President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 27, 2012 08:57 AM UTC

The Future: Colorado's Forests

  • 52 Comments
  • by: Muhammad Ali Hasan

(It’s never too early to think about the future. If you read the diary, don’t miss Twitty’s comment — an equally informative perspective. – promoted by ProgressiveCowgirl)

(If someone can promote this, that would be great! I hope Colorado officials read it. If not, email it to your State Representative/Senator. Thank you all!)

When I ran for House District 56 in 2008, many seemed to agree that Colorado was on the verge of an ecological devastation. The pine beetle, aging forests, and lack of biodiversity, all created a perfect storm that now, unfortunately, seems to have erupted.

I wanted to write this article because, while the most important duty is to save lives, the second most important duty needs to be the reforestation of Colorado forests. Colorado needs to rebuild the strongest forests possible. However, in the wake of these wildfires, the window is going to close terribly fast, which is why public officials must act immediately, should we have greater forests.  

First off, there are a couple misconceptions about forests that everyone should understand –

1. LIFE EXPECTANCY – Trees actually have a life expectancy. Most trees live from 80 to 120 years, and all trees will die eventually, whether they are cut down or left alone.

2. WILDFIRES – Wildfires are not a bad thing. As a matter of fact, nothing replenishes a forest quicker than a wildfire. The burned nutrients of old trees sink deep into the soil, creating a topsoil that is especially fertile for new growth.

3. WEAK FORESTS VS STRONG FORESTS – A weak forest is one where few species of trees are found, with most claiming the same age. Consider this point – any insect or disease that threatens our forests will have a harder time devastating the area if they have to compete against a diversity of tree species and ages. In that regard, a strong forest is one of many different species of trees, along with trees of different ages.

Sadly, despite their tremendous beauty, Colorado has some of the world’s weakest forests. Mining was a major industry in Colorado in the late 1800’s, and because of it, much of Colorado was deforested. The result? Colorado forests, indeed, bounced back, but they bounced back on terms that only mother nature could dictate.

Pine trees tend to be one of Colorado’s most populous trees. In turn, when mining finally decreased in the early 1900’s, Colorado’s forests bounced back, but mostly with an overgrowth of pine trees, that all matured at the same time. One reason why so many fires are occurring right now is because our forests contain trees of uniform species (pine trees) that are of uniform age (elder). Elder trees, all of the same species, are terribly unlikely to withstand wildfires, harsh diseases, and drastic environmental changes.

Now the good news?

The devastation of these wildfires (and my prayer to anyone who loses their home or life) is that we will be left with a chance to start fresh. Colorado forests, by the end of this summer, will see thousands of hectares of new, fertile soil, recently burned, ready to spring the trees of tomorrow.

So what is the mistake we are making?

By leaving these areas alone, and untouched, the same forests will regenerate. Pine trees, when burned, even elder ones, release a plethora of seeds, making sure that they immediately regrow. And should we let that occur, Coloradans, one-hundred years from now, will face the same forest devastations of today, where wildfires and pine beetles ferociously challenge our forests of uniform biodiversity and age.

The solutions I hope our public officials take on:

1. REFORESTATION – Once the wildfires calm down, Colorado officials need to make sure that an aggressive reforestation campaign is commenced. In areas where wildfires have taken place, seeds for different species of trees need to be distributed immediately – this could be as simple as an airplane fly-over that literally drops seeds on newly, burned areas. Colorado forests will always have large swaths of pines, but a distribution of seeds should include aspens, spruces, evergreens, cottonwoods, boxelders, maples, etc – whatever trees are most ecologically viable, in regard to Colorado – should all be planted, en masse.

2. WILDFIRES – With the exception of wildfires that are burning near residential areas, our focus on the wildfires should not be to ‘put them out,’ but rather, to protect residential areas against them. In other words, we should let the wildfires burn, in a controlled manner, leaving us with as many hectares of fertile soil, as possible.

3. FUTURE – Ultimately, it would be best if we could plan a campaign to clear-cut small parts of forests all over Colorado, in around 30 years from now, and immediately replant a diversity of trees, so that Colorado’s forests will not only have many different species of trees, but also trees of different ages. Such a plan will give us the launchpad for truly building the strongest forests possible.

Of note, Finland’s forests were basically destroyed after World War 2, but today, they are some of the world’s strongest. This achievement is a result of Finland’s work in making sure that their forests claim excellent diversity of tree species and age. However, this is also a result of the fact that more than half of Finland’s forests are privately owned, with perhaps, the majority of the country’s forests managed by logging industries. In turn, Finland’s forests are constantly managed, with some trees cut down, and new ones immediately replanted, always guaranteeing a strong forest, whose sustainability is paid for by private logging.

We can build the forest of tomorrow in Colorado…

…but the time is now, and the window will close terribly fast.

With love and peace – Miguel Ali  

Comments

52 thoughts on “The Future: Colorado’s Forests

  1. A very informative, well crafted piece.

    I also happen to agree. The sad part, I fear, is the current House, wielding their crazy budget axe, will lean back, smile, and say…”new trees?…we don’t need no stinking trees. They just get in the way of the rig trucks.”  

    1. Thank you always for your kind words, brother!

      That said – “new trees” in this case is just the cost of seeds – when you consider the amount of rangers out there, as well as county officials, the distribution systems for planting new seeds really is a cheap cost, altogether

  2. However…

    Forests in CO naturally occur in patches. Lodgepole stands, Ponderosa, riparian (cottonwoods, willows, boxelder, etc.), doug-fir, subalpine, aspen groves, scrubbies, etc. in CO forest types follow ecozones having to do with slope aspects, elevation, soil, water, etc.

    The forests in the West are reacting to changing climate.  Colorado has always been at the transition, and the SW is becoming drier in a big and quick way.  

    Ecological systems are going to respond, and respond in more and more obvious fashions, to what is happening with our planet.

    You can’t plant trees by spraying seeds from a plane.  If we want to reforest areas (and we should in some cases but not everywhere), with as ecologically sensible vegetation as possible, it has to happen with boots on the ground.

    Finally, trees occur in stages.  It is the natural process that grasses come in first, followed by shrubs, then (often) by aspen, then with ‘dark timber.’  There is a reason that the progression occurs in this manner.  

    Thus, some reforestation makes sense–around riparian areas, in watersheds, etc.  In many places we just need to assist in the natural process, and help it along.  

    Most importantly we need to accept that unless we deal with the actual problems plaguing our forests-many attributable to Climate Change, we won’t ever get the job done.

    So, until we put people back in charge of our democracy, rather than the very interests reaping massive rewards from the status quo heating up our world, we will need to accept our new reality.  

    That we have built a huge amount of expensive infrastructure in areas that are likely to be severely plagued by drought and wildfire as our planet warms. The cost will be borne by all of us, rather than internal to the fossil fuel consumption and our wasteful ways and addictive nature; so, again, profit will be privatized while costs will be socialized–the Koch Brother and new GOP way.  

    The Supremes just reinforced that in no way will citizens or states be allowed to stand in the way of 1% Corporate Rule, so I suppose we should all just move into concrete houses if we can afford it, or buy a houseboat if you live on the coast.  

    In any case, your diary is thought-provoking.  

    But unlike Finland our forests were not bombed and ripped down by war.  They are essentially combusting of their own volition–sure there is a lightning strike or, more often, an idiot with a cigarette, love letter, or bad intent. But as our region dries and warms, they are just waiting for that spark. Or you be like Cory Gardner and blame environmentalists and Democrats…

    Which is 100% indicative of the problem–failure of Cory Gardner and our other so-called leaders.  

    It is time we deal with the real issue–and these so-called leaders for the most part seem unwilling or unable to do that, as we just saw again in Rio +20.  Or we must prepare for the consequences.  To do neither (our current course) is just insanity.  

    1. I’m going to politely disagree, CT, on the “destruction” point, in that, I believe mining played a major role in hurting Colorado forests, thus leading to forests that grew with limited biodiverity and age-diversity

      I didn’t consider the “patches” point and I appreciate your bringing it up

      1. from past human activity.  Just that restoration efforts need targeted to certain places, whereas large fires and other natural disturbance regimes can result in healthy forests without lots of human intervention.  

        But what is happening to our forests is much different than Finland.  

    2. this sentence strikes me as important enough to emphasize…

      So, until we put people back in charge of our democracy, rather than the very interests reaping massive rewards from the status quo heating up our world, we will need to accept our new reality.

      Well said, sir.  

  3. Interesting thoughts.

    Twitty said it well,

    Forests in CO naturally occur in patches. Lodgepole stands, Ponderosa, riparian (cottonwoods, willows, boxelder, etc.), doug-fir, subalpine, aspen groves, scrubbies, etc. in CO forest types follow ecozones having to do with slope aspects, elevation, soil, water, etc.

    The zones aren’t like Finland. Colorado isn’t close to Finland geographically speaking, nor in most other ways – forests included.

    We will see many, many, many conversations about fire, fire fighting, and forest management in the coming months because of what is happening now. We are going to see Republicans and Democrats piling on this topic calling for this solution or that solution.

    The thing is, we already know what to do. Local governments throughout Colorado have already been dealing with this for years. The CO State Forest Service has tried to help where it can, but not much money is available.  The federal government, believe it or not, has maintained decent levels of funding for the Forest Service and BLM for fire suppression.

    If we had Phoenix Rising, myself, and a few others, not David, in a room, we could recommend comprehensive forest health policy within a day.

    It wouldn’t involve planting thousands of new trees.

    Fighting the fires is only one part of the picture. Prior to the fight there is mitigation and after the fire there is rehabilitation. Mitigation costs vary greatly depending on terrain and road access, but it is not cheap. Rehabilitation for the Hayman fire, alone cost almost $40 million. Counties, water providers, the state and the feds spend tens of millions of dollars a year doing rehabilitation after fires in this state.  

    What you advocate is expensive and time consuming and impractical when dealing with the amount of public land in this state. Kind of like planting flowers in your garden after the bugs have eaten all the vegetables.

    What Colorado needs to do is establish a funding stream for mitigation (a dedicated fee on homeowners in the WUI, for example) that can pay for thinning projects in the already identified high risk areas in the WUI.

    We need to increase the use of proscribed burns, which has been limited by politics and, yes, EPA and CDPHE air quality regulations. We have thousands of slash piles throughout our public lands that need to be burned.

    We also need to rejuvenate the timber industry in this state. We will not achieve forest health balance without assisting the forestry industry. They are an essential player in the game and to limit their potential means continuing wildfires in the WUI. There is very little we can do about forest health outside the WUI, so therefore the focus of time, energy and money should be in the WUI.

    Again, these are not new solutions. For more than ten years now local organizations have studied and developed policy recommendations designed to help our forests and our citizens. Republicans have balked at creating any new “fee/tax” to help pay for this (which is 100% needed because the state does not have the money otherwise). Democrats have balked at creating timber markets because of unfounded environmentalist fears. Finally, the majority of Colorado’s population has ignored this because they fail to see the confluence of healthy forest and, say, clean drinking water, or economic development and jobs, or, tourism and recreation, or health and safety…

    Planting trees isn’t the answer, Ali. The answers have been front of us for years, but very few people have the courage to stand up get it done.

    Maybe that will change now.

    If the time I’ve spent writing these words does nothing else, I hope some bureaucrat in the state government will convene a stakeholder group of local governments that have been dealing with this and throw some political weight, finally, behind a comprehensive plan to address forest health in this state. The opportunity from this fire season may be that, finally, finally, finally, people (urban and rural, Dem and Republican, developer and eviro) can sit down at the table, compromise and come up with good policy based off more than ten years work.

    Maybe that can happen.

    I’m not holding my breath, but I would love to be pleasantly surprised…

    1. Making successful long-term forest plans will require that planners address climate change. That includes an increase in extreme weather – just as we’ve seen this year. But perhaps more importantly, the forest that regenerates in the burned areas may look little like the forest it replaces. Likewise, dealing with the forest we have now over the next couple of decades will require recognition that this isn’t your father’s climate, nor even the climate of your childhood.

      1. While climate change affects the health of the forest, there is plenty policy makers can do without discussing climate change.

        I liken it to a state wanting to deal with a zombie hoard coming towards them, but instead argues about what caused the zombie plague.

        Yes, I just finished World War Z.

        1. given towards planting different types of trees that can withstand hotter, drier climates though, as well as extremes at both ends ?  Or species of pine that may be more resistant to pine beetle (if there is such a thing) ?  Because it really looks like thats where we are headed – I tend to agree with ajb in that respect.  

          1. …..on the climate change wall.  Mostly just at the conversational level still, there are varietals from Europe that do better with hotter climates and less water. Of course, it will take a grower with some guts to make plantings of a grape Americans never heard of…..yet.

      1. and are we going to let them burn?  Will every fire department in the state have very similar rules that are enforced the same?  I think the obvious answers are no.  So how do we create public policy for the entire state?  I don’t think we can.

  4. Either way- good luck following their lead.

    Look, Colorado voters are only barely smarter than Colorado legislators.

    Build a dam?  What?!  NFW

    Build infrastructure that assumes population will grow? NFW – if we build it, they will come. (They came anyway.)

    Bill the developers to make development pay it’s way? NFW – whaddayou, anti0bizness?

    Planning for for biodiveristy and forest health is one thing, but actually putting resources into this task – not bloody well likely.    The only way to sell a complicated deal like this is to convince people it will lower taxes.

  5. It’s clear that your proposal has >del>ignited<del> started a discussion.  The other end needs to be discussed, too.  How to pay for it?  In Colorado, it does no good to discuss public policy without a mechanism for funding.  The money isn’t there.

    Personally, I’d support a hefty ($5 – 10,000) building fee for new structures in wooded areas, even in subdivisions, unless they meet some very specific, very stringent regulations.  And, I’d like to see an annual fee / property tax on existing structures in the woods.

    I would vehemently oppose a sales tax to cover this expense.

    1. Under the Finnish model, private industries who are allowed to take ‘clear-cutted’ wood sell it and use some of their profits to replant – it’s probably the most feasible way such a thing could be accomplished

      Companies pay good money for wood – the proceeds from that is really what would fund any ‘forest management’  

      1. I just wonder if harvesting beetle kill wood in some fashion here in particular would be profitable.  If someone could make that commercially viable and then part of that goes back to forest management that is twice as effective.

        1. CO timber is not competitive on that market. Most of what needs cleared and thinned is small growth, not the type of trees that are marketable.  Meanwhile, large trees help mitigate against a young fire (but once something is a firestorm, nothing will). We want to cut the small, thick growth and leave the older growth.  (Some types of forest, like lodgepole, generally grow in more even-aged stands–and not really conducive to ‘thinning’ but more to clear-cutting to take it out of the WUI, but the product is not marketable. Biomass might change that, but its not here yet).    

          Work needs to be focused around structures and in, or just adjacent to, the WUI.  It is not economic to do so, it costs money.  On private lands that should be up to landowners–even if its required.   Perhaps through a WUI fee.  For public lands that means we pay, through taxes, for that mitigation.  

        2. There’s some companies in Summit that log Pine Beetle wood and, from what I know, they get a good return on it.

          Wood will always elicit a decent profit, no matter what form its in. Regarding Colorado forests, I don’t know if its enough to sustain an entire management system for the forests, but it would certainly decrease the cost of a potential subsidy.

          1.  Beetle kill is primarily value-added.  Small scale, people that like ‘blue wood.’  It is not sufficient to fund or even mostly subsidize large-scale treatment. Nor does forest ecology–such as I understand it–support wide-scale removal of beetle kill away from the WUI or in proximity to roads, infrastructure etc.  This is a public safety issue.  Removing fuels from the WUI and removing dead trees from where they might do damage to lives or property when they fall.  

            Should we encourage those markets, to help subsidize (again, not pay for completely) treatments in the WUI, close in, etc.  Sure.  

            Are the majority of the fuels work that needs done, including taking out some beetle kill trees (in the WUI, proximate to roads and infrastructure etc.) going to generate a significant amount of ‘marketable’ timber.  No, I have seen nothing to suggest that it would.  

            Your claims, like the following, to the contrary–coming as they do without any support–are interesting opinions.  I don’t agree with them however. For instance, provide the numerical/economic data to support this claim, particularly in regards to CO wood:


            Wood will always elicit a decent profit, no matter what form its in.

              1. 1st source: CO timber has to compete on the global market.  We do not have hemlock and our Doug fir is smallish compared to Western Canada and the NW (which is also way closer to the Asian market).  

                The Mountain West is not conducive to tree plantations as is the US South.  Nor do we have the timber–large straight–that the NW, ours and Canada’s has).  


                In the US, southern yellow pine prices were 24 percent higher in March this year as compared to last summer. Similar upward trends have been seen with Douglas-fir lumber in Western US and for spruce-pine-fir lumber in Western Canada.

                In both Japan and China, import prices for most species of lumber have trended upward since early 2009, particularly for higher-grade Russian pine to Japan and lower-grade Canadian hemlock to China, as reported in the Wood Resource Quarterly Lumber prices can be anticipated to go up in many markets during 2011 for a number of reasons, including expected increased demand in China, somewhat higher lumber imports to Japan for the rebuilding after the earthquake, and continued measured improvements in the US housing market (mainly repair & remodeling and multi-family residential housing).

                2nd Source: this activty is subsidized (ie at below cost, ie. does not pay for itself):

                In the UK, subsidies for so-called biomass energy were introduced in 2002, and some of the country’s biggest stations are burning an ever increasing amount of wood alongside more traditional coal; and being paid handsomely for doing so.

                3rd Source: Well I cannot read the entire article, but again comparing wood from plantations in the South, or from the North, is apples and a=oranges with what we have in CO.  

                My question to you was simple–show me the economics that makes this work here, in our state, not in Georgia or Alberta.  

                1. Your question was –

                  “For instance, provide the numerical/economic data to support this claim, particularly in regards to CO wood: ‘Wood will always elicit a decent profit, no matter what form its in.'”

                  I’ve provided the proof, above, that the price of wood is increasing, because demand is sky-rocketing.

                  To say that Colorado wood would be an exception to this is silly. Wood is wood. One reason price is going up is because technologies now show it can be used for energy, as well as the traditional things, like building houses.

                  Last I checked, you can build homes with Colorado wood, and you can even burn it for energy 😉

                  1. Read your sources and get back to me re: how CO beetle kill timber can compete with yellow pine grown on plantations in the south (and relatively close to a port) or with douglas fir from Canada and the NW, already on the West Coast.  The first source itself notes that the market is highly variable depending on the type of timber and where it is from.  

                    You saying ‘wood is wood’ does not make it so.  

                    1. is something CO can excel in.  Cheap lumber for building houses in China, not so much.

                    2. …are you so hell bent on trying to prove an invalid point?

                      I’ve already provided proof that lumber prices are rising – Fidel provided proof of “Colorado wood” used for profit – can you just admit that you’re wrong now?

                    3. While there may be increasing value for some woods, not all woods increase in value equally nor are market factors equal for all wood. Beetle kill wood is easy to chop but expensive to mill and then transport to markets (as 2x4s for example).  The fact that there is only one mill remaining in Colorado means that wood harvested in Summit county needs to be transported to Montrose county. That is one major factor for decreasing the value of beetle kill.

                      Colorado timber will never, ever, compete globally and it isn’t likely it will compete nationally. Canada and the Northwest are too established and too strong. Our forest are different, grow different, age different and die different which results in limited marketability for our wood.  

                    4. And when I am not why would I admit it?

                      To say ‘wood is wood’ is like saying ‘rock is rock.’  While semantically correct we can agree that gold and pea gravel are not equivalent in value.

                      As I specifically pointed out, your sources do not support the claims you believe that they make.

                      As Fidel noted, while there area some uses for wood from CO (i.e. beetle kill for people who like ‘blue wood’) and while it is possible even to expand those markets, it is primarily value-added product, not lumber.  A relatively small market compared to, say, the lumber coming from the tree plantations in the south that the one ‘source’ you used noted was the type of wood increasing in value.    

                      Thus my point is neither invalid nor have you proved yours.  

                    5. I never said that Colorado wood would challenge established markets – the main point is, lumber can always be sold for a price. Forest management programs throughout the world rely on free markets to keep their programs afloat.

                      Colorado would not be an exception to that, should we want to pursue aggressive forest management, based on the increasing demand for lumber.  

                    6. which is the point.  We should help to subsidize some of the costs of treating forests and creating defensible space in places it makes sense.  To think that such activity will ever pay for itself is not really borne out by the facts.  

                      Colorado’s forests are on steep slopes.  Forests are not just collections of lots of trees.  

  6. Our county on the western slope has balanced its budget for the last several years, as is required.  What is sad is that we could have spent some of the rainy-day fund money on new construction to keep more people employed.  This is another example of activity that, if implemented would pay itself back over a generation multiple times.  I am sure that the sales tax in the state is taking a hit from people not coming here because of the fires.  A quantification would start to show us how much we stand to lose by doing nothing.

      1. Which federal laws ‘continually disempower’ counties.  How would counties ‘easily manage’ forestry problems if not for federal laws?

        Its easy to throw out familiar catch phrases and talking points.  But I happen to study these matters a bit and empty rhetoric doesn’t really do it for me (if but for ‘Federal laws’ the forestry problems would be ‘easily’ managed.)

        Support your (sweeping) statements with facts, and examples.  Or not, but then I am fair to continue to discount them.  

        1. There are regulations in NEPA that hinder hazardous fuel mitigation efforts on public lands. Granting categorical exclusions is very difficult, although there are identified areas where it makes sense.

          Federal stewardship contracting laws also hinder private loggers from bidding on approved mitigation plans on public lands.

          Most importantly, as always, is funding. Most of the WUI is mapped and many local governments prioritized projects long ago. Now it is funding and where to bring the slash/product.

          Counties, munis, water providers and community groups are the ones who know best what needs to be done because they are the ones who have been doing things in lieu of the feds.  

          1. to help prioritize projects.  There is broad agreement about many areas that need treatment (and some disagreement re: areas beyond the WUI).  But I am not sure it is correct to say that federal laws continually disempower counties.  The issue is more a matter of funding, as you note.  

             

            1. I’m surprised you don’t subscribe to Car’s POV on the subject, who eloquently explained the disjoint between local and federal policy. I’m starting to doubt much of your knowledge on the subject in general.

              Regarding Federal Laws that change the ball game –

              HR 2343 of 1993 and HR 631 of 1993, both championed by President Clinton, did a tremendous amount to reduce local control, as trees normally designated for removal (ie pine beetle infected trees, flammable dead trees, etc) now could only be removed by federal authorizes, which took longer and increased the chance of wildfires occurring – the point is best demonstrated by the graph on this article below – while the article below makes the case for global warming, it completely ignores that under Clinton, thousands of acres of forests went from local management to federal –

              http://www.livescience.com/21249-global-warming-Colorado-wildfires.html  

              1. dead trees are not necessarily more flammable than live ones. While still red (i.e. with dead needles) they may be, but live forest and dead forest both burn with the same general eagerness given the same climatic situations.  

                When forests dry out they burn and very little if anything can stop that.  

                Obviously if you cut all the trees down they will  not burn. We don’t want to do that.  Forests are not just collections of trees, they are habitat, they are the areas that recharge our–and many other states’ watersheds, they help support a multibillion dollar recreation economy.  

                Therein lies the conflict, which is why collaborative processes that decide and agree on priorities in 85%-90% of WUI treatment areas, are a great success, significantly reducing NEPA challenges and helping the various local, private, and Federal agencies to prioritize where treatment makes the most sense.  

                There is quite a bit of science on this issue and I have looked at some of it, not just newspaper articles.  But whether you trust or doubt my knowledge on this or any matter is inconsequential to me.  

                Thanks for the bill numbers.  That might suffice for some folk, who take such facty-looking things at face value.  Me I dig deeper.  Of course, since you did not bother to explain any of them, I had to Google.  I am sorry that the Sarvis Creek Wilderness Bill was not to your liking, but how exactly did that harm forest health?  Or how exactly does banning the export (to foreign nations) of raw logs between 1993 and 1995 have anything to do with this topic, since my calendar notes the year is 2012?

            2. I agree, federal law does not disempower counties. MAH’s ideas that local governments should be able to manage public lands resonates with me, as long as the lands stay public and the process for designating treatment areas follows science and collaboration on all levels of government. Public lands should not revert to state or local ownership, but locals could have a stronger role in managing the public’s resources…

              The NEPA process is not easy, however, even for those areas all agree should be treated. Overall agreement does not result in quicker approval, it results in fewer lawsuits from various special interest groups.

              For MAH – if you want an example of a bill that does something for CO and the West, look at 2006 HR 4875/ S 2584. That would’ve done something to help – even had every single member of the CO delegation on board, if I’m not mistaken…

  7. and what is needed is not just dropping seeds from planes though the rest of Ali’s diary is pretty right on. After thinning, by whatever means, the best solution to replace conifers is a mixed conifer forest. In Lake we are planning a place to plant Doug firs and grow to some strength before they are transplanted.

  8. The problem with public land is simple, although you think everybody owns it, in reality, nobody owns it.

    I am sincerely glad you folks are here attempting to take ownership of this land.

    Interesting conversation, good luck.

    1. a lot of it isn’t public land.  At least not in the WUI.  Flagstaff is public (albeint local) open space–the City of Boulder owns it.  Waldo is USFS, USAF, private, county and state lands.  

      1. Ali was speaking of the general Colorado forest health, most of which is owned by government.

        However my statement applies to all public property, forest or no forest, Federal, State, County, and Local.

        Who really takes responsibility?

        1. and in that case much, a huge amount, of the work to be done–where it matters, where it is effective, in terms of cost and in terms of making a difference with fire–is on private land.  

          As for treating broadly for forest health?  There is not a lot of science supporting that as being feasible or desirable even, except for some specific resources (promoting one type of habitat over another, for instance, and in certain forest types in particular like Ponderosa).  

          Massive insect outbreaks and fires are natural occurrences, although both are likely exacerbated by climate change.  For some types of forests massive stand replacing fires are the norm–razing everything back to dirt and starting the cycle over.  For other forest types they are suppose to burn more frequently and clear out the underbrush but not the mature trees.  

          But you cannot stop fire or insect outbreaks by logging or treating forests, especially when they are responses to systemic changes.  Rather we have to protect ourselves from fire by managing the space in proximity to our structures and facilities, so that when fire occurs it is directed around these areas and less likely to cause massive destruction. On public lands there are decades worth of such projects in areas close to communities, along rods, around infrastructure, etc.  But a huge amount of it is on private land.  

          Which kind of demolishes the Libertarian talking point about public lands suffering through the neglect of being publicly owned.

          There is plenty of private land that is not treated to be firewise, that is overloaded with dry fuels; and there is vast difference with how different public lands are managed, and who is responsible for them.  

        2. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government

          In the past, the States and Counties had far more control over what could be done with forest management, but the federal government has continually increased their power, reducing the local government’s roles, and in my opinion, creating more problems that could otherwise be prevented by local entities

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

203 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!