[brianidaho]

I think a large part of the problem with these forests is a program of active fire supression, combined with little or no management of the forests. In many of our Western forests, historically, low intensitity fires would go through every 5-10 years and burn out small fuels and smaller trees, effectively thinning the forests, resulting in stronger, more insect and disease resistant trees. A century of aggressive fire suppression has resulted in overcrowded stands filled with stunted, unhealthy trees. At this point, there will not be a "low intensity" fire, only a catastrophic "running crown" fire that destroys everything in it's path. It should be noted that these overcrowded, unhealthy stands are very poor habitat for wildlife, in that they do not provide suitable food sources.

One item I'm a little "fuzzy" about is that these specifically are lodgepole pine forests. IIRC, they are a somewhat unique tree, in that they require fire to cause the cones to release seeds. I seem to recall reading that they typically would have matured, burned and died over a fair sized area, natural regeneration would result in stands of similarily aged timber, repeating the cycle. This is opposed to Ponderosa Pine forests for example, which may well have more of a mix of tree ages and maturities. I hope a forester chimes in hear with some more insight. Having said this, I have seen considerable natural regeneration of lodgepole pine in forests that have not burned (including my own property).

Given our sensitivity to air polution and value of the resource, indiscriminate use of fire as a means of controlling forests isn't practical any more. Active management, including using logging as a tool to thin overgrown stands and perhaps replanting with species most suitable for the site, can help. Once thinning has taken place, perhaps fire can be used as a means of keeping the understory clear.

Using the dead biomass as a fuel for power generation is an interesting concept. It would be interesting to see the economics involved, to know if the cost of harvesting and transporting the dead timber makes them cost effective as a fuel source-I would hope that it would. I'm not sure how much you would have to worry about running out of fuel, thinning and management of the forests is a constant, recurring issue. Canada, and to a lesser extent the Western US have large forests Unfortunately many of them in the US, particularly those on National Forest lands, are in a similar state to these Canadian forests. Active forest management came pretty much to a halt in the mid-90s under the Clinton administration...forest health has paid a price. In my state, some 70% of the land is owned by the Federal government, yet only 10% of the timber harvest in the state is from Federal property. What the Mountain Pine beattle hasn't gotten (lodgepole, which do well here), the White Fir engraver beatle, Douglas Fir bark beatle and root disease are impacting. I've been dealing with these issues on a small scale on my own property.

I'm not condoning some of the past practices of the forest products industry, especially indiscriminate clear cutting. However, many private forests are much healthier, much nicer looking and provide a better home to wildlife than our often neglected national forests. Forestry techniques have evolved to where harvest can occur and leave a nice looking, thinned forest. Unfortunately, virtually every timber sale in the West is tied up in lawsuits these days. Things are getting worse, the latest attack in the form of the "Roadless Initiative" pretty well "locks up" about half the national forest in my state...it will be an interesting fire season for the next few years.

Bri