"Only You"

                       A burned longleaf pine stand along the South Carolina Coast (Yawkey Island)

                  http://www.nbc12.com/story/16628164/cause-sought-for-deadly-fla-highway-pileup

 Just this week we saw news reports roll in from the Gainesville, Florida area concerning a series of car crashes that cost 10 people their lives. The cause: Smoke on the highways that reduced visibility to zero from a nearby wild fire.

The severity of the smoke has been accredited to the smoldering embers in an area that has not been allowed to burn naturally in many years. The fire suppression led to an excessive buildup of fuels. These fuels were so dense that they could not get enough oxygen to burst into flames, therefore they sat and smoldered, producing a mass amount of dense smoke.

So what does this have to do with wildlife? The answer to this is two-fold. The first being that fire suppression also impacts species composition. As detritus builds up, animals better adapted to these conditions flourish, while others fall behind. This particular area of Florida burned naturally (and Native American induced) every several years in the time prior European settlement. While variation in burn cycle is natural, the current lack of burning is human induced.

Our second way in which these fires impact wildlife is how they affect the court of public opinion. After seeing headlines concerning "fire", "smoke", and "10 deaths" many will be more cautious to allow burning on both public and private lands. We already see this along highway 17 in South Carolina, where certain land owners are not allowed to burn their timber land due to the smoke produced.

Fire is an essential part of many southeastern ecosystems. Without these fires natural process get out of rhythm, and we see exceptional cases (like our fire near Gainesville, FL). If this fire were to convince more people that burning is a detriment to civilization, land managers could lose one of their most powerful tools. Only time will tell if this is the case, but I certainly hope it is not.

The Fight to Protect Muir's Legacy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/29/yosemite-half-dome-plan_n_1240217.html

This week the debate over what is wilderness, and how to regulate it was stirred once again. Yosemite National Park has made public its intention to limit accessibility to the parks signature landmark: Half Dome. Park officials wish to limit summit permits to 300 per day. This is a stark difference from the days where anyone could summit the peak without a permit. In those days, as many as 1200 individuals would crest the peak in a single day.

The Park Service argues that the wilderness area containing Half Dome is seeing deterioration of natural features due to excessive use. In keeping with their definition of wilderness, the only solution is to decrease the number of individuals who will be permitted to enter this wilderness area.

Having been to Half Dome just this past summer, I can personally attest to the damage caused by the crowds. Trails are broadening due to excessive use, thereby leading to increased erosion. Litter may be seen at times, but thankfully this has been kept to a minimum. Noise pollution spoils the areas natural splendor at times. Finally, some of the wildlife is no longer truly wild. Many of the areas small mammals have become accustomed to handouts from the public.

In an effort to curtail these effects the Park Service instituted a limit of 400 Half Dome passes each day in 2011. Apparently not seeing the changes they are looking for, they have decided to cut that number to 300. While I can personally attest to how difficult this makes acquiring a permit, I can also say that I believe the ends justify the means. When in wilderness areas you wish to be left alone to absorb your surroundings, silence enables you to see more of the native fauna. More people means that these animals seek shelter as noisy groups rattle by.

Additionally, there should be some sort of test required to summit Half Dome. We already see this at the worlds tallest peaks, like Mt. McKinley.  McKinley also boasts a remoteness that only invites the most adventurous and fit outdoor enthusiasts. Half Dome, however, is close enough for city slickers to make an overnight trip of it. A few of these individuals, from my experience, are out of shape, litter, trample through sensitive areas, take unnecessary risks, and do not fully appreciate silence.

It is time to put the "wild" back in "wilderness", and the Park Service has taken the first steps to do just that.

Fire Suppression in the West

    Photo Credit: Reno Gazette

In my time at Clemson I have heard numerous professors speak of fire suppression and the harm it has done to natural processes. Here in the southeast we see denser forests and a lack of regeneration of fire dependent species. As a Wildlife Biologist, I have been trained to notice these changes. However, the average layperson would never know the difference.


The west is a beast of another color. Just this week we watched the outskirts of Reno, Nevada burned. While burning of arid lands is a natural process, many have already speculated that the severity of this weeks fires are, at least in part, due to fire suppression. These areas naturally burned approximately twice each decade. As people began to fragment  this system with roads and houses, fires were suppressed in order to protect property. This suppression has led to a buildup of fuels, far above the natural levels.

The Reno area has seen an exceptionally dry fall and winter this year. When added to an abundance of fuel, all that was needed was a spark. In this case, that spark was provided by an elderly individual who improperly disposed of fireplace ashes. These ashes were whipped up by winds rushing ahead of new weather system. The winds gave our fire the added push to become more than just a wildfire, it was now a firestorm that threatened thousands of homes and lives.

Fortunately, the winds were short-lived and firefighters gained control of the fire within a matter of days. Additionally, the new weather front brought snow and rain to the area, helping to extinguish any remaining hotspots. In all, twenty homes were lost and one fatality resulted.

Could this have been prevented? Put simply, the answer is yes. We have the ability to manage these lands in a way that reduces the risk of catastrophic fires, and thereby mimics natural conditions. Why this was not implemented in Reno I cannot say, but I can make an educated guess. It could be because burning is more expensive than simply doing nothing at all. With the nation in a recession, landowners may have decided this was not a priority. Personally, I do not suspect this is the reason. Most of the land surrounding Reno is federal land (BLM and USFS), and therefore is managed pretty actively. The most likely answer is that the people of Reno do not want to deal with smoke created by controlled burns. Smoke inconveniences those with asthma, limits visibility for motorists, interrupts air-travel patterns, and is generally seen as having an “unpleasant” smell. So we package it up, put it away, and try to avoid it for as long as possible, with the end result being fires like the one we have just witnessed in Reno. The sad part is, this incident is bound to repeat itself due to the ignorance of people.

Still, none of this accounts for the damage to the ecosystem. When will people learn to live with the world around them, rather than constantly and irrevocably altering it?