are doing it would take numerous decades and the areas treated at the outset would again need treatment. A continuous, vicious and expensive cycle with no end in sight. If you walk through areas of prescribed burns you will notice large areas of unintended tree kill that will need to be re-treated in the future, What a bunch of intellectuals. "
astonished wrote on Jun 25, 2009 7:51 AM:
" What were forest service personnel thinking????????????????????
To do such a large burn at the time all types of wildlife are raising young and people who live in and around Flagstaff need to open windows to cool homes.
Incredible. "
To do such a large burn at the time all types of wildlife are raising young and people who live in and around Flagstaff need to open windows to cool homes.
Incredible. "
JK wrote on Jun 25, 2009 7:06 AM:
" Even in your photo you can see that more areas than the low-lying valleys had air-quality problems. Certainly an avoidable violation of EPA standards for toxic particulates. "
Anne wrote on Jun 25, 2009 6:52 AM:
" The clinic waiting room I was at was full of people having breathing problems... I can only think FMC is too expensive for most sufferers - it generally costs over $1000 dollars for routine respiratory therapy in the ER {or maybe your reporter asked the wrong questions -- asthma isn't the only health problem from dirty air - how bad does it have to get before FMC would "notice" an increase in air-related problems - that is, do they measure baselines and severity???}.
In my HIGH part of Flagstaff the smoke was heavy all night and is still here this AM.
Friends and family made it through the night - just barely for some of them. Hot weather makes less oxygen available per inhalation(volume), smoke makes that much worse. So having burns in June or July is a REALLY bad idea. Bad idea anytime but worse in June and July.
Prescribed burns do not prevent forest fires. "
In my HIGH part of Flagstaff the smoke was heavy all night and is still here this AM.
Friends and family made it through the night - just barely for some of them. Hot weather makes less oxygen available per inhalation(volume), smoke makes that much worse. So having burns in June or July is a REALLY bad idea. Bad idea anytime but worse in June and July.
Prescribed burns do not prevent forest fires. "
All comments will be reviewed before being posted. Comments that contain profanity or are obscene, resort to name calling, are libelous in nature, or make personal attacks won’t be approved. Criticism should focus on the ideas or arguments presented — not the person.
Comments are not always reviewed immediately, especially when posted on weekends or nights.
We reserve the right to delete any comments that, upon further review, fail to meet our guidelines.
Do we edit user comments? No. The writers are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide.
Click to see the complete policy
Advertisement
News Photos Slide Show
Top Jobs
Arizona Central Credit Union
Branch Manager
Blair Worldwide
Consultants
Flagstaff Preferred
Salespeople
High tech dental practice
Dental Hygenist
Mack Corporation
Ofc Mngr/Bookkeeper
New Generation
Fun Travel Job
Praxair Healthcare Services
Client Care Assoc
Southern California Water Dist
Millwright/Mechanic
Unspecified
CAD drafter
Unspecified
Opto-tech engineer
Branch Manager
Blair Worldwide
Consultants
Flagstaff Preferred
Salespeople
High tech dental practice
Dental Hygenist
Mack Corporation
Ofc Mngr/Bookkeeper
New Generation
Fun Travel Job
Praxair Healthcare Services
Client Care Assoc
Southern California Water Dist
Millwright/Mechanic
Unspecified
CAD drafter
Unspecified
Opto-tech engineer
Advertisements
Site Index
[ About Us |
Contact Us |
Job Opportunities |
Advertise |
Terms of use |
Privacy policy |
Legal Statement ]
The Arizona Daily Sun, Copyright 2009 © 1751 S. Thompson, Flagstaff, AZ
The Arizona Daily Sun, Copyright 2009 © 1751 S. Thompson, Flagstaff, AZ
Anne wrote on Jul 14, 2009 2:56 PM:
And it is dangerously dry and windy in May and June. Controlled burns quickly become uncontrolled burns and do a lot of damage. Especially in June.
Could be that good old Mother Nature is saying that prescribed burns are NOT a good idea. How loud does she have to shout??? "