I don't have time for a lengthy dissertation now, so I'll just borrow a phrase from the kids and say PUHLEEEEZE!...
http://www.forestaid.net/
Forest Aid: Angeles
-
cougarmagic
- Posts: 1409
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 5:21 pm
I hope they re-plant a lot of Ceanothus trees and Sage Trees. Chamise trees...yucca trees...those are my favorite.
-
PackerGreg
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:31 pm
No, new government regulations have outlawed the uphill planting of acorns by Gray Squirrels, Scrub Jays, and even Steller's Jays. So, more government intervention is required to implement the use of Inner City youth and West Side do-gooders (who are more silviculturally-inclined than said critters) via Tree People to plant oak saplings (which have been grown at great expense to you, the taxpayer) close enough to the trails to provide photo ops to the newspaper reporters, but not so far of the beaten path that someone might get hurt and sue the Forest Service.
49,995 of those were probably washed away by the 20+ inches of rain in December. Now they will need another year of study and research., the San Bernardino National Forest Association and the Forest Service planted nearly 50,000 seedlings during the years 2009 and 2010.
"TreePeople and the U.S. Forest Service will begin a five-year project to restore areas within the Station Fire region that cannot recover on their own"
What is so wrong with giving our "forest" a hand where it needs it?
This was not a "natural" fire, and many of the forested areas that burned will not recover on their own due to the extreme intensity of the fire causing soil damage as well as large tree mortality, which prevents the natural cycle of regrowth of the coniferous forest.
The money and time for this project is almost entirely funded by donations, non-profit and volunteers. I don't see the problem.
"Forest Aid is funded by generous grants from The Walt Disney Company and The Boeing Company, and by contributions from TreePeople and supporters like you. Donations are processed through TreePeople, an environmental nonprofit organization serving the Los Angeles area..."
What is so wrong with giving our "forest" a hand where it needs it?
This was not a "natural" fire, and many of the forested areas that burned will not recover on their own due to the extreme intensity of the fire causing soil damage as well as large tree mortality, which prevents the natural cycle of regrowth of the coniferous forest.
The money and time for this project is almost entirely funded by donations, non-profit and volunteers. I don't see the problem.
"Forest Aid is funded by generous grants from The Walt Disney Company and The Boeing Company, and by contributions from TreePeople and supporters like you. Donations are processed through TreePeople, an environmental nonprofit organization serving the Los Angeles area..."
-
cougarmagic
- Posts: 1409
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 5:21 pm
There's no 'problem' with it, or course. My sarcasm comes from two things - first, still sore about the fire itself, and taking it out on anything I can. But secondly, though these volunteer efforts are noble, they can only do so much. In our case, most of the terrain that burned was chaparral rather than "forest" as we think of it - made of trees. And like efforts to reduce invasives, these projects take place mostly along the road (where soil is disturbed and invasives get introduced and take hold).
When improvements are made to the forest that mostly affect human perception and enjoyment, it makes the sting of knowing how many thousands of acres of backcountry will go without "help" a bit worse somehow. We are not helping plantlife, wildlife, or even watersheds, by placing bandaids.
If the work helps some people feel like they're making things better, more power to them. I haven't found anything yet that softens the blow of what happened, and how long it will take for the place I love to "recover" to the healthy, beautiful land it was.
When improvements are made to the forest that mostly affect human perception and enjoyment, it makes the sting of knowing how many thousands of acres of backcountry will go without "help" a bit worse somehow. We are not helping plantlife, wildlife, or even watersheds, by placing bandaids.
If the work helps some people feel like they're making things better, more power to them. I haven't found anything yet that softens the blow of what happened, and how long it will take for the place I love to "recover" to the healthy, beautiful land it was.
While they may not hike 10 miles into the back country, I have seen projects by TreePeople in very difficult places to reach by foot, such as some steep areas around Mt. Pacifico, as well the the north slopes of Charlton Flat, Mt. Mooney and areas off Santa Clara Divide Rd, near Messenger Flat, to name a few. While the access points are obviously by road, they do make more of an effort than many people probably think.
And yes, while we don't have alot of trees in these mtns, (less than 25 % of the Angeles is coniferous forest) I still don't think it's all in vain or just a symbolic feel good project. IMO, this should be an even more important reason to help out, since we don't have alot to begin with.
And yes, many of the areas burned were of course largely chaparral, but if you've spent any time up around Charlton/Chilao and many of the north slopes above Mill Creek after the fire, you'll notice there was still ALOT of tree mortality.
And sorry, but if you think we are not helping at all by re-planting trees for help with erosion and wildlife habitat, etc, you're just plain ignorant. No, it's not going solve every problem 100%, but it will help in the areas that are strategically planned.
Lastly, again, remember, people are willing to donate time and money to do what they can, and I think it's shitty for people to dump on that.
If you want more information on all the resource projects going on, and all the specific locations, benefits and limitations, contact Steve Bear at 818-899-1900. (not sure his extension) He is one of the smarter guys working for the Angeles, and can and will take the time to explain to you the benefits of replanting after this, and other major fires.
And yes, while we don't have alot of trees in these mtns, (less than 25 % of the Angeles is coniferous forest) I still don't think it's all in vain or just a symbolic feel good project. IMO, this should be an even more important reason to help out, since we don't have alot to begin with.
And yes, many of the areas burned were of course largely chaparral, but if you've spent any time up around Charlton/Chilao and many of the north slopes above Mill Creek after the fire, you'll notice there was still ALOT of tree mortality.
And sorry, but if you think we are not helping at all by re-planting trees for help with erosion and wildlife habitat, etc, you're just plain ignorant. No, it's not going solve every problem 100%, but it will help in the areas that are strategically planned.
Lastly, again, remember, people are willing to donate time and money to do what they can, and I think it's shitty for people to dump on that.
If you want more information on all the resource projects going on, and all the specific locations, benefits and limitations, contact Steve Bear at 818-899-1900. (not sure his extension) He is one of the smarter guys working for the Angeles, and can and will take the time to explain to you the benefits of replanting after this, and other major fires.
MtnMan, normally I am usually in pretty good agreement with you. However, the thinking that the Angeles cannot recover on its own seems a bit outlandish. Historically, the San Gabriels have burned and they seem to somehow come back. In time the forest will recover. Perhaps not in our lifetime but, in the geologic scale of time, I'm willing to bet the mountains (plants and animals) will do just fine.
Also, it seems that human intervention always seems to have some form of unintended consequences involved with it.
Soooo... count me in as this being a silly feel-good project. I hope that I am wrong.
Also, it seems that human intervention always seems to have some form of unintended consequences involved with it.
Soooo... count me in as this being a silly feel-good project. I hope that I am wrong.
I may have misinterpreted what I meant when I said it cannot recover on it's own. I''m sure many areas will and can, but if replanting trees in some areas to help get the process going alot faster, as well as benefit erosion control and habitat restoration even some what, I'm all for it.
Also, there are likely some areas that may not regrow naturally at all. There are large areas in the Cedar Fire burn area from 2003 that are not showing any regeneration at all. Also, if you have ever been up to Blue Ridge over near Wrightwood, this area is also largely not growing back along the ridge from Blue Ridge to Guffy, from the Narrows Fire back in the 90's. There are plans to reforest that area as well in the near future.
The biggest problem we have is that these huge fires have created unusually large incidents of hydrophobic soil issues. Do a search online and there are some great articles about it. This greatly inhibits natural regrowth and causes major erosion issues.
So let me reiterate. What I'm trying to say is no, replanting is not going to solve all the problems, but if managed correctly, it can be a benefit to helping nature out after a very high intensity human caused fire.
Lastly, I can assure everyone, the planting is not a bunch of people running around going out putting in a tree in a place they think will be pretty or wherever they want.
Also, there are likely some areas that may not regrow naturally at all. There are large areas in the Cedar Fire burn area from 2003 that are not showing any regeneration at all. Also, if you have ever been up to Blue Ridge over near Wrightwood, this area is also largely not growing back along the ridge from Blue Ridge to Guffy, from the Narrows Fire back in the 90's. There are plans to reforest that area as well in the near future.
The biggest problem we have is that these huge fires have created unusually large incidents of hydrophobic soil issues. Do a search online and there are some great articles about it. This greatly inhibits natural regrowth and causes major erosion issues.
So let me reiterate. What I'm trying to say is no, replanting is not going to solve all the problems, but if managed correctly, it can be a benefit to helping nature out after a very high intensity human caused fire.
Lastly, I can assure everyone, the planting is not a bunch of people running around going out putting in a tree in a place they think will be pretty or wherever they want.
Mike P wrote: ↑MtnMan, normally I am usually in pretty good agreement with you. However, the thinking that the Angeles cannot recover on its own seems a bit outlandish. Historically, the San Gabriels have burned and they seem to somehow come back. In time the forest will recover. Perhaps not in our lifetime but, in the geologic scale of time, I'm willing to bet the mountains (plants and aninals) will do just fine.
Also, it seems that human intervention always seems to have some form of unintended consequences involved with it.
Soooo... count me in as this being a silly feel-good project. I hope that I am wrong.
OK. Fair enough. Yup, been to some of those denuded places such as Blue Ridge and other locales in the forest. I hope the project works out well.
If nothing else, I also hope that Forest Aid brings a greater appreciation of the mountains and the environment for everyone involved.
If nothing else, I also hope that Forest Aid brings a greater appreciation of the mountains and the environment for everyone involved.
MtnMan wrote: ↑I may have misinterpreted what I meant when I said it cannot recover on it's own. I''m sure many areas will and can, but if replanting trees in some areas to help get the process going alot faster, as well as benefit erosion control and habitat restoration even some what, I'm all for it.
Also, there are likely some areas that may not regrow naturally at all. There are large areas in the Cedar Fire burn area from 2003 that are not showing any regeneration at all. Also, if you have ever been up to Blue Ridge over near Wrightwood, this area is also largely not growing back along the ridge from Blue Ridge to Guffy, from the Narrows Fire back in the 90's. There are plans to reforest that area as well in the near future.
The biggest problem we have is that these huge fires have created unusually large incidents of hydrophobic soil issues. Do a search online and there are some great articles about it. This greatly inhibits natural regrowth and causes major erosion issues.
So let me reiterate. What I'm trying to say is no, replanting is not going to solve all the problems, but if managed correctly, it can be a benefit to helping nature out after a very high intensity human caused fire.
Lastly, I can assure everyone, the planting is not a bunch of people running around going out putting in a tree in a place they think will be pretty or wherever they want.