# Skull Valley Fire



## rockroller (Dec 7, 2008)

Went and looked at the fire tonight after dark.Wow! sure is burning through a lot of country.I know there was so much deadfall in some of that high timber you could hardly get through it.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

On the one hand I agree that it is horrible how much land has burned and how fast, but the on the other hand I agree with you that there is so much dead fall out there that a fire was LONG over due. Just like so many other places around the state. That area will be a hot spot for game here in the future though! Just glad no home are threatened and nobody is Hurt. 

Once again, god bless our wildland firefighters!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

*I think there's going to be a few displaced hunters this year. *


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

tallbuck said:


> On the one hand I agree that it is horrible how much land has burned and how fast, but the on the other hand I agree with you that there is so much dead fall out there that a fire was LONG over due. Just like so many other places around the state. That area will be a hot spot for game here in the future though! Just glad no home are threatened and nobody is Hurt.
> 
> Once again, god bless our wildland firefighters!


Large intense fires like these, are not beneficial for wildlife. Low intensity fires that patchwork the land scape, are where you see benefits. Fires caused by lightening, that are accompanied by some rains, like we see in our August monsoons, produce these kinds of benefits.

When you do get successional growth after a large intense fire, it is not as diverse as before the fire, because many plants are not evolved to deal with intense fire. In low and medium intensity fires, nutritional values are increased in the new growth, the following and second year, then tapering off to pre-fire levels. In the case of large and intense fires, you volatize many of the nutrients that would other wise go back into the soil in a medium to low intensity fire. These intense fires that heat the already dry and hot soil to extreme levels, also destroy many beneficial bacteria and fungus in the soil. One of these fungus' is called mycorrhiza, this fungus creates a symbiotic relationship with the roots of many plants and trees. In addition to creating a defense against intruding plants, it also helps these plants to uptake nutrients, that they can not uptake on their own. So after a very hot intense fire, not only are soil nutrients reduced, the ability of recolonizing plants to utilize existing nutrients is severely reduced. This is bad for wildlife, not good.

Aside from the chemistry side of it, the landscape left behind by these large intense fires is not conducive to wildlife or hunters. These large areas are reduced to a state of defacto open space. After one or two years of limited increases in nutritional values, you are then left with an area that provides no thermal cover in the summer, and no storm protection in the winter. Not to mention all of the erosion issues. These areas provide no escape routes, or cover for animals to slink away from predators. On the other side, if you are a bow hunter, or like to get closer than 500 yards, there are no choke points to hunt, or cover to move undetected through.

In short, if you have a WAFWA publication that talks about a lack of fire being a reason for what is wrong with our current wildlife situation.......burn it. The clowns that push the generalized "fire is good" propaganda, were educated by all the same people that got it all wrong in the 1950s, and have no business influencing wildlife policy.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

Interesting read Lonetree. I see your points are very true. I do also worry about non native vegetation coming into an area after an Intense fire. 

My only one thought is about your comment "Large intense fires like these, are not beneficial for wildlife." 

Would you consider the 1988 Yellowstone fires a good or bad thing for wildlife?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The majority of fires that I have seen are not that intense over the whole acreage that they burn on. There are areas that it will burn very intense but other areas where it will just burn the ground cover. There are a lot of particulars that go into how a fire burns and at what temperatures it burns at. 

The fire that went through the Book Cliffs in 2002 is one of them. In some areas where there was a lot of fuel and high winds the ground was quite sterile for a while but it came back and for the better. But that fire also left a patchwork of trees over the landscape that the animals could take shelter in during and after the fire.


----------



## jeff788 (Aug 7, 2009)

Interesting discussion, thanks for the input LoneTree. I always wonder what the flora and fauna were like before European settlers arrived, before cheat grass, and before fire suppression. I've heard the argument that the reason we have these huge intense fires is because of fire suppression, that is, there is so much dead fall and other fuel present that when a fire does occur it is very intense. What do you think of that argument LoneTree? How do you think that pine forests with lots of deadfall, beetle kill, etc. should be managed? It seems to me that they either need to be intensively logged or need to burn, but I'm no expert.

A friend of mine has some land that was about 50% burned 7 or 8 years ago. Half of it looked like black moonscape for several years, so I'm assuming it was a fairly intense fire. It's been interesting to see how the wildlife use the burned area. Now the growth is very thick and diverse with lots of young aspens and lots of berries. The elk bed in the unburned areas during the day and just gorge themselves in the burned area at night. I've taken two elk from a tree stand at the edge of the burned area. Both bulls were coming out of the burned area early in the morning. I've also seen a lot of blue grouse on these edges feeding on berries and new growth aspens. All in all, it looks to me like the burn has had a net positive impact, but this is probably mostly because there are stands of trees nearby that didn't burn (because of suppression) that provide cover.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

The Skull Valley fire is burning pretty good today. It looks as if it has progressed further North. I could see the actual fire from Tooele the night before last, but not last night. Not good for Chukars!

Just looked out my window and I can see the fire either on top of the mountain or on the Tooele side now.


----------



## jeff788 (Aug 7, 2009)

I'm not sure what you're talking about Fowlmouth, there aren't any chukars out there . Nor are there any deer or sheep. Just cactus, scorpions, rattle snakes, nuclear waste, and hillbillies.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

jeff788 said:


> I'm not sure what you're talking about Fowlmouth, there aren't any chukars out there . Nor are there any deer or sheep. Just cactus, scorpions, rattle snakes, nuclear waste, and hillbillies.


And computer monitors, TV's, buckets and barrels.:shock:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

tallbuck said:


> Interesting read Lonetree. I see your points are very true. I do also worry about non native vegetation coming into an area after an Intense fire.
> 
> My only one thought is about your comment "Large intense fires like these, are not beneficial for wildlife."
> 
> Would you consider the 1988 Yellowstone fires a good or bad thing for wildlife?


Much of what burned in the '88 Yellowstone fires, was lodge pole pine. Lodge pole pines are fire dependent species, they require fire to regenerate. Fires of a certain intensity open pine cones( I believe it is like 25 seconds of contact with direct flames). So in the areas that received that intensity of fire, you could say it was beneficial. Many areas burned at much higher temps, for much longer times, over vast areas. Many of these areas to this day are quite Spartan, with few trees, and limited brush. Many places that burned in the Wind rivers in '88, look the same way. The soil micro biota is severely reduced, your pine seed crop is burned, and so is the seed cache of many grasses, forbes, and sedges. So even in fire dependent ecosystems, large intense fires, are not necessarily "good" for wildlife.

I can show you areas that burned in '88 here in Utah, in what was predominantly Doug fir ecosystems, that look just like parts of Yellowstone, and the Winds. You wont find any Doug fir seedlings, you don't find much brush, and you won't find deer, or grouse in them. At the fringes, it is a whole other story, but for vast areas of the burn itself, you can find no great beneficial successional ecosystem. That is because of the intensity of the fire, and drought that it occurred in.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Critter said:


> The majority of fires that I have seen are not that intense over the whole acreage that they burn on. There are areas that it will burn very intense but other areas where it will just burn the ground cover. There are a lot of particulars that go into how a fire burns and at what temperatures it burns at.
> 
> The fire that went through the Book Cliffs in 2002 is one of them. In some areas where there was a lot of fuel and high winds the ground was quite sterile for a while but it came back and for the better. But that fire also left a patchwork of trees over the landscape that the animals could take shelter in during and after the fire.


Exactly, low to medium intensity fires that patch work the area. We have these all of the time, and these tend to be smaller fires also. In very dry hot conditions like this year, and 1988, that is not what happens. It is square miles, of high intensity fire. And fires in range lands, verses, steppe, verses, forests, are all very different also.

But as for your statement about sterile areas coming back better than before, how? Better nutrient content, more diversity, reduced invasives? You think it looks better?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

jeff788 said:


> Interesting discussion, thanks for the input LoneTree. I always wonder what the flora and fauna were like before European settlers arrived, before cheat grass, and before fire suppression. I've heard the argument that the reason we have these huge intense fires is because of fire suppression, that is, there is so much dead fall and other fuel present that when a fire does occur it is very intense. What do you think of that argument LoneTree? How do you think that pine forests with lots of deadfall, beetle kill, etc. should be managed? It seems to me that they either need to be intensively logged or need to burn, but I'm no expert.
> 
> A friend of mine has some land that was about 50% burned 7 or 8 years ago. Half of it looked like black moonscape for several years, so I'm assuming it was a fairly intense fire. It's been interesting to see how the wildlife use the burned area. Now the growth is very thick and diverse with lots of young aspens and lots of berries. The elk bed in the unburned areas during the day and just gorge themselves in the burned area at night. I've taken two elk from a tree stand at the edge of the burned area. Both bulls were coming out of the burned area early in the morning. I've also seen a lot of blue grouse on these edges feeding on berries and new growth aspens. All in all, it looks to me like the burn has had a net positive impact, but this is probably mostly because there are stands of trees nearby that didn't burn (because of suppression) that provide cover.


We know what the flora was like before European settlers. between packrat middens that are hundreds of years old, pollen trapped in mud at the bottom of ancient lakes, etc. we have a real good picture of that.

First off, pine beetle killed forests do NOT burn any more intensely than "live" forests. For one, they have no canopy to sustain flash over fires, and the understory is open, exposed, and through drier, there is less fuel than in "live", non-beetle killed areas. Turn an arsonist loose in a pine beetle killed forest, he will be frustrated. In British Columbia were the beetle kill offs are much bigger than we see here, fire was once a big concern. It still is from a logging pint of view, but it is not because of beetle kills. It is non beetle kill forests that are burning.

In extremely dry conditions, that produce flash over canopy fires, the understory, and dead fall, is a small part of the equation. And while they do play into the fire ladder, that is almost inconsequential, when it comes to very dry conditions, and intense fires. Under extreme conditions, the forest will burn all the way through the canopy regardless of the dead fall situation. In the case on low and medium intensity fires, that dead fall, and understory, would create a fire ladder, making for a more complete burn up into the canopy, that would not happen, if not for the fire ladder that it provides.

Dead fall is a natural part of the live cycle of a forest. Most pine and spruce forests have a life cycle of around 300-400+ years. Trees dying, and decomposing back into the soil is part of this.

So, logging areas with lots of dead fall, is not practical, most logging companies would not want to deal with it. If parts of them burned, at low intensity, and created successional growth, then that would ok also. But to burn them out in their entirety, would only make a bad situation worse. From the stand point of wildlife, it does them do good. Any time you reduce biomass, you are reducing available nutrition, for both plants and animals. In the case of pine beetle killed trees, there is already quite industry popping up, to exploit cutting some of these trees. The blue stained wood that is produce, is some good looking stuff. Here in Utah, the second driest state in the Union, logging on any kind of a large scale is not going to have benefit to wildlife. Biomass transport, in our climate, does not bode well, long term for wildlife.

You mentioned elk, we don't currently have a shortage of elk, in most parts of the West. Fire tends to disproportionately benefit elk.


----------



## High Desert (Sep 25, 2007)

Where is the fire burning in relation to Deseret Peak or other common landmarks in the Stansbury Mountains? I know there was a pretty big fire out there north of Deseret Peak about seven to ten years ago.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

A few more notes: Pine beetle die offs did not become an issue until the early 1980s. The same time that our mule deer, bighorn sheep, and moose started to decline. Prior to this they were not an issue. Mule deer numbers were stable, bighorn reintroductions in the West were making amazing head way, and moose were still expanding their range through out the West. An interesting note about early bighorn transplants, that seems to have been forgotten, because it has been so long since we have seen it. In the '50s and '60s, transplanted bighorn herds easily surpassed the 200 mark, reaching herds of 500, where as now there appears to be some sort of invisible ceiling, that we can not get past.

The intensity of fires we have experienced in the last 30 years, is only partly explained by fuel load. The fuel load argument is another case of poor observational, speculative, life science. Fire is dependent on more than just fuel. The fire triangle is composed of fuel, oxygen, and heat. Intensity, is situationaly, and conditionally dependent. So high fuel loads alone can not explain intensity, or frequency. If you look at the last 30 years, the trend has been one of more water coming into the system(the West), but a situation where our wet years verses dry years, have become more extreme. Saying that years of fire suppression, is responsible for intense fires that burn during extremely dry years, is ridiculous. 

An area that has lots of dead fall, and an area that does not, will both burn with great intensity, given the same, extreme, dry conditions. And they will both produce the same negative affects, of that intense fire. They burn intense, and they spread across large areas, of diverse growth, not because of fuel load, but because of dry conditions, and heat.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

*Fire load*

I will argue with you all day long on this subject but fire load does in fact effect how hot and intense a fire burns. Fuel density dictates how many btu's are released, which is a measure for heat in the fire service. Small light fuels will burn fast but release less heat, dense heavy timber will burn slower but release more btu's. These heavy timber fires cause other issues, like spotting, and creating its own weather that will help benefit the fire even more.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

High Desert said:


> Where is the fire burning in relation to Deseret Peak or other common landmarks in the Stansbury Mountains? I know there was a pretty big fire out there north of Deseret Peak about seven to ten years ago.


South of Deseret Peak.......


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

utfireman said:


> I will argue with you all day long on this subject but fire load does in fact effect how hot and intense a fire burns. Fuel density dictates how many btu's are released, which is a measure for heat in the fire service. Small light fuels will burn fast but release less heat, dense heavy timber will burn slower but release more btu's. These heavy timber fires cause other issues, like spotting, and creating its own weather that will help benefit the fire even more.


Under hot and dry drought conditions, like we have, you are burning the crown out, creating temps over 1600*, and cooking the soil. This is regardless of deadfall, and over average fuel loads, that we hear so much about. A forest with above average fuel loads will not burn as hot, or as intense, in cooler, wetter weather. Same as a forest with average fuel loads. Nor will they become as large. It is these conditions that dictate intensity, and size. Take a forest that burned under moderate conditions in the '50s, has minimal fuel load, and has regenerated. Then burn it under current conditions, it wont regenerate the same way 60 years from now, as it did in the past.

I have said this before, but it bares repeating. If fire has such a beneficial impact on deer(what I focus on) then we should be able to look to those vast areas that burned 25 years ago, and see a marked improvement. Yet these areas as a whole, and on the trend line, are doing no better than areas where fire has been absent from the landscape.

BTW, I have a few wildland fires under my belt, and my father was teaching firefighting over 25 years ago. I can handle those, just about as well as pyrophorics.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

From the WAFWA mule deer working group:

Decade Acres burned
1920s 26 million
1930s 39 million 
1940s 23 million 
1950s 9 million
1960s 4 million
1970s 3 million
1980s 4 million
1990s 3.6 million

So mule deer numbers were very low in the West in the 1920s. But began to increase in the mid to late 1930s. The '40s saw increased numbers, and through the '50s, and '60s, numbers were really good but leveled off. They dipped in the '70s, and we saw record numbers in the early '80s, then in all crashed, and has never rebounded to pre '80s numbers. 

What acres burned numbers do not take into account, is land use practices, specifically those from the 1870s through to the 1920s. We no longer have the old growth stands that existed pre, and early in the 20th century. Those forests were fire resistant. Most of the forests we have now, have been cut at some point in the last 150 years, and can not handle intense fire. 

The acres burned numbers do not correlate, with deer numbers over the decades. So if fire is to be looked at as having long term benefits, with some benefits taking 20, 30 and even 50 years to realize, why did deer numbers rise so sharply, as fire was suppressed?


----------



## rockroller (Dec 7, 2008)

It looks like it has burned above Condie Meadows, up to the top of Deadman, up in Dry Canyon, I'm not sure but it looks like it could be getting be getting into Indian Hickman. It is trying to come down into Hickman on the Rush Valley side. A lot of my hunting country.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

For those that don't know: http://www.utahfireinfo.gov/ The perimeter map, in PDF form is not coming up, for the "Patch Springs fire", but at the lower left hand corner of the page, there is an image of it, in the twitter feed.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

rockroller said:


> It looks like it has burned above Condie Meadows, up to the top of Deadman, up in Dry Canyon, I'm not sure but it looks like it could be getting be getting into Indian Hickman. It is trying to come down into Hickman on the Rush Valley side. A lot of my hunting country.


Watching it burn as I write this. The Stansburys have had their fair share of fires the last few years. More bad news for a declining deer herd. Unit 18 is tough enough without this happening.


----------



## rockroller (Dec 7, 2008)

Thanks Lonetree ,after looking at the map,I decided I was pretty close on!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Finally found it: The prevalence of fire in North America from 1 AD to 1750 AD, was decreased from years before 1 AD. From 1750 to 1870, fire increased. This coincides with the pioneers entering the West, and low deer numbers during those times. Fire then continued to decrease after 1870, this coincides with increases in mule deer numbers.


----------



## wapiti67 (Oct 2, 2007)

Just alittle info...the Terra fire department had this fire almost contained and the BLM swooped in and made them stop and let it burn...Thanks to the the BLM, now over 7000 acres have been burned and millions of dollars spent...Good Job Numbnuts!!!-O,-


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wapiti67 said:


> Just alittle info...the Terra fire department had this fire almost contained and the BLM swooped in and made them stop and let it burn...Thanks to the the BLM, now over 7000 acres have been burned and millions of dollars spent...Good Job Numbnuts!!!-O,-


That's how the area I was referring to, ended up getting so big, and needing tankers. It was a little reversed, a municipal department claimed jurisdiction, and sent the Forest Service packing. Over the last decade there have been a lot of "jurisdictional" issues at many fires in Utah. Over the last 3 years I have put out 2 lightning strikes, by myself, when a municipal and a county fire department refused to act, because they said the fires were on federal lands. They were not, some people just cant read maps. I was detained last year by a county fire department, because I'm not certified. They would not listen to what a local had to say, and the fire almost got away from them. I will give a shout out to the Forest Service guys I know, good folks.


----------



## rockroller (Dec 7, 2008)

The fire is really cranked up this evening , flames to the top of Indian Hickman and moving north it looks.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Woke up to a car covered in ashes here in Salt Lake. It sure has made for some interesting sunsets the last few days.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I think all the archery hunters can forget about hunting South of North Willow Canyon for now. I believe all roads and trails are closed all the way to Johnson Pass.


----------

