Chomp, Chomp, Chomp - Pine Beetle "Explosion" In Colorado Forests

[hatrack]

"A major mountain pine beetle outbreak is changing the face of Colorado's high country, forcing landowners, towns and federal agencies to scramble in an effort to save parks, campgrounds and neighborhood landscapes.

Colorado State Forest Service officials estimate some 227,000 acres of lodgepole pine has been infested, more than half of that in Grand, Summit, Jackson, Eagle and Routt counties.

EDIT

The outbreak was caused by years of fire suppression, which allowed dense forests of the same age to develop, said Doug Leatherman, a state forest entomologist. The past five years, the driest on record, stressed the trees and made them susceptible to beetles.

Add to the mix a series of warm winters that allowed beetle populations to build and the results, experts say, were inevitable."

EDIT

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2213143,00.html

[F_S]

1. The reality of the WPB and the Environmental movement

The Western Pine Beetle is a small reddish-brown beetle that bores holes through the bark of thin barked pine trees (Lodgepole pine esp.). It then lays it's eggs under the bark in the cambium layer and goes sbout it merry way. When the eggs hatch, the larvae proceed to feed on the cambium layer essentially girdling the tree and killing it. The solution to the WPB problem is a technique knows as thinning. Thinning removes the smaller and less healthy trees and leaves the larger trees at a spacing of about 15'. This spacing is very important because the Western Pine beetle can only fly for about 12'-15' and requires an elevated launching point. Thinning the stands to this level virtually eliminates the wide-spread damage that can be done. The natural process for doing this requires small low-intensity fires doing the same thing. Fire suppresion has taken this out of the picture
Over the last 20 years environmental challenges to any logging (including thinning) have hamstrung all efforts to thin stands to where the WPB cannot cause the wide-spread damage that it currently does. The result of these challenges has been an increase in destructive forest fires, a reduction in the rate at which old-growth stands are being matured, and the proliferation of unhealthy logging practises (timber companies are being forced from economic necesssity to log smaller trees, reducing the number of trees available to mature into old-growth). The continual challenges are also stripping away the funding needed to provide for the care of our forests. They force those funds to be used in court battles instead of forest maintenance and the successful challenges stop the logging that provides the income needed to fund forest maintenance. Over the last 10 or so years, the environmental impact requirements have made most timber sales unprofitable for anyone involved, including the Gov't.
At the heart of the issue is a bunch of well-meaning, but uninformed people who feel that their opinions regarding how a forest should be managed are more important the informed facts presented by professional and well educated timber management specialists. Yes, there have been abuses, but when you stop the good and the bad without discernment, you end up with a situation where incredible damage is done.

"The cost of aggressive cutting and spraying can be justified in parks, campgrounds and neighborhoods. In wilderness, however, it makes more sense to let the infestation take its course. While dead trees contribute to fire risk, Leatherman said, "you could make a case that a dry live tree is just about as much a fire hazard as a dead one."

This comment was either taken out of context or out of his butt. Allowing the infestation to run it's course will destroy millions of trees and cause a huge shift in the forest ecology. While this is a wilderness area, it's important to maintain the perspective of doing what is best for the forest and in this situation, that would mean some aggressive cutting in these areas. The longer it takes to get to this, the greater damage is done to the forest. Right now, in the West, the single biggest hazard is our forests, particularly in the areas lying between the Cascade/Sierra Nevada and the Eastern Rockies.
Forest management must be taken out of the hands of litigating amateurs and returned to professionals.

[Viking12]

2. You repeat the timber industry line of BS well

Maybe you could get a job as a PR spokesperson.

[F_S]

3. Check the facts

What exactly did you have a problem with? Everything in my post was based on science and fact. Just because you don't agree with what I posted, doesn't make it BS.

[Viking12]

4. Bombastic rhetoric does not equal facts

Since you "know the facts" you should be able to easily provide evidence for these claims. Why don't you start by proving, "environmental challenges to any logging (including thinning) have hamstrung all efforts to thin stands."

[F_S]

5. Rhetoric??

The cost of doing environmental impact statements for every individual thinning contract has inflated the cost of administering these contracts to the point that the FS cannot afford to even put most contracts out. Those that are put out are so late in process that the benefits of thinning are already lost.

[Viking12]

6. Dodge and divert

I posited a very straight forward question that you avoided and you respond with another simplified talking point.

[F_S]

8. What are you talking about??

Question - "Why don't you start by proving, "environmental challenges to any logging (including thinning) have hamstrung all efforts to thin stands."

Answer - The cost of doing environmental impact statements for every individual thinning contract has inflated the cost of administering these contracts to the point that the FS cannot afford to even put most contracts out. Those that are put out are so late in process that the benefits of thinning are already lost.

I answered your question directly and honestly. If you have a problem with my answer, please let me know what it is, but don't make erroneous accusations.

[Viking12]

17. My problem with your response

is that you only make unsubstantiated assertions and you provide no evidence. As I said, you do well repeating timber industry talking points but have provided ZERO evidence to support your vague assertions.

[blindpig]

7. what a load

We must clearcut the wilderness in order to save it!
Controlled burns are the obvious answer, we've be doing that in the Se for years and it works nicely. Sorry there won't be any monster logs that the mills so covet.

[F_S]

9. Who said anything about clearcuts?

I mentioned thinning, not clearcuts.
I'm 100% in favor of controlled burns, but when you have stands of timber that are already stressed by drought and disease a controlled burn rapidly escalates into a destructive forest fire.

This is the second reply to my post where I have been accused of doing or saying something I didn't. Is this the norm for this forum??

[blindpig]

10. perhaps it's because

you take the party line of the timber industry and their enablers in the current misadministration for whom "thinning" is a euphemism for clear cutting.
As for your claim of science, the only science you seem concerned with seems to be economics. Ever hear of conservation biology?

[F_S]

11. Ahh! I see how this works...

...if you can't support your POV with science, support it with rhetoric, unsupported accusations, and diversion; interpret others statements to reflect what you want them to say instead of what was said;

Everything I posted originally was based on conservation biology. It's about preserving the health of the forests. Can we agree that we both want healthy forests?? I certainly do.
If you don't include economics in the equation, you will never successfully achieve the goal we both want. There is a financial cost involved in achieving that goal. We can support that cost through increased taxes or by utilizing the resource we have in such a way as to support the health of the forest, create jobs, keep our money at home rather than sending it overseas, etc.
BTW, have you ever considered the world-wide environmental costs of cutting logging in the US? US timber companies have the most aggressive and well-researched forest management techniques in the world. They have the goal of long term forest mangement. Now, go overseas. Vast clear-cutting w/o replanting, erosion management, habitat rehabilitation, etc. We are causing other countries to destroy thier forests because we are too involved in trying to protect our own. The demand for wood is there and it isn't going away any time soon. So do we clear cut vast tracts of forest in Indonesia to provide China with chopsticks (no exaggeration, disposable wooden chopsticks are one of the biggest demands in the East on wood products) with no rehabilitation efforts or do we start utilizing American forestry science to utilize our resources and help preserve the disappearing rain forests??

[Bambistew]

12. Ssssh your scaring them off

Good post, its nice to listen to someone who knows what they're talking about.

[F_S]

16. thx

I figure this thread will die soon. It gets painful when you keep beating your head against the truth.

[blindpig]

13. the difference between you and me

is the difference between Gilford Pinchot and John Muir. You see resources and I see habitat. Managed forests(tree farms) have low biodiversity and that's my problem with your pov.
Nice diversion with your overseas tangent.

[F_S]

15. Habitat vs. resources

The difference between you and I is that I don't see resources and habitat as mutually exclusive and you do.
I grew up in woods and I can tell you from personal experience that logging creates habitat. It may not be pretty at times, but the long term results are an increase in the diversity and health of the forest habitat. Talk to any hunter about where the animals are and they will tell you to go the areas that were logged in the last 3-10 years.
There is a huge difference between tree farms and managed forests. I know, I've seen both.

[blindpig]

20. defining diversity

There is more to diversity than deer and game birds. These species do thrive in the edge habitats created by logging but are they the only species worthy of consideration? Studies here in the southeast show that it takes 60 years for salamander populations to recover in a clear cut area. The elimination of snags is very bad for birds who use them for nesting and hunting perches. The red cockaded woodpecker requires diseased pines in order to nest and are only now recovering from the management practices which you espouse.
Some managed forest will be required in the foreseeable future for human needs but clear cutting should be restricted and be phased out in favor of more forest friendly practices. The extension of management practices into wilderness areas makes said designation moot.
BTW, I live on a 10A woodlot designated a tree farm for tax purposes. My pines have been decimated by drought, beetles and ice storms, lots of dead wood. In a few years those logs will be excellent habitat for a plethora of species and the hardwoods will rule. So it goes.

[F_S]

21. re; defining diversity

bp, you make some good points. Diversity is defined by more than game species. But, they are a good indicator of the overall longterm health of an environment. Most game species are near the top of the food chain and if there is a problem near the bottom it will eventually manifest itself at the top. What we need is a plan which captures the problems wherever they occur and correct it ASAP.

Clear-cutting cannot be identified as bad in all cases. The natural cycle of regeneration in temperate forest (most of the SE, NW and N. Cent. forests fall into this category) is that of occasional low burning fires with the catostrophic fires coming every couple of hundred years. The timber industry is now attempting to duplicate the process using combinations of thinning and controlled burns to replace the low burning fires and smaller clearcuts to replace the catstrophic fires. The clearcuts are neccessary for the regeneration process. By utilizing them properly (leaving seed trees, snags that can be safely left, etc.), you open up the area to sunlight and water and new species that thrive in this environment. In addition there are numerous plant species that require the direct sunlight and mineral soil that a clearcut or cat. burn provides.

If we don't utilize soem forest management techniques in wilderness areas, we will lose them to fire. The decades af aggressive fire suppression has left these forests in deplorable condition. Overgrown, crowded, diseased, etc. We need to keep the impact of the techniques used down to a minimum, but we do need to make the effort to restore these areas to health and that means utilizing some forest management.

In the past the timber industry has over-used clear-cutting and in some cases to the detriment of the long term health of the forest. But, timber companies have learned that utilizing better forest management techniques will provide for better long term health and economics for their industry. Current forest rehabilitation standards for almost all of the major timber companies exceed Federal regulations. This is due to the input of trained professionals in forestry.

Sorry to hear about the condition of your woodlot. You may want to consider the removal of some of the dead wood from your stand. Most natural forest run to about 3% dead. It sounds like you're well over this. The problem here is the fire hazard. I live in Central Oregon (the dry side of the state) and keeping our homes fire safe is a major priority. We've seen some incredibly destructive fires in this area, but have had little loss of homes due to the efforts at keeping these hazardous fuels away from our homes. You may want to consider doing the same. Creating a 30'-40' zone around your home that is free from highly combustible materials could save your home. The rest of yor lot should be looked at in terms of rducing "ladder fuels". These are the dead material in the first 10' feet. What they do is allow a fire to escalate into the upper branches of your trees. This will kill them. By removing the ladder fuels, you limit a fires ability to become a crown fire and encourage the healthy low fires that will be of great benefit to your lot. But, it's your property and you are free to do with it as you will.

BTW, thanks for the reasonable courteous response. My first couple of posts were met with some pretty rude garbage and it's good to be able to engage in some friendly, polite conversation.

[blindpig]

25. I appreciate your concern and advice concerning my land

Fire is a concern in drought years but with anything near normal rain the decay process here in the south is swift. It has been my practice to knock to the ground any deadwood and leaners that I can safely. Removal is not an option, I'll not have morons in bulldozers turn my land into a war zone, besides I value logs as salamander habitat.
You truly are a child of Pinchot and stay on message like a pro. F_S doesn't signify Forest Service by any chance?
While we may agree to disagree concerning various practices I'm afraid I must return to my earlier caustic comment about faith. Timber companies are for profit concerns and maintaining biodiversity does not improve the bottom line the way things work now. CEO's make these decisions not forestry technicians. And our current maladministration, flush with cash from the extractive industries, is doing all it can to improve that bottom line.
I must also take issue with "thinning" wilderness areas. Like you said, it is natural to have a big burn on occasion and this should be allowed. These areas should be large enough to absorb major fire and still have enough intact to facilitate recolonization. I am certainly no expert on the topic but I suspect that many areas designated wilderness have not been subjected to the balls to the wall fire suppression technique's now so deplored. Some such cases may indeed exist but management practices in wilderness areas should be the rare exception, not the rule, as the bu$hes would have it. Otherwise what is the point of wilderness?
peace

