Good photos by Watkins. Especially interesting is #6 -- that seems to show very young pine coming into a meadow of oaks. Also, the oaks in the background have branches very low to the ground -- an indication there'd been no fire in the area for some years.
Both might be indications that either A) Native Americans had been prevented from burning the Valley with the arrival of settlers B) they didn't burn it as often as thought.
Interesting.
Incidentally, I'm the proud owner of an original Watkins -- very small one of Yosemite Falls.
g.
Grab the axe so we People can see the View again!
- gdurkee
- Founding Member
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
- Experience: N/A
- dave54
- Founding Member
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
- Experience: Level 4 Explorer
- Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.
The downside about "letting things go natural" is high intensity stand replacing fires are also natural in the sierra westside mc forests -- they occurred less frequently than low- to moderate intensity fires, but high intensity fires did periodically occur.
A sustained multi-year drought coincident with a mountain pine beetle outbreak, followed by a late season dry lightning event, would cause a stand replacing fire in the Valley. This is a highly likely scenario that has already happened in recent years elsewhere in the Sierra and around the West.
The question is are we as a society ready to accept that catastrophic 'natural' event?
Do we intervene to try to prevent that type of natural process?
What level and type of intervention is acceptable human modification?
These are not questions that can be answered by scientists. Indeed, scientists are singularly UNQUALIFIED to answer these questions. This is the realm of managers using the public policy process to assist in the decisionmaking (that's assist in the decisionmaking -- not making natural resource decisions by mob rule).
There are very real tradeoffs regardless of how one feels on these issues. Unfortunately, the public is not willing to accept the risks and tradeoffs no matter which course of action is chosen.
A sustained multi-year drought coincident with a mountain pine beetle outbreak, followed by a late season dry lightning event, would cause a stand replacing fire in the Valley. This is a highly likely scenario that has already happened in recent years elsewhere in the Sierra and around the West.
The question is are we as a society ready to accept that catastrophic 'natural' event?
Do we intervene to try to prevent that type of natural process?
What level and type of intervention is acceptable human modification?
These are not questions that can be answered by scientists. Indeed, scientists are singularly UNQUALIFIED to answer these questions. This is the realm of managers using the public policy process to assist in the decisionmaking (that's assist in the decisionmaking -- not making natural resource decisions by mob rule).
There are very real tradeoffs regardless of how one feels on these issues. Unfortunately, the public is not willing to accept the risks and tradeoffs no matter which course of action is chosen.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
- SSSdave
- Topix Addict
- Posts: 3524
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:18 pm
- Experience: N/A
- Location: Silicon Valley
- Contact:
First the issue of minor manipulations around public scenic viewpoints certainly doesn't need to be placed in a communal bucket with large scale forest issues as fires. I'll comment on the fire issues since you've brought it up.
Like with most issues in a complex world, rigid black and white thinking on what ought to and what ought not to be allowed to burn in forest fire are obviously not always going to have the best outcome given hindsight. Accordingly the more wise process will allow the consensus of forest experts to make day to day decisions with oversight from interested groups. I have no doubt since controlled burns are major programs now that have been ongoing for years, that much of what is being done is already well analyzed and sensibly planned out. However there are no doubt some critical elements of the public that likely have little understanding of whatever those plans and policies are that in their ignorance will readily criticize whatever is done simply due to that ignorance. Thus the forest service needs to make an extra effort to readily inform the public so they don't go off the deep end. Unfortunately in the past, as everyone was coming up to speed with what ought to be done, episodes like those huge Yellowstone fires occurred with considerable controversy between opposing ideas that have subsequently left mistrust and doubts on what the policies are. Further there had been turmoil caused by sometimes over eager logging interest to salvage partially burned trees that conjured up considerable potential abuses whether real or not.
dave54, I don't really understand what you are trying to relate with your last sentence about "the public". I'm guessing you are actually referring to those with more radical perspectives that tend to push their agendas via legal monkeywrenching. Of course they are hardly representitive of the general public. ...David
Like with most issues in a complex world, rigid black and white thinking on what ought to and what ought not to be allowed to burn in forest fire are obviously not always going to have the best outcome given hindsight. Accordingly the more wise process will allow the consensus of forest experts to make day to day decisions with oversight from interested groups. I have no doubt since controlled burns are major programs now that have been ongoing for years, that much of what is being done is already well analyzed and sensibly planned out. However there are no doubt some critical elements of the public that likely have little understanding of whatever those plans and policies are that in their ignorance will readily criticize whatever is done simply due to that ignorance. Thus the forest service needs to make an extra effort to readily inform the public so they don't go off the deep end. Unfortunately in the past, as everyone was coming up to speed with what ought to be done, episodes like those huge Yellowstone fires occurred with considerable controversy between opposing ideas that have subsequently left mistrust and doubts on what the policies are. Further there had been turmoil caused by sometimes over eager logging interest to salvage partially burned trees that conjured up considerable potential abuses whether real or not.
dave54, I don't really understand what you are trying to relate with your last sentence about "the public". I'm guessing you are actually referring to those with more radical perspectives that tend to push their agendas via legal monkeywrenching. Of course they are hardly representitive of the general public. ...David
- AldeFarte
- Topix Regular
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:46 pm
- Experience: N/A
- Location: Eklutna, Ak.
- dave54
- Founding Member
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
- Experience: Level 4 Explorer
- Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.
