The Forest Service is a

[BeardownAZ]

People dont hate the Forest Service, they hate the bureaucracy, political games and red tape that they let dictate there actions like most all government agencies. If a government does its job and does it well, there will be little or no problems. However that is less and less the case these days. That is why people bash on the government. We need a government and some, not all, of its services. They need just need to there job correctly like anyone else, private or government.

[NOFX]

Its tough to do the job correctly with all the red tape involved. I know from experience that most of the guys on the ground are doing thier best with what they've got. Prescribed fires are a whole lot cheaper to manage than wildfires and leaves less destruction in its path.

[azslim]

I will second that opinion. I don't bend over and scratch line with the hand crews, but I have been to a couple wildland fires in the last few years.

[Flash]

So what's the fire doing? Is it atleast returning the land to historic conditions or improving habitat by cleaning up vegetation and allowing for grasses and forbs to sprout this summer? Usually even when they are rolling, they do little harm (ecologocally) unless it is in the urban interface.

 

Point taken expected winds makes a burn less ideal unless they needed those conditions to carry the fire (PJ, grass, etc).

[.270]

the forest circus couldn't care less about how much damage they do or inconvenience they cause. they light their fires when they will cause the most problems for sportsmen and ranchers and anyone else who uses the land. they have a certain set of criteria they are supposed to use, but it has been proven time and time again that they work contrary to it. read this little article and maybe research it a little more. it says a lot about the usfs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Grande_Fire

 

if you think the forest circus gives a $h!t about anything but politics, you ain't very smart. Lark.

[bowsniper]

Before the forest service can burn, it has to be approved by various organizations, (Rocky Moutain Elk Foundation, Arizona Elk Society, AZ Game and Fish, ect...)

 

 

OH PLEASE!! What a load of crap! What planet have you been living on? The FS does NOT have to get "approval" from any public organization. They just do it! And when it is something that may get a lot of attention, the FS asks for "public input" to define "alternatives", then they just do what they want, the old FS "Preferred Alternative".

 

Mark

[fatfootdoc]

 

Before the forest service can burn, it has to be approved by various organizations, (Rocky Moutain Elk Foundation, Arizona Elk Society, AZ Game and Fish, ect...)

 

Why in the world do they need to get the approval of these organizations?? I dont think that is an accurate statement! I also am not real sure about the fire "wintering" in the roots and then flaring up in the summer. ag

[SilentButDeadly]

The USFS does ask for input from NGO's regarding its fire policy which is set into its Fire Management Plan (ex of Coronado NF's plan here: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/forest/fire/documents/2009_Coronado_Fire_Management_Plan.pdf ://http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/fo...ement_Plan.pdf )

 

Many of the prescribed burns on the Coronado are done in cooperation with Game and Fish to enhance habitat for Coues whitetailed deer. In the last couple of years the USFS and Game and Fish have really opened up their information management systems with websites - the validation for virtually all of their decision making is online for you to look at - if you take the time.

 

 

Fires that burn through the winter are more common in northerly forests, but would be unlikely in the Southwest unless it was in some kind of peat-bog meadow. Here is a recent headline from Russia concerning fires over-wintering in the peat: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67A3H120100811

[AZantlerhead]

I can respect all the studies/management & everything the govt. tries doing to improve habitat/ land and the overall herd numbers and health for game species and all the wildlife in generall...but

 

I still think Our forests were doing just fine before we got here and still would be without our help....and wildlife too for that matter...But today besides the regulating of how many critters we grill up for food and trees we chop for homes and warmth...that's all good stuff and needed....most the other things our goverment does " for the land and wildlife" I just never will understand...but if I went to college to be a biologist or Forest ranger G&F officer etc. etc... maybe I would...

 

I still say let the wild be wild, leave no trace & accept it's gifts and use it's resources wisely.. Hey Tyson let's go sheddin and maybe you can convince me otherwise bro...maybe I can you also...

Those few and far between truly wild areas seem to be doing just fine man...except for the wolves and controlled burns gone bad, and "planed" grazing of cattle in our forests and woodlands and even deserts where cattle have no place..that benefits wildlife of course according to some gate signs, I would like to understand why. all this supposed beneficial management.. all I see is Damage

[SilentButDeadly]

I'm totally down for walking the land and talking some Aldo Leopold type stuff!

 

As to seeing change on the landscape as 'Damage', I think the most important thing to remember is - there is no 'normal' or 'historical' setting that the land wants to be -- it is always changing, the only thing we can do is gently ease it toward some desired destination - I think the Australian aboriginal mindset is really an awesome example of this ideal: http://vimeo.com/4166007. There have been people in North America screwing up the way plants and animals are distributed for nearly 12,000 years now - to me, making the most of the land for what I want it for (which since I picked up a stick and string has been for big game!) is what matters most.

 

Hopefully we can tie in one of these spring seasons - I haven't forgotten your invitation from last year.

 

T

[.270]

i got to personnaly tromp around in that burn this weekend. a lot of what burned is private land. also a lot of it is land that belongs to the azgfd. that they like to use for winter feed for elk. this little fire did a lot of damage that will take decades to recover. but all the forest circus has to say is that they were trying to improve habitat and it's all better. several folks are real lucky their homes and barns weren't burned. well, now the lawyers will get to take this to court to sue the forest circus for burning the private land and we not only have to put up with habitat loss and big reduction in winter feed in the area, but we get to pay all the court costs and however much the landowners collect with our taxes. yeah, the forset circus did us a real favor here trying to improve the habitat. burned a lotta grass and cost a lotta money. if a private citizen did this they'd end up in prison, even if it was an accident. they did it intentionally. but i kinda doubt if anyone suffers much over it. and they'll do it again. and again............Lark.