Will the fires be good for future herds?

[ChubbyTuna]

I've always heard that wild fires remove excessive brush and trees and encourage growth of browse favored by deer and elk. If we have somewhat easy winters the next 5 years, can we expect a healthy growth in the herd numbers?

 

[antlerradar]

It has been my experince that numbers goes up but quality goes down. The food is better but the lack of cover makes it hard for bucks to live long.

Antleradar

 

[buttshot]

SHHH,,, don't let SFW hear that, they will encourage DWR to decrease tag numbers or maybe put a temporary moratorium on mule deer season.
Oh, wait. maybe this might be the thing DWR needs to increase our herd.....

 

[SMELLYBUCK]

Chubby,

Most textbooks will say that fire is good for wildlife. It makes sense on paper, but I haven't seen pay off in reality. I can't think of one place that has burned that had mediocre hunting and then turned fantastic after a burn. Sometimes a burn makes hunting easier as it congregates animals into the neighboring unburned areas.

I have observed a lot of areas burn and start to grow in the past 15 years. Hunters in these area still complain of decreased numbers. Maybe the fires helped but there is a more pressing problem. The fires certainly will not help for the 2012 season.

 

[mmwb]

I expect it depends on the nature of the burn, weather, etc... Some burns are flash fires. I believe they go through very quickly, open the canopy, but don't kill all the underbrush (ie, don't kill the roots and sterilize the soil). Other fires create more heat over time, destroying everything. These would recover differently and over a much longer period of time. Smaller fires of 5 to 20 acres naturally have a different impact on the local ecosystem than those of several thousand acres. If the burn is followed up by a couple of years of drought, your not going to get the grasses, sedges, forbs, and other undergrowth that the wildlife will benefit by. If they are followed up by moister years or are in areas with more natural water retention in the soil from winter through fall, they will do better.

 

[kilbuc]

Short term loss, long term gain. I have seen several areas improve significantly several years after fire. Both in numbrs and quality.

In general regrowth following fires produces higher quality and quantity of forage which leads to improved herd health.

from the "Heartland of Wyoming"

 

[desertbonehunter]

Fires are a natural thing for the earth to cleanse itself, clean out overgrown forests, and are overall a good thing. You think they fought fires 100 years ago, and all the way back hundreds of years. The reason for the intense fires now days is mostly due to putting fires out over and over year after year while they are small and never get a chance to thin areas out so now youre left with completely overgrown spots where when a major fire does happen, its unstoppable and devastating, and it will never end now as it has become such a huge political and money game. Overall tho, fires are very good and the places I hunt, Quality has improved dramatically due to burn areas. I do believe though that you have to suppress some wildfires that are close to communities or threatening other important things, but at the same time, its very hard for me to feel sorry for people that put houses in extremely fire hazardous places and then have brush and trees growing right up to their house. I say, most fires, let em burn, and save a few hundred million of taxpayers dollars.

 

[theox]

>Chubby,
>
>Most textbooks will say that fire
>is good for wildlife.
>It makes sense on paper,
>but I haven't seen pay
>off in reality. I
>can't think of one place
>that has burned that had
>mediocre hunting and then turned
>fantastic after a burn. Sometimes
>a burn makes hunting easier
>as it congregates animals into
>the neighboring unburned areas.
>
>I have observed a lot of
>areas burn and start to
>grow in the past 15
>years. Hunters in these
>area still complain of decreased
>numbers. Maybe the fires
>helped but there is a
>more pressing problem. The
>fires certainly will not help
>for the 2012 season.

maybe you should get out more!!!! you have gotta be outta your mind! i have yet to see an area that is overgrown and unhealthy produce any benefit to wildlife other then cover! which does them no good when they cant eat! burns dont make it easy to hunt necessarily either! those deer blend in very well and know how to hide in the burns. usually they stay on the tree lines of the burn until dark.

to answer the original question. As long as they do some habitat work, such as railing the burned trees and planting seed yes! it will be better for everything! except p&j. it will be better for springs, cattle, elk and deer!

 

[Daxter]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-12 AT 10:03PM (MST)[p]In general they help, but there are cases where they don't. If you burn up good range with healthy browse and it gets replaced by undesired annuals (like cheatgrass) it is unlikely that it will even be as good as it once was. However, if you are out of the cheatgrass zone, I think they usually do a lot of good. Really awesome in higher elevations in aspen stands.

Dax

There is no such thing as a sure thing in trophy mule deer hunting.

 

[theox]

>Fires are a natural thing for
>the earth to cleanse itself,
>clean out overgrown forests, and
>are overall a good thing.
>You think they fought fires
>100 years ago, and all
>the way back hundreds of
>years. The reason for the
>intense fires now days is
>mostly due to putting fires
>out over and over year
>after year while they are
>small and never get a
>chance to thin areas out
>so now youre left with
>completely overgrown spots where when
>a major fire does happen,
>its unstoppable and devastating, and
>it will never end now
>as it has become such
>a huge political and money
>game. Overall tho, fires are
>very good and the places
>I hunt, Quality has improved
>dramatically due to burn areas.
>I do believe though that
>you have to suppress some
>wildfires that are close to
>communities or threatening other important
>things, but at the same
>time, its very hard for
>me to feel sorry for
>people that put houses in
>extremely fire hazardous places and
>then have brush and trees
>growing right up to their
>house. I say, most fires,
>let em burn, and save
>a few hundred million of
>taxpayers dollars.

+1 you took the words outta my mouth! glad too see some people get the big picture!
fires are portrayed as a negative thing by the media. because of the media when someone that does not know the good that comes from fires they cringe at the word wildfire thinking its ruining acres upon acres of habitat and is no longer worth anything. fires are now a corporation of sorts. with out fire suppression thousands of and thousand of jobs would be lost. you have the flame retardant companies, the firefighters, the airplane tanker pilots, etc that use the fires for income. the flame retardant companies would be outta business if they would let fires burn. so its all a money game. fires are vital to the health of the eco system! suppression is vital to the size of the wallets of some people.

 

[theox]

>LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-12
>AT 10:03?PM (MST)
>
>In general they help, but there
>are cases where they don't.
> If you burn up
>good range with healthy browse
>and it gets replaced by
>undesired annuals (like cheatgrass) it
>is unlikely that it will
>even be as good as
>it once was. However,
>if you are out of
>the cheatgrass zone, I think
>they usually do a lot
>of good. Really awesome
>in higher elevations in aspen
>stands.
>

true imo for the most part, however they can plant things that compete wvery well against cheatgrass. but yes i agreee if the range is already healthy then it would not benfit as much,but it would realease nitrogen into the soil and benefit some of the plants. things like bitterbrush and slow growing brush would be knocked way back. on the otherhand if it is healthy range that means the fire should be easy to contain as there is less fuel for the fire to keep going on.

 

[Gator]

The only really bad fire is one that take out all the trees and burns everything to nothing, But most fires will skip and hop around and over some rock cropping,ravines, tree top, as long as it not a scorch the earth type fire there will be spot here and there tha wouldn't burn.
Gentle rains will start the return of good stuff. Hard rains will be just about as bad as the fire.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]

 

[never_satisfied]

The Seeley fire is a great example of what good can come from a wildfire
If they refuse to let you log a area something or someone has to remove all the dead fall and beetle strukin pine trees

 

[leonard]

I have hunted in Bosque Del Oso which burned some Doug fir pockets and serviceberry, forb, and grass regrowth is excellent. Shot a cow in there and lots of animals were using it, more than other areas. The Missionary Ridge in SW Colorado has also created super habitat, but very thick cover. After about 5 yrs the aspen, oakbrush, etc is over your head. The Stormking Fire by Glenwood Spgs has created a very thick understory suitable for wildlife. These are three areas in Colorado where fires assisted regrowth, however, 2 of those fires were very tragic.
In the Great Basin country of NV/UT fires usually only let cheatgrass establish, which is even more prone to future fires. It seems in my limited observation that high elevation, north slopes re-establish best, but it takes a little longer. The south slopes and semi-desert areas are next to impossible to reclaim.

 

[theox]

>I have hunted in Bosque Del
>Oso which burned some Doug
>fir pockets and serviceberry, forb,
>and grass regrowth is excellent.
>Shot a cow in there
>and lots of animals were
>using it, more than other
>areas. The Missionary Ridge in
>SW Colorado has also created
>super habitat, but very thick
>cover. After about 5 yrs
>the aspen, oakbrush, etc is
>over your head. The Stormking
>Fire by Glenwood Spgs has
>created a very thick understory
>suitable for wildlife. These are
>three areas in Colorado where
>fires assisted regrowth, however, 2
>of those fires were very
>tragic.
>In the Great Basin country of
>NV/UT fires usually only let
>cheatgrass establish, which is even
>more prone to future fires.
>It seems in my limited
>observation that high elevation, north
>slopes re-establish best, but it
>takes a little longer. The
>south slopes and semi-desert areas
>are next to impossible to
>reclaim.

really cause i live in the desert and our burns our the best range around!

cheat grass is better then pinyon and juniper and sage brush overgrowth. at least its usuable for a couple months where pj and old overgrown sage is rarely if ever usuaable. all you gotta do is plant stuff that is competitive with cheatgrass. there is a lot of plants that can compete and out compete cheatgrass.

 

[desertbonehunter]

All the deserts I have seen burn have come back amazing. I have seen areas where there was tall sage and tall old browse and after the burns go thru nice bran new fresh soft browse grows back and the wildlife thrives off of it. And other high desert places like Elko for instance some of those burns the feed come back belly high for the cattle,. So I have to completely disagree with the desert burns being bad.

 

[leonard]

I have only worked about a year and half between Ely to Moapa, and most of the lower elevation burns only establish cheatgrass from what I've seen. But you guys know that country better than me. It may depend on if the areas were reseeded, what time of year the reseeding occurred, moisture. Cheatgrass has little to no protein, carb, or nutrient value; which basically stays green about two weeks in the spring and again in the fall. I think mowing or hydroaxing would be more beneficially in NV and UT at establishing bitterbrush, morman tea, winterfat, wheatgrasses, etc. than burning would be.The burns in Colorado seem to come back really quick and I have seen game using burned areas the same year. I agree with previous posts that burning is beneficial.

 

[SlinginLead]

Fires by mother nature is simply her doing her thing. If you leave her alone, everything will be fine.

 

[SMELLYBUCK]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-02-12 AT 01:49PM (MST)[p]SlingingLead, That is a mentality that drives me bonkers. Enviros will ignore all the erosion created by the Yellowstone fires because it is "natural." They won't tell you about the landscape architect that made a fortune in Yellowstone after the fires because of all the "rehabilitation" work. They talked about all the new growth and flowers. If a logging company does a small clear cut we hear about erosion and scars, nothing about flowers and new growth. Man can do some great things with the land.

I think the argument that we have bigger fires now because we fight fires is mostly crap. We have bigger fires now because of cheatgrass. Take cheatgrass out of the equation and we'll have smaller fires again.

I drive I15 a lot through Utah. This place is way more burned over in the past 10 years than it was in the 80's and 90's. Some places have burned 2 and 3 times - all huge fires. So there goes the fire suppression leads to bigger fires argument as far as I'm concerned.

Fire seems to have helped just north of Beaver. But people still complaing that the overall hunting in the Unit sucks. One could argue Utah Hill is better.

Huge fires have not helped the south side of Pine Valley. The Pahvant hasn't exactly improved from fire. I don't know if the Wastch Front from Santaquin to Alpine has more deer now either.

I took a class on wildland fires in college. I've concluded people can believe whatever they want about fire and can find some science to back it up. All I know is Utah has burned way more in the past 10 years, fires are much bigger, and are more frequennt, yet people still complain about shrinking deer herds. Apparently, our deer herd has a bigger problem than lack of fire.

