All these forest fires year after year...............

[Different Socks]

Am I the only one that is glad to have seen some of these places before there were burned as well as unhappy that we couldn't get to others until after they were burned?
One example: Stood atop Williams Mtn south of the grand canyon several times, firetower and all. Then 1 doz or so years later I see picture of the entire mtn in flames. People ask me often, why do I go out hiking so much. One obvious answer: I wanna see it all before it's blackened by the passing flames.

[burger]

I've been saying this for a while: if you are thinking about a thru-hike on the CDT or PCT, DO IT NOW! Thanks to climate change, every year more and more of these trails is going to burn. And while the forests will eventually recover, it will be decades or longer in most places, which means recovery won't happen in your lifetime.

[jefals]

well, at least pick your season carefully...Vegetation in most of these areas is bone dry. You don't want to be traipsing around in some of these areas with the chance of fire breaking out so high....

[rocketsocks]

Been goin' on for melliniumallinium, just part of the cycle.

[gregpphoto]

Been goin' on for melliniumallinium, just part of the cycle.

Exactly. I never understood why people, even most hikers, associate fire with ugliness. Its a natural and essential part of the cycle. Its AMAZING to see burn areas, thinking of what it used to be like, how the fire came through, and how it will regrow in the future.

I shouldnt wonder. I know why this is. People expect their idea of perfection all day, 24/7/365, and most people are incapable of seeing past this.

[GA_Windbreaker]

Will Wood (Redbeard) had to cut his PCT thru short due to the fires. One thing I found interesting was that he said most of the locals he talked to blamed the fires on the LACK of logging.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ktaadn]

Exactly. I never understood why people, even most hikers, associate fire with ugliness. Its a natural and essential part of the cycle. Its AMAZING to see burn areas, thinking of what it used to be like, how the fire came through, and how it will regrow in the future.

I shouldnt wonder. I know why this is. People expect their idea of perfection all day, 24/7/365, and most people are incapable of seeing past this.

Agreed. It has been going on forever. It is natural. Some burnt areas look kinda cool. Some trees actually need fire to reproduce.

I'm a little jealous of the people that climbed Mt. St. Helens before it blew up. That reminds me, I really need to get that Rainier climb on the calendar.

[BirdBrain]

Been goin' on for melliniumallinium, just part of the cycle.

Completely agree. I would elaborate, but I don't have the energy for another fight. So much to say. Soooooo don't want another fight. You are right RS. You are not going to convince anyone though.

[Different Socks]

I agree, it is a part of the natural process, yet too much of it is burning year after year.

[nsherry61]

. . . most of the locals he talked to blamed the fires on the LACK of logging. . .

When the real reason is two fold:
1) Lack of relatively recent past fires
2) An extreme drought forcing us to catch up on our fire budget for the century

As for logging. Sure, we might have fewer fires in tightly managed forests with limited to no understory. But, that is NOT a healthy ecosystem. And, I don't want to live in that world. And, just logging doesn't reduce the fire danger. It requires understory management which is much more than just logging . . . actually, maybe I'm wrong. Clearcutting everything could reduce forest fire danger.

[Pedaling Fool]

When the real reason is two fold:
1) Lack of relatively recent past fires
2) An extreme drought forcing us to catch up on our fire budget for the century

As for logging. Sure, we might have fewer fires in tightly managed forests with limited to no understory. But, that is NOT a healthy ecosystem. And, I don't want to live in that world. And, just logging doesn't reduce the fire danger. It requires understory management which is much more than just logging . . . actually, maybe I'm wrong. Clearcutting everything could reduce forest fire danger.

I agree, logging is a very ugly thing and I don't see it as any answer to habitat management.

As for droughts, this year is bad and has been in the making for a few years, but it's just part of this area. This ain't nothin' compared to other droughts in the not too distant past. http://www.mercurynews.com/science/c...ve-lasted-more

Excerpt:

California's current drought is being billed as the driest period in the state's recorded rainfall history. But scientists who study the West's long-term climate patterns say the state has been parched for much longer stretches before that 163-year historical period began.

And they worry that the "megadroughts" typical of California's earlier history could come again.

Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years -- compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.

"We continue to run California as if the longest drought we are ever going to encounter is about seven years," said Scott Stine, a professor of geography and environmental studies at Cal State East Bay. "We're living in a dream world."






California in 2013 received less rain than in any year since it became a state in 1850. And at least one Bay Area scientist says that based on tree ring data, the current rainfall season is on pace to be the driest since 1580 -- more than 150 years before George Washington was born. The question is: How much longer will it last?"

[burger]

Been goin' on for melliniumallinium, just part of the cycle.

Actually, no. Scientists tell us that the frequency and severity of fires has been increasing in recent years due to warmer temperatures and less precipitation/snowpack.

[Pedaling Fool]

Actually, no. Scientists tell us that the frequency and severity of fires has been increasing in recent years due to warmer temperatures and less precipitation/snowpack.

If you read the last sentence in my above excerpt, then maybe we're headed for another mega-drought...Mother Nature can be cruel.

[burger]

BTW, it's absolutely unbelievable that people here are attributing the fires this year to fires suppression. Did any of you notice that California had its lowest snowpack in decades this year? Or that the Pacific NW has been experiencing drought? I'm not going to bother finding the links, but the fire experts are saying that the fires this year are increasingly driven by climate and not by fuels which means that the issue isn't overgrowth of trees--it's that everything is too hot and dry.

No surprise that most of you people saying this is natural come from the east coast and have probably never even seen a forest fire, much less a drought (I live in the west, btw, despite the info to the left which is long out of date).

[burger]

If you read the last sentence in my above excerpt, then maybe we're headed for another mega-drought...Mother Nature can be cruel.

I wasn't responding to you.

[Pedaling Fool]

I wasn't responding to you.

Oh, is that some kind of rule

What a pusillanimous response

[Spirit Walker]

When we went back to the PCT, 8 years after our thruhike, I was interested to see how some of the areas that had recently burned the first time we hiked were lush with vegetation the second time through. In a normal burn, it doesn't take all that long for vegetation to return. Some of the extreme events (i.e. 1988) take longer because the fires burn hotter, but life does return eventually.

I've talked with F&W folks who said that Smoky the Bear was one of the worst things to happen to the west. Years of fire suppression made for too much fuel in areas that should have been burning regularly but weren't. The result was forests that become infernos when fires do start.

Agreed, this year's drought is a really bad one. But as the article points out, we may be in for much worse.

[burger]

Spirit Walker, I think you are too optimsitic about recovery from fire. Recovery from fire depends a lot on the type of vegetation. The shrubby chaparral in southern California is naturally fire-prone (the leaves of many plants are full of flammable oils), and the plants recover within a few years after a big fire.

In the forests, on the other hand, recovery is much slower--it takes decades for mature forest to return. And where you lose old growth to fire, you're looking at centuries to recover. In some places forests can burn so hot that they sterilize the soil and you are left with no plants at all. The forests that have burned along the PCT in southern California would take decades to return to their former state in a good climate. When you factor in the warming temperatures and the increasing droughts, the timescale for recovery gets pushed back even further. So it's likely that no one alive today will experience the return of healthy forests where they've disappeared along the PCT and CDT.

I saw an interview with Scott Williamson (former PCT speed record holder and many-times thru-hiker) a few years back. They asked him what had changed most between when he started hiking the PCT in the early 2000s and today, and he said it was the almost total loss of forest cover in southern California due to all the fires. And there have been even more fires in SoCal since that interview! All of the climate models predict lower snowpacks, more drought, and warmer temperatures in the future for California and much of the West, so things are likely to get worse.

And fires aren't the only problem. When we hiked through the San Juans on the CDT, we were amazed to see mile after mile where all the spruce trees were dead because of bark beetles. The beetles reproduce like crazy in a warmer climate, and the outbreaks have killed off even old-growth trees in wilderness areas (these are areas where fires are rare so fire suppression was not the cause). Aspens are dying because of drought. If you hike the AZT, you will see many miles of dead pinyon pines north of Flagstaff due to drought. And there's more--I could go on and on about how climate change is screwing with the environment along the long trails out west, but hopefully I've made my point.

[Slo-go'en]

Another factor is the beetle infestation which has killed a lot of trees. With the all the dead trees, fire suppression over the years, a prolong drought coupled with low humidity, record setting heatwaves, strong winds and all the homes which have been built in the forest, all the ingredients were there for a "perfect fire storm".

Logging leaves a lot of slash behind (tree limbs) which is another source of dry wood to burn. And of course, it takes water for new vegetation to grow and without significant rain these burnt over areas will take a long time to regenerate. Often what happens is brush and grass grows up during the rainy season, then dries up later and provides more fuel for the next fire to use.

I just hope we don't have this problem on the east coast. Parts of NH and Maine are in a mild drought now too. It's been a long time since there has been a big fire here.

[Mags]

Regardless of the cause, I think Burger's overall idea is correct: It is getting more and difficult to hike the CDT and PCT due to the droughts and fires in recent years. This year, a 101 mile (that is not a typo) roadwalk was mandated due to a closure of an isolated portion of the PCT in Washington state.

Personally, I think very long section hikes are the preferred way to do the CDT and possibly the PCT at this point due to all the flipping now seemingly needed for a thru-hike.

In any case, the nature of the long hikes is changing as Nature itself is changing.