"the public" I was referring to includes all. And is not necessarily a disparaging comment. The media discussion of issues usually gives short shrift to the complexities of natural resource decisionmaking, and is unwilling or unable due to space to discuss in detail the upside as well as the downside of management actions.SSSdave wrote: dave54, I don't really understand what you are trying to relate with your last sentence about "the public". I'm guessing you are actually referring to those with more radical perspectives that tend to push their agendas via legal monkeywrenching. Of course they are hardly representitive of the general public. ...David
For example, control burns make smoke. The public generally understands the need to do more burning, but then complain when smoke drifts down the valley to their homes. Dispersion models are good tools, but not foolproof, and weather forecasts sometimes are in error. So despite the best efforts of fire managers, smoke will impact communities nearby, but the residents are [understandably] unwilling to accept periodic smoke. If managers wait until the conditions are so perfect and bullet-proof to prevent any chance of unwanted smoke drift, only a fraction of the desired burning gets accomplished, generating more complaints about inaction. Attempting to replicate the effects of burning by other means (i.e. mechanical treatment) triggers litigation.
Heaven forbid if a control burn escapes. The media, public, and elected officials all go ballistic wanting heads to roll, when it was their pressure that pushed managers into unwise burning in the first place (Cerro Gordo Fire, NM, for example).
The aforementioned Yellowstone Fires of 1988 are another example. From one viewpoint they were a natural process, as that ecosystem has a catastrophic stand replacing event approximately every 400 years, and the last one was in the 1600's. The public says they want more natural fires. So Yellowstone was a good thing, right? Or was it too much of a good thing? Where do you draw the line?
The public attitude is "I want more wilderness, more wilderness fires let burn, more control burning, less harvesting on public lands, more wildlife, etc, as long as it has no negative impact whatsoever on me. If it does affect me personally, then I am against it."
This thread started out about Yosemite, but has since expanded into general discussion about public land agencies in general. I hope all here understand the differences between National Parks and National Forests and the different management philosophies and legal mandates between them.
...then there are BLM public lands, NW Refuges, COE public lands, state lands, etc. But all face similar problems.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
- Kerstin
- Topix Acquainted
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:09 pm
- Experience: Level 4 Explorer
- Location: South Lake Tahoe, California
A great book related to this thread is "Fire in Sierra Nevada Forests--A Photographic Interpretation of Ecological Change since 1849".
The author found old photos of various regions in the Sierra Nevada and attempted to take the exact same picture. It's astonishing how much the forests have changed. Everything looks completely different. The book contains photos of the Sierra Foothills, the higher western slopes, Tahoe, Yosemite, the Kings Canyon and Mineral King high country and the Sierra east side. It's fascinating!
Here are a few links: http://www.historycooperative.org/journ ... br_14.html
http://forestry.about.com/library/weekl ... sierra.htm
The author found old photos of various regions in the Sierra Nevada and attempted to take the exact same picture. It's astonishing how much the forests have changed. Everything looks completely different. The book contains photos of the Sierra Foothills, the higher western slopes, Tahoe, Yosemite, the Kings Canyon and Mineral King high country and the Sierra east side. It's fascinating!
Here are a few links: http://www.historycooperative.org/journ ... br_14.html
http://forestry.about.com/library/weekl ... sierra.htm
- dave54
- Founding Member
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
- Experience: Level 4 Explorer
- Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.
That book's author is George Gruell, a retired Forest Service wildlife biologist. He was not a timber beast, but a professional lifetime in the woods taught him wildlife prefer open low density forests and active forest management increases wildlife populations and increases biodiversity.
His photos replicate findings of other researchers. Alan Taylor is a bio-geographer who used tree-ring, fire scar dating, and age cohorts to determine presettlement forest structure and composition. Bonnicksen, a forest ecologist, used computer models, and Robert Olsen, a retired FS fire manager used written records (diaries, journals, and official surveys).
All four, with different professional backgrounds, using different methods and working independently, all arrived at the same conclusion -- presettlement forest structure and composition in the Sierras was vastly different than now. Forests were much more open with about half the area in open meadows, brushfields, or young reproduction, very patchy and fragmented with patch sizes generally less than 5 acres, and much less 'old growth' than the public wants to believe (<25% of the total forest cover, in small non-contiguous patches). In many areas of the Sierras today there is more old growth than ever existed historically. In spite of these well-established and non-disputed facts, many in the environmental industry refuse to accept it, and try to stop any attempt at returning to those conditions.
His photos replicate findings of other researchers. Alan Taylor is a bio-geographer who used tree-ring, fire scar dating, and age cohorts to determine presettlement forest structure and composition. Bonnicksen, a forest ecologist, used computer models, and Robert Olsen, a retired FS fire manager used written records (diaries, journals, and official surveys).
All four, with different professional backgrounds, using different methods and working independently, all arrived at the same conclusion -- presettlement forest structure and composition in the Sierras was vastly different than now. Forests were much more open with about half the area in open meadows, brushfields, or young reproduction, very patchy and fragmented with patch sizes generally less than 5 acres, and much less 'old growth' than the public wants to believe (<25% of the total forest cover, in small non-contiguous patches). In many areas of the Sierras today there is more old growth than ever existed historically. In spite of these well-established and non-disputed facts, many in the environmental industry refuse to accept it, and try to stop any attempt at returning to those conditions.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests