Hotel Rock forest answer to pre run question (1 Viewer)

Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
24,774
Location
Chandler, AZ
Website
www.tontorecreationalliance.org
Looks like you have to log in to find out....

The forest on Little Baullie Mesa was subject to a "forest replacement project" by the BLM. We stopped at the ranger station on the way home, they gave us a document explaining the process. Basically the trees were masticated (chipped and dispersed) and the area was reseeded by aircraft.
 

ChaseTruck

--
SILVER Star
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
2,293
so, basically... I could have stepped on the crypto crust all I wanted when we were there 2 years ago?
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
24,774
Location
Chandler, AZ
Website
www.tontorecreationalliance.org
so, basically... I could have stepped on the crypto crust all I wanted when we were there 2 years ago?

Pretty much.

I tried not to take any pix of it, was very disappointed, looked terrible. Towards the end of the day took one. The area around Hotel Rock is even more barren. The view from the ridge pix are from this year and 2009, taken from the same place.
H_R_trees_1.jpg
H_R_trees_2.jpg
H_R_trees_2009.jpg
 

DSRTRDR

I can mangle anything ...
SILVER Star
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
15,783
Location
Baton Rouge, LA and Fountain Hills, AZ
your tax dollars at work :rolleyes:
 

murf

Lifer
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
10,564
Location
Scottsdale, Arizona
What was the goal of the BLM in doing this? Trying to introduce different species of trees, or?
 

DSRTRDR

I can mangle anything ...
SILVER Star
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
15,783
Location
Baton Rouge, LA and Fountain Hills, AZ
purportedly to break up an overgrowth of piñon and juniper and introduce more diversity
 
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
682
Location
Silverton Colorado
Probably having to do with some sort of fire safety also (trees being too close together)? Or just diversify?
 

DSRTRDR

I can mangle anything ...
SILVER Star
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
15,783
Location
Baton Rouge, LA and Fountain Hills, AZ
they mention that fires from the current growth stand would get hotter and more dangerous to firefighters than what they expect in the future, but by the same token, there have always been fires on this land, so why make life-risking attempts to fight them ?
 
Last edited:

murf

Lifer
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
10,564
Location
Scottsdale, Arizona
Thanks Tools, I find these things interesting and the attachment tells it all in detail.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
22,086
they mention that fires from the current growth stand would get hotter more dangerous to firefighters than what they expect in the future, but by the same token, there have always been fires on this land, so why make life-risking attempts to fight them ?


The problem is the Forest Service thought ever fire was a bad fire and worked to put them out. As a result many natural fire were fought instead of letting them burn naturally. The end result is over grown forest with no natural fire breaks from old fires. I remember when the Forest Service decided to change direction back in the eighties? A natural fire that started in Yellowstone park was left to burn naturally. But because all previous had been put out almost half the park burned. Since that time the Forest Service is working towards bring the forest back to a natural state without having them burn completely down.:cheers:
 

Scott68FJ40

SILVER Star
Joined
Mar 16, 2003
Messages
1,035
Location
Olympia, WA
Website
www.myblueheaven.com
I fought forest fires in Idaho until the late 80's when I joined the Air Force. At that time, there was no fire too big or too small to spend a ton of money on suppressing. As mentioned, the side effect of that was that the fuel levels were out of control.

I got out of the "game" right before the Yellowstone fire.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom