Originally Posted by
old_newguy
Yes, but are we restoring the forests to 1930? Why? The data tells us we are headed for massive changes to ecosystems just based on temp. and precipitation changes.
For example: Does it even make sense to restore a low elevation pine forest or should we just log it and let it convert to brush?
Paradise is a great example of misplaced priorities I think. Sure, maybe the FS having done more land management upwind would have given them more time, but the fire probably could have started via any ignition source at the city limit and burned unchecked through the city because it appears there was very little effort put towards WUI common sense mitigation, no time to suppress and 50 mph winds.
Also see: Ashland last year, McKenzie River drainage, Santiam River Drainage, etc.
There needs to be a dramatic rethink about what we can actually do. “Restoring” the forests is going to take decades and decades and billions (trillions?) of dollars. Hell, we have been working on it for decades and decades. It’s like fighting the ocean at this point, the tide is coming in and we need to fall back and retrench until we can make meaningful changes on the landscape.
What IS happening is that big landscape management actions are occurring via huge fires burning under poor prescriptions resulting in fire behavior and effects we don’t like.
That was a downer to even write, but I am deeply pessimistic about our ability to change the landscape on the timescale required to mitigate the fires we are seeing and that even if we did modify the landscape as we wish that we would still see similar results.