Fire suppression

Calbuck

Active Member
Messages
303
So is this proper California fire suppression effort from SPI? Photo taken from their replant in my area.
 
So is this proper fire suppression management? SPI replant is where the pic was taken. More and greater examples out there. These replants have a lot of trees like these examples, in many cases they are so thick that the trees are laying on top of each other. Clearly not optimal for fire suppression. They are locking us out of their land while not doing their part to fire-safe their own property. This is strictly my view, but thought I would share with you guys and gals what's happening in the woods. This pic is not representative of all the replants and cut down, dead trees I've seen. may post other pics later.

837620F2-4B41-4F90-90FF-647911EC5595.jpeg


8EED73E3-A888-4155-A51E-3B7D09BA154F.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Well it certainly breaks up the vertical continuity of the fuels. Do they plan on broadcast burning?
 
I doubt they plan to do anything. I have seen this style of thinning in various different places, with many of the plantations having the dead trees basically laid over on top of each other. No wonder they don't want anyone in the woods
 
I've seen some interesting fire suppression/forest management on private lands in recent years for sure. But it is far, far more disappointing to see how OUR public land is managed with OUR money...
 
Who cares what they're doing on THEIR private property?

Everyone should care what SPI is doing if they are creating more fuel on purpose within the NF as fires have been, you know, totally out of control over the last 5 years. We need less fuel not more. Not saying that’s what they are doing, but that picture is concerning.
 
Everyone should care what SPI is doing if they are creating more fuel on purpose within the NF as fires have been, you know, totally out of control over the last 5 years. We need less fuel not more. Not saying that’s what they are doing, but that picture is concerning.
While I agree...EVERY NF I have been in in the last 30 years, the private (including SPI) is far better maintained than the public land.
 
SPI lost a lot of future revenue and land value when the USFS watched a lightning fire for 3 months, decided to light a backfire in inaccessible terrain using a drone 3 days before a known wind event, and burned almost 300,000 acres in a single day. The fire traveled 30 miles in 14 hours.

If SPI had done that they would be in a huge lawsuit. Harder to prove and convince the government that they are/were negligent.
 
Who cares what they're doing on THEIR private property?
I care because these piles of dead trees are less than a mile from my home and I don't want my place burnt to the ground because they didn't clean up their mess. Just like any where else, it's the neighborly thing to do.
 
You should call a Registered Professional Forester and ask them about what you are seeing. The State of California employs a bunch as does SPI and all the other private timber companies. There are also RPFs that teach at Cal Berkeley, Humboldt State, and Cal Poly. I bet they will have a great explanation for you. If you PM me, I will help get you in touch with the specific forester responsible for the area where you are concerned. SPI is usually not irresponsible with their land because they have a vested interest in it.....unlike the agencies that run our public lands. SPI does not make money burning up their future trees and the thinning that you see is likely in attempts to promote the growth of the best, strongest trees. I bet they are planning a chipping operation in the future where the biomass you see will be used to fuel one of their cogeneration plants that run their mills and provide power to northern California communities. ------SS

 
You should call a Registered Professional Forester and ask them about what you are seeing. The State of California employs a bunch as does SPI and all the other private timber companies. There are also RPFs that teach at Cal Berkeley, Humboldt State, and Cal Poly. I bet they will have a great explanation for you. If you PM me, I will help get you in touch with the specific forester responsible for the area where you are concerned. SPI is usually not irresponsible with their land because they have a vested interest in it.....unlike the agencies that run our public lands. SPI does not make money burning up their future trees and the thinning that you see is likely in attempts to promote the growth of the best, strongest trees. I bet they are planning a chipping operation in the future where the biomass you see will be used to fuel one of their cogeneration plants that run their mills and provide power to northern California communities. ------SS

Yes, I agree with this assessment, but it is disconcerting to see that kind of slash left laying there all summer. We had lightning last night..this area has had its share of fires but this section has the potential to burn down a lot of homes. Seems they would want to get that stuff out of there expeditiously.
 
You sure the real problem here is that they closed their land and you can’t hunt where you would like? Do you complain about the rancher with a dry field that should have been disced under. The timber company owned lands can be managed in any way they see fit. We all know they do far more fire prevention managing their lands than other govt agencies. They are also under no obligation to ever open their land to the public. Yet they do as conditions allow.
 
You sure the real problem here is that they closed their land and you can’t hunt where you would like? Do you complain about the rancher with a dry field that should have been disced under. The timber company owned lands can be managed in any way they see fit. We all know they do far more fire prevention managing their lands than other govt agencies. They are also under no obligation to ever open their land to the public. Yet they do as conditions allow.
As I have stated, this stuff is within walking distance of my home and many others. That is my problem with what I see. I see the irony of a company closing their land due to wildfire danger while they let tinder-dry dead trees and slash lie around like nothing. I agree *most* timber companies do a better job than the government..that goes without saying, the government does absolutely nothing at all. Just seems in our current fire-conscious times they wouldn't leave that stuff.
 
As I have stated, this stuff is within walking distance of my home and many others. That is my problem with what I see. I see the irony of a company closing their land due to wildfire danger while they let tinder-dry dead trees and slash lie around like nothing. I agree *most* timber companies do a better job than the government..that goes without saying, the government does absolutely nothing at all. Just seems in our current fire-conscious times they wouldn't leave that stuff.
I really think you should call them and express your concerns. Maybe this area is an oversight? Maybe they have a plan that they can share with you? Call 530-378-8000 and ask for a manager in the Forestry Division. -----SS
 
I really think you should call them and express your concerns. Maybe this area is an oversight? Maybe they have a plan that they can share with you? Call 530-378-8000 and ask for a manager in the Forestry Division. -----SS
Call a landowner and express concerns about what they're doing with their property? Jesus Christ.
 
This thread is getting more California by the post!
At least it's in the California section of the forum.

In California, you are expected to help the greater good by calling out your neighbors when they do wrong like washing their cars, having water run down the street, etc. Also defensive space for fire prevention is YOUR responsibility including if it means dealing with neighbors' weeds, brush, trees. That is what the government tells us.

It sucks the only place you can find KoolAid is at the State Capital.
 
SP and others plant young trees close together so that they shade out the completing brush. They also spray these plantations so that they remove that source of competition for water, minerals and sunlight by broadleaf species such as oak. Then, they thin the trees one or more times to select the best growing trees with the best form. That is what you see in the photos displayed. When finished, they have an even-aged stand that can be efficiently harvested and replanted.

The bad news for hunters is that nothing lives in an even-aged stand of pine from which every other source of food has been removed. Not even squirrels, until they reach cone-bearing age.

Some on this thread have criticized the suggestion that we would question management practices, believing that every landowner should be able to do what they want with their own land, but I disagree. Wildlife does not belong to any landowner--it belongs to every Californian, and when landowner practices affect my wildlife, then I have the right to defend my own interests. As a landowner myself, I cannot subdivide my land into plots smaller than 40 acres, nor may I construct more than one home on each parcel, because it is regarded to be a critical deer habitat. I am OK with these restrictions because I realize that my profit motives do not supersede the interests of every other Californian, or the wildlife itself. But more powerful interests get bigger breaks. A farmer may reduce his entire acreage to row crops that serve absolutely no species besides man and kill entire ecosystems in the process. Same with large timber companies. They receive a timber harvest permit before any logging operation, which is supposed to coordinate with the Dept of Fish and Game and consider the interests of sportsmen, but the DFG seems unconcerned about preserving wildlife habitat when it comes to replanting logging units. Either they do not understand the importance, or they do not feel pressure from sportsmen who are mostly distracted by red herrings such as predators when it comes to explaining low deer populations. In fact, it is not possible to have large lion numbers when deer are few, and it is impossible to have good deer numbers when food is scarce. Food is the key to improving deer habitat.

As private lands are frequently managed better (from the perspective of the investor) than public lands, these are often the worst when it comes to hunting. They grow more pine, but less deer browse. As bad as the public lands are from the perspective of the logger, they are exactly where you will find the best deer hunting. Especially after a burn, these are the only lands that remain untreated (read "converted entirely to pine") and still support oak and other broadleaf sources of food.

The trees you see cut in the photo will decay within a decade and so present little fire hazard over the long term. The real problem is the lack of serviceable habitat for the species we enjoy as sportsmen.
 
Last edited:
The bad news for hunters is that nothing lives in an even-aged stand of pine from which every other source of food has been removed. Not even squirrels, until they reach cone-bearing age.
I agree with much of what you have said in your post including the idea that sportsmen need to be more involved in the THP process. However, I think the statement quoted above is a massive oversimplification of the truth about habitat created by even-age timber production management and the picture posted by Calbuck illustrates that there are browse species present even in plantation areas that are being actively managed.

Browse.png


I can tell you from years of personal experience that MANY species of wildlife use timber production areas during all phases of harvest and regrowth. Back in the 90's, I helped with a project led by Humboldt State University where it was discovered that Pacific Fishers actually thrive in replanted units just like you describe above. We trapped and tagged many Fishers up to the point where the state biologists started relocating them to other areas on National Forest and Tribal lands in attempts to re-establish populations across their historic range.

I will agree that Timber Production practices don't always promote the 'best' habitat potential of the land, but certain phases of the process provide excellent habitat for different types of species. The best part is that timber companies are severely restricted in the size of the the even-age units that they can harvest creating a collage of different aged forest and diversity of habitat. This is illustrated by the attached picture of a managed forest section near Viola, CA.

The ultimate testament is the amount of game found on managed forest land. Thousands of deer, bears, elk, Turkeys, and other game species are taken on managed forest land each year. I personally have killed dozens of deer on lands managed by SPI, Roseburg, and other private timber companies in northern California and southern Oregon. Most of these were taken in recent harvest units or plantations that were less than ten years old. In my observation the worst, most sterile, wildlife habitat is created by mature old growth timber stands that create a dense, light-blocking, canopy. -------SS

Viola.png
 
Last edited:
Bullskin and Sparks Shooter Have excellent points and I agree with much of what is stated. But I would add the a ton of public land is managed just like Bullskin's example until it comes to thinning the replant in burn or harvested areas creating a thick impenetrable pine or fir forest of stunted trees that has no feed either. And it creates hot fire when burned that creates a moonscape.

There is tons of mismanagement blame to go around and I agree with holding landowners responsible. But most of the examples I have seen show much more concerning (from a fire standpoint which is the stated concern of the OP) misbehavior from government property managers than the private.
 
I agree with much of what you have said in your post including the idea that sportsmen need to be more involved in the THP process. However, I think the statement quoted above is a massive oversimplification of the truth about habitat created by even-age timber production management and the picture posted by Calbuck illustrates that there are browse species present even in plantation areas that are being actively managed.

View attachment 83743

I can tell you from years of personal experience that MANY species of wildlife use timber production areas during all phases of harvest and regrowth. Back in the 90's, I helped with a project led by Humboldt State University where it was discovered that Pacific Fishers actually thrive in replanted units just like you describe above. We trapped and tagged many Fishers up to the point where the state biologists started relocating them to other areas on National Forest and Tribal lands in attempts to re-establish populations across their historic range.

I will agree that Timber Production practices don't always promote the 'best' habitat potential of the land, but certain phases of the process provide excellent habitat for different types of species. The best part is that timber companies are severely restricted in the size of the the even-age units that they can harvest creating a collage of different aged forest and diversity of habitat. This is illustrated by the attached picture of a managed forest section near Viola, CA.

The ultimate testament is the amount of game found on managed forest land. Thousands of deer, bears, elk, Turkeys, and other game species are taken on managed forest land each year. I personally have killed dozens of deer on lands managed by SPI, Roseburg, and other private timber companies in northern California and southern Oregon. Most of these were taken in recent harvest units or plantations that were less than ten years old. In my observation the worst, most sterile, wildlife habitat is created by mature old growth timber stands that create a dense, light-blocking, canopy. -------SS

View attachment 83740

Agreed. Deer do not do well in old growth. The edge created by the mosaic you describe is critical for many species. I did not intend to suggest that there are NO deer in plantations, but rather there are a lot fewer than there might be if Fish and Game played a more active role in defending the interests of wildlife and sportsmen. I hear hunters questioning what has happened to the herds that used to exist in the years before intensive management. They see the trees, but do not observe that these plantations are more like fields than forests, and if the "farmer" is not growing the sorts of food that deer eat, then there won't be many around.
 
Last edited:
Bullskin and Sparks Shooter Have excellent points and I agree with much of what is stated. But I would add the a ton of public land is managed just like Bullskin's example until it comes to thinning the replant in burn or harvested areas creating a thick impenetrable pine or fir forest of stunted trees that has no feed either. And it creates hot fire when burned that creates a moonscape.

There is tons of mismanagement blame to go around and I agree with holding landowners responsible. But most of the examples I have seen show much more concerning (from a fire standpoint which is the stated concern of the OP) misbehavior from government property managers than the private.

From the hunter's perspective, the continued cycle of burn and regrowth is perfect. I am not advocating for a hands-off strategy of that sort given the interests of safety and property, but the fact is that hunting in California will be better for the hundreds of thousands of acres recently burned--provided sportsmen step up and prevent the removal of oak, etc. on the lands affected. Even public land managers (to the extent they do anything) tend to gravitate toward timber interests, given that the absence of merchantable timber is immediately obvious and the absence of oak and deer is seldom observed. We need to make our voiced heard and, to my knowledge, no pro-sportsman organization is getting this done.
 
Last edited:

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

California Guides & Outfitters

Western Wildlife Adventures

Offering some fine Blacktail Deer hunting, Wild Pig hunts, Turkey hunts and Waterfowl hunts.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer the top private land hunts in all of California, for blacktail deer, elk, pigs, bison and turkeys.

G & J Outdoors

Offering Tule elk hunts for bulls and cows on a 17,000 acre Ranch in Laytonville, CA with 100% success.

Back
Top Bottom