 

[theox]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-02-12 AT 06:31PM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON Jul-02-12
>AT 01:49?PM (MST)
>
>SlingingLead, That is a mentality
>that drives me bonkers.
>Enviros will ignore all the
>erosion created by the Yellowstone
>fires because it is "natural."
>They won't tell you about
>the landscape architect that made
>a fortune in Yellowstone after
>the fires because of all
>the "rehabilitation" work. They
>talked about all the new
>growth and flowers. If
>a logging company does a
>small clear cut we hear
>about erosion and scars, nothing
>about flowers and new growth.
> Man can do some
>great things with the land.
>
>
>I think the argument that we
>have bigger fires now because
>we fight fires is mostly
>crap. We have bigger
>fires now because of cheatgrass.
> Take cheatgrass out of
>the equation and we'll have
>smaller fires again.
>
>I drive I15 a lot through
>Utah. This place is
>way more burned over in
>the past 10 years than
>it was in the 80's
>and 90's. Some places
>have burned 2 and 3
>times - all huge fires.
> So there goes the
>fire suppression leads to bigger
>fires argument as far as
>I'm concerned.
>
>Fire seems to have helped just
>north of Beaver. But
>people still complaing that the
>overall hunting in the Unit
>sucks. One could argue Utah
>Hill is better.
>
>Huge fires have not helped the
>south side of Pine Valley.
> The Pahvant hasn't exactly
>improved from fire. I
>don't know if the Wastch
>Front from Santaquin to Alpine
>has more deer now either.
>
>
>I took a class on wildland
>fires in college. I've
>concluded people can believe whatever
>they want about fire and
>can find some science to
>back it up. All
>I know is Utah has
>burned way more in the
>past 10 years, fires are
>much bigger, and are more
>frequennt, yet people still complain
>about shrinking deer herds.
>Apparently, our deer herd has
>a bigger problem than lack
>of fire.

the last 40 years has had heavy fire suppression leading to a build up of fuel for fires to get outt control and not burn themselves out. a healthy range will burn its self out when there is no more fuel to burn! if fire runss over a cheatgrass burn over and over, it is still realeasing nitrogen into the soil and grasses and forbes come bnack again.

im glad you think they dont help casue then you wont hunt the burns and can leave them too me.

We had a burn on our range 2 and a half years ago. if it did not burn there would be no feed whatsoever this year for elk deer mustang cows or anything with out that fire! we have had grass 3-4 tall on that burn last year and year before. this year there was so much left from last year that most of the animals are utilizing that old feed . there is very little green(just about 3-4 inches high) without that burn beibng well established like that it would be bad!
that burn turned our worst pasture and i mean absolute worst, no animals on it and hard to keep a cow up there, and it is now our best pasture on our entire range! ive seen way more deer on it, absolute astonishing amounts of elk and still room for cows and mustangs. howevert aht pasture would still be worthlesswithout us ranching on it. there is practically no water in that area, one little spring that may surface for a month a year. we ranabout 7 miles of pipeline from our private property and run a well off of a generator to allow water on that burn. however during the wetter years that last 2 years there was enough water runoff not getting absorbed and abused by pj and sage to make it into the ponds we built. they dont hold water all year but for a couple months they will hold water. this year as dry as it is the only water is the stuff we are pumping out there.

cheatgrass is green and useable for 2-3 months outta the year. it is for more usuable then sage or pj. its not an ideal feed but it does not consume all the water laike sage and pj and it provides some food. albeit its not super nutrious like other range grasses, it is enough for cattle to survive on in early spring until the other grasses catch up.

if reseeding is done in cheatgrass rich environments with plants that can compete with cheatgrass, such as crested wheatgrass, intermediate wheat... etc the cheat grasss stays at bay. one critical thing i have noticed on burns is the areas that get disturbed by railing trees etc do far better then areas that just get seed dropped on them and not railed. the cheatgrass establishes faster sometimes when the ground goews undisturbed.

is cheatgrass an ideal feed? no! but it is far better then pj! itss a case of the lesser of 2 evils!

a fire that is not reseeded in cheatgrass zone, will grow alot of cheatgrass, but there is also alot of native that comes in and is more usuable then the previous pj and old sage stands that were replaced