[NickB79]

19. Question: how profitable is this thinning?

The overgrowth of the forests without low-grade fires has produced trees that are tightly packed and of similar age. This produces trees that are akin to living toothpicks: tall but very thin, as they all compete upwards for sunlight. What is the value of these trees to the lumber industry if they are incapable of providing plank lumber? I assume they could be used for chipboard and plywood, but is there great enough profit in the production of these as compared to logging the larger, older trees that give greater profit per tree.

I am not against thinning per se. My major concern is that lumber companies will roll in under the pretenses of removing the sickly, overgrown brush and trees, and instead remove the valuable old-growth trees scattered throughout the forests that are vital as seeders after fires and other natural disasters. I just don't see how they can make a profit by logging only the smaller, weaker trees of lesser quality lumber.

[Bdog]

22. Question: what are the pine beetle's natural predators n/t

[Bdog]

23. It is the old trees that are the most susceptible

How will thinning out the younger trees help?

http://www.pfc.forestry.ca/entomology/mpb/outbreak/interactions_e.html

Adult beetles prefer to attack large-diameter trees. Bigger trees provide higher quality food and larval habitat. Thicker bark provides greater protection from predators and climatic extremes. However, large-diameter trees in a stand tend to be more vigorous and have a greater capacity to resist attack.

As beetles attempt to bore through the bark of a healthy lodgepole pine, the tree will produce copious amounts of resin as a defense. This resinosus may overcome attacking beetles and literally 'pitch' them out as seen here.

MPB can overcome resinosus. Attacking beetles carry spores of a bluestain fungus. The fungus colonizes the sapwood and effectively circumvents the defensive response of the tree. The beetle - fungus relationship is symbiotic: the fungus benefits by hitching a ride with the beetle while the beetle benefits as the fungus blocks resin production by the tree

When lodgepole pine is young, it is able to resist inoculation with bluestain fungus. Resistance increases to about age 60, then declines rapidly. By the time stands reach 80 to 100 years of age, most trees have a low resistance to the fungus.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2213143,00.html
The outbreak was caused by years of fire suppression, which allowed dense forests of the same age to develop, said Doug Leatherman, a state forest entomologist. The past five years, the driest on record, stressed the trees and made them susceptible to beetles.

Add to the mix a series of warm winters that allowed beetle populations to build and the results, experts say, were inevitable.

"These are old lodgepole pine - their time has come," he said.

Beetles are the natural change agent for Western forests. Over the long term, beetles help rejuvenate forest stands and break up large blocks of old timber to the benefit of wildlife and other vegetation.

[treepig]

14. british columbia had a beetle infestation 30 years ago

not sure if it's the same beetle, but it sounds like it could be.

anyway, they twidled their thumbs doing nothing for two decades (well, actually they were doing something, and that was engaging in bickering similar to that found in this thread)

meanwhile, the beetles prospered, and now they have no choice but to clearcut massive areas - bigger than rhode island, delaware, texas, (or one or another of the insignificant states - sorry for the lack of specific facts, don't have time to look them up right now, but the gist of this message is 100% double plus true).

[gate of the sun]

18. you should see the pinon pine death in Santa Fe

dead trees everywhere it so sucks that they are dying in Colorado as well.

[Bdog]

24. Prevention:

http://mpb.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/resources/guide_e.html

Healthy, vigorously growing trees are most resistant to attack. The most effective way to prevent a mountain pine beetle infestation is to harvest mature lodgepole pine trees and pine dominant stands before they become overmature (generally over 80 years old). Consider spacing or thinning large groups to allow individual trees better access to moisture and light. Soil moisture affects the degree to which trees are drought stressed, and stressed trees have limited capabilities to produce the resins necessary to ‘pitch’ out invading beetle.